Input required for Northern MPA’s the Greens want.

No , this was put out in this site numerous times.
It was put out at all the SFAB meetings.

You can choose to ignore it, but if you fish Campbell River North you might not agree with what they want to close.

Ask Searun what he thinks about ignoring this.


SpringVelocity said:
Oh here comes fear factor again.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
SpringVelocity--- call it as you wish-- but we are about to get screwed AGAIN. This is serious chit------ Do what OBD suggested-- look at it. its not alarmist-- its reality
 
The last round of "discussions" on which areas the Greens want closed had only ONE sportfish rep questioning where they got their data from. Not surprisingly the Suzuki crowd had never even been on the water in many of the areas they wanted closed ( but they did say they would take a heli trip and take a look!!!! No BS)
 
Not knowing much about the northern rockfish fishery, Is there a commercial fishery? If so, then recreational fishers should not be restricted beyond what is in place now. I've got customers who are commercial rock fish fisherman.
It's amazed me that while REC fishers are restricted to 1 per day , that there can be a commercial fishery.
 
OldBlackDog said:
No , this was put out in this site numerous times.
It was put out at all the SFAB meetings.

You can choose to ignore it, but if you fish Campbell River North you might not agree with what they want to close.

Ask Searun what he thinks about ignoring this.
Click to expand...

That is right I am ignoring it. :rolleyes:
 
The only thing that will stop this is a new government come the fall. This is all part of the liberals un plans and pandering to their base.

4 more years of the liberal government will have all these closures will be in place as well as a new allocation policy where the rec sector has less.

Look at the language the fisheries minister refers to us as “recreational harvesters”.

Some of these plans were put into place 15-20 years ago the last time the liberals were in power.

What can the laymen do? Not vote liberal that’s what
 
Well that's odd ... I was expecting to read something about MPA and it turned out to be about the current RCAs. I'll be going through the ones I know and the first one I looked at was this one up near Browns Bay. This one effects many of us that chum fish in the fall and goto the chum derby. A couple a years back at the derby I was fishing the line and was pulled over by DFO and warned that I was in the RCA. I politely told the CO that he was mistaken as the markers on shore shows where the line is and I was well clear of it. Some may know this area and there is 2 markers near Seperation Head and the CO had the wrong maker. No problem as he was new and was only really interested in seeing if I had barbed hooks, safety gear and not drunk, being in the derby and all. Long story short we should look at all these RCA and see if the still make sense. I know for this one I'm fully onboard with the proposed change and I think we should get as many anglers to take the survey and especially tell DFO to make the change on this RCA. Maybe if there is enough anglers looking at them and commenting we could post on this thread and accomplish something.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/forms/fm-gp/rca-acs/deepwater-eng.aspx#current
 
saltcod said:
Not knowing much about the northern rockfish fishery, Is there a commercial fishery? If so, then recreational fishers should not be restricted beyond what is in place now. I've got customers who are commercial rock fish fisherman.It's amazed me that while REC fishers are restricted to 1 per day , that there can be a commercial fishery.
Click to expand...
You know the saying about rocks and glass houses, saltcod?

Commercial groundfish fishermen have has cameras and dockside validators for years - to the costs of 10s of thousands $ every year. In addition, rockfish bycatch is allocated by subarea and are very minimal amounts in comparison to total catch limits - esp. for species such as yelloweye and Bocaccio. It's a trading game at the end of the season - leasing bycatch quota by subarea to cover overages off.

All of that is described in the groundfish IFMP at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40765167.pdf
325 pages

as a comparison - check-out the rec salwater regs at:https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/docs/sfg-gps-2018-eng.pdf
74 pages only ~14 pages deal with groundfish
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
You know the saying about rocks and glass houses, saltcod?

Commercial groundfish fishermen have has cameras and dockside validators for years - to the costs of 10s of thousands $ every year. In addition, rockfish bycatch is allocated by subarea and are very minimal amounts in comparison to total catch limits - esp. for species such as yelloweye and Bocaccio. It's a trading game at the end of the season - leasing bycatch quota by subarea to cover overages off.

All of that is described in the groundfish IFMP at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40765167.pdf
Click to expand...

It’s also being widely discussed right now by the fisheries committee. Lots of great testimonials
 
Is that the Senate Committee you are referring to, WMY?
 
Last edited:
Ya, pushing for owner/operator - like on the East Coast. Jimmie won't like that...
 
agentaqua said:
Ya, pushing for owner/operator - like on the East Coast. Jimmie won't like that...
Click to expand...

He only owns 234 of the 4000's licencees lol, looks like from the final report they are not going to go the owner operator root or get rid of quota as it reduces by catch.

