DFO must fix halibut controversy now

[Rockfish]

I suspect that I am not the only one to have noticed that this forum appears to be filling up with those who clearly having an agenda to maintain the grossly unfair 88/12 halibut quota distribution. Some of them are quite clever, playing dumb and asking obvious set up questions to confuse the issue or further their agenda. It appears they are worried.

In Washington State the sport fishing sector is allocated 36% of the allowable halibut catch as compared to our pitiful 12%. I don’t know about the rest of you but 36% of the halibut allocation for sports fishermen works for me and no, I am not a guide or lodge owner.

So get on with it DFO; transfer 24% from the commercial halibut quota to the sport fishing allocation for a total of 36%. If DFO has to reallocate a tiny percentage of their billion and a half annual operating budget to compensate the commies, do it, (especially for those few who actually bought their quota off of the slipper skipper DFO lottery winners). Government has done it for the First Nations sector (bought them quota off of the fish lords); so why are they discriminating against the Sport Fishing sector. I find it distasteful that the slipper skipper fish lords were just given their quota and were then allowed to sell or lease it without ever having to do any fishing themselves, but if compensation is what it takes to resolve this inequity and restore the public trust, get on with it. Personally I think that if the average Canadian, who has to work hard for their meager income ever finds out and fully understands what really happened with the gifting and instant creation of millionaire fish lords who can watch the money role in for them and their children for generations while sitting on their backsides, they will demand that bureaucratic and political heads roll. For this reason alone, one would think that the politicians self preservation instincts will kick in soon and they will resolve this issue quickly. I don’t think they can count on the apathy of sport fishermen allowing issues like this to just fade away anymore.

It occurs to me that this entire mess could have been avoided if the Federal Government had just leased quota directly in the first place to the true commercial halibut fishermen who actually fish for a living and at a much lower price than they are forced to pay to the slipper skipper fish lords. Most importantly this common resource would have remained just that.

There was a time in England that when a man went to the forest and killed the Lords deer to feed his family, he was executed. It seems that under DFO’s administration of the halibut fishery we have not progressed very much.

 

[chris73]

Of course, Rockfish, I too have noticed the hyjacking by some agenda drive individuals. Luckily they are dumb enough to be a good laugh usually.

Our fight is with DFO, plain and simple. Only they can and must change something. Their proven tactic will be waiting it out. If we can't sustain pressure for min. 6 months involving MLA's and MP's then the non-elected officials will sit it out until it goes away and they can carry on as pleases them...

 

[Lipripper]

I am not sure that the 88/12 is a problem?
While the CO's(in discussion) will be quick to point the finger at the lodges for using up our tac. They have no freaking idea of what the sport sector catches. I think that is a major problem that needs to be addressed before we try move the split.... who knows it may still work at 88/12.
Its just raising hairs on either side of the fence.
There are problems with the commercial side I feel as I have always been told there is no such thing as free money...... The slipper skippers seem to have found it.. and will probably fight to keep it that way.
If it was leased from DFO at a more effective rate to the fishermen that would use it.... then adjust the tac to a more realistic level for us(with growing interest in the fishery) and them (they guys that actually fish it) that may be better. The actually working commies would be all over that. One simple rule change in the transferable quota to: It can not be inherited would change the tide in a major way as the kids will probably follow in the footsteps
Its be given.. thats been done. Good luck getting it back.
But again until we have a better accounting system for the sports side and not DFO making up numbers for us.... A fight for a bigger piece of the pie seems futile right now and pisses everyone off
One bridge at a time IMO


.... jus rambling at the keyboard

 

[Ding Dong!]

Absolutely "Rockfish", some folks have become blinded by their passion and refuse to at least educate themselves of the readily available facts, conditions and circumstance that created the overall issue and how it developed into fruition and was allowed to continue for as long as it has.

Some people are awake, bright eyed and bushy tailed, with many willing to advance toward solutions rather than short minded smack down exchanges. "chris73" is awake, as are many others for his dialog "Our fight is with DFO, plain and simple."

