Saltwater license fees for the good of the fish......

[Fish Assassin]

Maybe some of these young families should have to prioritize their interests and limit there other spending. I love it when people tell me fishing is not in their budgets but they ski, golf, smoke, drink, eat out every day etc.... Maybe they should have thought about birth control and a fishing license Sorry once again.....I am sure this will offend someone

 

[wolf]

YES agree FA when you think of the cost over a year really peanuts dont you think... especially if you only have 1 good day out of a few you have provide hundreds of dollars for food.....because I hate to say it people want as much to fill there freezer .....
I get call all the time ohhh thats kinda expensive...and that doesn't include a licence???? but they think nothing of dropping 120 an hours to a shop fixing there car....and thats not shared they have to pay for it all.....

Id love to see it higher as well BUT it has to be written all extra funds go towards hatcheries and enhancement its already in place now where all of the monies comes back to bc so up it from 6 bucks to double or more.... then the hatcheries will have more funds to actually clip the coho we can keep....

 

[gungadin]

I would not pay a penny more for a salt water licence. Salt water fishing should be free. What i would support would be a tag system, purchased before you fish, with a limit on how many you could purchase. No tags required for herring, pacific cod, dogfish etc. Salmon, cod, halibut etc would all cost. So if you only want a few salmon your cost would be propotional. If you are a meat hunter, then your cost would be considerably higher. Charging more for a licence would eliminate a lot of the casual fisherman, people who just fish 3-4 times a year, maybe from shore or off a pier or in a friends boat. For the diehard angler, those who get out as often as they can, 300$ a year might be a minimum you would expect to pay. Those that use the resource the most would be the ones that enhance it the most. Would it be enforceable, or cheat proof? Probably not, for those that abuse the system now, will always cheat. However if it was a choice between 300$ to fish for a year for the licence and 50$ to fish for 10 salmon, a ling and a rock cod, I think that the 50$ will put more people on the water to enjoy the sport. This sport should never develop into one for a few who can afford it, and charging more for a licence could do exactly that.

 

[LowTide]

Did the Gov't stop taking 80% of the proceeds from the Conservation Stamp? I can't see how giving DFO more money would improve anything for the fishery. If the Ministry would allow a separate agency to get involved, then maybe it could work. One problem would be to have everyone agree about the science and the remedies and whose interests are the most important. While everybody argues about that, nothing happens and money gets spent. There are programs that require volunteers and donations to operate and they have had some measure of success. For instance, the recent wrapping of creosote dock posts by volunteers to allow Herring eggs to survive has yielded some impressive results. More Herring should mean more fish. Stream remediation and the purchase of adjacent land, like the land purchased along the Millstream by Ducks Unlimited, is also very important. I like the idea of the Sportsman's Card. Ontario has had it for over 15 years and it allows you to buy a licence for 3 years, reducing admin. costs.. I would worry that pushing the licence fees too far up would increase poaching, especially by people fishing estuaries and tidal waters in rivers during the spawn. Unless some of the money went to hiring more C.Os, which would eat up most of the fund. Although, I'm in favour of hiring more C.Os. Stopping poaching would go a long way to helping stocks in marginal watersheds.

 

[tincan]

I agree with the online license frustration. I would be nice to see all license requirements (salt, fresh, hunting, etc) at one location where you can pick a la carte what you want. It should not be that difficult to set that sort of system up but as we've experienced for years gov't websites are notoriously cumbersome so I don't see this happening any time soon.

As pointed out already, 100% the $6 salmon conservation stamp proceeds now go to PSF (in past years it was only $1 with the other $5 going to general revenue). with around 250,000 stamp purchases each year that means around $1.5million to PSF annually. This money typically goes into their community salmon program which is where steamkeepers, enhancement societies, etc apply for grants (http://psf.ca/programs/communitysalmonprogram). This is the program that supports a lot (hundreds) of volunteer groups in across BC and demand, grant applications, have grown tremendously in recent years at the gov't continues to pull back on it's funding of these sorts of programs.

Based on the latest science I think the focus needs start moving more towards ecosystem-wide research and restoration and non necessary just pumping more fish out of any hatchery. When looking BC coastwide, there are some hatcheries that are essential, some that are nice, and some that are neutral if not harming wild fish. I'm not looking to open up a debate on which ones are which I'm just saying that this is the general consensus among the top scientists and enhancement professionals. That said, trying to fund a BC coast wide research project is unrealistic given the cost. The $20 million salish sea marine survival project coordinated by PSF and Long Live the Kings is a good place to start IMO. Yes, it will focus on the Strait of Georgia/JDF/Puget Sound area but the research and findings will no doubt benefit all estuarine environments which is where the majority of salmon are being lost. In the Salish Sea appx 80% of juvenile salmon (chinook, coho) are dying in their first 2 months in the marine environment. Once hatched, they are not dying in the freshwater in large numbers. Once they make it out past Johnstone Strait in the north and past the Olympic Peninsula in the South they actually have a decent chance of returning. Therefore, I think research and restoration of marine habitat related to juvenile salmon is key and where our license/stamp money should be going. I wish the Feds would kick in a substantial amount of funds for coastwide research but it's clear that will not happen any time soon.

