Fishing Forum  Fishing Regulations  
 Members |  Forum Rules |  Search
Pages: 1 2   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Fishing licenses.., Choose one.
 
Which license option would you choose??
1. No I wouldn't pay more. [ 23 ]  [69.70%]
2. Yes I'd pay more. [ 10 ]  [30.30%]
Total Votes: 33
Guests cannot vote 
fishmagnet
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 03:00 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4604
Member No.: 515
Joined: March 07, 2011




Just curious..
I know I wouldn't want to pay more..

PMEmail Poster
Top
RHYBAK
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 03:47 pm


Trophy Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 750
Member No.: 2426
Joined: January 02, 2013




How about the option...." Don't have to pay anymore"[B][I]

PMEmail Poster
Top
probability
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 04:04 pm


Parr Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 68
Member No.: 12651
Joined: December 21, 2016




To put this into context I assume this poll has to do with the "Ice fishing getting more popular thread" and the discussion of paying more for a fishing license to pay for more stocking.

PMEmail Poster
Top
fishmagnet
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 04:37 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4604
Member No.: 515
Joined: March 07, 2011




QUOTE (probability @ Jan 29, 2020 - 04:04 pm)
To put this into context I assume this poll has to do with the "Ice fishing getting more popular thread" and the discussion of paying more for a fishing license to pay for more stocking.

Yes I read the the other thread..Just curious would people be willing to pay more for a license in any season..personally I think we all ready over pay..

PMEmail Poster
Top
Longshank
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 08:22 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 8355
Member No.: 118
Joined: February 11, 2011




If we invest in more hatcheries which I think is needed then yes. Otherwise no

PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Winterfisher
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 09:07 pm


Fry
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Member No.: 16638
Joined: December 30, 2018




Same. I would happily pay much more if the extra went to hatcheries. To go to a local lake that is stocked according to pressure and have better fishing would be unreal. It would also relieve pressure on isolated lakes. Better all around. Pony up the cash.

PMEmail Poster
Top
fishmagnet
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 10:05 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4604
Member No.: 515
Joined: March 07, 2011




Unfortunately not everyone has any extra..
Some families/people live pay check to pay check as it is..
Like I said I think we pay enough and the MNR should put more into stocking IMO..

PMEmail Poster
Top
Winterfisher
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 10:20 pm


Fry
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Member No.: 16638
Joined: December 30, 2018




I think it's around 30 bucks a year right now. You'd spend more on gas and bait on a single trip. To help the fishery and longevity of it, I'd say its worth it

PMEmail Poster
Top
fishmagnet
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 10:38 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4604
Member No.: 515
Joined: March 07, 2011




60 to 80 bucks in gas to get the boat to a 2 hour destination and back. 20 bucks gas in the boat,25 bucks for bait add 10 to 20 bucks for launching.. That's just a one day trip.
Fishing trips are not cheap and that's not even buying breakfast , lunch and dinner for a family of 4..

PMEmail Poster
Top
Backwater
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 10:49 pm


Alevin
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 16
Member No.: 17541
Joined: August 12, 2019




To say that 30 bucks is too much money to fish every single day on literally thousands of lakes seems really out of touch. Its two packs of smokes. It's a bottle of whiskey. I'm not saying that it's easy for everyone to cough up, but life is about choices, often tough ones.

I have family in the UK who can't believe how good we have it, as they pay thousands of pounds each year to fish a small section of one river. Never mind the fact that it's completely free for children and seniors in Ontario.

I think the time of thinking it's a cheap/free resource is over. We can't invite thousands of newcomers to the country every year and swell cities to giant proportions, and expect the subsequent increased harvests to have no impact. We either have to severely reduce limits, or increase licensing costs and then put those funds directly into stocking. To the fellow who said "we pay enough and the MNR should put more into stocking"; which is it? The MNR needs our money to pay for stocking, it doesn't just materialize.

This post has been edited by Backwater on Jan 29, 2020 - 10:50 pm

PM
Top
fishmagnet
Posted on Jan 29, 2020 - 11:28 pm


World Record Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4604
Member No.: 515
Joined: March 07, 2011




What I'm saying is allocate more out of our license fees and put it toward stocking..
As it is Canadians have some of the highest taxes in the world and it seems every year there's something new for the government to tax us...

PMEmail Poster
Top
Fishabout
Posted on Jan 30, 2020 - 08:43 am


Parr Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 71
Member No.: 13839
Joined: March 03, 2017




Could just make one license. Even if you never keep fish you are still using the resource. MNR would get more money with just one license system.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Limacharley
Posted on Jan 30, 2020 - 09:48 am


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 177
Member No.: 11791
Joined: April 19, 2016




You folks who wouldn't mind to pay more sure trust the government.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Backwater
Posted on Jan 30, 2020 - 12:40 pm


Alevin
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 16
Member No.: 17541
Joined: August 12, 2019




QUOTE (Limacharley @ Jan 30, 2020 - 09:48 am)
You folks who wouldn't mind to pay more sure trust the government.

