The future of Commercial and Sport Fishing - The Plot Thickens

[Rockfish]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...to-take-away-their-livelihood/article2363816/

The Future of Commercial and Sport Fishing – The Plot Thickens

This is a fascinating read on what the Government is attempting to do with independent commercial fishers on the east coast.

It is particularly interesting when taken in the context of the development of the principal of private ownership of fish/shellfish, the halibut debate and the quota ownership model which not only facilitates private ownership but also provides a mechanism by which such ownership can be transferred and owned by large corporations rather than independent commercial fishers who actually do the work.

Many on here over the last few years have advocated that commercial fishermen should be required to actually fish their quota in order to keep it, (no slipper skippers) including some that are apparently from the commercial side.

I find it fascinating that this requirement in essence was put in place on the East Coast by the Liberals in order to protect independent commercial boat owners/fishers from (as they put it) “… being pushed out of their boats and livelihood for the benefit of big corporations”. Further it looks like safeguards to protect commercial fishers included not allowing large corporate processors to own commercial fishing licenses.

Now it would appear that the Government wants to remove these protections for independent commercial fishers on the east coast and put in place a system which will allow one or two big corporations to eventually own all the fish and shellfish. It seems to me that is very much like what they have already put in place on our coast with the fish ownership transferable quota system for Halibut.

One has to ask; is this DFO’s and the Governments long term plan for all fisheries? Are we looking at a future where one or two corporations will own the rights to all fish on our coast and both commercial fishers and anglers will have to pay them to harvest any food from the sea? Will consumers have to pay what amounts to tribute built into to the cost of seafood to these corporate fish owner middle men who will rake in the money, contribute nothing, but for some reason always have the support of government?

 

[IronNoggin]

Both interesting and relevant.

The situation we find ourselves in today on the West Coast very much reflects the fact that the Owner Operator and Fleet Separation Policies that were emplaced on Eastern fisheries in the '70's by Romeo LeBlanc (the then Fisheries Minister under Trudeau) were not considered for the West Coat. Perhaps this was due to LeBlanc being from Atlantic Canada and not all that conversant with fisheries out here, perhaps due to Trudeau's disdain for the West, or perhaps simply oversight. Regardless of how we came to not be included in what DFO was touting as "the way to go", one of the more obvious results was (and is) the rise of Fish Brokers holding vast quantities of quota without ever having to lift a finger to fish themselves. Problematic indeed!

Those whose livelihoods in the East that are now under a direct threat should the Owner Operator and Fleet Separation Policies be repealed by the Harper government are incensed! Rightfully so IMHO. In their inane drive to consolidate maximum wealth to the hands of their privileged friends, the conservatives have apparently forgotten the well being of the average wage earner coast wide.

The immediate future will be very interesting as this story unfolds. Already there is talk of an impending law suit to force DFO to stick with the proven, working model that currently exists in Eastern Canadian Fisheries. That, and the eventual outcome of any such action WILL have implications for what occurs out here. For that reason, I wish them All The Best in their pursuit, and fervently hope they are able to carry the day!!

Cheers,
Nog

 

[juandesooka]

Back in uni, I remember taking economics courses that talked about protecting a common resource through private enterprise means. If it is commonly owned, the incentive is to take all you can get, and even worse, for a dwindling resource, to get yours before someone else takes it. That's the "tragedy of the commons". By giving ownership to those who harvest it, the idea is that they are protected from each other (no ability to rape and pillage to get there before someone else) and there is a financial incentive to shepherd the resource ... so that it lasts through your lifetime, and also so that you have something to sell for your retirement OR to give to your children, depending on how the system is set up.

BUT ... I also recall reading about examples where this system worked best, is where it is small and grassroots ... like a small fishing village protecting its local reef from being overfished. The key is that it has to be owned by people who fish it, for it to work properly and fairly.

I'll be honest, knowing full well this will get me flamed, I don't disagree in principle with a program like the halibut quota allocation -- for the reasons above. Though I may personally disagree strongly with the % allocated to each group, particularly in light of the % of fish exported vs domestic sales. I want to fish halibut recreationally, and it stinks that my season is cut short so that more of Canada's fish can be a cheap source of fish and chips for the world.

What I disagree with most strongly is how the halibut program has been set up. Seems to me a few simple changes, from the start, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

The first mistake was in having this be a license that can be owned and transferred, rather than an annual allocation reconsidered annually -- and something that can be reduced or eliminated annually, with no compensation due. It is a crazy situation to have gifted the common resource, and now have to pay to take back the gift.

