a 10 year old's view on the halibut issue

[juandesooka]

Driving into Vic yesterday, somehow got to talking about the halibut issue with my 10 year old.

I told her the basics, a fight between rec/comm sectors about who gets to fish for halibut. Clarified it is not about conservation, an organization specifies how much fish can be caught without harming the resource, so the question is just who gets them. Then asked her opinion.

Her initial response: "The commercial fishermen should be allowed to catch more, because that's their job and they won't be able to work. The recreational fisherman are just fishing for fun."

So then I explain that all Canadians are allowed to fish for halibut, but the commercial fishermen can catch nearly 9 fish for every 1 we can catch. I ask her if that seems fair?

She agreed it is not fair, she thought we should share them evenly. After talking it over a bit longer, we agreed a fair split would be 25% for the recreational sector.

So there you go, we have got it all figured out.

(and though she still won't eat fish, but she knows I like fishing and her mum and granny and grandad like seafood)

 

[Derby]

Very nice

 

[fish4all]

So why was her first opinion not good enough for you? It was out of the mouth of a child which is innocent. Then you put one side of an equation into her head and she gave you the answer you were looking for. Cute story and nice job of convincing a 10yr old.

 

[juandesooka]

ha ha, nice try

The point was that most people's initial reaction to this issue is the highly simplistic yet intuitively appealing "commercial fishing creates jobs, recreational fishing doesn't have value".

And that with some very basic knowledge on the subject, EVEN A CHILD can understand that it's a lot more complicated than that, there's competing interests, and there's some basic issues of fairness to consider here.

But appreciate your emphasizing the point, if it wasn't obvious enough already.

 

[double trouble]

Fish4all. The point that you seem to be missing in the whole equation here is that similar to other fisheries the greatest value to the Canadian economy is when the fish are caught by the public. Unlike the commercial sector we are generally not as efficient and are limited to very small numbers in our individual catch. And I am by no means saying the commercial fishery is not a driver, everyone I believe recognizes it is. The problem occurs when we have low TAC for Canada. The people that are cut out in the largest number are those that create the greatest economic value. And realistically the benefits to Canada's economy have to come into the picture somewhere. I believe the only true solution to this problem is for the government to step up and buy quota to transfer to the public fishing sector in low TAC years and when the TAC is higher and there is surplus they could lease it on an annual basis to commercial hali fisherman the same way the 130 that fish now lease it from those that own quota but don't actually fish it. Over time the government would get the money invested back. It would be a win-win as the commercial guy that sells it would get fair market value and the public angler would be satisfied that they remain on the water as promised by Minister Thibeault back in 2003. And of course the economy in our coastal communities also benefits from Port Renfrew to Prince Rupert and over to Haida Gwaii.

 

[chris73]

Fish4all. The point that you seem to be missing in the whole equation here is that similar to other fisheries the greatest value to the Canadian economy is when the fish are caught by the public. Unlike the commercial sector we are generally not as efficient and are limited to very small numbers in our individual catch. And I am by no means saying the commercial fishery is not a driver, everyone I believe recognizes it is. The problem occurs when we have low TAC for Canada. The people that are cut out in the largest number are those that create the greatest economic value. And realistically the benefits to Canada's economy have to come into the picture somewhere. I believe the only true solution to this problem is for the government to step up and buy quota to transfer to the public fishing sector in low TAC years and when the TAC is higher and there is surplus they could lease it on an annual basis to commercial hali fisherman the same way the 130 that fish now lease it from those that own quota but don't actually fish it. Over time the government would get the money invested back. It would be a win-win as the commercial guy that sells it would get fair market value and the public angler would be satisfied that they remain on the water as promised by Minister Thibeault back in 2003. And of course the economy in our coastal communities also benefits from Port Renfrew to Prince Rupert and over to Haida Gwaii.

Only that this theoretical model has proven for some reason impractical and non-functioning. Therefore we must change the 88/12 to rigid limits that allow both sectors to blossom - not just one.

 

[double trouble]

Sorry chris73, I don't understand your point. The 88/12 is a rigid limit and it is not working for everyone, in fact it is not even working for all the people in the commercial sector, not just the public fishery. And the only way anything will blossom is when the available TAC for Canada goes up and that is solely in the hands of the guardians of the stocks, the IPHC. And I don't think anyone wants to see the Canadian TAC go up unless the stocks can support the harvest.

 

[fish4all]

Only that this theoretical model has proven for some reason impractical and non-functioning. Therefore we must change the 88/12 to rigid limits that allow both sectors to blossom - not just one.

And can you explain how both will blossem at the same time?

 

[double trouble]

Hey fish4all, We've found something in common!

 

[chris73]

Ok, to clarify what I said. The originally envisioned and by yourself (double trouble) described quota transfer mechanism - leasing/buying unused quota from one sector to another - has never worked in reality. It has been a mess and the sport sector got royally screwed in the wake of it. This theoretical transfer mechanism makes the 88/12 wishy washy and therefore non-rigid. It sort of seems that there is a way to get more quota for a sector that needs it (as sporties currently do) but in reality it did not work in the past and it was a struggle, came always late and not enough and at unfair costs... etc. Simply put: failed. Therefore it should be clear and straight forward AND FAIR. What is fair? Well, some would argue to start out at 50/50 might be fair. Now, that would probably give the sport sector more than it can utilize and cut the commercial very short of what they could sell at fair prices. So, let's work backwards - how much does the sport sector really need without being compromised? Nobody knows for sure but let's be conservative within the data we have: say somewhere between 20 and 30% of the Canadian TAC. And the rest goes commercial ways. Now, we then realize that this is quite a change to what is currently distributed to the commercials. So how can we mitigate this impact? Well, who has unreasonably benefitted from this mess over decades? The slipper skippers! Don't we all agree they made enough $ for doing nothing? They can keep all the wealth they have been gifted by a flawed system for all this time but it should end here end right now and all their quota should be redistributed to the active commercial fleet. Bang! Everyone but 300 millionaires could benefit from this change. Who would call such a process not fair, logical and a good foundation for all sectors to blossom?