Sushihunter
Active Member
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Halibut+fishery+debate+boils+down+semantics+spin/4189282/story.html
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ha...mantics+spin/4189282/story.html#ixzz1CPnKLS88
Halibut fishery debate boils down to semantics and spin
By Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun January 29, 2011 12:09 AM
As a low-abundance year for halibut is expected, catch restrictions have deepened the divide between sports anglers and commercial fishing.
Photograph by: Darren Stone, Postmedia News, Vancouver Sun
As with so much of the lobbying by special interests in this media-saturated environment, the discussion often comes down to semantics and spin.
There's no better example than the current wrangle between sports anglers and the commercial fishing industry over how much of the annual halibut catch each group should fairly claim.
The argument by sports anglers is that the little guy (them) is being jobbed by big business (commercial fishermen) which is hogging the catch.
Before we get to the semantics and spin, some context:
The halibut fishery was important to first nations long before newcomers imposed industrial models in the late 19th century. The subsequent over-exploitation ravaged halibut stocks. By 1910 extinction seemed imminent.
In 1923, Canada and the United States signed the Pacific Halibut Treaty -- the first international agreement independently negotiated by Ottawa. It created the International Pacific Halibut Commission to jointly manage halibut stocks in the North Pacific.
The commission advises catch limits based on a globally recognized science-based model for sustainable fisheries management. Depleted stocks recovered.
Until 1991, boats would race during seasonal openings to catch as many fish as possible until quotas were met. This permitted unlimited participation in the fishery and made it easier for respective governments to control the actual catch. But it also encouraged unsafe fishing. Boats often sank in storms trying to maximize catches.
So, in the mid-1990s the fishery moved toward individual transferable fishing quotas. This permitted boats to fish at any time during the nine-month season but strictly monitored catch limits. Furthermore, quota now included bycatch. Fishermen could sell quota.
At the beginning, sports anglers weren't after halibut. Sports anglers wanted salmon, primarily chinook and coho, with some attention to ling cod and rockfish, particularly in the Strait of Georgia.
When share of the annual halibut catch was allocated, the commercial fishermen's quota was set at 88 per cent and the sports anglers share was 12 per cent -then thought adequate at about twice the annual recreational catch.
Enter the semantics and spin.
"Sports angler" evokes the image of a guy with a beat-up 14-foot tinny and an eight horsepower kicker. Today it includes charter operators with $50,000 boats able to run out to exposed halibut banks and multimillionaire owners of luxury lodges who market to well-heeled tourists.
Some of these commercial "sports" outfits need a thousand employees just to keep their resorts, marinas, restaurants and gift shops staffed. They have been so successful marketing that tourists now outnumber local anglers by about 75 per cent. And they take about 60 per cent of the sports halibut quota.
In fact, for the last three years they've regularly overfished their allocated quota.
Just to put this in perspective, low-end charters run around $950 a day. Mid-range -how about $6,700 for four days guided fishing? At the high end, a three-day getaway for two goes for $20,000 and a four-day helicopter fishing jaunt is advertised for $161,910.
Anglers who ante up that kind of dough expect to catch fish, lots of fish, hence the recent desire for increases in daily catch limits by the "sports" anglers. But we're entering a low abundance year for halibut and catch restrictions are advised. So now tourists are booked when catches may be reduced. How to justify fishing into depleting stocks? Have commercial quota reduced by reallocation.
Frankly, folks with those kinds of assets, charging those kinds of fees, should be able to buy extra quota from the commercial fleet instead of asking that it simply be reassigned.
This brings us back to semantics and spin.
This debate isn't about big business versus little guys; it's strictly about competing business interests and whether one should get a subsidy.
It should be about the health of halibut stocks and sustainable fisheries.
On this one, I'm inclined to put the halibut first since fish make poor lobbyists.
