Changing the Licensing System

[pikehunter]

Pretty much said it like it is Jerseydog.

 

We are regulated and questioned by ridiculous tests far too much.

 

We don't need fish tests to get a license. Responsible fisherfolk know the regs or are at least somewhat familiar with what they say and what a bass or a trout look like.

 

Back in the 70's a $3 fishing license became a requirement, the funds were to go back into the sport. The license was then dropped and nobody was required to buy one. Then a few years or so passed and the existing system came in.

 

The present license seems OK, pay your money and go have fun. It's the asses that poach or disrespect angling that need their asses kicked.

 

I would like to have assurance the the fees we pay do go right back into the sport fishery.

[Clampet]

Makes perfect sense.

[jil101ca]

I don't think a test would be good but what about a short education class for newbies? It could teach them proper handling and release, fish id, some basic rules,ect. There are alot of new fishpeople (I love that ) that don't have someone to teach them. A small fee which could be put directly back into the fishery.

[wuchikubo]

Idea #1

I think it's time for dedicated anglers such as ourselves to approach bigger fishing entities to get their support to educate the younger anglers coming into the sport. NEXT YEAR help and volunteer to teach an one day course at the schools during Earth week (this week), it can work as many anglers are still waiting the opener, like this Saturday. It would be great to see some pros come out to the local schools provide some education, show off let kids see their boats, a fishing tank would be great too or having the school book a trip to a spawning fish river location with some MNR guys to let them see the Natural process of spawning and let the kids understand the importance of why poaching will hurt the future of the fish. This would all have to be done in a controlled and organized way in order to succeed, but it is possible.

 

It may be my wishful thinking but it is up to us as angler to pass it on to the next generation.

 

Idea#2

 

An easier method may be just to make up a free fishing game identifying the different species, allow different methods and locations to fish and have matching seasons, allow for choice to keep or release. Have a virtual CO drop by when fish are caught, heavy fines and penalties when OOS fish are kept. Let the kids play and then teach their parents!

 

Stan

[POLLIWOGG]

Why just fishing? Lets license golfing, There should be all kinds of cash to be made if the gov. charged golfers $50 ea to go to municipalities. It could be passed of as a safety thing, don't want anyone hit with a golf ball, all monies to go back into rain making research or some other Bull excuse. This is the answer to Torontos financial problems. Then we can move on to skiing, maybe have a test with a section for water skiing.

 

All jokes aside I think the biggest threat to the fisheries right now is little curly light bulbs, my sixth sense sees disaster on the horizon.

[Cookslav]

I love the idea of elective high school courses....wish they did that when I was in High school.

 

I have often thought the same thing about the licensing system, and wondered if a test would not be in order?

I can't say I would oppose it being it could not possibly do any harm, and would more then likely educate a lot of people to the in's and out's of angling.

Perhaps they could Grandfather a clause in for Anglers who have been licensed for over 10 years?

Just a thought?

 

Sure,

It would end up being a cash grab, and not necessarily deter Illegal poaching in every instance, but as Bigfish said it would lend a hand in showing added levels of responsibility, and thusly could allow offenders to be easily prosecuted with little to no sympathy.

We could infact see harsher penalties instated, and carried out setting an example for future poachers....

If the Ministry Picked up the job, and it was properly billed and outlined we could see a higher cash flow going to the MNR...and then possibly see more Enforcement officers on the water.

definitely more of a positive then a negative IMO.

[Northhunter]

I don't think a test would be good but what about a short education class for newbies? It could teach them proper handling and release, fish id, some basic rules,ect. There are alot of new fishpeople (I love that ) that don't have someone to teach them. A small fee which could be put directly back into the fishery.

 

Fishing Shows!!

 

I don't watch them anymore.. but from what I've seen of Italo lately, Canadian Sportfishing is pretty close to fitting the bill. And it doesn't cost anything.

[Northhunter]

I love the idea of elective high school courses....wish they did that when I was in High school.

