DFO must fix halibut controversy now
- Thread starter Sushihunter
- Start date
Doug
Well-Known Member
Sound great Deewar but look at the catch estimates DFO provided three meeting ago.
Feb and March fishery represents less than 4 % of the 100% of the allotment and shutting down those months really doesn't make a big difference on the entire catch. I think it read that 70%+- of entire Halis caught are caught in June, July and Aug and the other 25% is divided amongst the other months.
It's mainly due to the lodges are in full swing during the summer months and not much activities during the off season months.
I agree with what you're saying and I'd love to see that put into place but if I was on the DFO side I would bet the catch numbers don't equal out for the late opening VS the greater numbers your allowed to keep in the shorter season.
If I can find the DFO sheet I'll send you the stats
Feb and March fishery represents less than 4 % of the 100% of the allotment and shutting down those months really doesn't make a big difference on the entire catch. I think it read that 70%+- of entire Halis caught are caught in June, July and Aug and the other 25% is divided amongst the other months.
It's mainly due to the lodges are in full swing during the summer months and not much activities during the off season months.
I agree with what you're saying and I'd love to see that put into place but if I was on the DFO side I would bet the catch numbers don't equal out for the late opening VS the greater numbers your allowed to keep in the shorter season.
If I can find the DFO sheet I'll send you the stats
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
did you miss the 'if'?? ha Obviously the meeting is about the 88/12 and what we can do to try to change the policy, but if we all end up where we started after the battle with DFO absolutely refusing to budge, we should at least assess the 'what alternatives are there that could be lived with'.
Wow, some on here does not understand how many public fishermen take advantage of summer holidays to book a guide" water taxi" to take them out to the halibut grounds so they can catch their share of the Canadian Common Property resource" and put some wholesome food in their freezer. They also don't know how many people in sheltered waters such as the Victoria, Pot McNeil or Port Hardy like to take advantage of good weather moments and good tides from February through April to look for halibut. In short, why does the Public have to give up access to their fish because 400 private business people own our fish? The fight is really just beginning...gaining momentum quickly, and generating increasing interest. Keep up the fight, keep looking at the web site www.sfibc.com and keep believing as all of us do now....we will win this one!
traveller
traveller
D
Ding Dong!
Guest
Is there a tangible number of anglers that can be attached to this fishery, specifically anglers who target halibut? If so, how do we accrue these numbers and to what extent do we measure their success? If in fact there is no reporting made by the main proportion of participants how accurate can DFO be in determining the harvest effort? I keep reading all of these related posts, and I am encountering mixed messages. So before I get any more confused, could someone please explain to us if it is the commercial fishermen whom are to blame for the sport sectors shortfall, or is it the bureaucracy and the title that maintains it that is to blame(namely DFO)? Or is it both, Or is it in addition to, or otherwise? Please clarify.
Ding Dong!
Ding Dong!
Lipripper
Active Member
I think that is a really big problem...... 88/12 means nothing if they just make up our numbers anyways
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
I see that you have been thinking this through very methodically and logically. You have VERY valid questions, ones that we all need to hear the answer to, IF there is anyone that can definatively answer them. It is my belief that the lack of clear concise numbers and information to these questions is by design, if no one really knows the answers to the questions in a debate topic, then how does one logically defend a given point. So when push comes to shove and clear and definative proof can't be put forward, the decision goes to the power or body that makes the arbitrary decisions (in this case DFO). Now if you were a governing body that did not want to HAVE to JUSTIFY all of the decisions that you make for the masses, wouldn't you want there to be a large amount of "grey area" in the data that supports your decisions, that way if it became proven that you made a bad decision, you would have your ACE covered with the excuse "Oh we must have had BAD or not enough DATA".
Conspiracy?? - Maybe, maybe not. Question is can you prove one way or the other!
