DFO must fix halibut controversy now
- Thread starter Sushihunter
- Start date
Lipripper
Active Member
They are not.........
Holmes...don't get me wrong I agree with all that you and others have said about 88/12 and also about having to buy something we already own. I DO AGREE IT IS WRONG! I'm in that fight with you guys. But in a worse case scenario you have to think outside the box to ultimately win. Winning would mean that enough halibut would be made available to us to have a Feb 1st to Dec 31st season with a 2 fish per day limit, 3 in possession. (in times of no conservation concerns) Anything else is a defeat. I still favour an annual limit, that is a personal belief.
If they gave us 20% tomorrow with room to grow in the future if we needed it, would you care if the commercial guys have "free" quota? I doubt it. So lets consider all the best tactics to get there. The rec guys buying up commercial quota (with no intent to transfer it to our fishery, which can't be done at present any way) and becoming their fish lords "slipper skippers" would get them sweating. They would be demanding that DFO give us 20% if we would just drop those plans and go away.
If they gave us 20% tomorrow with room to grow in the future if we needed it, would you care if the commercial guys have "free" quota? I doubt it. So lets consider all the best tactics to get there. The rec guys buying up commercial quota (with no intent to transfer it to our fishery, which can't be done at present any way) and becoming their fish lords "slipper skippers" would get them sweating. They would be demanding that DFO give us 20% if we would just drop those plans and go away.
double trouble
Member
Here's the problem though Profisher. Who has the money to go buy quota at 40 to 50 bucks a pound if you can even find it? And to get possession of the quota is the only way to go if you want to carry out your plan. And at 40 to 50 bucks a pound the Return on Investment is not too good. I've done the math. It's borderline at todays interest rates. But if you could get it for 7 cents a pound like the "slipper skippers" (I know I said I wouldn't use that again but how else should I describe them)sign me up!
I guess no one will know how much money could be raised for sure until we decided to try this route. If we get no where with the minister I'll kick it off with a $500.00 donation to the cause. I would challenge every other guide to match or donate the equivalent of a single fishing charter to the cause. Any business that profits from sport fishing a $500.00 challenge. The 300,000 rec fishers.. a $50.00 challenge.
double trouble
Member
In all seriousness I wonder how many others would pitch in? $ 500.00 would buy about 10 to 15 lbs of quota. We need hundreds of thousands of pounds for this year. That's 5 million dollars for every 100,000 lbs. or we could lease it for somewhere around 500,000 dollars. That would make the gov't happy but you can see that is not pratical.
As many others have said the minister needs to see the error in the 88/12 split. Another thing that bothers me is it was a Liberal minister that brought the split in and B.C. as the current Conservative gov't recognizes is key to keeping them in even a minority gov't. So why in the heck would you go and tick off 100,000 voters for the favour of 330 (I'm not counting those that actually fish their quota)? As you can tell I'm no political science major. But really?
As many others have said the minister needs to see the error in the 88/12 split. Another thing that bothers me is it was a Liberal minister that brought the split in and B.C. as the current Conservative gov't recognizes is key to keeping them in even a minority gov't. So why in the heck would you go and tick off 100,000 voters for the favour of 330 (I'm not counting those that actually fish their quota)? As you can tell I'm no political science major. But really?
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
I can see the logic in owning the quota purchased from Commercial guys so that we would have insurance quota in our back pocket, and yes it would also make the Commercial guys uncomfortable to see the Sporties buying up their quota. But....the part that I can't get my head around is how could we fish a commercial IVQ (that we purchased), from a personal or sport fishing position. Would that IVQ not have to be fished Commercially from a licensed and monitored vessel?? From the research that I have been doing, the gist that I am getting is that if we bought the Commercial quota we still couldn't fish it legally, unless we fished it commercially and sold it commercially. Am I missing something here?
I do agree that the fight that we have in front of us is definately one to get DFO toCOMPLETELY AND CLEARLY SEE AND UNDERSTAND, that the current 12/88 quota split IS NOT FAIR!! And our department of fisheries and oceans minister must CHANGE IT NOW!!
The minister has to look at the free halibut gifted quota, non-fishing, Slipper-Skipper, wealthy Halibut Barons, Commercial fishermen that do not fish their quota any more (the ones that have not fished the major % of their quota - not leased it out). Look for the ones that have not realistically and honestly fished in the last three years, and yank their quota, divide it up between the Sporties and the working commercial guys. This part has been discussed from many angles and there are some really good ideas out there that would maintain conservation of the fishery, and benefit both the Sports Fishery and the WORKING Commercial Fishery.
