Halibut fishery debate boils down to semantics and spin

[traveller]

Wow , there you go again Fish$4all...convinced that quota is something that is legal to buy and sell, or even worse, you think it is ethical to buy and sell our fish! Nice quote from the written Supreme court decision by Justice Binnie in the Saulnier vs Royal BAnk judgement...
" It is the Minister's duty to manage, conserve, and develop the Fishery on behalf of all Canadians in the Public interest."

Guess you think that 400 people owning the resource and offering to sell us our fish is a good solution...I don't think so!

Traveller

 

[juandesooka]

Decided to email Mr. Hume about his article. I outlined several points and was surprised that he emailed back quite quickly with counter-arguments. As noted already in this thread, his main issue seems to be about the sports charter community and how their success has created pressure on the 12% allowable for recreational anglers. I am impressed he took the time to respond and by his knowledge of the current issue and its history. However, we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion on the issues. In the end, I believe there's little point debating it further -- kind of like arguing religion in Ireland, or politics in the USA, you're pretty much on one side or the other, and there is no way you're going to convince anyone by reasoned debate.

For interest, below is my closing response....

Mr. Hume:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to respond directly.

I see your issue is primarily with sports fishing guides. If indeed these were responsible for 69% of the recreational sector catch, that means 8% of total halibut were caught by recreational anglers on guided trips. If indeed 75% of those were caught by tourists, that means 6% of the total halibut are caught by visitors to our province, from either elsewhere in Canada or abroad. So, roughly speaking, for every 20 halibut caught, 1 goes to a tourist on a charter, 1 goes to a recreational angler on his own boat, and 18 go to the commercial sector. If this still seems adequate or fair, then I believe we have a fundamental disagreement.

Whether on a guided trip or their own boat, these are all recreational anglers and I'd bet the large majority are Canadians (as indicated in the 2005 DFO survey). For those without the means to buy and maintain the boat and gear to go offshore to catch halibut, why would you begrudge them the right to do so? Or, more directly, why do you place the interests of the 400 halibut license holders ahead of these many thousands of citizens?

From a strictly economic perspective, I'm sure you've read the many studies that show sport caught fish bring ancillary benefits many multiples above commercial harvest. Even more so here, where 70% of the commercial halibut harvest is exported to the USA. The "slipper skippers" get their $5/lb licensing fee, the fisherman gets his $2/lb, and the Americans get their fish fingers cheap. How many hundreds or thousands of people are employed in small towns up and down the BC coast, making their living directly or indirectly from the dollars that sport halibut fishing brings in? Have you visited Port Renfrew lately -- what happens to that town with further restrictions in sports halibut fishing? How many other towns face similar prospects? In contrast, do they see any benefit from commercial halibut fishing? Where is all that money going exactly? Because it sure isn't to many small towns on BC's west coast, from what I can see.

If I was convinced there was an economic argument in favour of the status quo that made sense, then I'd be behind it 100% for the greater good.

If I was convinced there was an issue of fairness, where the recreational sector was asking for something unreasonable, then I'd be the first person to point out the hypocrisy.

If I was convinced there was a conservation issue, then I would quite happily stop fishing, as long as I could see restrictions being applied fairly.

But I'm convinced of none of these things. This 88/12 split was flawed from day one. And today, with the increasing interest in sport halibut fishing, it is more flawed than ever. In an age of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, I believe sport fishing is healthy for the body and the spirit. It is also good for our economy. Therefore, I suggest this increasing interest in sport fishing is something we should be emphasizing and promoting, not constraining or limiting. The fish are there, that's not the issue. The issue is who government has deemed to "own" this resource, and the sticky mess of extricating ourselves politically and economically from this flawed 88/12 decision nearly 20 years ago.

I don't expect we'll see eye to eye on this, but once again, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.

 

[fish4all]

Decided to email Mr. Hume about his article. I outlined several points and was surprised that he emailed back quite quickly with counter-arguments. As noted already in this thread, his main issue seems to be about the sports charter community and how their success has created pressure on the 12% allowable for recreational anglers. I am impressed he took the time to respond and by his knowledge of the current issue and its history. However, we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion on the issues. In the end, I believe there's little point debating it further -- kind of like arguing religion in Ireland, or politics in the USA, you're pretty much on one side or the other, and there is no way you're going to convince anyone by reasoned debate.

For interest, below is my closing response....

Mr. Hume:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to respond directly.

I see your issue is primarily with sports fishing guides. If indeed these were responsible for 69% of the recreational sector catch, that means 8% of total halibut were caught by recreational anglers on guided trips. If indeed 75% of those were caught by tourists, that means 6% of the total halibut are caught by visitors to our province, from either elsewhere in Canada or abroad. So, roughly speaking, for every 20 halibut caught, 1 goes to a tourist on a charter, 1 goes to a recreational angler on his own boat, and 18 go to the commercial sector. If this still seems adequate or fair, then I believe we have a fundamental disagreement.

