Proposed ACA Fishing levy increase....background info

[flyrodfisher]

From the other thread on this subject, it is apparent that most people here do NOT know what the ACA does...nor what it is responsible for.
It is impossible for anyone to agree...or disagree with the proposed levy increase without a good understanding of how current levy funds are being spent.

I urge all of you to read through the latest ACA annual report;

http://www.abconservation.com/go/def...t2011-12WR.pdf

A few points to help those that don't wish to take the time to make an informed decision on the proposed levy increase;


1) The ACA is a non profit organization
2) The ACA is NOT the Alberta Government
3) The ACA does NOT decide on fishing/hunting licence cost increases
4) The ACA does NOT decide whether or not seniors...or those under 16 should pay a licence fee
5) The ACA does NOT decide whether non-residents should pay more than residents.
6) The ACA has 100 employees, 78 permanent staff and an additional 22 temporary staff
7) The ACA received $10,377,407 from levies on hunting and fishing licenses last year
8) Salaries and benefits for ACA employees totalled $6,308,275 last year
9) Travel and office supplies totalled an additional $1,644,774 last year
10) The ACA stocked a grand total of 131,000 fish last year


And finally, a question to those who blindly accept the proposed increase;
How much out of your $25.66 annual fishing licence cost do you think currently goes to the ACA?

I will provide that answer shortly....

[scel]

Link does not work.

[scel]

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...t2011-12WR.pdf

that should work

[huntsfurfish]

About $24.00

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

From the other thread on this subject, it is apparent that most people here do NOT know what the ACA does...nor what it is responsible for.
It is impossible for anyone to agree...or disagree with the proposed levy increase without a good understanding of how current levy funds are being spent.

I urge all of you to read through the latest ACA annual report;

http://www.abconservation.com/go/def...t2011-12WR.pdf

A few points to help those that don't wish to take the time to make an informed decision on the proposed levy increase;


1) The ACA is a non profit organization
2) The ACA is NOT the Alberta Government
3) The ACA does NOT decide on fishing/hunting licence cost increases
4) The ACA does NOT decide whether or not seniors...or those under 16 should pay a licence fee
5) The ACA does NOT decide whether non-residents should pay more than residents.
6) The ACA has 100 employees, 78 permanent staff and an additional 22 temporary staff
7) The ACA received $10,377,407 from levies on hunting and fishing licenses last year
8) Salaries and benefits for ACA employees totalled $6,308,275 last year
9) Travel and office supplies totalled an additional $1,644,774 last year
10) The ACA stocked a grand total of 131,000 fish last year


And finally, a question to those who blindly accept the proposed increase;
How much out of your $25.66 annual fishing licence cost do you think currently goes to the ACA?

I will provide that answer shortly....

Based on conversations with our stakeholders, we propose to put the majority of the increase in angling licence levy funds towards our enhanced fish stocking and aeration programs. The cost of hatchery-raised fish has increase substantially over the last three years, and the increased funds will allow ACA to maintain and potentially increase the total number of fish we stock each year. In addition, the increased funding will allow ACA to look for opportunities to increase the number of stocked and aerated locations in Alberta. Stakeholders have clearly indicated they would like to see a larger number of stocked waterbodies receive aeration to increase fish survival rates.

What's the problem?

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Around 8.00 or less I would safely say most of it goes to he government into general revenue .

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

What's the problem?

No problem at all...if you feel spending 76.6% of collected levy funds on salaries, benefits, travel and office expenses is providing a good return.

[flyrodfisher]

@scel;
Thx for fixing the link.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

No problem at all...if you feel spending 76.6% of collected levy funds on salaries, benefits, travel and office expenses is providing a good return.

Not sure if that is out of line with what they do, but I will say nobody works for free. Not for profit doesn't mean the workers don't get paid, but again I'm not sure if the amount they spend on wages is out of line with what they do. The link I pulled up did say the majority of the increase was to go to fisheries enhancement.

