Halibut Closed Until Further Notice
- Thread starter Tailspin
- Start date
Tailspin
Active Member
This sums it up, the latest from Chris Bos
Victoria SFAB Constituents,
FYI - this letter was sent today (see below and read the copy list too) You should note I did not represent myself as your local Victoria SFAB committee chair in sending the correspondence, as this is now a lobby effort and not an advisory role.
Apologies for any duplication
Chris
Friday 23rd January 2009
By Electronic Mail
Attention: Dan Cody
Policy Advisor
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Minister's Office, Centennial Tower
200 Kent Street,
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0E6
Dear Mr Cody,
Several days have past since we spoke regarding a meeting with Fisheries Minister Shea during her recent west coast visit. Unfortunately, Thomas Cole and I were not able to meet with the Minister in person as we had hoped. We have received information about the meetings with SFI, BCWF and SFAB delegations and learned that no decision has been reached by the Minister on the halibut allocation issue at this time.
You indicated during our last conversation that if you were unable to arrange an in-person meeting with the Honourable Gail Shea for Thomas Cole and I, we could expect a meeting with other important individuals shortly. Has there been any development on that front?
I write this email to share the urgency around the worsening of the matter of our local public halibut fishery. On the 21st January I received this notice from DFO -FN0030-Halibut: Remains Closed Coast-wide Until Further Notice and now today FN0035-Halibut: Further to FN0030 - Remain Closed Coast-wide Until Further Notice. The season, as per the printed synopsis, was due to open on February 1st. This marks year two of late notification of changes to printed season openings while truly no conservation concern exists. I note the IPHC website shows a 2009 coast-wide exploitable biomass of 325,000,000 lbs; the Total Allowable Catch for the coast is 54,080,000 lbs therefore no conservation concern exists. I have been receiving calls and emails, as has Thomas Cole, from local SFAB constituents expressing their frustrations and anger due to their loss of fishing opportunity. This includes many sport fishing charter operators who cannot accept bookings from potential clients due to the uncertainty this halibut issue creates.
The late opening and early closure of public halibut fishing by DFO has, in our opinion, disproportionatley harmed us here in the Sidney and Victoria areas through to Juan de Fuca Strait past Sooke, as many areas of the coast cannot fish in fall, winter and early spring as we do. Sadly, the halibut fishery is not viable here in the summer months for various reasons. Why are we being singled out unfairly by DFO regulations changes when we use so little of the TAC?
I am sincerely hopeful you can help us share the personal message of our local angling community to those, in power, who are contemplating at great length the way forward on how to address the halibut allocation dilemma. Our plight needs to be heard.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Yours sincerely,
Chris
www.tailspincharters.com
Victoria SFAB Constituents,
FYI - this letter was sent today (see below and read the copy list too) You should note I did not represent myself as your local Victoria SFAB committee chair in sending the correspondence, as this is now a lobby effort and not an advisory role.
Apologies for any duplication
Chris
Friday 23rd January 2009
By Electronic Mail
Attention: Dan Cody
Policy Advisor
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Minister's Office, Centennial Tower
200 Kent Street,
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0E6
Dear Mr Cody,
Several days have past since we spoke regarding a meeting with Fisheries Minister Shea during her recent west coast visit. Unfortunately, Thomas Cole and I were not able to meet with the Minister in person as we had hoped. We have received information about the meetings with SFI, BCWF and SFAB delegations and learned that no decision has been reached by the Minister on the halibut allocation issue at this time.
You indicated during our last conversation that if you were unable to arrange an in-person meeting with the Honourable Gail Shea for Thomas Cole and I, we could expect a meeting with other important individuals shortly. Has there been any development on that front?
I write this email to share the urgency around the worsening of the matter of our local public halibut fishery. On the 21st January I received this notice from DFO -FN0030-Halibut: Remains Closed Coast-wide Until Further Notice and now today FN0035-Halibut: Further to FN0030 - Remain Closed Coast-wide Until Further Notice. The season, as per the printed synopsis, was due to open on February 1st. This marks year two of late notification of changes to printed season openings while truly no conservation concern exists. I note the IPHC website shows a 2009 coast-wide exploitable biomass of 325,000,000 lbs; the Total Allowable Catch for the coast is 54,080,000 lbs therefore no conservation concern exists. I have been receiving calls and emails, as has Thomas Cole, from local SFAB constituents expressing their frustrations and anger due to their loss of fishing opportunity. This includes many sport fishing charter operators who cannot accept bookings from potential clients due to the uncertainty this halibut issue creates.
