Podcast: April Vokey – Now Available!
- This topic has 30 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Feb 20, 2009 at 9:55 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys –
Finally got April on the phone last night. It will take me a couple days to edit up the audio but we should be ready to go by Monday.
Zach
Man I wish I could get her to come and work for me. Might be hard to explain to my wife but i KNOW my customers would love her!
Joel
Just listened to this podcast on the computer. I love April’s passion for her water and making sure it there for others to enjoy for years to come.
Nice job on this podcast Zach. Next time see if you can get her to sing. Would love to hear that singing voice since it is better than her fishing skills!
Joel
Like I’ve already said quite impressive podcast with April. But something that I found out from listening to that podcast was about April’s fundraiser on Facebook called Flies For Fins and that is the main point of this post. It’s best to describe it in April’s own words from the Flies For Fins site:
Listen up!!! This message is for you whether you live in Norway, Oregon or British Columbia….Our steelhead are suffering and need your help!
I have started a fundraiser called Flies For Fins. I don’t want your money, but I do need some of your time and tying materials.
I am working with Reaction Fly and Tackle, Pacific Angler, Michael and Young Fly Shop, Sea-Run Fly and Tackle and Whistler FlyFishing to raise money for the Steelhead Society (steelheadsociety.org).
Each location will carry a cork board that is full of steelhead flies MADE BY YOU. These flies will be sold at the shops, where proceeds will be donated to the Steelhead Society. This money will be put towards habitat restoration and several other similar projects, which ultimately will help to save all anadromous species.
In the middle of each cork board will be a graph that is updated weekly to show how much money has been raised.
Mailing flies only takes a couple stamps (just make sure that they can be flattened in an envelope.)
This is for a great cause, please choose to take some of your time and flies out of your box for it.
We need flies RIGHT NOW, so let’s pull togther and get on it!!
Flies can be shipped to:8505 Norman Cres.
Chilliwack, B.C.
Canada
V2P 5C6Feel free to send one fly, or ten! Make them as fancy or as plain as you would like. Please include your name.
Envelope, stamp, fly. It’s that simple.
Please do your part and help us make a difference!Thank you so much,
April.Check out the Flies For Fins on Facebook — great concept — people tie and donate flies — these are sold in local fly shops — funds used to help preserve BC STeelhead stocks — and educate people too — and it is Flies For Fins — those could be any type of “Fin” (or fish) in any part of the country (or even the world) — this is what April had in mind when she started this up — so maybe this is something we could do through local fly shops to raise funds to protect local “Fins” — my hat’s off to April for this great idea — definitely check out Flies For Fins and join up
Personally, I think this is a great way to raise funds. It doesn’t take much more than tying a steelhead pattern, popping it in an envelope, slapping a stamp on it and sending it off to Flies For Fins. Or to buy the flies tied by others who have donated to this worthy cause. I hope you check it out.
Tight Lines,
Mike
April’s pretty cool and Koodos for starting the Fins for Flies program, but people should be aware the BC “gov’t” is starting to go out of their way to make non resident fishing, in particular DIY angling trips very difficult.
So I can’t help but question (searches for right word) the morality of enlisting aid from non residents when the ministry is contemplating making it even more onerous on “non-residents”.
If you are a non-guided “Non-Resident” or non-guided “Non-Resident Alien” angler: Your Classified Waters Licence for Class I or Class II waters may be purchased from a provincial licence vendor or directly from a licenced angling guide. It is sold on a per diem basis and is date and water specific. Although anglers may purchase as many Classified Waters Licences as they wish, each licence must not exceed 8 consecutive days.
According to Provincial documents, the goal of an AMP is to “regulate angler use to levels which maintain the quality of the angling experience. The AMP is not intended as a conservation tool, and as such does not have within its scope the prescription of conservation-based regulatory measures.” The idea is to manage fishing pressure and overcrowding by making it more expensive for anglers to fish. An expectation is that anglers who have a choice will “vote with their feet” to escape the fees and fish waters in Montana or Alberta.
Since the AMP was implemented, estimated non-resident angler days on the Elk River have decreased by 20%, to 6675 in 2005. On the St. Mary’s River, the reduction has been 43% – from a high of 1641 non-resident angler days in 2003 to 941 in 2005. Something is keeping anglers off southeastern BC classified waters.
Jeff Burrows is Senior Fisheries Biologist, Ministry of Environment, Kootenay Region located in Nelson. “In 5-10 years the expectation is a capped number of legal guided and unguided angler days. Also improvements in regulation compliance and perceptions of fishing quality,” he said. “Conservation is a secondary goal”
The BC”AMP” is targeted at non residents, to protect “local experience”.
As a resident of Ontario Canada who has to hire guides, pay extra fees over and above to fish other provinces including water specific regulation,
Couple things Will.
Higher fees: No problem.
