Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2018, 08:33 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2018, 06:32 PM
tallieho tallieho is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: calgary
Posts: 1,216
Default

Don;I didn't see anything about rebuilding & maintaining roads into lakes[beaver]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2018, 04:28 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2018, 07:56 AM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2018, 12:09 PM
FishALotNot FishALotNot is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
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,
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).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2018, 09:48 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FishALotNot View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2018, 10:21 PM
flyrodfisher flyrodfisher is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 984
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-23-2018, 05:39 AM
FishALotNot FishALotNot is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.