To answer your initial question, YES I would be happy to pay $50 more per year knowing that it goes towards work that is beneficial to wild salmon.

 

[Seafever]

No...I wouldn't.

It all sounds good on the face of it........but they've had decades and decades to get it right and we've seen what happens with public money the government has access to.

I don't steelhead fish at all.....but if I did right now I buy the necessary extra tags...

Based on the fisheries/government management track record ( and more so these days) giving them more money isn't going to help anything.

 

[seadna]

As one of them U.S. foreigners who partakes in the BC fishery, I'd gladly pay more if it went to conservation, restoration, etc. My license costs about $150 each year and I've bought one each of the past 4 years. The first two years, I didn't ever have time to use it but I didn't feel bad since I figure at least some of it went to help fish. One thing that wasn't mentioned in your list is enforcement. We see frequent mention of poaching that members of this site have observed. In both BC and WA, the enforcement has been going down over the past few years as staff has been cut. This only emboldens the poachers in all segments of the fishery (commercial, recreational and FN) as they are becoming less and less likely to get caught. So I'd not only pay more for conservation but also for enforcement which is another side of the same coin IMHO.

(on edit - actually, I've bought 2 in each of the past 4 years if you count my wife's and hers hardly gets used at all).

 

[medherring]

No...I wouldn't.

It all sounds good on the face of it........but they've had decades and decades to get it right and we've seen what happens with public money the government has access to.

I don't steelhead fish at all.....but if I did right now I buy the necessary extra tags...

Based on the fisheries/government management track record ( and more so these days) giving them more money isn't going to help anything.

Agreed. I am tired of watching my tax dollars spent on high end hotels, hand carved wood furniture for offices and first class airfares. When the federal and provincial governments can get their book keeping in order only then would I support an increase.

 

[salty-dog]

Tough call. On one hand, provided the gov't puts the funds where it should go, it could be beneficial. One the other hand, we have the gov't that misallocates funds. They say they put the money to work for the industry, but lacking transparency, we will never know.

For those that rarely fish, the financial increase would not be justifiable. Lots of people try fishing from shores or piers because they don't have the money for a boat. Those that do, use whatever cheap boat they can grab. With increases in insurance rates, fuel costs and working hours, that additional money will drive more out of the game. What percentage of licenses are bought solely for the collection of clams, oysters, crab..? Also, how much money would be lost due to increases in out of province licenses? If resident licenses go up, its only natural the others will as well. Making it a rich man's sport isn't going to help when so many are driven away.

What we do know is more could be done with existing funds.

Where I come from, a fishing license is $9/yr and is replaced on purchase anniversary, not on a single calendar day for everyone. There are no special stamps for any particular species and fishing is year round with seasons for a wide range of game fish. Some have seasons, but when one closes, another opens so we always have many species to choose from.

That is not the case here. With so few game fish and most sharing the same season, pressure is placed on the stock all at once. Money isn't the answer, timing is.

Washington state is going through some tough times with their stocks and seasons because they were the same as we are now. The result is an extremely short season, small slots and heavy regulations. I can't see a fix for them other than a total ban on all angling for a few years to allow natural restocking. That's a route we don't want to be forced to

 

[baddogg]

Short answer. Yes.

 

[searun]

Did the Gov't stop taking 80% of the proceeds from the Conservation Stamp? I can't see how giving DFO more money would improve anything for the fishery. If the Ministry would allow a separate agency to get involved, then maybe it could work. One problem would be to have everyone agree about the science and the remedies and whose interests are the most important. .

Yes, the Harper Gov't signed off on proceeds going to PSF from sale of Conservation Stamp. I believe a motion went forward via SFAB for increase in the stamp fee (modest) knowing the cash now goes to PSF - can't recall off hand if that passed at Main Board. I'm not sure that anglers are the problem either, so hiring more CO's isn't going to save the resource. Most sports fishers are honest, honorable folks. There's always the few that are a problem, but fortunately they are in the vast minority.

Don't get me started on that e-license system. So many issues, so little time. If the whole thing was slowed down a bit, listened to more feedback, there is no doubt some of the bugs could have been worked out before implementation....especially if there was a system to allow sporting goods stores to continue to sell paper versions.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Enhancement sounds good and feels good but, any analysis ever completed shows that it's a false economy compared to protecting what you have. I would agree wholeheartedly if we were doing our best job of conserving the wild fish stocks, the habitats and water sources they require to the best of our abilities you would then supplement that with some enhancement and restoration. However, studies have shown that it costs anywhere from $5-100's to get the productivity out of enhancement for every $1 spent conserving what we already have.