 

I have often thought the same thing about the licensing system, and wondered if a test would not be in order?

I can't say I would oppose it being it could not possibly do any harm, and would more then likely educate a lot of people to the in's and out's of angling.

Perhaps they could Grandfather a clause in for Anglers who have been licensed for over 10 years?

Just a thought?

 

Sure,

It would end up being a cash grab, and not necessarily deter Illegal poaching in every instance, but as Bigfish said it would lend a hand in showing added levels of responsibility, and thusly could allow offenders to be easily prosecuted with little to no sympathy.

We could infact see harsher penalties instated, and carried out setting an example for future poachers....

If the Ministry Picked up the job, and it was properly billed and outlined we could see a higher cash flow going to the MNR...and then possibly see more Enforcement officers on the water.

definitely more of a positive then a negative IMO.

 

The ministry in its current state wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. They've cut all their public relations staff, with the exception of the "Bear Wise" hotlines. The fish and wildlife program is broke.

The extra funding would be nice, provided it went to where it was needed and not something like this billion dollar "museum of humanity" or whatever it is the Liberals want built... but you need to spend money to make money. They don't have the resources.

[POLLIWOGG]

THe MNR would know that the first change of gov. would put the $ into general rev. and they would be stuck holding the bag.

 

THe mnr makes millions now that goes to gen rev.

[Cookslav]

you need to spend money to make money. They don't have the resources.

 

Agreed....

Hopefully someday that changes, and they have the opportunity to make the changes.

[JerseyDog]

Further to the comment above about a small fee for testing - anytime the government charges you $50 for something it costs them about $2,000 to deliver the service.

 

Keep in mind, something like this little test that seems so simple is far from it. There is senior level bureaucrats, union support staff, high paid consultants, flashy ministry offices and a little skim off the top to feed random slush funds to pay for things like flags and parades and swimming pools and charter jets and weekend retreats on Caribbean cruise ships and lord only knows what else. Never forget the two billion the feds blew on a firearms database program that a high school kid could cobble together with MS Office in his spare time for minimum wage.

 

Personally I'd rather the poachers scam a few extra meals than get the government's fingers into another slice of the pie.

[Greencoachdog]

Why just fishing? Lets license golfing, There should be all kinds of cash to be made if the gov. charged golfers $50 ea to go to municipalities. It could be passed of as a safety thing, don't want anyone hit with a golf ball, all monies to go back into rain making research or some other Bull excuse. This is the answer to Torontos financial problems. Then we can move on to skiing, maybe have a test with a section for water skiing.

 

All jokes aside I think the biggest threat to the fisheries right now is little curly light bulbs, my sixth sense sees disaster on the horizon.

 

I say we ban golf altogether!!! Anybody caught playing should be sentenced to Crochet lessons for a year!

 

As for the fishin' License test, make it voluntary and the people that pass it would have the option to buy a LIFETIME license at 10x the annual fee. Not so much an incentive for the older generation... but one for the younger generation.

 

Education is the key!

[jil101ca]

Fishing Shows!!

 

I don't watch them anymore.. but from what I've seen of Italo lately, Canadian Sportfishing is pretty close to fitting the bill. And it doesn't cost anything.

 

Alot of the fishing shows I have seen could do with some lessons them selves on proper release. Maybe they should take a test

Edited April 25, 2007 by jil101

[lakeman]

Sorry......cant agree.....

 

Think it would just turn into another cash grab for the government,got a better a better idea.

Why not enforce the laws that are already in place....their strict enough..

 

just my two cents worth......happy hookin...!!!

[bbog]

You hit it on the head "lakeman" - ENFORCEMENT - no excuses enforcement! The poachers know the risk of getting caught is slim - we know it's not the first time for these poachers - so hit 'em hard!

 

A sharp hit in the pocketbook is the best education?

[aniceguy]

great topic, My group is currently working with both sides of the floor on this and lots of other issues and this one is front and center.