I know this, my father and I went out fishing on 18 different trips last year (4 times for Halibut), and we did not get asked once - not ONCE, what or how many fish we caught! We did catch 2 Halibut last year (little chickens), it was our first year out there, so hopefully this year is better -we'll see. My point is that the two Halis that we caught last year were never accounted for by anyone either by numbers or by weight, so how in the hell does DFO know what we caught.
Has anyone else had the Halibut that they caught last year accounted for either by numbers or by weight, so that DFO would have actually seen a real number (or weight) for the quantity of fish taken in the sport fishing sector from our 12% of the TAC ???
Yes Ding Dong! it does seem that we are playing the old game Pin The Tail on the...!
Again I say, if the Grey Area is large enough how and where does one point a finger when the S#!? hits the fan. Further insult to injury is that it is OUR tax dollars that are funding this whole fiasco, I don't know what is more criminal here; having to fight DFO to give us what is ours to begin with, or watching them BURN our money that we all work so hard to give to them. Maybe if they had to fight for the money that pays their wages like we have to fight for the fish that we catch, just maybe they would appreciate that TAX money a bit more than they do now.
D
Ding Dong!
Guest
Fish-Hunter, thank you for your reply. I do totally comprehend exactly what you have stated in your addition to this thread. However, for me, one paragraph amongst your written dialog stood out gleaming my response. That being your mention of Tax dollars in two separate sentences. It kind of hit me, and sort of stuck with me. Although I was uncertain of exactly what dimension for which I was fixated. It finally struck me that I had recently read three documents related to the commercial halibut fishery. Each document, step by step reiterated the same information. The best of the three, that I feel to be most explicit in the description of the commercial halibut fishery was this one; http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2684e/y2684e23.htm
After re-reading all three documents, I was assured that what I had read was in deed a bona fied record of historical fact. The halibut quota owners cover quite a large portion of the management & operational expenses placed onto DFO, and from what I interpret, the entire DFO management program for the commercial halibut fishery is paid for entirely by the quota owners.
I really would like to know more about what I had asked earlier, however your explanation was reasonable and understanding. Thank you.
Ding Dong!
After re-reading all three documents, I was assured that what I had read was in deed a bona fied record of historical fact. The halibut quota owners cover quite a large portion of the management & operational expenses placed onto DFO, and from what I interpret, the entire DFO management program for the commercial halibut fishery is paid for entirely by the quota owners.
I really would like to know more about what I had asked earlier, however your explanation was reasonable and understanding. Thank you.
Ding Dong!
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
Ding Dong! That is a very good document indeed. I conceed my statement on our taxes paying for this fiasco, (to the point of the management for the Halibut fishery). My statement did read like our taxes are paying the major or the whole shot, which it stands to reason that they could not and do not, as the DFO does collect liscence fees, and also as it appears in that document, that a per pound fee for every accounted pound of caught halibut goes towards the direct management costs of the halibut fishery. It did not state clearly if the Commercial Halibut fishery is covering the management costs to the Sport halibut fishery in there also, hard to tell the separation if there is any.
However I do still feel strongly that as with so many of our Gov. agencies, our tax dollars are not always utilized in the most effective and efficient ways. I also sometimes feel like the people that are receiving their incomes from our tax dollars, are ruling over, or looking down to the average citizen, and therefore do not always truely listen to us when we have concerns or input. I would like it if they used a little more compasion and overall perspective in their decision making. (Come down out of their ivory towers and put their feet in the mud too)
I too would like to hear some clarifiaction in the matter of your afore-mentined questions, hopefully somebody has some input/answers that they would like to share. Because I think that your questions do start to get to the root of the accountability problems surrounding this issue.
Regards,
Jay
However I do still feel strongly that as with so many of our Gov. agencies, our tax dollars are not always utilized in the most effective and efficient ways. I also sometimes feel like the people that are receiving their incomes from our tax dollars, are ruling over, or looking down to the average citizen, and therefore do not always truely listen to us when we have concerns or input. I would like it if they used a little more compasion and overall perspective in their decision making. (Come down out of their ivory towers and put their feet in the mud too)
I too would like to hear some clarifiaction in the matter of your afore-mentined questions, hopefully somebody has some input/answers that they would like to share. Because I think that your questions do start to get to the root of the accountability problems surrounding this issue.