If conservation demands catch reductions, even draconian ones, then let everybody suffer, not just one interest at the expense of another, which is precisely what transferring commercial quota to the "sports" quota is intended to achieve.
shume@islandnet.com
For a debate between sports fisherman and commercial fisherman, go to the following links: www.vancouversun.com/opinion/oped/Recreational+anglers+deserve+fair+catch/4159534/story. html
www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html? id=4147425&sponsor
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
There's no better example than the current wrangle between sports anglers and the commercial fishing industry over how much of the annual halibut catch each group should fairly claim.
The argument by sports anglers is that the little guy (them) is being jobbed by big business (commercial fishermen) which is hogging the catch.
Before we get to the semantics and spin, some context:
The halibut fishery was important to first nations long before newcomers imposed industrial models in the late 19th century. The subsequent over-exploitation ravaged halibut stocks. By 1910 extinction seemed imminent.
In 1923, Canada and the United States signed the Pacific Halibut Treaty -- the first international agreement independently negotiated by Ottawa. It created the International Pacific Halibut Commission to jointly manage halibut stocks in the North Pacific.
The commission advises catch limits based on a globally recognized science-based model for sustainable fisheries management. Depleted stocks recovered.
Until 1991, boats would race during seasonal openings to catch as many fish as possible until quotas were met. This permitted unlimited participation in the fishery and made it easier for respective governments to control the actual catch. But it also encouraged unsafe fishing. Boats often sank in storms trying to maximize catches.
So, in the mid-1990s the fishery moved toward individual transferable fishing quotas. This permitted boats to fish at any time during the nine-month season but strictly monitored catch limits. Furthermore, quota now included bycatch. Fishermen could sell quota.
At the beginning, sports anglers weren't after halibut. Sports anglers wanted salmon, primarily chinook and coho, with some attention to ling cod and rockfish, particularly in the Strait of Georgia.
When share of the annual halibut catch was allocated, the commercial fishermen's quota was set at 88 per cent and the sports anglers share was 12 per cent -then thought adequate at about twice the annual recreational catch.
Enter the semantics and spin.
"Sports angler" evokes the image of a guy with a beat-up 14-foot tinny and an eight horsepower kicker. Today it includes charter operators with $50,000 boats able to run out to exposed halibut banks and multimillionaire owners of luxury lodges who market to well-heeled tourists.
Some of these commercial "sports" outfits need a thousand employees just to keep their resorts, marinas, restaurants and gift shops staffed. They have been so successful marketing that tourists now outnumber local anglers by about 75 per cent. And they take about 60 per cent of the sports halibut quota.
In fact, for the last three years they've regularly overfished their allocated quota.
Just to put this in perspective, low-end charters run around $950 a day. Mid-range -how about $6,700 for four days guided fishing? At the high end, a three-day getaway for two goes for $20,000 and a four-day helicopter fishing jaunt is advertised for $161,910.
Anglers who ante up that kind of dough expect to catch fish, lots of fish, hence the recent desire for increases in daily catch limits by the "sports" anglers. But we're entering a low abundance year for halibut and catch restrictions are advised. So now tourists are booked when catches may be reduced. How to justify fishing into depleting stocks? Have commercial quota reduced by reallocation.
Frankly, folks with those kinds of assets, charging those kinds of fees, should be able to buy extra quota from the commercial fleet instead of asking that it simply be reassigned.
This brings us back to semantics and spin.
This debate isn't about big business versus little guys; it's strictly about competing business interests and whether one should get a subsidy.
It should be about the health of halibut stocks and sustainable fisheries.
On this one, I'm inclined to put the halibut first since fish make poor lobbyists.
If conservation demands catch reductions, even draconian ones, then let everybody suffer, not just one interest at the expense of another, which is precisely what transferring commercial quota to the "sports" quota is intended to achieve.
shume@islandnet.com
For a debate between sports fisherman and commercial fisherman, go to the following links: www.vancouversun.com/opinion/oped/Recreational+anglers+deserve+fair+catch/4159534/story. html
www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html? id=4147425&sponsor
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ha...mantics+spin/4189282/story.html#ixzz1CPnKLS88
