Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) yes, but if i only paid for a walleye license, the fish aren't going to know the difference as I troll a worm harness...that was my point! i can't STOP other fish from getting on the hook...and can't stop other fish from being mortally wounded... Edited October 1, 2009 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish 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 Paul has it,but like mentioned in another thread. The ignorant will still head there and take what they want. NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PROTECT. Someone here mentioned about writting letters. Might work.Might not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbouck Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 $0 For the lake O issue, just close the rivers completely for the runs. I would pay $100 more if i knew that the funds were going to good use i.e. more COs in highly populated areas instead of the ones going to remote lakes on high end equipment catching 1 person. It would also be good to see some volunteer citizens (after training) being able to give out tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocoda 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!!! I think so too...for the ones that cant afford it ...they dont have to tip their guides... The winter riff raff can afford it ....and for the ones that cant ...i suppose Micky and Minnie Mouse wont miss who they dont know ....if the states charged a $1000.00 bucks a head for the privilege ...then i suppose guys like me would spend the extra 200 and go to australia instead of California... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 yes, but if i only paid for a walleye license, the fish aren't going to know the difference as I troll a worm harness...that was my point! i can't STOP other fish from getting on the hook...and can't stop other fish from being mortally wounded... Ok I get your point. My point is, we pay more to play. Yeah maybe less hunters then fishers, But still,the monies is put in and we all get nothing for it.Sorta speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Excellent post, Rick. I would DEFINITELY pay more for a license IF it were guaranteed to increase the number of CO's and their resources. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLofchik Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 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... 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. Heh you must work for a Crown corp. if you buy into that smoke & mirrors poli-speak. Oh yeah sure every license dollar goes into the MNR (not necessarily fisheries, no matter what crap they say in a press release). But for every license dollar going in the province has withheld $1.25 from the MNR's budget, to the point where adjusted for inflation it's half where it was in 1994 before there was even a license. The whole question is moot anyways, CO's will never increase in S.Ontario in the foreseeable future. Hell it's more likely the MNR itself will be dissolved and it's parts divided between other ministries. Heh Department Of Lands & Forests anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blarg Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would pay more if in meant more enforcement at the likely areas on the likely suspects, but not say if the co's were going to be playing parking cop in the bush checking vehicle registrations, or showing up once a week(ive never actually seen them, but i'll be generous) to check the 50 boats in front of north bay in june. But then again, the government seems so eager to give the resources away, like the comercial fishery here on nipissing, perhaps 0 would have been a better answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchy Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would pay $40 more per year for sure. Despite what others have said, closing all rivers during the run would have some effect as less yahoos/casual anglers would be out trying to catch them. No it would not neccessarily stop people who were determined, but more CO's from the cash would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. It's not even close to the same degree. I don't think I've seen bass, walleye or pike ganked with a giant treble hook while swimming in 2ft of water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 salmon definitely bring out a special breed of "once a year" fisherman no matter where you are in the great lakes. here in sault ste. marie the residents line up elbow to elbow in southern trib fashion, all hucking the same identical buzzbomb in hopes of hooking into half rotten salmon (whether foul hooked or not)...these fish are then tossed into a black glad garbage bag and transported home on their 10 speed bicycles... truly a side show... thankfully i know these folk don't threaten our fisheries because they don't have the patience necessary to experience things like "SLOW" fishing! as much as i hate hearing about people raping our resources, at least it's fish that are half dead anyways. (this post in no way condones their behaviour or supports the lack of enforcement in the province...it's really just meant to be funny) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightfisher Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. Rick, am I understanding this correctly ??? You are suggesting a husband and wife who want to take their kids for a walk along some nature path, have to pay for that right. If that's so, we may as well give up all our rights.... ----where are your papers....no papers....lock them up !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelcat Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The best way to protect river salmon is to close the season completely starting a couple weeks before salmon river run... From what I read from some of the members here, MNR kinda give up on patrolling river systems like Bronte, why not do it ourselves.... Since most fished river is close to many of us OFNers, I'm sure grabbing a camera and "fish" for off season fishing fishermen/women then post them here and/or any other fishing board will for sure grab MNR officers who lurk in fishing forums attention. Paying more to protect our natural resources of course is good... but from what I see how the government works... the more we pay, the more they waste... I trust anyone here on the job of looking after our own fisheries more than our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bacon Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Rick, am I understanding this correctly ??? You are suggesting a husband and wife who want to take their kids for a walk along some nature path, have to pay for that right. If that's so, we may as well give up all our rights.... ----where are your papers....no papers....lock them up !!!! We could achieve a different funding balance by adjusting the percentage of the MNR budget that is funded through hunting and fishing licenses. I believe that the majority of the MNR budget is funded through hunting and fishing licenses. If the funding from general revenues were increased to reduce the percentage funded by licenses revenue down to say 1/3 then the other users would be funding the resourses via their tax dollars without creating and administrative nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted October 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Rick, am I understanding this correctly ??? You are suggesting a husband and wife who want to take their kids for a walk along some nature path, have to pay for that right. If that's so, we may as well give up all our rights.... ----where are your papers....no papers....lock them up !!!! With any right comes a responsibility. Johns post said it very well. The original idea was was the forumal he suggests...everyone benefits from the resources, which include more than fish, moose and deer. The anglers and hunters take most of the brunt for care yet are the most sought after by the anti's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuck on shore Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would support an additional $40.00 charge to add salmon tags to my license if it would increase the number conservation officers in these areas. I would rather find a dead salmon in a stream as a result of spawning then finding a dead one cut open and cleaned out on a river bank. This way I know that when spring comes and the ice melts there is a chance I may see the results of their last struggles in life returning to the lakes. It sure gives a new meaning to "dying to reproduce" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crappieperchhunter Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 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? Gotta agree with Dawg on this one. It is strictly a put and take fishery and all those snagged fish as gonna be dead in a month anyhow. I have never snagged a salmon...and never will...but money wise I think the best bang for our buck would be to have the stocking numbers increased slightly then just let the hooligans have at it for a couple of weeks in the fall. As long as the lake fishery doesn't suffer...what does it really matter? Truthfully I'm far too busy chasing perch/crappie on Simcoe this time of year to worry about salmon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 $40+ no problem if there was some type of accountability regarding where my money was spent. Hehehe....when have you ever seen acountability from those in charge of spending our money. Sounds good, but dream on..... There are a lot of things we all pay for with our taxes that we may or may not use. Fishing licenses were and always have been just another tax grab. As someone else pointed out, years ago our income, property and sales taxes took care of everything quite nicely. Now it seems all of our taxes go towards paying the salaries of our grossly oversized governement and everything else becomes a user fee. Anybody who thinks we need to pay more taxes on ANYTHING is out of touch with reality. Government agencies collect enough from us that they could run two countries the size of Canada.....but our money is shamefully mismanaged. If we only had some REAL acountability our taxes could actually decrease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiel Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Where's the "remove chinook salmon option"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted October 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Where's the "remove chinook salmon option"? Please don't tempt me....lol. My vote is for another 20 bucks and closing of the tribs on the first Saturday of September. We could then use the money for protection of more important resources. We could also then find out whether or not the chinook can be self sustaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pikehunter Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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... Wayne, you beat me to it! Your entire reply was on the mark. Some OFC members don't remember the days when fishing licenses were not required. They were first introduced to help pay for conservation and I can still here my father saying he didn't mind paying 3 bucks if it was indeed to help make fishing better, but has it? Then the idea was dropped and then re-introduced but of course the fee was now higher than the original 3 dollar charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Well, so far so good! It's refreshing to see a Trib Salmon thread reach 3 pages and remain civil. Kudo's to all. Gotta agree with Dawg on this one. It is strictly a put and take fishery and all those snagged fish as gonna be dead in a month anyhow. I have never snagged a salmon...and never will...but money wise I think the best bang for our buck would be to have the stocking numbers increased slightly then just let the hooligans have at it for a couple of weeks in the fall. As long as the lake fishery doesn't suffer...what does it really matter? Truthfully I'm far too busy chasing perch/crappie on Simcoe this time of year to worry about salmon. OK, maybe it is a put and take fishery, BUT, it is also a mindset. Those who participate in this activity are breaking the law, whether we see it that way or not. They will have the same disrespect for our resources and for others no matter where they are and at what time of year. I'm not sure whether this is better policed by the ministry or our local constabulary. By the way, if we had more transparency in where our $$ actually go once they arrive in the Provincial coffers I would gladly pay 100.00 a year for the privilege of fishing in this great Province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesn Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 OK, it's pretty obvious: 1) Some people don't trust the gov't to handle the funds properly 2) People that don't care about salmon don't want to pay more for enforcement on what they perceive as a nuisance species 3) Closing the rivers would be the easiest option (any police officer, fisherman or not, can enforce a closed season - much harder for them to be able to enforce a no flossing law) but any reduction in fishing opportunities is a negative 4) Lot's of volunteers around So I have an idea that Dr. Sal can bring forward to Donna while she's getting her foot massage and pedicure. Privatize the MNR regulation enforcement. Basically, let my new company handle all the enforcement and we will do it just for the fine money, or even a portion of the fine money. I will hire all the volunteers on this board at triple the standard volunteer rate and double it for overtime and weekends - I will even provide pepper spray or mace if it is on sale at Dollarama (at $15 /). You want badges? We will have badges. We will lay charges like it is going out of style. We will send retired NFLers to collect the fines and/or just start by confiscating the vehicles, gear and their pants well, just because. And with all this fine money I will retire rich and happy. Oops, I mean, we will all be happy and the rivers will be a peaceful serene place to be again. I know it seems like I am doing all the work and you guys get all the glory and rewards, but I'm just selfless like that. I'm even thinking of waiving the registration and training fee for volunteers. So, who's in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneFly Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. Or a Person!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude 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. 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