Halibut issue

[double trouble]

Fish4all. Your comments about the SFAB are not even close to accurate. They and others have been working on this ever since it was announced back in 2003. And I have no idea about your 11th hour comment either. There were people from the SFAB participating in the Stanyer process but that turned out to be a bit of a lark. Those who had quota of course didn't want to give it up (why would they) without compensation and the gov't people would not get involved in any discussion that involved the transfer of monies to move allocation. Those present from gov't would not offer any solution for raising the money to transfer allocation, all they did was shoot down any ideas the rec sector had in raising funds. It seems they were more interested in the divide and conquer scheme that the commercial guys have been working on, trying to convince everyone that somehow lodges and charters should buy quota like the commercial harvester. But of course the obvious difference is the charter/lodge customer is in fact the person that keeps the fish and puts it out on their own table to eat. And the halibut is recorded on the individual's licence, no one elses. And don't try to spin this into an conservation issue, no reasonable thinking person buys that. The IPHC has a good handle on the TAC and the current issue is the halibut are at a low harvest number, not a no harvest number.

 

[fishingbc]

Instead of working with you .lol Do you have any idea of the options put forward that the sfab absolutly resfused to look at or entertain to try and work this out? Only to come forward in the 11th hour with a document demanding dfo to take quota away from commercial fishermen that had to pay for it. And no the document did not say "take it away from the slipper skippers" it said take it from all.
Why would 1/1 "shut down" a $650 million/year sports fishery? Do you or anyone have any proof of this?
The Alaskans just got sh#t kicked at the IPHC this week. They are about to have limited entry for the charter boats, reduced limits, and possibly a slot size on halibut the uncertainty is far greater there. And it thats not enough area 2c,Sitka, with 4mill in over havesting by the rec sector over the last 6 years is on the brink of collapse. Maybe it's time we all stood back from this thing and put the fish first, or does that not fit your business plan?

After 8 yrs sitting around the SFAB local table it became quite clear to me anyway, that it is set up to fail, or at the very least be at the whim of the powers at DFO to over ride anything with the stroke of a pen, many many times without explanation or reason given. Thus we now have the BC Sport Fishing Coalition which will take the lead role away from the mainly powerless SFAB and deal with DFO on a level of participation never before seen by anyone at DFO or in Government.....the shear numbers of people who have already come together and in time will have to be dealt with in a completely different way by DFO and our elected officials.....strength in numbers.....as far as quota and where it comes from, it's Ottawa's problem, not mine, when or how they fix this mess fall in their lap......all I keep hearing is the rec sector needs to more accountable...well who the F*#@K makes the rules, DFO and the politicians...if you don't like the way the rec fishery is run or how its accounts for its catch or handles its catch data then ***** at DFO.....one would think by all the "rec isn't accountable" crap floating around that we could just go ahead and print our own Tidal Water license with halibut catch data attached to it.....issue our own lifetime anglers numbers (fresh water now does this) to keep track of all our catch data....poof problem solved.....NOT....SH#@T DFO hasn't spent a F*$#@KIN dime on anything to do with rec licensing in 20 yrs if at all .....they take the $6.75 (-$1.00 to PSF) salmon conservation stamp money,pave roads in Montreal and fix pot holes in Winnipeg with it.......its a joke....a fraud....where does our license fees go to....same stupid thing.....and they never have any money for hatcheries or whatever....its DFO...wake up.....east coast cod ring a bell.....you want numbers ***** at DFO...that's all part of their F*$#@KED UP BUSINESS PLAN

1/1 who's gonna fly all the way from Sudbury, L.A, Boston, Quebec City, Calgary or wherever spend money on flights, time off work, hotels, vehicle rentals, fuel, restaurants, liquor, fish shipping and or processing , charters and any number of incidentals that our clients purchase while visiting so they can take 50% less halibut home as they could just a few short years ago...we have always just gone about our business, quietly bringing hundreds of millions of dollars every single year to coastal BC and now we are a united sector that is standing up for whats right for US.....not what DFO thinks is right for us......big difference.....I know most guides have seen a drastic down turn in business since the shortened seasons and reduced limits have been shoved down our throats...lodges closing in Haida Gwaii.....thus coastal BC sees the effect immediately , unlike what we see with 80% of commercial halibut going south to the usa where the American end user (grocer, restaurant,fish monger etc) makes the larger profits....$6.50 per pound landed here.....lets not get into $ per pound of sport caught fish which for the most part stays entirely here in BC.....

