Fish advisory board to talk halibut
- Thread starter MILLERTIME
- Start date
GLG
Well-Known Member
In my research I have found nowhere that IPHC is questioning the numbers that DFO is claiming the recreation sector is catching. Please supply me with a link or documentation that says differently and I will comment on that.
Again your response is in fact saying, please go count more “blades of grass” as we don’t believe your numbers, because you did not count the whole football field. When you have counted all the “blades of grass” then we will come back to the bargaining table.
Meanwhile the commercial industry gets set to carry on with business as usual. DFO is left trying to explain to the recreational sector that their numbers are correct and needs to close the fishery because our cap has been reached. Commercial sector sits back and says that worked lets do that again next year.
I say we have counted enough and lets get back to the true problem, the unfair 88-12 split. If we can fix that we will have no more problems. Carry on with your smoke screen and our two sectors will get nowhere and the recreational sector will find other solutions to the problem without your input. The head of DFO can be replaced. Might even teach the elected MP’s who to listen to.
GLG
Derby
Crew Member
In my research I have found nowhere that IPHC is questioning the numbers that DFO is claiming the recreation sector is catching. Please supply me with a link or documentation that says differently and I will comment on that.
Again your response is in fact saying, please go count more “blades of grass” as we don’t believe your numbers, because you did not count the whole football field. When you have counted all the “blades of grass” then we will come back to the bargaining table.
Meanwhile the commercial industry gets set to carry on with business as usual. DFO is left trying to explain to the recreational sector that their numbers are correct and needs to close the fishery because our cap has been reached. Commercial sector sits back and says that worked lets do that again next year.
I say we have counted enough and lets get back to the true problem, the unfair 88-12 split. If we can fix that we will have no more problems. Carry on with your smoke screen and our two sectors will get nowhere and the recreational sector will find other solutions to the problem without your input. The head of DFO can be replaced. Might even teach the elected MP’s who to listen to.
GLG
Two thumbs up- well said
wolf
Well-Known Member
BANG ON GLG very well said and you know any slipper skipper isnt going to agree with ANY thing you or anyone else will say on here .so again fish4all just go away shouldnt you be gearing up for yor opening??...
If you truely are for FISH FOR ALL (canadians) then a 80 /20 split seems more than fair even with the 80 going to you damn good split if you ask me.
wolf
If you truely are for FISH FOR ALL (canadians) then a 80 /20 split seems more than fair even with the 80 going to you damn good split if you ask me.
wolf
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Guys, I hate to tell you this, but he is right!
If you read the annual reports and RARA's, it is all over the place! As an example, "In past years the IPHC has received from DFO some logbook and landing data for this harvest but those data have not been adequate for IPHC to make an independent estimate..." That statement quoted actually refers to "food fish," but none the less, it certainly applies to all sport accountability! Sorry!
In Canada resource conservation is the highest priority. After conservation needs are met, First Nations aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) requirements and treaty obligations have the next highest priority. The allocation of remaining fish resources to commercial and recreational use is a matter of public policy.
The 88/12 allocation is "POLITICAL" issue!
In Canada resource conservation is the highest priority. After conservation needs are met, First Nations aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) requirements and treaty obligations have the next highest priority. The allocation of remaining fish resources to commercial and recreational use is a matter of public policy.
The 88/12 allocation is "POLITICAL" issue!
GLG
Well-Known Member
Hey Charlie thanks for posting but could you check your info as I have the same info but the line you quoted pertains to the FN (First Nation) numbers. It seems that the numbers do not change from year to year and IPHC has a concern with that. I have read through many years of RARA’s and I can’t find where IPHC has a problem with the numbers coming from the 2b recreational sector. I will admit that I have not read everything on the IPHC website as there is a lot there to read. I have relied on creative searches and reading the last few years of RARA’s. If you can point me in the correct direction I would be happy to read and comment on what I think.
GLG
OK I think I screwed that up.
[FONT="]The quoted line is about Food Fish and that’s the commercial fisherman’s personal use fish. I did find reference to concerns from IPHC about DFO numbers. There concerns were about the numbers that have been reported as FN food and ceremonial use.[/FONT]
GLG
OK I think I screwed that up.
[FONT="]The quoted line is about Food Fish and that’s the commercial fisherman’s personal use fish. I did find reference to concerns from IPHC about DFO numbers. There concerns were about the numbers that have been reported as FN food and ceremonial use.[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
[FONT="]"Food Fish" is that the fish that the commercials take above what the quota allows. You know for their personal use. Didn’t IPHC say that has to stop back in 2006 because it was not well documented and those fish need to be in the commercial quota? There was a time here in BC if you knew the right guy’s you could get pounds and pounds of halibut form a buddy that worked on a boat. Those day’s are gone as the deckhands don’t have access to those fish anymore.
