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?

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

It sounds like you resent the money going to them?

Whether I do...or not...is not the point.

The title of this thread is "Increased fishing licence sales do not equate to more stocked fish"

People seem to think that by increasing licence fees or adding seniors to the mix that they will magically get more stocked fish.
What I am trying to do is get people to understand how their licence fees are spent.

If they want more stocking...then approach AEP...increased license sales won't get you there.

We can open another thread to discuss whether or not the fee money is spent wisely if you wish.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

It sounds like you resent the money going to them?

That's what I'm getting out of this. Those critical of the ACA hopefully dont access the Raven, Red Deer, NSR, Little Red Deer or Battle River through any of the properties they bought and preserved. Not to mention the 60 + locations they did stock (several of which were also on conservation sites owned by the ACA,).

They are an NGO using public money but I have confidence that they are above board and doing the best they can.

I am not an ACA employee. Dont even know anyone that works there. Just a fly fisherman.

[Smoky buck]

The only way increase license frees result in more stocking or any specific form of management or enhancement is if there is also legislation that directs what the money from the increase is to be used for

Without controlling how the funding is used there is no predicting how it will be spent

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

The only way increase license frees result in more stocking or any specific form of management or enhancement is if there is also legislation that directs what the money from the increase is to be used for

Without controlling how the funding is used there is no predicting how it will be spent

THANK YOU!
Finally...someone who gets it!

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

That's what I'm getting out of this. Those critical of the ACA hopefully dont access the Raven, Red Deer, NSR, Little Red Deer or Battle River through any of the properties they bought and preserved. Not to mention the 60 + locations they did stock (several of which were also on conservation sites owned by the ACA,).

They are an NGO using public money but I have confidence that they are above board and doing the best they can.

I am not an ACA employee. Dont even know anyone that works there. Just a fly fisherman.

????
Please read the title of this thread again.

[pikergolf]

Well, lets look at how it's spent.
https://www.ab-conservation.com/programs/fish/overview/
https://www.ab-conservation.com/prog...initcategory=1
https://www.ab-conservation.com/prog...initcategory=1

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Well, lets look at how it's spent.
https://www.ab-conservation.com/programs/fish/overview/
https://www.ab-conservation.com/prog...initcategory=1
https://www.ab-conservation.com/prog...initcategory=1

I am fully aware of what the ACA does...that is not being questioned

Please do not derail the thread...show me how increased licence sales will get more "stocked trout in the pond"

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Whether I do...or not...is not the point.

The title of this thread is "Increased fishing licence sales do not equate to more stocked fish"

People seem to think that by increasing licence fees or adding seniors to the mix that they will magically get more stocked fish.
What I am trying to do is get people to understand how their licence fees are spent.

If they want more stocking...then approach AEP...increased license sales won't get you there.

We can open another thread to discuss whether or not the fee money is spent wisely if you wish.

Are you saying saying they don't but any fish at all? Because according to the website you are referencing they do. I understand that AEP stocks 10x more fish than the ACA. The original thread was basically playing what if?? So IF we are broke and the province cannot afford/justify stocking fish THEN licenses will have to increase (user pay). IF that happens the extra funds would have to go towards stocking.

Should everyone bear the burden or just some? It has been raised already that there are way more important things going on than stocking fish in a pond. Things way more worthy of our tax dollars.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

I am fully aware of what the ACA does...that is not being questioned

Please do not derail the thread...show me how increased licence sales will get more "stocked trout in the pond"

Why are you under the impression it would, through the ACA?

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

THANK YOU!
Finally...someone who gets it!

Common issue with fishery/wildlife management in most provinces. Even in BC the money may have switched who’s hands it goes to but true direction on spending is still lacking

Things are a lot more complicated then fishermen realize and truthfully license fees are peanuts. The US has a much better system with the Robert Pittman Act and one of the reasons they have less funding related issues for fishery/wildlife management

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

So IF we are broke and the province cannot afford/justify stocking fish THEN licenses will have to increase (user pay). IF that happens the extra funds would have to go towards stocking.

EXACTLY...now we are getting it!

BUT...funds going DIRECTLY to stocking will only happen if it is legislated as in the thread by Smokeybuck.
The current licence fee funding model will not accomplish that!

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

EXACTLY...now we are getting it!

BUT...funds going DIRECTLY to stocking will only happen if it is legislated as in the thread by Smokeybuck.
The current licence fee funding model will not accomplish that!

Well, the province is doing most of the stocking. To much money? I don't know. One of my pet peeves is the rate at which ponds are cleaned out. For the price of fish I see no reason to have a limit of 5 fish. It grieves me to see members of this site asking where the fish have been stocked. People take as many as they can as quickly as they can. That is unsustainable. I am lucky enough to live close to a trophy lake, the fishing was outstanding there for many years until water quality issues have caused problems. I just wish more anglers would take advantage of the lake whitefish fisheries, especially in the irrigation res. of the south.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Well, the province is doing most of the stocking. To much money? I don't know. One of my pet peeves is the rate at which ponds are cleaned out. For the price of fish I see no reason to have a limit of 5 fish. It grieves me to see members of this site asking where the fish have been stocked. People take as many as they can as quickly as they can. That is unsustainable. I am lucky enough to live close to a trophy lake, the fishing was outstanding there for many years until water quality issues have caused problems. I just wish more anglers would take advantage of the lake whitefish fisheries, especially in the irrigation res. of the south.

It seems that we finally agree on some points.
Keep the discussion going....

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

It seems that we finally agree on some points.
Keep the discussion going....

I have to apologize, I never took the time to read the other thread until the last half hour.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I have to apologize, I never took the time to read the other thread until the last half hour.

No problem

Some times these discussions are best had over a brew....

[anything_but_fish]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

The only way increase license frees result in more stocking or any specific form of management or enhancement is if there is also legislation that directs what the money from the increase is to be used for

Without controlling how the funding is used there is no predicting how it will be spent

This is what I was saying on the other thread... Twice in one day smoky and I agree. Hell hath frozen over.

Ditto on the pittman act.

[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

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Common issue with fishery/wildlife management in most provinces. Even in BC the money may have switched who’s hands it goes to but true direction on spending is still lacking

Things are a lot more complicated then fishermen realize and truthfully license fees are peanuts. The US has a much better system with the Robert Pittman Act and one of the reasons they have less funding related issues for fishery/wildlife management

I have just read up on the Robertson-Pittman Act....thx for that info.

As I understand it...monies from licence sales are directed towards conservation efforts and do NOT go into general revenue.

How is that different from our provincial system here?