Fish advisory board to talk halibut

fish4commies, you conveniently miss the entire point Charile makes. Why would the public get conned into paying the commercial license holders for their own fish. The allocation to the commercial sector is a gift that can and should be retracted. The commie allocation is not an ownership position, it is a license position. The Federal Gov't seems to forget they have a fiduciary duty to protect the public's best interest. As Charlie suggests it is now time for us to go to the courts. Enough pi**ing around.
 
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

You must have been involved in developing the current enumeration system, otherwise I doubt that you would take such a personal stance in protecting it. The system that you are defending is actually inhibiting the progression and development of fair and equitable opportunities for the sport sector. If you were actually listening to or comprehending what the other sectors are stating as their concerns, then you would understand why DFO likes what you have developed and had them implement. It is DFO's easy out excuse and reason why they won't make any arbitrary changes at this time.

As I mentioned in January,

Fifteen years after the disruptive 1898 ruling of the Privy Council another judgment of the Privy Council was rendered in 1913. The ruling emphasized and confirmed the public right to fish in tidal waters, since Magna Carta no exclusive fishery could be granted in tidal waters. Fishing in tidal waters was under the exclusive legislative control of the federal government. This says to me that the focus must be on the federal government.

Also remember recent battles that the commercial and FN have had regarding exclusive fisheries. Most of these issues are tenant related.
 
OK fish4 commie if I "lease" qouta from you then im deemed commercial in your eyes ...... right?????? cause you want to put us in that catorgory right??


ok wait for it you know hes thinking yes ... but i now your confused by me asking this.....

So then I should be able to sell it just like you!!!!!!!!
Then ill take a charter out say to them ok boys my charter rate is this but you know what we can all be happy cause we will catch as much as we want then ill take you for 1/2 the cost then ill go sell it.....wow what a concept!!!!!! F@#Ken ehhhh where do i sign up going for 8 bucks a lb shhittt ill go fish and get 200 lbs then ill more than cover costs and make even more money on top of it all WHAT COUNTRY!!!!!!!!free money!!!!!! I LOVE IT just like the commies

OH but wait it was "sport" caught and im not allowed to sell,trade.or barter in the eyes of DFO and the commies as then id be even more compition to you with my 4 hooks going in the water.......
SEE dumb butt we are sportfisherman........ go away once and for all im sickend by you!!!!!!!.....

Wolf
 
I dint't miss Charlies points I was just pointing out a couple of things that were incorrect.

Wolf;
The way I see it is if you did lease fish then it has already been sold to your clients. If they choose to pay $5/lb to increase there access during times of low abundance then bring it on. there is how ever, according to dfo, a fine line where your clients cannot SELL a fish caught from a recreational vessel. Pehaps if the lodge/charter group would get a provincial guiding license and become accountable past the point of vulentary log books it may come to a time where you can harvest and sell off your guide boat. Definitly things that could be discussed around a table.

There seems to be some confusion that the commercial sector is pushing to be able to lease lodges/charters quota. Let me assure you that there preferred position is to just stick to the 88/12. During these times of low abundance there are some that are trying to find a workable solution until these stocks bounce back. The solution that the lodges/guides bring is to cut earnings by 10-15% on one side of the table to POSSIBLY increaase revenues on the other side of the table. Switch seats for 2 seconds and tell me what your thoughts are if the shoe was on the other foot.

I will also ad that there are many people, not just commies that feel the rec sector is already far exceeding the 12%. This arguement has no legs in either direction as there is no proper accounting of the catch. I know of at least 5 charters that are taking over 10,000 lbs a season in the norht with one logged at 21,000. Again the conservation card will continue to be played as the effort has grown to the point where the lodges/charters today are having a very significant affect on all stocks not just halibut.

It is my belief that there will be change in all sectors. I'm just not the type to sit by while gov't in there infinite wisdom designs it for us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must have been involved in developing the current enumeration system, otherwise I doubt that you would take such a personal stance in protecting it. The system that you are defending is actually inhibiting the progression and development of fair and equitable opportunities for the sport sector. If you were actually listening to or comprehending what the other sectors are stating as their concerns, then you would understand why DFO likes what you have developed and had them implement. It is DFO's easy out excuse and reason why they won't make any arbitrary changes at this time.

As I mentioned in January,

Fifteen years after the disruptive 1898 ruling of the Privy Council another judgment of the Privy Council was rendered in 1913. The ruling emphasized and confirmed the public right to fish in tidal waters, since Magna Carta no exclusive fishery could be granted in tidal waters. Fishing in tidal waters was under the exclusive legislative control of the federal government. This says to me that the focus must be on the federal government.