GLG
[/FONT]
GLG
[/FONT]
fish4all
Well-Known Member
It's not just the commercials looking for better numbers it is DFO, FN, Engo's....all groups but the rec sector. Can someone answer why there is so much fuss about putting forward proper numbers? At the very least from the lodge and charter sector?
Yup there was a time when there was fish going missing... hence the camera.
Yup there was a time when there was fish going missing... hence the camera.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
LOL! You very much missed the boat by including them (DFO). They have intentionally emplaced barricades over and over and over again, each and every time the SFAB made recommendations in this very regard! Too long a list to even go into here...
That aside: Many of the guides and lodges entered into a log book program designed to capture this information. Despite most of them faithfully entering their data on a regular and sustained basis, many did not receive even acknowledgment for their efforts, let alone anything in the way of thanks. Even with that, more are coming on-line this coming season. Did DFO ever even use those numbers? Doubtful would be my thought. Nonetheless, a little more accounting certainly cannot hurt. I hear there are a few things coming along to address this. Let's hope they are not quite as painful as DFO's last "announcement"...
Cheers,
Nog
Ding Dong,
I have no idea where you are coming from...repeatedly you denigrate the people who sat around the facilitated round tables to work with the PHMA....in 2008 we had the Hugh Gordon process where we spent a good deal of our Christmas season time negotiating and coming up with a consensus solution the Government turned down...on the advice forum the Justice Department that it would be risky for DFO to advise the Minister to purchase with Public money fish they already owned. Then we had the futile and biased Stanyer process where DFO and PHMA tag Teamed to push the plan the Minister and Jimmy ( oops) wrote where we have to lease our own fish to keep a full season. The we have the International Halibut Commission where DFO made a presentation to the Processors' Board about the quality of our catch monitoring, which they accepted, but did recommend that Alaska have to improve their Recreational catch monitoring...BUT NOT CANADA! Our catch monitoring is good enough to plan fisheries, and good enough for the IPHC repeatedly...but not good enough for you? It is even supported by DFO Science advisory people.... but not you?...Kind of makes me wonder what your qualifications and meeting attendance record is? There is no room for discussion and agreement when the commercial folk tell us..probably correctly, that they own the fish, and if we want them we can pay for them.
I really do now believe I should be using Troll Spray, and not getting into this with you.
Traveller
I have no idea where you are coming from...repeatedly you denigrate the people who sat around the facilitated round tables to work with the PHMA....in 2008 we had the Hugh Gordon process where we spent a good deal of our Christmas season time negotiating and coming up with a consensus solution the Government turned down...on the advice forum the Justice Department that it would be risky for DFO to advise the Minister to purchase with Public money fish they already owned. Then we had the futile and biased Stanyer process where DFO and PHMA tag Teamed to push the plan the Minister and Jimmy ( oops) wrote where we have to lease our own fish to keep a full season. The we have the International Halibut Commission where DFO made a presentation to the Processors' Board about the quality of our catch monitoring, which they accepted, but did recommend that Alaska have to improve their Recreational catch monitoring...BUT NOT CANADA! Our catch monitoring is good enough to plan fisheries, and good enough for the IPHC repeatedly...but not good enough for you? It is even supported by DFO Science advisory people.... but not you?...Kind of makes me wonder what your qualifications and meeting attendance record is? There is no room for discussion and agreement when the commercial folk tell us..probably correctly, that they own the fish, and if we want them we can pay for them.
I really do now believe I should be using Troll Spray, and not getting into this with you.
Traveller
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that it still does not go on?? That the commercial sector is no longer doing anything wrong because they have cameras?
Want to show us where the F/N are perfect and the numbers they show are correct?
Want to show us where the F/N are perfect and the numbers they show are correct?
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well it’s been bugging me so I thought I would go to the IPHC website and get the information on “Food Fish”. So for all to read, here is the latest 2010 info from them. I have only taken the info from the area 2b as that is our concern in this debate.
As I have already posted I would be happy to read any documentation that says IPHC has a problem with the numbers that DFO is reporting on the area 2b recreational sector. I can’t find any. As a wise man once said. “When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do Sir?”
GLG
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publ...onaluseharvestofPacifichalibutthrough2010.pdf
As I have already posted I would be happy to read any documentation that says IPHC has a problem with the numbers that DFO is reporting on the area 2b recreational sector. I can’t find any. As a wise man once said. “When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do Sir?”
GLG
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you may be surprised on how much of the sports caught halibut is also shipped acoss the border!!??
