Could ask the same of you, or were you there?
The true recreational fisherman are getting BLINDSIDED
- Thread starter sport rec
- Start date
Could ask the same of you, or were you there?
fish4all
Well-Known Member
Yes it was directed at you. Your posts make sense and you are obviously willing to look outside the box for solutions. I have no idea who ding dong is but I believe he is on the right track in the sense that I would question if gov would make a substantial change without addressing some of the other issues.
I respect the point that rec fishermen resent the lack of accountability card when dfo is not willing to provide the tools to move forward. I also know that the commercials are not willing to budge until the accounting gets far better. The reason behind that is the commies are under the impression that there is already close to 20% or better being taken by the rec sector, but again without decent numbers who really knows.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
very close to the loop.
Let’s move to what I understand is the Washington State Halibut Allocation Model and take the First Nations Allocation off the top them divide the remaining allocation 50% commercial/50% recreational. That would be fair for everyone and much better for the BC economy.
Given the apparent pro-commercial bias that the FEDs and DFO have had for years and the lack of credibility their number crunching has had related to other issues, I am not sure I trust them to come up with unbiased statistical analysis of the recreational halibut catch. So far they seem hell bent on not fairly adjusting the halibut allocation, supporting the continuation of the quota process and continuing their agenda of privatizing our fish.
I would not be surprised at all if they do their analysis in such a way as to support their agenda and anti-Recreational Sector bias. At the very least I think we need recreational sector scrutinizers and monitors of their stats. process and not have it done in house by DFO, but rather by a contracted CA firm mutually agreed upon. You will have to forgive us but we have learned to be suspicious of DFO’s politically driven agendas and number crunching process’s and there is little trust left.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said. We don't need smokescreens by folks trying to cloud the issue.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Good to hear fish4all, I've been looking for someone who is "very familiar with the case". So a question for you: What is the current standing of this case? Is it still pending, or has it already been decided? I would not bother you with this query except that a rather exhaustive search of the Court Records has not turned up any results to date. Any information you could provide would be appreciated!
Absolutely concur with that assessment! Despite having had numerous suggestions provided directly to them over the years in this regard, DFO has to date remained steadfast in denial of each and every one. "Too much money", "Too much manpower required", "Not a priority", "We are satisfied with the system in place" are their all-too-familiar laments when the recreational sector has provided that input. The Grapevine suggests they may have altered that point of view somewhat, and perhaps will come up with "something" regarding improving the recreational sector's catch accounting. Given their "Sins of the past" in this regard, I shudder to think of what they are likely to come up with. Funny, in a sick kind of way, that after all those denials DFO actually uses the "unreliable data" card against us. No surprises with them anymore...
As much as The Dino would have you believe this is Rocket Science, it simply ain't. Electronic reporting from Guides and Lodges is a no-brainer. The addition of tags (such as those for springs) on the License is not cost prohibitive, and mailing those in at the end of the season is not onerous for anyone. I would STRONGLY concur with Rockfish's points above regarding the "trust factor" with DFO. They long since burned that to a cinder. Thus I agree that a Outside (of DFO) CA Firm be positioned to collate and analyze the data forthcoming.
Regardless of how that shakes out, for better or worse, we would finally realize what we, and everyone else involved desires. An ACCURATE and RELIABLE assessment of what our sector actually does take. Much better than the current "dart board" technology in use today.
Cheers,
Nog
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I am out of town right now... didn't know you needed that! 
SUBMISSIONS OF PLANTIFF TO MOTION TO STRIKE WRIT
OF SUMONS AND STATEMENT CLAIM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on the Class Action Suit against DFO:
With respect to our Class Action Law Suit, hopefully you weren’t expecting a quick outcome. It was expected that the crown would use every method at its disposal to delay or derail this action.
The DFO’s first line of defence is a technical argument about the lack of jurisdiction by the British Columbia Supreme Court to hear our damage claims. The DFO argues that we were (are) required to apply to Federal Court for judicial review of the Minister’s actions PRIOR to making any claims for financial damages in Provincial Supreme Court. This defence has been used by the Department of Justice in a large number of cases against the Federal Court, some of which have now made their way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada heard a group of these cases on January 21, 2010 and the ruling is reserved and outstanding. We expect it later this year.