Whether on a guided trip or their own boat, these are all recreational anglers and I'd bet the large majority are Canadians (as indicated in the 2005 DFO survey). For those without the means to buy and maintain the boat and gear to go offshore to catch halibut, why would you begrudge them the right to do so? Or, more directly, why do you place the interests of the 400 halibut license holders ahead of these many thousands of citizens?

From a strictly economic perspective, I'm sure you've read the many studies that show sport caught fish bring ancillary benefits many multiples above commercial harvest. Even more so here, where 70% of the commercial halibut harvest is exported to the USA. The "slipper skippers" get their $5/lb licensing fee, the fisherman gets his $2/lb, and the Americans get their fish fingers cheap. How many hundreds or thousands of people are employed in small towns up and down the BC coast, making their living directly or indirectly from the dollars that sport halibut fishing brings in? Have you visited Port Renfrew lately -- what happens to that town with further restrictions in sports halibut fishing? How many other towns face similar prospects? In contrast, do they see any benefit from commercial halibut fishing? Where is all that money going exactly? Because it sure isn't to many small towns on BC's west coast, from what I can see.

If I was convinced there was an economic argument in favour of the status quo that made sense, then I'd be behind it 100% for the greater good.

If I was convinced there was an issue of fairness, where the recreational sector was asking for something unreasonable, then I'd be the first person to point out the hypocrisy.

If I was convinced there was a conservation issue, then I would quite happily stop fishing, as long as I could see restrictions being applied fairly.

But I'm convinced of none of these things. This 88/12 split was flawed from day one. And today, with the increasing interest in sport halibut fishing, it is more flawed than ever. In an age of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, I believe sport fishing is healthy for the body and the spirit. It is also good for our economy. Therefore, I suggest this increasing interest in sport fishing is something we should be emphasizing and promoting, not constraining or limiting. The fish are there, that's not the issue. The issue is who government has deemed to "own" this resource, and the sticky mess of extricating ourselves politically and economically from this flawed 88/12 decision nearly 20 years ago.

I don't expect we'll see eye to eye on this, but once again, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.

any chancee of you posting the email he replied with. I am intereseted in seeing his response.

 

[fishingbc]

Myself and Mr. Hume have had several exchanges over the last several days, his replies always have the same load of crap- commercial recreational- guides n lodges- yada yada yada.....don't waste your time with him......he and about four other people on the coast have the same mind set.....he is in the minority.....

Decided to email Mr. Hume about his article. I outlined several points and was surprised that he emailed back quite quickly with counter-arguments. As noted already in this thread, his main issue seems to be about the sports charter community and how their success has created pressure on the 12% allowable for recreational anglers. I am impressed he took the time to respond and by his knowledge of the current issue and its history. However, we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion on the issues. In the end, I believe there's little point debating it further -- kind of like arguing religion in Ireland, or politics in the USA, you're pretty much on one side or the other, and there is no way you're going to convince anyone by reasoned debate.

For interest, below is my closing response....

Mr. Hume:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to respond directly.

I see your issue is primarily with sports fishing guides. If indeed these were responsible for 69% of the recreational sector catch, that means 8% of total halibut were caught by recreational anglers on guided trips. If indeed 75% of those were caught by tourists, that means 6% of the total halibut are caught by visitors to our province, from either elsewhere in Canada or abroad. So, roughly speaking, for every 20 halibut caught, 1 goes to a tourist on a charter, 1 goes to a recreational angler on his own boat, and 18 go to the commercial sector. If this still seems adequate or fair, then I believe we have a fundamental disagreement.

Whether on a guided trip or their own boat, these are all recreational anglers and I'd bet the large majority are Canadians (as indicated in the 2005 DFO survey). For those without the means to buy and maintain the boat and gear to go offshore to catch halibut, why would you begrudge them the right to do so? Or, more directly, why do you place the interests of the 400 halibut license holders ahead of these many thousands of citizens?

From a strictly economic perspective, I'm sure you've read the many studies that show sport caught fish bring ancillary benefits many multiples above commercial harvest. Even more so here, where 70% of the commercial halibut harvest is exported to the USA. The "slipper skippers" get their $5/lb licensing fee, the fisherman gets his $2/lb, and the Americans get their fish fingers cheap. How many hundreds or thousands of people are employed in small towns up and down the BC coast, making their living directly or indirectly from the dollars that sport halibut fishing brings in? Have you visited Port Renfrew lately -- what happens to that town with further restrictions in sports halibut fishing? How many other towns face similar prospects? In contrast, do they see any benefit from commercial halibut fishing? Where is all that money going exactly? Because it sure isn't to many small towns on BC's west coast, from what I can see.

If I was convinced there was an economic argument in favour of the status quo that made sense, then I'd be behind it 100% for the greater good.

