over 65 no more free fishing

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

May 6th, 2014, 07:32 AM
MikePal

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson

the whole issue in my eyes is the way its being done myself not being that old I would pay more for a license but I want to see some accountability for whats being done eg zone 11 has a limit of 5 brook trout with only one over 12.2inches(31 cm) this regulation is even for stocked lakes and no one is willing to say why

I'm sure if you sent an email to an MNR biologist they would be happy to tell you why they put the restrictions on...Have you tried that ?
May 6th, 2014, 07:35 AM
trimmer21

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think your missing the whole point....the MNR activities are largely funded my USER fees..ie, your licences etc....that way it is NOT a tax on taxpayers. Why should those who don't use the outdoors be expected to fund (thru taxation) for us to use the lakes for fishing.

The point is there are not getting enough funds to complete their mandate and are looking at ways to generate more operating capital....and if it's thru making 65+ fisherman pay $20 a yr.....why would anyone whine about it ?

$20 isn't the issue. The part that PO's me is the way the Liberals are just trying to s-l-i-d-e another in there under the table instead of coming straight out with it,up front and honest.
May 6th, 2014, 07:47 AM
MikePal

Quote:

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The part that PO's me is the way the Liberals are just trying to s-l-i-d-e another in there under the table instead of coming straight out with it,up front and honest.

This EBR is an internal MNR document..nothing to do with Liberals...
May 6th, 2014, 08:35 AM
denny22

I'll be 65 on 3 years. On one hand, I can't understand the big deal about $20. I'd gladly pay it, no problem. But then , I make lots of money right now, so $20 is a bottle of wine. I drink 2 per weekend. Then I read what Pat32rf has to say, and I can kind of relate. My wife might fish once a year, too. And I like my alcohol. Looking at it that way, $20 is now $40 per year, and it does hurt folks with fixed incomes. Maybe there should be some kind of fee waving for guys that volunteer - just a thought. It takes money and volunteers to execute a successful program. I'd volunteer anyway, but it doesn't seem fair to start chipping away at fixed incomes like that from guys who are already giving back. That will be me in a few years.
May 6th, 2014, 08:47 AM
mox72

Quote:

Originally Posted by denny22

I'll be 65 on 3 years. On one hand, I can't understand the big deal about $20. I'd gladly pay it, no problem. But then , I make lots of money right now, so $20 is a bottle of wine. I drink 2 per weekend. Then I read what Pat32rf has to say, and I can kind of relate. My wife might fish once a year, too. And I like my alcohol. Looking at it that way, $20 is now $40 per year, and it does hurt folks with fixed incomes. Maybe there should be some kind of fee waving for guys that volunteer - just a thought. It takes money and volunteers to execute a successful program. I'd volunteer anyway, but it doesn't seem fair to start chipping away at fixed incomes like that from guys who are already giving back. That will be me in a few years.

They'll just raise the taxes on alcohol if they dont have enough money so you might as well pay directly into the SPA.
May 6th, 2014, 09:02 AM
Bluebulldog

Quote:

Originally Posted by denny22

I'll be 65 on 3 years. On one hand, I can't understand the big deal about $20. I'd gladly pay it, no problem. But then , I make lots of money right now, so $20 is a bottle of wine. I drink 2 per weekend. Then I read what Pat32rf has to say, and I can kind of relate. My wife might fish once a year, too. And I like my alcohol. Looking at it that way, $20 is now $40 per year, and it does hurt folks with fixed incomes. Maybe there should be some kind of fee waving for guys that volunteer - just a thought. It takes money and volunteers to execute a successful program. I'd volunteer anyway, but it doesn't seem fair to start chipping away at fixed incomes like that from guys who are already giving back. That will be me in a few years.

Or have over 65 pay a token amount for reg licences, but conservation ones are free.

My dad is 74, he doesn't pay, and I like to think that he's entitled, as I'd like to have that little perk when I hit 65 as well.

Would he? Sure. Would I? Sure.

As mentioned either previously here, or in another thread, there is actually a decline in licenses, which means that program delivery will suffer, if that shortfall cant be reconciled somewhere.
May 6th, 2014, 11:37 AM
manson

mike pal I did discuss this with the biologist he felt this was his way of maintaining the fishery and I could understand control on the native fishery but on stocked lakes as well doesn't sit well with me as I said before the cost could increase to a hundred dollars all I want is transperancy with what the ministry is doing
May 6th, 2014, 11:55 AM
400bigbear

Well I see my buddy Mike Pal is once again supporting a money grab by the government . . Damn you Mike .LOL;) .

I chuckle at anybody saying that this is supporting the fish and wild life program . There is no such thing anymore . All were supporting is bureaucrats in this province and big pensions . I wont reach the age of 65 for another 11 years and hope to be out of this province of Ontario by then but in the mean time I have no intention of robbing our seniors .

Something to remember Mike and others . It starts with only $20 but increases never end .:scream:

TD
May 6th, 2014, 12:06 PM
MikePal

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Well I see my buddy Mike Pal is once again supporting a money grab by the government . . Damn you Mike .LOL;) ...I chuckle at anybody saying that this is supporting the fish and wild life program .

Now now BB....understanding and supporting are two different things....like anyone I'd rather have the $20 in my pocket....BUT if it means that the MNR can top up the SPA coffers for the all around good of the MNR...so be it. With the political idiots in T.O continuing to cut the MNR budget, we, as outdoorsmen need to ensure that the management of the resources is maintained, even if we, the collective we, have to dig deeper to make it happen.
May 6th, 2014, 12:17 PM
seabast

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Well I see my buddy Mike Pal is once again supporting a money grab by the government . . Damn you Mike .LOL;) .

I chuckle at anybody saying that this is supporting the fish and wild life program . There is no such thing anymore . All were supporting is bureaucrats in this province and big pensions . I wont reach the age of 65 for another 11 years and hope to be out of this province of Ontario by then but in the mean time I have no intention of robbing our seniors .

Something to remember Mike and others . It starts with only $20 but increases never end .:scream:

TD

No doubt that it will increase, 20$ for a year a fishing and countless of fish dinner it's cheap.

Maybe they should just increased the age to 75 instead of 65?!

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page