The second mistake was in allowing non-active fishers to retain a license. This should be for active fishers ... if you don't use it, you lose it, you go to the end of the line, and the next person on the waiting list takes your spot. That allows market mechanism to set retail and wholesale prices that properly reward the fishing effort ... rather than the "monopoly rents" currently paid to license holders ON TOP of the harvesting costs, delivery costs, etc etc. In the end, consumers pay ... and the prices are artificially high, directly because of the monopoly quota payments.

A third mistake, related to 2, is allowing corporations to be the quota holder. That brings in a whole bunch of problems, not least of which is longevity ... give a license to a person, that person eventually dies, and the license expires with them. A corporation never dies. It also might have a fleet of boats, or a fleet of sub-contracting boats, and so can always be said to be fishing a license. [though I must admit...I'm not sure if this is indeed how the hali quota is set up]

I guess I'm speaking in "what if's", because I'm talking about what could have been an optimal solution or at least a better one. It doesn't help much, because once the current system was set up, it created a financial asset that is difficult to revere. But that's why I, for one, was heartened by this year's 85/15 change ... that's 3% out of the quota holders pockets, and without any discussion at all of having to compensate the "owners" for this loss. What if it's another 3% next year? Or 10%? Or all of it? Does this year set a precedent? Sure seems to be the basis of a pretty compelling legal argument.....and that's potentially a good sign for the next stage of the battle.

 

[chris73]

JDS, I suspect the additional 3% for us did NOT come from the commercial quota. I would not be surprised if their poundage remains the same while ours went up a bit. Swept under the carpet of inaccuracy in TAC allotment. If that is true then do not expect further future increases as the tolerance for inaccuracy has its limits.

 

[Englishman]

Back in uni, I remember taking economics courses that talked about protecting a common resource through private enterprise means. If it is commonly owned, the incentive is to take all you can get, and even worse, for a dwindling resource, to get yours before someone else takes it. That's the "tragedy of the commons". By giving ownership to those who harvest it, the idea is that they are protected from each other (no ability to rape and pillage to get there before someone else) and there is a financial incentive to shepherd the resource ... so that it lasts through your lifetime, and also so that you have something to sell for your retirement OR to give to your children, depending on how the system is set up.

BUT ... I also recall reading about examples where this system worked best, is where it is small and grassroots ... like a small fishing village protecting its local reef from being overfished. The key is that it has to be owned by people who fish it, for it to work properly and fairly.

I'll be honest, knowing full well this will get me flamed, I don't disagree in principle with a program like the halibut quota allocation -- for the reasons above. Though I may personally disagree strongly with the % allocated to each group, particularly in light of the % of fish exported vs domestic sales. I want to fish halibut recreationally, and it stinks that my season is cut short so that more of Canada's fish can be a cheap source of fish and chips for the world.

What I disagree with most strongly is how the halibut program has been set up. Seems to me a few simple changes, from the start, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

The first mistake was in having this be a license that can be owned and transferred, rather than an annual allocation reconsidered annually -- and something that can be reduced or eliminated annually, with no compensation due. It is a crazy situation to have gifted the common resource, and now have to pay to take back the gift.

The second mistake was in allowing non-active fishers to retain a license. This should be for active fishers ... if you don't use it, you lose it, you go to the end of the line, and the next person on the waiting list takes your spot. That allows market mechanism to set retail and wholesale prices that properly reward the fishing effort ... rather than the "monopoly rents" currently paid to license holders ON TOP of the harvesting costs, delivery costs, etc etc. In the end, consumers pay ... and the prices are artificially high, directly because of the monopoly quota payments.

A third mistake, related to 2, is allowing corporations to be the quota holder. That brings in a whole bunch of problems, not least of which is longevity ... give a license to a person, that person eventually dies, and the license expires with them. A corporation never dies. It also might have a fleet of boats, or a fleet of sub-contracting boats, and so can always be said to be fishing a license. [though I must admit...I'm not sure if this is indeed how the hali quota is set up]

I guess I'm speaking in "what if's", because I'm talking about what could have been an optimal solution or at least a better one. It doesn't help much, because once the current system was set up, it created a financial asset that is difficult to revere. But that's why I, for one, was heartened by this year's 85/15 change ... that's 3% out of the quota holders pockets, and without any discussion at all of having to compensate the "owners" for this loss. What if it's another 3% next year? Or 10%? Or all of it? Does this year set a precedent? Sure seems to be the basis of a pretty compelling legal argument.....and that's potentially a good sign for the next stage of the battle.

Good post JuandeSooka.

On the face of it, “the tragedy of the commons” (derived from the old English idea of common grazing land) is a scenario model that could befall the halibut and other fisheries. Indeed it already has in the case of North Sea (European) herring, East Coast cod, Chilean anchovy and now probably the blue fin tuna.

