Halibut issue

[Ding Dong!]

i guess it depends on ones definition of "exploitation" now doesnt it?, imo i dont think that taking ppl out on your boat and charging them a fee is exploiting the resource, however going out and catching a fish and selling it for profit is exploiting it....and NO, dfo and the govt are not the only entities that can make adjustments for the greater good, how about the common ppl themselves?, if we all just decided to do what we wanted and fish, i think that is making our own adjustment, take a look at egypt for example, govt is not making adjustments for the greater good, the common ppl are....holmes*

Commerce is commerce, the exploitation rate is increased when very experienced taxi drives drop Joe angler on the fish day after day all season long. That is indeed an exploitation of the resource and is not in the best interests of the greater good.

 

[fishingbc]

simple ignore all his posts.....doesn't the game start soon.....way better waste of time.....did you find some stickers at tyee?

sorry i disagree with that interpretation, taking someone out to catch their own fish is not exploiting the resource, whatever, why is taking ppl out day after day to catch their own fish not in the interests of the greater good?...holmes*

 

[fishingbc]

now we disagree....pack 36 ...the other guys 14

havent made it to town yet, but i will next weekend, thanks ...holmes*

id really like to know why he thinks its not in the interests of the greater good tho?...and...what are in the interests of the greater good?

yep game starts soon shytesberg 27 green gay 24

 

[Ding Dong!]

sorry i disagree with that interpretation, taking someone out to catch their own fish is not exploiting the resource, whatever, why is taking ppl out day after day to catch their own fish not in the interests of the greater good?...holmes*

The argument being used is not for the greater good of the common(all Canadians), for the simple reason that it is currently used in a form of context that is being forwarded by a small number of interest groups for the ultimate purposes as part in the transaction of commerce. Without the extra halibut quota being added to the existing 12%, the season is shortened due to the exploited use of aprox.69% of the OPEN ACCESS resources for the transaction of commerce. This leaves Joe angler(common), the weekend worrier very little opportunity to participate in the halibut fishery, unless done early in the season prior to the main commerce portion of the year. Dropping people on fish day in and day out during the coarse and transaction of commerce is an exploitation of the OPEN ACCESS resources.

Holmes; You have the right attitude though, as you stand a better chance of common claim acting as a human under common law, than you do as a signed angler licensee under the fisheries act.

 

[Ding Dong!]

sorry i still disagree with that interpretation of exploiting the resource, whats in the interest of the common ppl is having a fishery but requiring ppl to go out and get the fish themselves via whatever method they choose, what isnt in the best interests of all canadians is exploiting resources and shipping them off to other countries with very little economic benefit to the local economy, if ppl want halibut, make them come and get it here, would that not be the most bang for the buck?.....holmes*

Let's examine this; Part of your analogy could be considered fair and reasonable, however a portion of your statement is contradicting itself. "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. This creates a competition between self-interests group, for without the fish there is no business. Most of the good fight has thus far been focused on taking business away from one entity and giving it to another, along with this a mixed message under the guise of being for the common(or in the best interests of the greater good).

The majority of the fight has been between one type(group of or style) of business and another. "without halibut, no one will book!", "if quota is taken away from me then they will kill my business!", "my supply business is down!" all of these statements are alarming, but they are all related to commerce and not the common Canadian and their OPEN ACCESS resource.

 

[searun]

Well Ding Dong, I've read your many posts and you never fail to amaze how well you can attempt to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Funny how you claim to be attacking those who would divide the sport fishing community, then in the next breath you slam the charter guides, whom last time I checked are....sport fishers. Nice. Then you try to wrap up your veiled attacks disguised as trying to support joe angler operating his tin boat. Nice. Good thing people on this forum can spot a line of B.S. when they read it.

Makes me wonder if your posts are designed by the commie hali side of the debate as a way to divide the sporties. hmmmm

IF you were truly interested in rallying a voice for all sport anglers, I would have expected you to recognize that there are a great many Canadians who do not own a boat, are not physically able to operate a vessel, or just simply have an interest in fishing and want to get on the water to experience what other anglers who are fortunate enough to own or have access to a boat. What about those Canadians? Guess their interests in access to the fishery don't matter.