Alberta's advantage, push government programs back to the public. Does it work I don't know, APOS is a huge failure for the public, although for the outfitters I'm sure it works just fine.

Do you have particulars on any waste that ACA is a part of?

[Winch101]

Even more convinced that the Alberta Govt does squat for the outdoor
Enthusiast .This is a stretch ,but if that 10 million didn't go to the ACA
It would just go to another Redford. Slush fund ....

Give more of the fees to the ACA , without raising fees ,there's an idea
That just doesn't occur to any govt egg head. Double the cost of out of
Province residents usage.

[pikergolf]

Break down of where your current monies go.


resident licence. 25.66

Gov. 1.50

ACA levy 15.96

IBM fee 8.20.................wow

GST 1.28

So who's paying the bills on the gov. side of bio's, enforcement etc?

[flyrodfisher]

pikergolf beat me to it.
His numbers are correct...yes, $16.00 of your yearly angling license currently goes to the ACA.
And yes, another $8.20 vanishes to IBM....which I think also takes the $8.00 WIN card monies
On top of that the feds have their hand in there for $1.28

So, with a little digging, I wonder if pikergolf might also be able to find the salary of the ACA CEO....hmmmmm

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

pikergolf beat me to it.
His numbers are correct...yes, $16.00 of your yearly angling license currently goes to the ACA.
And yes, another $8.20 vanishes to IBM....which I think also takes the $8.00 WIN card monies
On top of that the feds have their hand in there for $1.28

So, with a little digging, I wonder if pikergolf might also be able to find the salary of the ACA CEO....hmmmmm

If you have something to say, why don't you just get to the point? Nobody want to play riddles. You bring up an interesting subject but then play games, what's up with that? Just make your point.

[TROLLER]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

No problem at all...if you feel spending 76.6% of collected levy funds on salaries, benefits, travel and office expenses is providing a good return.

YIKES 76 is high

[scel]

I have run a business and I now work in public sector.

The most expensive aspects of running a business are people. Thankfully, they can be the most valuable aspect to any business.

Just a quick scratch...(I am using 100 employees---I know that there are only 87...but it does not significantly change the math).

100 people, at 6.7 million dollars is only 67,000/per person. it takes about 10,000-15,000 per annumper employee for benefits. So the 'average' takehome gross is probably around $55k/annum. Considering most of the people probably have either a University degree or 10+ years technical experience, this is a lean organization.

There are probably people, like the accountant, who are making probably 80k-100k annum (in private sector, they would be making 120k-130k/annum.

The CEO might be making 100k-120k/annum, which is more than fair with 100 people directly under their management profile. In private sector, this individual would be making 140k-150k/annum (at least in Calgary).

I know that these might seem like big numbers, but they really are not that unreasonable.

My partner is an intermediate biologist in private sector. Her takehome is 65k/annum. She works long, hard hours. An engineer doing the same job would make 85k-100k annum.

I guess the numbers seem pretty legit with the exception of the lack of budget for Conservation Officers, but they must come directly from the provincial budget.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by TROLLER

YIKES 76 is high

Why do you think this seems high?

Based on this document and the documents referenced most of their work seems to be administration.
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...understanding/

The following is not aimed at you troller. Before we start bashing a dept. can we please have concrete complaints rather than generalities. I am not defending ACA because I don't know, but for a first time poster to show up and take a swipe at them in a general sense doesn't seem fair. He pops up, lays out a few veiled remarks or swipes and then has zero direct complaints other than the CEO makes to much but he won't even post those numbers. I wouldn't have a clue as to what a qualified CEO would make anyways but I'd say a safe guess is flyrodfisher doesn't approve.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

He pops up, lays out a few veiled remarks or swipes and then has zero direct complaints other than the CEO makes to much but he won't even post those numbers.

I made NO veiled remarks. If you took them as such, perhaps you have additional information you wish to share with us.
The information presented in my original post is freely available on the ACA website.
Further, I made NO comment as to whether the CEO makes too much....or too little. It was a question as to whether or not that information could be gleaned online.