Our lawyers appeared in British Columbia Supreme Court in January and February of 2009 to defend the DFO’s motion to strike our pleadings based on the Federal Court jurisdiction issue. Madame Justice Griffen presided over the hearings and has decided to hold her judgment until the Supreme Court of Canada makes its ruling.
The ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada should clarify the issue in our B.C. case.
http://fishingforfreedom.ca/classaction.html
http://fishingforfreedom.ca/PDF/Submissions_of_Plaintiff%20.pdf
SUBMISSIONS OF PLANTIFF TO MOTION TO STRIKE WRIT
OF SUMONS AND STATEMENT CLAIM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on the Class Action Suit against DFO:
With respect to our Class Action Law Suit, hopefully you weren’t expecting a quick outcome. It was expected that the crown would use every method at its disposal to delay or derail this action.
The DFO’s first line of defence is a technical argument about the lack of jurisdiction by the British Columbia Supreme Court to hear our damage claims. The DFO argues that we were (are) required to apply to Federal Court for judicial review of the Minister’s actions PRIOR to making any claims for financial damages in Provincial Supreme Court. This defence has been used by the Department of Justice in a large number of cases against the Federal Court, some of which have now made their way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada heard a group of these cases on January 21, 2010 and the ruling is reserved and outstanding. We expect it later this year.
Our lawyers appeared in British Columbia Supreme Court in January and February of 2009 to defend the DFO’s motion to strike our pleadings based on the Federal Court jurisdiction issue. Madame Justice Griffen presided over the hearings and has decided to hold her judgment until the Supreme Court of Canada makes its ruling.
The ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada should clarify the issue in our B.C. case.
http://fishingforfreedom.ca/classaction.html
http://fishingforfreedom.ca/PDF/Submissions_of_Plaintiff%20.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Interesting reading Charlie. Thanks LARGE for that.
From what I was able to determine, as of 2008, both The Gov and the PHMA had applied to have the Writ stricken (terminated), and that the Plaintiff's Legal Team responded with minor changes to keep it alive. So, as of then, the case was still very much active.
Any word on what, if anything has developed since then?
And,
Does the PHMA still receive 10% of the overall quota directly from the Minister, or has that been quashed due to this action?
VERY interesting ramifications regardless of how the current disposition sits. It would be truly useful to understand the answers to the two questions I have posed...
Cheers,
Nog
PS: Anyone "very familiar with the case" is encouraged to pipe in any time...
From what I was able to determine, as of 2008, both The Gov and the PHMA had applied to have the Writ stricken (terminated), and that the Plaintiff's Legal Team responded with minor changes to keep it alive. So, as of then, the case was still very much active.
Any word on what, if anything has developed since then?
And,
Does the PHMA still receive 10% of the overall quota directly from the Minister, or has that been quashed due to this action?
VERY interesting ramifications regardless of how the current disposition sits. It would be truly useful to understand the answers to the two questions I have posed...
Cheers,
Nog
PS: Anyone "very familiar with the case" is encouraged to pipe in any time...
fish4all
Well-Known Member
It is still in the process.
No, post laraque(spelling) the phma does not get the 10% holdback. All monies are vountary. (I believe it ended 2008)
In the commercial side all monitoring is done by a 3rd party independant.
Last edited by a moderator:
MILLERTIME
Member
It would be great if we could manage our fisheries the way most States do. For some reason it seems as though most Canadians think the Federal Governments jurisdiction over fisheries is written in stone like it came down from mount Sinai with Moses. We all complain about DFO but few seem willing to make fisheries a local jurisdiction like it is in most States. IMHO.
Amen to that
Fishing Guide
Active Member
Cheers All,
Interesting to see this threat continue but still sad it is an adverserial positon...us against them (sportsfishermen vs commercial fishermen, local M.P., Minster of Fisheries, Conservative Government). However...this sleeping giant has awoke and NEVER in my life will I endure what is happening in Eastern Canada with their significant loss of resource opportunities. Not on my watch...
Interesting meeting on Wednesday with the new South Coast DFO rep who adressed the Nanaimo Sport Fishing Advisory Board meeting. He was quite upfront that he personally as well as professionally supported the numbers proposed by IHPC as well as the numbers presented by DFO in their catch statistics.
Personally I am not so confident in their numbers. I think that if the true numbers were logged we would see the sports sector caught way less halibut last year than what the DFO numbers suggest. However...we will never know...as there is very little to replace the system they use. I do have some comfort that IHPC accepts their numbers ( I respect the professionalism of this entity) and their comfort provides some respite.
