Podcast: April Vokey – Now Available!

[Mike L.]

Hey Zach –

I understand the difference.

[Zach Matthews]

Mike –

Yes, you probably are.

[John Bennett]

Without a doubt Zach it’s a complex issue. I agree with alot of what you’ve said. And make no mistake I think what April is doing is commendable. Moreso because she has some “celebrity” status. She’s putting that to good use, something few of us can ever do.

I’m a huge proponent of conservationlism. Ive done my fair share and then some. Im sure most have. I’m also somewhat fanatical about access to fishing. So for me anyways, this is a moral delima of right vs right.

I have a hard time and philosophical difference with a

[Mike L.]

Ok.

I disagree with your first assertion.

[mike ormsby]

From Zach:”My main point was, “if” there were more fish again, the need for those restrictions would be lessened or ended.

[Zach Matthews]

Hey Mike –

I did what you suggested and talked to a former fly fishing travel agent friend of mine who has been watching the BC situation closely.

[Mike L.]

Mike,

You make some good points.  In no way am I saying that April is not trying to help BC steelhead.  Her efforts are commendable.  As you point out, this is a really great idea that can be used to raise money for programs anywhere in the world.  

My beef is that if – and I really want to put emphasis on ‘if’ – April and the folks involved in Flies for Fins are involved in pushing for this AMF, then the message they are sending is: You are NOT welcome to fish our waters, but go ahead and send us money so we may improve fishing for ourselves.  

Again, I put emphasis on the word ‘if’.  I would love to hear April’s views on the subject.  In fact, where she to openly to say she is opposed to the AMF, I will happily tie and contribute a couple dozen Lady Caroline spey flies to her program.  

Zach,

I think your 50% number is very low.  These proposed regulations are NOT based upon conservation of a resource, they are ENTIRELY based upon the monetary interests of the parties involved.  I am sorry, but if the government is going to put into effect regulations in the sole interest of these parties, they are most certainly not going to lift these regulations unless the interests of these parties warrants a change.  You yourself just acknowledged this has NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSERVATION, so there is no reason to believe they would be lifted based upon the conservation status of the fish.

[John Bennett]

Zach the AMP has been *in* effect since 2004.

Initially the daily class I tag was $20.00/day for non residents, today, 4 years later it’s $40. There was talk I beleive of raising it to $80 for 2009. As well there is talk of bringing in “tag caps” for non residents. This latter I think was or may have been shot down.

In a nutshell it’s getting worse, not better.

Again I’ll ask. If the system is so fragile, Steelhead so threatened, and “conservation” so paramount. Why aren’t they jacking the fees to exhorbitant levels for residents, who I would think use the resource more?

Let’s not forget that these fees apply to most Trout Waters. So it’s not just Steelhead. It’s the rivers and streams that one might want to fish for Bull and Cutts as well. The only difference is that the “conservation” surcharge for them is half the price of the $60 surcharge for Steel.

And the industry often wonder’s why there’s a negative perception amongst the greater angling public that Fly fishing is a rich mans sport.

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).

Everything I’ve been led to beleive and everything I can find on the subject would seem to suggest those are the types of groups (note careful wording 🙂 ) that lobbied for the AMP.

It’s a complex and contentious issue.

I wonder what SSBCs stance is on the AMP

[Anonymous]

Again I’ll ask. If the system is so fragile, Steelhead so threatened, and “conservation” so paramount. Why aren’t they jacking the fees to exhorbitant levels for residents, who I would think use the resource more?

This just might be the best statement of this whole thread.

[Mike L.]

Again I’ll ask. If the system is so fragile, Steelhead so threatened, and “conservation” so paramount. Why aren’t they jacking the fees to exhorbitant levels for residents, who I would think use the resource more?

This just might be the best statement of this whole thread.

To be fair, the heaviest use is not local anglers.  Certainly a local angler may fish the rivers more times in a year than any individual non-resident, but on any given day the number of non-residents on the river is going to be substantially higher than the number of locals.  

[john michael white]

I just became aware of this issue a few days ago as I was reading The Drake.  There is a series of 3 articles that are pretty interesting and talk about the AMP in the Winter 2009 issue, for anyone who hasn’t seen this yet.

[Author]

Posts