However, the “tragedy” only occurs where there is an economic incentive to grab as much as you can before the other guys. (Put more cows on the common land or catch more fish). This where the halibut TAC model comes in to try and prevent that and will probably have to exist forever to prevent U.S. and Canadian commercial fishers competing with each other to wipe out the fish as has happened with the other fisheries I mentioned.

With the recreational fishery, “the tragedy of the commons” model does not quite fit, since there is no incentive for us to keep on catching (since we rightly cannot sell our catch). After all how many can we each eat or store in or freezer? (Of course it does apply, if there are simply too many of us each taking a few fish, but that is a fishing population driven thing which does not yet apply on the sparsely populated West Coast).

You are right when you say the Harper government wants to “ simplify” things and deal with just one or two corporate entities, not 300,000 separate recreational fisherman, but this is forcing us into the economic model which does not apply. In addition, there are great dangers in taking this privatisation model too far. There are already political fights going on over water and whether it is, or should be, a “good” which can be bought and sold just like everything else. Taken to extremes, it could lead to effective loss of sovereignty. Imagine if foreign corporations “owned” B.C. rivers or lakes!! Run-of-the river power projects are already heading in that direction, but what about drinking water?? Gives pause for thought, that’s for sure!

Sadly I think the Harper Government is so ideology driven, they would be quite happy to privatise the air!!!

 

[Rockfish]

JDS, I suspect the additional 3% for us did NOT come from the commercial quota. I would not be surprised if their poundage remains the same while ours went up a bit. Swept under the carpet of inaccuracy in TAC allotment. If that is true then do not expect further future increases as the tolerance for inaccuracy has its limits.

You are most likely right Chris. I have no illusions that any quota brokers actually had any quota taken away from them. We all know DFO estimates sport caught Halibut and has no real interest in actually measuring actual sport Halibut catch. By not doing so they allow themselves room for manipulation as you postulate and provide a talking point (sports fishers need to be accountable) for defending the private ownership of Halibut by commercial quota brokers who don’t actually fish.

However it is worth remembering that DFO has been buying up quota for some time now to give away as part of First Nations land claims settlements. They could have easily pulled a lousy 3% out of that pool and continue to purchase more.

Think about that; the Government instigated the private ownership of Halibut by giving away 88% of Canada's Halibut as free quota a few years ago. Now they are paying out millions in tax dollars to buy some back, rather than changing this dysfunctional policy that will eventually result in a few large corporations owning the rights to most of the fish. Now that’s good management and use of our tax dollars, isn’t it?

This is certainly not in the interests of sports anglers and ultimately not in the interests of future commercial fishers and those currently who were not gifted halibut quota but have to lease it from quota brokers if they want to fish at all. Why do they put up with it? They have no choice as they know they will be black listed by the quota brokers if they ever speak out.

 

[cuttlefish]

Thanks for the link, Rockfish. A few comments;
Nog, this is not just an East Coast thing although the G&M article makes it sound that way. Check out this link on the DFO website and HAVE YOUR SAY. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/future-avenir/index-eng.htm. No point just ranting about it on here.
juandesooka, you make lots of good points about the tragedy of the commons. Many of those things you learned in university are true. Take into consideration that fishermen were actually dying on the grounds during the derby days (I was almost one of them), a change made a lot of sense at the time. But the lack of forethought about the effects of a transferable quota system that did not include owner/operator restrictions or community protection restrictions whether in the form of community quotas or means for communities to obtain quotas for distribution to their fishermen was also a tragedy. Now, it seems to me that the current tragedy is unbridled corporate consolidation of a public resource. The current government does not see this as an issue that they should be involved in whether in the fishing industry or any other industry (takefish farms as an example).
I really do think that this current "modernization" approach is all about removing the management of the fishery from the DFO and handing it over to the private sector. There are already many examples of this in Canada that are working well where quota holders fund their own monitoring and data collection. This is just extending those examples to other fisheries in order that DFO can cut its budgets. Nothing wrong with saving taxpayer dollars, as long as there is still the commitment to conserve and protect the resource.

 

[GLG]

JDS, I suspect the additional 3% for us did NOT come from the commercial quota. I would not be surprised if their poundage remains the same while ours went up a bit. Swept under the carpet of inaccuracy in TAC allotment. If that is true then do not expect further future increases as the tolerance for inaccuracy has its limits.

The commercial TAC is public knowledge. It sits at 5,541,804 lbs with 0 lbs caught this year. It can be seen updated everyday from this link.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/contractordata/rptsectorcap%20summary.pdf

I don't have all the info on last years carry over under, if any, that has been added nor have I got the info for total TAC less FN and the new split 85/15. I have it somewhere but just not handy. Perhaps you can research and "do the math" to see if the number has been fudged as you are implying. So If you guys think there is some thing wrong, best you do the math and prove it, else get that idea out of your mind and off the website.
GLG

 

[Rockfish]

Another article

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/john-ivison-tweaks-to-fisheries-rules-almost-poetic/

Here is another article with a lot of spin from the pro side. They are using BC as an example of how wonderful it will be. Check out the comments from the BC Seafood Alliance, especially “On the Pacific Coast, fishermen have seen the value of their licenses increase …”. I guess so when you are made instantly wealthy when you are gifted quota. Over time however, quota will be bought up and consolidated as it is not necessary to actually fish your quota at all.

