Halibut issue

[double trouble]

Smiley. I hope you're not including me in one of the nonaffected group. Although I'm not a lodge, etc., I am in the service side of the rec fishery. I would say (only because I roughed out the numbers) that I have lost 1 million dollars in sales over the last three years because of the uncertainty. But that said, I think the only way to get this done is to clearly send the message to our gov't to go buy quota. They screwed this up in 2003 and the only way I can see to get out of it and not take a pounding through the courts or public opinion and votes is to suck it up and buy quota for the public fishery. I don't like that solution but in the long run I think it would be the least expensive. And I'll tell you what, if they put a buyback out there on quota some commercial guys will sell. Otherwise the so called "slipper skippers" know that the next action from gov't would be for the Minister to use her discretion and take it.

 

[profisher]

Smiley..you are right about the lack of reasonable notice of season openings by DFO. Could you imagine trying to run any business by having to answer your customers questions like this? Are you open? NO When will you open and what time do you close?...I don't know Will you have what I need on the shelf? I don't know. If you do have it, how many can I buy? I don't know. Geez, can you give me the number of another store that might be able to help me?

 

[Ding Dong!]

Excerpt from Ding Dong
"Getting past your hang up on buying quota, is your issue. Coming up with viable solutions is your issue that will help generate the end result is your issue. Developing new relationships with every sector who may be affected is your issue. If having enough fish for Canadians is the true and real issue, then Canada must stop exporting, Canada must stop guiding visitors from outside the country and simply take Canadians fishing! That however is an unreasonable expectation and can not be the true focus what so ever. There is absolutely nothing wrong with business being involved in a shared public fishery, accept when business of any kind interfere with the ability to sustain the fishery, a shared public resource. DFO at the moment, is simply following their guidelines as implemented under the Fisheries Act. They will not simply rob Peter to pay Paul under any circumstance, regardless of the faulty nature. The solution will come collectively and by consensus, notwithstanding."

Ding Dong, I'm with you on we can not quit exporting but I don't know if you believe that is what I'm saying or you just threw that in to add some colour. And your bit about nothing wrong with business being involved...no kidding Sherlock. And the only one interfering with a sustainable shared public resource is DFO. You and I both know there is commercial quota for sale at the right price and my message to you and others is the Federal Gov't should buy enough for a viable public fishery. That's it. A lot of people, including yourself seem to think that lodges, etc. should buy quota. In my opinion that is totally wrong. Anglers such as myself would still be in the exact same situation we are now except we would have to buy the quota from a business as you put it.

Oh, and DFO would not be robbing Peter to pay Paul. the commercial guys sell their quota often, 230 times between 2003 and 2007 alone.

Perhaps it is best that you polish up on your comprehension skills or at least under stand what "I do not support buying quota" means, they are words that I continue to state so don't write full sentences regarding me unless they are real, or I WILL START DOING THE SAME TO YOU.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Man this just goes on and on. No lodge,recreational fisher or guides should buy quota end of story. This thing is totally stupid, and I resent some of the comments I am hearing on here justifying this. All I hear is constant whining me me me! The recreational sector either needs more allocation:

1. To provide fishing opportunities to residents of Canada that fish to feed there families recreational year round.
2. To support existing small business through tourism. That includes guides, lodges etc.

I still can't believe nothing has been done yet. So Ding Dong and a few others how can you justify what Wolf and most of the businesses are feeling right now? What do they tell there clients? Right now because of this stupid issues: no-one knows what going on, and the recreational sector will close down very early. So if you are a guide how can you book trips, or work in a fishing store to stock your shelves with gear. It is easy for commercial sector to sit back, and say that that is OK. How would you feel if that was taken way from you? Lots of local guys are going to lose there shirts because of the greediness. These businesses put way more tax dollars into our community, and should be getting priority and support from the government.

As recreational fisherman I think it was a mistake to have given over the rights to the resource. Again I have no beef with the commercial sector only with DFO again making a big mess. DFO needs to claw back the free quotas from the slipper skippers, and fix it. 12% doesn't work, and giving free handouts to your buddies doesn't work either.

Smiley66

There comes a time of over saturation in any effort made on resource based business, and especially when it is a publicly shared resource. Many times over, during the history of man, businesses have come and gone or re-focused due to the lack of a particular resource. All I am saying is focus on the area that counts "Ottawa & DFO". Taking business away from one established business to give to another established business is not going to happen. The Fed may decide to buy it as "double trouble" makes as a viable alternative, however, the Fed & DFO will not take it away and pass it along to anyone else. This is why I have been so persistent in suggesting to you all to refocus your efforts in looking for the right target. That is as far as I can speak. Don't for one second think that I believe that any of this is fair. Owning fish before they are caught is not a good solution for anyone, other than the commercial fleet, as that system has made them become more accountable and respectful to the resource. In saying that, the commercial fleet owns a greater share and the Fed & DFO are interfering by allowing one fishery a greater proportion of the resource, than is allowing the rest of the public to maintain a reasonable expectation or access or both.

