searun
Well-Known Member
Here's what I sent:
Neil,
I understand you are looking for individual angler input regarding the proposed expansion of this program in 2013.
As a recreational angler and guide, I would simply state that this concept has been demonstrated to be a complete failure. Only 220 pounds were actually transferred using this program. I understand that just under 5,000 pounds were purchased overall, but most was transferred back to the commercial sector. I strongly suspect this was simply commercial fishers arranging for others to purchase quota to try to bolster the appearance of success, and following the season a transfer back.
From where I sit, this program is simply a non-starter both as a recreational angler and a guide. The pure economics of purchasing quota and then either absorbing that cost in the daily charter rate or passing that along as a surcharge to guests is laughable. Few guests would pay a surcharge of $5 per pound. Think of the optics of trying to market that!
I also read with considerable interest the attempts to rationalize the cost/benefits of offering a program that on any reasonable empirical analysis would call into question the cost to DFO alone for managing a program that resulted in such little objective evidence of quota transference (250 pounds).
I also call into question proceeding with this program in light of the potential ramifications of the Malcolm case. Wouldn't it be more prudent to delay implementation pending judgment in this case?
Neil,
I understand you are looking for individual angler input regarding the proposed expansion of this program in 2013.
As a recreational angler and guide, I would simply state that this concept has been demonstrated to be a complete failure. Only 220 pounds were actually transferred using this program. I understand that just under 5,000 pounds were purchased overall, but most was transferred back to the commercial sector. I strongly suspect this was simply commercial fishers arranging for others to purchase quota to try to bolster the appearance of success, and following the season a transfer back.
From where I sit, this program is simply a non-starter both as a recreational angler and a guide. The pure economics of purchasing quota and then either absorbing that cost in the daily charter rate or passing that along as a surcharge to guests is laughable. Few guests would pay a surcharge of $5 per pound. Think of the optics of trying to market that!
I also read with considerable interest the attempts to rationalize the cost/benefits of offering a program that on any reasonable empirical analysis would call into question the cost to DFO alone for managing a program that resulted in such little objective evidence of quota transference (250 pounds).
I also call into question proceeding with this program in light of the potential ramifications of the Malcolm case. Wouldn't it be more prudent to delay implementation pending judgment in this case?