Regards,
Jay
Charlie
Well-Known Member
The Canada halibut fishery is cost-shared between government and commercial industry. The commercial industry currently funds DFO fisheries management staff salaries, DFO fisheries management staff overtime, DFO fisheries management staff travel, DFO computer programming, and departmental equipment purchases ($108,000). The industry contracts with third party service providers for a dockside monitoring program (100% of landings) and an at-sea monitoring program (100% of sea days). The industry also funds various rockfish science initiatives ($485,000 in 2006). Halibut vessel owners also pay another $1.3 million in licence application fees to DFO for the privilege of accessing the halibut resource.
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/...ent-downloads-1/DFO_response_to_PIs_final.pdf
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/...ent-downloads-1/DFO_response_to_PIs_final.pdf
D
Ding Dong!
Guest
Thank you Charlie, this information is also in the document that I have included in my previous post and in other documents found on my profile page. I am not certain, but I do believe that Fish-Hunter may have been seeking additional information that would show if or how the sport sector participates in any portion of a cost share regime. We all know that we buy a license, however what is the revenue attached to? If I am correct in my assumption, I believe that is the gist of it(?).
What I'd like to read, are a few answers to some of my earlier asked questions;
Ding Dong!
What I'd like to read, are a few answers to some of my earlier asked questions;
Ding Dong!
Last edited by a moderator:
Lipripper
Active Member
You mean like that?
The commies are audited dam near to the once......DFO knows what they got.
They make assumptions of what we got. A "DFO" educated guess
88/12 means nuthin until we are comparing apples to apples
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
Lipripper, you've got the hot spot nailed down for this whole issue in my mind. how does any accounting body really know if we (the sport anglers) are over or under on our 12% of the TAC, when it appears that there is no tally of the fish (or weight) actually caught. Until they actually know what it is that we catch, they may as well be throwing darts at a board to determine what amount we catch and for that matter when we should start and stop fishing. (maybe this is how it is done???LOL).
wolf
Well-Known Member
They use voodoo numbers thats all they "estimate"what gets caught in a day form past records and "estimate" how many people out by "fly bys" but they count everything they cant tell a commercial crap boat to a salmon fisherman to a halibut fisherman.
So lets put it into perspective.
Im going to use vic area for april to end of may .
Based on 30 days of good tides
So if there is 100 boats each time out on good tides thats about 3000 over the course of 3 months so far got me...
So if them 3000 boats gets 50 lbs of halibut each trip that would equal about 150,000 lbs an "ESTIMATE" a VERY HIGH one at that
BUT lets be real Something DFO management doesnt do!!!!!!! there is a no way in hell there is 100 boats each tide day as weather is a big factor and not everyone catches a fish so id say maybe at the most it would be around the the mark of about maybe 30,000 lbs caught off of vic area call it 50,000 for "ESTIMATE" sakes for the 3 months. one only has to look at the outfitters derby usually but correct me if im wrong about 2000 to 2500 lbs comes in over 2 days and thats about 300 boats.......
its a flawed system but its what they use unfortunatlly if there was a better recording system then they and us would have a better idea.
Good luck Wolf
So lets put it into perspective.
Im going to use vic area for april to end of may .
Based on 30 days of good tides
So if there is 100 boats each time out on good tides thats about 3000 over the course of 3 months so far got me...
So if them 3000 boats gets 50 lbs of halibut each trip that would equal about 150,000 lbs an "ESTIMATE" a VERY HIGH one at that
BUT lets be real Something DFO management doesnt do!!!!!!! there is a no way in hell there is 100 boats each tide day as weather is a big factor and not everyone catches a fish so id say maybe at the most it would be around the the mark of about maybe 30,000 lbs caught off of vic area call it 50,000 for "ESTIMATE" sakes for the 3 months. one only has to look at the outfitters derby usually but correct me if im wrong about 2000 to 2500 lbs comes in over 2 days and thats about 300 boats.......
its a flawed system but its what they use unfortunatlly if there was a better recording system then they and us would have a better idea.
