MP asked to explain Halibut policy

[Sushihunter]

http://www.canada.com/asked+explain+policy+that+costing+millions/1325563/story.html


MP asked to explain policy
that's costing B.C. millions


Courier-IslanderFebruary 25, 2009 12:00 AM

An open letter to John Duncan, MP, Vancouver Island North riding, published here by request.

After several years of discussion, in October 2003 the federal Liberal government with the full support of the Conservative Party announced the Halibut Allocation Framework. It stated that after First Nations constitutionally guaranteed FSC needs had been accounted for, commercial and recreational fisheries would share the remaining harvest on an 88/12% basis respectively. It further stated that if the recreational fishery required additional halibut above the 12% cap to maintain usual bag and possession limits and season duration, halibut quota was to be leased or purchased from the commercial sector by some as-yet-to-be-determined "market-based mechanism".

Despite disagreeing strongly with the philosophical basis of this management approach, on behalf of the broad recreational fishery the Sport Fishing Advisory Board has worked diligently to try and make this policy work. This includes participating in a process to develop a compensated transfer mechanism at the direction of then Deputy-Minister Larry Murray under independent facilitator Hugh Gordon. This process was successful and the so-called Gordon Report, endorsed by commercial, recreational and First Nations representatives, the province of BC and Pacific regional staff of DFO, was sent to Ottawa for approval.

Nearly one year later, earlier this week the SFAB received a formal response. Minister Shea has rejected the proposal and confirmed the fixed 88/12% commercial/recreational sharing arrangement, one that you have made clear in a previous statement you fully support. This decision is especially puzzling considering the business friendly perspective of the Conservative Party because, although the way the commercial and recreational fisheries generate economic activity differ, making direct comparisons a challenge, it is now accepted by governments that a pound of halibut caught in the recreational fishery is worth several times more than when caught in the commercial fishery.

Because of a lowered halibut allocation to Canada this year the implications of the 12% cap for the recreational fishery in 2009 are severe, with the total allowable poundage well short of what is required for a fishery as usual. Although no conservation issue for halibut exists, the recreational halibut fishery, which would usually be underway now, is closed until further notice according to DFO and when opened it is expected that bag and possession limits will be half of usual. Given the challenging marketing conditions recreational fishery businesses are facing right now a political, not biological, constraint on access to a common-property fisheries resource is a large and unnecessary hardship.

Mr. Duncan, it would be helpful in assisting the understanding of this issue by the many anglers and those individuals working in businesses dependent on the recreational fishery who reside in the Vancouver Island North riding if you could answer the following question. What is the public policy rationale used by your government to continue with the effective privatization of 88% of the halibut resource, thus ensuring that in 2009 Canada will generate a significantly lower economic benefit from the halibut resource available to it?

Jeremy Maynard

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250

 

[IronNoggin]

Excellent question. To one of the Players that made it all happen...

Love to see any response...

As If.[B)]

Nog

 

[Little Hawk]

Can hardly wait for a reply although I could probably write one in advance based on what I've read of this guy.

Good on Maynard and as well for the PSF for having him on board.

 

[Cuba Libre]

How about moving this to the thread that it belongs in..

20ft Alumaweld Intruder

 

[Captain Dudds]

FA

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe you can help iron out some kinks.

The DFO is a trustee having a fiduciary responsibility to Canadians (the beneficiary) to manage fish, right?

Doesn't this mean that the DFO must properly "invest" (or apportion) our fish to the maximum benefit and interest of the beneficiary (Canadians as a whole)? If so, then why could citizens not sue the DFO for not properly doing so? They didn't meet their fiduciary duty, right?

I thought the idea was that the fish are ours (Canadians') and we are trusting them to the DFO to properly manage/apportion/invest. If that is true, then I don't understand why the fish could not be called common property when they belong to Canadians.

Captain Dudds

 

[scott craven]

Dudd's,

Don't worry about F/A, he's fixated on native rights, above and
beyond any issue with the fisherie's and where they are going.

[V]

 

[Islandgirl]

Ignore F/A..I think his whole intent it to get the thread off topic(not sure why).. Carry ON!

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by Captain Dudds

FA

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe you can help iron out some kinks.

