Proposal in Quebec - Page 2 - Fly Fishing Forum
Classic Atlantic Salmon No pursuit rivals salmon rivers, flies & legacy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-06-2005, 09:00 AM
Gaspe Salmon's Avatar
Gaspe Salmon Gaspe Salmon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gaspe Peninsual, Petite and Grand Cascapedia, Bonaventure, Nouvelle etc...
Posts: 82
For the record, in case you missed the other post

Dear Anglers,

I would like to try to set the record straight on a few issues that have been popping up on fishing boards around the world in regards to accessibility on Quebec Atlantic salmon rivers.

Here are the facts:

1. On December 4th, at the annual Quebec Outfitters Federation meeting in Quebec City a motion was passed that stated the following: (The QOF would like to propose looking into the possibility of making guiding mandatory for all noble species including Black Bear, Moose, Caribou, Atlantic Salmon, Deer, and Migratory birds), considering that this is practiced in most other provinces and several states, not to mention many other countries. The reasons for examining this possibility are many but the two major points were of a social (employment basis) and for accessibility considerations. THE SUBJECT WAS DISCUSSED BY ALL OUTFITTERS (FOR ALL SPECIES) and WAS NOT ONLY PUT FORTH BY A FEW OUTFITTERS as some would have all of you believe. The proposition was to EXAMINE the impact, NOT adopt it right away. I am sure that it will be a very long time before it happens, if it ever does. So please do not lose any sleep over this!

2. In regards to the 20% of the rods available in limited entry sectors being asked for by outfitters, THIS IS ALSO INCORRECT as it has been stated. The facts here are as follows. Outfitters have not formally asked for any 20%. They have, however, asked that they be allotted some waters to promote so that they may have something to sell their guests, rather than go through all of the draws to secure water for their clients and overloading the draws with the names of potential clients. Something that has recently become a source of contention for many anglers playing these draws, especially by Quebecer’s, and with good reason, I might add. The requests we have made have been to allow us to work within the 20% discretionary rods that Zec’s are allowed to sell to meet certain needs in order to operate and this will lead us to limit our presence in the draw process, which in turn will allow a MUCH greater chance for all others to win in the lotteries. The actual discussion is coming from the FQSA as well as the government and the QOF.

Consider the following: by allotting some waters to the outfitters, the Government and FQSA (who were the ones who proposed this sort of solution along with the outfitters), and outfitters see a benefit for accessibility for all anglers but first and foremost FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES and RESIDENT ANGLERS, who, by the way, ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE, WHO ACTUALLY HAVE THE RIGHT to fish in Quebec. For ALL others it is a privilege! We should all remember this as we post our messages.

Why would allotting some rods, within the 20%, to outfitters, or another salmon promoter, increase chances for RESIDENT anglers and for that matter, non-residents as well? Simple, if these businesses are out of the fall draw, or are limited in the number of potential cards they put in for their confirmed guests, (on their behalf) then peoples’ chances of winning the draws become a whole lot easier, even if a small portion of the water is allotted to outfitters, and I do mean a small portion IN COMPARISON to what was controlled by them through draw picks in the past. Consider this for example: in the past years on some rivers up to 54% of the waters in controlled zones were being bought by outfitters and other interests for their clients. You ask again how did they do that? Easy… outfitters and other businesses who organize fishing created a demand through their marketing and sales efforts to finally put Quebec on the map as a destination. We took all of the mystery of draws that scared many away in the past and made it simple for them. Back in the 90’s and early 2000 period, Zec’s WANTED outfitters and other businesses to put in as many cards as possible so that they could bring in revenue and so that they could sell their water. Now that we have created a demand for salmon fishing on some rivers, (becoming a victim of our own success), they want to change the rules. Fine by me, but do we get rid of all the jobs that have been created just so that we can offer more accessibility to all anglers? What happens in an off year when there are no salmon? Who will be asking to fish then? Starting PRIVATE-PUBLIC-PARTNERSHIPS such as the government might be proposing along with some others at the table might be the best solution to guarantee that everyone will win in the end.

This is why we are all seated around the Salmon Round Table. To figure out what we should do, what is best for Quebecer’s who fish, and for those who WORK within this industry. There are SOME PEOPLE out there that would like to have you all think that there are a few select outfitters who want to CONTROL all the waters on our magnificent rivers. FALSE! BS! NO TRUE! SO OFF TRACK IT MAKES ME LAUGH!!!! All we want is to be able to run our businesses without having to go through a lottery system because we are sick of having the finger pointed at us in terms of limiting accessibility. PERIOD! We have employees to think about, investments to cover and a love for the sport and the species! We are not interested in control; we simply want to continue to run our businesses within a framework that will FIRST meet the needs of NATIVE and QUEBEC RESIDENT accessibility, then the non-residents. How this will be decided will be the result of the hard work put in at the round table discussions between the parties concerned.