Good luck Wolf
Yes, DFO knows what commercial halibut fishermen bring in right down to the last halibut through port validation procedures implemented by a contract fisheries management company, for this species, its Archipelago Marine Research, based right here in Victoria. You think they do it "just for the halibut"? they charge a lot.
I've worked extensively with the commercial salmon fisheries on our coast for a number of years, yes, salmon is not halibut, but the methods used to assess populations, migration and resulting TAC with respective allocations are similar. The unfortunate part is that the models used are generally accurate to only +/- 25 or 30%!
You guys nailed the problem right on the head as far as "HOW" DFO gets the information to dictate what goes on in our local sports fishery. They do overflights and count boats and correlate that information with shore based creel surveys. Hopefully, the difference between someone trolling for salmon and someone with a scotchman at their bow is noted. I've only seen 2 surveyors out of 12-15 trips last year at Cattle Point. Perhaps some of you guides who use the launches on a regular basis can give a better idea on exactly HOW MUCH sports fishing monitoring goes on. A simple count is all thats needed.
So far this is a good procedure to at least get in the ballpark. But the big problem is that I don't think its done nearly enough to even make the models work. And I believe a lot of assumptions are made when extrapolating boat counts with fish landed. Me and my buddies are not prolific halibut hunters. I think we skunked out more than we brought fish home out of last year's experiences. And when we DID get into some fish we were hard pressed to even make a 1/1 limit for the three of us. So, I don't really mind having a limit of 1 halibut/license/day. Honestly, how much of the stuff can you actually eat??!! But DFO seems to assume that everytime you go out you will catch a fish and/or the number of boats out there = all halibut fishing and/or there is an even distribution of boats catching halibut.
Sorry, folks, not to offend anyone here but after talking firsthand to a lot of friends, co-workers and associates who also go on the occasional halibut trip, I think there are a lot of boats out there who don't know their butt from their elbow when it comes to catching halibut. Whole lotta skunkin' goin' on. At least, more than DFO thinks. All of the assumptions I mentioned (and I'm sure there are more) place the sports portion of the TAC closer to the edge.
Maybe license buyers should have a say in how DFO's budget is allocated. I'm all for more money spent on monitoring the fishery first hand rather than giving someone 6 figures to manage it from a desk 3000 miles away in Ottawa. It would provide jobs and give us a more realistic account of our actions on the water.
they charge a lot. I've worked extensively with the commercial salmon fisheries on our coast for a number of years, yes, salmon is not halibut, but the methods used to assess populations, migration and resulting TAC with respective allocations are similar. The unfortunate part is that the models used are generally accurate to only +/- 25 or 30%!
You guys nailed the problem right on the head as far as "HOW" DFO gets the information to dictate what goes on in our local sports fishery. They do overflights and count boats and correlate that information with shore based creel surveys. Hopefully, the difference between someone trolling for salmon and someone with a scotchman at their bow is noted. I've only seen 2 surveyors out of 12-15 trips last year at Cattle Point. Perhaps some of you guides who use the launches on a regular basis can give a better idea on exactly HOW MUCH sports fishing monitoring goes on. A simple count is all thats needed.
So far this is a good procedure to at least get in the ballpark. But the big problem is that I don't think its done nearly enough to even make the models work. And I believe a lot of assumptions are made when extrapolating boat counts with fish landed. Me and my buddies are not prolific halibut hunters. I think we skunked out more than we brought fish home out of last year's experiences. And when we DID get into some fish we were hard pressed to even make a 1/1 limit for the three of us. So, I don't really mind having a limit of 1 halibut/license/day. Honestly, how much of the stuff can you actually eat??!! But DFO seems to assume that everytime you go out you will catch a fish and/or the number of boats out there = all halibut fishing and/or there is an even distribution of boats catching halibut.
