How is a successful management regime implemented by Alaska for years, and proven to be effective, "foolishness" while the "experiments" we've tried here, some with no founding in fishery mgmt science and no data to support any effectiveness get lauded? People have to stop reacting with their emotions and start thinking with their heads.
Foundational to this entire issue is a historically entrenched attitude that the ocean is a limitless resource, which it's not. Yes, the 15/85 split is unacceptable to our sector but the overarching fact is there isn't enough total TAC for all sectors to access the halibut resource with no catch and season limits. While we all seem to accept that the freshwater resource is limited and accept regs to that effect, such as caps on guide licenses and days, seasonal closures, catch and release waters, etc, etc, the ocean is still very much a free for all. Less so for salmon but very much so for most other species. Any one of us can get insurance, register our boat for commercial use and start guiding or buy some land or get a foreshore lease and open a lodge. Same goes for trailering our boats to the latest "hot" or "untouched" fishery - just look at the post numbers for Nootka vs past darlings like ukee and hardy (and all the reports of crowds and poor etiquette). But can the resource withstand unlimited pressure? Of course it can't!
Past time for us to look at the mistakes we've made and that other jurisdictions have made and start managing the ocean fishery as the valuable but limited resource it is. Lots of ways to do this and it would benefit all parts of the rec sector - whether you guide, own a lodge, are a local, travel w/ your boat or are a fishing tourist, a properly managed fishery benefits us all.
Cheers!
Ukee
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
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.
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 buckDisclosure: 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 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?
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.