Halibut issue

[double trouble]

I know the commercial guys left some in the water this year but usually it's more than that. I believe they fished as tiight as they could to the limit because they did not want to lose uncaught fish to the public fishery. They knew what was happening in the rec sector and it didn't take Einstein to figure out how to make it work to the commercial fisheries advantage. If my memory serves me right they can carry over the uncaught fish to the following year minus 10%, so traditionally if they left a few hundred thousand pounds in the water at the end of the season it was more of a marketing decision around price and supply rather than fishing to the last pound on the quota.
Anyways you bring up a good point in regards to safety. If the public halibut fishery closes mid-season this year as forecast I wonder if, as time ticks down, some people will make poor decisions around the weather to get their fish before the closing date. Much like the old derby style commercial halibut fishery. I think that is another reason why Minister Thibeault's original announcement needs to be revisited, he promised no in-season closure so that's the way it should be. The problem DFO has is they cherry picked what fit their tastes from the original announcement and ignored the rest. They've had 7 years to figure out a "market based mechanism" and haven't been able to come through on that either. It's high time they corrected the flaws in the original policy. They can find money to buy commercial TAC for our native friends but not for the taxpayers that keep the whole system going. I say buy the TAC, use it in the rec sector, and in years of higher TAC than what we can use lease it back to the commercial fishery. That way DFO will recover the investment.

 

[double trouble]

Fish4all. I took a look at what was left prior to the 34,000#'s this year. In 2009 the commercial guys left 550,000 pounds, 2008 528,000 pounds, 2007 391,000 pounds. I think that backs up my point that the commercial guys were protecting their turf this year, didn't want to risk DFO making a change with the uncaught fish. The other number I found interesting was that between '03 and '06 241 hali licences changed ownership. That would translate to millions of dollars being used by various people to buy quota from others. I once again suggest that the gov't buy quota back from the commercial sector as they have done for the natives. They can then let the public use it in years of low abundance and when the TAC is high they can lease it back at market to the commercial fishery. That way they can recover the cost over the long haul.

I know this is distasteful to a number of guys on this site but even though I believe everything was wrong with how DFO unrolled the original program, those that have since purchased it for market value should not lose it without compensation.

 

[chris73]

I know this is distasteful to a number of guys on this site but even though I believe everything was wrong with how DFO unrolled the original program, those that have since purchased it for market value should not lose it without compensation.

Again, I feel very little sympathy for a slipper skipper who bought a big licence some years ago for $100,000 and made millions with it without doing any work. Sorry, I don't think a buy-out or compensation is in order here.

 

[double trouble]

All I'm saying if I was one of those guys that played by the rules for the last 7 years I would be more than ticked off that my own government has slew footed me. Some of the slipper skippers likely had the foresight to realize that the value of the licence was in owning it, not fishing it so they bought it like a stock. I wish had been that smart. Let me put it another way, how would you feel if the government suddenly decided to settle a land claim they had to use your land and just kicked you off it, no compensation. When you bought it you abided by the rules of the day but now the rules have changed. Same deal to me, DFO screwed it up, DFO should fix it. The only problem I have with the compensation part is they are using your and my money. But at least over time they can get it back by leasing the excess to the commercial side. This low TAC won't go on forever and when it rebuilds we will have excess TAC in our fishery.
I should add one more thing. If they had to actually buy their quota post 2003 their return on investment is good, but it is not a $ 100,000 dollar investment will make you millions. The going price is over 7X the lease rate so if you do the math and include borrowed money it is a good return but by no means a home run. Now if you were one of the chosen ones back in 2003.....batter up!

 

[double trouble]

Holmes, I am totally with you on the frustration of the situation but do you have to resort to swearing? I thought this was a good discussion we were having between various interests within the fishery.

And as for fish4all's idea about lottery system and tags; tags have already been tried on chinooks years ago and was a total flop as would be LEH on halibut. The problem with the halibut public fishery is with distribution of the resource, not conservation.

