fish4all
Well-Known Member
Yes it does... It hurts the resource.
Halibut: Bad News
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
Yes it does... It hurts the resource.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
There has never been any mandated IPHC reductions in Area 2B to the actual commercial catch due to any sport overages? That is NOT what the past IPHC records indicate, whatsoever! In fact, would you mind showing me when there was any IPHC commercial catch reduction mandated due to any overage, including commercial overages?
Yes, in theory that is what everyone wants us to believe and the way it is supposed to work. Now look at those past records! First you will see the “over” some years and the “under” in others. Look closer! You will TACs. Then always the “notes” adjustments from year to year like this,
“Adjustments totaling -51,687 pounds were made to the commercial fishery catch limit which included carryover from the previous year’s underage/overage plan and quota held by DFO for First Nations through relinquishment processes.”
Then the next year, the only thing that ever happened is the “catch-up and carry-over” number was carried forward. Now add all those years of “overage” and “underage” numbers together. Oops… commercial sector is “OVER” their TAC and has been for years! Area 2B commercial catch has NEVER been reduced due to any overage.
Area 2B has 405,000 taken right off the top for FN. To figure the TAC just take the IPHC TAC, subtract the FN “unmonitored” 405,000 pounds and that will give you the allowable TAC for commercial and sport sectors. Multiply the balance by the appropriate percentage. There is a little overall “overage” from last year; however, don’t worry about that, as stated IPHC will just carry that forward. If DFO does try to reduce the sport sector… you guys need to call BS and run for legal counsel in a hurry! IPHC could care less what percentage goes to who. Now with that keep in mind the IPHC was originally setup for and is still controlled by the commercial industry.
Maybe this will help some understand how things are figured? This information was taken directly from the IPHC website:
British Columbia
The primary source of personal use harvest in British Columbia was the First Nations FSC fishery. In past years, the IPHC has received some logbook and landing data for this harvest from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) but those data have not been adequate for the IPHC to make an independent estimate of the FSC fishery harvest. Thus, the IPHC relies on DFO for an estimate. Through 2006, DFO had estimated this harvest to be 300,000 pounds annually, a figure that had remained unchanged for a decade. Since 2007, this harvest estimate has been fixed at 405,000 pounds (Table 3).
The adjusted catch limit represents the IPHC catch limit with adjustments from the underage and overage programs from the previous year’s quota share program, and in Area 2B, it also includes relinquishment of quota and quota leasing programs between sectors.
The IPHC adopted an Area 2B combined sport and commercial catch limit of 7,650,000 pounds that was allocated to the user groups by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (Table 2). An additional 248,000 pounds was added to include the projected commercial wastage from halibut over 26 inches, resulting in a total catch limit of 7,898,000 pounds. The commercial fleet allocation of 88% of the total catch limit 6,950,240 pounds) was reduced by 248,000 pounds to account for wastage, resulting in an allocation of 6,702,240 pounds. In 2011, additional adjustments were made by DFO which included pounds available from the underage/overage plan, pounds leased to sport sector in experimental fishing program, and quota held by DFO for First Nations through a relinquishment process. The sport fishery total catch of 1,220,000 pounds exceeded the 947,800-pound allocation and is discussed in Williams (2011); the commercial fishery is discussed below. The total Area 2B catch of 7.7 million pounds was within 1% of the combined total catch limit (7.65 million pounds).
Area 2B
Each vessel was allocated a fixed poundage of halibut, or an IVQ, as calculated by DFO. In 1991, when the halibut IVQ program was implemented, 435 vessels received IVQs. Each initial IVQ was split into two shares called blocks. Numerous changes have been made since then, including first allowing temporary block transfers (1993) and then permanent block and IVQ transfers (1999). Since 1999, the number of active vessels with halibut licenses (L licenses), and First Nations communal commercial licenses (FL licenses), has decreased from a high of 257 (in 1999) to a low of 148 (in 2011). However, halibut was landed from a total of 217 active licenses in 2011, sixty-nine of which were from other fisheries.
The Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) has been in effect in British Columbia since 2006. The IFMP, initially a three-year pilot program, was implemented to meet conservation needs, including addressing rockfish conservation concerns and improving catch monitoring. The IFMP was reviewed and approved by DFO in January 2010. The IFMP includes quota shares for all hook and line groundfish fisheries, transferability with limits between license holders, 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, and vessel accountability for all catch, both landed and discarded. There is 100% monitoring through logbook recordings, video camera coverage, and dockside coverage.
The commercial catch of 6,480,000 pounds for Area 2B was 3% under the catch limit.
March and August were the busiest months for poundage delivered in British Columbia with approximately 16% of the catch during each month. Average landing dates in British Columbia occurred later this year as 49% of the Area 2B catch was landed by the end of May in 2010, and only 38% was landed by the end of May in 2011.
The landing of live halibut from Area 2B was legally allowed by DFO and resulted in a total landing weight of 1,026 pounds, a new low for landings of live halibut since live landings began in 1999. Live fish landings have ranged from a high of 103,000 pounds in 1999 to a low of 1,026 pounds in 2011.
Table 2. The 2011 Area 2B catch limits as allocated by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and estimated catches (thousands of pounds, net weight).
1 Preliminary
2 An experimental permit program was implemented in 2011 which allowed sport operators to lease quota from commercial operators. Details on the amount leased were not available at time of writing.
3 Adjustments totaling -51,687 pounds were made to the commercial fishery catch limit which included carryover from the previous year’s underage/overage plan and quota held by DFO for First Nations through relinquishment processes.
Table 3. Commercial catch (including IPHC research catch) and catch limits of Pacific halibut (in thousands of pounds, net weight) by IPHC regulatory area, 2001 - 2011.
FYI… If Don Staniford can raise $100,000 for his legal fees, so can you! Fees are based on the firm’s reputation and hours once the clock starts and a good firm keeps track and can account for every minute charged (e.g. research and discovery, etc, etc, etc.) It should be closer to $100,000. A more expensive firm, maybe $200,000. You can also ask and recover legal fees and costs, in addition to damages. Think about it, there are 300,000 anglers who should be supporting this action.
You can keep writing all the letters you want. Keep having those “town meetings.” Keep believing, thinking, and saying whatever. Keep playing those DFO games; which btw, they are masters. Or, just realize the only way these issues will get resolved is by going through Court. Sorry, but anything and everything like this, the only way it ever gets resolved in Canada (or the U.S.) is by going through the courts.
I have been to court. My advice is find the BEST, most well known law firm you can. Ask if they will accept their fees from the settlement. I have done that twice and that is a sure sign you have a winning case. I would also try to figure out an angle on how to get Ecojustice involved. If you can get them evolved, I’d say you will be a winner as soon as the suit is filed and before any notices are even served!
http://www.ecojustice.ca/
Have fun in Supreme Court. It really isn’t that bad, just time consuming. J
Yes, in theory that is what everyone wants us to believe and the way it is supposed to work. Now look at those past records! First you will see the “over” some years and the “under” in others. Look closer! You will TACs. Then always the “notes” adjustments from year to year like this,
“Adjustments totaling -51,687 pounds were made to the commercial fishery catch limit which included carryover from the previous year’s underage/overage plan and quota held by DFO for First Nations through relinquishment processes.”
Then the next year, the only thing that ever happened is the “catch-up and carry-over” number was carried forward. Now add all those years of “overage” and “underage” numbers together. Oops… commercial sector is “OVER” their TAC and has been for years! Area 2B commercial catch has NEVER been reduced due to any overage.
Area 2B has 405,000 taken right off the top for FN. To figure the TAC just take the IPHC TAC, subtract the FN “unmonitored” 405,000 pounds and that will give you the allowable TAC for commercial and sport sectors. Multiply the balance by the appropriate percentage. There is a little overall “overage” from last year; however, don’t worry about that, as stated IPHC will just carry that forward. If DFO does try to reduce the sport sector… you guys need to call BS and run for legal counsel in a hurry! IPHC could care less what percentage goes to who. Now with that keep in mind the IPHC was originally setup for and is still controlled by the commercial industry.