Sorry, folks, not to offend anyone here but after talking firsthand to a lot of friends, co-workers and associates who also go on the occasional halibut trip, I think there are a lot of boats out there who don't know their butt from their elbow when it comes to catching halibut. Whole lotta skunkin' goin' on. At least, more than DFO thinks. All of the assumptions I mentioned (and I'm sure there are more) place the sports portion of the TAC closer to the edge.
Maybe license buyers should have a say in how DFO's budget is allocated. I'm all for more money spent on monitoring the fishery first hand rather than giving someone 6 figures to manage it from a desk 3000 miles away in Ottawa. It would provide jobs and give us a more realistic account of our actions on the water.
Fishing Guide
Active Member
Cheers All,
The original allocation of licenses went to a select few (+/- 436) and was invested with the boat. However, as one can imagine, over time some of the Captains saw an opportunity to 'make' some money off of these licenses that were given to them. Indeed as one celebrates successive birthdays one can see a time when being on the water is less inviting and the ability to lease or sell this 'gift' license as a very attractive option. I have no 'beef' with a captain who would do so as the problem lies with the original investiture and the subsequent lack of committment on DFO to fix the allocation problem.
So...some commercial halibut fishermen may have leased / or purchased licenses from other fishermen (my understanding is that the original "436" vested licenses accounted for all the halibut quota (88% of the TAC) and that DFO did not/does not further to sell) and that some commercial halibut fishermen may have aquired such at a premium price. In this case they have a significant financial investment.
However, again my understanding as the commercial halibut fisheries is somewhat secretive as the Captains holding this licenses do not share all of the details of their 'arrangements' so that they may conduct their business in private and obtain the best price for their license, more Captains prefer to retain the licenses and simply lease them out as they have an income for life. These are the "Slipper Skippers' who will never fish again but make a great income at the expense of the leasing Captains who pay upwards of 75% of the total value of the halibut quota license per year and the recreational fishermen (be they boat owners or chartered guests) who simply want a fair share of this common resource property.
This situation could be fixed in 10 mintues. First we must recognize that this is NOT a conservation issue as outlined by both the IHPA and DFO. Second that this resource is a Common Resource Property (as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada) and belongs (while in the water) to ALL the people of Canada and not a select 436 commercial "L" licenses. Third that Minister Shea has the absolute power to determine allocation of this Common Resource Property (again determined by the courts through a previous court challenge by commercial halibut fishermen).
Minister Shea could simply make a determination that ALL halibut licenses belong to the Crown in the Rights of the Citizens of Canada. Further that only the orignal recipients of the 'free' licenses could hold them for commerical purposes and that they only remain 'valid' ONLY for the original holder. Either he/or she fishes them personally each and every year (meaning the holder must personally be on board every minute that boat catches or engages in halibut fishing). The first year the holder does not fish for a certain amount of days (perhaps 50% of the season) the license reverts AT NO COST back to the Crown.
Now there would be a surplus of licenses available to change the allocation from 88/12 to whatever is 'fair'. I would like to see a 2/4 allocation IN PERPETUITY where a valid fishing license would allow you 2 halibut a day with a 4 halibut in possession - FOREVER.
The rest of the allocation would be leased to the various commercial halibut fishermen at 50% of the landed value of the catch (rather than 75% or higher as is now the case) so that these fishermen could have a chance to actually make some serious money. This lease money would flow back to DFO (rather than the Slipper Skippers) to fund various DFO projects - INCLUDING A DECENT METHOD OF CALCULATING THE ACTUAL SPORTS CAUGHT LANDED HALIBUT. This Common Resource Property would then begin to benefit everyone rather than the select few "L"ottery Winning Captains.
I read that this year commercial halibut fishermen in Alaska may be paying $33.00/lb just to house and feed their Sliippered Skippers. When will we wake up and scream to our politicians - "Not on our watch!"
