Chinook Neutral/Positive Fishing

[Islander57]

I think increasing the salmon stamp fee by a substantial amount would create more of a problem than it would a solution. There are many tourists, both residential and non-residential that buy a license to fish with a guide or friend for just one day. If that becomes a $100.00 price tag per person, how many of those people would pass on fishing, and all revenue is lost? Also, like someone posted, they take their kids out for maybe one or two days a year. The money starts to add up, especially for those who work paycheck to paycheck. Why not put a tax sur charge on fish farms, shipping companies, mining companies, forestry, etc. for salmon enhancement allocation since they all play a part in our wild salmon stocks. I also agree with whoever said a whale watching enhancement surcharge should be charged per person. IMO.

 

[aheny]

I've had a lot of International non-residents out and they are all shocked at how cheap their licenses are.
I also don't understand why we don't have a non-resident salmon stamp

 

[Stizzla]

I don’t agree in increasing the stamp fee to $100. Like many said this money just disappears into the government and they waste the money. A salmon tag of 100 would stop many people from fishing. I take my kids every year for one or two days and if I had to pay a 100 per kid for their tag this would not happen. If we don’t get the next generation involved in Salmon fishing they never will. I agree we need to support our salmon but think this is much better done on a volunteer level then just another tax or fee. Getting our children involved in restoration and volunteering for the Salmon would have a much bigger effect then giving another 100 for the government to waste.

I totally see your point. In my (hypothetical) situation, kids licenses wouldn’t be that high.

Obviously I only support the higher rates if it doesn’t get wasted by the government. But if the funds go directly into salmon enhancement, great. If some people refuse to fish, also great.

What if the price was $79 per adult? I think the point is, the government isn’t doing enough to help the fish flourish, so let’s hold their hand a little.

 

[chris73]

I've had a lot of International non-residents out and they are all shocked at how cheap their licenses are.
I also don't understand why we don't have a non-resident salmon stamp

I also fish often with international tourists and cannot confirm your observation. European tourist often rent RVs and cruise across BC therefore wetting a line here and there. By the time they buy an alien freshwater licence with several stamps and maybe a classified water licence in a couple locations just to try a few casts and then buy a tidal licence with stamp as they reach the coast, they are quickly out several hundred dollars for a few hours of fishing in 2-3 weeks without actually taking much. That is the reality for the majority of international tourists for who fishing is not the main reason to visit BC. How much more do you want to charge them for catching a couple of pan size trouts in the interior and maybe a rock fish and a pink in Campbell River off the pier?

 

[california]

Years back they passed a bill called the user fee act that prohibits increases in user fees unless it was done by an act of parliament. That's a huge deal and very difficult to do. .

That's a good point. That legislation was put in place to prevent government from defacto tax increases by doing it silently through increases in service fees. The relatively small amount of money that wouldn't even flow into general revenue coffers as it goes to an NGO, plus forcing public debate in the house of commons over the fee increases which would morph during the debate into a battle over fisheries management isn't likely to happen. The PSF went from getting 20% of the stamp revenue a few years ago to 100%, so already got a big boost in funding. If they want or need more money they need to do what most other NGOs do, make a compelling case to have supporters donate money.
If you believe your stamp fee is too low, great, take the money you are saving and donate it to the PSF rather than try and get fee increases for everyone. its easy to do on line.
https://www.psf.ca/support/donate

 

[aheny]

I also fish often with international tourists and cannot confirm your observation. European tourist often rent RVs and cruise across BC therefore wetting a line here and there. By the time they buy an alien freshwater licence with several stamps and maybe a classified water licence in a couple locations just to try a few casts and then buy a tidal licence with stamp as they reach the coast, they are quickly out several hundred dollars for a few hours of fishing in 2-3 weeks without actually taking much. That is the reality for the majority of international tourists for who fishing is not the main reason to visit BC. How much more do you want to charge them for catching a couple of pan size trouts in the interior and maybe a rock fish and a pink in Campbell River off the pier?

Oh no that's definitely not the market I'm talking about. I can imagine that there are some tourists who travel like you describe, but there are thousands who fly into the country, and go fishing for large salmon in the ocean.
While those RV shore fishing tourists might be affected, and might have to spend an extra 50 bucks for their saltwater license, if all they're going to gain is a rockfish than maybe they can just skip saltwater fishing.
I would say the bulk of the non-resident saltwater Charter clientele spend thousands of dollars to come to Canada and then only spend 20 bucks for a day fishing license. Most of these people end up with large halibut and large quantities of large salmon

 

[ericl]

Lot's of good points on both sides here. At $5K Plus per pop you would think the lodge guests would pay-up. I am a non-resident & would pay more; not sure how many would join me.

It would be nice if those like me who want to contribute more knew of a good place that would result in more fish; can you help me out?