Also a little off topic, alot of people on here are really hammering down on slipper skippers, I realise the system made many people wealthy, and it was not a great way of doing what was done, but, thats not our fight!! Our agenda is to get more for ourselves!! The way the profitt from the commercial halibut fishery is split up is a fight for crew members, skippers, companys and quota owners to sort out not ours. Why stick our nose in a fight that is not ours, eventually any more we get will come from the quota owners, so why be against them , they will be who we will have to work together with to sort this mess out!
Also a little off topic, alot of people on here are really hammering down on slipper skippers, I realise the system made many people wealthy, and it was not a great way of doing what was done, but, thats not our fight!! Our agenda is to get more for ourselves!! The way the profitt from the commercial halibut fishery is split up is a fight for crew members, skippers, companys and quota owners to sort out not ours. Why stick our nose in a fight that is not ours, eventually any more we get will come from the quota owners, so why be against them , they will be who we will have to work together with to sort this mess out!
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I agree that the fight is not directly against the "Slipper Skippers". It is however, all about the very system that has created them in the first place.I will also add that it is the working fisherman that we will be working with.Not the fish lords created by cooperate muscle flexing. If you think this goes away once the percentages are adjusted you are wrong. If we stop at that,then we are saying it is ok to privatize an overwhelming amount of our resources as long as we get the percentages we think we need. More than that even,if we keep that attitude we might as well start printing our signs and letters for Prawns,Crab ,Salmon,ect,ect,
I have said it before and I will say it again. I am ALL IN on this thing and I will be damned if I let it die with a couple token percent thrown our way. I and (I KNOW many others)are done letting our gov buy our silence. Some one else on here said that that was too idealistic.It is just that line of thinking that has kept us at the dinner tables,and the proverbial "water coolers" for generations bitching to each other about how the gov screws us for the benefit of the few deep pockets that are controlling them. That's also why we have Lice Farms lining our coast and rivers that no longer produce ect.
Sorry for changing the direction of the thread.I get a little worked up wen i read things that suggest all this is about is us getting "more for ourseves"
Cheers: Ray
Last edited by a moderator:
Fishing Guide
Active Member
Cheers All,
Well said Jencourt. I am not personally against any of the commercial fishermen for they all must have vast experience on the water to do what they do or did and, in that, they and we have much in common. In fact I would not be anxious to do their job. And, if I were back in 1996 and given the lottery ticket of untold riches for 'the rest of my life' I too may have said Thank You! However I am very much against the status quo and I am resolved to do anything within my ability to ensure that this fatally flawed system is changed for the benefit of the Canadian majority. I am no longer interested in a paltry few per cent, thrown to me like a dog a bone, for a Common Property Resource that MUST be used for the greater good.
Well said Jencourt. I am not personally against any of the commercial fishermen for they all must have vast experience on the water to do what they do or did and, in that, they and we have much in common. In fact I would not be anxious to do their job. And, if I were back in 1996 and given the lottery ticket of untold riches for 'the rest of my life' I too may have said Thank You! However I am very much against the status quo and I am resolved to do anything within my ability to ensure that this fatally flawed system is changed for the benefit of the Canadian majority. I am no longer interested in a paltry few per cent, thrown to me like a dog a bone, for a Common Property Resource that MUST be used for the greater good.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I believe, some are having problems believing they are in a Political battle here! Well, let me give you some things to think about.
The 88/12 allocation is very much political. The part some are also missing it isn’t just about management of a fishery, conservation, accountability, constitution rights, public resource, or anything else – IT IS ABOUT MONEY!
IMHO, under the current situation, you will NOT and CANNOT WIN! You have no money, and we are talking millions, which is being remitted directly back to DFO by the commercial sector! DFO is NOT going to give that money up, unless forced! And, I believe it is going to take a Federal Court Order!
Everything that has to do with DFO has always been done by each sector and has always been of the sector’s own accord – that is how DFO works! The only reason DFO spends money on salmon it is required by treaty. Don’t believe this, start reading and find out who actually is forced to pay for that halibut monitoring system, along with the Rockfish programs. Want to look where the money comes for the Pacific salmon programs?
The more I am learning, it appears DFO has put together quite the “scam”! This scam actually brought to mind, is DFO learning from Oliver North, or did Oliver North learn from DFO? Unfortunately, for DFO while they were just defrauding a few, they have now brought the entire sport sector (meaning the general public who owns that resource) into their scam! Yep, I can understand the Justice Department advising DFO not to buy-back something the public already owns! DFO could have some serious issues there!
