Mike L.
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The thing I hate most about fly fishing are fly fisherman who think they are better than everyone else. Especially those who spend their time looking for ways to criticize others instead actually fishing.
Come on Zach, it’s television. Who cares.
Amen.
Whatever is sitting in front of me at the moment, even swill like this:
Honestly, I am a big fan of the Belgian ales.
I heretofor declare the following video the best video on all of Youtube.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TKerWEQono[/media]
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have the poking tool.
It pokes with the best of them.
I fish Meiser rods.
I was going to call you out for misspelling ‘stomping ground’, but after a Google* search it appears ‘stamping ground’ and ‘stomping ground’ are interchangeable. Must be a souther freaker thing.
*From hotspotting tool to dictionary…is there anything Google can’t do? 😉
Zach, any shop can sell the rods…as long as they are able to order 50 rods of whichever make/model they wish to sell.