Again, NO one is "bashing a dept".
The data was presented because it is obvious that many do not even know what the ACA does, how much money they get, some think they are a gov't dept, etc, etc.

Before people make comments regarding proposed increases, they should do their homework and come to their own conclusion as to whether or not the levy funds are providing adequate value.

I HAVE done my homework...and I have come to a conclusion.

[Loper]

Welcome back Duffy.

[BuckCuller]

I guess if they increase the cost of the licence I'll just buck up and pay more maybe put in an hour of overtime to pay for it. Besides I like being able to hunt ACA land. I may as well contribute if I'm going to enjoy it. I honestly don't think it's going to break anyone. Maybe they can start a payment plan for those that can't afford the once a year payment. Just my 2 bits.

[flyrodfisher]

@BuckCuller;

From the ACA website;
"ACA brought forward a proposal to increase the levy on hunting licences in the fall of 2012. This proposal was supported by our stakeholders and has been sent to the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) for final approval and implementation by April 2014."

So, it sounds like the increased hunting levy is a "done deal"....the issue now is the proposed fishing levy increase.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by flyrodfisher

6) The ACA has 100 employees, 78 permanent staff and an additional 22 temporary staff
7) The ACA received $10,377,407 from levies on hunting and fishing licenses last year
8) Salaries and benefits for ACA employees totalled $6,308,275 last year
9) Travel and office supplies totalled an additional $1,644,774 last year
10) The ACA stocked a grand total of 131,000 fish last year

Wow. I hadn't realized the ACA was that administratively top-heavy. So of a little over $10 million taken in, their salaries, benefits, travel, etc. eat up about 8 million, leaving 2 million to actually spend on projects, restoration, land purchases, etc. So if we give the ACA more money, the vast majority of it will go into salaries, not into streams or lakes or fencing or access.

[Don Andersen]

OKO.... Just for you,

Much of the wages and expenses of the ACA is used to work on fisheries/hunting/habitat issues/problems/projects.
The ACA does not "charge out" to each activity what there employees do but lump all the labour costs together.
This leaves a perception that most of ACA's cash is wasted.
In the last few days I've seen ACA employees at two local lakes dealing with access problems or lake overflow cleaning. I'm nearly positive that the labor & travel costs were not charged out to these lakes.
But in keeping with simplistic accounting <> 80 cents of each dollar keeps the labour feed and housed. There I've had my Sun News moment.

Regards,


Don

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

In the last few days I've seen ACA employees at two local lakes dealing with access problems or lake overflow cleaning.

Here is the current ACA staff list....it is comprised mostly of managers and biologists;

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...aff-directory/

I hope they didn't send them out to do lake outfall cleaning.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

OKO.... Just for you,

Much of the wages and expenses of the ACA is used to work on fisheries/hunting/habitat issues/problems/projects.
The ACA does not "charge out" to each activity what there employees do but lump all the labour costs together.
This leaves a perception that most of ACA's cash is wasted.
In the last few days I've seen ACA employees at two local lakes dealing with access problems or lake overflow cleaning. I'm nearly positive that the labor & travel costs were not charged out to these lakes.
But in keeping with simplistic accounting <> 80 cents of each dollar keeps the labour feed and housed. There I've had my Sun News moment.

Regards,


Don

Here is what I put in the other thread on the same subject, just to close the loop:

"Sorry. I should have been less harsh. I'm not suggesting that the work of ACA employees is a waste. If I gave that impression I apologize. It's probably work SRD staff should be doing. But the great majority of the money is not going to purchasing land, stocking fish, fencing and recovering riparian areas, stocking game birds, replacing fencing for antelope movement, etc. Basically making physical changes. That's what I was talking about. Research and consultation and advocacy and public awareness are all important things. I'd just like to see more money going to actually changing/growing/recovering/building things that enhance our environment. That's all."

[Don Andersen]

OK...

On that you and I agree.
Check out the ACA grant eligible fund and the paltry amount spent on fisheries issues. It runs <>17% of the budget.

Don