 

[MILLERTIME]

Ignore him Derby

A Troll is a Troll is a Troll! What a fantastic picture! I have been wanting to call that guy out ever since he showed up about a month ago! Good on ya Cuba Libre!

 

[Ding Dong!]

Deaf, blind or mute; There are lots of people who disagree with the coalitions current direction and focus on battling sectors. Since ya'll have chosen to be deaf or blind, that leaves me to choose mute. It would be fair enough for me to determine that many of you enjoy one sided discussions. It's too bad that there are not many from the coalition who are willing to review other strategies or possible alternatives that may help reach your end result faster. I wish you all good luck on your journey, and I bid you farewell, as my efforts are obviously futile. I don't mind though, for I know that I have done my best to offer alternate ideas and views.

Ding Dong!

 

[Rockfish]

Well guys I think I called this one a while back. Hopefully he is a man of his word and won’t be back, but don’t count on it. Trolls on a mission sometimes just resurface as a new member with a different name.

 

[Derby]

Well a guy goes out to a PSF dinner and look what happens. Guys thanks for your support

Ding Dong on a personal note:
To me as a Tin boater or would you perfer "sportsman- depending on what boat you own I have personal had enough of being treat like third wheel-It stops here at halibut.Things need to change and we should all have equal access to a Canada property-Native/commercial and the people of Canada

 

[fishingbc]

well I have to pat myself on the back...I called that one too....eh Charlie....too funny

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Ding Dong! I think that if you really care about this issue, (you must care from some angle as it appears that you have spent a tremendous amount of time gathering info and chiming in on the forums) then it would be nice to read some posts that at least show a clear stance on the discussion and some genuine input towards moving forward. You do seem to be sitting on the fence a lot on this issue, stirring the POT. You do ask baited questions and always seem to avoid straight honest sincere answers, and seem to ask series of questions that are leading, I sometimes get the gut feeling that you are on here with a specific agenda (now I don't know you, maybe that is the way that you come across, but you can tell that it is getting you a label). It does appear that you are educated on the topic, it would be nice if you came across more like a comrade instead of a teacher. (We all need to learn, but condesention doesn't taste good after a while). You may or may not want to hear my two cents here, but reading your dialogue over the last month or so has left me a couple of times questioning where you are really coming from on this issue.

 

[profisher]

Not sure chasing the other side (or someone who takes their view) away is always a good thing. I would rather know what they are thinking or doing over guessing. Personally just to be clear I agree with any effort to get the rec side more of the halibut allocation. I will fully support the present coalition mandate and their present direction to achieve it. I will not however stop thinking about alternate ways to achieve this goal in the event the minister fails to act. As an example; the commercial effort to divide the recreational side into a tin boat verses guide could be thrown back in their face quite easily. They say there are 3 groups competing for halibut...rec fishers..guides/lodges and them. Simply agree that guides/charters/lodges are a commercial venture and their fish should not or never should have been taken from the rec TAC. Obviously then there must have been an oversight by the minister in 2003 as he only gave quota to 2 groups. He gave the licensed 400 + owners 88% and the rec fish 12% and gave the guides and lodges 0%. So our view would be that this oversight should be corrected by simply handing over an appropriate amount of commercial quota to the guide/lodge sector as it should have been from the beginning.