Several ideas have been thrown around and proposed, both by the outfitters and the FQSA, who represent the interests of salmon anglers in Quebec. Their priority, first and foremost is for QUEBEC accessibility, as I have already stated numerous times. As intelligent people, the people involved in this process realize that this is an industry and that many jobs are at stake, as a matter of fact, a tradition is at stake as outfitting has been part of our heritage for as long as white’s have hunted and fished in this province! If we were to take outfitters out of the picture there would be a lot of angling available but a #### of a lot of people out of work. Maybe we should consider their needs and livelihoods before we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Let’s get back to the RESOURCE of salmon. Now I am going to ask all of you to think hard about this, SALMON ARE A RESOURCE here in Quebec, just like trees, but they are renewable in the short term, meaning that many people can live off of this resource. In a perfect world we would all make 6-figures a year and would not have to worry about making money. Outfitters from around the world make their livelihood off the selling of big game hunting, trout fishing and salmon fishing. It is a simple fact. Why should Quebec outfitters be looked at like monsters for doing the same, when they have been doing it for over a century? The question comes down to the system and how things are divided. THAT IS EXACTLY what we are trying to do: find a solution to dividing up (sharing) the resource in a responsible manner.

Without going into detail, this is what is being proposed. First the 20% that everyone has been talking about has been around since the Zec’s have existed. It was allocated to the Zec’s as a means for them to be able to do business with existing private camps, or private property owners and then was later offered as a means to inject funds into certain Zec’s that needed to sell blocks of water to increase revenues. It is nothing new, just never really applied on most rivers. The FQSA seems to be of the opinion that outfitters and other legal businesses within the salmon world should have first crack at a PORTION of this so that they can continue to operate. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, 20% is A WHOLE LOT LESS THAN WHAT OUTFITTERS AND OTHER LEGAL BUSINESSES (there are some that are not legal, so beware) were winning in the fall draws, about 50% less even more in some cases. WE as OUTFITTERS are ready to take the hit just as long as we know what we have to sell each year! In two cases on the Gaspe, outfitters are not even ASKING for 20% we are asking that NEW rods be added to rivers where we can operate, which means that NO RODS AT ALL would go to outfitters out of the 20%. THESE ARE THE FACTS!!!! Even if we are outfitters, we are still OPEN TO THE PUBLIC! UNLIKE PRIVATE CAMPS who seem to be missing from this debate, but that is for another time. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that new sectors on some rivers were developed based on requests from outfitters, who know these rivers inside out, they would not affect the resource in terms of killing fish because almost all of the outfitters in our area practice Catch & Release angling. What about the non-reserved sectors? Do not forget that some of them are excellent! Outfitters buy access passes there as well and contribute to the river associations and Zec’s once again.


I can tell you that if we do away with outfitting there will be a lot of cooks, guides, shore-boys, managers, accountants and many others all earn their living from SALMON FISHING who will be without work! Any reasonable human being will be able to see that there needs to be a balance struck between accessibility to the resource for simple pleasure and employment for one of our poorest regions of Quebec. Another point is this; there is a REAL need and DEMAND for guides, outfitters and those who promote angling in Quebec. If there were not, we would not be having this debate. The question is how to balance all of this to meet the needs of the masses and satisfy the needs of the local economies and visiting anglers who wish to fish through an outfitter or on their own.

So the next time that people post about what THEY may lose, and who is to blame, I suggest that you get your facts straight, think about someone else but yourself and try to see the BIGGER picture and not get sucked into campaigns that tarnish peoples images and reputations. Give the process time and maybe you will all be pleasantly surprised by the outcome. I have put my entire life into this business and have worked very hard at trying to make Quebec a special place to come and fish. I am deeply saddened and troubled by the way this debate has started and I have kept silent throughout most of this bashing campaign. I have decided to break my silence with only one purpose, to better inform you all of what the REAL reality is. I know that this was long, and for those of you who read all of it I thank you and encourage you to call or email me at anytime if you want more specifics.

In conclusion, I know that there is a solution out there and believe me when I tell you that we are working to find one all together. The final solution will need to keep the interests of the Quebec Salmon Angler in mind first along with those of Native peoples, second will be the needs of our local economies that depend on this resource as a means of making their living and the last consideration will be for those who are guests coming to this province to fish. It is simple as that. I know this sounds harsh but it is no different from any other province, state or country who offers sporting as a business.

I welcome all comments and varying points of view, but could do without comments that point the finger at certain individuals, past events that are exactly that, THE PAST, as well as personal attacks pointed at anyone working hard to keep Quebec at the forefront of Atlantic salmon angling in the world!
Best to you all and may your rods always be frowning!