Maybe this will help some understand how things are figured? This information was taken directly from the IPHC website:
British Columbia
The primary source of personal use harvest in British Columbia was the First Nations FSC fishery. In past years, the IPHC has received some logbook and landing data for this harvest from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) but those data have not been adequate for the IPHC to make an independent estimate of the FSC fishery harvest. Thus, the IPHC relies on DFO for an estimate. Through 2006, DFO had estimated this harvest to be 300,000 pounds annually, a figure that had remained unchanged for a decade. Since 2007, this harvest estimate has been fixed at 405,000 pounds (Table 3).
The adjusted catch limit represents the IPHC catch limit with adjustments from the underage and overage programs from the previous year’s quota share program, and in Area 2B, it also includes relinquishment of quota and quota leasing programs between sectors.
The IPHC adopted an Area 2B combined sport and commercial catch limit of 7,650,000 pounds that was allocated to the user groups by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (Table 2). An additional 248,000 pounds was added to include the projected commercial wastage from halibut over 26 inches, resulting in a total catch limit of 7,898,000 pounds. The commercial fleet allocation of 88% of the total catch limit 6,950,240 pounds) was reduced by 248,000 pounds to account for wastage, resulting in an allocation of 6,702,240 pounds. In 2011, additional adjustments were made by DFO which included pounds available from the underage/overage plan, pounds leased to sport sector in experimental fishing program, and quota held by DFO for First Nations through a relinquishment process. The sport fishery total catch of 1,220,000 pounds exceeded the 947,800-pound allocation and is discussed in Williams (2011); the commercial fishery is discussed below. The total Area 2B catch of 7.7 million pounds was within 1% of the combined total catch limit (7.65 million pounds).
Area 2B
Each vessel was allocated a fixed poundage of halibut, or an IVQ, as calculated by DFO. In 1991, when the halibut IVQ program was implemented, 435 vessels received IVQs. Each initial IVQ was split into two shares called blocks. Numerous changes have been made since then, including first allowing temporary block transfers (1993) and then permanent block and IVQ transfers (1999). Since 1999, the number of active vessels with halibut licenses (L licenses), and First Nations communal commercial licenses (FL licenses), has decreased from a high of 257 (in 1999) to a low of 148 (in 2011). However, halibut was landed from a total of 217 active licenses in 2011, sixty-nine of which were from other fisheries.
The Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) has been in effect in British Columbia since 2006. The IFMP, initially a three-year pilot program, was implemented to meet conservation needs, including addressing rockfish conservation concerns and improving catch monitoring. The IFMP was reviewed and approved by DFO in January 2010. The IFMP includes quota shares for all hook and line groundfish fisheries, transferability with limits between license holders, 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, and vessel accountability for all catch, both landed and discarded. There is 100% monitoring through logbook recordings, video camera coverage, and dockside coverage.
The commercial catch of 6,480,000 pounds for Area 2B was 3% under the catch limit.
March and August were the busiest months for poundage delivered in British Columbia with approximately 16% of the catch during each month. Average landing dates in British Columbia occurred later this year as 49% of the Area 2B catch was landed by the end of May in 2010, and only 38% was landed by the end of May in 2011.
The landing of live halibut from Area 2B was legally allowed by DFO and resulted in a total landing weight of 1,026 pounds, a new low for landings of live halibut since live landings began in 1999. Live fish landings have ranged from a high of 103,000 pounds in 1999 to a low of 1,026 pounds in 2011.
Table 2. The 2011 Area 2B catch limits as allocated by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and estimated catches (thousands of pounds, net weight).
| Fishery | Allocation | Catch Estimate[SUP]1[/SUP] |
| Commercial fishery Sport fishery2 | 6,702.2 947.8 | 6,480.0 1,220.0 |
| Total allocation/catch | 7,650.0 | 7,700.0 |
| IPHC research catch | 80.0 | |
| Total | 7,650.0[SUP]3[/SUP] | 7,780.0 |
1 Preliminary
2 An experimental permit program was implemented in 2011 which allowed sport operators to lease quota from commercial operators. Details on the amount leased were not available at time of writing.
