Increased fishing licence sales do not equate to more stocked fish

[flyrodfisher]

From the previous thread,
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379404
there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of where your fishing License monies go.


I will repeat here:

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

ACA levy $18.30
IBM fee $8.20
Alta government $1.50
GST $1.40

Increased licence fee or sales do NOT equate directly into stocked fish

Some comments in the previous thread that need to be responded to;




"46,000 more licenses is 1.3 million dollars. That buys some fish"

No...extra licence dollars go to the ACA


"When I'm a senior I will also gladly pay if it means that the there will be stocked water for everyone"

No..extra licence dollars go the the ACA

"The problem is fishing generates a lot of $ through licensing, and thus politicians can't seem to keep their hands off of it."

No..as you can see above, very little of your license dollar goes to the "politicians"


"most of this money goes to ACA, and what they do to fund fisheries is fairly questionable at best. Perhaps someone should ask them how their funding has been used to improve fisheries--because to my understanding this money is entirely separate from all of the revenue pots that fund our monitoring and regulation development side of things with AEP."

Yes..as stated in the previous thread;

"Facts about where your ACA dollars go...;

2019 levy revenue collected by the ACA from hunting and fishing licenses was $13.5 million

Of the $13.5 million collected, $7.3 million went directly to staff salaries alone
The ACA has a staff of about 80 people, of which 50 - 60 are biologists/techs
The CEO's salary is $305,000 per year

For those that still think every $ in increased license fees goes to "fish in the pond"....I will leave you with this sobering number;

The ACA stocked 63 ponds last year with a total of 106,090 trout
The ACA revenue from fishing license sales last year was $5,217,000
$5,217,000 divided by 106,090 equals $49.18 per stocked fish

So...it would take the sale of almost 3 fishing licenses to stock one fish"


So, it doesn't matter whether you make seniors buy a licence...or make those that wear purple socks on Tuesday buy a licence. The extra money generated goes into ACA coffers....very very little of which actually results in trout in the pond

The vast majority of stocking that takes place is done by AEP. That, along with monitoring, enforcement (actually justice department), planning and fisheries management comes out of the AEP budget.....NOT out of licence sales.


If you wish to translate your licence dollars directly "into fish in the pond", you will need to make your voices heard with AEP

Full disclosure...I am not a senior, I am not a politician, I am not associated with ACA, I do not work for AEP. I am a fisherman who buys a licence every year.

[LJalberta]

Very informative. I haven't looked much into the ACA prior, but now I will. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

From the previous thread,
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379404
there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of where your fishing License monies go.


I will repeat here:

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

ACA levy $18.30
IBM fee $8.20
Alta government $1.50
GST $1.40

Increased licence fee or sales do NOT equate directly into stocked fish

Some comments in the previous thread that need to be responded to;




"46,000 more licenses is 1.3 million dollars. That buys some fish"

No...extra licence dollars go to the ACA


"When I'm a senior I will also gladly pay if it means that the there will be stocked water for everyone"

No..extra licence dollars go the the ACA

"The problem is fishing generates a lot of $ through licensing, and thus politicians can't seem to keep their hands off of it."

No..as you can see above, very little of your license dollar goes to the "politicians"


"most of this money goes to ACA, and what they do to fund fisheries is fairly questionable at best. Perhaps someone should ask them how their funding has been used to improve fisheries--because to my understanding this money is entirely separate from all of the revenue pots that fund our monitoring and regulation development side of things with AEP."

Yes..as stated in the previous thread;

"Facts about where your ACA dollars go...;

2019 levy revenue collected by the ACA from hunting and fishing licenses was $13.5 million

Of the $13.5 million collected, $7.3 million went directly to staff salaries alone
The ACA has a staff of about 80 people, of which 50 - 60 are biologists/techs
The CEO's salary is $305,000 per year

For those that still think every $ in increased license fees goes to "fish in the pond"....I will leave you with this sobering number;

The ACA stocked 63 ponds last year with a total of 106,090 trout
The ACA revenue from fishing license sales last year was $5,217,000
$5,217,000 divided by 106,090 equals $49.18 per stocked fish

So...it would take the sale of almost 3 fishing licenses to stock one fish"


So, it doesn't matter whether you make seniors buy a licence...or make those that wear purple socks on Tuesday buy a licence. The extra money generated goes into ACA coffers....very very little of which actually results in trout in the pond

The vast majority of stocking that takes place is done by AEP. That, along with monitoring, enforcement (actually justice department), planning and fisheries management comes out of the AEP budget.....NOT out of licence sales.


If you wish to translate your licence dollars directly "into fish in the pond", you will need to make your voices heard with AEP

Full disclosure...I am not a senior, I am not a politician, I am not associated with ACA, I do not work for AEP. I am a fisherman who buys a licence every year.

Do you know what ACA does? Also I would be very interested as to where you got your stats.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Do you know what ACA does? Also I would be very interested as to where you got your stats.

Yes...I do know what the ACA does.
Please read the other thread....links to stats are there...but ALL come from the ACA website.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Yes...I do know what the ACA does.
Please read the other thread....links to stats are there...but ALL come from the ACA website.

So you know they don't exist to stock fish?

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

So you know they don't exist to stock fish?

Of course.
That is exactly my point. More money through increased licence sales will NOT result in more stocking.

Any additional funds generated go to the ACA...which you just said "they don't exist to stock fish".

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Of course.
That is exactly my point. More money through increased licence sales will NOT result in more stocking.