My preference is to have the entire halibut taken away from commercial interests and leased out at a reasonable price (25-50% of the landed price) to provide a good source of income to the fishermen as well as an important source of income to DFO to manage the fishery. It defies common sense why this was never done before or why they would not jump at this opportunity to obtain funding.
A fallback position would be take the FN food and ceremonial fish off the top (not obscured numbers that are used to justify sales but ONLY the needed fish then divide the rest of the TAC 50% / 50% between commercial and sports with the FN commercial coming from the commercial side. Again...I am totally and vehimently opposed to buying these fish from the commercials. They were given and, as such, they can be taken. The opportunity to compensate was errased long ago with the intransigence of the commercial side.
Then sports can fish, FN has their share and the commercials who wish to fish can at a reasonable price and the proceeds go back into the fishery. Makes much more sense than the status quo....
Interesting to see this threat continue but still sad it is an adverserial positon...us against them (sportsfishermen vs commercial fishermen, local M.P., Minster of Fisheries, Conservative Government). However...this sleeping giant has awoke and NEVER in my life will I endure what is happening in Eastern Canada with their significant loss of resource opportunities. Not on my watch...
Interesting meeting on Wednesday with the new South Coast DFO rep who adressed the Nanaimo Sport Fishing Advisory Board meeting. He was quite upfront that he personally as well as professionally supported the numbers proposed by IHPC as well as the numbers presented by DFO in their catch statistics.
Personally I am not so confident in their numbers. I think that if the true numbers were logged we would see the sports sector caught way less halibut last year than what the DFO numbers suggest. However...we will never know...as there is very little to replace the system they use. I do have some comfort that IHPC accepts their numbers ( I respect the professionalism of this entity) and their comfort provides some respite.
My preference is to have the entire halibut taken away from commercial interests and leased out at a reasonable price (25-50% of the landed price) to provide a good source of income to the fishermen as well as an important source of income to DFO to manage the fishery. It defies common sense why this was never done before or why they would not jump at this opportunity to obtain funding.
A fallback position would be take the FN food and ceremonial fish off the top (not obscured numbers that are used to justify sales but ONLY the needed fish then divide the rest of the TAC 50% / 50% between commercial and sports with the FN commercial coming from the commercial side. Again...I am totally and vehimently opposed to buying these fish from the commercials. They were given and, as such, they can be taken. The opportunity to compensate was errased long ago with the intransigence of the commercial side.
Then sports can fish, FN has their share and the commercials who wish to fish can at a reasonable price and the proceeds go back into the fishery. Makes much more sense than the status quo....
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you not understand.
56% of commerical qouta has been bought and sold within the commerical sector for millions of dollars .Many commerical fisherman have huge loans to pay for there qouta and you just want to step in and take 35% for f all and let them go bankrupt. How would you like it if someone took 35% of your income and you had a big morgage? You have to think of something better than that.You want to play you have to pay.
Hit em Hard
Member
I have asked this question a number of times at a number of different venues there has never been a response from anyone so perhaps the question is redundant. Here it is again - can someone explain to me why a non fishing entity should be able to hold and sell or lease quota. If this practice were to be rescinded there would be enough quota to share out between commies and sports fishers.
Well, too bad if someone was stupid enough to pay a lot of money for something that is worth nothing because it was for free and not guaranteed. Sounds similar to many of those foul mortgage investments down south that were traded blindly to investors assuming they are worth something. Guess what happened to a lot of them? Bankrupt, foreclosure etc. Now, a few got a healthy tax payers bail out. Ain't happening here - no tax payers bailout for misinvesting fishermen. Sorry, out of luck. They should have thought this through before shelling out the cash.
Tides turned. You sport commies are the only ones that have been gifted free access to all your fish for profit. People are starting to understand.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Seems to me that there are only 165 active halibut fisherman left in the industry. Why not remove the quota from the inactive fisherman and divide it up between the active commercial fisherman and the rest of the people of Canada. Sounds like a win-win for us. The only losers would be the guys that were gifted and chose not to fish. It sure would be good for commercials fisherman as there highest operating cost (lease quota) would be removed and it would leave room for profit and even the deckhands would see an increase in pay.
GLG
GLG
Similar threads