David Bishop
__________________
David Bishop
Independent Salmon & Trout guide
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 01-09-2005, 12:04 AM
speyguy66 speyguy66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: great lakes and gaspe
Posts: 3
First, I would like to thank everyone that has taken notice of my original post. I think that it is apparent that there is a fair amount of concern among non-residents on this subject, and for good reason. It was never my intent to start "rumors" nor point fingers at anyone, but merely to inform non-residents that indeed there was a proposal of the non-resident issue. Most of the information I received is from the Quebec Outfitters Federation website. Although the site is in English and French, the English section of the site does not contain the press release translation. One of the topics was the allocation of fishing rights on salmon rivers. On November 16, 2004 the FPQ made a recommendation to the Quebec Government that one way to effectively and rapidly fix the problem of more access for residents would be to make mandatory guiding for all non-residents. I find it ironic that it is some, but not all outfitters that are responsible for the large increase in the number of non-residents that have been coming out in the lottery draws by overloading them with names of "so called" potential clients. So how will this improve access for residents?

I agree that salmon fishing in Quebec is a privilege for all non-residents and for that myself along with many others are greatly appreciative. But keep in mind that we are also paying for the privilege by entering in the lotteries, buying daily passes and also membership cards to the ZECs. I am not saying this out of disrespect for residents or First Nation People, but only that we be able to have some voice on this decision. The two points that were given for this recommendation were first, to improve access for residents which I've already covered. The second point was to improve employment opportunites. One of the things that makes Quebec unique to Atlantic salmon anglers is the fact that they can fish on their own. If these anglers were forced to have to go through an outfitter, I think many of them might look elsewhere for their salmon fishing needs. I also think the benefit that non-residents have on local ecomonies would far exceed any gain by making them have to hire a guide or outfitter. One example is the following: I know of several salmon anglers that travel to Quebec for family vacations and spend part of their vacation, but not all of it salmon fishing. They enter the 48 hour lotteries and will fish for a few days. They support the local economy by using motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc., which fits in their budget, however, if forced to have to go through an outfitter would go elsewhere for their fishing/family vacation.

I would like to thank you for clearing up all the confusion as it relates to the 20% rule. I do, however, have several questions. First, who sits at the Salmon Round Table and are all interested parties represented fairly? Second, who would be responsible for how the 20% would be distributed or how the extra rods would be added to the reserved zones? Speaking for myself, I think that the 20% rule could work if done correctly and it stops outfitters from in large part from taking part not only in the pre-season draw, but also the 48 hour lottery.

I am sure that the popularity of Quebec salmon rivers over the past 10 years are not solely responsible because of outfitters, but by a group effort by many different interested parties. So I do not feel you are a "victim of your own success." I am not saying that outfitters have not contributed to the success of the rivers, because they have. What I am saying is that they have had alot of help from other legal interests. An example of this would be the three Gaspe Rivers which until a few years ago had no active outfitters operating. These rivers have continued to prosper through the effort of good marketing on behalf of the ZEC and also good old "word of mouth" efforts. Myself along with other salmon anglers I am sure do not want to see outfittes disappear. There is no doubt that they provide a very valuable resource, not only to salmon anglers, but also the local ecomony. I think one thing all Quebec salmon anglers are looking for is a compromise so that everyone can enjoy this great sport and then start to focus on the more important issue and that is the conservation of salmo salar and all the fantastic memories it has given us not only in the past but also hopefully future memories as well.

Dave, please don't discount these concerns as rumors or finger pointing. These are valid concerns that residents and non-residents alike are taking very seriously. Although I might not be "loosing sleep over this," I along with many others will be following this topic very closely.

Juro, I would also like to thank you for allowing this topic to continue. This same topic has appeared on other boards only to be censored or worse, have the moderator become biased to one point of view because of the controversal matter involved. No one is trying to slander, point fingers, or start rumors, but to discuss a very important subject.

I would like to see a continued discussion of this topic from residents and non-residents alike.

Thank you,

Speyguy66
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 01-09-2005, 09:39 AM
billg billg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaspe
Posts: 115
Proposal in Quebec

I believe Dave did a great job in laying out the outfitter's perspective. There have been a lot of accusations and innuendo over the past few months regarding the system as well as the motives of outfitters. His lengthy explanation presents "the other side".

The 3 major outfitters (in terms of infrastructure, employees, and monies spent) on the Gaspe have not been historically supportive of mandatory guiding or outfitting for non-residents. In fact, 3 years ago there was a meeting in Bonaventure where the issue was brought up by the FPQ (again, in the vein of noble species as was the case this past December). I was not present but did have an employee there. The other 2 outfitters were against it as was I. Ironically, my former employee thought it would be beneficial to our business if that were the case because people would be forced to use our businesses. I agree with SPEY 66 and others in that many anglers would simply go elsewhere if there was a requirement for non-residents to use outfitters or guides. Needless to say, nothing was acted upon during or after that meeting.

The press release dated November 16 does NOT recommend to the Quebec Government mandatory outfitting or guiding. It is simply a press release stating that mandatory outfitting or guiding could be a solution based upon observation of other places that employ mandatory outfitting or guiding.

As an American who has been going to the Gaspe for 26 years now, I have a respect and appreciation for the rights of the Quebec residents and First-Nations members to have access to THEIR rivers. After residents and First-Nation members, who is next in priority with regard to access of Quebec's salmon rivers? As an employer of nearly a dozen people in one of Canada'a most economically depressed regions, I believe that the outfitters do. We are a legally recognized association with hundreds of outfitters across the province. We are there to buy water 122 days per season (not just during "prime time" or the early catch and release season).