Any additional funds generated go to the ACA...which you just said "they don't exist to stock fish".

It sounds like you resent the money going to them?

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

ACA levy $18.30
IBM fee $8.20
Alta government $1.50
GST $1.40

Thanks. I would have to say this thread completely debunks increases in license fees having anything to do with stocking, in the current model.

In percentage terms
ACA levy 62%
IBM fee 27%
Alta government 5%

A little lopsided for sure. If we like the idea of user pay, then change the licensing funding model with some portion going directly to fish stocking and fish stocking only.

I'm okay with user pay for sure. How or where else would the money or priority come from for stocking if not the very people who love to use it.

[Smoky buck]

If fishermen want to see an improved stocking program have a proposal put forward that was a combination of an additional fee with well written legislation that directing this $ to stocking only. You need to make sure all loopholes for abuse are closed or someone will abuse it at some point in time in the future. This means breaking it down to the point of what % goes to each section in the stocking program

I would also recommend in-depth analyzation of Alberta’s stocking program and it’s expenses first

When people are talking pay to play look at example of conservation stamps used elsewhere. Pay a yearly fee to keep that species or in some cases to even be able to fish certain water that are dominated by that species. This can also be combined with an annual limit that the angler needs to document. This is done with some species outside of Alberta for example halibut and chinook in BC

The frame work of proven options exist across the world. The thing fishermen need to understand is it will come at a cost and involves a well thought out plan that involves legislation to protect it

Options are out there but they all involve $, time, and sacrifice. Quick fixes don’t exist

[tallieho]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

From the previous thread,
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=379404
there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of where your fishing License monies go.


I will repeat here:

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

ACA levy $18.30
IBM fee $8.20
Alta government $1.50
GST $1.40

Increased licence fee or sales do NOT equate directly into stocked fish

Some comments in the previous thread that need to be responded to;




"46,000 more licenses is 1.3 million dollars. That buys some fish"

No...extra licence dollars go to the ACA


"When I'm a senior I will also gladly pay if it means that the there will be stocked water for everyone"

No..extra licence dollars go the the ACA

"The problem is fishing generates a lot of $ through licensing, and thus politicians can't seem to keep their hands off of it."

No..as you can see above, very little of your license dollar goes to the "politicians"


"most of this money goes to ACA, and what they do to fund fisheries is fairly questionable at best. Perhaps someone should ask them how their funding has been used to improve fisheries--because to my understanding this money is entirely separate from all of the revenue pots that fund our monitoring and regulation development side of things with AEP."

Yes..as stated in the previous thread;

"Facts about where your ACA dollars go...;

2019 levy revenue collected by the ACA from hunting and fishing licenses was $13.5 million

Of the $13.5 million collected, $7.3 million went directly to staff salaries alone
The ACA has a staff of about 80 people, of which 50 - 60 are biologists/techs
The CEO's salary is $305,000 per year

For those that still think every $ in increased license fees goes to "fish in the pond"....I will leave you with this sobering number;

The ACA stocked 63 ponds last year with a total of 106,090 trout
The ACA revenue from fishing license sales last year was $5,217,000
$5,217,000 divided by 106,090 equals $49.18 per stocked fish

So...it would take the sale of almost 3 fishing licenses to stock one fish"


So, it doesn't matter whether you make seniors buy a licence...or make those that wear purple socks on Tuesday buy a licence. The extra money generated goes into ACA coffers....very very little of which actually results in trout in the pond

The vast majority of stocking that takes place is done by AEP. That, along with monitoring, enforcement (actually justice department), planning and fisheries management comes out of the AEP budget.....NOT out of licence sales.


If you wish to translate your licence dollars directly "into fish in the pond", you will need to make your voices heard with AEP

Full disclosure...I am not a senior, I am not a politician, I am not associated with ACA, I do not work for AEP. I am a fisherman who buys a licence every year.

Some excellent info. here.Thanks for bringing this to our attention.I hope that this not meant to impede on these facts.
The ACA is just NOT for fisheries.I wonder how much,is transferred over to hunting ,ie Pheasants forever,Land aquaistions hiking trails,habitat for leopard frogs.ETC.
I agree if your wanting to improve fish stocking.That legislation,must be in place.Before greedy govt.staff,can access.B.C Created thru Brian Chan's involvement A society.Mb mirrored Brian's work & developed Bill #13 .Where fish lic.total monies collected from lic,stayed in there fisheries.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by tallieho

The ACA is just NOT for fisheries.I wonder how much,is transferred over to hunting ,ie Pheasants forever,Land aquaistions hiking trails,habitat for leopard frogs.ETC.

I agree if your wanting to improve fish stocking.That legislation,must be in place.Before greedy govt.staff,can access.B.C Created thru Brian Chan's involvement A society.Mb mirrored Brian's work & developed Bill #13 .Where fish lic.total monies collected from lic,stayed in there fisheries.

I had the same thought on hunting and ACA. And a good mention on Chan.

Thanks and cheers.

[WinefredCommander]

You have potentially the best environment minister in a decade (actually an outdoorsmen). Let’s see what he does..

[Smoky buck]

Somethings to consider for those that like what they have seen happen in BC regarding license fees in BC. BC anglers have better representation with an organization that strictly focuses on fishing. There was years invested into accomplishing this. This involved direct focus on this goal. This was a very expensive and time consuming venture.

This is a good goal but not a simple one. Representation, detailed end goal, and how to achieve it is needed first