The late opening and early closure of public halibut fishing by DFO has, in our opinion, disproportionatley harmed us here in the Sidney and Victoria areas through to Juan de Fuca Strait past Sooke, as many areas of the coast cannot fish in fall, winter and early spring as we do. Sadly, the halibut fishery is not viable here in the summer months for various reasons. Why are we being singled out unfairly by DFO regulations changes when we use so little of the TAC?
I am sincerely hopeful you can help us share the personal message of our local angling community to those, in power, who are contemplating at great length the way forward on how to address the halibut allocation dilemma. Our plight needs to be heard.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Yours sincerely,
Chris
www.tailspincharters.com
searun
Well-Known Member
Once again, Millsy is the voice of reason. One small point, this is both a conservation and allocation issue. We need to do our part to contribute to conservation, and we have.
Allocation remains the largest issue. There are several great legal arguments which can be made in support of larger allocation to the recreational fishery. The Minister was apprised of these arguments. It will be interesting to see what position she ends up with...time will tell, and for now all we can really do is await that announcement.
I really do support Millsy's view that the salt water recreational sector needs to have a formal voice. The SFAB process is simply an advisory process. What is largely missing is a strong salt water voice so we can lobby for all recreational fisher's.
Perhaps the good thing about this halibut problem may be some guys stepping up and taking the initiative to either form a new lobby group or re-vamp the SFI so they truly represent all recreational anglers, not just the lodge operators - which is the perception out there from guys I speak with.
Allocation remains the largest issue. There are several great legal arguments which can be made in support of larger allocation to the recreational fishery. The Minister was apprised of these arguments. It will be interesting to see what position she ends up with...time will tell, and for now all we can really do is await that announcement.
I really do support Millsy's view that the salt water recreational sector needs to have a formal voice. The SFAB process is simply an advisory process. What is largely missing is a strong salt water voice so we can lobby for all recreational fisher's.
Perhaps the good thing about this halibut problem may be some guys stepping up and taking the initiative to either form a new lobby group or re-vamp the SFI so they truly represent all recreational anglers, not just the lodge operators - which is the perception out there from guys I speak with.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
there is a simple solution to the problem. Have the lodges and charter boats buy commercial quota so there is fish left for the independant guy.
the arguement of common property would be great if the lodge and charter group were catering to only canadians. The fact is that a large part of the clientel is from out of the country. To me that makes them commercial and should be treated as a commercial business.
the arguement of common property would be great if the lodge and charter group were catering to only canadians. The fact is that a large part of the clientel is from out of the country. To me that makes them commercial and should be treated as a commercial business.
Sushihunter
Active Member
Sorry, I don't buy this.
Just because some of us make a few bucks taking people sports fishing for Salmon and Halibut, does not mean that we are commercial fishermen. We provide transportation and instruction to sports fishermen. We provide great economic spinoffs to our local communities - much more than the commercial fishermen do. They don't even buy groceries in the small coastal communities. They bring in everything from Vancouver, or whatever home port they live in. If we are lucky, they might buy a few beers in the local pub.
By your logic, we should be charging the airlines and car rental companies a fee for taking fish.
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
ratherbefishing
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong here, I am all for recreational and guided fishing opportunities as I see them as the only future for salmon/halibut on the coast but...if you own a business and collect $$ for a service that, IMO, is 'commercial'.
On another note...
Guess the millions of $$ brought in by the rec. sector (both guided and non-guided) just isn't as important to DFO as maintaining the 'good ole boys club'. Time for the politicians at DFO (I say this as I believe some of the real biologists and techs really want to do best for the resource) to get with the times and not make the same mistakes as the East Coast!
I'd continue to pull hair out over this but seems that I've run out.
On another note...
Guess the millions of $$ brought in by the rec. sector (both guided and non-guided) just isn't as important to DFO as maintaining the 'good ole boys club'. Time for the politicians at DFO (I say this as I believe some of the real biologists and techs really want to do best for the resource) to get with the times and not make the same mistakes as the East Coast!
I'd continue to pull hair out over this but seems that I've run out.
searun
Well-Known Member
I agree Jim, this is not something we should plan on funding from our charter businesses. Anyone who thinks you get rich guiding needs to give their head a shake...they are slim margins when you consider the capital cost for equipment. Try replacing a four stroke engine every 3 years. Rather, there is a simple solution which is to have a halibut conservation tag that every recreational angler must buy, and all proceeds would go to a fund to purchase commercial halibut quota.
This has been proposed to the Minister on several occasions and may well be a solution...but...and it is a big but, the Commercial allocation is not cast in stone, nor is it guaranteed year over year to stay the same for the fleet. Adjustments can be made season to season, therefore the commercial allocation and licenses can be altered.
SO, I think before we go buying up quota, we should be first insisting the commercial allocation is reduced to allow a reasonable recreational fishery.