The non-residents Do NOT have a "right" to these rivers; simple. Are they appreciated? Yes. Are they welcomed? Yes. Should they have a voice and decide what happens in Quebec salmon fishing? No. When people vacation or visit they do so as guests. I doubt that folks in NYC would allow Quebec residents to tell them how to run their affairs.

As to the question about the roundtable, ALL of the interests are represented. At the table are the following participants: the government, the Quebec anglers association, the Quebec wildlife association, the First-Nations, the zec association, and the Outfitters association. There is no guiding association in existence (they would likely be represented by the outfitters association if they were to form because theirs is one of the services of an outfitter.) I do not believe that there are any travel agents in the salmon business at this time (I believe they have an association). And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no non-resident angler association which presently exists.

Now, onto the underlying tone of this post. SPEY 66 claims "it was never my intent to start rumors nor point fingers...". Check back, then with the last sentence in the first paragraph. What other way is there to look at "overloading them with the names of so called potential clients". Wow! Nice shot. Who is being referred to here? What is meant by so called potential clients? How could a resident of the Great Lakes region be in a position to state this? Do you KNOW something? What do you know? This is nothing but a back-handed slap (sounds familiar from the other baord discussions.)

You state (I am paraphrasing) that before 3 years ago when I started outfitting on the 3 Gaspe rivers the zec Gaspe was doing fine financially. Wrong again. They have only been in the black over the past 3 years. They relied upon government money for protection subsidies to pay for guardians. Few people, residents and non-residents alike bothered to fish in August and September. It was outfitters like Dave, Glen,and I who pushed for August and Septemer fishing. Dave used to get the entire Cascapedia in September because no one wanted it. The society certianly needed his money. Now they don't. And you claim we are not a victim of our own success? Several years ago other rivers begged these guys for business. The 3 of us pushed to lengthen the fishing season on all rivers (the Malbaie River was open because it gets a late run of salmon) because we felt there was a great opportunity for everyone to benefit from this. Now, more and more people are showing up in the fall which benefits everyone. This has provided MORE accessibility for everyone. The reality is that with the marketing we do (t.v., newspapers, magazines, fly fishing shows) is that we are promoting the rivers to the world. And, as you know, they are open to the world.

I believe the solution will come from the 20% or some other reapportionment of rods on the rivers. These rods will be used for our clients. This will take our clients ("so called potential clients") out of the winter draws for the most part.

As a point of fact, roughly 90% of all anglers on Gaspe's 3 rivers are Quebec residents. That is not represented in the draw cards but that is the case for several reasons; catch and release on St. Jean, catch and release seasons on York and Dartmouth, many local anglers only participate in 48 hour draw because cards are 80% less money and each person is only entitled to put in 1 card per day (also, there is more accessiblity to 2 rod zones in the 48 hour draw than in November).

I hope this topic continues as long as the discussion is based upon factual information and does not get personal. It has not been shut down on any board that I know of. Certain individuals have been banned from a board because of continual personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo which had gone on for over a year. The moderator, in that case, had warned both privately and publicly against this type of activity (even resorting to putting yellow boxes under the user name for indentification pruposes) to no apparent avail.

Bill Greiner
Malbaie River Outfitters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 01-09-2005, 10:30 AM
Gaspe Salmon's Avatar
Gaspe Salmon Gaspe Salmon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gaspe Peninsual, Petite and Grand Cascapedia, Bonaventure, Nouvelle etc...
Posts: 82
Response to Spey 66

Dear Spey 66,

In response to your post, please allow me to respond to what you wrote
.

“On November 16, 2004 the FPQ made a recommendation to the Quebec Government that one way to effectively and rapidly fix the problem of more access for residents would be to make mandatory guiding for all non-residents. I find it ironic that it is some, but not all outfitters that are responsible for the large increase in the number of non-residents that have been coming out in the lottery draws by overloading them with names of "so called" potential clients. So how will this improve access for residents?”

The translation is incorrect as you state it. There WAS NO PROPOSITION offered, only that AT THE TIME, this sort of system was a QUICK FIX to some concerns on the part of the resident angler. Meaning, how could we fix this quickly. The issue was quickly shot down by all of us, as we know that A QUICK FIX of this nature is not in the best interest of anyone, including outfitters. Personally, I do not want to see my father, brother or other friends who fish here, have to hire a guide as they would in some other provinces BUT, if the folks around the round-table, remember we are 5-organizations, think it is best, then we are 1 out of 5 voting. I truly doubt that this has much support at the moment but the question will be examined from all angles. Again, for the time being I would not lose any sleep over it. I know that is not what you wan to hear but that is all I can offer. Nobody knows yet what will happen in the medium to long term, but in the short term I can assure you that it is not in the cards.