I am still asking;

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.

Ding Dong!

 

[traveller]

I'm not sure why all the talk about the lack of catch monitoring in the recreational sector is going on. Over the last 5 years we worked with JO Thomas and associates as well as DFO science to create a sampling regime and reporting process to vastly improve our recreational catch monitoring and size / weight information to satisfy the International Halibut Commission. We now established the average weight for each statistical area of the coast, and vastly improved the number of halibut caught in each area in each month. The IPHC was impressed and accepted our revised average weights and catch numbers. Because there are approx. 100,000 anglers over a huge geographical we will never be able to tabulate every fish caught everywhere, nor do we need to. When you have a small number of boats, such as the 136 active commercial halibut fishermen, landing in a few spots, then yes, accurate to the exact fish is possible. For very large populations a sub sample routine that measures up to 5% of the catch can in fact fairly accurately measure the total catch, and determine trends in catch. In fact in the case of current halibut catch, we are over 15% of the catch being measured and counted, which makes for an accurate assessment indeed. If the IPHC likes and accepts our data, then it is in fact worthwhile....but again, every single fish caught will never be individually tabulated.

In fact there are ways to manage fish that do not involve quotas, or ways which involve mixtures of quotas and set TAC combined, and certainly individually owned quotas are not the only form of quota in the world by a long shot. In the Supreme Court case of Saulnier vs the Royal Bank, 10 different times the Justice tells us that " in Canada, fish can not be owned until they are caught." which makes the case for ITQ fairly challenging. However, our task is not really to tell the government how to manage the commercial fleet until such time as it restricts our access and creates significant loss to the Canadian economy from what was a stable high level contribution from all parts of the recreational community. That is the case right now, so we are telling the government to fix it by providing our community with enough pounds of halibut each year to allow us to fish year round at 2 per day, 2 in possession until the exploitable biomass ( as the IHPC calls it) increases, which it is slowly doing. We also need a strong, healthy commercial fishery for the remaining halibut, which will always be the bulk of the available fish, probably in the 75% range, so that Canada can catch and benefit from our TAC. I don't recall the recreational sector saying they were against commercial fishing.

The Minister needs to address a flawed system for sure, but first on the list is to provide for the public access to their fish in a reasonable 2 and 2 limit, then look at the strangle hold of commercial access by non fishing quota holders.

Traveller

 

[Lipripper]

I'm not sure why all the talk about the lack of catch monitoring in the recreational sector is going on.

Because I feel that is a problem and have mentioned it a few times How many times have you been "monitored" with a fish on the boat.... And how many times not?

" in Canada, fish can not be owned until they are caught."

Thats already happened.

If we could be accountable like the commies? That would be a good leg to stand on.

..Not trying to stir the pot jus' adding to the convo

 

[traveller]

Lip Ripper, a 100,000 people spread over 500 hundred miles of coast line in a variety of size craft will never be able to be monitored as the commercial boats are, nor do they need to be, in my opinion, to form an accurate estimate of total catch. I fish out of Port Renfrew, and many times have had my halibut counted and measured for length by DFO creel survey folk. We have internationally recognized and accepted catch data....anything could be better, and we could improve it, but the money just ain't there to do that. At your next local SFAC meeting you should ask to have a presentation on the halibut monitoring system, and the data it has produced. Many lodges are now reporting numbers, weights and length of all halibut caught to DFO weekly.

 

[AlGee]

Lip Ripper, a 100,000 people spread over 500 hundred miles of coast line in a variety of size craft will never be able to be monitored as the commercial boats are, nor do they need to be, in my opinion, to form an accurate estimate of total catch.