Also remember recent battles that the commercial and FN have had regarding exclusive fisheries. Most of these issues are tenant related.

Like You know
 
fish4all, the commercial sector might really need to re-think their current position?

There has been way to many court cases, where based on precendents the entire commercial halibut industry very well could find themselves in a positon having to start completely over, from scratch? That could actually be a good thing for the "active" fishermen!

I don’t believe there is any confusion, at least here. The commercial sector makes it quite clear, they feel they own that resource; they control that resource; they and they only run that resource; and as previously posted by another, “If you want to play you have to pay!” Well, they seem to keep missing the part, it is a “PUBLIC RESOURCE!” Their legal right is they have a privilege, which is "granted" annually, not a property right!

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.”

It is strange a commercial would bring up (Larocque v. Canada)? That surely doesn’t help the commercial cause… That decision pretty much sums it up: Federal Court of Appeal ruling in Canada (Larocque v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada); Federal Court of Appeal Canada 2006) re-established that "Canada's fisheries are a 'common property resource', belonging to all the people of Canada" and that "it is the Minister's duty to manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of Canadians in the public interest."

I don’t believe the “public” in British Columbia considers shutting down their halibut fishery, while allowing a few select few (be it commercial or sport guides) to continue fishing “their” resource, is in “their” best interest. Good luck on that one, when it does go to court! J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fish you cant have your cake and eat it too you are such out of touch

The way I see it is if you did lease fish then it has already been sold to your clients.
ARE YOU ON CRACK?????????

It doesnt matter if its sold ten time lease is lease your trying to spread half truths like all the others

IT WAS the COMMIES who came up with selling of quota give me a fricken break like I said earlier the each holder would have lost 50 to 500 lbs "EST" from a 80/20 slpit talk about putting the shoe on the other foot you havent looked at how much economy brings in sport fishing 300,000 people to 435 privleged spoiled brats making millions off of a common property resourse which nobody own but you. you want to deem us commercial then it would be me buying it from you (BTW NEVER EVERY GOING TO FU#KEN HAPPEN) because its you saying im commercial which is totally wrong. end of subjet. so i should have the same gluttony privelage you do and be able to sell it.

STOCKS coming back who takes the most man it isnt the sports its the commies dont look in the mirror it may just crack and blow up in your face!!!!!!!!!

3 years a go what you guys left in the water was about as much as sport caught but who cares you get to carry that over from year after year after year till when you want to use it YEP thats really conserving for the future, again ill say it why dont you just GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!

Wolf
 
Fish you cant have your cake and eat it too you are such out of touch

ARE YOU ON CRACK?????????

It doesnt matter if its sold ten time lease is lease your trying to spread half truths like all the others

IT WAS the COMMIES who came up with selling of quota give me a fricken break like I said earlier the each holder would have lost 50 to 500 lbs "EST" from a 80/20 slpit talk about putting the shoe on the other foot you havent looked at how much economy brings in sport fishing 300,000 people to 435 privleged spoiled brats making millions off of a common property resourse which nobody own but you. you want to deem us commercial then it would be me buying it from you (BTW NEVER EVERY GOING TO FU#KEN HAPPEN) because its you saying im commercial which is totally wrong. end of subjet. so i should have the same gluttony privelage you do and be able to sell it.

STOCKS coming back who takes the most man it isnt the sports its the commies dont look in the mirror it may just crack and blow up in your face!!!!!!!!!

3 years a go what you guys left in the water was about as much as sport caught but who cares you get to carry that over from year after year after year till when you want to use it YEP thats really conserving for the future, again ill say it why dont you just GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!

Wolf

50-500lbs / license holder.... now who is on crack and spreading 1/2 truths wolf. if you ask for an additional 8% to go to 20% here is the rough math.

6.7mill x 8% / 435licences = 1136lbs per license

now take the numbers the sfab asked for. 1.7 million.

1,700,000 = approx 25% or an increase of 13%

6.7 mill x 13% / 435 licences = 2002lbs per license. this equates to $100,100 lbs in todays market or at $7lb boat price $14,000 lbs of income.

Also it was dfo that put the 4 options on the table at the last process not the commercials.

Food for thought:

sockeye - quota
springs - quota
pinks - quota
herring - quota
halibut - quota
60 species of rockfish/bottem fish - quota
red bandits - just made quota a month ago for 2011
lingcod - quota
dogfish - quota
goeyduck - quota
Spawn on kelp - quota
urchans - quota
there are a few more species as well.

eggs - quota
wheat - quota
milk - quota
logs - form of quota

starting to see a pattern yet?