Or are you just acting in your own SELF INTEREST. Yes, you want the guide industry off the water so you won't be impacted by the fish caught by recreational anglers like you who don't happen to own a vessel, so they rent one. I'm calling it as I see it bud.

As for the notion of dividing the TAC so that the charter operators get a separate ITQ, I'm 100% against that concept. Recreational fish are for all recreational anglers. This concept just serves to divide and conquer and in my view would be no better than gifting a public resource to create private ownership. Not good. We need to stand together on this issue.

Our rally cry needs to be first priority access goes to F.N.; followed by all recreational sport fishers; and any excess allocation goes to the commercial fishery. In this way the public fishery is protected, period, end of debate.

 

[scott craven]

I thought we had seen the last of Ding dong by his own admission ??
can't get enough i guess

 

[searun]

I thought we had seen the last of Ding dong by his own admission ??
can't get enough i guess

Me too. I was just planning on sitting on the sidelines, but couldn't stay out of the fray when he re-entered. Would be nice if we could find a way to take the high road and work together. This infighting is exactly what the other side wants to stir up.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Searun; The focus in which many of you designed your position and stance, has in fact created your own division. Most of you are too focused on the wrong area to see what it is exactly sitting in front of you that needs to be done, in order to develop a solution that the Fed will accept. Holmes had the best idea so far for anyone who is truly wishing to exercise their common rights.

r.s craven; I want the opportunity to fish year round and have a reasonable expectation of retaining a fish if I so desire. I won't rely on commerce minded individuals to look after my best interests. That is, at least not until I am fully convinced that they have put the interests of all "Canadians" above their own.

 

[Ding Dong!]

why should FN get 1st priority?, im native to Canada, i was born here, EVERY Canadian first and then the excess to commercials, commies can fish in a limited capacity from feb til oct and then when the common ppls fishery slows down, then they can fish a little harder....holmes*

Most Canadians are licensed under the fisheries act and have signed a small portion of their rights over to the crown in doing so. This is the difference between "Common" & "Open" access fisheries.

 

[searun]

Searun; The focus in which you have all designed your position and stance, has in fact created your own division. Most of you are too focused on the wrong area to see what it is exactly in front of your that needs to be done in order to develop a solution that the Fed will accept. Holmes had the best idea so far for anyone who is truly wishing to oversize their common rights.

r.s craven; I want the opportunity to fish year round and have a reasonable expectation of retaining a fish if I desire. I won't rely on commerce minded individuals to look after my best interests, that is not until I a fully convinced that they have put the interests of all "Canadians" above their own.

You are good. Both sides of you mouth again. Run for politics, you would win.

 

[Ding Dong!]

You are good. Both sides of you mouth again. Run for politics, you would win.

IMHO, I don't believe that I would remotely even come close to winning in any kind of politics, for it is the majority of people who follow a cause whether it is good, bad or indifferent whom will make the deciding vote count, and in my case we all already know where my following is not. My opinion or methods for reaching the end result is not the same as yours, so you are obliged to object. I don't take issue with that, as that is something that you hold, you own it and you share it in common with a minority group. Nothing wrong with that at all. In the end Canadians will fish.

 

[Ding Dong!]

mine is not just an idea, if i want to fish 4 halibut im going to, i could care less what dfo regs say, what dfo has done is criminal and illegal, so i dont recognize the regulation as even valid, if i had a boat id be out there tomorrow, come and get me im not hard to find, hali is open as far as im concerned, anyone want to fish nootka for hali monday?....holmes*

To be successful, you "Must" make it your life and understanding. Study the Magna Carta and English Common Law, there will be no argument as long as you know exactly what your rights are.

 

[Ding Dong!]

IMHO, I don't believe that I would remotely even come close to winning in any kind of politics, for it is the majority of people who follow a cause whether it is good, bad or indifferent whom will make the deciding vote count, and in my case we all already know where my following is not. My opinion or methods for reaching the end result is not the same as yours, so you are obliged to object. I don't take issue with that, as that is something that you hold, you own it and you share it in common with a minority group. Nothing wrong with that at all. In the end Canadians will fish.

