Will Covid 19 kill Alberta's stocking program?

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by ShortsideK

If you think about it, YOU are paying for the Senior licenses. If seniors payed the same as you, licenses could cost about 1/2 and result in the same amount taken in.
I am more than happy for YOU to foot the bill.

You are not changing mind. Why would they decrease the cost of the current license? I'm fine with paying the same or slightly more now. When I'm a senior I will also gladly pay if it means that the there will be stocked water for everyone. What's 28 bucks?

[goldscud]

$28 for a year of entertainment....incredible value....no matter how old your are

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by ShortsideK

If you think about it, YOU are paying for the Senior licenses. If seniors payed the same as you, licenses could cost about 1/2 and result in the same amount taken in.
I am more than happy for YOU to foot the bill.

Nope...
About 310,000 licences are sold yearly in Alberta...or about 8% of the population minus seniors.
Seniors total about 580,000....so, if 8% of them bought licences, it would only amount to 46,000 more licences.

310,000 times $28 equals $8,680,000 equals current yearly take

so...to get the same amount of money if seniors bought licences;
$8,680,000 divided by 356000 equals $24.38

For your statement to be valid, 310,000 seniors would have to buy a license...which would be about 60% of the Alberta senior population...which is to put it mildly...improbable...

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Even better;
1) Increase license fees to all non Alberta residents
2) Declare all east slope streams as classified waters...non Alberta residents pay $20/day

What's good for the goose....

Although I'm not opposed to adding seniors to the list....but if we do that...we should consider adding EVERYONE that engages in "fishing" and that includes children.

it has always been a beef of mine in that some come with a whack of kids to allow the adult to claim multiple limits.
At the VERY minimum, go with Canada Parks and INCLUDE the catch of juniors in the limit of the adult.

[ShortsideK]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Nope...
About 310,000 licences are sold yearly in Alberta...or about 8% of the population minus seniors.
Seniors total about 580,000....so, if 8% of them bought licences, it would only amount to 46,000 more licences.

310,000 times $28 equals $8,680,000 equals current yearly take

so...to get the same amount of money if seniors bought licences;
$8,680,000 divided by 356000 equals $24.38

For your statement to be valid, 310,000 seniors would have to buy a license...which would be about 60% of the Alberta senior population...which is to put it mildly...improbable...

Wow, you certainly gave attention to my statements and put in the effort to see what is what.
I, on the otherhand, was just throwing it out there.
Still, LEAVE SENIORS ALONE!
LOL!

[ShortsideK]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Although I'm not opposed to adding seniors to the list....but if we do that...we should consider adding EVERYONE that engages in "fishing" and that includes children.

it has always been a beef of mine in that some come with a whack of kids to allow the adult to claim multiple limits.
At the VERY minimum, go with Canada Parks and INCLUDE the catch of juniors in the limit of the adult.

I agree 100%

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Although I'm not opposed to adding seniors to the list....but if we do that...we should consider adding EVERYONE that engages in "fishing" and that includes children.

it has always been a beef of mine in that some come with a whack of kids to allow the adult to claim multiple limits.
At the VERY minimum, go with Canada Parks and INCLUDE the catch of juniors in the limit of the adult.

Agree.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Nope...
About 310,000 licences are sold yearly in Alberta...or about 8% of the population minus seniors.
Seniors total about 580,000....so, if 8% of them bought licences, it would only amount to 46,000 more licences.

310,000 times $28 equals $8,680,000 equals current yearly take

so...to get the same amount of money if seniors bought licences;
$8,680,000 divided by 356000 equals $24.38

For your statement to be valid, 310,000 seniors would have to buy a license...which would be about 60% of the Alberta senior population...which is to put it mildly...improbable...

46,000 more licenses is 1.3 million dollars. That buys some fish. I think you are light at 8%. There are alot of 65+ guys out there with more free time than they know what to do with. The real number is likely closer to 15%, but we will never know since they never buy a license.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

46,000 more licenses is 1.3 million dollars. That buys some fish. I think you are light at 8%. There are alot of 65+ guys out there with more free time than they know what to do with. The real number is likely closer to 15%, but we will never know since they never buy a license.

In a perfect world....you would be correct...but sadly the world is not perfect.

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

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

In reality only $18.30 goes back into conservation...that goes into the bureaucracy of the ACA....not all of that goes back into fisheries...even less into actual stocking of fish...

But yes, there would be some money available to buy fish.

As I said, I'm not against licensing seniors...but focusing on them is a red herring.....pun intended.

