OFAH vs Town of Port Hope

[Terry]

sorry but i dont see it that way at all

everyone who go to the park pays

whether you fish or picnic or watch nature

this fee is to fish and only fish, it is an attack on fishermen , not everyone

in Essa you buy a license to fish the notty

you start to fish and a guy with 2 kids and a dog show up and throw a stick in the water for the dog to catch. over and over again, the fishing is impossible so you have to leave..you are the only one that had to pay to be there but anyone else who shows up can end your day, its Bull

[Korber]

That is a lot of money to cough up for one area and if more town ships follow that this example then things could get out of hand. Maybe a good idea would be for the GRCA to have a fee to fish the Grand.

 

I think this approach would be best as there would be one fee for the GRCA, there would be less stress and such with do I need a permit for this area or that area. The fee would help keep the asshats under control.

The ones that pollute the river and banks, who do things like the picture posted. I'm by no means a rich man but I can see the need for stuff like this, some people just suck.

 

my 2 cents.

[porkpie]

Maybe im in the minority but ive always said I wish fishing licenses were $500 a year, we all spend way more money on trivial Bull then the past time that provides us with months of enjoyment each year.

 

If you fish 3 days a year, then pay 50 bucks for a 3 day pass...still cheap in relativity.

 

This is just my opinion.

So that works, I can afford your proposed fee, I make decent money. I can pay to play. I know that when I was 18, and a river rat spending all my free time fishing anywhere from NY state to Huron, Georgian bay, hell wherever there where fish, a $500 license would have been the end of it. I used to sleep in my car on extended trips and eat from the dollar menu at fast food joints, or live on granola bars and nasty old sandwiches from home. Spare cash was for gas and terminal tackle and upgrades to equipment came from saving up what I could or my parents at Christmas. Most of my planned savings was for school or to keep my beater on the road and pay for exorbitant insurance costs. My parents didn't just hand me stuff unless it was at a Christmas or a birthday. And how about those guys who work in a factory for 35k or 40k a year and still have family's and all the expenses that come with it. Does $500 a year in licensing still sound reasonable to you? Not everyone on the water is fishing out of a ranger and tossing lures with the newest loomis offering.

[John Bacon]

call me crazy, but would this additional licensing requirement allow for municipal by-law enforcement to join in on the enforcement activities related to this ish show. Ive fished port hope, didnt see anything crazy during my visit but to me any additional enforcement that can be done to stop the crap show is worth it.

 

There is nothing to stop them from joining the enforcement efforts now.

[chessy]

The OFAH is doing exactly what their membership want them to do, as they should! Attempting to prevent loss of public access or pay to play fishing. They frequently intervene in attempts by council to restrict access to angling and hunting by enacting restrictive bylaws. This is what the membership supports them for. Some of those members may be poacher loogans. The OFAH executive have no way of knowing who is who when complaints about the direction port hope council is going roll in. Now I pretty much think that just about everything to do with salmon fishing in rivers is a complete joke at this point, but I support people's right to do it, and if the OFAH wants to spend some of my membership funds to combat a restrictive (for some) access pass then I'm okay with it! As for angling dollars to the town, I'm probably like most, I'll buy coffee and lunch when visiting, and most likely gas the truck. That's probably about it. I recall from years past that the hotels and motels around port hope filled to the brim for trout opener, so for a weekend things probably have a bit of a financial impact on the town, but nowhere near what people expect over the course of the year.

 

 

The ofah talks from both sides of there mouth .. they dont want a additional access fee. but they are ok with simco county forest having a ofah membership to hunt . they wanted the same for northumberland county forest and they wanted the same for Kendall crown game preserve and the charge a additional fee for duck hunting at darlington . so what the differnce... oh ya the town will use it for the offset of cost not put in the pockets of the ofah . maybe the ofah can donate 20 000 grand from the 1.1 million the provincial and federal government gives them

Edited February 27, 2017 by chessy

[AKRISONER]

 

There is nothing to stop them from joining the enforcement efforts now.

 

what law would they enforce? except for littering?

 

Pork you are probably the exception, but the large majority of friends that I have that never have any money also like to smoke, drink and do other dumb ish.

 

There are very very few people that making minimum wage at 40 years old that have lived their lives 100% straight 100% of the time. blanket statement...im aware, but seriously if you grew up in Ontario went to school, lived a clean sober life and have worked your entire life and are still making minimum wage something is up.

