Deewar25
Well-Known Member
He gets it - very fair/unbiased viewpoint as well...good read:
I just got back from the meeting put on by the British Columbia Wildlife Federation about the Halibut allocations in BC, held in Campbell River, my home town. This is how I understand what is happening here on the BC coast in regards to the Halibut:
An international agency determines Canada's Total Allowable Catch of Halibut (TAC) for 2011. Canada, years ago, split the TAC to be 88% Commercial and 12% Recreational. The problem is that since then the total amount of Halibut caught by the recreational fisherman has increased and the TAC has decreased. This has decreased the rec. anglers catch limit to 1 per day and 2 in possession in 2010 from 2 and 3 in 2009. This has had a profound affect on recreational fisherman, guides, lodges, Ucluelet, etc... However, last year we went over our 12% quota by 100,000lbs. Which the DFO has taken away from the rec. anglers quota in 2011. This combined with higher angler pressure and the lower TAC, may force the DFO to close the rec. fishery for halibut sometime mid summer as the rec anglers will hit their total quota.
Now... the argument from the recreational side is that, they never agreed to 12% in the first place and wanted 20% which would cover our rec. anglers catch of halibut now and into the future. The DFO should take 8% from the commercial fisherman and give it to the recreational anglers. The problem, the recreational anglers argue, is the 'slipper skippers'. They have received halibut quotas back when the DFO were giving it away, and now they no longer fish and have sold or leased those same quotas to active commercial fisherman. The active commercial fisherman now can catch more quota, but pay $5 per pound of halibut to some lease holders. So, one proposal was that the DFO buy back the leases, and give a lower percentage back to the active commercial fisherman. This would then give the commercial Halibut fisherman less quota but not having to pay the $5/lb lease payments. Thus, allowing them to make more money and at the same time giving more of that quota to the Recreational fisherman. Does this make sense? I'm sure its far more difficult for the DFO to do that then what was said at the meeting.
The commercial fisherman that were at the meeting, and there were a lot, argued that its not fair that the rec. anglers are arguing for more when they went over their limit in 2010 and now have an even lower quota. Also, they argue that the active commercial fisherman bought and paid for their quota, or pay a lease for it. And any reduction in the TAC for them would costs dozen maybe hundreds of jobs. The commercial fisherman are militant and will not move an inch. They claim that its not their fault the TAC has shrunk and the rec. angler pressure is up for halibut, why should they be penalized? I agree.
From the information that I have heard and read, it looks like the problem lies in the implementation of how commercial fisherman were given a Canadian natural resource and now they 'own' it. I have a problem with that, unfortunately the commercial fisherman are at the point of the stick because of it. The DFO should never have 'given' the Halibut quota to the commercial fisherman, but allowed them to use it until they were done actively fishing. This way the DFO could control who gets what percentage of the TAC. But sadly, what was done can not be undone. So the BCWF and partners are asking the DFO to take back 8% and give it to the rec.'s. Personally, that's not fair to the commercial fisherman. I think that since the DFO did the initial mistake of giving the quotas away, they should pay a lot of money to buy them back from commercial fisherman at a price that is beneficial to the commercial guys, because it's not their fault, so they should be compensated well. I doubt the DFO would be very excited to hear that, but any other way I don't support and I would call that unfair.
However, from an economic standpoint, 100,000 recreational fisherman bring more to the economy than 1000 commercial fisherman. More guides, hotels, towns, restaurants, tackle companies, lodges and recreational fisherman will be directly affected by a reduced quota, more so than the 1000 commercial halibut fisherman. Plus, if the DFO does what I support, the commercial fisherman will just get a cheque for the lost quota. Therefore, it only makes sense for the Canadian government to protect the recreational Halibut fishery from closing early in the season. They could probably get the money back from buying back 8% of the quota from the commercial fishermen, by not closing the recreational fishery early.
From an environmental standpoint, Canada has a Total Allowable Catch of halibut that has been assessed by the international body that determines the TAC for Canada and the US, based on scientific studies of what is the sustainable catch for the up coming year. So, it doesn't really matter who catches the TAC in Canada from a sustainability standpoint.