So you believe that the early closure back in October was justified. That the sports fishery DID, in fact, reach their 12% allocation of the TAC with only 1 fish /license/day? I'm curious as to where JO Thomas is setting up these days. I used to work for them from 1991 to 2003 at monitoring the commercial salmon fisheries (as well as some creel survey work), E and WCVI as well as the Charlottes. Unless a lot has changed they have not been involved as much at monitoring sports creel surveys in my day. I know Doug Dallman (one of the "associates" of JOT) used to do weekly overflights based out of YVR. I do not believe the current monitoring system is good enough to give a viable, realistic account, sorry, but all my years of experience at counting fish of all kinds firsthand tells me this and it would take a LOT of evidence to change my mind. There are just too many variables which will put the numbers off the rails.

We've fished out of Cattle Point, Esquimalt, and a few other spots and have encountered monitoring personnel maybe 5% of the time. Thats a lot of uncounted fishing effort when you consider the other boats landing around the same time. If your answer is that fish landed has been accounted for at other times in those areas and our landing is part of the "extrapolation" process from those "accounted for" boats then you begin to assume and thats where we begin to go off track. 5% is just not enough of a sample population.

Over the last 5 years we worked with JO Thomas and associates as well as DFO science to create a sampling regime and reporting process to vastly improve our recreational catch monitoring and size / weight information to satisfy the International Halibut Commission. We now established the average weight for each statistical area of the coast, and vastly improved the number of halibut caught in each area in each month.

How do you know its a successful sampling regime? There is no real way to verify. You would have to sample sports CPUE for EVERY area over a long period of time (years) and compare that to the statistical models being used from representative sample populations to feel confident that you are getting actual numbers. I'll bet the numbers will be different every time. Its called building a better mousetrap, no one has done it yet.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Great information "traveler", thank you for sharing. Could you please consider diving in a bit deeper and try to explain the algorithm for the formula in terms that may offer a better understanding for us folks who have the mind that we feel that sports fisherman need to be more accountable? How did you arrive at 100,000 dedicated halibut anglers? How did you accomplish our catch ratio for each year when it appears that the only true numbers submitted each year are from the guide & lodge business via log books and where all else is a best educated guess from fly over & creel surveys?

Is it also possible for you to touch on the following questions too? As I have been asking for some clarification, however no one seems to be interested in providing any explanations or answers.

I am not a commercial fisherman nor am I a guide / lodge owner, and I do not have a connection to DFO other than reading published public information. I'd like to be able to make an informed decision based on facts and not passions, egos, or or any other forms of emotions. Thanks for helping.

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.


Ding Dong!

 

[Charlie]

It is nice to see some well informed individuals making some very valid points, but I do wonder about these accountability statements? IPHC might also disagree?

There seems to be acceptable sport accountability to IPHC everywhere, except Area 2B? They have pretty much washed their hands of “sport accountability” and left that to DFO? “For sport removals, we include recent data on sport catch timing in Areas 2A, 2C, and 3A in our calculations. Similar data for Area 2B are not available.” If Alaska can come up with an acceptable accountability system for their halibut fishery, I believe Canada should have the ability to do the same?
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/annmeet/2010/bluebook/IPHC_Bluebook_2010.pdf

Are you referring to internationally recognized as “with no verification,” “data were only available from four DFO statistical areas, or 44% of the landed weight,” or “the size composition for other areas was from 2006=2008 information.”

“DFO catch estimates were from mixed sources including overflights, vessel counts, creel sampling, and lodge logbooks. The piece counts are from lodge logbooks and from the creel sampling, however the lodge data are self reported with no verification. The 2009 size composition data were only available from four DFO statistical areas, or 44% of the landed weight. The size composition for the other areas was from 2006-2008 information. DFO instituted several management restrictions on the sport fishery in 2009 to constrain the harvest. For the second year, the opening of the sport season was delayed to March 1 instead of the traditional opening day of February 1. Additionally, the bag limit was reduced to one-fish between March 1 and August 21; the possession limit was reduced from three-fish to two-fish for the entire sport season; and there was a prohibition on halibut retention in Area 121 seaward of 12 nm.”
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/annmeet/2010/bluebook/IPHC_Bluebook_2010.pdf