 

If you are a kid (under 30 years old) ya maybe you can make an exception, how about a licensing fee that is relative to your income? They do this for speeding tickets in europe.

 

I personally catch flak around here cause i buy good fishing gear...funny how that is...i have the casual scotch or beer, never go to the bar, dont smoke, gamble, drink coffee, or puff herb unless its being offered to me. I pack lunches every day at work and have a mortgage and bills just like the next person. Its funny how much expendable income you can have for the things you enjoy in life when you cut out the addictive crap.

 

$2 on coffee every day for a year? look at that I just bought to G Loomis rods.

Edited February 27, 2017 by AKRISONER

[DRIFTER_016]

 

Not sure where you get that $50 million figure from Dave, since the town's entire annual budget is barely $18 million. And according to the feds, the major economic impact of fishing is in the form of high-ticket purchases like lodge trips, major tackle items, trucks and boats. If you pull them out of the mix, the economic impact of fishing for all of Ontario is about $27.8 million. For the most part, guys who go to the Ganny bring all their equipment with them, and go home at the end of the day. They might go buy a burger on the way home, but that's about it. So with all due respect man, I very much doubt that the economic impact of snagging salmon in town is anywhere close to that kind of amount.

 

 

 

It won't. But the money will help offset the cost of having to clean up the stinking mess a couple of times each week. If you've never smelled Port Hope in the fall then I envy you.

 

Beyond that, the provision to ban fishing at night at least gives the police something to charge people with when they see them down there at 2:00 am and up to no good. It's almost impossible to get a conviction on a snagging charge these days, since you can't prove intent. Even gutting the fish for eggs and leaving the carcass to rot can be argued in court, since all they can charge you with there is allowing fish suitable for human consumption to go to waste, and it's up to the officer to prove the fish is fit to eat. But if you can't fish from sunset to sunrise, and you're caught down there in the middle of the night, it's cut and dry. You're nailed.

 

Listen, I don't like the idea of this any more than anyone else does. But instead of griping at the town, people should be directing their anger at the hooligans who are responsible.

 

Personally, I believe OFAH is way off base here. They should be working with the town to find a permanent solution - not siding with the poachers.

 

And please - threaten to quit stocking Atlantics? Who cares? So returns of Atlantic salmon drop from zero to ..... what, then?

 

OFAH really needs to rethink their position on this issue.

 

I read an article about it last week.

It was written that the economic impact of the Credit River fishery is approx $48M and it was estimated due to the larger number of anglers fishing the Ganny that the economic impact it had was higher than the Credits.

[porkpie]

Sure, if you looked at only one segment of society, then you would be right. My day to day brings me I touch with people from the well to do members of society, to the gutter rat meth heads. Somewhere in the middle, there are a ton of people who can not afford what you propose, and it would completely exclude them from a public resource. And it's not always because of their actions, or what they do with their income or choose to spend it on. And then there are people of limited means who choose to spend money on booze and smokes and fish as well. They have the same right to public water as you or I do. I'm not giving you a hard time about your choice of tackle. I just insured mine for loss and nearly gagged at the total. My point is that on here you see a cross section, but most of the big talkers are big spenders or guys who guide or tackle junkies who can't resist deals (me). There are lots of guys who shoe string it with a pail of minnows and a small box of lures. They shouldn't be priced out of the market. It's easy to say the world is like this, when you only look at the people you know. Most likely they come from similar backgrounds and have similar opportunity. Not always, but most often. If I looked out my front door, I'd see a string of households that could afford a $500 fishing license. If I went across town to some of the guys sitting down by the bridge on the river on Saturday mornings with a pole and a box of worms, not so much!

[John Bacon]

 

what law would they enforce? except for littering?

 

 

They can legally enforce pretty much any law on books including all fishing related laws.

 

Police officers can enforce fishery laws just like a CO. However, they don't have the same training as COs so they usually only enforce basic laws such as fishing without a license. Snagging is a law that they could enforce.

 

They can certainly do a lot more than enforce anti littering laws if they are interested in doing so.

[porkpie]

The ofah talks from both sides of there mouth .. they dont want a additional access fee. but they are ok with simco county forest having a ofah membership to hunt . they wanted the same for northumberland county forest and they wanted the same for Kendall crown game preserve and the charge a additional fee for duck hunting at darlington . so what the differnce... oh ya the town will use it for the offset of cost not put in the pockets of the ofah . maybe the ofah can donate 20 000 grand from the 1.1 million the provincial and federal government gives them

All good points. I'm not aware of what your referring to, but I assume it's all correct. It's not something I would support, and it does seem that they are talking out of both sides. Nonetheless I still have to support them on this one. I fished port hope since I was 15 or 16 and I'd hate to see public access fishing end up as fee based fishing like in Europe. If it goes like that, eventually anyone of a certain income will only fish for carp if they live in southern Ontario.

