HALIBUT CLOSURE
- Thread starter expertfisher780
- Start date
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
No emotion based reaction from me on this one. I steadfastly do not support an allocation of our resource that will further split the rec sector.
In the first few years that quota was implemented we didn't catch all our quota and we sold the uncaught portion to the commercial fleet and banked the money. A few years later we used that money to buy back quita to keep our season open...maybe that is what you are thinking back to?
sly_karma
Crew Member
The 85/15 split of TAC is, as I understand it, a compromise in order to secure more salmon for the rec sector. I understand the concept of TAC and how the catch is monitored, and I thought the slot limit was a reasonable way of spreading out the catch so there was reasonable access for all. What I don't understand is why there isn't a 'use it or lose it' policy on the TAC from either sport or commercial. I'd like to see the next round of negotiations focus on the uncaught commercial quota and its partial or complete transfer to the rec sector.
I've heard it speculated that the commercial quota owners deliberately underfish their allocations in order to keep supply tight and prices high. Surely transferring of this unused quota to rec fishers wouldn't have any serious effect on the commercial guys, they would continue to enjoy good prices since most sport fishers refuse to buy fish retail. Halibut is retailing around $70/kg at the moment, well more than prime rib. Surely it's a win-win if sporties get some more quota and retail prices stay high as well.
Final question/comment: WHY is there a cost in the XQT program? If the government is serious about fair access for all to this publicly owned resource, unused quota should be transferred free.
I've heard it speculated that the commercial quota owners deliberately underfish their allocations in order to keep supply tight and prices high. Surely transferring of this unused quota to rec fishers wouldn't have any serious effect on the commercial guys, they would continue to enjoy good prices since most sport fishers refuse to buy fish retail. Halibut is retailing around $70/kg at the moment, well more than prime rib. Surely it's a win-win if sporties get some more quota and retail prices stay high as well.
Final question/comment: WHY is there a cost in the XQT program? If the government is serious about fair access for all to this publicly owned resource, unused quota should be transferred free.
ILHG
Crew Member
Ok, so I found the Contact for the DFO Regional Manager for Ground Fish. From what I understand he also over sees the quota by back. Attached are his response to me & mine back to him (which I admit was a bit of an emotional rant). Also below is his contact info for everyone else to start sending him messages. Please use this info & send him your thoughts
Adam Keizer
Regional Manager, Groundfish | Gestionnaire régional, Poissons de fond
Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
401 Burrard Street | 401, rue Burrard
Vancouver, Canada V6C 3S4
adam.keizer@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Telephone | Téléphone 604-666-9033
Facsimile | Télécopieur 604-666-8525
Adam Keizer
Regional Manager, Groundfish | Gestionnaire régional, Poissons de fond
Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
401 Burrard Street | 401, rue Burrard
Vancouver, Canada V6C 3S4
adam.keizer@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Telephone | Téléphone 604-666-9033
Facsimile | Télécopieur 604-666-8525
Attachments
ILHG
Crew Member
Im not going to claim all my points I discussed have merit, but at least I am making some noise.....
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="sly_karma, post: 846844, member: 1203"]The 85/15 split of TAC is, as I understand it, a compromise in order to secure more salmon for the rec sector. I understand the concept of TAC and how the catch is monitored, and I thought the slot limit was a reasonable way of spreading out the catch so there was reasonable access for all. What I don't understand is why there isn't a 'use it or lose it' policy on the TAC from either sport or commercial. I'd like to see the next round of negotiations focus on the uncaught commercial quota and its partial or complete transfer to the rec sector.
I've heard it speculated that the commercial quota owners deliberately underfish their allocations in order to keep supply tight and prices high. Surely transferring of this unused quota to rec fishers wouldn't have any serious effect on the commercial guys, they would continue to enjoy good prices since most sport fishers refuse to buy fish retail. Halibut is retailing around $70/kg at the moment, well more than prime rib. Surely it's a win-win if sporties get some more quota and retail prices stay high as well.
Final question/comment: WHY is there a cost in the XQT program? If the government is serious about fair access for all to this publicly owned resource, unused quota should be transferred free.[/QUOTE]
No-- halibut allocation is separate from salmon.
