If you had $50 Million to spend on Alberta fisheries...

[flyrodfisher]

In a previous thread http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379631, Smokybuck brought up Robertson Pittman act which is in effect in the USA.

Did some reading on it lately...in a nutshell, it is a levy added on to purchases of sporting good items. The levy monies collected are directed back to fund conservation efforts. The levy on various purchased fishing items goes back into fishing conservation.
Similarly a levy on various hunting items goes back into wildlife conservation.

Basically, fisherman directly support fisheries through their purchases of fishing related items.

So...as an example, if a very small (1-2%) levy was put on fishing items purchased here in Alberta, that generated perhaps $40 to 50 Million dollars over the next ten years....

From a fisheries perspective;

Do you think this is a good approach?
If so, what would you like to see done with that money?
What is important to you?
How would you measure success after those ten years?
Or...do you think it's a stupid concept?

The floor is yours....

[roper1]

I bought my licence every year for 20 years never wet a line. Roped all summer but supported the fisheries. Back fishing with a passion, glad I payed along.

Still it is really just another tax, until we curb unnecessary spending, I can't support it. The bureaucracy required to distribute the money would use the levy up, plus be 10% short. Sorry to be Donnie Downer.........

[flyrodfisher]

I bought my licence every year for 20 years never wet a line. Roped all summer but supported the fisheries. Back fishing with a passion, glad I payed along.

Still it is really just another tax, until we curb unnecessary spending, I can't support it. The bureaucracy required to distribute the money would use the levy up, plus be 10% short. Sorry to be Donnie Downer.........

I respect your reply.

But just to be clear, it has nothing to do with licence sales...it would be...yes...a tax on rods, reels, waders, etc....and NOT administered by the government.

[Drewski Canuck]

I respect your reply.

But just to be clear, it has nothing to do with licence sales...it would be...yes...a tax on rods, reels, waders, etc....and NOT administered by the government.

$50 Million for the taking and the Government would just stoically sit there and agree to be cut out of the Action?

If you have ever dealt with a Meth Head, you would quickly see the similar personality traits shared with your average Bureaucrat and Politician.

But I digress and will indulge your fantasy.

Alberta needs more fishable water bodies, where you can KEEP fish. That is what the fishing public wants.

That means rehabilitation of some lakes to allow fish producing habitat; creation of other lakes from places like Coal Mine Pits around Wabamun and limestone quarries around Robb, weirs to increase water depth in shallow lakes and excavation of deeper sections of shallow lakes to allow over wintering of fish, and of course poisoning the Perch found in so many former Trout lakes with re stocking efforts. and weirs to stop in migration of perch and pike (Ghost Lake by Athabasca, for instance).

But anyway, tell the Fat Kid not to eat the Smartie, and when you achieve that, get back to me.

Drewski

[flyrodfisher]

$50 Million for the taking and the Government would just stoically sit there and agree to be cut out of the Action?

If you have ever dealt with a Meth Head, you would quickly see the similar personality traits shared with your average Bureaucrat and Politician.

But I digress and will indulge your fantasy.

Alberta needs more fishable water bodies, where you can KEEP fish. That is what the fishing public wants.

That means rehabilitation of some lakes to allow fish producing habitat; creation of other lakes from places like Coal Mine Pits around Wabamun and limestone quarries around Robb, weirs to increase water depth in shallow lakes and excavation of deeper sections of shallow lakes to allow over wintering of fish, and of course poisoning the Perch found in so many former Trout lakes with re stocking efforts. and weirs to stop in migration of perch and pike (Ghost Lake by Athabasca, for instance).

But anyway, tell the Fat Kid not to eat the Smartie, and when you achieve that, get back to me.

Drewski

Thx...I respect all replies.
I'm neither for nor against....just interested to know what people think.
Question though...if you were ABSOLUTELY sure all would go back into fisheries...(take the fat kid out of the picture)...what would you think???

[pikeman06]

Pothole trout in alberta? ? Total waste of money. If it's aerated maybe the odd lake. Otherwise it's the same old crap. Stock em in the spring and the locals throw em in a pail before the stocking truck even gets out of sight. 5 a day is a joke. Maybe one over 15 or 16 inches but lots of times they winter kill or summer kill anyways or there's perch in there and they never amount to anything anyways. I love a nice big beautiful trout don't get me wrong. But these sloughs arent trout water they taste like crap and unless it's aerated not many overwinter trout consistently. Put and take walleye is good but not at the demise of every other species for God's sake. Stock em and eat em or start stocking pike and perch after some of these walleye lakes they finally opened up get balanced again. If it's a walleye lake there will be enough adults to self sustain if not I guess it's a perch pike and whitefish lake like it probably ever was in the first place. Just my opinion.