There are better ways to raise revenue...even if we used your generous 15% number, that would only bring in the same amount of money by raising the licences overall by $6.00 and still leaving seniors exempt.

[tallieho]

Being of age 65 now. I am still willing to pay for a licence.i still believe that if you use the resource,you should pay.given the co vid times.with the govt.virtually giving monies up,like druken //.the first thinks that they will cut,are things that cost them to produce.hence passing it on to subscribers.we should all pay imo...

[ShortsideK]

"As I said, I'm not against licensing seniors...but focusing on them is a red herring.....pun intended.

There are better ways to raise revenue..."


I get what you are saying.

[anything_but_fish]

flyrodfisher hit the nail on the head--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.

[338Bluff]

[QUOTE=flyrodfisher;4146664]In a perfect world....you would be correct...but sadly the world is not perfect.

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

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

In reality only $18.30 goes back into conservation...that goes into the bureaucracy of the ACA....not all of that goes back into fisheries...even less into actual stocking of fish...

But yes, there would be some money available to buy fish.

As I said, I'm not against licensing seniors...but focusing on them is a red herring.....pun intended.

There are better ways to raise revenue...even if we used your generous 15% number, that would only bring in the same amount of money by raising the licences overall by $6.00 and still leaving seniors.


I understand that but all users should have to be licensed except kids. We have no idea how many seniors are fishing. Everyone is guessing. A license changes that. Even with your deductions close to a million dollars is coming in.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by anything_but_fish

flyrodfisher hit the nail on the head--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.

What's questionable they stock about 60-70 water bodies? What are they not doing?

[Rvsask]

Is there even that many non-Residents fishing the East Slopes anymore? Not that I would be opposed but I don't think it would raise enough funds.

Sask has a voluntary conversation donation when you purchase a license that goes straight into stocking and habitat. I through 50 bucks at it every year. Tax deductible.

Thank you for your donation.

I think licence fee increases in every province is a good idea. If you cannot pay a little more than you do not care too much about fisheries in general. As for hammering it to non residents, that's a slippery slope. I generally look at more red plates in the summer than green ones where we have a cabin.
"What's good for the goose" I believe was mentioned.

[ShortsideK]

I'm fine with the status quo.

The ACA will gladly accept donations from those that feel the fish stocking program needs more $$.

[Pikebreath]

Raising general licence fees to fund a stocking program isn't going to fund a lot of stocked fish.

Current rates for rainbow trout from private hatcheries range from $2- 5 per fish depending on size... I am by no means any kind of aquaculture expert, but it is my understanding, rainbow trout are the among the most cost effective fish to raise for stocking purposes. Walleye are far more expensive to raise and as far I am aware there are no pike aquaculture facilities so any stocking is accomplished by transfers,,, again probably not the most cost effective.

"Best bang for your buck" is almost invariably going to be to let wild naturally producing fish stocks produce fish for us to catch. That's why their protection from overharvest and habitat needs are paramount!

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

Raising general licence fees to fund a stocking program isn't going to fund a lot of stocked fish.

Current rates for rainbow trout from private hatcheries range from $2- 5 per fish depending on size... I am by no means any kind of aquaculture expert, but it is my understanding, rainbow trout are the among the most cost effective fish to raise for stocking purposes. Walleye are far more expensive to raise and as far I am aware there are no pike aquaculture facilities so any stocking is accomplished by transfers,,, again probably not the most cost effective.

"Best bang for your buck" is almost invariably going to be to let wild naturally producing fish stocks produce fish for us to catch. That's why their protection from overharvest and habitat needs are paramount!

Your cost on rainbows is about right for fish in the 8-14 inch size and you are also correct that rainbows are the most cost effective. Even 2inch trout are around 30 cents each when buying 10k or more. I can back you on this as I still have friends in the aquaculture industry

I also agree yearly stocking for c&k is an expensive way to offer opportunities is an a fishery. This is very true in the case many trout lakes that see no reproduction do to sterile/straight female fish or stocked in waters without spawning habitat. Proper management combined with enhancement of bodies of water are a more cost effective long term option but will not support the harvest put and take waters will

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

What's questionable they stock about 60-70 water bodies? What are they not doing?

Some of you seem to be misguided into thinking that your fishing license dollars equate directly into stocked fish in the pond.

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

[flyrodfisher]

Another interesting fact;

You need to sell 16,700 fishing licences to pay the yearly salary of the CEO of the ACA

[anything_but_fish]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

What's questionable they stock about 60-70 water bodies? What are they not doing?

