Halibut fishermen decry early season closings

Sushihunter

Active Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/halibut-fishermen-decry-early-season-closings/article1836407/

Halibut fishermen decry early season closings

MARK HUME

VANCOUVER— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 8:52PM EST

Last updated Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 8:56PM EST



Using improved global positioning technology that allows them to go farther off shore, sport fishermen on the West Coast have been increasingly catching huge Pacific halibut, boosting the businesses of lodges and marinas in the process.

But the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia says the future of the fishery, and of the wilderness resorts that charge anglers up to $8,000 a week, are in jeopardy because of unpredictable fishing season closings.

The halibut fishing season, which usually runs Feb. 1 to Dec. 31, was suddenly shut down by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in October because of “conservation concerns” – despite a promise made by the DFO in 2003 to never close the sport fishery in season. The fishery is allocated 12 per cent of the catch, while the commercial sector gets 88 per cent.

It is the second early closing in three years, with the 2008 sport season also cut short.

Rob Alcock, president of the Sport Fishing Institute, said the sport fishery could close as early as July next year, right in the middle of the summer season, which draws fishermen to B.C. from around the world.

He said the unpredictability is making it tough for guides and lodges to sell trips.
“Right now, guys are phoning up to book trips for next year and they want to know, can they fish? And we can’t guarantee anything,” Mr. Alcock said. “It’s very frustrating.”

In a recent letter to Fisheries Minister Gail Shea, Mr. Alcock said the blame for the closings is a policy the DFO adopted in 2003 that splits the annual total allowable catch, or TAC, between the 436 commercial licence holders and 100,000 sports anglers.

“In 2003, when the allocation policy was created, it was created with faulty data,” Mr. Alcock said. “They assumed the sports anglers were taking about 9 per cent of the TAC, and they awarded a 12-per-cent share, anticipating some growth in the sport. But in fact 12 per cent wasn’t enough from the start.”

And the sport has been growing since then, as guides increasingly use GPS equipment to pinpoint fishing hot spots far out to sea, where halibut that can weigh more than 180 kilograms are caught.

Mr. Alcock said the Sport Fishing Institute is asking the DFO to change the 2003 policy to give the sport sector a total fixed weight, allocated at the start of the year, rather than a percentage share.

“We’re asking that each year … they give the sports sector a small number off the top, and then divide the remainder up among the commercial fishermen,” Mr. Alcock said.

In effect, the sport anglers want to be first in line for the fish, with a catch level that is static, while the commercial catch would fluctuate, going up in years of halibut abundance and dropping in years when populations are low.

“In good years, the commercial fleet would benefit, but in weaker years they wouldn’t do as well. The sports sector would stay stable,” Mr. Alcock said, “and that would give us the consistency we need.”

In his letter to Ms. Shea, Mr. Alcock said the sport fishing closing was “short-sighted and unnecessary and cannot be justified.”

But Ms. Shea replied that the sport fishery was closed early “because in-season catch information indicated that the recreational sector had achieved, and possibly exceeded, its allocation for the 2010 fishing season.”

Although the commercial fleet had caught less than its limit at the time of the sport closing, Ms. Shea said reallocating fish in season from the commercial to the sport sector wasn’t possible under the International Pacific Halibut Commission treaty, which governs Canadian and U.S. fishing.

Ms. Shea said the DFO “is committed to continuing discussions with both the recreational and commercial sectors on the development of a long-term solution.”

Paul Ryall, acting director of program delivery for the DFO, said the government is “trying to come up with some management options … that would include an allocation transfer process between commercial and recreational.”

Chris Sporer, manager of the Pacific Halibut Management Association, which represents commercial halibut licence holders, said he’s hopeful talks will lead to a solution.

“DFO’s put a lot of work in and we are in the process of evaluating options. I will leave it at that,” he said.

But Mr. Alcock said he’s worried because the talks aren’t progressing much – and the 2011 halibut season is approaching fast.
 
Another inaccurate story in a newspaper. Big surprise. How did "conservation concern" enter the story? Anything said after that makes us sound and look greedy and uncaring about fish in the uniformed minds.
 