 

[Da Bay Bye]

Instead of paying more for a stamp license to fish, make the hatchery/enhancement societies a charitable organization. Money then goes directly to the society you would like to assist and the government keeps it's hands off the funds. The people who volunteer for these organizations put a great deal of effort into maintaining there respective fish habitat and would benefit greatly from more volunteers to share the work load.

This popped up on my facebook page today.

 

[searun]

Interesting data, does anyone know the actual source of the numbers or was this just made up? Not trying to be critical, just looking for reliable core source of these number to be sure they can be used credibly.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Interesting data, does anyone know the actual source of the numbers or was this just made up? Not trying to be critical, just looking for reliable core source of these number to be sure they can be used credibly.

Its from this report https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14984-8

Chinook salmon biomass consumed by the marine mammal predators was estimated to have increased steadily over the entire study period from 6,100 to 15,200 metric tons (Fig. 3a,b). The estimated increase in predation was directly related to increasing predator abundance used in our model. Killer whales increased from 292 to 644 individual resident killer whales, harbor seals increased from 210,000 to 355,000, California sea lions increased from 5,900 to 47,000, and Steller sea lions increased from 74,400 to 78,500. Killer whales consumed the most Chinook salmon biomass (from 5,400 metric tons in 1975 to 10,900 metric tons in 2015), followed by harbor seals (400 to 2,500 metric tons), Steller sea lions (300 to 1,200 metric tons), and California sea lions (50 to 600 metric tons). Numerically, the predator consumption increased from 5 to 31.5 million individual Chinook salmon of varying ages (Fig. 3c,d). This was largely driven by increased consumption by harbor seals (from 3.5 million to 27.4 million individual Chinook salmon), followed by killer whales (1.3 to 2.6 million), California sea lions (0.1 to 0.7 million), and Steller sea lions (0.1 to 0.7 million).

 

[chris73]

Oh no that's definitely not the market I'm talking about. I can imagine that there are some tourists who travel like you describe, but there are thousands who fly into the country, and go fishing for large salmon in the ocean.
While those RV shore fishing tourists might be affected, and might have to spend an extra 50 bucks for their saltwater license, if all they're going to gain is a rockfish than maybe they can just skip saltwater fishing.
I would say the bulk of the non-resident saltwater Charter clientele spend thousands of dollars to come to Canada and then only spend 20 bucks for a day fishing license. Most of these people end up with large halibut and large quantities of large salmon

Like everywhere in the business world there is a sweet spot. If you doubled the license fee but as a result lost half of your clients (because they won't buy the saltwater licence anymore for a rockfish and a pink) then you are no better off. You are actually worse of because you made fishing an elitist sport and lost the masses. Go and see who fishes the salmon streams in Scotland and England or Norway and Sweden. For a day license in one of the good pools you can easily break out $1,000 a day. You will still see people fish there but you won't see kids, teenagers or normal Joes there.

 

[aheny]

Like everywhere in the business world there is a sweet spot. If you doubled the license fee but as a result lost half of your clients (because they won't buy the saltwater licence anymore for a rockfish and a pink) then you are no better off. You are actually worse of because you made fishing an elitist sport and lost the masses. Go and see who fishes the salmon streams in Scotland and England or Norway and Sweden. For a day license in one of the good pools you can easily break out $1,000 a day. You will still see people fish there but you won't see kids, teenagers or normal Joes there.

I absolutely agree. We don't want that extreme either.
But somewhere in the middle is an appropriate fee for non residents.
Right now paying $1000 for a charter and $20 for a license isn't it.
I'm not suggesting changing it enough to affect sales of licenses to non residents, just an adjustment from our currently absurdly low rate

 

[searun]

Its from this report https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14984-8

Chinook salmon biomass consumed by the marine mammal predators was estimated to have increased steadily over the entire study period from 6,100 to 15,200 metric tons (Fig. 3a,b). The estimated increase in predation was directly related to increasing predator abundance used in our model. Killer whales increased from 292 to 644 individual resident killer whales, harbor seals increased from 210,000 to 355,000, California sea lions increased from 5,900 to 47,000, and Steller sea lions increased from 74,400 to 78,500. Killer whales consumed the most Chinook salmon biomass (from 5,400 metric tons in 1975 to 10,900 metric tons in 2015), followed by harbor seals (400 to 2,500 metric tons), Steller sea lions (300 to 1,200 metric tons), and California sea lions (50 to 600 metric tons). Numerically, the predator consumption increased from 5 to 31.5 million individual Chinook salmon of varying ages (Fig. 3c,d). This was largely driven by increased consumption by harbor seals (from 3.5 million to 27.4 million individual Chinook salmon), followed by killer whales (1.3 to 2.6 million), California sea lions (0.1 to 0.7 million), and Steller sea lions (0.1 to 0.7 million).

Thanks. Interesting read. Also of note - there are some science folks wondering if the size at age decrease of chinook over past decade is linked to increasing NRKW populations who are selecting large chinook (they have a preference for large chinook).