As for your mention of outfitters "overloading the draws"... where are you getting your info? Let me tell you how I work, and I can only speak for myself. When my guests call me, or before leaving a trip, I ask them if they would like to participate in the draws for the following year in order to secure water on certain reserved beats. If they say yes, then I tell them how it is done, tell them the cost of the lottery cards, tell them that I will be happy to handle the reservations on their behalf for a service charge. I DO NOT PAY FOR THEIR CARDS! They pay for the entries themselves. I then do all of the follow-up, telephone calls back and forth etc (which justifies the nominal fee I charge on top of the card costs)... FACT: This year I put a total of 13-names into one draw and 15 into two other draws out of the 100 or so clients I get a year. You call THAT overloading. Hmm... What is the difference between me helping someone with a complicated system, compared to them doing it on their own. Will there not be the same number of cards in the draw? Now then, allot a certain percentage of rods for outfitters to sell and you have that many less potential cards in a draw because those who fish with outfitters will be able to book direct a portion of their time. This will result in less entries in the draws. Do NOT THINK for one second that we are asking that we have enough rods to fill our lodges! This is not true, we would like to be able to have enough rods so that we can book about 50% of our business, meaning that some of us may have to reduce the size of our operations. As for the 48-hour draws, why should a visiting angler fishing with an outfitter be penalized and not be able to enter the summer draw, I do not see your reasoning here. Are they not equal to the guy who fishes on his own? If the angler books for 3-days of water held by an outfitter, why should they not be able to put in their name for the rest of the time they will spend here? Are they not the same as the visiting angler who fishes on their own?

“I am not saying this out of disrespect for residents or First Nation People, but only that we be able to have some voice on this decision.”

Do we as Quebecer’s have any say whatsoever in what the American states do with their resources? I didn’t think so. Why should non-residents have a say here? This seems pretty obvious to me that it is a mute point. I will say, however that the FQSA, DID indeed take the time and put forth the effort in their questionnaire last year to ask non-residents what they thought. Find me a similar questionnaire where Quebecer’s are asked for their opinion on how fishing or hunting should be managed in the US and I will happily retract my words.

“First, who sits at the Salmon Round Table and are all interested parties represented fairly? Second, who would be responsible for how the 20% would be distributed or how the extra rods would be added to the reserved zones? Speaking for myself, I think that the 20% rule could work if done correctly and it stops outfitters from in large part from taking part not only in the pre-season draw, but also the 48 hour lottery.”

The people sitting around the table are as follows: the FQSA (representing all anglers), the FQF (Quebec Wildlife Federation), Native Peoples, GRSQ (river associations), the FPQ (outfitters and others within the business), and finally the government. These ARE THE ONLY organizations that were invited by the government and they are the only organizations that are formally organized within the industry. Booking agents, independent guides (legal or illegal), or travel agents are not represented. The reason for this is unknown to me. You should perhaps call the government to find out more. You can call them at your leisure.

As for the 20%, it is not the only idea being disussed. I can assure you that OUR proposals, AND YOU CAN TAKE THIS TO THE BANK, ALWAYS consider everyone who uses the resource. All of our propositions take into account the needs of the First Nations and resident anglers first, then the needs of those who work within the industry (legal businesses) and then those of the visiting angler.

“I think one thing all Quebec salmon anglers are looking for is a compromise”

Darned tootin! We are ALL LOOKING FOR compromise! If you REALLY examine what we are all trying to establish at the roundtable is compromise. Cannot make it anymore clear than that.

“This same topic has appeared on other boards only to be censored or worse, have the moderator become biased to one point of view because of the controversal matter involved. No one is trying to slander, point fingers, or start rumors, but to discuss a very important subject.”

Fact is FINGERS and a whole lot more have been pointed at outfitters and individuals for quite some time now. Some Webmasters are fed up with certain people, (they can be counted on one hand), who have personal agenda’s and vendetta’s that they want to air out in public. These people have been blasting and SIMPLY MISINFORMING people about what outfitters in Quebec are all about, not to mention what Quebec salmon fishing is about. We, as outfitters, have suffered big losses due to this, not only personally but also financially. Most of us held our tongues in the public format for quite a while but enough was enough. It was about time that something was done about a few people who had sour grapes. I was victim of it long ago along with the other outfitters on the Gaspe Peninsula and I can tell you it is a crappy feeling to see innuendo and outright lies being thrown around when reading these posts. These attacks all come from the same place, everyone should be aware of this. The problem has been resolved on other boards due to the fact that the moderator was fed up with lies and accusations that were out of context and based on personal issues. I AM PREPARED TO DEBATE REAL issues but have NO INTEREST in getting into pissing matches with people who are frustrated because they cannot seem to find the right and legal formula from which to work within. If other interests would like to become part of this industry in a legal manner and have something positive to contribute all they have to do is start an association, if they have the support and do it! Continually bitching about this that and the other thing will not help or change this situation. As a matter of fact, it will only distance them from the actual decision making process. I can assure you that when all is said in done in this process NOT EVERYONE, including outfitters, may like the end results. This is the price of democracy. WE are ready to live with what is decided but will definitely propose solutions that take into account the interests of ALL parties. If you were to look at the propositions that have been put forth by some outfitters I think that you would never have posted your first post. Perhaps you need to be speaking to SEVERAL people instead of just those who share the same worries and frustrations. If you contacted some of us by phone or email, you might just get the REAL SCOOP. After all, isn’t the best source of information from those seated at the table? I am ready, willing and able to share with you most of what is going on and will be happy to speak with you anytime at all. It will be my pleasure to do so, as a mater of fact. Call me at your leisure.