Also depending on what post you read on here the latest push is that 80 % of the clients/ rec fishers are Canadian. That would mean that the majority of the money produced from the rec sector is not "new" money coming into the country but money Canadians at the moment are choosing to spend on sportsfishing. Where is the financial benefit to Canada here? those same 80% could switch to golf and there would be no loss to Canada what so ever. So the 80-90% that the commercials export is a direct benefit to Canada as it is NEW money.... hmm I wonder what ottawa thinks is the best use of fish? Fianlly on this point, you have ablsolutly no idea what is harvested out of the ocean by the rec sector in any species so it is impossible to put any form of value on fish, prawns, crabs, clams or what ever else you catch.

Lastly for today... I don't give a rats butt if you choose to lease quoata for your business. All that means is you may possibly be tied to the dock while others continue to fish during these times of low abundance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
starting to see a pattern yet?

Yes. A Pattern of Privatization. Clearly it is the intent of DFO into bring this twisted form of mismanagement to every single species under their control. Private Ownership of Public Resources has already spread like a rapidly developing cancer, and as is the case with that insidious disease, now threatens to infect the whole. Thanks for confirming what we have been saying all along in this regard. It isn't simply halibut at stake here, it is ALL marine resources! And while that obviously sits rather well with those who end up with pseudo-ownership of these resources under this mad scheme, methinks the balance of the population who, according to Rule of Law from as far back as the Magna Carta to the Supreme Court of today, are the Legal and True Owners of those resources may beg to differ. Good of you to inform them though of just how far this nefarious scheme has already been carried.

Also depending on what post you read on here the latest push is that 80 % of the clients/ rec fishers are Canadian. That would mean that the majority of the money produced from the rec sector is not "new" money coming into the country but money Canadians at the moment are choosing to spend on sportsfishing. Where is the financial benefit to Canada here? those same 80% could switch to golf and there would be no loss to Canada what so ever. So the 80-90% that the commercials export is a direct benefit to Canada as it is NEW money.... hmm I wonder what ottawa thinks is the best use of fish?

"Let them play Golf". More than a little reminiscent of another famous quote: "Let them eat Cake". Methinks I don't have to spell out the outcome in that particular situation for you surely. Perhaps the most ignorant and self-effacing comment I have seen anywhere regarding this matter to date.

Telling CANADIANS that they can simply find another sport, and basing that on the line that the profits generated by the commercial sector is of more import than their access, as Canadians, to their own resources is an affront of the highest degree. Grasping at straws. Sounds very much like the cries from a sinking ship methinks. Stick with that line though, that is certain to appease the masses you have, and continue to displace from their chosen recreational activities... NOT!

We continuously hear the cry from the commercial sector that the recreational fleet is growing which creates requirements for more access, while complaining that their own operations are fading into the sunset. What you and your colleagues don't appear to understand is that every single business has a lifespan. Recreational Anglers are not so much your "competition" as they are the Future. The vast majority of small coastal communities who once relied on commercial fishing to drive their economies have and are turning to tourism (very much including angling btw) for their very survival. I do believe there remains a place for commercial operations on this coast. How much of a place has yet to be determined. Taking the stance that you and so many others of your ilk continue to demand will bring the matter to its' likely conclusion - Legal Action. And as I and many others have pointed out, in that you simply do not have a leg to stand on! And as such, you have a LOT more to lose than were you to join us in settling the issues of Fair and Equitable access cooperatively. Your call. Only fair to warn you however that continuing down the road you have decided to follow WILL result in that fatal sunset arriving for many within your sector on a much quicker timeline.

Lastly for today... I don't give a rats butt if you choose to lease quoata for your business. All that means is you may possibly be tied to the dock while others continue to fish during these times of low abundance.

LOL! Nice try. No-one is buying in. Save your bloody quota for spreading the privatization amongst yourselves. The writing IS on the wall, and methinks deep down, you well understand just who eventually will remain behind tied at the dock. That is a little more than obvious from the FEAR driven responses of many within your chosen sector.

Up until now, and contrary to many, I have actually reviewed each of your postings with a reasonably open mind, and actually welcomed a fair bit of that input. This latest rant however has turned me away from that. It comes across very much as Fear-Motivated, as much of what you have written was obviously done so without any form of forethought. In fact by means of this latest post, you have actually provided some rather fine ammunition. Ammunition that I will use effectively against what you continue to demand - Private Access (Illegal Ownership) of Public Resources.

In my various dealings with government over the years, I have noticed that the farther up the ladder the Fear and resulting Angst is generated, the closer I am getting to the Truth of most matters. Thanks for confirming that for me once again.

