bigfish1965 Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 This is going to be the final thread on the salmon fishing fiasco we see each year on Lake Ontario tribs. People snag, people are idiots...we know, we get it. The entire problem boils down to resources..specifically Conservation Officers. Without enforcement, rules are useless. But without the cash we cannot increase enforcement. We cannot have it both ways. We have not seen an increase in license fees in as many years as I can remember. It is long over due. How much more would you pay if all the cash went to more officers and more resource conservation and protection? Just for the sake of the discussion assume all the cash goes to the SPF and is above and beyond current financing levels. There are more than a million anglers licensed in Ontario....every dollar means one million more. Each million means about 7 more officers, give or take. Are you ready to put your money where you mouth is?? Increasing resident licenses would also allow us to reduce non-resident fees and help the north in tourism. Or if you have a better reasonable idea, put it forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radnine Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 You forgot to include $0. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADB Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 You forgot to include $0.Jim Agreed. I think it'd be interesting to see how many people would vote for no increase whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Does it really matter? Aren't they a put and take fishery and not actually self sustaining... aren't they all going to be dead in a week or 2 anyway?... and from what I understand, they aren't even fit to eat!... the only good part about them is the eggs to use for bait, and why not? The eggs won't hatch and they'll just be wasted anyway... might as well put them to good use!!! Maybe they should just legalize the snagging of Salmon only???... wouldn't that be simpler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_paul Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) You forgot to include $0.Jim Agreed. I think it'd be interesting to see how many people would vote for no increase whatsoever. Agreed, $0 Rick, in all seriousness, I feel for you and the fellow mods at this time of year. Good luck Edited September 30, 2009 by steve_paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) You know better than to start a political thread here Rick! There were more CO's and MNR employees before a fishing licence was even required by an Ontario resident. Our income tax rates were less as well and 'twas what covered the whole affair. Our income tax rates are up, we now have to buy a fishing licence and there is less MNR staff...or at least the ones that do the ground pounding. Now as you say there are more than a million licenced anglers at what $20 average between conservation and sport licences. So where are the funds going... In regards to Bronte creek.. never saw a CO down there 26 years ago either and we were there many many nights sitting under that bridge after our afternoon and night shifts from Consumers Glass.... with our marshmellows! Some things in life never change I guess... just a new crowd. As for that increase... if you could categorically positively guarantee an increase in CO's in an exact ratio to license fund increase vs salary.. I'm in ! If you are just wanting the CO's for the Salmon run... forget it. They are, as Dawg put it, put and take. The way to police it.. you buy tags for them similar to fishing a Fredriction area river system. Once your tags are filled... you go home now ! Edited September 30, 2009 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADB Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Does it really matter? Aren't they a put and take fishery and not actually self sustaining... aren't they all going to be dead in a week or 2 anyway?... and from what I understand, they aren't even fit to eat!... the only good part about them is the eggs to use for bait, and why not? The eggs won't hatch and they'll just be wasted anyway... might as well put them to good use!!! Maybe they should just legalize the snagging of Salmon only???... wouldn't that be simpler? Although it doesn't happen to the same degree, the law-breaking that occurs during the salmom run takes place with bass, walleye, pike, and every other species. So as much as I'd like to see the salmon mess cleaned up, I'd also like to see the benefits of increased fees go to help guard our other fisheries as well. Edited September 30, 2009 by ADB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 $40+ no problem if there was some type of accountability regarding where my money was spent. Something like the district or region based Environmental Damages Fund. If a company in Sault Ste. Marie is fined by OMOE then it goes into a bank account and grant applications are taken to do environmental work in the area. If a portion of your increased licence monies went to your backyard I think it would make more people dig into their pockets. Then another portion for province wide F&W endeavors. As it stands without a new influx of funds I'm afraid status quo would continue to degrade the resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Put me down for 0$ too. The money already isn't going to where it should. First they need to start reducing massive government overspending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Like said,we already pay Rick. Where did I put that lock???????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Zero option added. Please explain your choices. All license fees do go to the MNR. Has been that way for a long time. The MNR used to be the biggest Ministry in the province. It is now a Junior Ministry. I think we have an obligation that goes with our right. The only other thing is that anglers are not the only people enjoying the natural resources but pay the lions share of protection. We need everyone pitching in. I like the salmon tag idea. Newfoundland does ( or did ) this. I remember as a kid having a newfoundland tag and sticking it on a chinny in the lower Niagara and releasing the fish. We thought it was funny...see someone catch a fish with a NFLD catch tag on it. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I love this only as it is, our licensing fees don't go to resources, they go into the provincial coffers. If there was a direct link between revenue generated by licensing/fines and our resources, I would gladly pay more for my license. Unfortunately our licensing fees are likely going to pay for Ontario Lottery Gaming luncheons in Toronto, and pedicures for Donna Cansfield! