LeXXington Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Got too say, better use of the money I already pay, honestly how many more studies on cormerants, spring bears, and stuff do you need., More money for CO's more accountability where the money goes. Also if you make it more expensive, you will lose a segment of the population cause its too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The MNR is also funded through Provincial Parks, Campsites, day use fees ect so in away others do contribute. Also forestry companies pay big time in stumpage fees aswell as minning companies pay for the use of provincial lands although I'm not sure if the MNR gets these $$$$$. Perhaps a completly different ministry that just dealt with fisheries and hunting may be a smarter way to go and possibly alittle more accountable to the fishers and hunters of the province Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Never having experienced the "pleasure" of trib fishing for salmon I can't have an informed opinion. However, when I was fishing near a local CA workyard I was approached by a representaive of the CA who explained to me that they monitor the area with satellite hi-res cams and are charging trespassers. I was in the river, not on their land, but he said they could and would charge me if the cameras recorded me stepping on the CA property. I'm not convinced that the CA has the financial resources for that, or even that the technology is available to them. But it was interesting how the guy knew I was there because this site seems to have few if any employees on site very often, my car and I were not visible from the road and it was a Sunday morning. Certainly hi-res satellite photography is possible but I was under the impression it's the kind of thing only large defense departments of relatively wealthy countries can afford. If in fact this is an affordable possibility, why couldn't MNR use this as a deterrent to poachers on the well-known sites? If they could monitor these areas, then they might be able to dispatch CO's when they see activity at a site. Perhaps it still comes down to the lack of funding and availability of CO's. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I wouldn't give the MNR another cent, they already waste what monnies I give them in Liscences. There a joke from the Biologists on down. Dumping more money into an already useless ministry is just a bigger waste I don't understand why the MNR does nothing with such flagrant violations going on in the few salmon tribs in the GTA, I've herd enough about the lack of CO's, they seem to get 6 or 7 of them to do Blitzes in Niagara every summer, they also get a bunch to police the commercial harvest on lake Erie. A couple of blitzes 2 weeks during the salmon run is all it will take to drasticly cut down on the circus going on right now. Come on MNR do somthing right instead of continually flushing away the $$$$$$$ you get now and stop crying about funding. You don't work for the Government do you. The biologist on down are not the problem. These are the people that truely love their work and put up with beauracracy and the revolving door of contracts to do something they are passionate about. A major issue is above this level. Career public service managers who wish to move up the chain of command are often taking jobs anywhere there is an advancement available. The result...an accountant managing an MNR region office. This will not likely change. It sadly is up to all of us to make our voice heard. Again and again (and again) to MPPs. The vote seekers may hopefully see public interest in better managing of the MNR and resources. Prehaps this can be a new front that OFAH will choose to lobby?? There is no excuse for this type of turing a blind eye because its salmon. Education and enforcement need to be stronger to change this culture. It will still take a few generations to remove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 John, I think that CA employee was feeding you a line of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Can anyone give me an example of any circumstance where increasing a fee or charge for service within any government agency has actually improved the service of any governmnet agency? As far as the carnage that takes play during the salmon run, well, to my mind, I'd rather they do what they do to salmon, then have them raping another resource. Throwing money at problems only make them more expensive problems. HH PS... I vote $0.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BITEME Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yeah you know what I gotta say zero on this one too. I pay enough damn taxes. I would like to see Bronte held as a sanctuary but up to hwy 5 Sorry tony i have seen the kaos that ensues when its wide open to"fishermen" BM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish4Eyes Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Dont give them any ideas, they do read these threads . They should be looking more into the fact that some private store owners will only accept cash for license purchases. Isn't that interesting? I have been refused a debit license purchase because it was not cash, when the store owner did have debit. I wont mention store names, but he knows who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 They should be looking more into the fact that some private store owners will only accept cash for license purchases. Isn't that interesting? I have been refused a debit license purchase because it was not cash, when the store owner did have debit. I wont mention store names, but he knows who he is. I was told they make no money from selling the lic.As for the debit,they lose cause they are charged service fees. Or a Person!!! God forbid eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish4Eyes Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) They should make the piggers do more patrolling . Of course only during down time, where crime would be priority. Come the end of the month their going to be tired of giving warnings for cell phone use while driving. Then 3 months after the warning blitz its ticket time, 6 points might I add . Edited October 1, 2009 by Fish4Eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish-miester Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I personally wouldnt mind paying an extra 10$ if there would be an increase of patrols etc.. but i think that they should increase the fee's of people who get fines and not just everyone .. kind of like a drivers license works with there insurance going up each offence.. now im not 100% on the fines etc but lets say you get charged for two many lines.. and you get a 50$ ticket.. well why not a 50$ ticket aswell up there sticker price to $60 as well as put a red flag on them such as using a different sticker on there card.. idk just a thought .. sounded good to me Edited October 1, 2009 by fish-miester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Can anyone give me an example of any circumstance where increasing a fee or charge for service within any government agency has actually improved the service of any governmnet agency?As far as the carnage that takes play during the salmon run, well, to my mind, I'd rather they do what they do to salmon, then have them raping another resource. Throwing money at problems only make them more expensive problems. HH PS... I vote $0.00 Ditto, and if you closed a the tribs after Sept 30th, imagine the crys and whining from the C&R gang. Either fish and eat the damm things or leave them alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish4Eyes Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I personally wouldnt mind paying an extra 10$ if there would be an increase of patrols etc.. but i think that they should increase the fee's of people who get fines and not just everyone .. kind of like a drivers license works with there insurance