The thing is that if she looks at the situation now and decides to sort out the current mess, she needs to look at the best plan for the future, and restart the Canadian Halibut Fishery with accountability for ALL parties that participate in the fishery, fairness, proper conservation measures, and room for growth in the sport fishery. (As the sport fishery is most definately going to grow in the future just purely from a large number of Baby Boomers starting to retire-and lots of them are going to go fishing to fill their free time). This situation that we are all facing is not going to get better in the future if it is left as it is now - that is certainly fact and something to seriously consider.
Thats my 2-bits for today.
I do agree that the fight that we have in front of us is definately one to get DFO toCOMPLETELY AND CLEARLY SEE AND UNDERSTAND, that the current 12/88 quota split IS NOT FAIR!! And our department of fisheries and oceans minister must CHANGE IT NOW!!
The minister has to look at the free halibut gifted quota, non-fishing, Slipper-Skipper, wealthy Halibut Barons, Commercial fishermen that do not fish their quota any more (the ones that have not fished the major % of their quota - not leased it out). Look for the ones that have not realistically and honestly fished in the last three years, and yank their quota, divide it up between the Sporties and the working commercial guys. This part has been discussed from many angles and there are some really good ideas out there that would maintain conservation of the fishery, and benefit both the Sports Fishery and the WORKING Commercial Fishery.
The thing is that if she looks at the situation now and decides to sort out the current mess, she needs to look at the best plan for the future, and restart the Canadian Halibut Fishery with accountability for ALL parties that participate in the fishery, fairness, proper conservation measures, and room for growth in the sport fishery. (As the sport fishery is most definately going to grow in the future just purely from a large number of Baby Boomers starting to retire-and lots of them are going to go fishing to fill their free time). This situation that we are all facing is not going to get better in the future if it is left as it is now - that is certainly fact and something to seriously consider.
Thats my 2-bits for today.
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
I think that if the past tells a story, the problem is that the powers that be back east don't seriously consider the votes from the west, and the Halibut fishery that we are wanting them to fix is out WEST. But.... our population is growing, and our VOTE voice is growing louder and the political teeth are getting sharper. We need to keep taking it to them to make them understand that we are SERIOUS.
Fish Hunter...the plan is simply to buy commercial quota period. Form a company say "Sport Fishing Enterprises" and buy up available commercial halibut. This is not quota we can transfer or use in the sport fishery. We are just buying it at $40 to $50 a pound (as anyone can) then leasing it back to a licensed commercial halibut fishermen. (at $4 to $5 buck a pound) It is strictly a maneuver to make the commercial guys take us seriously (as I'm sure the thought of a sport fish company being in control of their quota is quite repulsive to most commercials) and to sit willingly at the table with DFO to resolve once and for all the 88/12 split. It is simply using the existing rules to our favour and playing the game to win.
I think there is some confusion because i was talking about buying and transferring quota earlier on. This is a simpler version of that plan, based on feedback back and forth here and with others in the industry. That is the beauty about this forum, you get instant feedback and you can revise a plan when others point out flaws.
Fish-Hunter
Active Member
Thanks Got it now. The purchased quota is not to fix the unfair imbalance in the sport fishing sectors 12% of the TAC. We would still have to fight for the 12/88 to be changed, but it would give us a voice the minister of DFO currently listens to, the voice of the Commercial fishermen. And now,,,,,why is it that she does listen to the Commercial fishermen???
Hey Ding Dong!, I think that I may be getting close to the answer to your Question
I am still chewing on it, pretty soon I'll have to spit it out, because it doesn't taste so good. I still think that you know the answer, but you just want someone else to say it???? I think that with the research and knowledge that you have under your hat, you must have stumbled upon the answer, and can feel it boiling in your gut.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
And that my friend, would put you (us) in EXACTLY the same position as the absentee commercial quota owners. NOT going to fly with me at all for an entire host of reasons.
Nog
Cut Plug
Well-Known Member
Its pretty simple for me. Halibut, along with other fish are a common property resource that are owned by all Canadians. We elect governments who appoint fisheries ministers to manage these common property resources at the highest and best use of all Canadians. As such, the minister must have unfettered ability to change allocation whenever necessary as the highest and best use can change over time.
Buying or leasing quota provides a clear indication that the recreational fishery supports the concept of privatization of common property resources. I don't believe that most participants in our fishery support this concept. I also believe that it represents a "profit a prendre", or "profit before taken" which implies ownership of a fish before it is caught, which is simply awaiting a legal challenge to confirm that it is illegal.