I am not sure much has changed yet, but in reality don’t worry how DFO or anyone accounts for anything. At this time, accountability is strictly between IPHC and DFO. If the IPHC and DFO are both happy with the way it is – NOT YOUR PROBLEM! Unfortunately, accountability of Area 2B, 2010, 9.8% total exploitable biomass is probably not very high on IPHC priority list.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the commercial sector either on the 88/12 issue? The commercial sector was responsible and the ones that did bring up this issue! They are the ones that went to, and got DFO involved, and also petitioned IPHC for the sport fishery quota restrictions. So, they pretty much brought this issue on themselves! IPHC actually considered the sport catch too small to worry about until then… And also remember, they are the ones that want 95%!

I would suggest… Stick with YOUR issue that is the 88/12 unfair split!

 

[Cut Plug]

Charlie is right - the issue is simply the unfair allocation. I haven't heard anywhere any suggestion from anyone that Canada should exceed its TAC as provided by the IPHC as a way to deal with the unfair allocation split we currently have in this country.

Trying to dig down in to IPHC and inferred conservation related issues is simply commercial based smoke and mirrors, and IMO has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

This is all and only about how we allocate a sustainable IPHC derived TAC between the commercial and public fishery. If the allocation were to shift to 50% rec and 50% commercial, it would still add up to the same TAC as 88\12. Therefore, no change to the IPHC TAC means no conservation concern - get it?

As far as catch monitoring goes there is no doubt the commercial sector has a fantastic program in place and thats appropriate given the individual catching power of each vessel, and that currently they acount for 88% of Canada's TAC. Funny thing though, when I last checked all of the cost related to the cameras, dockside evaluation etc was borne by the active fishermen - not a penny is paid by the slipper skippers. Yet another example of how they're ripping everyone off, and giggling all the way to the bank.

Does the recreational sector need to continue to improve its catch monitoring efforts? Who should undertake this, and who should pay for it? I'd suggest these questions are worthy of a separate debate, but as long as the IPHC accepts Canada's catch figures maybe we should focus on solving the immediate problem first. Our catch really is a drop in a bucket as Charlie suggests. We need to solve the bigger problem first.

Where we can find that pool of fish to reallocate without harming active commercial fishermen is what the slipper skippers are all about - if they aren't actively fishing it, and didn't pay for it, then it makes sense that they should give some or all of it back to the people who gifted it to them in the first plae. Asking to be paid for something you never paid for in the first place is not just greedy bad manners, it's potentially illegal when you're dealing with a common property resource. The last time I checked, no Canadian taxpayers were giving me a free ride on a pension plan - they should have had the common sense to invest in RSP's like the rest of us.


In my opiniomn its not all that complicated guys - privatization of a common property resource is wrong. 12% isn't enough to maintain a vibrant and important public fishery. A pool of fish exists that isn't being used appropriately at the present time that could be used to increase the public fishery allocation without causing undue harm to active commercial fishermen. The rest of this stuff just muddies the water.

CP

 

[Deewar25]

So if in general, the problem lies in the fact that they just don't know the true halibut numbers, why can we not do something about it?? It would seem to me that it would be a minimum cost to set up an online form database for us to tally our halibut results at the end of the year (or even quarterly to better gauge closures). Obviously we need to enter our name and our license number (there are unique counters on the store bought ones, may have to be added for the online licenses). That way at least you don't have someone cheating the numbers with multiple entries. We enter license number, name, catch quantity, area of each. Done - I'm sure weight is critical as well, but I'm sure they can tabulate a rough size distribution through the creels or by area. The only consideration would be the likely need to modify the license for halibut entry as well.

Then will people even bother at the end of the year? Well, if they threaten closure I would have thought so. We are talking no more 'pain' maybe a couple times a year than paying a few bills online. Even at that, if 20% of the total license holders actually did it, you could then at least extrapolate fairly based on the total number of licenses (even better if there were a halibut stamp (cheap, just $1 or even free just as a number to be recorded!) for true # of halibut fisherman).

