Halibut allocation, again

Sushihunter

Active Member
http://www2.canada.com/courierislan....html?id=2ba4e75a-0360-4b6c-9d2e-8e7e76cb8eda

Saturday » May 2 » 2009

Halibut allocation, again

Courier-Islander


Tuesday, April 28, 2009


Reading the criticism of the current allocation policy some people have asked me what other management construct could be used in its place.

One solution would be to adopt the same practice used by DFO in the chinook salmon AABM areas - offshore WCVI and the Queen Charlotte Islands ­ areas in which the total allowable catch is determined under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, much as the total halibut catch is decided under treaty also.

In the AABM fisheries, once First Nations' food, social and ceremonial needs have been accounted for, DFO then deducts the number of chinook it thinks will be needed for a good recreational fishery at full limits. The remaining fish are then allocated to the commercial troll fishery in each area.

If this scenario were to be used for halibut it would work best for Canada's national interest as a whole. The recreational fishery would have the stability of opportunity it needs to maximize its social and economic potential and the commercial sector would still get to harvest the majority of the fish, even in years of low abundance.

The majority of the recreational harvest occurs before early September and with good catch monitoring DFO would have a solid idea of what the recreational catch had been to that time. If it appeared that the recreational harvest was tracking below the pre-season expectations then the thought-to-be uncaught portion could be re-allocated to the commercial sector to be caught in the remaining two months of their season.

Although it is obvious in recent years of lower halibut abundance that the current policy is playing havoc with the stability of the recreational fishery, it is useful to think ahead to the years of higher abundance, for which there is good reason to think are on the way. In those years the 1" per cent recreational catch ceiling will provide for far more halibut than the recreational fishery could reasonably expect to catch. Then what?

I think most recreational fishermen would support the harvesting of all the halibut allowed under the treaty as a national objective. However, given the challenges our sector faces right now in a time of lower abundance in maintaining anywhere close to a usual halibut fishery, I don't think most recreational fishermen would think it right if in a year of higher abundance the commercial sector got to fish the thought-to-be uncaught portion of the recreational allocation without compensating it at the going quota lease rate.

In this situation there would be millions of dollars moving between sectors, a situation for which the recreational fishery is singularly ill equipped to deal with. Having saddled the recreational fishery with the requirement to develop and use a "market-based transfer mechanism" to transfer halibut quota, government has utterly failed to provide any leadership in how this system might work. After having taken nearly a year to officially reject the one multi-sector consensus-based proposal (the Hugh Gordon report) to achieve this goal, Ottawa hasn't proposed any alternative. After several months of asking finally a reason for the rejection has been issued ­ that DFO lacks the authority to collect fees to fund the transfer of allocation between fisheries sectors.

This now places the recreational fishery in the ultimate OCatch-""' ­ it is required to buy or lease quota to maintain its customary fishing opportunity in years of lower abundance, never mind attempt to transfer quota at fair market value in years of higher abundance, but government provides no guidance or assistance in making its own goal possible. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board, participants in which are all volunteers, has tried to the very best of its ability to find some way of making this OAlice-in-Wonderland' approach to fisheries governance work but has frankly reached a dead end in how to meet the requirements of what looks like an unworkable policy.

Even if there was some way to make the halibut allocation policy work in the best interests of the vast majority of Canadians who aren't among the several hundred commercial quota holders who were given 88 per cent of the TAC for free, to lease out or sell as they choose, the recreational fishery simply lacks the structure to deal with large sums of money. It doesn't have a license through which it can own quota, nor does it want one. What organization or individuals will want to be responsible for handling millions of dollars on behalf of Canadians?

I can tell you those volunteers on the SFAB that have taken some decisions around the limited leasing back and forth that has taken place to date have a certain and increasing unease about what is being asked of them.

Everything so far has been above board and with the knowledge if not blessing of regional DFO staff, but if the federal auditor-general ever seriously looked into what government expects the recreational sector to undertake to meet the requirements of the halibut allocation policy it is hard to believe that she wouldn't have some cautionary comments.

How government can pass the proverbial red-face test in continuing to support its halibut allocation arrangement on the basis of good public policy in the face of all available evidence to the contrary remains unknown. Regional government representatives have remained mute on the subject despite being asked to explain their support for the policy.

Perhaps they hope eventually those asking these awkward questions will tire of the subject and go away, but I think that unlikely because as goes halibut so goes the rest of the fisheries resource. We'll end up in the same mess with all other fin and shellfish species if government has its way and that'll be the end of the recreational fishery as we know it. And if you think that's unlikely I have news for you ­ the north coast chinook troll fishery is already being managed under an IVQ (individual vessel quota) management system and some of the decisions around that fishery are raising alarm-bells recently.

Meanwhile Peter Julian, the NDP MP for Burnaby-New Westminster, knows bad public policy when he sees it and has developed a petition, approved by the Clerk to the House of Commons, which calls for the termination of the present allocation policy and is now available to be signed in local tackle stores. As I understand it, when a certain number are filled in and arrive in Ottawa the issue is allowed to be brought forward in the House to raise awareness of the issue; obviously I would encourage all anglers to sign the petition.

And yes, the recreational fishery in Areas 1"-19 for lingcod and rockfish really will open May 1, retention of one fish of each species per day.


© Courier-Islander (Campbell River) 2009








Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
 
Back
Top