Salmonly yours,

David Bishop
__________________
David Bishop
Independent Salmon & Trout guide
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 01-09-2005, 12:12 PM
fcch's Avatar
fcch fcch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rv Ste-Marguerite Saguenay Quebec
Posts: 194
Lightbulb

Bill,

Quote:
I hope this topic continues as long as the discussion is based upon factual information and does not get personal
Very well said.

Problem with any discussion about natural resource management is that there are many perceptions and emotions present. As a natural resource manager (forests), I work with many groups, interests and agendas.

To lay out who I am (and thus let people know where I'm coming from), ... here's abit about me first.

I'm the chief forester for a large forest company here in Lac St-Jean. On weekends and holidays, I guide for Atlantics and searun trout on the Ste-Marguerite River (Saguenay). There aren't (currently) any outfitters serving this river and I was called upon by the ZEC to guide once the local guides association closed down several years ago. This means that I'm an average "resident" angler for more than half of the time I spend on the river.

So what's my perspective on this issue ?? First off, in my opinion, I don't feel that mandatory guides (for non-residents) would be all that beneficial for business (on the Ste-Marg anyway). I have groups that will stay serveral days and profit from a guide's services for some or all of their days on the river. Others are return clients that don't "need" a guide. Then there are other return clients that would be able to guide clients them selves. (knowledge, expertise, character).

As to the question whether non-residents have a "right" to use Salmon waters ... well, IMHO, this question should apply to residents as well. Access to natural resources for ANYONE (including so called residents) is a privilege. Once one looks at it in that perspective, the discussions take a different tone.

The ONLY issue that is really important is how to manage the resource in a durable fashion that allows access to all interested users.

My 0.02 $ anyway.
__________________
Christopher Chin
christopher.chin@videotron.ca

Last edited by fcch; 01-09-2005 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21  
Old 01-09-2005, 01:28 PM
Bugman Bugman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A long way from the rivers.
Posts: 65
What is a 'Client'?

I must preface this message by acknowledging the latest excellent post by Dave Bishop. Dave continues to be a voice-of-reason (IMHO) in this debate, and I find myself agreeing with many things that he says. In his last post, he also disclosed the information I’m asking other third-party agents to disclose – that is, he comments on what constitutes a ‘Client’ in his own business operation. IMHO, Dave’s ‘Clients’ are totally legitimate and I hope they did well in the Draws!

Hello, Jim Corrigan here. It’s funny how things go round in circles. I have avoided comment or inquiry on these matters for nearly a year, but I am prompted by the generally-enlightened tone of this year’s version of the discussion to re-ask the questions that have been at the core of my own (if nobody else’s) concerns about the Quebec Lottery systems.

I have taken several quotations from a posting by Mr. Bill Greiner on Jan. 9. 2005. I am not trying to single out this Outfitter, he simply asked the same question that has plagued me for a year or so.

1. “What is meant by so called potential clients?”

2. “This will take our clients ("so called potential clients") out of the winter draws for the most part.”

3. “I hope this topic continues as long as the discussion is based upon factual information and does not get personal.”

I sense that we have a great opportunity to get some factual information, and I DO NOT WANT this to be personal. EVERY outfitter, guide or agency that represents the interests of anglers in Quebec as a ‘third-party’ is most welcome to respond to my comments and questions.

So, I would appreciate learning more about the ‘Agents’ perspectives on the following question ...

For the purposes of entering the Quebec Lotteries used to allocate salmon water (Pre-season and/or 48hr), what, to you, constitutes a ‘Client’?

Speaking for myself, I would consider the following type of anglers to be ‘bona fide’ clients …

EVERY angler who consented in advance of the Lottery Draw in question to be represented by a particular outfitter, guide or agency for that Draw, AND has paid, or will pay, for the cost of the Lottery entries - whether they are successful in the Draw or not.

Such people have knowingly transferred their name, in advance, to be used by an agent that they feel is better qualified to represent them in the Lottery Draws. As far as I’m concerned, this is totally legitimate. Each of these anglers could have entered the Lottery on their own. Such clients have been persuaded, likely because of the excellent services they have received in the past, to use a particular agent to represent them in future business transactions with the ZEC systems.

Many anglers want this kind of service, and many agencies in Quebec have the expertise to deliver it. I applaud their efforts! If a particular agent has built up a large-enormous list of such clients – CONGRATULATIONS – you deserve to be able to represent those anglers that you have nurtured and encouraged to become repeat clients with your business!