 

[Rockfish]

Profisher, -- I do agree it is useful and beneficial to have some who are from the other side of an issue on a forum dedicated to the advancement of Sport fishing. It allows us to sharpen our own positions and arguments and be aware of and therefore prepared for and better able to counter their arguments. They can provide a reality check and do sometimes offer some beneficial information or perspective which is useful in developing or modifying our own positions. We all have our biases and viewpoints. That said, in my mind there is a difference between those who come at us straight up like men and Mr. Ding Dong, a new member and single issue poster who worked hard to earn his troll label and in my opinion contributed little of value, lowered the level of discussion, baited others, attempted to distract us from advancing the issue of the fair allocation of halibut and attempted to create the false impression in the minds of the public who read these forums that recreational anglers are far more divided on the issue than we are. He was good at it though as evidenced by the fact we are still discussing his contribution. I can respect posters like fish4all and Fisher 69. I may not agree with them most of the time on an issue like sector allocation but there is no pretense or hidden agendas in their posts. They represent the commercial viewpoint and they come at us straight up.
He is gone, let’s move on.

 

[Aces]

Maybe if everyone stops making the battle us Vs. them between the sectors, and instead of making your focus about what you don't want, and simply start to considerate on what you do want as an end result, there may actually be some hope. If you actually read what has been written, it is all about working together. That's ok, I have no problem leaving, it's only too obvious that you have it all under control. "me being facetious".

Ding Dong!

You're leaving? Great

 

[Rockfish]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/

There is an interesting discussion going on in the Hunting BC forum. They have one area topic on Salt and Freshwater Angling and a thread call Halibut Wars. What is interesting is some recent posts by what I understand are from the commercial halibut sector in which they are apparently discussing the increasing of the quota for the recreational sector and the lowering of the commercial quota. If commercial halibut fishermen are beginning to come around to this we are making progress.

 

[wolf]

Rollie, is it my understanding that you propose to have each and every guest on my boat that catches the fish deemed a commercial operator? Last time I checked, when I ran a charter, the guests did the fishing, I ran the boat.

If we used that logic, every passenger on a BC Ferry should have thier MED A-1

 

[IronNoggin]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/What is interesting is some recent posts by what I understand are from the commercial halibut sector in which they are apparently discussing the increasing of the quota for the recreational sector and the lowering of the commercial quota. If commercial halibut fishermen are beginning to come around to this we are making progress.

Careful on the read of that Rockfish. The posts you refer to are ONE MAN'S OPINION. And while he is a deckhand in the halibut fishery, he certainly does NOT represent the mindset of the Industry as a whole. He does present some rather interesting thoughts though, well worth the read. Now if only a few of the rest of that Sector start to see things in the right way...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[profisher]

Roy, for now I'm only suggesting this as a tactic against their agenda of divide and conquer. It is only meant to defeat their agenda by agreeing with them and suggesting we should have been separate back in 2003, so give us our quota. They are playing a game, just like the FN play. I'm only suggesting playing the game by calling their bluff and going all in. I think the raise is to risky and they would fold and hope for a better hand.

To answer your question about your guests being commercial fishermen. If this were ever to become reality I would envision a "sport commercial" sector being created. They would obtain quota from the existing commercial quota holders like I said, but would be a completely separate entity. No rights to sell fish and bound by the rules for the recreational sector. I think you are taking the word "commercial" to literally. So no need to add Med A-1 instruction to your pre-departure routine each trip.
Again just thinking outside the box and offering some ideas that may or may not be useful.

 

[double trouble]

The problem with the idea you mention profisher is that if DFO came up with "sport commercial" it would still be possible for the average Joe to not be able to fish hali unless he went on a charter or to a lodge. Same problem as we have now, the average Joe angler is screwed when the TAC is low. And the other thing is that then we have created exactly what we are trying to change in the true commercial fishery, ownership of fish before they are caught. Suddenly the fish are now traded amongst lodges and charters for money and the public is left out of the fishery. And of course the big question, do I need a licence to fish hali on a "sport commercial operation" or do I just go out and get them as they are considered commercial caught. I don't think we can go down that road, that would open up Pandora's box.