going up each offence.. now im not 100% on the fines etc but lets say you get charged for two many lines.. and you get a 50$ ticket.. well why not a 50$ ticket aswell up there sticker price to $60 as well as put a red flag on them such as using a different sticker on there card.. idk just a thought .. sounded good to me Brilliant idea. They should even make it like a demerit point system for a drivers license and jail time if your caught fishing while your license is suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Ditto, and if you closed a the tribs after Sept 30th, imagine the crys and whining from the C&R gang. Either fish and eat the damm things or leave them alone. Catch and release, what a horrible thing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) You don't work for the Government do you. The biologist on down are not the problem. These are the people that truely love their work and put up with beauracracy and the revolving door of contracts to do something they are passionate about. A major issue is above this level. Career public service managers who wish to move up the chain of command are often taking jobs anywhere there is an advancement available. The result...an accountant managing an MNR region office. This will not likely change. It sadly is up to all of us to make our voice heard. Again and again (and again) to MPPs. The vote seekers may hopefully see public interest in better managing of the MNR and resources. Prehaps this can be a new front that OFAH will choose to lobby?? There is no excuse for this type of turing a blind eye because its salmon. Education and enforcement need to be stronger to change this culture. It will still take a few generations to remove it. I did in fact work for the MNR for 5yrs as a forestry tech, graduated SSFC 82, the MNR is very good at knocking the passion for the job outa you quickly tough for private retailers to rip off the government for liscences each sale is recorded in the book and the monnies are collected Edited October 1, 2009 by canadadude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyb Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) Increasing the license fee will also increase the number of people who can no longer afford to fish. The goal should be to increase participation in the fine sport, not the costs. Implementing a sanctuary would only further reduce the available angling opportunities in the province. I voted actually to increase license funds, based on the logic implied that more money would then directly transfer to the SPF for fish and wildlife. Edited October 1, 2009 by tonyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Instead of our fishing license going up in price, I think every person that generates an income from OUR natural resources should pay for a separate license. Look at all the resort owners, guides and charter boats that reap the rewards with the money of our existing funds from the fishing and hunting licenses. I too agree with the tag system, buy 3 - 5 tags, use em up, that's it, your done harvesting. This should be done with all species (excluding panfish and coarse fish), as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Here's another idea. To all of those who would like to see more money going to the MNR and don't mind paying extra.......go ahead and send it on in. Anyone who wants to pay more taxes should be allowed to do just that. Please don't ask me to do the same tho'. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Here's another idea. To all of those who would like to see more money going to the MNR and don't mind paying extra.......go ahead and send it on in. Anyone who wants to pay more taxes should be allowed to do just that. Please don't ask me to do the same tho'. Thank You So you don't want more CO's on the rivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightfisher Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I vote zero. We are already slaves as it is paying over 50% of our income on taxes and user fees. And that's not counting gasoline and booze taxes. So you don't want more CO's on the rivers? The CO's have know of this problem which has existed for 50, 100, who knows how many years. More CO's on the rivers wouldn't change a thing unless the ''laws'' are changed. There is no way a CO could prove one was snagging a fish, unless it was a plain treble hook. One could easily say ''I was using my lure to try and catch a fish, but there were so many, it caught the body." Only if the ''laws'' are changed can the CO's do something, and they know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecmilley Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 the regular police can and will lay charges under the fish and game act so why not call the cops? I have seen plenty of co's out protecting what actually needs protecting. i have regularily seen them fishing the boq, kawrartha's haliburton,ottawa river ect. I don't think spending extra monies to enforce tribs in the fall is very cost effective seeing the salmon will be dead in a week or so of entering the river and they don't reproduce and were stocked as a put and take fishery. I say close the fall extended season if it's that big a problem, then everyone get's a ticket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 So you don't want more CO's on the rivers? First, maybe you should re-read my two posts on the topic and show me where I said that. Second, I believe the question was whether or not we were willing to pony up more coin for the MNR and my answer is no. But to answer YOUR question....So you don't want more CO's on the rivers? Actually, yes I do, believe that the CO's should be out there enforcing the already adequate laws we have. But IMHO throwing more money at the MNR is not the correct solution. If gov't. agencies and departments were adept at managing our (the taxpayer's) money and held to a reasonable level of accountability, there would be more than enough money to have CO's on the water. Let's fix the real root of the problem.....mismanaged taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I don't get it dudes this isn't rocket science, the salmon crap has gone for years and the stinking MNR turns a blind eye. I don't want to here anymore excuses like funding and other priorities get down there and bust people, do your freaking job quit cying and whining and show the public your worth somthing. For the last 20yrs the MNR whines abotu this crap, we give you money get off your ass and do somthing instead of whinning. I work for the MNR and I know these stinking CO"s are just sitting the office laughing at this post, you really think they give a crap hahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 And to DAWG..it is a put and take fishery, but it has the potential to be somewhat self sustaining as waterways improve. Not only that but we have to protect it to protect the integrity of the sport. I hope you use the term integrity extremely loosely!!! People that net and trap fish also call themselves fishermen! I would much rather see everyone reduced to a single rod and a weighted treble hook, than to see a mile long net stretched across a river mouth!!! Maybe the Salmon do have the "potential" to be a self sustaining fishery, but will they be anymore "table worthy"???... if a fish isn't fit to eat, I consider it a rough/trash fish!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 There is no way a CO could prove one was snagging a fish, unless it was a plaintreble hook. One could easily say ''I was using my lure to try and catch a fish, but there were so many, it caught the body." Only if the ''laws'' are changed can the CO's do something, and they know it. Yeah cause lures, single hooks and the rest don't snag fish, only treble hooks. You think the CO is going to listen to a Bull excuse like that? lol I'd pay to see that in person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now