Now, on to ‘Potential Clients’. If they fall into the category discussed above, I cannot see any problem – no matter how many of them may be represented by a single Agent.

I, for one, am concerned that the following type of entry is being made into the Lotteries. It may be that these are the ‘Potential Clients’ that are being referred to in other posts:

1. Someone who did not have prior knowledge, and/or did not give their prior consent, to having their name used in the Lottery Draw in question.

2. Someone who has not paid, or will not pay, for their Lottery entries. This includes both successful and unsuccessful entrants in the Lottery.

Now, I am not saying that this kind of entry has ever occurred. I’m ASKING third-party Agents to tell the Bulletin Board whether any of their ‘Clients’ would conform to my definition of a ‘Potential Client’, as given above.

Thanks in advance for any enlightening responses that follow!

Jim

Last edited by Bugman; 01-09-2005 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 01-09-2005, 01:30 PM
billg billg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaspe
Posts: 115
Chris:

I believe that we are all fortunate to be able to have great resources like Atlantic Salmon. The key is to manage them well enough to make sure they are not only enjoyed by us but future generation as well.

We did a not so good job of managing our wild Atlantic Salmon here in the U.S. and hopefully our mistakes will be recoginzed by those who have self-sustaining runs and not repeated.

As I mentioned, as individual outfitters we had not traditionally supported mandatory uses of outfitters for the reasons you have mentioned. The envirnoment is now changing and that may or may not be part of a solution. Presently, there are proposals which have been discussed at the round table as well as outside of the rond table with various participants that do not mandate use of services by non-residents.

The important thing here is that there will be likely be priorities considered at the table and as Dave and I have pointed out, there does need to be priority assigned to users, even though the resource is not "owned" by any one or any group. All are welcome but it is important to understand the perspectives of the major stake holders; Quebec residents, First-Nations members, and Outfitters.

If you ever get down my way on the Gaspe feel free to drop by.

Bill Greiner
Malbaie River Outfitters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 01-09-2005, 02:36 PM
fcch's Avatar
fcch fcch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rv Ste-Marguerite Saguenay Quebec
Posts: 194
Thumbs up

Jim,

As for your defn of clients, very well done. Helps to clarify things when discussions are in order.

I can't speak for any other group, but the only time I've ever entered a client into a draw is for the 48 hour. Some clients book services with me and ask to try to get onto limited rods sections (at the last minute). I'll enter their names (they pre-pay the lotery) and if they are drawn we go to that secter, if not they come anyway and we fish open rods sections.

I'd say they are bonafide clients.
Bill,

Will try to get out more. I'm kind of a creature of habit and don't get around much. Friends from Ste-Marg did the Malbaie for the last few seasons and had a blast. Heck, we have 3-4 rivers here and I only really fish one of them.
__________________
Christopher Chin
christopher.chin@videotron.ca

Last edited by fcch; 01-09-2005 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 01-09-2005, 02:53 PM
Bugman Bugman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A long way from the rivers.
Posts: 65
Thanks Chris!

For what it's worth, I'd say that your anglers were top-grade bona-fide!

For me, it's not about HOW or WHEN the client will pay, it's about INTENT. If the CLIENT'S intent is to enter the draw (as symbolized by an exchange of filthy lucre at some point ), then you are providing a valuable and much-needed service to her/him/them.

I hope that anglers are encouraged by your practices and 'sign up' with Agents like yourself.

Jim
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 01-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Gaspe Salmon's Avatar
Gaspe Salmon Gaspe Salmon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gaspe Peninsual, Petite and Grand Cascapedia, Bonaventure, Nouvelle etc...
Posts: 82
Thanks

Dear Jim and Christopher,

I enjoyed reading your posts... wish more people would take the time like you two did to post their opinions. Christopher, I agree with what you said, we are all privilaged to be able to fish for these noble creatures but I think you can understand why I had to break it down in a more concrete fashion.

Jim, you are correct, your definition is EXACTLY what I would consider potential clients. Until they win the draw, they may not decide to come. Even if they win, it may not be the right dates for them so they will pass.

Running any business on a lottery like this is difficult at best. A while back, when things were different, Zec's were calling us to buy the water, now that the playing field has shifted to more users, we need to figure out a way to meet everyones needs as much as possible.

Thanks for the kind words Jim, they are very much appreciated... nice to get positive feed back from time to time. You have obviously spent a lot of time pondering these questions before posting.

Best to you both,

David.

P.S. door is open to all of you out there who want to visit us on the Cascapedia to share a story or trade a fly or two!
__________________
David Bishop
Independent Salmon & Trout guide
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 01-10-2005, 07:11 AM
fcch's Avatar
fcch fcch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rv Ste-Marguerite Saguenay Quebec
Posts: 194
Smile

Dave, (et.al.)

Thanx for the invitation. The offer is open up here too.

I've only been fishing for Atlantics for about 15 years now, so this is still a learning experience for me, but one of the more pleasant parts is that the experience is 90% in the hunt, and not always the catch.

