"Common"(being the good for all Canadians) meaning that all action must be of benefit to all, in this case having the opportunity to participate in OPEN ACCESS resource based fisheries, and there is no argument on that point what so ever. The argument mainly surrounds commerce and the act of, or transaction of, in order to participate.
Interesting spin.
A few points:
It is really not all that surprising that ~ 60% of the halibut caught by the recreational fleet are facilitated by the guide groups. That is reasonably reflective of the percentage of people that are capable of either 1) purchasing, outfitting and running a capable/safe rig while putting in sufficient time to understand the in's and outs of the fishery, or 2) head out with a reliable guide who handles all of that for them. It is obvious which represents the greater expense to the
Common Man, thus not so surprising which they will choose to action on a more frequent basis.
Regardless of how you slice it, there is a "
commerce" aspect to every single angler who pursues halibut. The linkage to the guide component is obvious. The other, while perhaps not quite as apparent to some, also involves "
commerce" to facilitate. What else would you use to describe acquiring a $50K+ sea-worthy boat, the required electronics and gear, fuel, moorage etc etc? One or the other are prerequisites "
in order to participate". Both are solidly based in "commerce".
There are benefits to both the BC populace, and Canadians as a whole generated by the operations of the recreational sector. Airlines, vehicle rental outfits, motels/hotels, tackle shops, marinas, restaurants, fuel suppliers and more benefit from their activities. Each is then taxed upon pretty well every expenditure, with the funds thus developed entering into the common pool of resources for both BC and Canada. It is fact that the recreational fishery provides a significantly greater benefit in this regard over the parallel in the commercial industry. How can that not be perceived as meeting the criteria of "
must be of benefit to all"?
Back to the question I posed
(which you ignored) in my last post prior to this:
Are you an economist? If not, what are you?
Not often I ask on a public Forum for someone to provide their background. Given the controversy here regarding what you have, and continue to post, I strongly feel that you should consider providing an answer. It will help a great deal in understanding just where you are coming from...
Cheers,
Nog