If I was convinced there was an issue of fairness, where the recreational sector was asking for something unreasonable, then I'd be the first person to point out the hypocrisy.

If I was convinced there was a conservation issue, then I would quite happily stop fishing, as long as I could see restrictions being applied fairly.

But I'm convinced of none of these things. This 88/12 split was flawed from day one. And today, with the increasing interest in sport halibut fishing, it is more flawed than ever. In an age of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, I believe sport fishing is healthy for the body and the spirit. It is also good for our economy. Therefore, I suggest this increasing interest in sport fishing is something we should be emphasizing and promoting, not constraining or limiting. The fish are there, that's not the issue. The issue is who government has deemed to "own" this resource, and the sticky mess of extricating ourselves politically and economically from this flawed 88/12 decision nearly 20 years ago.

I don't expect we'll see eye to eye on this, but once again, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.

 

[fishingbc]

Don't bother posting it, a waste of time and just give you know a reason to post another load of crap....

any chance of you posting the email he replied with. I am interested in seeing his response.

 

[juandesooka]

I don't think I'll post Mr. Hume's response, only because I am uncomfortable with posting a private email in a public forum without the author's permission. However, he didn't really say much different than what was previously posted in this thread. I have copied my original email to him below -- that is mine to post. His response was more or less:
-- he is a recreational angler
-- sports anglers barely targeted halibut when allocation first set
-- increased pressure on it is from commercial sports sector, with majority caught by tourists

I definitely got the sense he has a good grasp of the history and issues, his position is not from being uninformed as so many others are. He has analyzed the facts and come to his own conclusion, different than mine. Beyond that there's not much point in debating further, the points are made, now just going in circles....if we were the decision makers, it would be time for the Chair to call for a vote.


MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE:

I read your article "Halibut fishery debate boils down to semantics and spin"

A few of your points jumped out at me and I felt I had to write. Below I have quoted some passages of your article, with my responses:

"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."

Consider the commercial fleet was given this quota of the halibut resource back in 2003 -- what exactly did they pay to receive this benefit? I'm sure the recreational sector would be more than happy to pay the same fee as the commercials when given their share ... and in case it isn't obvious, the fee for this was ZERO. The commercial sector was gifted this quota in perpetuity at no cost and with no limits on transferability. In comparison to this, what would you recommend as a fair price for the recreational sector to have to pay to buy back this gifted common resource? Keeping in mind that the recreational sector is 100,000 or so anglers who just like to go out and catch a fish now and then, either on their own boat or on a guide's boat. How much extra should I have to pay to catch a halibut?

"This debate isn't about big business versus little guys; it's strictly about competing business interests and whether one should get a subsidy."

First, the recreational sector is not asking for any subsidies; we are asking for a fair share of a common property resource. On the other hand, the commercial sector is most certainly asking for a subsidy -- to now be paid for something they got for free. Keep in mind that if a more thoughtful and forward-thinking approach had been taken in 2003, this would not be theirs to sell in the first place.

Secondly, it is NOT "strictly about competing business interests" and it most certainly is about "little guys" who just want to be able to fish for halibut. Why am I right now, February 1st, not allowed to catch a halibut, when a commercial guy can put out a longline and take literally hundreds per day? Why last summer was I only allowed to keep one 15 pound halibut after spending 10 hours and $150 in gas motoring out to Swiftsure Bank? That makes this exactly a little guy's issue, not about competing business interests or subsidies. The way this has been allocated creates false limitations on the recreational fishery -- the recreational anglers shut down, when the commercial fishery had not even used up its quota, leaving the Canadian total allowable catch unmet.

"It should be about the health of halibut stocks and sustainable fisheries."

The international halibut commission has established what is a sustainable catch annually, and no one is asking to catch more than this. There is absolutely NO conservation issue at hand here, it is strictly a question of what is a fair allocation of what has been deemed an acceptable allowable catch. Painting this as a conservation issue when it is not clouds the issue and leads to misinformed opinions.

"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."

There are no catch reductions this year on Vancouver Island's west coast. In fact, the catch quota increased nearly 3% this year. This issue remains why it is fair that recreational anglers are allowed to catch 1 fish for every 9 the commercial sector gets to harvest. Why do the interests of 400 plus commercial license holders trump those of 100,000 and growing recreational anglers in this province?

The recreational fishery is not looking to shut the commercial sector down, nor are we asking for even half the fish. We are simply asking to be allowed to increase the quota from 12% to 20%, or 2 of every 10 allowable, such that we can have the certainty of a season from Feb.1-Dec.31, and can be allowed to take 2 halibut per day per person. Is that 8% of the allowable catch really that much to ask, when you consider it against the interests of 100,000 anglers, plus uncounted tourist anglers, compared to the interests of approximately 400 license holders, who were gifted this quota and most of whom don't even personally fish it any more?

For myself, I don't normally get involved in political issues, and have mostly stayed out of this one too, but I felt I had to write after reading your article.