You are right, this is not a conservation issue. All conservation issue are dealt with at the International Pacific halibut Commission. Once Canada receives its Total Allowable Catch (TAC) that is the amount of fish that can safely be taken out of the water. First Nations get their Food and Ceremonial off the top and the issue at hand after that is an “allocation” issue. How does the Government of Canada divide up its Public Natural Resource and what is the best use of that resource, taking economic and social impact into consideration.

What the story does not tell about the 436 quota holders is that in 2003 they got their quota for FREE. It also does not mention that of the 436 original holders only 137 of them fished last year. The rest of the holders sat on the beach or in their vacation condo and leased the halibut to other hard working fisherman, and in the past the recreational sector has had to lease from them as well. The commercial guys that fish it pay $5/lb and sell it for $6.50 making $1.50/lb less operating expenses. The Slipper Skipper sits on the beach and makes $5/lb. Meanwhile the recreational sector gets shutdown while there is still 750,000lbs of Canadian TAC in the water.

The recreational sector is not asking for a bunch here. Just a few more percent or pounds to keep our fishery open and provide the opportunity and expectation that we can go fishing. The rest of the TAC should be given to guys that are going to fish it. Not to Slipper Skippers who sold their boats and reap the profits of our natural resource.
 
You know what the worst kick in the nuts is now because they didnt take that 750,000 lbs they get to take it on top of what they get this year...
So basically if you got an LEH draw for an island elk in 2010 and you didnt find the MONARCH thats ok go ahead in 2011 year .... with the current policy the commies have HOW is that FAIR????????

F-EN BULLshiat if you ask me the fish is no bodies property its a resorce that is for all canadians. thats what we are fighting for we must unite.


Wolf
 
Why not just buy the quota holders out, outright. Take some of the guys who aren't fishing (1 at a time) pay them for their quota. (not lease) Everything is for sale for a price. Then transfer that to the rec side. Buy and transfer only what we need.
 
Why not just buy the quota holders out, outright. Take some of the guys who aren't fishing (1 at a time) pay them for their quota. (not lease) Everything is for sale for a price. Then transfer that to the rec side. Buy and transfer only what we need.

If was gifted to them why cant it be gifted back to us? Im not too sure that buying free money off anyone would be easy
 
Ownership is better than a gift, it can't be taken away it has to be bought. Whether you agree with how the lease holders obtained the quota or not (I don't) what is done is done. Buy it, own it ...we could even lease it back to them when we don't need it and recoup our money over time.
 
Even if we could buy quota back from the commercial sector, where is the money coming from ?
I understand there is no money left in the bank for this ??

on a side note i have e mailed and sent signed copies in the mail to Ms. Shea and Mr. Lunn
protesting the unfair allocation split.
 
It seems kind of 'wrong' to have to buy back a quota that was given for free in the first place. Something smells here, methinks.
 
SMELLS really bad you got to think after all these years of the "slipper skipper" siting back given a FREE quota and has never fished or worked for it at all collecting milions of bucks and laughing at us all and the government. while hes lounging in hawii on the beach. thinking to him self wheres my next free money cheque?????
what a joke...

Wolf
 
Easy to solve by making quotas non-transferable. If you don't fish them, you lose them. No more Slipper Skippers.
 
I think that Mark Hume can be a real ally in our fight against DFO on this issue. We need to get the true facts to him so that he can do a follow up story.

Jimbob
 
Do you want to fish or attend endless meetings for years and years and pull your hair out. Giving them the fish was wrong, so lets just deal with it. How do we get the money? How about everyone that buys an annual resident tidal license bucks up $50. That is 5 to 6 mil a year, that will buy out some quota. Not talking about buying it each year...buy the guy out of his halibut license and his quota and a direct transfer to us, where it then stays. (unless we want to lease it back on a year to year basis)
 
