Halibut! What do you want?

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by Jencourt, Feb 18, 2012.

  1. Jencourt

    Jencourt Well-Known Member

    In light of all the opinions and varying views on this topic of halibut and how the sport sector should proceed, I would like to pose these very simple and direct questions to all of you.

    I ask these questions because I have invested countless hours writing letters to DFO and government, as well as educating myself, friends, family and anyone who will listen. I worked tirelessly to try to get people to attend last year’s “Town hall meeting” in Kelowna. All be it the turnout was a dismal 20-25 from what I was told by friends who attended. 1/5 of those were there as a result of my efforts. I am not telling you this to brag or get a pat on the back. I put it out there to try to explain that after all this, I find myself questioning what this is really all about. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. For those who do not know me, No I do not make a living from any fishing related business.

    So I ask you these questions to see what it is you are fighting for.
    What do you want? What changes to the present Halibut system could take place that would leave you feeling completely satisfied that things are fair and workable for everyone and the sustainability of the resource has been looked after properly. Basically, I am asking you all what would get you to the point that (IN THE CASE OF HALIBUT) the fight can end and things are as they should be.

    For me it will NOT be OK until:
    #1 and most important -- The ITQ is gone and the fish are returned to the crown. I am fine with the commercial sector having an individual quota system (good way to keep track) as long as it is restricted to those who actually fish it. Furthermore it is not owned and cannot be sold, leased or transferred. If you do not fish it then it goes back to the crown with no monetary compensation. The compensation came from having the ability to make a living off a Crown resource. Some form of transfer may be necessary to compensate for bi-catch?

    # 2--- An accurate form of measure is implemented to count the sport sectors real take

    #3--- Far more than 15 percent is allocated to sport fishing. A number high enough to ensure we can never fish it to our full percentage. Yes leaving fish in the water NOT to be added to next year’s allocation. I for one am sick of DFO’s practice of fishing all species to what they say is the maximum limit to remain sustainable. This is a dangerous practice that does not allow for any other factors that may negatively affect the biomass.
     
  2. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    I'm OK with your list. Would add one more thing. We need accurate catch reporting for the sport catch to be able to prove that the average size fish we utilize is smaller than the one's caught in the commercial fishery - which is the average size used to calculate our use of the allocation quota.
     
  3. OldBlackDog

    OldBlackDog Well-Known Member

    You need to do a little homework on your remarks.
    You might check with the SFI who you told us you were a member on this.
    And you are way off base when you think we should not go to court.
    Again, you need to talk to people who are involved

    in this at levels you appear to not be talking to.


     
  4. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    I think we (including SFI) needs to do our homework before considering litigation. Got plenty of experience there - my comments are based on lots of experience around legal actions. We have a lot of options to explore before going down the litigation route. When/if we do find it necessary to enter litigation we need to have the war chest and tactics well developed prior to starting. I think the SFI and others need to speak with folks who know litigation before we go there.
     
  5. Jencourt

    Jencourt Well-Known Member

    Maybe getting off topic. Just sayen
     
  6. high tide

    high tide Well-Known Member

    I would like to see a license similar to how we mark our springs. A designated per year basis. If I am only allowed 2 possession, let me take them both in one day, when I visit the island and SPEND THOUSANDS supporting the BC economy for my fishing, I may only get ONE CHANCE to fish for them.

    This really really sucks the way it is right now.

    DFO AND GOVERNMENT NEED TO REALIZE WHAT WE AS SPORT FISHER PUT INTO THE ECONOMY, FROM TRUCK REPAIR, TO BOATS AND MAINTENANCE, LODGING, TACKLE, FUEL ETC ETC ETC. !!

    WAKE UP DFO !

    HT
     
  7. chris73

    chris73 Well-Known Member

    For me it's very simple: as longs as Canada gets a fishable quota, the sportfishing sector should be satisfied first with whatever it needs to have a full season (Feb 1 - Dec 31) for all Canadians wanting to get a share of this public resource and then the rest goes to commercials.
     
  8. fish4all

    fish4all Active Member

    I would like to see:

    -an increase in the license fee, especially for non-residents.
    -monies from the license increase to flow back to pacific region for enhancement and enforcement
    -all non-residents would have to use a Canadian flagged guided vessel. Until such time as the bycatch problem in Alaska is addressed.
    -reasonable seasonal limit marked on the license
    -recreational licenses must be turned in at the end of season or not eligible the following year
    -lodge/charter owners should be paying proper monitoring costs. Especially the larger ones like langara that have a processing license.
    =abolish the letter that allows others to transport recreationally caught fish.
    -recreational fishery to remain closed until the above has been accomplished.
     