Let’s see if I have this right? The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries (Canada) allocates 88% of “your” public resource to private individuals and/or companies. Allocating the remaining 12% (of that public resource) for use by the public (who already own it), for recreational purposes. The sport sector which has no way money can be generated. Again, the Justice Department has advised DFO, they cannot use public monies from their budget to buy back a public resource, already owned by the public. And now, DFO is now going after part of the sport sector, to lease or buy-back quota from the commercial sector, to bail them (DFO) out of this problem.
Knowing, the Minister withholds 10% from each commercial quota and “gives” that 10% quota to PHMA. PHMA requires commercials to pay additional fees, to PHMA to access their 10%, they have already paid for and currently own. PHMA then remits the majority of those additional funds collected directly back to DFO; in which, DFO uses those addition fees for their different management programs! Yep, could be issues there!
Now currently, DFO has just introduced a program and wanting part of the sport sector to “lease” (or pay) additional fees for their right to fish additional quota they already own. While at the same time DFO is going to allow "part" of the sport sector to continue fishing, they are going to close the fishery to majority of the general public on or about October 1, 2011. In the mean time, DFO has allocated to a privately owned commercial sector and now those from a "portion" of the sport sector (who are willing pay those additional fees) an increased opening. So now you have the commercial sector and “part” of the sport sector being allowed to fish a public resource, while the majority of the public will have that public resource closed to them? You don’t see a problem there?
Well guess what! IMHO, as soon as DFO allowed portions of monies that have been paid, in past and in future, by the sport additional fees, portions of those monies are now going directly back to DFO, for their fisheries management programs. In other words, the sport sector is and has being forced into their scam to pay additional fees. Knowing the commercial sector is passing those additional fees to the sport sector, and knowing the monies is going directly back to DFO, for management activities such as 100% monitoring system charges!
And you want DFO to just voluntarily admit to all this, and just change their allocation “SCAM”! GOOD LUCK! I would highly suggest looking into the legalities of this “SCAM”!
The Canada TAC is a public resource. While it is within the authority of Minister to allocate that resource; however;
It appears the Minister did appropriated a public resource that did not belong to him to finance DFO fisheries management activities, which up until recently only the commercials was forced to pay;
Under this Quota allocation scheme developed by the Minister, the sport sector has now been advised, if they wish to continue to fish, it is being required to purchase (lease) from a commercial allocation, which has already paid additional fees, requiring part of the sport sector to now bear those additional fees; In reality that is creating situation where the sport sector is paying additional fees, “above and beyond” the legally approved sport license fee. By having to purchase this quota from commercial allocations;
The commercial sector, who has in turn already paid the Minister funds raised by the original resale passing that additional fee directly to the owner of the public resource; of that the Minister is now using addition fees paid by the sport sector fund departmental activities.
Yea, I think I got it? Could it be, that the Minister committed actionable common law torts against the sport sector by misusing funds generated by their quota allocation scheme, which DFO created? Otherwise, during a valid exercise of the Minister’s discretion, he did misappropriate a public resource and in fact did put what became a scam together to generate funds for DFO use. Interesting enough, now a portion of those funds that have actually been paid back to the Minister to finance fisheries activities are now coming from the sport sector; and those monies paid by the sport sector have now been converted to his use monies. I would love to find out if the sport sector “leased” quota directly from PHMA! That would directly be misusing funds.
This whole thing appears the Minister acted unconstitutionally in exercising his otherwise constitutional discretion. You can try to negotiate with whomever you want; IMHO… You NOW need legal counsel!
BTW… regarding accountability, some are speaking “historically” and some are speaking “currently.” Historically DFO has had very poor accountability, the IPHC has been quite clear in past reports about Area 2B sport accountability! They have pretty much stated through the years they had to use limited nformation provided by DFO and IPHC did developed their own system for accountability, due to the lack of information. I believe if one reads the annual reports and RARA’s for 1999, 2000, and 2001, you will see where the IPHC went back an amended sport estimates. Also, look at Table 4. 2003 Projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4 sport halibut harvests. You will see, DFO Areas 12-29 with an estimated harvest of 288,645 pounds. In Table 4. 2004 Projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4 sport halibut harvests, DFO Areas 12-29 went to 365,677 pounds. Then, look at Table 3. 2005 sport halibut harvest projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4, you will find DFO Areas 12-29 suddenly jumped to 1,077,679 pounds? Quite the increase there on estimates and IMHO would be an accountability problem… as in, let’s just SWAG it! Then, if you want to know why IPHC currently doesn’t have issues with Area 2B and 2C sport sectors, read the Directors report, in the 2007 IPHC Annual report. You will see why there is no longer issues, in either of those areas – it is called IPHC gave both Alaska and DFO an ultimatum! Hence, the recent and current possession limits and closures. It is already assumed, under the current catch limits your halibut fishery will close on or about October 1, 2011!