The commercial fishermen of the future will be much more concerned about their ability to make a living because of the high cost of leasing quota from a few large quota owners. Either that or they will be pushed out altogether by big corporations who will fish it themselves.

My prediction is that down the road those independent commercial fishermen who want to fish will be much less concerned about the comparatively small amount they have to give up to anglers as part of a fair sport/commercial allocation and much more concerned about their profitability and very survival. I guess they could always try for a low paying job on a corporate boat or guiding; but the way things are going there may not be much of a future in that. Those that have sold off their quota will not be overly concerned about the future generations of commercial fishermen.

 

[Clipper]

Just another step in the Conservatives master plan to move all wealth from the small business man and average Joe to the corporate interests that they favour. I look forward (NOT!) to the day when everything will be owned by one corporation or another and we will have to pay for the privilege of breathing.

I've been a 'conservative' all my life but I think I'm about done with these arrogant assholes. Now, if there was just an alternative to vote for......

 

[Gunsmith]

I agree with that but they are all the same. They all look for you and shake your hand , hear what you have to say, kiss your babies and your butt until they get elected then you do not exist and they don't care about anything, just themselves.
Just my rant for the day.

Just another step in the Conservatives master plan to move all wealth from the small business man and average Joe to the corporate interests that they favour. I look forward (NOT!) to the day when everything will be owned by one corporation or another and we will have to pay for the privilege of breathing.

I've been a 'conservative' all my life but I think I'm about done with these arrogant assholes. Now, if there was just an alternative to vote for......

 

[phishbonk]

You hit the nail on the head guys, they just want thier lifetime pension and screw all of us.

 

[fish4all]

Consider this... If a commercial fisherman was forced to lease quota to go fishing from a fish broker , than was required to sell that fish back to said broker..... Is that not price fixing??? The broker sets the lease fee and the ex-vessel price. Look at Mr Da$&@. Poor guy brought down the PHMA's 10% lobbying gift, than couldn't find anyone to lease him quota when he landed with a load after being promised "lease". DFO tanned his hide in court. Seems to me there are some serious legal concerns associated with several parts of the current allocation policy....

Off topic I know sorry...

You are obviously quite informed but don't put half the facts up tell the story.
Poor Mr.D purposely over fished his licenses. Sold the fish for huge coin. Pocketed the dough from the sale and then got tied to the dock when he couldn't cover the fish he had already gotten paid for. I've met Mr.D, nice guy, but from a fishers point of view that wasn't cool. Mr.D got exactly what the regulations said he would get. Repay the resource and he is back on the waters.

Regardless of who collects the money I am a firm believer that a commercial operation (including sport) should be self sufficient and pay there own monitoring and reporting costs. We make money off the resource so we should pay our share to manage it. The mandatory (so no low lives could get away without paying there share like they can now)10% gift also paid for enforcement officers, monitoring, science, development of the cameras and other services essential to a well managed fishery.

 

[phishbonk]

JDS, I suspect the additional 3% for us did NOT come from the commercial quota. I would not be surprised if their poundage remains the same while ours went up a bit. Swept under the carpet of inaccuracy in TAC allotment. If that is true then do not expect further future increases as the tolerance for inaccuracy has its limits.

Think before you speak,you are talking like a paranoid individual.

 

[Aces]

Think before you speak,you are talking like a paranoid individual.

Look who's talking.........

 

[phishbonk]

Look who's talking.........

The only thing i am paranoid about is ignorance of which i see far to much on these threads.I guess you don't want to hear the truth, just what you want to hear.

 

[GLG]

Let me do the honors guys.
Hey fbonk look up.

 

[Foxsea]

Let me do the honors guys.
Hey fbonk look up.

Hey - where can I buy a case? These things have been breeding out of control!

 

[Aces]

The only thing i am paranoid about is ignorance of which i see far to much on these threads.I guess you don't want to hear the truth, just what you want to hear.

No, you are paranoid that there will be fair allocation of Halibut sometime in the future and your slipper skipper party will be over.

 

[GLG]

Fish4all what happened to the fleets funding for the cameras and dockside monitor.
I know the fleet picks up the tab but I thought there was a government program to compensate your expense.
Perhaps you could give us a history of the whole thing but remember to put the grants in there.
GLG