The Cohen Commission report just very definitively said that in the Wild Salmon Policy and the Habitat Policy, the federal government has the tools to properly manage the valuable resource we have but isn't using either effectively. What has the Harper government done? On the Habitat front they've re-written the fisheries Act and scrapped the Habitat Policy, effectively giving industry and developers carte blanche to do whatever they want - essentially eliminating the little habitat protection our resource had. While the Wild Salmon Policy hasn't been similarly scrapped, it sits ignored while the government moves forward with privatization of fish stocks.

Angler response to this - pretty tepid to date, particularly compared to the vigour with which we rip each other apart over the halibut scraps we get thrown. General public's response - polls show the Harper Conservatives are likely to secure another majority of seats with no where close to a majority of the popular vote.

So, would I pay more for my salt license - of course, I think the resource is grossly undervalued currently. However, I'd far rather spend the money on a unified angler coalition that has lobby power to represent the angling community. I'd also rather support the ecosystem-based science referred to above, even though it is only as good as the ability to influence decision making with it, which again requires a powerful lobby.

Ukee

 

[KV1]

Nope. Gas,insurance,tackle,food ,etc etc. Already pay my fair share. DFO should be paying me.

 

[jeffywestcoast]

I would have no problem paying a 50 fee on top of my licence if I new it were going fully to salmon enhancement, but I think the new system SUCKS.. what's to stop someone from printing off three licences and filling all three. Also I am not a stamp collector but I did save my salmon conservation stamp every year because it had a very cool salmon on it..now what im supposed to save a photocopy of my stamp?...lame what was wrong with the old card system..not a god damn thing..other then the government had to pay for the cards..just one more case of the government stickin it to the man!

 

[profisher]

KV1 you are missing the point. You said already pay enough for gas, tackle, food etc...how much do you give voluntarily to improve salmon numbers which improves yours and my future access to the resource and the fish we may be able to retain? We all have rising costs to owning a boat and being an angler. The point is most people don't spend a dime on putting back and unfortunately the only way to get those funds is to attach it to a required license. I have no problem paying more if the money stays in here to do the work that isn't happening now.

 

[KV1]

KV1 you are missing the point. You said already pay enough for gas, tackle, food etc...how much do you give voluntarily to improve salmon numbers which improves yours and my future access to the resource and the fish we may be able to retain? We all have rising costs to owning a boat and being an angler. The point is most people don't spend a dime on putting back and unfortunately the only way to get those funds is to attach it to a required license. I have no problem paying more if the money stays in here to do the work that isn't happening now.

Have clipped more coho than I care to remember if that suits you. Pay taxes on all items mentioned into govt coffers that get squandered. Any money that would be raised by any govt "fund" or "fees" would be squandered anyways. I know the truth hurts but I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong. So again no I would not pay another dime.

 

[LowTide]

But what are the initiatives involved in "Conserving what we have"? I guess the major one would be to re-locate fish farms so that they aren't directly in the way of fry returning to the ocean. Another might be not to allow fracking near headwaters of rivers like the Skeena. A minute increase in acidity and CO2 in the water directly affects egg survival. I would like to see those things come to pass, but a lobby effort would have to have weight behind it.

 

[Stoisy]

It seems like the major concern of most people is the fact that money will go to Govt, where does it get spent after that? Currently we see 100% of the salmon stamp proceeds going directly to the PSF, an organization that has the pacific salmon anglers best interests at heart! So, instead of increasing the price of the licence which would see the money going to the govt, and also deter some of those who use the licence for collecting shell fish or crabbing and pawning etc, we could increase the salmon stamp price exclusively. Salmon anglers would be paying the price to enhance salmon protection, enhancement and restoration. Concerns about the casual angler that only fishes a day or two a season, we could have a limited day license that also includes a reduced price salmon stamp, proportionally priced for the number of days and predicted amount of the resource utilized. Or as yearly anglers we incur the additional 50$ fee and the casual multi/single day anglers continue to pay the normal salmon stamp fee.

 

[tincan]

Stoisy, your idea of increasing the stamp (as opposed to the license) is in fact in the works. Though not a $50 increase, the Minister (Shea) has talked to PSF recently about a sizable stamp increase with 100% of those stamp proceeds coming back to PSF to manage and distribute as seen fit. One project that is likely to get some much needed funding if this stamp increase goes ahead is the one in the video here. If you haven't yet seen/heard of the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project you will be hearing about it soon as it's officially begun and will encompass a wide range of research and restoration issues, including many of the hot topics that are debated around this forum and in the news on a regular basis.

[F_ApX5twtSE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ApX5twtSE

 

[LowTide]

I remember 1995. I was working for Steep Island Lodge in Campbell River. That was a pretty bad year. I like the points he made, particularly about the Juveniles. The most important thing is the young ones. Anadromous fish are at the mercy of the conditions of their freshwater lives.