Where ACA spends grant money
 

Folks,

The ACA operates a grant program allocating money raised from your $'s.
Tis very interesting to see where the money is spent.
http://www.ab-conservation.com/downl..._2018-2019.pdf

For a real understanding of the list, sort it by:

1) this will improve the fishery
2) this will improve my access to fish
3) this will increase naive stocks
4) this is spent on the Hunting Training Camp
5) this is spent improving hunting

Don

Don;I didn't see anything about rebuilding & maintaining roads into lakes[beaver]

Talli...

I was told by the ACA they were and had been in negotiations with the Dept of Environment to determine who was going to do the Maintainence of properties like Beaver Lake.
As the lake was stocked in 1999 and 19 years later no work has been done on the road other than plowung the snow to accommodate the ice fishermen, I wouldn't hold my breath that work will get done soon.
I maybe wrong however as the holes are now deep enough that our car can't use the road.
They turned down my offer to fix the road.
As I pointed out to the ACA, when they and Givt get in a ****ing contest, they only people that get wet is the angler.
By the way, tbe fishing licenses pay their wages,

Don

Interesting post.

$1.3 million does not seem like very much money allocated to the ACA in an

"oil, gas and resource rich province", but I guess that is probably for another thread and not really the point.


It doesn't seem like very much of the money is going towards improving our

fisheries but I also have a biased opinion.

Thanx for posting Don.

To be fair, only about one quarter of the ACA's funding comes from angling licenses. A much bigger chunk comes from hunting licenses. And if I recall correctly, fishing and hunting licenses are meant to be a conservation levy - a source of funds that is put toward conserving fish, wildlife, natural spaces and recreation.

I think people misunderstand the system if they think that the ACA's funding is meant to simply improve fishing (or hunting) opportunities in the province. Personally, I am very glad that they do more than that (although, their effectiveness is a whole other topic).

The ACA spends less than 5% of the Grant program on fisheries. Of the other several millions od $'s they spend, we occasionally get reports of some study of another.

Although hundreds of thousands were spent on the DogPound Creek, the ACA walked away. From the original Buck for Wildlife program, much has been loss or derailed into things that didn't benefit fisheries or wildlife.

I find it shameful with the pressure on native stocks, there was no money allocated that I can see.

Don

Look at page 19 of the new regs. You will see that 64% of your existing yearly license cost...or about $17.92 goes directly to the ACA....

Ask them where the $5,500,000 went that they collected from your licences last year...and how much of it went back into fisheries efforts.

Check their staff list...approx. 60 biologists/technicians.
Over $7 million in salaries and benefits alone...another $2.3 million in contracted services.

You missed my point, and now you are talking about how effectively they use their funds. I explicitly said that this was a whole other topic.