Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Matuka Jack]

Hey Matuka, let's not get personal. I'm not trying to bamboozle anybody, supply and demand is a relatively easy concept to understand and in this case the elasticity of the supply curve is unaffected by price (in realtion to the good we are supplying-licences is infinite), and has no bearing, it would be the sustainablity of the resource that would be in question, adding/subtracting anglers, catch rates blah, blah, blah. I actually studied economics at SFU. I don't think we are taking SAT tests or final exams, standardized tests can be and often are done on computers, much like a learners license in driving. I'm not suggesting a new department be set up, nor would one be needed. The initial set up cost would definately be there, however, results and even licenses themselves can then be attained online, not to mention perhaps statistical information that can be made more readily available online should people wish to record there tagging their. I really do think we can improve our fishery in more ways than one ( than simply adding more fish), you eveidently do not share my opinion in that our fishery and its management needs improving. BwiBwi your right , but at least ignorance could not be used as a defense when a fellow angler reports him or her to DFO or simply tries to right a wrong. Tight lines

Based on what you said:
1.  How many people would you need to issue infinite numbers of license?
           --Hello!!!!!!!!!!!! we live in a finite planet called Earth.
2.  Do you really understand what is meant by elasticity of the supply curve?
           --I am not to sure if understand what a supply curve is and how it could be determined.
3.  Do you think SFU would be proud to be named as your educator for the level of knowledge that you have in the subject area?
           --I'll show some of my colleagues at SFU what you wrote.(LOL)
4.  How many computers would you need to set up testing centres throughout Canada?
           --FYI, computers does not run by themselves and they cannot exist without using up space.
5.  Do you think that all people in Canada should have computers and learn to use it?
           --It sounds like you are making it a prerequisite to getting a fishing license too.  Or maybe, the Government should give everybody a computer and courses to learn to use them as part of the so called "initial set up cost". That way everybody can get their fishing license online and all fishermen can frequent fishing forums.


Well, my point in all of these is that some people ideas does not make sense financially or philosophically.  People are wasting Government's time (taxpayers' monies) with regard to the "flossing issues".  In my observation, "flossing" is not the most productive way to fish.  If you spend some time observing the "Gong Show" on the Vedder R. you will see the low level of success that they are having.  That is why I never "floss" for coho.  It is easier to catch the fish if they like what you are offering.

As far as "snagging", it is against the law.  If people stop wasting Government's time about nonsensical things, they probably will be able to allocate more resources to enforcing the rules.

I think too many people waste the Government's time on issues that are not of significant values.  The time that Government spend on dealing with people whinning about "flossing" could be better spend on other things.  Things like these is probably the reason that recreational fisheries do not command a lot of respect and credibility.

I think people should focus more on protecting, conserving and enhancing the fisheries and the environment.

[winter steel]

  Matuka, as I was taught by your colleagues, I guess I am a poor reflection on their ability to teach or maybe I'm just dumb . Elasticity of the supply curve, as I was taught is affected by the price of the good/service in question (Micro 101 Doug Allen). In this case I suppose your right, if the cost of producing that piece of paper (license) was to become astronomical than sure, I suppose the points on the curve or the curve itself will shift or move, I'm sure you can correct me on that either way. A finite planet called earth, how philosophical. You need to know how to operate a computer to get a driver's license. It is funny Matuka, I just came back from an open house held by DFO and found it quite educational in terms of their initiatives, directions and problems facing the fishery and fish (thanks Ron Kadowaki). While you on the other hand find it necessary to only critique what I have to say. Are you the official opposition? By the way you have a couple of grammatical errors (tenses), maybe you should critique your highschool teacher . Thoughtful discussion is never a waste of time, nor does it cost the government a dime.
    Flossing not an effective way to catch fish!!! Gooey, Bug Pumper and I have witnessed numerous occassions where an angler flossed his way to his limit. During steelhead season there was a chap that we nicknamed the "dentist" because of his proficiency with wool and a long leader knowing that the steelhead sat in a particular section of the run. It is not just flossing, but an overall etiquette and respect towards fishing and fish in general. I think the only thing we can agree on is conserving and enhancing our fisheries and environment. How do we go about doing that Matuka? According to Rod (DFO official) money is simply not available to the department and raising license fees/user fees is not an option. So what do we do? Ask some of your colleagues like Eric Poole (avid fisherman who was a T.A. up at SFU) and see what they can come up with. We can then submit their suggestions to the sport advisory council who can pass it on to DFO and the provincial government, instead of just wasting our time talking about it.