Going down the road of supporting ownership of fish by private individuals or businesses will do nothing more than sell out the future access rights of future generations IMHO. If we agree to it for halibut, then salmon, crab, prawns, etc will be next. Rest assured, the commercial sector is already licking its chops in anticipation of this.
I believe that the only way to manage our fishery resources is to consider the example we have in Coho and Chinook, and that is priority access. Consider and account for the needs of the public fishery and average Canadians who wish to access their resource after conservation and FSC requirements are addressed, then assign the rest to the commercial fishery after that on an annual basis. If, by the end of September it appears that the recreational fishery won't catch its allotment it can be given back to the commercial sector.
If the commercial sector wants to do ITQ's in their fishery, as long as the recreational sector is held harmless, they can deal with the financial and legal implications of that.
I beleive that getting in to the quota game is a slippery slope fellas, and would strongly advise us to not go down that road.
CP
Buying or leasing quota provides a clear indication that the recreational fishery supports the concept of privatization of common property resources. I don't believe that most participants in our fishery support this concept. I also believe that it represents a "profit a prendre", or "profit before taken" which implies ownership of a fish before it is caught, which is simply awaiting a legal challenge to confirm that it is illegal.
Going down the road of supporting ownership of fish by private individuals or businesses will do nothing more than sell out the future access rights of future generations IMHO. If we agree to it for halibut, then salmon, crab, prawns, etc will be next. Rest assured, the commercial sector is already licking its chops in anticipation of this.
I believe that the only way to manage our fishery resources is to consider the example we have in Coho and Chinook, and that is priority access. Consider and account for the needs of the public fishery and average Canadians who wish to access their resource after conservation and FSC requirements are addressed, then assign the rest to the commercial fishery after that on an annual basis. If, by the end of September it appears that the recreational fishery won't catch its allotment it can be given back to the commercial sector.
If the commercial sector wants to do ITQ's in their fishery, as long as the recreational sector is held harmless, they can deal with the financial and legal implications of that.
I beleive that getting in to the quota game is a slippery slope fellas, and would strongly advise us to not go down that road.
CP
Last edited by a moderator:
Fishing Guide
Active Member
Cheers All,
Had a meeting with a sports fisherman from Nanaimo who contacted DFO for some halibut numbers. In the reply that was forwarded came the 'ownership' of the commercial licenses and in that list were several licenses that were purchased by DFO in 'anticipation' of treaty negotiations. Perhaps a 'very, very short term solution' might simply be having DFO provide the licenses quota from those held but not subscribed licenses to Sports Fisheries for this year while the moribund DFO wades through this mess.
Simply looking 'outside the box' in an effort to 'assist' DFO in what should be a very easy fix for, if they cannot fix this in a timely fashion, my thought process is that if they are incapable here then they should not be trusted with the larger picture.
Had a meeting with a sports fisherman from Nanaimo who contacted DFO for some halibut numbers. In the reply that was forwarded came the 'ownership' of the commercial licenses and in that list were several licenses that were purchased by DFO in 'anticipation' of treaty negotiations. Perhaps a 'very, very short term solution' might simply be having DFO provide the licenses quota from those held but not subscribed licenses to Sports Fisheries for this year while the moribund DFO wades through this mess.
Simply looking 'outside the box' in an effort to 'assist' DFO in what should be a very easy fix for, if they cannot fix this in a timely fashion, my thought process is that if they are incapable here then they should not be trusted with the larger picture.
D
Ding Dong!
Guest
Almost every post that I read indicates that the only avenue that the sport sector has in its mind at this moment, is to battle out head to head with competing sectors. DFO rubber stamped the original plan, a plan that hasn't really deviated much from the start to now. The Minister heading DFO is the only entity that can make a change. Take DFO to Court!
100,000 dedicated halibut anglers can raise the capital necessary to retain good Council.
Ding Dong!
100,000 dedicated halibut anglers can raise the capital necessary to retain good Council.
Ding Dong!
CP i agree with everything you say. But you need to have a back up plan, one with the gloves off. In a perfect world the minister would see things our way, reality is the minister seldom does. If this fight is lost I see buying quota as an intimidation tactic and having the reverse effect than what you think. I don't think it sends a message that we support the present system. Its sends a message that you are going to be sorry you ever fu%$ed us over. If (really it is when) the government moves to ITQ's in all fisheries we would threaten to to buy up commercial quota in those fisheries as well. Not that we really want to but I think this THREAT would be incentive for both the minister and the commercials to find and agree upon a way to be more flexible and sensitive to our industry's needs and requests.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Lets take a page out of the commercial sector as they did on the east coast over lobsters.
Worked for them, should work for us and they the commercial group got away with it.