Don’t lose focus, it about the unfair 88/12 allocation of a public resource, which you own and are entitled too! Please don’t forget, this is nothing more than a “MONEY SCAM” DFO has put in place! It is NOT about accountability or anything else. It is strictly “POLITICAL” and who is paying who “MONEY”!
The 88/12 allocation is very much political. The part some are also missing it isn’t just about management of a fishery, conservation, accountability, constitution rights, public resource, or anything else – IT IS ABOUT MONEY!
IMHO, under the current situation, you will NOT and CANNOT WIN! You have no money, and we are talking millions, which is being remitted directly back to DFO by the commercial sector! DFO is NOT going to give that money up, unless forced! And, I believe it is going to take a Federal Court Order!
Everything that has to do with DFO has always been done by each sector and has always been of the sector’s own accord – that is how DFO works! The only reason DFO spends money on salmon it is required by treaty. Don’t believe this, start reading and find out who actually is forced to pay for that halibut monitoring system, along with the Rockfish programs. Want to look where the money comes for the Pacific salmon programs?
The more I am learning, it appears DFO has put together quite the “scam”! This scam actually brought to mind, is DFO learning from Oliver North, or did Oliver North learn from DFO? Unfortunately, for DFO while they were just defrauding a few, they have now brought the entire sport sector (meaning the general public who owns that resource) into their scam! Yep, I can understand the Justice Department advising DFO not to buy-back something the public already owns! DFO could have some serious issues there!
Let’s see if I have this right? The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries (Canada) allocates 88% of “your” public resource to private individuals and/or companies. Allocating the remaining 12% (of that public resource) for use by the public (who already own it), for recreational purposes. The sport sector which has no way money can be generated. Again, the Justice Department has advised DFO, they cannot use public monies from their budget to buy back a public resource, already owned by the public. And now, DFO is now going after part of the sport sector, to lease or buy-back quota from the commercial sector, to bail them (DFO) out of this problem.
Knowing, the Minister withholds 10% from each commercial quota and “gives” that 10% quota to PHMA. PHMA requires commercials to pay additional fees, to PHMA to access their 10%, they have already paid for and currently own. PHMA then remits the majority of those additional funds collected directly back to DFO; in which, DFO uses those addition fees for their different management programs! Yep, could be issues there!
Now currently, DFO has just introduced a program and wanting part of the sport sector to “lease” (or pay) additional fees for their right to fish additional quota they already own. While at the same time DFO is going to allow "part" of the sport sector to continue fishing, they are going to close the fishery to majority of the general public on or about October 1, 2011. In the mean time, DFO has allocated to a privately owned commercial sector and now those from a "portion" of the sport sector (who are willing pay those additional fees) an increased opening. So now you have the commercial sector and “part” of the sport sector being allowed to fish a public resource, while the majority of the public will have that public resource closed to them? You don’t see a problem there?
Well guess what! IMHO, as soon as DFO allowed portions of monies that have been paid, in past and in future, by the sport additional fees, portions of those monies are now going directly back to DFO, for their fisheries management programs. In other words, the sport sector is and has being forced into their scam to pay additional fees. Knowing the commercial sector is passing those additional fees to the sport sector, and knowing the monies is going directly back to DFO, for management activities such as 100% monitoring system charges!
And you want DFO to just voluntarily admit to all this, and just change their allocation “SCAM”! GOOD LUCK! I would highly suggest looking into the legalities of this “SCAM”!
The Canada TAC is a public resource. While it is within the authority of Minister to allocate that resource; however;
It appears the Minister did appropriated a public resource that did not belong to him to finance DFO fisheries management activities, which up until recently only the commercials was forced to pay;
Under this Quota allocation scheme developed by the Minister, the sport sector has now been advised, if they wish to continue to fish, it is being required to purchase (lease) from a commercial allocation, which has already paid additional fees, requiring part of the sport sector to now bear those additional fees; In reality that is creating situation where the sport sector is paying additional fees, “above and beyond” the legally approved sport license fee. By having to purchase this quota from commercial allocations;
The commercial sector, who has in turn already paid the Minister funds raised by the original resale passing that additional fee directly to the owner of the public resource; of that the Minister is now using addition fees paid by the sport sector fund departmental activities.
Yea, I think I got it? Could it be, that the Minister committed actionable common law torts against the sport sector by misusing funds generated by their quota allocation scheme, which DFO created? Otherwise, during a valid exercise of the Minister’s discretion, he did misappropriate a public resource and in fact did put what became a scam together to generate funds for DFO use. Interesting enough, now a portion of those funds that have actually been paid back to the Minister to finance fisheries activities are now coming from the sport sector; and those monies paid by the sport sector have now been converted to his use monies. I would love to find out if the sport sector “leased” quota directly from PHMA! That would directly be misusing funds.