 

[IronNoggin]

... The Fed is not going to change what is currently working for them, at least not until such a time as it is challenged in a way that they recognize. Law & Acts...

Owning fish before they are caught is not a good solution for anyone...

Owning fish before they are caught has been well defined by the Supreme Court of Canada as ILLEGAL. DFO is acutely aware of that. They are just as aware that their bottomless (taxpayer funded) pockets can and will tie up any related court challenges to their system that does exactly that until the vast majority of us are pushing daisies.

Did I actually see you back off on your economics based assertion that guides and lodges should be splintered off unto yet a different sector category? Or simply back-burnered for now?

...In turn, your new assertion also does not apply and will stay.

Oh Contrair mon ami! The fact that you choose to keep your background hidden does very little to support your cause, and in fact creates suspicion regarding your motives for posting what you do. In that I suggest my query to you is very "applicable" and should warrant an answer. If you have nothing to hide that is...

I do agree that the best course of action for all of us involved is to get together on this issue, and force DFO's hand into doing what would benefit both the working fishermen and the recreational sector. That said, I also well understand the barriers that would have to fall to allow that, and am rather uncertain of just how to go about knocking those down...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[Clipper]

Does anyone know of a list or document that details who (person or company) was given the original 400+ halibut quotas and who holds these quotas now? It would also be interesting to know who fishes and who leases out their quota.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Dear Mr. Iron Noggin, please stop trying to make yourself look smart by writing stupid(no you are not stupid & nor do I believe that you are!), I have not pointed out anything new, therefor to try and make it look like I am the idiot for bringing old news forward and making it appear that I think that it is new, does little for you to point it out in that manner. The old news is actually only part of what you can use to move forward. Where there is a hang up, and that I will reiterate, is surrounding the definition of Common resource and Shared resource, many of you are mixing this up, but once you understand it, you'll be able to fix this contentious issue. I am stating that you need to move forward beyond the commercial aspect to develop your solution. Let them own there portion, what ever it may end up at, as it does not matter as Ottawa & DFO will determine that. It is a proven system that works for the commercials & DFO. The sport sector does not need to participate in that style of fishery management regime, as long as all of the other needs have been met prior to.

However in the following scenario, if you arbitrarily take away an established business livelihood from one to give to another, you can bet your prized antlers by setting president, that in the future when my reasonable expectation as a sport fisherman is encroached again, that I will be taking down the "Facilitators". Why, would I imagine this? Well because it's a business taking my shared resource opportunities away from me. So, in that scenario, the real issue was never fixed. Nothing was accomplished as a permanent fix, it is considered a short term patch. I am suggesting that everyone reach for long term goals and solutions that work for everyone.

Late opening: Hmmm, smells like mid to late season business for the Northern Lodge owners. This is set up by DFO to create pressure on the scenario, they want the bubble to burst.

Secondly Mr. Iron Noggin, you can read and take from what I write, what ever you like. I don't need to meet your approval to share my views, thoughts or ideas. I have my own mind and my own opinions, just like you and everyone else does. Read my words or don't, simply take 'em or leave 'em. It's just that easy!

 

[fish4all]

Does anyone know of a list or document that details who (person or company) was given the original 400+ halibut quotas and who holds these quotas now? It would also be interesting to know who fishes and who leases out their quota.

DFO holds the list but there are privacy issues around it being published. Also it would be good to learn a little about the system.
- 435 licenses issued
- due to stock abundance the fleet has rationalized to 135 vessels for the time being.
- every license has a minimun amount on it( i think 700lbs) that at present can not be permantly transferred off
-dfo has no real way of tracking who fishes what quota. That is they don't follow all the lease transactions.
-the single biggest lincense owner is dfo who holds the 17% for FN.

 

[chris73]

Sorry Ding Dong, but what you say is nothing but perfumed BS. Stop blabbering. Say what you want to say but spare us this nonsense.

 

[searun]

Sorry Ding Dong, but what you say is nothing but perfumed BS. Stop blabbering. Say what you want to say but spare us this nonsense.

Agree 150%. He keeps stating he will step up and lay out a list of specific and detailed actions we can take to resolve this complicated issue. I'm trying to be patient, but I'm getting concerned I may die of old age before I see it. Long on generalizations and short on specific and actionable detail.

 

[Clipper]

I agree with the above.

Ding Dong, I've read every single one of your posts and I think it's time for you to get off the pot. I have excellent reading comprehension but I really have no idea what you are trying to tell us in your very obtuse fashion. If you can facilitate a resolution to this seemingly unsolvable situation then please enlighten us mere mortals. We NEED to fix this!

 

[Ding Dong!]

Impatient people demand instant fixes that can only offer a short term patch as an end result of thous efforts; to that you may as well stay your coarse, for you are doing just fine in accomplishing that without our help. I told you three times now that I will offer some ideas when we are ready. What we are working on is not a short term solution and the gravity of the project will take longer to accomplish, but will have Ottawa & DFO at full attention. The process involves the Magna Carta, Common Law & Acts, and of coarse your rights. That is all that I can give at the moment, unlike many of you, we prefer to work in private.