 

[wolf]

commies use 3-5 lines at most per day. each line may have up to 500 hooks on it. So that would be 1500-2500 hooks hauled. Last year if i look i belive the average number of commies on the water in one day is around 15. So you are looking at 37,500 hooks hauled/day. How many sports boats are on the water in one day? How many times do you haul and set your hooks?

15 boats cmon man give me fricken break might as well times that by 9.55555555555555 and thats the real number of boats that fish for halibut even with your low number of 2500 hooks they leave it down for 24 hours. if you look I said 3000 to 5000 ewwww sorry out by 500 it depends on the size of the boat!!!!!!!! as the amout of skates one boat puts down some put 3 to 5 skates some put up to 10 skates (just for your info a skate is the term they use for a long line)even so ill use your 2500 ok times that by say 100 commies boats thats 250,000 hooks in the water for a 24 hour span.
where a rec guy put an average of 3 hooks down for maybe 8 ill even give you ohhhhhh 5000 rec boats ok thats only 15,000 hooks for 8 hours.

Now with YOUR MATH total hours in the water and total hooks equals 750,000 hooks for the same amout of time a rec fishes and you say we are the problem give your head a shake !!!!!!

ITS an unfair system and you know it but its quite clear your probally got a vested interest in the commie world and I will never give the "REAL" commercial fisherman grief the ones that accually works for there money and have a boat and goes out and fishes he in my mind is a real man its what made our country what it is some of it very bad mind you, do I have to remeind you the devistaion commercial fishing did to the coho stocks off of campbell river 20 yrs ago or is sportfishing at fault for that too???? a slipper skipper I have no respect for. the hard working commie guy yes and always will.

But thats not what this is about is it. we live in a country where its supposed to be a fair one, but the day of reconing is coming cause we will never back down.. be prepared sell your stock now!!!!!!


Wolf

 

[profisher]

Your missing his point on daily fishing pressure. He is saying that on any given day that only 15 of the 135 boats that fish halibut quota are on the water. The 135 are never out at the same time and 9.5 times 15 would be the entire fleet. No different than the entire marina in never completely empty with everyone out fishing at the same time.

 

[wolf]

NO im not but 15 out of the so called so short of season(he says) is unrealistic and yes I know 9.5 is the entire fleet I was making a point something you have missed.

 

[double trouble]

Am I missing something here? What difference does it make in how many boats are out on the water in either fishery. They both catch fish as their licence entitles them to. In the old days the commercial guys bonked the whole quota in a few weeks, but they still stayed within the Canadian TAC. Now it's just spread out over fewer boats and longer season. In both fisheries it makes better sense to have a long season assuming Canada doesn't go over their TAC.

 

[Derby]

Am I missing something here? What difference does it make in how many boats are out on the water in either fishery. They both catch fish as their licence entitles them to. In the old days the commercial guys bonked the whole quota in a few weeks, but they still stayed within the Canadian TAC. Now it's just spread out over fewer boats and longer season. In both fisheries it makes better sense to have a long season assuming Canada doesn't go over their TAC.

Total agree

 

[profisher]

I was going to repost and say the same thing...not sure how how many boats, days, hooks really matters...in the end it is still 88/12.

 

[fish4all]

there are only 85-100 hooks per skate wolf. I use to run one of the larger boats and at very best in shallow water we can haul 7 Strings in a a 20hr period. I just found your earlier post ummm misleading.



This was all fair wolf. Right up until the stocks were cut by 45 %. The only question now, and we all have views on this, is how to make this work so we all feel some pain but nobody looses their livleyhood.

 

[fishingbc]

Hey lets just stop replying to fish4all and not get into this every day...waste of time

i was going to repost and say the same thing...not sure how how many boats, days, hooks really matters...in the end it is still 88/12.

 

[double trouble]

Hey, there is nothing wrong with a little good debating now and then.