3 Adjustments totaling -51,687 pounds were made to the commercial fishery catch limit which included carryover from the previous year’s underage/overage plan and quota held by DFO for First Nations through relinquishment processes.
Table 3. Commercial catch (including IPHC research catch) and catch limits of Pacific halibut (in thousands of pounds, net weight) by IPHC regulatory area, 2001 - 2011.
| Regulatory | ||||||||||
| Area | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 20102 | 20113 |
| 2B | 12,074 | 11,789 | 12,162 | 12,331 | 12,005 | 9,772 | 7,756 | 6,637 | 6,729 | 6,560 |
| Commercial Catch1 | ||||||||||
| Area | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| 2B | 11,750 | 11,750 | 12,141 | 11,658 | 11,631 | 10,089.4 | 7,918 | 6,711.6 | 6,598.6 | 6,702 |
FYI… If Don Staniford can raise $100,000 for his legal fees, so can you! Fees are based on the firm’s reputation and hours once the clock starts and a good firm keeps track and can account for every minute charged (e.g. research and discovery, etc, etc, etc.) It should be closer to $100,000. A more expensive firm, maybe $200,000. You can also ask and recover legal fees and costs, in addition to damages. Think about it, there are 300,000 anglers who should be supporting this action.
You can keep writing all the letters you want. Keep having those “town meetings.” Keep believing, thinking, and saying whatever. Keep playing those DFO games; which btw, they are masters. Or, just realize the only way these issues will get resolved is by going through Court. Sorry, but anything and everything like this, the only way it ever gets resolved in Canada (or the U.S.) is by going through the courts.
I have been to court. My advice is find the BEST, most well known law firm you can. Ask if they will accept their fees from the settlement. I have done that twice and that is a sure sign you have a winning case. I would also try to figure out an angle on how to get Ecojustice involved. If you can get them evolved, I’d say you will be a winner as soon as the suit is filed and before any notices are even served!
http://www.ecojustice.ca/
Have fun in Supreme Court. It really isn’t that bad, just time consuming. J
fish4all
Well-Known Member
The calculation for deductions is done here not at the iphc.
Fisher Down
Active Member
If 2/3 of all BC's estimated 300,000 recreational fishermen donate $1.00, that's a good start to the $200K.
The only flaw (to this plan) is to convince concerned fishermen to get off their duffs and actually donate to the cause.
Who's got a barrel, we can start the donations in 3 hours at the seminar.
F D
lorneparker1
Banned
Where did you get 200k from? Alexandra morton sued and beat the dfo for a fraction of that. Sure its not going to be cheap or easy. Nothing worth it in our lives is.
Lorne.
If someone were to open a trust fund, I for one would donate a $100.00 to support this very important cause!
As I see it, it's not just the sportfisher that is being screwed here, but the charter fleet that has the most to lose in revenue.
With the # of guides this affects, all they would have to do is charge a small user fee on any of the Hali charters and the fund would build over night!
With donations from the sportfishing members also collected, $200.000 would be pocket change!
How much do most of us spend at Tim's on the way to our boats?
As I see it, it's not just the sportfisher that is being screwed here, but the charter fleet that has the most to lose in revenue.
With the # of guides this affects, all they would have to do is charge a small user fee on any of the Hali charters and the fund would build over night!
With donations from the sportfishing members also collected, $200.000 would be pocket change!
How much do most of us spend at Tim's on the way to our boats?
hooktender68
Well-Known Member
This is going to be fun !! Emailing all my clients telling them sorry about your choice of dates, but you picked Aug 1 no hali for you you or you.