I've heard it speculated that the commercial quota owners deliberately underfish their allocations in order to keep supply tight and prices high. Surely transferring of this unused quota to rec fishers wouldn't have any serious effect on the commercial guys, they would continue to enjoy good prices since most sport fishers refuse to buy fish retail. Halibut is retailing around $70/kg at the moment, well more than prime rib. Surely it's a win-win if sporties get some more quota and retail prices stay high as well.
Final question/comment: WHY is there a cost in the XQT program? If the government is serious about fair access for all to this publicly owned resource, unused quota should be transferred free.[/QUOTE]
No-- halibut allocation is separate from salmon.
I'd say there are some good reasons to up the sports allocation split from 15%. We release the large females while the commercials don't - better for the resource.
In general, sports caught fish are better for the all-around economy.
In 30 years of sports Halibut fishing I have never caught any other species. In my one experience commercial Halibut fishing our by-catch was around 50% true cod. Back at port, some of the boats were loaded with Yelloweye. So less by-catch with sports.
I live in WA & could easily live with a "one-over" possession limit. An under 83cm Hali is a waste of the resource IMO. I could also support different rules for resident versus non-resident. It's closed more than it is open in WA & Alaska already has different rules for non-residents so it's not like the non-residents have any better place to go than BC.
As for the "early" closure, we sporties are getting more efficient; newer DS technology will show Halibut & anchoring with chum bags REALLY draws them in. I have been to a couple of Haida Gwaii lodges & the daily catches are posted for all to see & bragging rights as to how many boxes of fish you bring home seems to be an issue with both the customers & the lodges.
If Salmon fishing remains in the tank, interest in Halibut will increase, so if you ask, ask for lot's more.
In general, sports caught fish are better for the all-around economy.
In 30 years of sports Halibut fishing I have never caught any other species. In my one experience commercial Halibut fishing our by-catch was around 50% true cod. Back at port, some of the boats were loaded with Yelloweye. So less by-catch with sports.
I live in WA & could easily live with a "one-over" possession limit. An under 83cm Hali is a waste of the resource IMO. I could also support different rules for resident versus non-resident. It's closed more than it is open in WA & Alaska already has different rules for non-residents so it's not like the non-residents have any better place to go than BC.
As for the "early" closure, we sporties are getting more efficient; newer DS technology will show Halibut & anchoring with chum bags REALLY draws them in. I have been to a couple of Haida Gwaii lodges & the daily catches are posted for all to see & bragging rights as to how many boxes of fish you bring home seems to be an issue with both the customers & the lodges.
If Salmon fishing remains in the tank, interest in Halibut will increase, so if you ask, ask for lot's more.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
You have to wonder who the Brain Surgeon was who came up with the plan to gift quota to commercial interests and the lack of requirements attached to that gift. It would appear the idea was to create some stability for small Mom and Pop fishing operations making it easier for them to continue living the lifestyle of small business owners. Sadly for the most part that was a complete and utter failure as is evidenced in the number of these people who no longer fish and instead lease out the original gift to large operations. In essence an Annuity in Perpetuity, a life long gift from the people of Canada that can be willed to their children when they pass on. Very generous of us is it not?
Why there was no finite time limit on this gift,or a caveat that if not fished by the original recipient and that at the very least, on their passing, it would revert back to DFO is mind boggling. So now we have a government who has for decades essentially paid a chunk of cash to people to sit at home (familiar refrain?) and a group of people who have learned to live with the "gift that just keeps giving".
So what are the options.
1) Inform quota holders that unless they fish, the quota is gone, suspend leasing and redistribute through DFO to new commercial and rec fishermen.
2) Begin a process for non fishers whereby the quota is reduced annually by a set percentage and redistributed,to let them get used to working for their money
3) On the death of original holder, quota reverts back to DFO
4) All quota regardless of whether fished or not is leased for a set period of time, after which time it may reduced, renewed or canceled by DFO
I suspect 1, the outright cancellation will never happen and is perhaps harsh now that people are used to this extra income. But to be fair the government has clawed back benefits from its own retirees , raised retirement age and don't get me started on the private sector, all of who contributed to their retirement,so an adjustment of a gift annuity isn't unreasonable.