Holmes; You do recognize that the fisheries act was designed to be given the force of law, however it is not law and is actually a way for the government to generate commence. Your license is a contract between you and the government, under contract law you are bound to abide, it is at this point in which you have accepted the terms to which you have agreed and singed, that is when you are tied to the fisheries act and it's system of commerce. Like I suggested study the Magna Carta and English Common Law, and also grab yourself a copy of the Black's dictionary to find the real definitions to the words of Law. It's always best to know first hand, prior to making any decision that may or may not effect you in a way that maybe either good or bad.

 

[IronNoggin]

"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

 

[Ding Dong!]

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

As we are all well aware, there are many interpretations and assumptions as to who is on this side or that side, against us or them, but in order for all of us to make a successful development in a way that will be of benefit for all Canadians, it will stay as is until we all work together in developing the solution. It has nothing to do with closing down existing business or extinguishing livelihoods however there is an absolute co relation between all sectors that as a requirement must continue along the dependency of the resource. We all either need more fish, or the best option is that we all need to figure out the best way to work together to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate. Standing in a long line, side by side banging on war drums will not help develop the necessary alliances that are needed in order to succeed.

Now onto another note;

Starting to figure out where you're coming from methinks...

Ding-Dong equals The Red from another site? Or at least another Economist?
Hmmmmm...

Wondering,
Nog

This was not directed to me as a personal question, therefor there was no need for me to respond. In turn, your new assertion also does not apply and will stay. The angle I am offering, is for you and everyone else to study and develop a new focus that will in turn succeed! The current coarse has been noticed and recognized by the Fed & DFO, but the real solution is still missing. The Fed is not going to change what is currently working for them, at least not until such a time as it is challenged in a way that they recognize. Law & Acts, once you have that down, everything will change for the benefit of all Canadians.

 

[searun]

. The Fed is not going to change what is currently working for them, at least not until such a time as it is challenged in a way that they recognize. Law & Acts, once you have that down, everything will change for the benefit of all Canadians.

OK, perhaps I'm a slow learner but I'll bite. Let's see what you got Ding Dong.

So, if it were up to you, tell us exactly how you would use the law to set out a strategy that helps change DFO's position for the benefit of all Canadians??

 

[Ding Dong!]

searun; For the most part, the sport sector has already addressed pertinent issues related to the Law and Act's that are key to continue on with. Once noted and addressed in the correct manor, the statements will not be ignored by the Fed or DFO.

Inventing the enemy, us against them mentality is the main curtailment to the entire success in changing the shortcomings that the rec sector has been experiencing. It was the rec sector who took the first swing at the commercial sector and still to this day continues to jab at them. The commercials are simply reacting to the sport sectors original attack, while they volley back and forth, all effort is slowly becoming fruitless. Simply stop the attack tactics, start working on the long term solution, no one can fault anyone for creating new friends, but creating enemies will always have its critics. Would you rather be known for implementing positive pressure and developing vast solutions that actually work? Or would you prefer to continue to rob Peter to pay Paul? By making such demands that have no real recognized consequence for either party other than to take business away from one another, again nothing accomplished.

I know that you will undoubtedly be disappointed with my generic answer, it is however at this time all that I am prepared to give to you for now. This does not mean that I won't help you with some ideas in the near future, it just means that my answers are more complicated or may give the implication of something that I am not at this moment prepared to divulge. In good faith, I will answer you very soon.

 

[OldBlackDog]

As we are all well aware, there are many interpretations and assumptions as to who is on this side or that side, against us or them, but in order for all of us to make a successful development in a way that will be of benefit for all Canadians, it will stay as is until we all work together in developing the solution. It has nothing to do with closing down existing business or extinguishing livelihoods however there is an absolute co relation between all sectors that as a requirement must continue along the dependency of the resource. We all either need more fish, or the best option is that we all need to figure out the best way to work together to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate. Standing in a long line, side by side banging on war drums will not help develop the necessary alliances that are needed in order to succeed.




Rather interesting, however the fact is that the Commercial group fought the original allocation with money and paid loobyists.

They are not the friends of the sports anglers,not now, not ever, as it all about money to them.

 

[MILLERTIME]

"Do not feed the trolls"

"Do not feed the trolls" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM!!!

"Do not feed the trolls"