[pikergolf]

I would be for, but not clear how the tax would work. Most of my fishing purchases are made online out of province, how would they tax me for Ab?

[pikergolf]

Pothole trout in alberta? ? Total waste of money. If it's aerated maybe the odd lake. Otherwise it's the same old crap. Stock em in the spring and the locals throw em in a pail before the stocking truck even gets out of sight. 5 a day is a joke. Maybe one over 15 or 16 inches but lots of times they winter kill or summer kill anyways or there's perch in there and they never amount to anything anyways. I love a nice big beautiful trout don't get me wrong. But these sloughs arent trout water they taste like crap and unless it's aerated not many overwinter trout consistently. Put and take walleye is good but not at the demise of every other species for God's sake. Stock em and eat em or start stocking pike and perch after some of these walleye lakes they finally opened up get balanced again. If it's a walleye lake there will be enough adults to self sustain if not I guess it's a perch pike and whitefish lake like it probably ever was in the first place. Just my opinion.

I love fishing for pothole trout. I agree the limit is a joke, but some like to eat them. We have a trophy trout lake near Med Hat, for years the fishing was spectacular for large fish. In my mind this is how pot holes should be run. Unfortunately the lake ran into water quality issues, the government is looking into it now, hopefully it is fixable.

[Smoky buck]

Ok for starters the Pittman act in the US is a tax that goes beyond fishing and fishing gear. It is protected from government abuse through legislation and the money goes directly to outdoor infrastructure, fisheries, and wildlife management/projects/stocking. The US has a tax that is on all outdoors gear from hooks to camping gear.

This is no fantasy this is a proven long running program that has been a huge part on why the US has so many programs and effort put into their outdoors

For those who fear govt just abusing the money from a program like this that is fair. This is why I would never agree to a tax like the Pittman Act without the legislation that directs and protects the money generated. This is something completely possible and been done for generations in the US with results. This is not like Alberta fishing licenses that government has control of the money generated

I am a fan of the Pittman act and the results it gets but I would only support a program like this in Alberta or Canada if it had the legislation to remove government abuse. So I understand those who fear govt abuse but that issue is addressed before it’s ever an issue with legislation if you follow the framework of the Pittman act

If you are not familiar with the Robert Pittman act in the US look into it

[Smoky buck]

Now what to do with 50 million

MUSKY lol as much as I think this would be awesome introduction of musky is probably not the best for Alberta :sad0020:

Habitat enhancement with heavy focus on water level and flow. Dredging and wiers are good but looking into options to address runoff contamination in some areas. Deeper water structure creation in lakes and stream/river structure enhancement. There is many direction to go but it is going to be different for many bodies of water and research is needed

Stocking of forage in some bodies of water could be beneficial

There is a lot of other things I would consider but without direct research on a body of water things are guesses. For this reason it would be nice to see programs that focused x number of years of research/steps to enhance the fishery on some of the larger bodies of water that see higher pressure

50million doesn’t go far so this would probably already be over budget so I will stop lol

[SNAPFisher]

Focus on stocking forage species that are natural or natural as we know it in lakes. Spot tailed shiners, perch, etc. E.g. Pigeon lake seems empty of minnows though they are starting to show a bit (hope).
And habitat improvement for both lakes and rivers. Lakes should not have a bit of grey water touching them, planting trees along key stream and prairie rivers, working with farmers and land owners about how to protect our water resource better, etc. Overall, things that we could spend the money on in the short term to invest in the long term.

Big problems that take big money and more than $50 a year but you have to start somewhere.

[wind drift]

Put that kind of money towards replacing hanging culverts with bridges. Concept could be similar to the orphaned well reclamation grant. Better for roads, better for fish. Creates employment. Better all around.

[58thecat]

Fire all department heads....get a fresh string in....go from there.....

[Smoky buck]

Fire all department heads....get a fresh string in....go from there.....

That would not make much of a dent in your budget. Maybe you could at least hire someone to water board them first. You would still have a large budget leftover and install a healthy level of fear in new staff

You would also be creating employment

[Dewey Cox]

I would spend it all on dirt work.
Dig new ponds, build small dams, buy out old gravel pits.
Make some new places to fish.