Interesting. That's one way to look at it.

One could also say that people who don't want to pay more than the current rate (what, .08 cents a day?) are entitled Leftists who expect something for (next to) nothing, but I doubt that's the case. Its probably the exact opposite in reality. See what I mean? Its more than likely that the person with the other opinion wants the same thing as you, and just sees a different path to get there. We all want fish stocks to thrive.

The bottom line is, something has to give. Can we support the current daily fish limits with 38 million Canadians? How about 50 million Canadians. 100 million? At what point does the human population pressure the fish stocks past a critical level, and what should we do about it? And indeed, so many other factors flow into this; technological advancements which allow higher harvest rates, environmental changes, disease etc etc.

I think what some of the commenters are saying here is that IF the government was diligent with the allocation of licensing fees towards increased resources in hatchery and stocking programs, it may be part of a solution. Can we trust the government to do so? That's another question. But for now, that's the system of management we are largely relying on for fisheries management so its entirely reasonable for anglers to look there for potential solutions. That doesn't mean they inherently lick the boot of Big Brother. I have a Samsung phone but that doesn't mean I "sure do trust all foreign tech companies". Life is nuanced.

What's it worth to me to be able to access any of the thousands of lakes in the province? Way more than a dime a day. Am I okay with a nebulous tax grab where the money doesn't go the hatcheries? Nope. Of course not. The question posed is so unintentionally loaded that for me at least, its nigh impossible to answer. But, its a good question and thanks for posting it.




PM
Top
1aquaholic
Posted on Jan 30, 2020 - 01:27 pm


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 137
Member No.: 12970
Joined: January 08, 2017




QUOTE (Backwater @ Jan 30, 2020 - 12:40 pm)
QUOTE (Limacharley @ Jan 30, 2020 - 09:48 am)
You folks who wouldn't mind to pay more sure trust the government.

Interesting. That's one way to look at it.

One could also say that people who don't want to pay more than the current rate (what, .08 cents a day?) are entitled Leftists who expect something for (next to) nothing, but I doubt that's the case. Its probably the exact opposite in reality. See what I mean? Its more than likely that the person with the other opinion wants the same thing as you, and just sees a different path to get there. We all want fish stocks to thrive.

The bottom line is, something has to give. Can we support the current daily fish limits with 38 million Canadians? How about 50 million Canadians. 100 million? At what point does the human population pressure the fish stocks past a critical level, and what should we do about it? And indeed, so many other factors flow into this; technological advancements which allow higher harvest rates, environmental changes, disease etc etc.

I think what some of the commenters are saying here is that IF the government was diligent with the allocation of licensing fees towards increased resources in hatchery and stocking programs, it may be part of a solution. Can we trust the government to do so? That's another question. But for now, that's the system of management we are largely relying on for fisheries management so its entirely reasonable for anglers to look there for potential solutions. That doesn't mean they inherently lick the boot of Big Brother. I have a Samsung phone but that doesn't mean I "sure do trust all foreign tech companies". Life is nuanced.

What's it worth to me to be able to access any of the thousands of lakes in the province? Way more than a dime a day. Am I okay with a nebulous tax grab where the money doesn't go the hatcheries? Nope. Of course not. The question posed is so unintentionally loaded that for me at least, its nigh impossible to answer. But, its a good question and thanks for posting it.

I couldn't agree more. These people (uh oh i sounded like don cherry there lol) who think they already pay too much clearly have no idea the luxury they have at their disposal and how quickly it'll be gone when left to be overfished.
The argument that gas and boat launch, food etc already make it too expensive is laughable. If you're so concerned about the extra money for your trip, pack a lunch and enjoy a lake close to home. Don't suggest that extra money shouldn't be charged and allocated towards supporting a dwindling fishery because you cant afford to go out for lunch before you launch your boat.
Or we keep going the course we're on and you can pay 10 times that in gas to get to a lake that still has fish in it.
Its called investing. No difference wether you're investing in a fishery that will be here for our kids or investing in a plan for retirement.
$30 lisc fee is a joke. If anything its clear evidence that the government ISN'T doing enough! How can they with $30??

PMEmail Poster
Top

Topic Options Pages: 1 2  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 

Fishing Northern Lakes
Fishing forum for Northern Ontario, including Muskoka, Algonquin & Bancroft Area Lakes. Fishing for brook trout, lake trout, bass, walleye, pickerel, muskie, pike, crappie, perch, splake and more. Northern Ontario fishing at it's Best!