Hali killer
Member
Quotas are here to stay. Dfo has made it quite clear that is the direction there are moving in. Easier for them to manage ,less boats fishing,numbers are easier to crunch.
Int'l Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Meeting - Victoria, Mon thru Fri
- Thread starter UkeeDreamin
- Start date
Quotas are here to stay. Dfo has made it quite clear that is the direction there are moving in. Easier for them to manage ,less boats fishing,numbers are easier to crunch.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I do not accept that. heard it before ,still wrong still only feeds the greed and shuts the majority out. More and more people are starting to understand that too.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Agreed! We've been 'bent-over' by the Commies & Fed long enough.
Enough is enough!
Enough is enough!
ziggy
Well-Known Member
After reading through this thread, there appears to be predominantly two trains of thought. On one side you have people who earn a living ensuring all Canadians have an opportunity to catch halibut ( couldn't resist) and those who fish for themselves. It's pretty apparent why these two groups have different ideas as to what the catch numbers per outing should be. Perhaps this could be solved by something as simple as an annual license for local folks and a one time only ( or even more) short term license for those chartering, each with a different possession limit. That way the charters don't suffer because their clients only get for example one fish and the locals down,t over fish. To be clear I'm not advocating any specific number just saying the one trip a year charter customer is different than the guy who has access for months.
GLG
Well-Known Member
That's why this is such a hard decision to make for this years low TAC. How do you be fair to all Canadians? Locals can have two but if you go with a guide you can only have one. Remember it's the client that keeps the fish not the guide. One rule for everyone would be fair as I see it. Ever read animal farm....... some are more equal then others....
GLG
exterminator
Member
Yes, the rules have to be equal across the board. Don't forget that locals can go on charters too. With different rules, the loophole angles would be worked.
How about changing or adding gear restrictions? 40lb test max, barbless hooks, and one pound lead would certainly make it harder. Difficult to monitor and police though. I'm not sure I'm in favour of this, but it is an idea in any event, and I don't mind the added challenge.
How about changing or adding gear restrictions? 40lb test max, barbless hooks, and one pound lead would certainly make it harder. Difficult to monitor and police though. I'm not sure I'm in favour of this, but it is an idea in any event, and I don't mind the added challenge.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Not at the cost of 1/1 all season that's for sure!!!!
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Also agree. No 1/1
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Sorry if I confused you, my suggestion was the opposite of what you are saying. I'm suggesting that those who have a limited access I.e. the charter customer have a higher catch limit than those who can fish more often I.e. locals. My point being the guy who fishes for a week every year is different than one who can fish for six months if he chooses. Read animal farm and don't,t remember them solving any halibut problems, also read the DFO site and noticed they have more than one type of sport fishing license already.
Don't like the current system? Then become a member of SVIAC and support them in their fight for more fish and fair sportfishing opportunities: http://anglerscoalition.com
T
tofinofish
Guest
That was agreed last night by high majority that 1/1 would not work.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
What is their position on this Chris?
Derby
Crew Member
Yes it was.... should be a very interesting SFAB-Main board meeting this weekend...
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
I would not be in favor of having 2 types of halibut fishermen ie local and non-local (guided or non-guided) it would open a can of worms that would setup a two tier system and seem to favor one group or an other. If one group had the advantage it would not be right. How could we base such a system? If I live on the island west coast I'm a local or if I'm from Vancouver I'm not a local? Would money come into play as one group might have more money then the other and be able to harvest more fish? You are right about DFO having different licenses as they are currently try this with the "Experimental Halibut License Program" It's based on if you have enough money you can lease quota from the commercial sector and fish all you want. Most on here are opposed to the idea on a matter of principal, the two tier system, and why should we have to buy something we already own.
GLG
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think you're already too late if you truly believe one license for all. You do realize there are resident and non resident licenses. There are annual, 3 day and weekly licenses. There are commercial and sport fishing licenses. So I doubt you'll get your Orwellian dream of one size fits all. I guess as you point out it would be simple if everyone was the same but that already is not the case. As for money entering into it, it already does. Not everyone can afford a boat or a thousand dollars for a guide.
Ziggy there are different license durations (anual, 3 day, 1 day etc.) and different price points for residents vs non residents but the same regulations apply for all. The year long angler has the same daily and possession limits as a 1 day and resident has the same regulations as out of country buyers.
Different expiry dates and cost doesn't make it a different license. Obviously commercial licenses are different pointing that out isn't going to win your argument.
Different expiry dates and cost doesn't make it a different license. Obviously commercial licenses are different pointing that out isn't going to win your argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
So if we already have different licensing, why not look at an option to tie shorter licenses to a slightly higher quota? I'm guessing that most anglers who use guides don't buy an annual license nor do most who visit for a week of fishing and isn't this the crux of the disagreement, locals vs visitors. I mean seriously is it your point that locals need to catch as many fish everyday for 6 months as a guy does on a few days of a visit. I personally think that's greedy! I agree though I can't win this argument, some people are to entrenched to look at different solutions. On that note we can agree to disagree on the solution
Similar threads