  9. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    Is there such a thing as enhancement for Halibut?
    If so is it possible to bring back the halibut in the SOG?
    GLG
     
  10. lorneparker1

    lorneparker1 Banned

    are you slow a bit?

    Lorne
     
  11. scott craven

    scott craven Well-Known Member

    "-recreational fishery to remain closed until the above has been accomplished."

    Why not just close the commercial fishery and leave the 85% in the ocean, stocks would rebound in a couple years and then we could start over?
     
  12. tofinofish

    tofinofish Guest

    Some fair ideas but your last comment de-merits your post IMO.
     
  13. spring fever

    spring fever Well-Known Member

    Shake your Head!! Close the recreational Fishery which is not even 15% of the total-will in no way restore the resource if the Commercial and FN still fish!! I like the idea of being allowed a year total-like Springs and also having to send in a lic. so there is some sensible way to account for fish numbers. Until DFO can account transparently and accurately for the numbers the recreational fisherman takes there will always be distrust and resentment against DFO and their weird and haphazard management. Accurate accounting would go a long way to restore trust!!
     
  14. fish4all

    fish4all Active Member

    Hard to believe some of you missed the point. My comment was to close the fishery to halibut until there were changes made that reflect the effort on the waters.

    On one hand some boast of the 270,00 anglers on our coast (yes I know 300,000 is nice to use but dfo has said that there is portion of those licences that are repeat customers). SFAB has said they feel that about 40,000 target halibut. Not sure where they get this number but hey voodoo math seems to be par with the times. If each of the 40,000 take 150 lbs, like holmes would like in the freezer (although he did say he cant eat that much) you are looking at 6 million lbs.

    IMO I seriously question if there is enough fish, especially in the south with our rivers lacking returns, to support 270,000 unaccountable anglers. I fully support Profisher when he stated that over fishing and habitat destrucion has played a big part in the decline of our stocks. Unfortunatly that doesnt change the fact that there is not enough fish for everybody to continue at the levels we have in the past.
     
  15. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    Well I beg to differ your claim that there is not enough fish for all Canadians.
    Have a look at this graph and tell me where all the halibut end up.
    The solution looks simple to me.... You want to continue selling Canadian Halibut to none Canadians?
    Go ahead as long as we can put an export tax on it and with the monies we purchase Commercial TAC.
    We then transfer that TAC back to the people of Canada, where it belongs.
    GLG
    [​IMG]
     
  16. reelfast

    reelfast Active Member

    i'll say it again, look south if you want to see your future.
     
  17. scott craven

    scott craven Well-Known Member

    I believe you speak the truth reelfast. :(
     
  18. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    I disagree, I think we'll be looking north to alaska and that is how it will go, with a rec percentage, guide and lodge percentage, and commercial percentage.
     
  19. tincan

    tincan Well-Known Member

    One thing that I would like to see that I don't think has been mentioned on this thread yet is substantial conservations areas (ie. no fish zones) throughout the province. These would apply to all (FN, commercial, rec) and they have proven in many parts of the world to restore/stabilize many fisheries to a sustainable level. A big issue, as it is everywhere no fish zones exist, is where to place them and how large an area they should be. Enforcement can also be a large issue but there are several good examples we could draw from to make sure they are being respected. On a worldwide scale, I think this is a must for all types of fisheries if we don't want to continue to wipe out species at the rate we are currently doing it at. BC halibut is in much better shape than many fisheries but it's clearly not in perfect shape as evidenced by all the debate we have about it.

    The other thing I really agree with that was stated earlier is that when catch allocations are set they should not be set at the maximum sustainable level but quite a bit lower. Again, lot's of examples worldwide on how fisheries can be decimated by allowing catch totals at such 'risky' levels.

    I'm not a big halibut fisherman myself but I do think rec's should be allowed to retain a greater percentage of the TAC than is currently the case. Commercial TAC needs to be lowered IMO and catch records, accountability, and fines for those who cheat the system (FN, commerical, rec) need to be more rigid.
     
  20. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    In free market capitalistic economy.... you would be correct.
    Problem is we have a cronyism capitalistic economy where favors are dished out to friends.
    It distorts the price and then you need to fudge things, with rules, to bring it back to fair market price.
    The big problem is when you have countries and governments doing it, and others that don't, you get unfair compaction in the global market. It creates problem for both sides, export and import and you have to fudge the numbers, again with rules, to bring it back to fair market price.

    You can look at any industry like manufacturing, agriculture, fishing, tourism, or auto to see how things have gone wrong. Currently China is the bad guy on the block and you can see how it affects us here.


    GLG
     

Share This Page