Why there was no finite time limit on this gift,or a caveat that if not fished by the original recipient and that at the very least, on their passing, it would revert back to DFO is mind boggling. So now we have a government who has for decades essentially paid a chunk of cash to people to sit at home (familiar refrain?) and a group of people who have learned to live with the "gift that just keeps giving".
So what are the options.
1) Inform quota holders that unless they fish, the quota is gone, suspend leasing and redistribute through DFO to new commercial and rec fishermen.
2) Begin a process for non fishers whereby the quota is reduced annually by a set percentage and redistributed,to let them get used to working for their money
3) On the death of original holder, quota reverts back to DFO
4) All quota regardless of whether fished or not is leased for a set period of time, after which time it may reduced, renewed or canceled by DFO
I suspect 1, the outright cancellation will never happen and is perhaps harsh now that people are used to this extra income. But to be fair the government has clawed back benefits from its own retirees , raised retirement age and don't get me started on the private sector, all of who contributed to their retirement,so an adjustment of a gift annuity isn't unreasonable.
ILHG
Crew Member
I had a response back from the DFO again today. Attached is some good information regarding the 2016 Rec catch report for Halibut.
One thing I take away from it is the amount of potential fish are going to foreign visitors that go to the Northern lodges. The Northern Lodges use up about 53% of the TAC., which it self is ok if its fellow Canadians using it... However when you consider how many people at the lodges now are not Canadians it is alarming how much of our tiny 15% TAC is going to Foreigners. Based on my experience I would say that well over 1/2 of the guest are from out of country. (My experience is based on my own trips where I have seen a HUGE rise in Americans since our dollar cratered).. That would mean that we are losing ~25% of our TAC to foreigners from just one Area..
Now I know folks will argue that my estimates are to high.... Well I think they are in fact conservative.... During my 2 trips this year to Haida Gwaii over ~80% of guest were American on average.. The last previous years were not as high but always increasing. If you don't believe me then ask the fellow members on here who guide for a living up north & ask them. They are there all year & would be the most accurate to come up with a number..
Your thoughts??
One thing I take away from it is the amount of potential fish are going to foreign visitors that go to the Northern lodges. The Northern Lodges use up about 53% of the TAC., which it self is ok if its fellow Canadians using it... However when you consider how many people at the lodges now are not Canadians it is alarming how much of our tiny 15% TAC is going to Foreigners. Based on my experience I would say that well over 1/2 of the guest are from out of country. (My experience is based on my own trips where I have seen a HUGE rise in Americans since our dollar cratered).. That would mean that we are losing ~25% of our TAC to foreigners from just one Area..
Now I know folks will argue that my estimates are to high.... Well I think they are in fact conservative.... During my 2 trips this year to Haida Gwaii over ~80% of guest were American on average.. The last previous years were not as high but always increasing. If you don't believe me then ask the fellow members on here who guide for a living up north & ask them. They are there all year & would be the most accurate to come up with a number..
Your thoughts??
tubber
Well-Known Member
Disclosure: I did one halibut trip as a 3/4 share greenhorn in 1994 and made about $6000.
The rec sector needs more of the TAC.
But keep in mind that the financial arguments need to make sense. If the people of BC catch all the fish, how does that add in any way to the economy of BC? Yes, money moves to the coastal towns, but it is still BC money. It's like a group of kids passing the balls (the money) around in a circle. At some point new money needs to come in for the economy to grow ( if that's what we want, to pay for an aging society).
Foreign fishers and the exported commercial halibut bring the new money.
Also, how long does it take for a BC fisher, who spends a pile of dough on an American boat or foreign motors, to make it true that sportfishing is the best use of a BC fish, economically?
Canadians should have the right to fish for halibut. The argument that Canadians have the right to eat all the halibut is weak.
The rec sector needs more of the TAC.
But keep in mind that the financial arguments need to make sense. If the people of BC catch all the fish, how does that add in any way to the economy of BC? Yes, money moves to the coastal towns, but it is still BC money. It's like a group of kids passing the balls (the money) around in a circle. At some point new money needs to come in for the economy to grow ( if that's what we want, to pay for an aging society).