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
I was hoping you'd step in and talk numbers. If anyone would know, it would be you! So I assume you state no overage would apply to us? Based on what I see on your post therefore, we should be looking at 995000 catch this year vs 947000....right? So I guess if they take the overage # just to project that catch rate over this year, we DO still come up with early August
So in my books, the big issue is their whacked out 'guestimates' - that is definitely something to fight. We get an official DFO release in middle of August stating 'our quota will be reached in August' - they then shut it down Sept 5 and the final numbers come in 270000 pounds higher??? I damn well know there is no way we harvested 270k in 3 non traditional halibut weeks (maybe even less than that as it isn't clear what 'in August' actually implies). I realize they have a data collection delay, but if they are that far out to lunch, how can they possibly justify any whackadoodle numbers they come up with???? Just can't help think how brutal this would be for the west coast guides! Thats a full month of their prime guiding season!
searun
Well-Known Member
$200K is a drop in the bucket on a case like this. There will be a ton of expensive legal research that will need to be done to prepare a case like this. It isn't run of the mill litigation because you are tracking on new ground. It's not like running a simple civil trial, and those will cost you an easy $70K. This is also not a case for a junior in the firm to take on, so you will be paying top hourly rate for someone capable enough to successfully run this type of case. So while you may get away with less than $200K, you really don't know the true cost until you get into the thick of it. If you don't have that kind of war chest, don't start what you can't afford to finish.
Which, is why you file it " with associated costs". The precedent has been set, DFO can't take anymore loses, the Cohen investigation and now the kerfufal over the Descrectionary powers the Minister does'nt have when it comes to the oceans protection has left them in a defensive position. The term "Strike while the iron is hot" would definatley fit this situation.
lorneparker1
Banned
That is why you make it so that when you win THEY pay your legal costs. If it wasnt for thier carelessness and stupity we wouldnt have to do this. Have you spoke to anyone about persuing it? (law firms) or have you persuded something similar and thats where you get those numbers? I am not trying to be an butt, I am just trying to figure out where they came from as they sound pulled out of the sky.
searun
Well-Known Member
Forgot to mention - NO where in the DFO press release does it say the fishery will close Aug 1. The SFI press release in my view prematurely predicts the end date for the fishery. Last season the fishery was closed in September. We have a similar numbers roughly to play with so it is hard to predict exactly when we will reach our quota. There's a lot of time and opportunity to find potential solutions between now and then.
searun
Well-Known Member
With due respect, you should take a look at the Supreme Court Rules - particularly the Tariff of Costs. A little complicated to understand, but the gist of it is you are only allowed to recover a set number of units of cost for each legal activity along the process. There is no way this even comes remotely close to paying the full cost of litigation, and is tied to you winning the case. You are smoking something that ain't legal if you think a law firm would take on a case like this on a contingency fee agreement - the outcome is not certain. This is a large financial risk to any law firm. Unless we can find someone who is willing to take this on pro bono we still face those significant costs. My view is before we start making emotional decisions around what to do, we should step back and weigh the real costs, risks and best likelihood of success. Not that I'm saying I'm happy with the outcome, I'm just saying we need to step back and consider our options and make an informed decision as to next steps.
I fully agree that the only way anyone will ever get DFO or their masters in Ottawa to change their minds about anything is through the court system. I'm hearing lots of discussion about this but I can't get my poor mind around what the case would entail. You know, who is the plaintiff, who is the defendant, what is the 'damage' to be litigated etc., etc. I think we need to be very specific about the details or this will never go anywhere.
Any lawyers out there care to comment?
Interesting reading. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/08.html
Any lawyers out there care to comment?
Interesting reading. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/08.html
Unfortunatly for DFO they just lost all support for all creel survey and Log book programs from our area.
We are a substantial part of the input they recieve for free and now after the so called resolution on the halibut issue they just lost everything from us.
All they had to do was give us a opening and closure date written in stone per say that matches the commercial sector and they could of done that.
If they can strip the commercial sector of 3% with the stroke of a pencil than they could of simply made ample decisions the rectify the situation and they didn't.
I urge all recreational fishrmen to completely boycott the creel survey program as a means to say we as a huge group will not stand by and accept the decision on this issue.
I'm personally discusted witht he continuation of the Lease program.
I personally sat at a meeting with Kamp who said it was a huge disappointment and truelly not an option for the future and here we are taking it for another year.
Complete joke!