This whole thing appears the Minister acted unconstitutionally in exercising his otherwise constitutional discretion. You can try to negotiate with whomever you want; IMHO… You NOW need legal counsel!
BTW… regarding accountability, some are speaking “historically” and some are speaking “currently.” Historically DFO has had very poor accountability, the IPHC has been quite clear in past reports about Area 2B sport accountability! They have pretty much stated through the years they had to use limited nformation provided by DFO and IPHC did developed their own system for accountability, due to the lack of information. I believe if one reads the annual reports and RARA’s for 1999, 2000, and 2001, you will see where the IPHC went back an amended sport estimates. Also, look at Table 4. 2003 Projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4 sport halibut harvests. You will see, DFO Areas 12-29 with an estimated harvest of 288,645 pounds. In Table 4. 2004 Projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4 sport halibut harvests, DFO Areas 12-29 went to 365,677 pounds. Then, look at Table 3. 2005 sport halibut harvest projections for Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4, you will find DFO Areas 12-29 suddenly jumped to 1,077,679 pounds? Quite the increase there on estimates and IMHO would be an accountability problem… as in, let’s just SWAG it! Then, if you want to know why IPHC currently doesn’t have issues with Area 2B and 2C sport sectors, read the Directors report, in the 2007 IPHC Annual report. You will see why there is no longer issues, in either of those areas – it is called IPHC gave both Alaska and DFO an ultimatum! Hence, the recent and current possession limits and closures. It is already assumed, under the current catch limits your halibut fishery will close on or about October 1, 2011!
Don’t lose focus, it about the unfair 88/12 allocation of a public resource, which you own and are entitled too! Please don’t forget, this is nothing more than a “MONEY SCAM” DFO has put in place! It is NOT about accountability or anything else. It is strictly “POLITICAL” and who is paying who “MONEY”!
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Here is a some things, some might find interesting, and some of what you are up against also:
The original creel was salmon-focused. As management shifted and new species were added to the creel, the IPHC (International Pacific Halibut Commission) and others questioned the reliability of the recreational halibut catch numbers.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/fisheries-peche/ground-fond/giab-ccipf/docs/min-pv/2010-05-27.pdf
Several advisory committees and subcommittees have been established to provide advice to the Department on management of groundfish fisheries. Terms of reference, membership and meeting minutes for the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee (GTAC), Sablefish Advisory Committee (SAC), Groundfish Hook and Line Advisory Committee (GHLAC), the Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), and the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) can be found on the Internet at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/consultations/groundfish/default_e.htm. For a list of members please see Appendix 10.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/MPLANS/plans11/2011%20Groundfish%20IFMP_Final_Complete.pdf
The allocation of fish between commercial and recreational sectors is contentious because it involves assigning a form of property rights, in the form of predetermined shares of the Total Allowable Catch or TAC, to competing interests – property rights issues always evoke extreme passion.
Formal allocation results in strengthened and more clearly defined access rights to the fish resource. But these rights are not property rights per se as the rights do not entail all of the attributes of pure property such as security, permanence, exclusivity, and transferability (Scott 1999). Fish are subject to the “rule of capture” whereby a fisherman does not have ownership to individual fish until the fish are caught.
And the position of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has always been that a commercial or recreational fishing licence is a privilege, granted annually, not a property right. The absolute right to issue, suspend, cancel and refuse issuance or reissuance of any licence is at the sole discretion of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In Canada resource conservation is the highest priority. After conservation needs are met, First Nations aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) requirements and treaty obligations have the next highest priority. The allocation of remaining fish resources to commercial and recreational use is a matter of public policy.
This paper outlines the recreational vs commercial allocation process, the strength of the resulting access rights, performance to date, and emerging issues. The paper also identifies the degree to which two necessary conditions for efficiency in allocation exist, namely: 1) defined sectoral shares, and 2) the ability to transfer shares (Pearse 2006). Results are compared and contrasted for three species groups in Pacific Canada, namely herring, salmon and halibut.
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/halibut_issues/stakeholder/April/CommercialRecreationalCanada.pdf
IMHO, This is a “killer” to any re-allocation negotiations with DFO:
January 20, 2011
Gail Shea
Minister Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6
Canada
Re: Sector allocation of Pacific halibut
Dear Minister Shea,
In light of the current debate regarding the allocation of Pacific halibut, the Marine Conservation Caucus would like to provide your office with our perspective on conservation considerations for the associated fisheries. The MCC is officially recognized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) as the primary stakeholder group representing conservation interests in Canada’s Pacific fisheries.