[bigugli]

The biggest problem is the precedent being set. Another tax grab where every conservation authority begins demanding an additional license to fish their waters The Grand River Conservation Authority looked at this possibility a few years back, Next in line would be numerous municipalities. NOTL only allowed residents with permits to fish public lands within their municipality. Thankfully it has since been repealed. How many others might follow suit.

We would just be like England with 100's of jurisdictions each demanding their own fee.

[Headhunter]

 

I've caught Bows with loose eggs, ready to drop them, from Oct right through winter until past season opener in May, so what you propose would basically shut down any river steelheading, really, does it matter if a fish is a little prego or a lot prego ? if it is caught and kept it's not going to spawn again.

Towns like Port Hope would see a lot more money coming into their coffers if they closed the ditches to both spring and fall runs. That would mean that folks wanting to catch these fish would have to fish the big lake, launch boats and potentially stay in motels for a weekend fish. Launch fees alone would net the local economy more that the cup of coffee they sell to the odd fisherman.

The fish win as they are able to re-produce without interruption and the local businesses win as they are not paying for clean up in their area and could net $$ from fisherman.

So again, why are these fish being hunted during spawn?

Imagine the fury if they opened Pickereye fishing during spawn? Pike, bass....

HH

[GBW]

 

They can legally enforce pretty much any law on books including all fishing related laws.

 

Police officers can enforce fishery laws just like a CO. However, they don't have the same training as COs so they usually only enforce basic laws such as fishing without a license. Snagging is a law that they could enforce.

 

They can certainly do a lot more than enforce anti littering laws if they are interested in doing so.

I spoke with a Durham Police officer about 2 weeks ago and he's an angler too. He said they have more being trained by the MNR to be on the rivers more for this years trout opener. He has been trained along with another 12 or so and they go out and watch in their street clothing, not the uniform. So YEAH the cop's are being trained and are going to be out on all the pressured rivers.

[FloatnFly]

there are sections on the ganny that are private lands, and the only to fish them is to either trespass, or pay a membership fee.

 

with the way things are going, the farmers from dale rd to sylvan glen, are just going to post all the land anyway and deny access. they are tired of the mess.

 

if you've never seen the gong show, head down there on a weekend during the peak of the salmon run when they are fresh in.its stupid, and embarrassing to legal fisherman everywhere

[FloatnFly]

I spoke with a Durham Police officer about 2 weeks ago and he's an angler too. He said they have more being trained by the MNR to be on the rivers more for this years trout opener. He has been trained along with another 12 or so and they go out and watch in their street clothing, not the uniform. So YEAH the cop's are being trained and are going to be out on all the pressured rivers.

 

that is awesome, for years its been a ton of pressure on the 2 CO's to enforce a region. trout opener coincides with turkey opener on the monday. almost impossible to enforce. it only makes sense to join mnr with the local police. would also create jobs for new graduates out of college

[farsider]

This all comes back to one thing...lack of enforcement.

 

If there was greater enforcement of existing laws, the problem would end or be contained.

 

It is foolish to think a separate license will solve it. It might push some of the nonsense to other rivers that already experience too much of the same crap year after year during Salmon/Trout runs but, "solve" it....No. Not even close to a broad solution and it is a dangerous precedent and could create a domino effect across the province.

 

The lack of enforcement of existing laws is what has brought about all the frustration by Townsfolk, and other anglers. The same frustrations anybody who visits a Salmon/Trout river have during the run.

 

Locally, why don't they up the fees for local bylaw infractions like littering/loitering/parking/trespassing , etc. and then enforce them like crazy.

 

A conservation officer's job has the same cycles as a predator/prey relationship. Unfortunately, Gov't work is not responsive enough to those kinds of ebbs and flows. It also seemed that if they increased the fines for wildlife violations and then enforced them appropriately, the fines would cover much of their expenses as an operation.

 

I also have a hard time believing that even if our fishing/hunting licenses quadrupled, that increase would result in a commensurate increase in enforcement.