If this is all online, there is no calculations for them, the struggle/time/cost is only related to setting up a fairly simple database, modifying the license, and then the numbers are there.

For those that just write off the idea, please tell me why that wouldn't work???? It requires faith in the fisherman following through, internet access, and fisherman being factual, but I'd of thought the threat of closure would be enough.

Then at least we will know how close infact we are to that 12% and if it is even a problem (wouldn't you be pissed to find out we were only actually at 8% last year when they closed us?). Beats me - I'm sure its harder than it seems in my head, and I'm sure someone will explain why and this idea stops in its tracks right now, but my attitude is how do you know that unless you try it! If we actually came closer to 20% of the TAC, could bite us in the butt, but at the same time, then we are obviously going over our allowance and then conservation DOES come into play.

Thinkin out loud...just like normal!

 

[Ding Dong!]

For anyone to state that the only issue is an unfair division of 88/12, nothing more nothing less, unfortunately is not offering or willing to investigate and find solutions to a enormous problem. I for one have never acknowledge IPHC in any of my observations. My concerns only go so far as DFO. 88/12 was developed via industry and the DFO, with the Minister having soul authority to administer or change the division.

We don't need to look at the accountability of the commercial sector what so ever, they have the tools in place to prove where they sit each year.

The sport sector has no idea whether or not they have actually exceeded their quota or not. What we are relying on is the very best available data that has been shown to be based on inputted information that is somewhat skewed. Is there in fact proof that this equation works 100%? If not then what can be done to improve it's accuracy?

One solution is developing better individual accounting or reporting. Simply a start, and certainly less gray area as an end result.

I'll wait to read more from "traveler" before I decide what my view will be. To be clear I am only going as high as DFO and I do not include IPHC, as that factor is predominantly the same from year to year based on bio mass and not the sectoral division that has been developed by industry and DFO.

I still wish someone would address my previously asked questions;

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.


Ding Dong!

 

[Cut Plug]

If the problem lies in the 88\12 split, I fail to see how changing or in some way "improving" what you percieve to be "skewed" recreational catch information will in any way solve that problem. By the way, I'd be interested to know where you got the information to assert that "What we are relying on is the very best available data that has been shown to be based on inputted information that is somewhat skewed." I've been involved in this stuff for a long time and have never heard anyone credible make that accusation before. Perhaps some evidence to substantiate that claim is in order.

Knowing sooner if the recreational sector has hit our "quota" will simply answer a basic question sooner - its not a solution to the problem. If the recreational sector is over its allocation then the IPHC removes that amount from the following years allocation - just like what happens to the perfect and infallable commercial sector (at least in your mind) when they surpass their allocation. Problem solved from a reconciling catch perspective and sticking to our IPHC TAC over the long term, but if the quota assigned to the rec sector is clearly way too small, then you're always at risk of surpassing it. IMO thats the problem. Why worry about trying to manage a fishery based on too small a quota when you can simply adjust that quota to make sure you don't exceed it? As mentioned in some of the stuff I've read, it appears that DFO feels pretty confident about its numbers by the end of September. If it looks like the public fishery has been assinged too much and won't catch its annual allocation by then, DFO can simply re-assign that catch back to the commercial sector, free of charge of course, and away you go.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are also the best.

Come on ding dong, don't insult anyone's intelligence any further by trying to push an issue that is obviously "skewed" to aviod the real problem. Yawn. This kind of trolling is one of the reasons I don't normally participate in boards like this. Call yourself a "sportie" all you like - you're not fooling anyone my friend.

The easiest way for DFO (or you) to avoid worrying about whether or not the public fishery will catch over its quota is to make sure that the interests of the public are put ahead of the slipper skippers and allocate enough fish to the public fishery on an annual basis to make sure that it won't exceed that amount. The slipper skippers are where the fish can come from and it won't affect any "real" fishermen - including those in the commercial fishery - one bit.