My opinion of reasonable would be 2 fish per day, 2 possession as it was last year with a reduced season (June to Sept). I would recommend staying away from maximum size limits as this would be too dangerous. Can you imagine the injuries if we had people lifting large Hali's into the boat so they could measure the length....it would be a train wreck.
This has been proposed to the Minister on several occasions and may well be a solution...but...and it is a big but, the Commercial allocation is not cast in stone, nor is it guaranteed year over year to stay the same for the fleet. Adjustments can be made season to season, therefore the commercial allocation and licenses can be altered.
SO, I think before we go buying up quota, we should be first insisting the commercial allocation is reduced to allow a reasonable recreational fishery.
My opinion of reasonable would be 2 fish per day, 2 possession as it was last year with a reduced season (June to Sept). I would recommend staying away from maximum size limits as this would be too dangerous. Can you imagine the injuries if we had people lifting large Hali's into the boat so they could measure the length....it would be a train wreck.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
They don't even buy groceries in the small coastal communities. They bring in everything from Vancouver, or whatever home port they live in. If we are lucky, they might buy a few beers in the local pub.
Jim;
Most of the commercial fisherman are from the small coastal communiteis. Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Comox, and the Charlottes are the main ports for these vessels. I'm afraid your off on this one.
Jim;
Most of the commercial fisherman are from the small coastal communiteis. Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Comox, and the Charlottes are the main ports for these vessels. I'm afraid your off on this one.
ratherbefishing
Well-Known Member
This is an open question as I do not know the official answer...when did sport fishing become a RIGHT</u> for the 'average' Canadian? Best as I can tell the only people that have the RIGHT to fish are First Nations? For the record, I am not FN (not that that should matter).
Sushihunter
Active Member
Sorry, but Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, and Comox are not "small coastal communities". Tahsis, Port Alice, Kyuquot, Bamfield, etc. are small coastal communities.
Here in Tahsis, (where I live full time, when not visiting friends in Vancouver), has two motels, one of which is only open for 3 months per year (during fishing season) if we are lucky. The other motel has no food service most of the time. The one and only "full time restaurant here is run by one women and closes if she leaves town. We recently lost our government liquor store and now have a smaller agency store at the local "grocery store". Due to cost of transportation and lack of population base, most items are double the price we pay in Campbell River or Courtenay.
Last time I checked, Courtenay/Comox had a Wal-Mart, Future Shop, Canadian Tire, Great Canadian SuperStore, Safeway, Thrifty's, London Drugs, Zellers, and a Home Depot. Campbell River has SuperStore, Save-on-Foods, Thrifty's, IGA, Canadian Tire, Zellers, Home Hardware, a Home Depot has been built and will open in a couple of months, Wal-Mart is planned, maybe next year, and rumours of a Costco abound.
It costs me about $80 in gas, plus meals, plus motel and 6 to 8 hours driving (not including in-town driving) to go shopping in your "small coastal communities".
We are fighting to survive out here. So please fogive me if I seem to rant on this subject.
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
All make many good valid points. The bottom line is tourism fishing and everything to do with that spreads more money around the communities per fish than the commercial fisheries.
When commercial meant the average Joe with a small boat could support a family on his own we had a lot more available. Now commercial means one guy owning a big boat hiring a few fisherman to do his work for him and he pockets the lion's share. Then the Government has to take care of these fishermen while the boat owner counts his cash if he has made enough.
This is just my view and I realize that it could be wrong so I stand to be corrected.
When commercial meant the average Joe with a small boat could support a family on his own we had a lot more available. Now commercial means one guy owning a big boat hiring a few fisherman to do his work for him and he pockets the lion's share. Then the Government has to take care of these fishermen while the boat owner counts his cash if he has made enough.
This is just my view and I realize that it could be wrong so I stand to be corrected.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
What do you consider a reasonable recreational fishery? Are you talking about looking after Canadians or does this include visitors catch as well.
4 or 5 years ago we leased our underage in the sports sector to the commercials and put the money in trust to help out during years of low abundance or when recreational fishing grew to a certain level. Now we hit the wall when the unregulated effort on our coast has exceeded our allocation and we cry to have it taken from another user group. I think it is funny that when our sector was under we were all quite happy to lease it out for money and now that we are over the crying starts for uncompensated transfers...
There is some apparent misconception out there about the recreational 12% allocation being exceeded by some folks. The recreational sector have clearly exceeded the 12% allocation but not because of uncontrolled growth of our fishery as some ill-informed critics would have you believe. There has been no amazing growth of the recreational halibut fishery in a few short years. While there has been an increase, the fishery is now stable. The truth is DFO creel survey of halibut has been built and operated on a creel survey system originally designed, as I understand, to count salmon in the Strait of Georgia. It now counts salmon and groundfish including halibut coast-wide. This broader survey, using realistic measurements, now reports numbers of pounds landed that are much higher than the almost guestimated creel of yester-year, but these are far more accurate numbers. So the growth of catch statistics is improved accuracy of reporting not a sector spiralling out of control.