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocoda Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 1 change the laws to 75 feet up and down stream from ANY man made obstructions ( cost zero) 2 install cameras on man made obstructions (night vision capable) in the rivers... 3 shifts during peak times monitoring and acting as a dispatch to send in the Calvary .impose river rehabilitation service as a part of the punishment X amount of hours ( serves the communities and educates the ignorant to the resource they are raping ( cost self sustaining from increased fines incurred) 3 increase licenses accordingly to aid in accommodating a Calvary during peak spawning times ( students of the field to apply X amount of hours for practical purposes towards their graduation ( doubles or triples the feet on the ground writing tickets ) 4 Increase non resident licenses for EVERYONE that isnt a Canadian citizen and they MUST hire a guide) Guide MUST be an active member of a fish club with X amount of hours logged in river rehab or stocking 5 Increase non resident licenses for Canadians ( guide not required ) these are first thoughts that come to mind....i know every action has a re- action ...so have at it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownTown Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I'd pay $100 bucks a year....This is going towards something i have a passion for and love. As long as it goes back into the resources then I'm for it. Hell i pay 70 bucks american to fish stateside maybe 5 times a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 The only other thing is that anglers are not the only people enjoying the natural resources but pay the lions share of protection You mean hunters? Even they/we, are seeing less protection. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I love this only as it is, our licensing fees don't go to resources, they go into the provincial coffers. If there was a direct link between revenue generated by licensing/fines and our resources, I would gladly pay more for my license. Unfortunately our licensing fees are likely going to pay for Ontario Lottery Gaming luncheons in Toronto, and pedicures for Donna Cansfield! Actually our license fees go to the MNR SPF. Has been that way since 1995. All fines collected via resource violations also go to the fund. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsF...L02_166024.html I work for the OLG..we have lots of our own cash...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 You mean hunters?Even they/we, are seeing less protection. IMO I don't know what hunters pay for licenses, but no I wasn't speaking of them. Hikers, naturalists, etc all enjoy what anglers and hunters pay to keep protected. I like the user pay system, myself. But not all users are paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneFly Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would pay alot more than $40 if it meant, then Chinnies were out, but Steelhead, Browns, atlantics (?) could take they're places, my thought is that there would be much more room for these more desirable fish and by default,..the loogans would be out due to time of year, lack of sight fishing etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I voted zero, when I was 15, there was no PST, no GST, no fishing licence, small game licence was $1 plus 15 cents issuing fee, no duck stamp, no PAL, no FAC and I could walk into the local hardware store at 15, pick up a box of 12 gauge shells for $1.99, heck if I was short there were partial boxes with an X in marker on the top and he would sell them for 10 cents apiece and to top it off, The Department of Lands and Forest had more CO's in the field. Ain't progress grand ??? Edited October 1, 2009 by dave524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I don't know what hunters pay for licenses, but no I wasn't speaking of them. Well, if you look up what we as hunters pay,you will see that we pay awhole lot more then a fishing lic. Small games,moose,deer,bear,waterfowl and even more. A hunter that participates in all, would pay out about 400+ dollars,heck thats low balling, just for tags and lic.A far cry from what anglers pay. Just for your info. Lets get like the hunter and pay per fish we want to target? Yes thats crazy talk,but hey,we as hunter have to pay to play too. This could get interesting. The MNR is not just about the fisheries. SRY Rick, didnt mean to highjack your thread. Edited October 1, 2009 by misfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fang Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 cut the river seasons down to protect spawning fish. simple enough. There's tons of rivermouths and estuary areas for both spring and fall we protect all other species but salmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Lets get like the hunter and pay per fish we want to target? Yes thats crazy talk,but hey,we as hunter have to pay to play too. This could get interesting. The MNR is not just about the fisheries. SRY Rick, didnt mean to highjack your thread. the problem with this comparison is that there are no incidental catches in hunting (i hope)... i can target walleye but mortally wound a muskie. i hope you aren't out hunting deer, but accidentally shoot a grouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 4 Increase non resident licenses for EVERYONE that isnt a Canadian citizen and they MUST hire a guide) Guide MUST be an active member of a fish club with X amount of hours logged in river rehab or stocking 5 Increase non resident licenses for Canadians ( guide not required ) That's an excellent idea!!!... and the best way to kill your tourism trade if that's what you want... maybe we should start charging Canadians $1000 a head to enter the U.S on their way to Florida for the winter, it would definitely cut down on the winter riff-raff down there!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 That's an excellent idea!!!... and the best way to kill your tourism trade if that's what you want... maybe we should start charging Canadians $1000 a head to enter the U.S on their way to Florida for the winter, it would definitely cut down on the winter riff-raff down there!!! but who will go to tampa bay lightning games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) i hope you aren't out hunting deer, but accidentally shoot a grouse. I have paid to hunt both(both paid for,two seperate lic),and it would not be an accident. Theres the difference. Edited October 1, 2009 by misfish 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