First things first, as I pointed out in my original post (but not my first on this board - for some reason when the board changed I lost my original "Gooey Bob" handle. Not too sure how that works ) solve the allocation problem which you can do quickly (reallocation only takes a decision by the minister) and then move on to continuing to improve catch monitoring which is a longer term situation.

CP (aka Gooey)

 

[Ding Dong!]

If you say so "Cut Plug"!

Call yourself a "sportie" all you like - you're not fooling anyone my friend.

I encourage you to retract that quote or take my challenge. If I am not a sporty, I will pay 1 MILLION DOLLARS, if I am a sporty, then you pay me one thousand dollars. Are you game?

Ding Dong!

PS., educate yourself CP! IPHC does not divide Canada's catch ratios amongst sectors, this is left up to DFO!

 

[Cut Plug]

If you say so "Cut Plug"!



I encourage you to retract that quote or take my challenge. If I am not a sporty, I will pay 1 MILLION DOLLARS, if I am a sporty, then you pay me one thousand dollars. Are you game?

Ding Dong!

PS., educate yourself CP! IPHC does not divide Canada's catch ratios amongst sectors, this is left up to DFO!

Owning a license doesn't make you a "sporty" DD. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, experience tells me that it usually is a duck.

Ummm...where did I sugest that the IPHC allocates catch ratios amongst sectors? Not too sure what you're talking about.

Anyway, I have no desire to hijack this thread and turn this in to a debate between you and I. Why not go back to the more substantive issues?

What are your thoughts about simply reallocating enough to the recreational sector to ensure that its needs are met, and then giving the rest to the commercial sector after that? Do you have any substantial reasons why this wouldn't work? Do you feel that using the slipper skippers as the source for this fish is in some way unfair or a bad way to manage the resource?

As a dedicated sporty, I'm sure you'd agree that restoring the public fishery to a level that allows it to realize its full potential in both social and economic terms represents the best use for the resource, especially when compared to whats going on now with the slipper skippers stranglehold on access benifitting only them.

Wouldn't you?

Gooey Plug

 

[Ding Dong!]

Wow! Now here is an issue in it of itself! Please, please start reading and studying all that you can prior to making posts like the following. We all need to recognize that there is by far, many more sides to this scenario other than some folks will have you believe. It is actually in your best interest to study before posting, get all sides, even DFO's & FN, along with commercial and sport. Make informed posts based on fact. Nothing was ever free. To say so is actually stupid!.

Charlie is right - the issue is simply the unfair allocation. I haven't heard anywhere any suggestion from anyone that Canada should exceed its TAC as provided by the IPHC as a way to deal with the unfair allocation split we currently have in this country.

Trying to dig down in to IPHC and inferred conservation related issues is simply commercial based smoke and mirrors, and IMO has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

This is all and only about how we allocate a sustainable IPHC derived TAC between the commercial and public fishery. If the allocation were to shift to 50% rec and 50% commercial, it would still add up to the same TAC as 88\12. Therefore, no change to the IPHC TAC means no conservation concern - get it?

As far as catch monitoring goes there is no doubt the commercial sector has a fantastic program in place and thats appropriate given the individual catching power of each vessel, and that currently they acount for 88% of Canada's TAC. Funny thing though, when I last checked all of the cost related to the cameras, dockside evaluation etc was borne by the active fishermen - not a penny is paid by the slipper skippers. Yet another example of how they're ripping everyone off, and giggling all the way to the bank.

Does the recreational sector need to continue to improve its catch monitoring efforts? Who should undertake this, and who should pay for it? I'd suggest these questions are worthy of a separate debate, but as long as the IPHC accepts Canada's catch figures maybe we should focus on solving the immediate problem first. Our catch really is a drop in a bucket as Charlie suggests. We need to solve the bigger problem first.