[Big Steel]

That is pretty funny Matula.  I thought that we were talking about BC's fishery, I didn't know that the rest of Canada worried about BC's fishery.  If you are suggesting that the government try to imposed these restrictions across Canada, well that is not going to work for so many reasons.  Also the fact that you are trying to base your argument of your supply curve on a cross Canada demand seem a bit off as well.  This is a BC problem, I am pretty sure that the bass and walleye fishermen of Manitoba and Ontario could care less about BC's fishery!!!

    Matuka you raise some excellent  points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods . Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes.  Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.

What do you think the elasticity of the supply curve in this case?
The price of the license would definitely have to increase dramatically in order to support the extra cost of setting up offices to handle testing and all the associated administrative cost of a more complicated licensing process. Do really think $90 from fishermen that buys the license would be able to cover the cost to set it up all accross Canada? I really do not think you have any grasp of the numbers involved regarding the cost to have all that set up. I suggest that you look up what the staffing, buildings and all the associated budgetary cost for any government departments. You will a better idea on how much it would cost to do your suggestion. Then you count how many fishing license get sold every year. Then you plug it into this formula:

Fishing license price increase = (Cost of the administration of the policy per year) / (Number of fishing License sold per year)

Just because you read some highschool micro economics book does not mean you can bamboozle everyone.

[Matuka Jack]

Is DFO Federal Government department?
    --Correct me if I am wrong.  I always think that they are.  I guess that would make me very strange for believing that it is so.

[Fish Assassin]

Fisheries and Oceans is a federal department.

[Big Steel]

Is DFO Federal Government department?
 --Correct me if I am wrong. I always think that they are. I guess that would make me very strange for believing that it is so.

I still don't see what that has to do with this.  Each province has different license fees and regulations.  Each province has different species of fish, thus requiring different regs.  It may be federally run, but to think that the government would impose a country wide licensing program and dramatically raise license fees across Canada to fix a problem in bc is a little far fetched!!!
 Other than the transplanted chinnook and coho in Ontario, isn't bc the only province with west coast salmon.  Thus again making this a bc problem and not a canada problem.  To dramatically increase license fees might even cause more of a problem.  Do you think that there would be the resources out there to police this properly?  Or that people would fish anyways?  I don't really know myself, I do know that we won't have to worry about that far ahead, because I don't see this getting off the ground at all. So kinda makes me wonder why people are getting so worked up over this!!!!!!

[summersteel]

I personally think leader restrictions would help alot.  Flossings affectiveness goes down alot with a shorter leader. Of course people will still floss fast water with thier shorter leaders, but if it eliminates the long leader crowd its a step in the right direction.

[Matuka Jack]

Big Steel,
Like it or not, agree or disagree: BC Salmon fisheries is under the jurisdiction of the DFO.  Are you interested in changing that too?

Bug Pumper,
I would never under estimate peoples creativity when people are determine to accomplish something.  Imposing a leader restriction would create a necessity.  I do not know if you would agree, but "necessity is the mother of invention".  People will come up with more effective way of "flossing".

[Gooey]

Matuka, in referrance to your comment to Bug Pumper: thats why it is critical that any changes  be followed up with clearer regulations and possibly more enforcement.  As you and I have discussed, some simple verbage changes to the regs would help clarify what is a fair or foul hooked fish. 