 

Cheers,

Mark

[jimmer]

Why is it the law abiding citizen has to pay for the behaviour of those that break the law or are just plan inconsiderate. Someone dropped the ball on this whole thing by not enforcing the current laws, whether it is poaching, littering, urinating in public, whatever. I have avoided the place for years because of the crap show and will never pay an extra fee to fish in one municipality. They could make more $$$$ by fining people/anglers for their wrongdoings as farsider indicated. It will never happen though, not enough manpower.

[BillM]

Why is it the law abiding citizen has to pay for the behaviour of those that break the law or are just plan inconsiderate.

 

Isn't this how it always works? A few idiots always ruin it for the rest of us.

[woodenboater]

 

I read an article about it last week.

It was written that the economic impact of the Credit River fishery is approx $48M and it was estimated due to the larger number of anglers fishing the Ganny that the economic impact it had was higher than the Credits.

 

 

 

no offense intended but I find that hard to swallow. $48 million from fishing and related stuff ? I'd love to see a link to the article on that cuz if it were indeed that much revenue, then Mississauga and other towns would be bending over backwards to accommodate fishermen

[Hedfish]

 

Not sure where you get that $50 million figure from Dave, since the town's entire annual budget is barely $18 million. And according to the feds, the major economic impact of fishing is in the form of high-ticket purchases like lodge trips, major tackle items, trucks and boats. If you pull them out of the mix, the economic impact of fishing for all of Ontario is about $27.8 million.

Not that it really relates to the topic but that $27.8 mil figure does not mean what you think it means.

 

You seem to have simply pulled the "Other" number from the Annex A.11 "Major purchases and investments...". Quite obviously, it doesn't give you "the economic impact of fishing". To get the economic impact of fishing one also needs to consider A.9 "Direct expenditures..." and A.10 "Major purchases wholly or partially attributable to angling...".

 

I just hate it when people manipulate statistics to drive whatever point they are trying to make.

[Old Ironmaker]

Do you really believe that demanding a fee will reduce poaching or ensure those that leave a mess behind will stop doing what they do? A poacher most likely doesn't buy a fishing license so I wouldn't think they will pay anything to continue poaching. As stated by a few here the key is enforcement. How will these people that break laws and basically uber litter be dissuaded if they know there is no one there to fine them? They won't be, they will continue to do what they do until the fines become so high they will not continue to do what they do. The only reason people don't drive 140 KPH or faster on the roads is the enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act plus the possibility of the sky high fines and increases in insurance rates, loss of a drivers license not withstanding.

 

If they propose that a fishing licence be much greater than they are now many people simply won't buy a license. It simply is not in my pensioners budget to pay $500.00 to buy a fishing license. I will then become a poacher and risk being fined. I have been asked twice in the last 35 years if I had a license. You can do the math for someone that doesn't buy a permit for 35 years has saved themselves knowing that most likely get a slap on the wrist is all they risk.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Old Ironmaker

[FloatnFly]

no, introducing a fee will not deter anything, it will either push people further north up the river, or somewhere else completely. the reason they go to the ganny, is because those bottom pools in town are extremely accessible, with no obstructions anywhere, leaving those big fish in a very vulnerable situation. personally i think the better solution is a make that section in town, a no kill zone, meaning no keeping anything, including the roe, but that would require mnr to be on board and change it, vs making a town bylaw to restrict access.

 

signs were posted last season warning of illegal fishing actions, they were posted in 3 different languages, none of which were french!

[misfish]

no, introducing a fee will not deter anything, it will either push people further north up the river, or somewhere else completely. the reason they go to the ganny, is because those bottom pools in town are extremely accessible, with no obstructions anywhere, leaving those big fish in a very vulnerable situation. personally i think the better solution is a make that section in town, a no kill zone, meaning no keeping anything, including the roe, but that would require mnr to be on board and change it, vs making a town bylaw to restrict access.

 

signs were posted last season warning of illegal fishing actions, they were posted in 3 different languages, none of which were french!

 

 

We dont need nor want them.

[Old Ironmaker]

Deleted, answered my own ??

Edited February 28, 2017 by Old Ironmaker

[chris.brock]

Personally, I believe OFAH is way off base here. They should be working with the town to find a permanent solution - not siding with the poachers.

I don't buy that at all.

 

We have laws against poaching, littering, how you can and can't fish etc. We have plenty of laws, we don't need more. Enforce the ones we have!

 

Like Bigugli said, some of the European countries is what we don't want to become. These type of fees are a slippery slope.

 

There isn't any correlation between this new money grab and the problems with poachers.