As you know, the Department is currently the target of a highly visible effort to increase the allocation of halibut to the British Columbia sport fishing sector. While the MCC does not directly engage in issues of allocation, we do feel that it is important to state our opinion in situations where allocation decisions have conservation implications.
Our conservation concerns regarding this issue stem from the substantial gap that still exists between the monitoring standards for the commercial and the sport sector, and particularly the portion of the sport sector composed of the commercial guide operations. Whereas the commercial halibut sector has adopted, at considerable cost to themselves, a system that ensures 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring and full accountability for all species caught, targeted and non-targeted, the guide sport sector has no at-sea monitoring and insufficient dockside monitoring (i.e., creel survey), and therefore no adequate mechanism to ensure accountability for its catch.
Even by the numbers reported under this incomplete monitoring system, the sport fishing sector has exceeded its combined recreational/leased commercial halibut TAC in five of the previous six years, with the preliminary numbers for 2010 indicating an overage of more than 100,000 pounds – which, it should be noted, will not be deducted from the recreational sector’s 2011 TAC. Accountability and fishing within catch limits are principles fundamental to sustainable fisheries irrespective of license type and allocation. In our judgment, the commercial halibut sector meets these principles; the sport sector does not yet do so.
Furthermore, we would like to call attention to a claim being repeated by the sport sector; namely, that their fishery will be shut down midway through their peak season. This dire warning is based upon a major assumption by the guide sport sector: that your department will grant them their wish and allow them a 2/2 possession/daily limit, rather than a 2/1 limit. Your department has not yet made this decision, and therefore that sector’s warnings about a midseason shutdown are premature and are based upon a daily catch limit that they, in fact, hope to receive. It is unrealistic for any sector to have a guaranteed access policy as halibut stocks naturally fluctuate over time. At present, stocks are low and therefore all sectors need to respect this reality and adjust businesses accordingly. Similarly stocks may improve to the point where all sectors could expect an increase.
The current debate is centered on access to an economically valuable Canadian species. We feel, therefore, that a market-based solution will be a necessary component in resolving this issue. In recent years your department has been working on a process to improve the exchange of quota between the commercial and sport sectors. We encourage the continuation of this approach.
Ultimately a fair, equitable, and predictable allocation scheme is in the best interest of all sectors. A rushed, politically charged decision will only serve to harm resource users and the resource. A misinformed reallocation of halibut TAC in response to media and political pressure will undercut formal processes that are being or have been established for such decisions, such as the new Pacific region Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board. This board is a primary forum for addressing broad issues relating to allocation.
In summary, the current lack of oversight of the recreational sector is a substantial conservation concern to our organisations. Until these concerns are addressed, we cannot support a sudden reallocation of halibut TAC from the well-managed commercial sector to the sport sector.
Sincerely,
Scott Wallace, David Suzuki Foundation
Chair, Marine Conservation Caucus Groundfish Committee
On behalf of the Marine Conservation Caucus
John Driscoll, Living Oceans Society
Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Vicky Husband, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Ernie Cooper, World Wildlife Fund
http://www.mccpacific.org/pages/resources/files/executive_letters/11-01-20-MCC-Halibut-MinisterShea.pdf
The original creel was salmon-focused. As management shifted and new species were added to the creel, the IPHC (International Pacific Halibut Commission) and others questioned the reliability of the recreational halibut catch numbers.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/fisheries-peche/ground-fond/giab-ccipf/docs/min-pv/2010-05-27.pdf
Several advisory committees and subcommittees have been established to provide advice to the Department on management of groundfish fisheries. Terms of reference, membership and meeting minutes for the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee (GTAC), Sablefish Advisory Committee (SAC), Groundfish Hook and Line Advisory Committee (GHLAC), the Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), and the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) can be found on the Internet at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/consultations/groundfish/default_e.htm. For a list of members please see Appendix 10.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/MPLANS/plans11/2011%20Groundfish%20IFMP_Final_Complete.pdf
The allocation of fish between commercial and recreational sectors is contentious because it involves assigning a form of property rights, in the form of predetermined shares of the Total Allowable Catch or TAC, to competing interests – property rights issues always evoke extreme passion.
Formal allocation results in strengthened and more clearly defined access rights to the fish resource. But these rights are not property rights per se as the rights do not entail all of the attributes of pure property such as security, permanence, exclusivity, and transferability (Scott 1999). Fish are subject to the “rule of capture” whereby a fisherman does not have ownership to individual fish until the fish are caught.
And the position of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has always been that a commercial or recreational fishing licence is a privilege, granted annually, not a property right. The absolute right to issue, suspend, cancel and refuse issuance or reissuance of any licence is at the sole discretion of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In Canada resource conservation is the highest priority. After conservation needs are met, First Nations aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) requirements and treaty obligations have the next highest priority. The allocation of remaining fish resources to commercial and recreational use is a matter of public policy.