 

Here is my take. A test would be great but the cost attributed to it would over shadow the profeciency it might provide so Im not for a test. Here is what I think will work.

 

Firstly scrap the conservation part and create 1 liscence for all anglers under the legal drinking age. Raise it in line with most other jursidictions ( ontario is in the top 3 of lowest in North America) I suggest in the range of $35. The additional revenue should generate an additional 28 million dollars by our accounting and based on actual liscence sales within the province. A matching amount from the government to the F and W accounts spread over 4 yrs boosts the OMNR fish and wildlife operating budget a substantial amount.

 

Make the fines serious, with a 3 strike your out banned for a period of time for repeat offenders, also make the fines real falling into 3 catagories and with an increasing scale based on severity. For example someone fishing for Pike but hooking OSS fish and not moving is one set of fines but the guy with 30 fish in the cooler should recieve upon conviction fines in the magnitude of 5 figures. 1.5 million in fines last yr placed by the co's the additonal funds can be moved to the enforcment branch but thats another thing all together. Fishing while a fundemental right of us all should not be misused or abused and as such should be treated as priviledge for all to enjoy but for those that misuse a statment needs to be made

 

And here is my take on that too

 

Under the self funding model of the Ontario Parks System we believe that in order to enforce policy and directives a two fold increase is needed within the Conservation officers branch. The current ecological framework of the OMNR is focused on streamlining FMZ zones within the provnice and as such is increasing the potential sq mile footprint an active officer might potentially be required to patrol. Curently there are 199 conservation officers patrolling close to a 1 million square kilometers as opposed to 1992 when there were 257 uniformed officers.

 

We propose due to demographics of populus in Ontario that there is an equal split of new officers with a 50% increase in Northern Ontario and the same in Southern Ontario.

 

Conservation officers like all functioning business models require fixed and variable spending forumula’s within there budget directives, these cover operationing costs and capital investment in order to fulfill their obligation a best guess scenario is there budget has been reduced by 50%.

Conservation Officer background data.

 

 

The following are general facts about the work of Conservation Officers in 2006:

 

 

The current government has been very withdrawn regarding commitments in particular where a paper trail is present and have in fact been under edict to communicate budget short falls in .

 

In the previous Conservative government, conservation officers had approximately $15,000 a year for expenses, or $300 a week in an economic environment where feul costs were in the 50 to 60 cent range Under the current government model a conservation officer on average receives 50% less not withstanding inflation.

 

 

Conservation officers have directive to reduce enforcement tagets . Original targets were established in April 2006, using a risk-based analysis to identify priority areas for enforcement. The 40 per cent cut will therefore affect areas already identified as being at the highest risk.

 

Conservation officers are being directed to manage by priority The top priorities will be public safety and endangered species.

 

 

Operating budget of the Investigation and Intelligence Section has been cut by roughly 60 per cent. The primary work of the IIS involves investigations, including undercover work, around the commercialization of wildlife: illegal harvesting of bear gall bladders, illegal hunting of trophies for sale, illegal commercial fishing, and so on. The normal operating expenses for the Section total about $250,000 per year. This year they will be closer to $100,000.

MNR’s award-winning Flying Conservation Officer program has been eliminated and two Conservation Officer Pilots received surplus notices. This program had provided years of effective access to the remote and sensitive areas throughout the province, especially in the north. MNR says Conservation Officers will use the MNR Air Service instead – highly doubtful since it costs over $500 an hour for an aircraft. The end of the Flying Conservation Officer program means an end to any meaningful enforcement throughout much of northern Ontario.

 

Most Conservation Officers have been allotted enough overtime to work one statutory holiday and an additional eight hours for the year.

 

OMNR is reducing the number of trucks for Conservation Officers. Three officers will now share two vehicles in many cases. In 1992, when there were 257 officers, there were 257 patrol vehicles. Today, with 173 field officers, there are between 110 and 120 vehicles.

