Halibut Allocation Hearing - Recreational Sector's Memorandum and Fact of Law

[Sculpin]

So, fish4all, are you ok with non fishers who have no intention of fishing owning quota,orshould it be returned to the government if not used by the owner for say 5 years ? Care to share what percentage of the commercial quota is held by people who don't actually fish (you're right,we knowl little about the quota dealings so educate us)?How about selling their quota for a profit to those who do fish,you ok with this or should it be capped at what it was purchased from the government for? As it stands, as an insider, what kind of profit are people realizing selling their quota?

Good questions ziggy.

 

[GLG]

Like our logs, oil, and every other natural resource in the country.

No exporting of oil, logs or grain till every canadian has a roof over there head, a full belly and enough oil and gas for their needs

If I went to the gas station and was told "sorry we have run out, we had to ship it to China" I would have a problem

If I was to go to crown land to cut firewood and was told "sorry that wood was reserved for China, I would have a problem.

If I went to the store to buy bread and was told "sorry we ran out we had to ship the wheat to China" I would have a problem.

So when you say "Sorry the halibut is all gone we had to ship it to the US" I have a problem.

Not one pound of Halibut should leave Canada till all Canadian needs have been met.
GLG

 

[IronNoggin]

...
4) Other than the 17% owned by DFO for first nations the troll fleet holds the majority of the quota.

Interesting Freudian Slip? Methinks you mean the Long-Line Fleet. The troll fleet's original Licenses way back when allowed for retention of halibut. That is NOT the case today, and although I do know one or two trollers who own and fish quota, they certainly don't do that by trolling...

5) Itq is the best management tool in the box for the commercial industry. The majority of commercial fisheries on the west coast are run this way(herring, salmon, all groundfish). It is a system being adopted all around the world.

And... more and more attention has been focused on the Fact that this management tool can have serious negative repercussions for those who actually fish. The halibut situation is the classic example of that. When the quota is allowed to be owned by entities that do not fish, the quota becomes a privately traded economic engine. That causes prices to soar well beyond their realistic value, so much so as to become nearly out of reach for those who actually do fish it. Lease prices jump to the maximum the working fleet can possibly bear, and many fish halibut somewhere just barely above operating costs of doing so. The little product that is available in Canadian markets also reflects this form of "price fixing" in that the product is largely cost prohibitive for the vast majority of consumer households.

That's all fine and dandy if you hold quota as a Broker (non-fisher). It presents a very real and lucrative form of ongoing income obviously. However to those that actually fish, it is completely Unfair and Unjust. The prices in the local markets the same. And there is obviously major controversy in allowing quota owners to hold the rightful resource owners at ransom for access for the purpose of profit largely based on export markets.

Were the ITQ program to be tailored such as it is on the East Coast was, wherein checks and balances are imposed to ensure the holdings of quota remains in the hands of those that fish it, perhaps I might lean towards agreement that the model is satisfactory for this coast. I fully recognize the need to be able to transfer quota for various species amongst the commercial operations to make those operations viable. However I, amongst many, cannot support the current model wherein those with the deepest pockets are allowed to reign over the working fishermen, the market, the apposing sector, and thus the entire fishery itself.

Were the quota held by non-fishing Brokers to be freed up from that incumbency, there would be a great many positive spin-offs. The price of leasing quota (directly from a government controlled pool) could be reduced to something much more realistic for those that require it to prosecute their fisheries. The cost of product to the consumer could be reduced to the point that most could afford it. And sufficient poundage could be set aside to ensure Fair and Equitable Access for the Legal and Rightful Owners of the resource is realized on an ongoing basis. The government itself would also recognize a bit of a windfall to a cash-strapped Ministry in realizing something more than the current pittance shelled out for landed commercial catch.

The current situation with halibut is nothing short of Horrendous. An utter Royal Mess. The resolution is glaringly obvious - revamp the ITQ model such that no quota can be held by those who do not fish it. Return the amount held by non-fishing Entrepreneurs to a common government administered pool. This may take years to implement, but it CAN be realized. I understand those in the luxurious position of "ownership" without working it will fight with every breath to try and negate any such effort - damn tough to face the cash cow running dry. For that simple reason, methinks the cards are stacked against any real progress with the current abhorrent situation. But until some serious effort is made towards restructuring the ITQ model, I strongly believe there will be very little in the way of satisfaction for the working fleet, the market, and the Recreational Sector which truly does represent the Legal and Rightful Owners of this resource.

Nog

 

[wstcoaster]

well i dont think we are to polarized on this problem of halibut quotas; two or three large buying companies holding or controlling large quotas not withstanding some fishermen are not strongly opposed to sportfishermens dreams of longer seasons; but not to having their quotas taken without compensation; having asked govt many times in past for owner provisions it has not happened; owning some quota and leasing a bit more helps eke out a living; so am a bit undecided on this issue; if govt can buy up quotas for natives why not for sportsmen thou some of you sound more like subsistance fishers to me

 

[Englishman]

Great post Nog!

As you say, the problem of brokers/traders who don't fish and who hold substantial fish quota's is a big problem all over the world. It skews the economics in ways never intended and also lays fish resources open to capitalist entrepeneurs who care nothing for the resource or community. They just want to make the biggest buck here and now before moving on to the next big "deal" which has the best ROI.
Here are a couple of links for Fish4aLL to read!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/fishing-quotas-privatised
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13378757
http://ecotrust.ca/fisheries/study-cautions
http://www.worldfishingtoday.com/news/default.asp?nyId=7080

Like so many "schemes' with apparently good intentions, the law of unintended consequences has intruded on this ITQ scenario, with disastrous results!

 

[Jencourt]

Thanks NOG!!

As you know from reading my thoughts on the "Halibut issue" I agree 100% with the Facts you have laid out here. Including and most importantly the fact that a revamp to the the ITQ system currently enjoyed by the few and the rich is the only thing that will make a long term difference for everyone.

 

[searun]

Not everything was discussed here. One portion of the Memorandum of Fact and Law submission not yet mentioned here is the issue of "Promissory Estoppel". This is in my mind the strongest element of our argument in law. Basically the legal doctrine of estoppel is when one makes a promise to deliver within a contract, and a party relies upon that promise and further makes decisions which impact them financially within the scope of the contract.

In the case of recreational halibut, the 2003 deal from the Minister of Fisheries was that until an effective mechanism was developed to move ITQ allocation from the commercial sector to the recreational sector no "in-season" closures would take place within the recreational fishery.

As we all well know, DFO did in fact impose in-season closures. Further, the recreational fishery made reliance upon the promise not to close the fishery and suffered socio-economic losses as a direct result.

Insofar as I can determine this represents an estoppel. Therefore, I believe this particular element of the case at bar is our strongest opportunity to bind the court to make a favorable decision for us. Only time will tell, but in my view this was a brilliant legal tactic.

Please take the time to go back and read Section B of the Factum.

http://www.sportfishing.bc.ca/docs/memorandum_of_fact_and_law_-_halibut_allocation_hearings.pdf

If we win on this point of law, the landscape of the recreational halibut fishery will change, and DFO will be forced to either quickly find a way to transfer quota to keep the fishery open with no in-season closures or impose regulations that keep the recreational fleet within TAC.