Errrr...not that I have a defined opinion on the subject...
The original allocation of licenses went to a select few (+/- 436) and was invested with the boat. However, as one can imagine, over time some of the Captains saw an opportunity to 'make' some money off of these licenses that were given to them. Indeed as one celebrates successive birthdays one can see a time when being on the water is less inviting and the ability to lease or sell this 'gift' license as a very attractive option. I have no 'beef' with a captain who would do so as the problem lies with the original investiture and the subsequent lack of committment on DFO to fix the allocation problem.
So...some commercial halibut fishermen may have leased / or purchased licenses from other fishermen (my understanding is that the original "436" vested licenses accounted for all the halibut quota (88% of the TAC) and that DFO did not/does not further to sell) and that some commercial halibut fishermen may have aquired such at a premium price. In this case they have a significant financial investment.
However, again my understanding as the commercial halibut fisheries is somewhat secretive as the Captains holding this licenses do not share all of the details of their 'arrangements' so that they may conduct their business in private and obtain the best price for their license, more Captains prefer to retain the licenses and simply lease them out as they have an income for life. These are the "Slipper Skippers' who will never fish again but make a great income at the expense of the leasing Captains who pay upwards of 75% of the total value of the halibut quota license per year and the recreational fishermen (be they boat owners or chartered guests) who simply want a fair share of this common resource property.
This situation could be fixed in 10 mintues. First we must recognize that this is NOT a conservation issue as outlined by both the IHPA and DFO. Second that this resource is a Common Resource Property (as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada) and belongs (while in the water) to ALL the people of Canada and not a select 436 commercial "L" licenses. Third that Minister Shea has the absolute power to determine allocation of this Common Resource Property (again determined by the courts through a previous court challenge by commercial halibut fishermen).
Minister Shea could simply make a determination that ALL halibut licenses belong to the Crown in the Rights of the Citizens of Canada. Further that only the orignal recipients of the 'free' licenses could hold them for commerical purposes and that they only remain 'valid' ONLY for the original holder. Either he/or she fishes them personally each and every year (meaning the holder must personally be on board every minute that boat catches or engages in halibut fishing). The first year the holder does not fish for a certain amount of days (perhaps 50% of the season) the license reverts AT NO COST back to the Crown.
Now there would be a surplus of licenses available to change the allocation from 88/12 to whatever is 'fair'. I would like to see a 2/4 allocation IN PERPETUITY where a valid fishing license would allow you 2 halibut a day with a 4 halibut in possession - FOREVER.
The rest of the allocation would be leased to the various commercial halibut fishermen at 50% of the landed value of the catch (rather than 75% or higher as is now the case) so that these fishermen could have a chance to actually make some serious money. This lease money would flow back to DFO (rather than the Slipper Skippers) to fund various DFO projects - INCLUDING A DECENT METHOD OF CALCULATING THE ACTUAL SPORTS CAUGHT LANDED HALIBUT. This Common Resource Property would then begin to benefit everyone rather than the select few "L"ottery Winning Captains.
I read that this year commercial halibut fishermen in Alaska may be paying $33.00/lb just to house and feed their Sliippered Skippers. When will we wake up and scream to our politicians - "Not on our watch!"
Errrr...not that I have a defined opinion on the subject...
wolf
Well-Known Member
From min of the last meeting 79% of the halibut quota was "leased" out so you see the true fisherman who runs a halibut boat is getting screwed over just as bad. but really cant say much as they are afraid of repercussions. in the commie world. I knew of about 5 guys who were commie fisherman at that meeting that I saw.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Ding Dong!