"However, according to Andrew Thomson from DFO, the quota licence concentration is not significant. He indicated that DFO tracks legal ownerships of quota licences and the data show:

even the largest licence-holder, the Canadian Fishing Company, holds around 234 of the 4,000 licences available in British Columbia. Yes, they are a large licence-holder, but they hold a fairly small number of licences in comparison. There are very few corporations that own more than 10 licences.63"
 
2. Collection of Socio-Economic Data

Given economic benefit distribution concerns described in the previous sections and the
need to consider a comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries that would include
regional economic benefits to coastal communities, witnesses emphasized the need for
DFO to collect and analyse socio-economic data. The BC Seafood Alliance noted that
DFO has virtually no ability to develop a baseline profile of commercial fishing activity
because it simply does not have information on the current socio-economic status of the
fishery—its revenue base, costs, employment, community/regional footprint, etc. The
most recent fleet profiles are more than a decade out of date and so do not reflect the
many changes since then. Without baseline data, DFO cannot assess the impact of
policies or activities whether these be MPAs [marine protected areas], SARA [species at
risk] listings, or licencing policy.
88

Andrew Thomson mentioned that DFO is currently drafting a report examining economic
viability and social impact of the various groundfish fisheries in British Columbia.89
However, Christina Burridge expressed doubts regarding DFO’s capacity to carry out that
study as “fisher registration cards no longer require you to provide your place of
residence” and there has been little collaboration between DFO and the industry
regarding socio-economic data collection.
 
Thanks for all the great info, WMY - and sharing it here :)
 
wildmanyeah said:
He only owns 234 of the 4000's licencees lol, looks like from the final report they are not going to go the owner operator root or get rid of quota as it reduces by catch.

"However, according to Andrew Thomson from DFO, the quota licence concentration is not significant. He indicated that DFO tracks legal ownerships of quota licences and the data show:

even the largest licence-holder, the Canadian Fishing Company, holds around 234 of the 4,000 licences available in British Columbia. Yes, they are a large licence-holder, but they hold a fairly small number of licences in comparison. There are very few corporations that own more than 10 licences.63"
Click to expand...

I am always skeptical when it comes to big money. Of course Ottawa/DFO do not want the public perception that halibut wealth/quota is being concentrated in the hands of a few or one or two big corporations. The fact that they seem to want to present license numbers as an indicator that it is not, does not reassure me. Unless I am missing something, it is not the number of licenses per say that is a valid indicator but rather how many total pounds of Halibut quota those licenses represent, out of all the available pounds of commercial Halibut quota.
 
Last edited:
Rockfish said:
I am always skeptical when it comes to big money. Of course Ottawa/DFO do not want the public perception that halibut wealth/quota is being concentrated in the hands of a few or one or two big corporations. The fact that they seem to want to present license numbers as an indicator that it is not, does not reassure me. Unless I am missing something, it is not the number of licenses per say that is a valid indicator but rather how many total pounds of Halibut quota those licenses represent, out of all the available pounds of commercial Halibut quota.
Click to expand...
Good point, Rockfish. Government types are most conspicuous about what the DON'T say. Like how many salmon seine licences does Jimmy own/lease and how much of the salmon TAC does that work out to?
 
Taken from other post.

Yes only one person who is a volunteer at this table?


searunWell-Known Member
↑
Yup... we have only ONE rec fisherman at the table looking after our interests.. AND YES-- I am nervous. And everyone reading this should be too.
Actually there are several folks from the SFAB participating. The NC Chair has been busy visiting local SFAC groups gathering in their input. We have 2 MB members who are leading the charge. That said, we are just volunteers who often can't attend every one of the meetings that are being held on an accelerated timeline. There is a push to have all the "consultation" over with before the pre-election lock down in June. And yet, no face to face in-community public consultations, with opportunity to comment and debate various iterations of the proposed plans. This is very serious stuff, and yet there's this rush to get it done so they can move onto the South. And if rec anglers aren't concerned and involved, you should be. The goal is to set aside 40% of inshore waters, most of which are the most productive fishing areas currently enjoyed by rec anglers.

Much of the preliminary work to identify high value areas was completed by some ENGO's whom engaged a variety of stakeholders to find out where their fishing areas were so they could be protected. The only problem was their effort was highly disingenuous because what they really meant (but was never stated at the time) was we want to protect these areas you fish from YOU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CIVANO
April 1 rules
Replies
75
Views
7K
searun
searun
IronNoggin
Sockeye - Alberni Inlet - Portions of Subarea 23-1 - Daily Limit Change - Effective Immediately
Replies
8
Views
2K
casper5280
casper5280
GLG
$647.1 million Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative
Replies
25
Views
3K
cuttlefish
cuttlefish
searun
New Lingcod Limits for Outside Ling
Replies
22
Views
14K
Gong Show
Gong Show
W
Rockfish
Replies
15
Views
2K
Cabezon1
C
Back
Top