Foreign fishers and the exported commercial halibut bring the new money.
Also, how long does it take for a BC fisher, who spends a pile of dough on an American boat or foreign motors, to make it true that sportfishing is the best use of a BC fish, economically?
Canadians should have the right to fish for halibut. The argument that Canadians have the right to eat all the halibut is weak.
Last edited:
Aces
Well-Known Member
This post makes a lot of sense.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think you overlooked the fact that fishers don't have to be foreign to bring outside money into BC. All Canadians even out of Province are resident fishers and can bring money into the BC economy. They can also be commercial customers for the long liners, not saying sole customers, but customers none the less. Just saying that it doesn't have to be BC money passed around . As for the argument regarding American boats, foreign motors etc,I was unaware all commercial boats, motors and gear had to be produced in Canada? I'm guessing though rec moorage, fuel purchases with no tax break and retail purchase of gear , guides, lodges, transportation etc,does make the rec fishery the best bang for the buck
tubber
Well-Known Member
You raise valid points, Ziggy. My post was somewhat of a devil's advocate statement meant to point out that arguing economics when it comes to gaining more TAC is tricky and all sides can twist stats as they see fit. Much more obvious is the unfairness of the gifting of the licenses to the 435 commercial operators vs the rights of Canadian fishers to access halibut. FN fisheries have grown based on the DFO's and the Courts' version of what is "fair". It seems logical that appealing to that sensibility may be more persuasive.
They won't just take the licenses away and give us more commercial TAC. Someone will have to pay market value. The more they buy back, the higher the values of the remaining licenses will be.
The vast majority of Canadian halibut boats are Canadian made with American diesels. Most are old, none are new. Many were seiners or big trollers that dabbled at halibut after roe herring (trollers brought punts) and before and after summer salmon. Now it's the only sure thing for making a buck because the IPHC does a good job keeping stocks level. (Or the halibut do a good job eating and breeding).
They won't just take the licenses away and give us more commercial TAC. Someone will have to pay market value. The more they buy back, the higher the values of the remaining licenses will be.
The vast majority of Canadian halibut boats are Canadian made with American diesels. Most are old, none are new. Many were seiners or big trollers that dabbled at halibut after roe herring (trollers brought punts) and before and after summer salmon. Now it's the only sure thing for making a buck because the IPHC does a good job keeping stocks level. (Or the halibut do a good job eating and breeding).
As for foreigners at the northern lodges:
I am a foreigner (US) & have been on 4 trips to Haida Gwaii lodges. Most guests were Canadian. I went to lower priced lodges. I think the expensive lodges have lot's of US anglers on trips paid by their employers. Point is the 80% IMO is high.
My neighbor is a commie in Alaska. I did a Halibut trip with him in 1990.
The next year AK went to a quota system. Boats were awarded quota based on catch history.
When did BC go to a commie quota system - anybody know? Did the sporty/commy split happen at the same time?
Years back the sporty's didn't fish Halibut much - times have changed & so should the split.
I don't live in BC, but if I lived in a coastal BC community I'd wanna be able to eat FRESH Halibut year around & I fully support this right for others.
I am a foreigner (US) & have been on 4 trips to Haida Gwaii lodges. Most guests were Canadian. I went to lower priced lodges. I think the expensive lodges have lot's of US anglers on trips paid by their employers. Point is the 80% IMO is high.
My neighbor is a commie in Alaska. I did a Halibut trip with him in 1990.
The next year AK went to a quota system. Boats were awarded quota based on catch history.
When did BC go to a commie quota system - anybody know? Did the sporty/commy split happen at the same time?
Years back the sporty's didn't fish Halibut much - times have changed & so should the split.
I don't live in BC, but if I lived in a coastal BC community I'd wanna be able to eat FRESH Halibut year around & I fully support this right for others.
tubber
Well-Known Member
pretty sure 1991 -catch history determined amount of quota here too.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
I think your idea's are a great way to get some of that TAC back to the rec fishermen.
Ziggy for fisheries minister !
Similar threads