At the DFO consultation last night I mentioned how the reg states that a fish must be hooked" in the mouth" and many fishermen think in the mouth includes: a flossed fish hook outside in, in the side of the jaw, on the top of the nose, etc.  DFO was shocked by this.  I also suggested that the verbage should be "INSIDE the mouth"...they liked my ideas enuff to put me in touch with  the team that write the regs.

I think you are missing Big Steels point, changes dont need to be canada wide, they can take place provincially even tho they are managed by a federal entity....thats all he is saying.

Apparrently around the time of the east coast collapse BC was very close to gaining control of its fiseries from DFO...sounds like it was decided that provincial government is too volitile and that the higher level of consistancy at the Federal level is whats needed for LONG TERM management plans and stratagies.  But at one time yes, we almost did get control of our fisheries.

[Matuka Jack]

If the rules or policies are deemed to be discriminatory it will be challenge on the contitutionality.  It is guaranteed to be overturned.  All that would happen is that Constitutional Lawyers fills up their pocket with tax payers' monies.  The cost on both sides will be paid by our monies.

[Gooey]

I have no idea what you mean?  Are you referring to my post re reg changes, WS - leader restrictions, BigS - liscencing fee increases?  what do you mean?

Either way I fail to see how any of it is discriminatory or unconstitutinal!?!?!?  Please elaborate!

[Old Black Dog]

Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.

In that case, I think it's a good idea to find out just how much of the licence fee goes back to the resource. Actually, let's start by finding out how much of the salmon conservation stamp fee goes back to our fish. I don't have the exact value with me right now, but I recall it was a lot less than what I had expected.

It is $1.00

[pontooner]

Guess I should throw a way my fly rod now , in fear of being labled a FLOSSER, or maybe just use 1 foot of lead in the river. That should work real well

[Gooey]

Pontooner, thanks for coming out bud!  You and your insightful post, most definitely are an asset to our sector!  thank you once again.   

3 questions for you:

When you go out there with a fly rod is your INTENTION to floss a fish...I assume the answer is NO.   

Now tell me, a guy with a 10 foot lead, 3oz, bb who is sitting in a bottle neck like KWB, as an inteligent indivual I assume, what do you think his intentions are?  What do you think the product of his actions are?

Who do you think represents the "problem" on the vedder: a handful of fly fishers or the hordes of flossers?!?

Do us all a favour and think things thru before you post your comments.

PS - as Winter Steel stated, if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the problem....its time people started to make a conscious descision as to what side of the fence they are on!

[newsman]

     I can't wait for the day that DFO imposes a leader restriction. The scene on the Vedder/Capilano/Chehalis and even the Chekamus (to some extent) is sickening. I really do not understand what satisfaction a person can get from landing a fish that has been lined/flossed. Are your egos so important that you have to catch a fish at all costs. Maybe you do not know any better, ( I doubt it) but really ignorance is no excuse. I would love to see an angler have to pass a test before he/she can receive thier license. Fish ID's, basic river etiquette, catch and release practices, and how to use the regulations. Fishing is not a right, but a privelage and ensuring one knows the basic regulations and restrictions leaves no chance for them to plead ingorance when busted. Also, more visuals on rivers highliting specific regulations could help the general angling public regulate the streams better themselves. I was on the Vedder Saturday and did not make many friends as I was very vocal about the lack of "angling" (by definition)  going on. I firmly believe that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem and river etiquette is becoming a huge problem to fishermen and even more so the fish.
    As a side bar, the bait ban that has been proposed for next year would only encourage more flossing. I understand the reasoning behind a bait ban on certain rivers to protect juveniles/steelhead and whatever else. However, I think the use of larger hooks and perhaps spot closings would be a better answer to the problem. I say ban wool after what I saw this weekend. Tight Lines.

Yah right from a department that promotes fish farms and their sea lice, while turning a blind eye to the devistation. And you look to these guys for recomendations; that's like having a child molester  make our laws concerning child abuse.