This paper outlines the recreational vs commercial allocation process, the strength of the resulting access rights, performance to date, and emerging issues. The paper also identifies the degree to which two necessary conditions for efficiency in allocation exist, namely: 1) defined sectoral shares, and 2) the ability to transfer shares (Pearse 2006). Results are compared and contrasted for three species groups in Pacific Canada, namely herring, salmon and halibut.
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/halibut_issues/stakeholder/April/CommercialRecreationalCanada.pdf
IMHO, This is a “killer” to any re-allocation negotiations with DFO:
January 20, 2011
Gail Shea
Minister Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6
Canada
Re: Sector allocation of Pacific halibut
Dear Minister Shea,
In light of the current debate regarding the allocation of Pacific halibut, the Marine Conservation Caucus would like to provide your office with our perspective on conservation considerations for the associated fisheries. The MCC is officially recognized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) as the primary stakeholder group representing conservation interests in Canada’s Pacific fisheries.
As you know, the Department is currently the target of a highly visible effort to increase the allocation of halibut to the British Columbia sport fishing sector. While the MCC does not directly engage in issues of allocation, we do feel that it is important to state our opinion in situations where allocation decisions have conservation implications.
Our conservation concerns regarding this issue stem from the substantial gap that still exists between the monitoring standards for the commercial and the sport sector, and particularly the portion of the sport sector composed of the commercial guide operations. Whereas the commercial halibut sector has adopted, at considerable cost to themselves, a system that ensures 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring and full accountability for all species caught, targeted and non-targeted, the guide sport sector has no at-sea monitoring and insufficient dockside monitoring (i.e., creel survey), and therefore no adequate mechanism to ensure accountability for its catch.
Even by the numbers reported under this incomplete monitoring system, the sport fishing sector has exceeded its combined recreational/leased commercial halibut TAC in five of the previous six years, with the preliminary numbers for 2010 indicating an overage of more than 100,000 pounds – which, it should be noted, will not be deducted from the recreational sector’s 2011 TAC. Accountability and fishing within catch limits are principles fundamental to sustainable fisheries irrespective of license type and allocation. In our judgment, the commercial halibut sector meets these principles; the sport sector does not yet do so.
Furthermore, we would like to call attention to a claim being repeated by the sport sector; namely, that their fishery will be shut down midway through their peak season. This dire warning is based upon a major assumption by the guide sport sector: that your department will grant them their wish and allow them a 2/2 possession/daily limit, rather than a 2/1 limit. Your department has not yet made this decision, and therefore that sector’s warnings about a midseason shutdown are premature and are based upon a daily catch limit that they, in fact, hope to receive. It is unrealistic for any sector to have a guaranteed access policy as halibut stocks naturally fluctuate over time. At present, stocks are low and therefore all sectors need to respect this reality and adjust businesses accordingly. Similarly stocks may improve to the point where all sectors could expect an increase.
The current debate is centered on access to an economically valuable Canadian species. We feel, therefore, that a market-based solution will be a necessary component in resolving this issue. In recent years your department has been working on a process to improve the exchange of quota between the commercial and sport sectors. We encourage the continuation of this approach.
Ultimately a fair, equitable, and predictable allocation scheme is in the best interest of all sectors. A rushed, politically charged decision will only serve to harm resource users and the resource. A misinformed reallocation of halibut TAC in response to media and political pressure will undercut formal processes that are being or have been established for such decisions, such as the new Pacific region Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board. This board is a primary forum for addressing broad issues relating to allocation.
In summary, the current lack of oversight of the recreational sector is a substantial conservation concern to our organisations. Until these concerns are addressed, we cannot support a sudden reallocation of halibut TAC from the well-managed commercial sector to the sport sector.
Sincerely,
Scott Wallace, David Suzuki Foundation
Chair, Marine Conservation Caucus Groundfish Committee
On behalf of the Marine Conservation Caucus
John Driscoll, Living Oceans Society
Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Vicky Husband, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Ernie Cooper, World Wildlife Fund
http://www.mccpacific.org/pages/resources/files/executive_letters/11-01-20-MCC-Halibut-MinisterShea.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
fish4all
Well-Known Member
The recreational sector has chosen not to make an entity that is able to hold money. They seem to have no problem collecting donations for ads and road shows.
It was at the treasury board level that the funds were denied to the rec sector to purchase quota. The same board that approved 200mill for the PICFI program and other monies for the ATP buy back.
There is no 10% holdback. this ended about 5 years ago after the laraque decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