Always watch your fly ...
__________________
Christopher Chin
christopher.chin@videotron.ca
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 01-10-2005, 09:06 AM
billg billg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaspe
Posts: 115
Chris:

Can you see fish in the waters you fish? My only experience fishing the north shore was on the Moisie and the Nippissis. Could only see fish in 1 pool from a very high bank.

Those are some big rivers unlike my home waters on the Gaspe.

Bill Greiner
Malbaie River Outfitters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 01-10-2005, 10:59 AM
fcch's Avatar
fcch fcch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rv Ste-Marguerite Saguenay Quebec
Posts: 194
Unhappy

Bill,

The Ste-Marguerite doen't have that fantastic GIN CLEAR water as you, but when the levels are normal, the water IS clear (but yellow).

We can see fish in most "real" pools from elevation. We've installed galleries and ladders on many pools.


Pool #24 Zone 4. Photo taken in low water without a polarized filter.
Renée Côté trying for monsters in mid August 2004.
__________________
Christopher Chin
christopher.chin@videotron.ca
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29  
Old 01-10-2005, 05:05 PM
Salar36 Salar36 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Gaspesie
Posts: 111
Chris,

It is not Bras d'Alain on sector 2? Looks like.

Last edited by Salar36; 01-10-2005 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30  
Old 01-10-2005, 08:23 PM
speyguy66 speyguy66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: great lakes and gaspe
Posts: 3
Bill, I never said that non-residents should be able to decide how any changes would be decided, but merely that we be able to express our viewpoints to the people that will make the final decision. If possible, perhaps it is time that a non-resident anglers association is formed. If it is possible to form an association, I recommend that a representative be present at the Roundtable (only give a point of view and not tell anyone how or what to do). What harm would this cause?

It is good to have on record that you along with Dave and Glenn are against the non-resident issue. I am sure that your combined influence will help a great deal with the decision when or if it happens.

As for the so-called "shot" you say I am taking at outfitters. I was only referring to Dave's post where he explained how some outfitters currently secure water for their clients, "they have however asked that they be alotted some waters to promote so that they may have something to sell their guests, rather than go through all the draws to secure water for their clients and overloading the draws with names of potential clients." In addition to Dave's comment there will soon be a press release translated into English posted on the web that comes from the FQSA. On page 49, paragraph 4 states "some organizations and individuals have flooded (overloaded) the draws with actual and potential names aiming to obtain a booking for two rods while knowing in the majority of cases the selected fisherman would not be present to obtain his reservation." I believe this to be a corrrect translation of this document, however, you can correct me if you think I am wrong. If this is not enough there has also been several articles found in Quebec newspapers that also confirm the same thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the purpose of the Quebec government to take back control of the salmon rivers from private ownership was to improve access to the public? How is it possible now that sometimes more than 50% of the rods in reserved zones are controlled by an outfitter? How is this improving access for the public? Dave also goes on to say that "this has become a source of contention for many anglers playing these draws, especially by Quebecers, and with good reason." You state a fact that 90% of all anglers on Gaspe's three rivers are Quebec residents, if this is the case why is there so much contention?

Also, I never said that outfitters have not played an important role in the success of the Quebec salmon rivers. But to discount all the hard work other interested groups (Saumon Quebec, Independent Guides and Writers, Chambers of Commerce, etc.) I feel is wrong Bill, you are no doubt missing the point of this discussion, no one is accusing you or any other outfitter of doing anything illegal. The point that I am trying to make is that there are some outfitters (not all) that are financially able to take advantage of the way the lottery draws currently work and that there needs to be a change on how this process currently work so that it is fair for everyone, resident and non-resident alike. Maybe the 20% rule or some form of it could work if done fairly and correctly. So my comments were never intended to be a "backhanded slap" as you called it.

Dave, thanks for explaining how you run your business as far as the lottery is concerned. I see no problem with how you do this and see no "overloading" being done at least as far as your business is concerned. I am sure that your clients are very appreciative of your services. There is no doubt of your expertise when it comes to deciphering how the lottery works. I think that the key is that your clients are paying for their cards and also with their consent. I also apologize, there is no reason that your clients should not be able to participate in the 48 hour lottery. Part of my concern in my last post as far as the 48 hour lottery is concerned is (and I am not saying that you personally do this) but how some anglers and outfitters will put names in the 48 hour draw of people that have no plans to fish but, if selected, will buy both rods and then allow the primary rod to go to waste. This seems to be unnecessary and also prevents full access to the river.

Dave, thanks to taking the time to address these concerns. Will you be attending any of the fly fishing shows in the States? If so, let me know because I would very much like to talk more about this topic in person.

Speyguy66

PS: This will be my last post on this topic. I think I have made my point and backed it up with facts. Thanks to everyone for their involvement, whether you agree or disagree, I appreciate your comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another ANWR oil drilling proposal Doublespey Our Environment 15 04-03-2006 07:56 PM
Get Your Proposal In! rich_simms Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 1 11-14-2005 07:32 PM
NOAA Fisheries proposal kjackson Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion 0 05-28-2004 01:57 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)