 

OMNR is reducing the number of computers for Conservation Officers. Officers will now share computers.

 

OMNR has invested tens of millions of dollars in the construction of logging roads for industry. These roads open up new lakes to fish in and new lands to hunt in. With a general reduction in enforcement, these new areas will be like the Wild West for fishers and hunters.

 

 

 

Reduction in enforcement

The IIS needs to be expanded and to be allowed to pursue developer’s and the Corporate sector and increase its ability to levy fines within the mandate currently in place. Current fines are in a stratified mode where in most cases it becomes the “ cost of doing business” These set fines need to be readdressed and prioritized into 3 catagories, with the determination as to which category the infraction falls within is based on environmental cause, socioeconomic ramification to the environment and other mitigating factors. All fines within these 3 catagories should be increased in effect sending a message that environmental neglegance in sustainable building practices can go no further, also these fines should have a ramp up phase for multiple infractions under the initial infraction.

 

While at the same time if a developer is practicing environmentally sound practices that a tax relief encentive can be devised therefore rewarding good corporate citizens.

 

 

Conservation fines should be increased 2 fold again sending a message to Ontario Citizens that breaches against our Natural Resources can no longer go unpunished. Using the model above we can extrapolate that each Conservation officer was able to generate $9521.00 per fiscal year in fines paid, with a doubling of Conservation Officers and the appropriate investment in infastructre that 50% increase in fine rates coupled with the relevant 50% increase in officers those fines approach a tangable number of self financing.

 

Sorry about the long read..Louis

Edited April 25, 2007 by aniceguy

[pikehunter]

Sorry about the long read..Louis

Just hope that you stopped to breath once in a while while you typed that.

[JerseyDog]

Wow - that was a great summary and analysis.

 

Ultimately most sportsmen follow the regulations out of an interest in conservation and not out of fear of getting caught and more enforcement in a province as large as Ontario would likely not even be noticed by most folks. It’s like speeding on a 400 highway - unlike in many US states where they are far more aggressive, the intention is not to ticket everyone going 10 over but to ensure people stick within reasonable limits. The truly bad drivers always tend to stick out and end up with a handful of tickets more often than not. As far as I can tell this is pretty well the same for sportsmen. The really bad apples tend to get themselves into trouble at some point or another.

 

Another worry would be setting fine targets that a CO would need to deliver. This would make them more aggressive in enforcing questionable regulation breaches when now they use their discretion as to whether a fine is the best solution. As an example, last year we had a license check and two of my buddies left theirs at the cottage. We were the only boat on the bay and the cottage was maybe 1km away. The CO managed to find them on the computer and let us off with a nice lecture about getting our act together which was a totally reasonable solution. He stated quite specifically he didn't want to give anglers who had done nothing else wrong and who actually had bought and paid for their licenses a hard time and some pretty big fines for simply forgetting them back at camp.

 

With a more aggressive enforcement model he would have been basically forced to ticket my pals and that would have been a loser for all involved.

 

It a tough situation and I think the MNR really could use more funding but I worry that turning regulation enforcement into a revenue generation scheme would make it worse for all involved and my bet is, the government would just end up taking that money to fritter away on other nonsense no one wants or needs.

[aniceguy]

Jersey, like all enforcement issues there should always be discretionary matters left to thier own accord ,and a scenerio like yours is exactly one great point, but and i stress but, abuse should be dealt with swiftly and with a huge hammer namely the pocket book, perception now is anything can be done as there are no CO's with more CO's and a higher cost for infractions a strong message can be sent, besides revenue's generated by fines should be in a special enforcement acct and not revereted to the provincial coffers. some good points though

[Hookset]

Just wanted to say..... great replies by everyone . 43 replies in total, all made good points and some went into extended replies that definitely made for interesting reading. Not one offensive post, some were for, and some were against, but none were flammatory. Great people on this board. I've learned a lot. Thank You.

 

Hookset.