They are starting to run Ladz. The sunset I noted above is getting a tad closer with each passing day. Obviously it is time for us to step up the pressure even more. Anyone with any sense of reality in this situation would step forward and start offering compromise. There remains little time at this juncture to do so. Should they choose to stay their course, we are left with no alternative than to take it to them as deeply and as strongly as they obviously wish to burden us with. Time for a new set of letters, and again Fish4, thanks for the quotes. I am sure on the eve of an impending election, Harper et-al will be most amused...

Cheers,
Nog
 
Well said nog!!!! you are the man!!!!!!!

Again commiefor1 go away your no good to "SPORTFISHING BC.com " which this is about!!!!!
If you want start up your own forum and call it

commercial fishing .com

Wolf
 
It is as I have stated before, the commercials are definitely worried, otherwise they would not give a rat's butt what is being discussed on this forum.
 
50-500lbs / license holder.... now who is on crack and spreading 1/2 truths wolf. if you ask for an additional 8% to go to 20% here is the rough math.

6.7mill x 8% / 435licences = 1136lbs per license

now take the numbers the sfab asked for. 1.7 million.

1,700,000 = approx 25% or an increase of 13%

6.7 mill x 13% / 435 licences = 2002lbs per license. this equates to $100,100 lbs in todays market or at $7lb boat price $14,000 lbs of income.

Also it was dfo that put the 4 options on the table at the last process not the commercials.

Food for thought:



Good analogue, fish4all! I like it and would probably try throwing those numbers out there myself, if I were you! Well, not really there are to many business people on here; they would immediaely pick up the difference between gross sales and net profit and call - BS!

Unfortunately, for you those numbers really don’t mean much, as you are using gross sales out of context! You are suggesting individual fishermen are going to lose $14,000 of direct income! While each net profit level is different, at a 3% profit level you are speaking of approximately $420 would be the individual net loss!

More unfortunately for you - I can give some REAL numbers to think about when someone wants to start throwing numbers around. This might surprise! Let’s look at the numbers from a ‘Return on Investment’ (ROI) standpoint. And, from someone who is NOT actively fishing and only pays for the annual quota and then leases it out. To help, I will even provide instructions and how I figured it, so one can follow along and figure how it is calculated to measure the performance of one investment relative to another.

ROI is expressed as a percentage and is based on returns over an associated time period, usually one year. For example, a 25 percent annual ROI means that a $100 investment would return $25 in one year. Thus, after one year, the total investment becomes $125. So provided I don't screw up here we go and this is what it looks like;

1. Please write down the amount of your total investment, including fees and expenses, if any. If you bought a license for the average cost from DFO of $1,500 (published on their website) and have no other fees (e.g. the PHMA dues), then the total investment is that $1,500. Since I don’t know the Individual Quota, I have to use all 435 quota holders which won’t effect the ROI, so I now multiply that average cost of $1,500 X the 435 Licence holders which equals $652,500 total invested. It will still provide the average ROI for one that just flips his quota.

2. Now write down the amount of profit associated with the total investment. Using fish4all’s $7.00 per pound ex-vessel price, which sounds awfully high, especially since NOAA is estimating it at $4.01 for 2011, but anyway total quota times price sold equals a worth of $46,900,000 Total Value for all quota holders

3. If total $652,500 investment for all quota is worth $46,900,000 one year later (notice the one year remark – see below), then your profit is $46,900,000 - $652,500 investment or $46,247,500

4. Calculate the ROI by dividing the profit by the total investment: $46,247,500/$652,500 = 70.8773947 or that only equates to... are you ready... 7,087.74%, percent annual ROI.

Please note "annual ROI" As I am thinking - Not bad for what a DAYS work? ROI can be expressed for different time periods: one year, one month, one week, one day. For example, if a $100 investment returns $150 after one month, then the ROI would be 50 percent monthly ($50 profit divided by $100 investment = 0.50, or 50 percent). I will let you figure out the ROI of a “slipper skipper” who only has to take the time to fill out a renewal request? :(

Remember this is only for someone with NO costs. When comparing ROI for different opportunities, one has to insure all fees and expenses have been included. If not it won’t be a fair comparison. I DID NOT figure the ROI for someone who is actually fishing, working, and has actual expenses of operating a real business.

Not sure about that, "now who is on crack" remark? :) and as stated just some REAL "Food for thought"! Nice try though! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sounds like I need to wrangle me some quota, buy some slippers and sit back and relax. I guess I may need to fill out a renewal form but I could handle that.
 
Back
Top