Guest
Certainly, I appreciate all the opinions that I have sauntered through, read and re-read to ensure that I grasp each authors tone on the subject. There has been some consorted effort made to share ideas, views, etc. There certainly seems to be a unison area of concern, along with some interesting interjection with a strong focus upon the commercial fisherman. As much, one may say that they are not opposed to the commercial sector working, we can't ignore that fact that so many sport anglers elude to creating a separation amongst members of the historical halibut fishery. In the sport sector we are fighting tooth and nail to keep every realm of our sector unified, while calling foul upon other sectors for trying to divide us. As a hypocritical measure we then mirror the same tactic with terms like "Slipper Skipper" and "Gifted". I am doing massive amounts of study, trying to educate myself, however the more I read, the more it is that I am getting confused.
Is it the commercial fishermen whom are to blame for the sport sectors shortfall, or is it the bureaucracy and the title that maintains it that is to blame(namely DFO)? Or is it both, Or is it in addition to, or otherwise? Please clarify.
Now interestingly enough, some of the people who have participated in expanding this thread have talked quite a bit about quota. From my understanding of what I have read, quota & lease transfer is a necessary component of not only the halibut, but all species cod including dogfish or any bi catch to ensure a clean ground & halibut fishery. Simply for the reason that all catch is accountable and must be placed under quota. Therefore having a transfer mechanism is necessary and mandatory.
Please correct the ignorance of my understanding and explain to me the entire issue and why the commercial fisherman is our enemy. Everything that I have read to date points to a greater issue than sport and commercial fisherman fighting for fish. Someone has already mentioned a focal remedy that is by far more powerful than the current focus.
Clue: Minister Shea has the absolute power to determine allocation of this Common Resource Property (again determined by the courts through a previous court challenge by commercial halibut fishermen). As it was written in the document that I provided earlier and it was also mentioned above in another contributors post. We don't need to be commercial fisherman to carry the issue forward!
Ding Dong!
Is it the commercial fishermen whom are to blame for the sport sectors shortfall, or is it the bureaucracy and the title that maintains it that is to blame(namely DFO)? Or is it both, Or is it in addition to, or otherwise? Please clarify.
Now interestingly enough, some of the people who have participated in expanding this thread have talked quite a bit about quota. From my understanding of what I have read, quota & lease transfer is a necessary component of not only the halibut, but all species cod including dogfish or any bi catch to ensure a clean ground & halibut fishery. Simply for the reason that all catch is accountable and must be placed under quota. Therefore having a transfer mechanism is necessary and mandatory.
Please correct the ignorance of my understanding and explain to me the entire issue and why the commercial fisherman is our enemy. Everything that I have read to date points to a greater issue than sport and commercial fisherman fighting for fish. Someone has already mentioned a focal remedy that is by far more powerful than the current focus.
Clue: Minister Shea has the absolute power to determine allocation of this Common Resource Property (again determined by the courts through a previous court challenge by commercial halibut fishermen). As it was written in the document that I provided earlier and it was also mentioned above in another contributors post. We don't need to be commercial fisherman to carry the issue forward!
Ding Dong!
Fisher 69 has a very selective memory...no surprise...in fact at the last two public Town Hall meetings there were several speakers and representatives who have absolutely no connection or economic benefit from the fishing for halibut...the presenter of the power point at the Wednesday night meeting, the President of the Zone 1 BCWF who spoke, and others...all no economic connection with fishing for halibut. The real advantage and impact it should be noted is that the Coalition is in no way just a lodge / guide activity, but rather a true coalition of all the recreational community..it is a reflection of our shared belief and commitment, and a weakness of the commercial side.
Go to the Nanaimo Public Town Hall meeting on Tuesday next week and meet the chair, presenter and most of the panel...all non guide and lodge people...this is a community of concerned anglers who have had enough.....make no mistake about this!
The commercial side simply has not, and obviously can not move from the concept that all the fish and shellfish should be owned by private business...but we know better.
Traveller
Go to the Nanaimo Public Town Hall meeting on Tuesday next week and meet the chair, presenter and most of the panel...all non guide and lodge people...this is a community of concerned anglers who have had enough.....make no mistake about this!
The commercial side simply has not, and obviously can not move from the concept that all the fish and shellfish should be owned by private business...but we know better.
Traveller