[roper1]

I respect your reply.

But just to be clear, it has nothing to do with licence sales...it would be...yes...a tax on rods, reels, waders, etc....and NOT administered by the government.

Fair enough........but you still need someone to disperse the money; biologists, F&W, local groups, special interest groups, how about the FN/Metis questions, how will you navigate that? If it's not gov't money, who does the policing ? Who makes the decision based on what criteria?

Everything from Red Cross to Worldvision & all in between have paid management & staff. That's ultimately where the lion's share of the well-intentioned cash ends up.

Soooo, if you could figure out a way to accomplish this with volunteers.....

[flyrodfisher]

Fair enough........but you still need someone to disperse the money; biologists, F&W, local groups, special interest groups, how about the FN/Metis questions, how will you navigate that? If it's not gov't money, who does the policing ? Who makes the decision based on what criteria?

Everything from Red Cross to Worldvision & all in between have paid management & staff. That's ultimately where the lion's share of the well-intentioned cash ends up.

Soooo, if you could figure out a way to accomplish this with volunteers.....
Your points are well taken....

Info on how the program operates in the USA;
https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/grantprograms/WR/WR_Act.htm

[Isopod]

I would be reluctant to accept such a tax. Income tax was supposed to be temporary tax to support World War 1 efforts. Gasoline tax was supposed to be used for road repairs and construction and now I think something like 90% goes into general government revenues.

So this would have to be set up very carefully with legislation to ensure government kept their hands out of the pie. And I don't know if that is even possible because the government could simply stop doing stocking and restoration and let this equipment tax be forced to cover those costs, essentially letting the government dictate how the money is spent without actually touching it.

And I don't know enough about the US situation to know if it is even transferable to Canada. For example, individual states have quite a bit of power, more so than provinces in Canada. Navigable waterways fall under federal jurisdiction in Canada so could funds raised in Alberta by an equipment tax actually be used in Alberta or would they have to go through the federal government who could then decide how and where they are to be used?

I guess I'm really not a fan of tax-creep. And I worry how this idea might spread... a tax on anything related to cycling or walking or running to help pay for improved pathways and bike lanes. A tax on motors, boats, canoes, paddles, seadoos, paddleboards and anything else water-related to pay for boat launch and lake maintenance, etc.

So rather than creating a new tax, if there is a need for money to be raised for specific issues or things that are not currently being done, then I'd rather see that done by hiking the existing fishing license fees, but only if there is some clear accountability that the higher fees are being used for specific new projects.

But higher license fees raise their own set of issues. $28 to fish for an entire year seems quite a bargain to me, and it has to be a pretty miniscule part of most anglers fishing expenses over the course of year. But there is already resentment by some people toward indigenous folks who pay nothing to fish the same waters. That resentment would only become more widespread if license fees become higher for non-indigenous fishers. I guess that's an advantage of the OP's equipment tax, it would apply to everyone.

Complex issue, those are my thoughts (and I never even got to what I would spend the money on!)

[calgarychef]

In a previous thread http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379631, Smokybuck brought up Robertson Pittman act which is in effect in the USA.

Did some reading on it lately...in a nutshell, it is a levy added on to purchases of sporting good items. The levy monies collected are directed back to fund conservation efforts. The levy on various purchased fishing items goes back into fishing conservation.
Similarly a levy on various hunting items goes back into wildlife conservation.

Basically, fisherman directly support fisheries through their purchases of fishing related items.

So...as an example, if a very small (1-2%) levy was put on fishing items purchased here in Alberta, that generated perhaps $40 to 50 Million dollars over the next ten years....

From a fisheries perspective;

Do you think this is a good approach?
If so, what would you like to see done with that money?
What is important to you?
How would you measure success after those ten years?
Or...do you think it's a stupid concept?

The floor is yours....

I mentioned this in the hunting section a few months ago...I was soundly shot down. No one wants “another tax” even if it directly benefits the very people who recreate in the environment.

We could have pheasant habitat, we could buy vast tracts of land, we could have great fishing...we could have it all. It’s so short sighted in my mind to not do this.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Still it is really just another tax, until we curb unnecessary spending, I can't support it.

That's how I see it, does my fishing licence cost not cover this?

I can't support any new taxes, on anything, ever.

They will just find yet another way to squander it.

[Smoky buck]

That's how I see it, does my fishing licence cost not cover this?