The DFO is a trustee having a fiduciary responsibility to Canadians (the beneficiary) to manage fish, right?

Doesn't this mean that the DFO must properly "invest" (or apportion) our fish to the maximum benefit and interest of the beneficiary (Canadians as a whole)? If so, then why could citizens not sue the DFO for not properly doing so? They didn't meet their fiduciary duty, right?

I thought the idea was that the fish are ours (Canadians') and we are trusting them to the DFO to properly manage/apportion/invest. If that is true, then I don't understand why the fish could not be called common property when they belong to Canadians.

Captain Dudds

Curious.... can someone define common-property. Is the oil that flows from Alberta not a Canadian common-property? I don't see a check in my mailbox. How about Christmas trees? Last time I looked it is pretty much impossible to access that common-property, and how about water meters. Isn't water a common-property?

 

[Little Hawk]

You hit the nail right on the head Dudds!

That's precisely what it's supposed to be about: APPORTIONMENT

APPORTIONMENT: The act of dividing and giving out in fair shares.

Absolutely nothing could be simpler or clearer.

 

[Cuba Libre]

quote:The Honorable Gail Shea
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa , Ont.
February 22, 2009

Dear Minister Shea:
In December 2008, I wrote to congratulate you, on behalf of our 2000 members, on your appointment to the Federal Cabinet. We had great hope that you would recognize the unfairness of the gifting of 88% of the Canadian West Coast halibut TAC to 435 commercial fishermen, leaving a mere 12% of the TAC for 300,000 recreational fishers from the rest of Canada. To say that we are disappointed that you have seen fit to ignore the obvious unfairness of that giveaway is a complete understatement. We are in fact astounded and angry that you would not even consider the compromise solutions presented by the BC Wildlife Federation and the Sports Fish Advisory Board.
How can a Minister that claims to be serious about creating wealth and jobs for Canadians possibly make such a decision? You ARE aware that the landed value of a recreationally caught halibut is worth far more than the $7/lb wholesale value for a commercially caught halibut. You ARE aware that thousands of jobs in BC depend on the marine recreational fishery. You ARE aware that there are several Court Judgments that most certainly indicate your decision is ill advised and most probably illegal. How can a politician that swore to serve all the people of Canada ignore the above?
Yes Minister, we are angry. We expected better from you and your Department. We insist that you reverse this unfair decision and sit down with our volunteers in the SFAB , SFI and BCWF to come up with a FAIR solution to this issue of fairness and common sense.

Yours in Conservation
(original signed by)
Keith MacKenzie
President
Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association

20ft Alumaweld Intruder

 

[The Fish Assassin]

common property fisheries resouce?

Have you ever heard the tale of the tragedy of the commons.. it goes like this.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.


Take only what you need.

 

[Cuba Libre]

FA-- why do you keep hijacking this important post. You are being a total pain in the a$$.

If you want to start a new thread --go ahead. But this one is about BC halibut anglers who have been screwed by Ottawa and attempts to get our MPs attention.

20ft Alumaweld Intruder

 

[The Fish Assassin]

I guess your soft of right about hijacking the thread, but it is for political correctness. The term "common-property fisheries resource" doesn't fly. You can call the portion that is left after conservation and F/N's take whatever you like. However don't call it a "common-property fisheries resource". There are no "beneficiaries" under common property resouces.

Take only what you need.

 

[Nimo]

Isn't the 88/12 policy (the topic of this thread) after FN allocations?

 

[Cuba Libre]

Exactly Nimo-- It has no bearing on Native F&C fishing.

I thibk the important thibg is to get some more letters flowing. We still have a chance to get some changes if the heat keeps coming.

Personally, 1 daily and two in possession will not hurt my fishing. I will just make sure I keep nothing under 40lbs.....but if this is allowed to die down, then get ready to have it stuck to us on other species. The commercials are already pushing like hell to drop our prawn and crab access. Salmon-- it will be coming too, and not for conservation reason----- but because the buttheads in Ottawa will have given most of the fish to the commercials.

Just think about where this Minister is from and then think again about why there is no recreational fishery for lobsters. We stand to loose big time unless we stand up and fight.

20ft Alumaweld Intruder