Ontario Shore Fishing Forum

Now this ticked me off………….. big time:


I regularly visit the Grand River Conservation Authority website – today I noticed a link to Environment Canada survey(s) they hoped people would participate in.

[attachment=892]

………… so I did the “fishing” survey…………. (they also have boating and swimming surveys)

Near the end of the survey ……….out of nowhere…………. they ask if I would pay $160 per year to continue my use of the river………….. No conditions – No explanation………… only a lame statement that they were looking to get the public’s reaction to such a fee, and that we should realize it costs money for all the programs “they” fund.

It’s an ambush survey – and in my mind this question is totally out of place, and when asked properly it should state in a LOT more detail the basis and conditions…………. Etc………. etc………………

Well they got my frigging VERY NEGATIVE reaction in the closing "additional comments section" – loud and clear……………………..

I invite you to do the same – this is BS!.............. and by the way - “they” fund ZIP – it’s “our” money, or service organizations’, private donations, or corporate sponsorship $ , not theirs………….

Regards,

OldTimer

I guess Harper's crippling cuts to Environment Canada are forcing them to seek out alternative ways to fund their programs.
Parks Canada is in the same boat.

I'd be writing Harpo the Clown and CCing your MP if I were you.

Clean waters benefit EVERYONE, so everyone should pay with tax dollars. The 'user pays' idea for any aspect of the environment is complete BS. Consumptive use, like fishing or hunting, is already financed out of license fees.

Frightening that specific waters may one day be converted to "pay to play" above and beyond a provincial fishing licence. I could understand if it was paying to fish on private land, but this isn't the case here.

I think this may already be the case in some areas in Europe. I don't know any details though.

it is like that in Europe (France anyways) a lot of places are private lakes or ponds which someone owns. And even some of the public parks are pay to fish. Though the carp are feed year round get huge which is like the best upside ever.

The European way of resource management is ludicrous. I would HATE Canada to turn into that sad state of affairs.

Will I pay $160 for continued use of the river? Heck no. The river belongs to the public...not GRCA...not the government. We have the right to the resources that the river provides.

I agree to management of the resource, but I do not agree to a fee to access the resource in the name of "management". Maybe I should start managing my money better and start cutting back my contribution to the government's coffers...they can't manage it properly anyways...

If they ever did institute a fee for swimming, fishing, etc., I think the bast thing would be to have as many people as possible simply ignore it. Get as many users as we can to congregate at a predetermined spot and start enjoying the day. And, short of outright harassment, put pressure on anyone who acquiesces and pays up. Make the enforcement so difficult that it can't be effectively done.

(07-28-2014 04:04 PM)Dave Bailey Wrote: [ -> ]If they ever did institute a fee for swimming, fishing, etc., I think the bast thing would be to have as many people as possible simply ignore it.

Problem is........... I have a strong hunch we have as many people as possible already ignoring things............. on many topics and levels... in the public and private sectors...... and within all government(s) and service(s).

On second thought.....Maybe I'm wrong though........ possibly more could ignore things.....smile