And so away I go to fish4all. Your point is valid in the rec side. There already has been some go broke because of a myriad of rules and regulatons that have been piled on to guides and lodges over the last few years. I won't get into it too deep but there is hardly a dept in the prov gov't or federal gov't that hasn't sent a letter to the lodges on the coast. Some issues real, some perceived. Like asking them to upgrade their sewage treatment plant to a million dollar state of the art sewage treatment plant when the township next to them is flushing it straight into the ocean. I know it's hard to believe for a lot of commercial guys but a lot of the lodges and guides are family operations that are just getting by, not raking in the dough hand over fist. And to keep the halibut fishery viable their customer needs a two fish a day catch. That way two guys can take a charter and go get some halibut, even if the ones they catch are small. To us it's still catching and having fun. So we're already feeling the pain, we can't consolidate our catches to 130 boats to keep the fishery viable. We need to catch them in small numbers all up and down the coast, that is what keeps the economies going in a lot of the small coastal communities such as Port Renfrew.

 

[Tailspin]

There are alot less than 135 boats activly fishing, way less!

 

[Ding Dong!]

The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

The fundamental mistake in the use of the term “commons” is certainly an issue here. We "are not free to use the concept “common property resources” or “commons” under conditions where no institutional arrangements exist. Common property is not “everybody‟s property”. To describe unowned resource (res nullius) as common property (res communes), as many economists have done for years is a selfcontradiction”. Neglecting the difference between COMMON PROPERTY and OPEN ACCESS resources is a major reason of confusion in the debate.

The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it). This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point that the resource is depleted (even if it retains a capacity to recover). The rate at which depletion of the resource is realized depends primarily on three factors: the number of users wanting to consume the common in question, the consumptiveness of their uses, and the relative robustness of the common.

In absence of enlightened self-interest, some form of authority or federation is needed to solve the collective action problem. In a typical example, governmental regulations can limit the amount of a common good available for use by any individual. Permit systems for extractive economic activities including mining, fishing, hunting, livestock raising and timber extraction are examples of this approach. Similarly, limits to pollution are examples of governmental intervention on behalf of the commons. Alternatively, resource users themselves can cooperate to conserve the resource in the name of mutual benefit.

Another solution for certain resources is to convert common good into private property, giving the new owner an incentive to enforce its sustainability. Effectively, this is what took place in the English Inclosure Acts. Increasingly, many agrarian studies scholars advocate studying traditional commons management systems to understand how common resources can be protected without alienating those whose livelihoods depend upon them.

Our problem in this debate, is that it is mainly derived from commerce/business exploitation and hardly to do with the common masses.

 

[IronNoggin]

Starting to figure out where you're coming from methinks...

Ding-Dong equals The Red from another site? Or at least another Economist?
Hmmmmm...

Wondering,
Nog

 

[Ding Dong!]

The confusing message being relayed to the general public by self interests wishing to exploit the resource in order to develop commerce/business. Unfortunately these groups are mixing up the information, in that any exploitation of a resource where commerce/business transacts, it is no longer considered for the greater good of the common, and therefor confusing to the general public. All industry is making there own spin on this issue. I don't need more fish to catch a fish, as long as there are fish there for me to catch. If industry(meaning all attached to commerce/business) fished to a measure only after the needs of the common(meaning the greater good) , then there would be no issue what so ever. The Federal Government & DFO are the only entities that can make adjustments to ensure that the greater good has been accomplished. Under the current measure it has not, and only because there is a measurable exploitation currently taxing the 12% allotted to the great good. We as anglers should be allowed to fish all year long with a reasonable expectation to catch and retain a fish is we so desire. Our portion is being eaten up by self interests.

 

[MILLERTIME]

"Do not feed the trolls" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM!!!

"Do not feed the trolls" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM!!!

 

[Ding Dong!]

"Do not feed the trolls" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM!!!

Great idea, you are absolutely correct, I should not share any information, thought and ideas with this group what so ever! That makes great sense, and goes right into the idea that everyone needs to do their homework so as when they finally come to realize that education in the Law/Acts are the answer, then maybe something will happen. Most of you are concentrated in the wrong area, and should refocus your efforts into areas that will standout and be accepted with the Fed.