We are a substantial part of the input they recieve for free and now after the so called resolution on the halibut issue they just lost everything from us.
All they had to do was give us a opening and closure date written in stone per say that matches the commercial sector and they could of done that.
If they can strip the commercial sector of 3% with the stroke of a pencil than they could of simply made ample decisions the rectify the situation and they didn't.
I urge all recreational fishrmen to completely boycott the creel survey program as a means to say we as a huge group will not stand by and accept the decision on this issue.
I'm personally discusted witht he continuation of the Lease program.
I personally sat at a meeting with Kamp who said it was a huge disappointment and truelly not an option for the future and here we are taking it for another year.
Complete joke!
searun
Well-Known Member
Litigation is risky business. Another risk we haven't discussed is the potential that we lose the case. If you lose, that case becomes precedent setting. What interest do you think DFO, Government or anyone else would have in talking about other ways to solve this issue if they can simply waive a court decision in our faces. Think about it. There are more costs than financial. Been there done that many times. There is no sure thing in litigation other than you have a lot of risk and costs.
lorneparker1
Banned
A smart man once said ....
"Trying is the first step towards failure" "If you dont try you can never fail"
Homer Simpson.
So i guess we shouldnt try, because we might lose?
If we win the case also becomes Precendent setting..... and can you imagine the precedent it would set? I agree with most of what you have said. Its risky, no doubt. Expensive, forsure. What is the alternative?
Im 31 now and ive lived in BC for 3 years. And ive seen us get f%#0ed more in those 3 years then i have ever been in my entire life. I can imagine what people who have grown up here there whole lives must be thinking. The truth is IMO is nothing will change. WE will keep getting the screws put to us until we are completely eliminated.
"Trying is the first step towards failure" "If you dont try you can never fail"
Homer Simpson.
So i guess we shouldnt try, because we might lose?
If we win the case also becomes Precendent setting..... and can you imagine the precedent it would set? I agree with most of what you have said. Its risky, no doubt. Expensive, forsure. What is the alternative?
Im 31 now and ive lived in BC for 3 years. And ive seen us get f%#0ed more in those 3 years then i have ever been in my entire life. I can imagine what people who have grown up here there whole lives must be thinking. The truth is IMO is nothing will change. WE will keep getting the screws put to us until we are completely eliminated.
Going back to my original question - What, exactly, would "the case" be all about? A bigger % of quota? An end to the quota system entirely? Something else? What? It is crucial to have a very clear, precise statement of objective before any court action can occur. I don't see that yet.
You also need someone or some organization with standing to step forward as the plaintiff. Who would that be?
MILLERTIME
Member
Reworked this overview from the class action case below just to get some idea of what a claim might look like.....
British-Columbia recreational halibut fishermen, charters operators and lodges have launched a proposed class action over an alleged unlawful transfer of recreational halibut quota to the commercial sector by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) from 200? to present. According to the lawsuit, the federal Crown has unfairly transferred 13% of the total annual allowable catch for halibut away from the recreational sector and has transferred it to a single license holder, the Pacific Halibut Management Association of B.C., who then gifted the 13% quota back to the commercial sector in perpetuity. The lawsuit seeks compensation and damages from DFO for unjust deprivation as the quota taken away from the recreational sector has severally impacted all facets of the recreational halibut fishery both directly and indirectly.
http://www.myclassaction.ca/3384/#.T0ABbk4gekc
British-Columbia recreational halibut fishermen, charters operators and lodges have launched a proposed class action over an alleged unlawful transfer of recreational halibut quota to the commercial sector by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) from 200? to present. According to the lawsuit, the federal Crown has unfairly transferred 13% of the total annual allowable catch for halibut away from the recreational sector and has transferred it to a single license holder, the Pacific Halibut Management Association of B.C., who then gifted the 13% quota back to the commercial sector in perpetuity. The lawsuit seeks compensation and damages from DFO for unjust deprivation as the quota taken away from the recreational sector has severally impacted all facets of the recreational halibut fishery both directly and indirectly.
http://www.myclassaction.ca/3384/#.T0ABbk4gekc
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