I can't support any new taxes, on anything, ever.

They will just find yet another way to squander it.

Presently Alberta fishing license fees do not go directly to Alberta’s fishery and like many other provinces a portion goes into general revenue. This is a problem in it self BC has changed this in recent years which is a positive. The option of lobbying to have Alberta license fees go directly to back the fishery is another thing that should be done. Honestly license fees are peanuts and don’t go far

I highly recommend reading about the Pittman Act to get an understanding how it has legislation to protect the money generated from being squandered by government and how it goes back to funding the outdoors in the US. This is the driving force behind the US being far more advanced when it comes to fish and wildlife. This funds everything from stocking to public access

I get the anti tax thing and giving govt money they will waste I am right there with you. But if you look into the Pittman act the money does not go to government to be squandered it goes to fish & wildlife along with outdoors programs. It truly is putting money into what we use as outdoorsman

We always hear how everyone wants to see improvement to the fishery in one way or another well funding and making sure it goes towards the fishery are big steps to achieve results. It’s a lot easier to lobby for programs to improve a fishery when there is money sitting there can only be used for that purpose.

My opinion is if outdoorsman want to see improvement we need to invest in the outdoors. Asking government to do things has and will fail

[58thecat]

That would not make much of a dent in your budget. Maybe you could at least hire someone to water board them first. You would still have a large budget leftover and install a healthy level of fear in new staff

You would also be creating employment

Aaaannnnd I would hire you smokey to fix it right....:)

What's the battle plan going forward?

[Smoky buck]

Aaaannnnd I would hire you smokey to fix it right....:)

What's the battle plan going forward?

Give me the money and I am headed to South America :sHa_shakeshout:

Right now it’s ride things out till Covid19 is over because you can’t get anything accomplished during a pandemic. Once that is finished and I assess the steps I am making with life we will see

I have been putting serious thought into becoming more involved and rocking the boat to see what falls out

[walleye guy]

remove all invasive species of fish, including introduced trout in our flowing waters!

[Smoky buck]

remove all invasive species of fish, including introduced trout in our flowing waters!

Understand how that would be beneficial but the success rate of removing invasive species without killing of the whole system and starting over is basically non existent

Sucks but for the most part invasive species are here to stay

[walleye guy]

Understand how that would be beneficial but the success rate of removing invasive species without killing of the whole system and starting over is basically non existent

Sucks but for the most part invasive species are here to stay

That may be true,but anything we could do would probably help our native fish's.We could remove limits on non native trout wouldn't cost a penny.
This is a wish list isn't it ?

[CptnBlues63]

$50 Million for the taking and the Government would just stoically sit there and agree to be cut out of the Action?

If you have ever dealt with a Meth Head, you would quickly see the similar personality traits shared with your average Bureaucrat and Politician.

But I digress and will indulge your fantasy.

Alberta needs more fishable water bodies, where you can KEEP fish. That is what the fishing public wants.

That means rehabilitation of some lakes to allow fish producing habitat; creation of other lakes from places like Coal Mine Pits around Wabamun and limestone quarries around Robb, weirs to increase water depth in shallow lakes and excavation of deeper sections of shallow lakes to allow over wintering of fish, and of course poisoning the Perch found in so many former Trout lakes with re stocking efforts. and weirs to stop in migration of perch and pike (Ghost Lake by Athabasca, for instance).

But anyway, tell the Fat Kid not to eat the Smartie, and when you achieve that, get back to me.

Drewski


I like your response and some of your ideas Drewski!

Myself, I'm not so sure I want to have more taxes added on to me. But if I was 100% sure the money would be spent properly, I could live with it.

I fish at Calling Lake a lot and the boat launch in the park is a disaster. I'd love to see them fix it properly but that's not likely. Talking with my best friend from SK about it when he was here fishing with me last he mentioned how a lot of parks in SK have a launch fee that applies directly to the maintenance of the launch and surrounding area (ie: cleaning station, toilets etc). I think it's a great idea and wouldn't mind paying an extra tax on gear, or a launch fee, if it means every boat launch in the province was a good one that didn't beat the crap out of my trailer every time I go there.

I wouldn't mind paying a tax on gear if it meant for fishable bodies of water that had a take home.