 

[searun]

Impatient people demand instant fixes that can only offer a short term patch as an end result of thous efforts; to that you may as well stay your coarse, for you are doing just fine in accomplishing that without our help. I told you three times now that I will offer some ideas when we are ready. What we are working on is not a short term solution and the gravity of the project will take longer to accomplish, but will have Ottawa & DFO at full attention. The process involves the Magna Carta, Common Law & Acts, and of coarse your rights. That is all that I can give at the moment, unlike many of you, we prefer to work in private.

Old age is creeping up on us, you're killing me, and time is running out. Perhaps your views and eventual advice will be better received if you changed the approach/tone of your posts. I'll attempt to be more patient if the process of getting to your outcome is more gracious.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Old age is creeping up on us, you're killing me, and time is running out. Perhaps your views and eventual advice will be better received if you changed the approach/tone of your posts. I'll attempt to be more patient if the process of getting to your outcome is more gracious.

As I have stated in the past; I hold no issue with anyone. My tone is relative to what I have been given, people ***** at things that cross their paths. Obviously they had to hop over me.

 

[searun]

As I have stated in the past; I hold no issue with anyone. My tone is relative to what I have been given, people ***** at things that cross their paths. Obviously they had to hop over me.

Well my friend, Churchill said..."We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out." Its sometimes better to consider wisely the choice of words that will influence and align others to your way of thinking, rather than cause divisive reactions to the message.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Well my friend, Churchill said..."We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out." Its sometimes better to consider wisely the choice of words that will influence and align others to your way of thinking, rather than cause divisive reactions to the message.

I have been very clear that there is a difference between common resource and shared resource, and there is certainly a distinction where commerce is concerned. I have shared quite a bit of data, albeit in a manor to which one needs to study in order to see the full ramification. I can't give more than I have at this time, just be aware that there is a hang up in the general populous in the area of "common resource & shared resource". One is covered under common law the other comes into force when interfering with the exclusive rights of others or are prohibited by statute. Statutes are covered under the Magna Carta, Law of the Sea, Law of the land, and the fisheries act. Definitions of your use of the resource will show you what opportunities may lay ahead, or not. ITQs are revocable privileges granted by the responsible agent of the state to use a resource that rightly belongs to the general public. Such resources are held only in trust by the government and can not be alienated.

 

[double trouble]

Hey Ding Dong, You remind me of an old friend that recently passed away. Bill always referred to the Magna Carta when bringing up fishing matters, but he also would not lay down to anyone that tried to step on the toes of our public resource.

I agree with you in regards to ITQ's, and the Ministers hand is unfettered but our problem is she doen't care to use her authority, she would prefer one mistake being corrected by another (have the lodges, etc. buy quota). So much for a public resource! The public that access halibut through their fishing licence will get screwed when they choose to use one of the service providers if DFO has their way. DFO seem very keen on the option that would make the service providers buy/lease quota.

That actualluy opens up another can of worms. If DFO did makes lodges etc. buy/lease quota then would they have to use it all season or only after the public fishery closes? I would not be too happy if I take a charter in June and find out that although there is public quota available I have to pay my skipper $ 6.00 a pound, since I can not use my personal licence to record the halibut while on his boat. And I'd be even more upset if I can not go halibut fishing in July unless I go out on a guide boat and pay $ 6.00 a pound. And if I went on a bare boat charter (unguided lodge) would I record my hali as public or would I record it as part of the lodge quota? What would happen if I stayed at a lodge that had to buy quota to operate their charters but I took my boat there and stayed as a rooming guest (that happens up and down the coast all year). The list of problems with DFO's idea of making lodges, guides, and charters buy quota is huge, I've barely scraped it. DFO should just get on with it and return some fish to the public, quit trying to figure out how to screw us and spin it into a good thing. They should ask Premier Campbell what happens when you try to convince the public black is white.

 

[chris73]

There is no way that a system as you describe, double trouble, can function and it's therefore not even worth pursuing.

 

[double trouble]

That was my point Chris, it's like opening Pandora's box!

However, I would have to say that DFO is looking at this scenario as the most likely. All I'm trying to do is point out how unworkable that choice is.

 

[searun]

DD you and I are starting to see this issue from the same perspective. Tone makes things a lot easier to embrace. Agreed, we do have the potential to seek a legal solution. The one down fall to pursuing that option is litigation is extremely cost prohibitive. Even a short trial will cost you $70,000 for a few days in court and that doesn't cover the prep work leading up to trial. So, if we go down that road (if that is your suggestion) we better have deep pockets. I would personally chip in to fund it, and I know a lot of guys would too, so $ isn't going to be the issue so long as we all know this will be a long and expensive process. So, I'm highly interested in hearing the specific details of how you figure we can move this issue along in a positive direction.

DT, I agree - we do not want ITQ's of any kind for guides. While that would benefit me as a guide, I would never want to see us do that to a public fishery.