Where we can find that pool of fish to reallocate without harming active commercial fishermen is what the slipper skippers are all about - if they aren't actively fishing it, and didn't pay for it, then it makes sense that they should give some or all of it back to the people who gifted it to them in the first plae. Asking to be paid for something you never paid for in the first place is not just greedy bad manners, it's potentially illegal when you're dealing with a common property resource. The last time I checked, no Canadian taxpayers were giving me a free ride on a pension plan - they should have had the common sense to invest in RSP's like the rest of us.


In my opiniomn its not all that complicated guys - privatization of a common property resource is wrong. 12% isn't enough to maintain a vibrant and important public fishery. A pool of fish exists that isn't being used appropriately at the present time that could be used to increase the public fishery allocation without causing undue harm to active commercial fishermen. The rest of this stuff just muddies the water.

CP

 

[Ding Dong!]

Owning a license doesn't make you a "sporty" DD. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, experience tells me that it usually is a duck.

LOL, Ssooo, you are then what? You give me proof, and I will give you proof! Does that now mean that you have engaged in my offer? LOL

Do we now have a contract?

It sounds like either you just made 1 MILLION DOLLARS or you sir, now in fact owe me one thousand dollars. Witch is it? Are you in or are you out?

Ding Dong!

 

[Lipripper]

Well...... This is touchy subject....

Again.... I will say that until we figure out how to account for most ounces that we catch (as sporties). The 88/12 means nothing.

It will go to The Hon. Gail Shea and she will see a to the pound commercial catch with backing... and see DFO report, sporty catch, with nothing to back it up. She could say give them a few more %...... but the numbers are still being made up for us.... A flick of the pen and the numbers could change.
We can not say that the 88/12 doesn't work. I know for a fact that the sprorties numbers are not far from being made up

 

[double trouble]

Motley Crew

Hi, I'm one of the Motley Crew that fisher69 was referring to. I take issue with the negative impression fisher69 has with lodges and distributors such as myself. First, as has been mentioned many times on this site lodges and guides provide an opportunity for the public, both locals and tourists to access the recreational fishery through the platform guides and lodges offer. The angler fishes to his personal licence quotas. The same goes for lodges, without individual anglers (the public) they have no business. They don't own any quota, nor should they as I see it.

And I'm sorry if fisher69 thinks that my business is somehow part of the great conspiracy. Just thought I should let you know that lodges represent under 5% of our business. Almost all our tackle sales are to the average angler, likely guys like fisher69. I have 40 staff and a bunch of summer staff that depend on the 380,000 saltwater anglers and 400,000+ freshwater anglers every year to go out and catch a fish now and again. We've been distributing tackle since 1954. And one of the other "Motley Crew" quoted above is the owner of a manufacturing business that has been here for over a hundred years.

What really steams me about this whole quota issue is that the approx. 100,000 anglers are held hostage by the 430 commercial licence holders. By calculation they paid about 7 cents a pound for their licence fee last year and the public bought quota from some of them for $ 5.50 a pound. Nice margin if you're one of the lucky.

What I would like to see is DFO allow 2 fish a day/ 2 total possession so it is viable for a guy like me or you to charter a boat with a buddy or two and go experience one of the best fisheries we have. And pretty good eating too! And close the season at the end of Dec., as promised by the Minister back in 2003 when the 88/12 was announced. We were promised "no in-season closure" but it turns out those were just empty words to suck us in.

We shouldn't be involved with leasing to or from anyone. That's a game for the commercial sector, not the taxpayers that fund the whole system.

The public fishery should be the first priority after conservation and first nations. For such a low impact fishery we create thousands of jobs and economic benefits, and especially in places like Port Renfrew, Ucluelet, Tahsis and many other coastal communities. And it's not to say the commercial fishery doesn't have any benefits; I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is there should be a base level of catch that is viable to drive the economic engine that is the public fishery. After that the gov't can do whatever they like with the rest. I may not as a taxpayer like giving it away for 7 cents a pound so a slipper skipper can lease it for 5 bucks but so be it. No one said anyone in gov't knows how to make a profit.

Brent