[WinefredCommander]

Understand how that would be beneficial but the success rate of removing invasive species without killing of the whole system and starting over is basically non existent

Sucks but for the most part invasive species are here to stay

Exactly. Since they've been here 100 years before biologists knew any better. Find a perfect model and follow it, BC is FAR from a perfect model. Remember, they have inshore and offshore licenses. Some say there inshore model is working well, but to me offshore is a mess!!

[Smoky buck]

Exactly. Since they've been here 100 years before biologists knew any better. Find a perfect model and follow it, BC is FAR from a perfect model. Remember, they have inshore and offshore licenses. Some say there inshore model is working well, but to me offshore is a mess!!

BC has a major mess in its freshwater fisheries to and not a model I would consider as a good model to follow. What BC does have is better representation for fishermen and have success directing license fees back towards the resource

I am an ex BC resident and would not say I am impressed with their fisheries management. I would say that the number of fishing organizations and the involvement of BC fishermen has been making improvements though.

[flyrodfisher]

Presently Alberta fishing license fees do not go directly to Alberta’s fishery and like many other provinces a portion goes into general revenue.

Actually....not quite true...only $1.50 goes back to the Alberta government.
Please read the first post in this thread;

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379631

[Smoky buck]

Actually....not quite true...only $1.50 goes back to the Alberta government.
Please read the first post in this thread;

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379631

I stand corrected

[EZM]

IF ..... an increase in my fees went DIRECTLY into habitat development and/or enhancement or stocking programs ..... I'd be happy to pay.

We all have great ideas of what we want to see, but the reality is, the first bit of that money would need to be spent on biologists who can study where we put these programs in place and what type of program would be suitable for where.

There's also a need for oversight - could be through AFGA or some other trusted body with a voice for our recreational users.

[OL_JR]

IF ..... an increase in my fees went DIRECTLY into habitat development and/or enhancement or stocking programs ..... I'd be happy to pay.

We all have great ideas of what we want to see, but the reality is, the first bit of that money would need to be spent on biologists who can study where we put these programs in place and what type of program would be suitable for where.

There's also a need for oversight - could be through AFGA or some other trusted body with a voice for our recreational users.

I bolded that, underlined and italicized. If there were a way to double bold, double underline, and double italicize I'd do that to.

[Koschenk]

A few clarifications, the "Pittman Robertson" act applies to hunting gear, firearms and ammo, "Dingle Johnson" is the equivalent as it applies to fishing gear and boat gas. The taxes are actually much higher at around 13% IIRC. The funds are collected at a national level from manufacturers and importers before the products are sold to consumers. Money is distributed yearly to states based on an algorithm involving population and amount of publicly held land. The funds must be strictly accounted for and can go only towards habitat projects, can at no time be part of the general budget, and a strict cap is set on what percentage can be spent on administration. Any deviation from the regulations disqualifies a state from future funding.

There have been suggestions of implement a "backpack tax" as well which would be the same type of tax attached to other camping gear the does not qualify for the PR or DJ acts.

Hopefully that helps and was coherent enough.

[flyrodfisher]

A few clarifications, the "Pittman Robertson" act applies to hunting gear, firearms and ammo, "Dingle Johnson" is the equivalent as it applies to fishing gear and boat gas. The taxes are actually much higher at around 13% IIRC.

You are correct.
As the Robertson Pittman act was in essence the precursor to the one for fisheries...that's why we are using that name.
The taxes vary, I think...but yes they are in the range you mentioned.
I used a very small % in my example just to show how much money could be generated.

Thx for your input.

So...do you support this?
If so, where should the funds go?

[Koschenk]

I'm absolutely in favour as long as there is the same accountability and the funds go towards things like habitat improvement, and access projects. Not administration, research, and general revenue.

[flyrodfisher]

So far;
As expected...thoughts are mixed.
Some oppose another tax...others are OK with it
No real common thoughts as to HOW any money should be spent.
One area of agreement seems to be accountability.

[Jayhad]

I support something like the Dingell-Johnson Act for Canada, but I would extend the tax to more outdoor retailers. Hiking, rock climbing and camping aren't taxed in the US models.

[FlyTheory]

I support something like the Dingell-Johnson Act for Canada, but I would extend the tax to more outdoor retailers. Hiking, rock climbing and camping aren't taxed in the US models.

10x, great point JL!

[flyrodfisher]

I support something like the Dingell-Johnson Act for Canada, but I would extend the tax to more outdoor retailers. Hiking, rock climbing and camping aren't taxed in the US models.

Out of curiosity….why?
eg...How does rock climbing impact fisheries?