Using Ontario as an example I gaurantee you non residents don’t pay for liscences that are a) Water specific, and b) Date specific nor are waters “classified”.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/licencesWant to fish for Steelhead in BC for a week?
$40 per day, for class I waters. Date/water specific. Just for the licsence.River blown?
Too bad, so sad.
Care to spend another $280.00 to fish the river down the road?The classified waters of B.C. are forty-two (42) highly productive trout streams. These streams are classified as either Class I or Class II and are listed in the Water Specific Tables for each Region or a listing is provided in the Wildlife Act under the Angling and Scientific Collection Regulation [PDF 43KB]. The Classified Waters Licensing System was created to preserve the unique fishing opportunities provided by these waters, which contribute significantly to the province’s reputation as a world class fishing destination.
All anglers required to buy a basic Angling Licence must also purchase a Classified Waters Licence before fishing on a stream during the period when it is classified:
This licence is required in addition to the basic angling licence and any other stamps required by regulation.
Also note that a steelhead surcharge stamp is required at all times when fishing for steelhead, or when fishing classified waters during the period when steelhead are known to be present. The specific times when a steelhead licence is mandatory are listed in the Water Specific Tables for each Region.
Again its not aimed at “conservation”, its aimed at protecting the “local experience”. That in their own words. Conservation is secondary.
Those same anglers that sqwauked about non residents are free to travel to most other provinces an not incur anywhere near the same predjudicial “treatment”.
Ontario by comparison
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165336.htmlLike I said I think its great she’s taken the inititive, I just have a philosophical issue asking for non resident help, when the “gov’t is intentionally targeting non residents punatively.
New Fondland has guide rules but they arent as bad, not even close 🙂
/edit add
Basic license: non resident 8 day $36.00
Class I specific river ( you can’t move): 320.00
Conservation surcharge Steelhead: $60.00$410 bucks for 1 week. Assuming non guided, class I waters. Lets hope the rivers not blown 🙂
Ontario: What $50? any day and water good for 1 year.
John raises some very valid points. The joke that ‘BC’ stands for bring cash rings pretty true.
These fee structures are similar to European fee structures in the way that apply to certain waters or parts of waters, but they are also very dissimilar. For the most part, river fees in Europe are going to private clubs that use the money to obtain river access rights; handle any necessary stocking programs; towards stream improvement; and for enforcement of regulations. In most instances, these clubs are not out there to make a profit (I am not as familiar with the workings of British clubs, so I apologize if I incorrectly painted them with the same brush).
River fees in BC, on the other hand, are going directly into government coffers. I have absolutely no problem with this, but where does this money go next? How much is making it through the Beaurocracy to trickle back into the resource ? As John said, they are not aimed specifically at conservation. They are championed by outfitters, lodges, guides, etc. that are making money from the resource and are in the interest of making them more money.
For example, there was recently a bill (or whatever the BC governemtn equivalent is) to the regulate the entire Skeena watershed so that Non-Redisident Anglers could NOT fish without being accompanied by a licensed guide…much like fishing in New Foundland, New Brunswick or Labrador. I believe it was to be voted on a couple months ago, and since I havent heard anyything else Ill assume it wasn’t passed (or it hasnt actually been voted on)…that it hasn’t passed isnt the point, the point is that it was even suggested. How many of you have dreams of fishing the SKeena one day? I, for one, do, and I, for one, not only prefer doing things on my own, but can hardly afford the costs associated with a weeklong trip involving daily guide fees.
I have not listened to this Podcast yet, but I will get around to it eventually. I just wanted to discuss the points Will and John brought up. I am not against higher fees to protect a resource, but I am against fees that are not aimed at conservation…especially when they are aimed at me for the sole reason that I dont live in the area. In the end, I’ll just fish elsewhere…maybe that is their goal, to dissuade anglers from travelling to the area, thus ‘conserving’ the resource.
Ill also not help the resource by donating money to their causes. They may be important for the survival of these fish, which is a worthy cuase, but I have a problem giving money to people that want to make me pay them MORE money (or worse, ban me) to come to their house. So go ahead, ban me from the resource. When those mining, logging, and energy companies decide they need to rape the resource to make a buck, you aren’t going to have me and other foriegn anglers bankrolling the fight to protect them.
Sorry for the rant.
Edit: this rant is rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Oh well.
Wow.
Wow, I didn’t think I had that much to drink last night. I will try to be more concise with this post.
I have not listened to this Podcast (yet), so I do not know which watersheds April is guiding upon. I am assuming we are speaking of the Skeena watershed.
Here is a link to the proposed angling management plan. A key (read: the key) driving force behind its proposal:
For years, people have told the Ministry of Environment that waters in the Skeena River system have persistent steelhead angler-use issues – crowding, disproportionate numbers of non-resident anglers or guided anglers, lack of opportunities for resident anglers, illegal guiding, and poor angler etiquette – leading to a degraded quality of angling experience. Spring 2008 consultations confirmed these concerns about angler use on a number of waters in the Skeena River watershed.