Looks like a long hard battle and I applaud the work of the BCWF and their partners in working towards a solution.
http://www.ramblingfisherman.com/2011/01/halibut-allocation-debate.html
I just got back from the meeting put on by the British Columbia Wildlife Federation about the Halibut allocations in BC, held in Campbell River, my home town. This is how I understand what is happening here on the BC coast in regards to the Halibut:
An international agency determines Canada's Total Allowable Catch of Halibut (TAC) for 2011. Canada, years ago, split the TAC to be 88% Commercial and 12% Recreational. The problem is that since then the total amount of Halibut caught by the recreational fisherman has increased and the TAC has decreased. This has decreased the rec. anglers catch limit to 1 per day and 2 in possession in 2010 from 2 and 3 in 2009. This has had a profound affect on recreational fisherman, guides, lodges, Ucluelet, etc... However, last year we went over our 12% quota by 100,000lbs. Which the DFO has taken away from the rec. anglers quota in 2011. This combined with higher angler pressure and the lower TAC, may force the DFO to close the rec. fishery for halibut sometime mid summer as the rec anglers will hit their total quota.
Now... the argument from the recreational side is that, they never agreed to 12% in the first place and wanted 20% which would cover our rec. anglers catch of halibut now and into the future. The DFO should take 8% from the commercial fisherman and give it to the recreational anglers. The problem, the recreational anglers argue, is the 'slipper skippers'. They have received halibut quotas back when the DFO were giving it away, and now they no longer fish and have sold or leased those same quotas to active commercial fisherman. The active commercial fisherman now can catch more quota, but pay $5 per pound of halibut to some lease holders. So, one proposal was that the DFO buy back the leases, and give a lower percentage back to the active commercial fisherman. This would then give the commercial Halibut fisherman less quota but not having to pay the $5/lb lease payments. Thus, allowing them to make more money and at the same time giving more of that quota to the Recreational fisherman. Does this make sense? I'm sure its far more difficult for the DFO to do that then what was said at the meeting.
The commercial fisherman that were at the meeting, and there were a lot, argued that its not fair that the rec. anglers are arguing for more when they went over their limit in 2010 and now have an even lower quota. Also, they argue that the active commercial fisherman bought and paid for their quota, or pay a lease for it. And any reduction in the TAC for them would costs dozen maybe hundreds of jobs. The commercial fisherman are militant and will not move an inch. They claim that its not their fault the TAC has shrunk and the rec. angler pressure is up for halibut, why should they be penalized? I agree.
From the information that I have heard and read, it looks like the problem lies in the implementation of how commercial fisherman were given a Canadian natural resource and now they 'own' it. I have a problem with that, unfortunately the commercial fisherman are at the point of the stick because of it. The DFO should never have 'given' the Halibut quota to the commercial fisherman, but allowed them to use it until they were done actively fishing. This way the DFO could control who gets what percentage of the TAC. But sadly, what was done can not be undone. So the BCWF and partners are asking the DFO to take back 8% and give it to the rec.'s. Personally, that's not fair to the commercial fisherman. I think that since the DFO did the initial mistake of giving the quotas away, they should pay a lot of money to buy them back from commercial fisherman at a price that is beneficial to the commercial guys, because it's not their fault, so they should be compensated well. I doubt the DFO would be very excited to hear that, but any other way I don't support and I would call that unfair.
However, from an economic standpoint, 100,000 recreational fisherman bring more to the economy than 1000 commercial fisherman. More guides, hotels, towns, restaurants, tackle companies, lodges and recreational fisherman will be directly affected by a reduced quota, more so than the 1000 commercial halibut fisherman. Plus, if the DFO does what I support, the commercial fisherman will just get a cheque for the lost quota. Therefore, it only makes sense for the Canadian government to protect the recreational Halibut fishery from closing early in the season. They could probably get the money back from buying back 8% of the quota from the commercial fishermen, by not closing the recreational fishery early.
From an environmental standpoint, Canada has a Total Allowable Catch of halibut that has been assessed by the international body that determines the TAC for Canada and the US, based on scientific studies of what is the sustainable catch for the up coming year. So, it doesn't really matter who catches the TAC in Canada from a sustainability standpoint.
Looks like a long hard battle and I applaud the work of the BCWF and their partners in working towards a solution.
http://www.ramblingfisherman.com/2011/01/halibut-allocation-debate.html