My point is there are a lot of things that go into successful fisheries management that don't involve stocking. Fish dumped in doesn't really equate to successful fisheries management in my opinion.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Some of you seem to be misguided into thinking that your fishing license dollars equate directly into stocked fish in the pond.

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

What a gross misuse of our licence funds. There’s no way a not for profit organization with a staff of less than 100 doing work for AEP and us should compensate its head that richly. The board should be fired and the agreement with AEP ripped up.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by anything_but_fish

My point is there are a lot of things that go into successful fisheries management that don't involve stocking. Fish dumped in doesn't really equate to successful fisheries management in my opinion.

I would have to agree here

[pipco]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

Some of you seem to be misguided into thinking that your fishing license dollars equate directly into stocked fish in the pond.

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

Interesting stats.

106,090 sounds low but I'm not expert.

Where are you getting your numbers?

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by pipco

Interesting stats.

106,090 sounds low but I'm not expert.

Where are you getting your numbers?

They can download the data through government open data. That said, he must of had a miscalculation or missed a zero. Page 1 alone adds up to close to 72,000 trout stocked. At the bottom it shows the total numbers stocked:

Total trout stocked 2019: 1,664,549

So the numbers are a "tad" off. As in a gaping chasm.

I think we need something called social media distancing. Limits the spread of useless conversations

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

In a perfect world....you would be correct...but sadly the world is not perfect.

The breakdown is as follows;
License fee $29.40

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

In reality only $18.30 goes back into conservation...that goes into the bureaucracy of the ACA....not all of that goes back into fisheries...even less into actual stocking of fish...



There are better ways to raise revenue...

How about this idea that's been floating around for a few years ,,, a 10% excise tax on fishing related gear with all funds dedicated to enhancing fisheries (including stocking programs) in Canada?

Check out http://www.csia.ca/wp-content/upload...-Tax-Sheet.pdf


Concept is based on the Dingell-Johnson Act in the United States https://fishuntamed.com/dingell-johnson-act/ and the Pittman- Robertson Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittma...estoration_Act

The amount of money raised for conservation in the States under these programs significantly dwarfs licence fee revenues.

[damaltor]

Being a senior, I have no objection to paying for a license.
Sheesh, it's only $28.
I actually was wanting to buy a license this year, so I don't have to carry my driver's license around with me, but AlbertaRELM wouldn't let me??
I too would like to see a "Cassified Waters" fee, similar to BC here in AB!!

[Lefty-Canuck]

Make it a strictly user based system... you pay to play regardless of age, 5yrs an up... subsidize the youth and the seniors, but you pay to play. People enter their youngins into the draws to get more tags. I have kids and did it too, I have no issues with paying as long as it goes directly into the resource.

LC

[anything_but_fish]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Make it a strictly user based system... you pay to play regardless of age, 5yrs an up... subsidize the youth and the seniors, but you pay to play. People enter their youngins into the draws to get more tags. I have kids and did it too, I have no issues with paying as long as it goes directly into the resource.

LC

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

There are examples of what you suggest working though. In Wisconsin, there is a trout stamp. It has been written into legislation that all money from this stamp goes directly into habitat funding. It might also have some funds allocated to harvest regulations--I cannot remember for sure.

Point being, this was super tricky to implement and good luck getting the current administration to part with your license money in the current economic downturn. This is a thing politicians need to do, not biologists. Doesn't mean its impossible, just means its harder to get up and running.

I hope it happens for the fisheries, but I'm also a realist and don't see this happening any time soon.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

They can download the data through government open data. That said, he must of had a miscalculation or missed a zero. Page 1 alone adds up to close to 72,000 trout stocked. At the bottom it shows the total numbers stocked:



So the numbers are a "tad" off. As in a gaping chasm.

I think we need something called social media distancing. Limits the spread of useless conversations

Dear Mr snapfisher;

You apparently have no understanding of what the ACA does...nor have ever been to their website;

ALL numbers I have quoted come directly from the ACA website;

Number of fish and waterbodies stocked;

https://www.ab-conservation.com/down...ual_report.pdf

On page 2 it states;

"106090 twenty cm long trout (95250 rainbow. 5000 brown and 5840 brook trout) were stocked into 63 ponds"


The CEO salary also comes from this annual report, as do the revenue sources. The employee count/make up comes from the staff list available on the ACA website.

I suggest that you take some time to read the annual report so that you can see how your money that is being directed to the ACA is being spent.


Sadly,most don't even have a clue as to what the ACA does.


The number you quote regarding fish stocking INCLUDE the ones stocked by AEP.....that has NOTHING to do with the ACA dollars.

NO useless conversation here...