In response to these concerns, the ministry implemented the Quality Waters Strategy on the Skeena River and its major tributaries. The Quality Water Strategy is a process to develop a draft Angling Management Plan on priority waters of the Skeena River watershed.
Q: Where is conservation of the resource and its native fish stocks mentioned? A: It isn’t. Much like other BC Class A waters (read: Fernie, Kamloops, etc.), these regulations are NOT being put into place to conserve the resource. The only entity benefitting from these regulations are local guides and outfitters. The rest of the local economy, an economy based upon this fishing tourism, WILL be adversely effected. This economy is based upon non-guided, non-resident anglers…people who are the majority of users of the resource. As soon as this use is shut off, local tackle shops, bars, restaraunts, hotels, etc. lose their flow of income. Once the flow of dollars from non-residents is shut off, the ability is lost to fund fights against mining and energy companies that want to extract natural resources at the expense of the watershed and its fish. These fights are bankrolled by foriegn anglers! But the BC government doesn’t seem to care,instead wanting to alienate the river’s greatest group of supporters.
Here is a link to the petition against this Angling Management Plan. I would advise any of you wishing to contribute to BC steelhead read up on these issues BEFORE opening your checkbook.
I will apologize for turning a discusion of what I am sure is a wonderful Podcast into a debate on the politics of resource management, but I think the issue needs to be brought up.
Just to put how punative the BC AMP is towards non residents into context.
Ontario which receives the highest non resident angling pressure by far charges $50.00 for an annual liscence thats allows the angler to fish for any species, anywhere, anytime.
NewFoundland which requires guides for non residents charges $53.00 for an annual
http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/guide2008/p2.aspBC for a week (water specific) the afore mentioned $410.00
If we wan’t to compare both the “experience” and “plights” of Steelhead vs Atlantic Salmon…Well theres no comparison in either category.
Ontario gets about 73% of all non resident anglers canada wide
My understanding of the AMP (Angler Management Plan) is that it was laregely lobbied for and brought into effect around 2002/2003 by locals, outfitters, guides, angling associations who were upset about pressure, crowding etc from non residents, illegal guiding etc. Local tourism business associations are against it.
And now they want help??
Well when they start paying $400 for their tags, when they
Hey guys –
I understand where you are coming from but I would offer a competing perspective. Basically, I think I can sum up John’s and others’ argument as follows:
We know the steelhead and salmon in BC are threatened, but the BC government is obstructing out-of-province anglers from using their resources, so we shouldn’t assist them in conserving their fish.
Here’s why I think that viewpoint may be a bit backward:
(1) The BC government is primarily motivated to restrict the resource to locals because the resource is limited. When the fish were there in huge numbers, the government was more relaxed, because there were plenty of fish to go around. The province is now in the endgame of the Tragedy of the Commons and is enacting protectionist policies to allow its residents to sip the last drop.
(2) The logical way to reverse this policy at the root level is to alleviate the perceived need for restriction. That means supporting conservation groups like April is doing, so those groups can go after the commercial mining, fishing, and extractive industries which have diminished the resource. My understanding is that if the commercial fishing, gravel mining, and industrial uses of the Thompson watershed were ended or decreased, the fish would likely bounce back.
(3) Finally, we have a moral tool at our disposal. How ridiculous does the BC government look, trying to wall off the resources for its own (apparently unappreciative) people, when outsiders are freely giving to conserve a resource that they are only likely to get to fish once in a great while? You have a situation where people from outside the province have recognized the uniqueness of the fishing there, while people within the province are concerned only with their own self-interest and enrichment. Short term, the outsiders look like starry-eyed idealists who get nothing for their philanthropic gestures. Long term, the insiders are revealed as voracious consumers of what should be a national and international treasure.
(4) This isn’t a new fight. This extractive industry v. conservation interest battle is playing out all over the world (Bristol Bay, Alaska; Atlantic long-line tuna and marlin; Crooked Creek, Arkansas; Everglades, Florida — I could go on and on and on). Usually, conservation interests get railroaded by the deep pockets of heavy industry. But not always. It isn’t starry-eyed idealism to hope that community pressure to conserve can overturn the rapacious desires of a small industrial oligarchy. In fact, conservation interests win all the time. Everglades is now a National Park. Crooked Creek, Arkansas gravel mining has ceased. The Pebble Mine is likely to founder as its investors realize the political capital expended is not worth the possible gain (especially as that gold is not going to be easy to get).
I’m not much of an idealist myself; conservation interests usually lose or at best reach a weak compromise. But not always, and after all, fish are pretty prolific. Even a weak compromise is likely to maintain the Thompson as a steelhead and salmon fishery for the present, and one day in the future the regional government may change its mind on what resources are worth promoting.
Zach
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.