This leaves our sector today unfairly harmed by the original 12% allocation of the catchable halibut TAC. What we were led to believe was: we only caught 9% first year of 12% allocation debacle and some were rubbing hands counting the huge bucks that would be building in our coffers over time as we sold uncaught fish to the longliners. Not so, today. Halibut TAC has been dropping slightly in the past few years due to management measures by the IPHC and the new creel numbers are more accurate, showing we catch way more halis than was thought leaving us at something like 18% of the Cdn TAC. (One recent example: in 2008 Rupert area grew in hali catch by almost 200,000 lbs (doubled in one year) not because twice as many fish were landed than previous years but merely because the creel has accuracy and the counted numbers show what was caught compared to the incorrect extrapolated count of the past).
This leaves us as a sector with an untenably unfair situation. We are being reined in now because we were orinially assigned a bogus percentage. The Minister of the day was not neccessarily wrong but used data that was inaccurate , assiging us too little to even carry on normal fisheries. And so far instead of standing up as a government and making an upward adjustment for fairness sake in the percentage of the TAC assigned to the recreational sector (which is in my opinion the correct thing for government to do) we are being squeezed off the water. Uncertainty is being wrought upon our Victoria and Sooke area charter operators who need surprisingly few fish to keep their businesses flourishing in uncertain economic times.
Making the case for allocation of greater percentage of the Cdn TAC to the recreational sector is really the only feasible way forward. Yes, and if those who are negatively affected by this re-allocation need to be compensated, give them compensation. Pay commercial quota holders for fish they we originally gifted by the Minster of FOC cash to return that free quota back to Canada. Even if I have to have buy an annual hali stamp to go fishing, I am cool with that. But taking our sector off the water for months and months cutting our daily limits, etc when there is no conservation concern is just unacceptable. Victoria's anglers, charter operators, marinas and all those companies that support their fishery should not accept lightly what has already happened and really must get active in ensuring their interests are represented.
It is time to stand up and take action, friends. You need to be heard in the halls of Ottawa. Sitting and waiting with a positive attitude for your government to save you harmless is smokin' weird stuff, if you ask me! Get out to that 3rd February meeting, offer to help, do something for your cause.
I'll be there
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
This leaves our sector today unfairly harmed by the original 12% allocation of the catchable halibut TAC. What we were led to believe was: we only caught 9% first year of 12% allocation debacle and some were rubbing hands counting the huge bucks that would be building in our coffers over time as we sold uncaught fish to the longliners. Not so, today. Halibut TAC has been dropping slightly in the past few years due to management measures by the IPHC and the new creel numbers are more accurate, showing we catch way more halis than was thought leaving us at something like 18% of the Cdn TAC. (One recent example: in 2008 Rupert area grew in hali catch by almost 200,000 lbs (doubled in one year) not because twice as many fish were landed than previous years but merely because the creel has accuracy and the counted numbers show what was caught compared to the incorrect extrapolated count of the past).
This leaves us as a sector with an untenably unfair situation. We are being reined in now because we were orinially assigned a bogus percentage. The Minister of the day was not neccessarily wrong but used data that was inaccurate , assiging us too little to even carry on normal fisheries. And so far instead of standing up as a government and making an upward adjustment for fairness sake in the percentage of the TAC assigned to the recreational sector (which is in my opinion the correct thing for government to do) we are being squeezed off the water. Uncertainty is being wrought upon our Victoria and Sooke area charter operators who need surprisingly few fish to keep their businesses flourishing in uncertain economic times.
Making the case for allocation of greater percentage of the Cdn TAC to the recreational sector is really the only feasible way forward. Yes, and if those who are negatively affected by this re-allocation need to be compensated, give them compensation. Pay commercial quota holders for fish they we originally gifted by the Minster of FOC cash to return that free quota back to Canada. Even if I have to have buy an annual hali stamp to go fishing, I am cool with that. But taking our sector off the water for months and months cutting our daily limits, etc when there is no conservation concern is just unacceptable. Victoria's anglers, charter operators, marinas and all those companies that support their fishery should not accept lightly what has already happened and really must get active in ensuring their interests are represented.
It is time to stand up and take action, friends. You need to be heard in the halls of Ottawa. Sitting and waiting with a positive attitude for your government to save you harmless is smokin' weird stuff, if you ask me! Get out to that 3rd February meeting, offer to help, do something for your cause.
I'll be there
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Good stuff Chris.
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
wolf
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