I mentioned something to this regard on the SFI Halibut site which is linked on one of the other threads on this forum (can't remember where), any way what my thoughts were is that if the "sliper skippers" don't actively fish the quotas themselves it is yanked (for free) and that percentage could and should be given back to the recreational sport fishing sector which has a higher economic benefit to our local economies than the commercial fisheries do. Any abuse of our resource by the commercial fisheries should be severly punished, in this case take it away for sure. I am going to assume that if the government was using the three brains cells that they seem to share collectively, on this issue, when they gave out the quotas, they had most likely intended that the quotas were given out to create employment in the fishing industry - right (maybe) - well if the skippers that were gifted the quotas couldn't care enough to make real and sensible use of these FREE quotas then take them away! Give it to us, we will use it, and sensibly at that! It would also create more employment hand over fist - we all know this! SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE TO CORRECT THIS UNFAIR AND REDICULOUS SITUATION - NOW!!!:mad::mad::mad:

No I do not make money from fishing, I really enjoy it, and repect the right to fish, and want to be able to fish when I like and for many years to come. But I do know that there are a lot of guys that do make a living from sport fishing and also generate a lot of $$$ for our communites from guiding, and it has got to be very hard to keep a business going when the government keeps building brick walls in front of you while they give OUR resource to some commercial fisherman that obviously couldn't care - or they would be out working thier free quotas, gratefully.:)
 
Do you want to fish or attend endless meetings for years and years and pull your hair out. Giving them the fish was wrong, so lets just deal with it. How do we get the money? How about everyone that buys an annual resident tidal license bucks up $50. That is 5 to 6 mil a year, that will buy out some quota. Not talking about buying it each year...buy the guy out of his halibut license and his quota and a direct transfer to us, where it then stays. (unless we want to lease it back on a year to year basis)

Hey profisher, I hear your logic on this.... but the government TOOK part (the major part) or OUR resource and gave it to the Commercial guys, so for any one of the gifted Commercial halibut quota holders that does not put in a real and an honest effort to make use of his free quota (actually fish) - should have it taken back, and then give it to us recreational fishermen - very simple. Should be a two way street here.
 
During the Gordon process the concept of a Halibut stamp was accepted by the
recreational sector. The money collected was to be used to lease halibut
quota. Remember, its leasing so this goes on forever and the Fish Lord
profits each and every year.

A private members bill was passed in the House of Commons knows as the "User
Fee Act". This act handcuffs the government from using any user fee to lease
quota. So even though the Recreational Sector agreed to pay for the quota,
we cannot because of our own Governments rule.

Now, since 2003 we have become much more knowledgeable is on how the
Commercial Halibut quota system works. We now know that of the 435 gifted
holders, only 137 are fishing. The rest are getting rich sitting on the
beach. This has taken away our appetite to pay the quota holders for their
quota. They got it for free.... Why should we have to pay for it?

The halibut stamp concept is not an option.
 
I'm not for leasing...that means uncertainly every year. Just buy it outright, then you don't have to worry. The guys who were "gifted" the quota did hold a commercial halibut license at the time. They were lucky, smart or hard working enough at the time to have one. At one time most commercials only fished salmon and collected pogey the rest of the year. Only the true fishermen worked their boats year round on what ever fish species they could acquire licenses for. I have more of an issue with EI being paid to these guys back then and all the subsidies they enjoyed.
 
I'm not for leasing...that means uncertainly every year. Just buy it outright, then you don't have to worry. The guys who were "gifted" the quota did hold a commercial halibut license at the time. They were lucky, smart or hard working enough at the time to have one. At one time most commercials only fished salmon and collected pogey the rest of the year. Only the true fishermen worked their boats year round on what ever fish species they could acquire licenses for. I have more of an issue with EI being paid to these guys back then and all the subsidies they enjoyed.


The problem with buying it is the cost is around $40 a pound. :(
 
So that is $4million per 100,000 pounds of quota to buy permanently. With 130,000 annual resident licenses sold this year with a $50 buck up fee added equals 6.5 mil each year. We could buy 150,000 pounds per year for 4 or 5 years and never have to worry about running out of quota or being closed early again. Your going to spend $50 on gas driving to the SFAB meetings anyway each year, just to hear what you don't want to hear. I say $50 bucks a year is cheap and its done.
 
Back
Top