 

[profisher]

So lets keep this hypothetical not advocating as I'm still supporting the coalitions efforts right now . If there were a 'sport commercial" created, where would that tack owed to that group come from? Not the rec side, more appropriate it comes out of the "commercial" TAC. So that would leave all the present Rec TAc (or what ever that number will be) to the as you call them the average Joes. The "commercials" say the guides/lodges take something like 69% of the sport Tac. Lets say 50% for the sake of argument. That means under the present system the average Joe really gets 6% of the TAC. Create a 'sport commercial" Tac and the average Joes becomes the full 12%. I would think another 12% should come out of the "commercial TAC" for the guides/lodges.

As for ownership before they are caught. Nobody truly owns the fish, (nor should they) all it takes is a single stroke of a pen and any fishery could be shut down permanently tomorrow, just like back east. We would loose the 12% we presently "own".
Yes anyone fishing with a 'sport commercial" would still need a license and still follow all the sport fishing regs. If the rec fishery for a species closes for the average Joe, it closes for the guides/lodges too. Not what you mean by trading amongst guides and lodges.

 

[double trouble]

On the sports commercial ownership of TAC, they would be able to trade it as a commodity to the highest bidder just like the commercial guys. Remember any TAC they acquire comes from the commercial side the way you are hypothetically speaking. Therfore I would suggest the rules around the quota would be the same. Heck, maybe they could even lease it back to the commercial guys in years of high abundance when they can't sell enough trips to use up their quota.
The sports side does not "own" their quota as opposed to the commercial side. Every percentage point on the commercial side has someones name or group attached to it. Of course in the rec sector it is not attached to any one person, but to the public angler as a group. No individual can sell their share or trade it. It is use it before the closure or lose it and someone else got your share. I know you recognize that but I'm not sure everyone does.
And I totally disagree with your assumption that if the sport side closes the guide/lodge (sport commercial) closes. Not if they own quota that is unused. It is expected that Canada catch up to their TAC if they wish and the sport commercial would be part of the TAC.
And back to my original point, the charters and guides offer a way for individual anglers to catch a fish, they supply the knowledge and the boat and sometimes the accommodations. There should be no need for them to purchase anything in relation to quota. The public use the quota.

 

[juandesooka]

Kind of an intriguing idea, this "sport commercial" TAC quota. I get the impression it is something along these lines in Alaska, where the charter guys have a clear and strict quota, separate from "recreational". [Or maybe it just that there's so few self-guided halibut anglers up there that it isn't even worth counting them?] I know they have put in a limit on who can do halibut guiding, via issuing licenses.

Is that the future here?

I have talked to charter guys who would be willing to buy commercial quota just to keep fishing, if the season were to close early. But I think there's a prohibition on sports fishing on a commercial boat. There's also issues about catch monitoring (have to land where they can be counted). And if you were paying $5/lb license fee, better hope your guest doesn't catch a 200 pounder! Or maybe it would be like Mexico, you may get the fun of catching a 200 pound sailfish, but you ain't taking any home with you....the fish is the captain's "tip".

I understand the arguments that these are recreational fish being caught, under sports licenses, and all that. But the gov't might well see this as an untapped revenue source, someone making $$ from halibut who isn't paying sufficient royalties. From an economic perspective, in an argument about which economic sector should get more of a limited resource, in the end those $$ might speak a lot louder than issues of fairness. Just sayin'...

 

[profisher]

The rules around the trading or selling of commercial TAC wouldn't be following the quota redistributed to a new "sport commercial" sector. It would be similar to the rec quota, group ownership not individual.. Only using ownership for a lack of another word. No trading or selling. I guess any unused quota could be leased back to the commercial fishery rather than loose it with no compensation.