Halibut - The Hammer Falls
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The word itself comes originally from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia, trust.
The fact that DFO was selling fish pretty much shows they have not held up their end of the fiduciary duty. Not to mention the stock mis-management and reduced access to the resource due to controlled overfishing.
Man I could go on all day stating facts.. But it won't change anything, because the lines have all ready been drawn for the most part. The courts make rulings, then the government doesn't really like what the court has to say so they put it back in front of their own people for "clarification" and as a result we get a watered down version of the original rulings. This is how F/N's achieve progress in this great land. Two steps forward and one step back!
I do not see why our brothers to the south get 50% of the USA TAC and all we get is s#it on for selling our fish? The only thing standing in our way is the people like Jimmy Patterson who would scream bloody murder if the Government of Canada ever gave F/N's 50% TAC. I can just imagine the public outcry when F/N's might make a profit off their resources. Why is there such an objection to us wanting to improve the quality of our lives by utilizing a small portion of the resources within our traditional territories? To have houses that are not full of mold? To be equals with our white peers! To see that our children have better lives than ourselves! I really don't get it other than pure and simple systemic racism.
Man I'm starting to sound more and more like my father every day
Take only what you need.
Is there any thought that the industrialized world was not coming to Canada without the "Whites"? If not the Europeans then the Spanish, if not them, then the Japanese. Canada may have been an extention of Germany if the "Whites" hadn't colonized when and as they did. We have our Canadian forefathers (white, FN, and others) to thank for our very freedom, possibly even our very existence.
The fish collapse is a world wide issue and I don't personally believe the Canadian scene would be any different today without our involvement (in fact maybe a whole lot worse.) All this blame just leads to allow DFO to continue to mismanage the resource that we all hold so dear.
The fish collapse is a world wide issue and I don't personally believe the Canadian scene would be any different today without our involvement (in fact maybe a whole lot worse.) All this blame just leads to allow DFO to continue to mismanage the resource that we all hold so dear.
It's not the FN's resource, it's CANADA'S resource. Last time I checked, I was a Canadian, born and raised here.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
he must not put his personal interests before the duty
To make the resouce CANADA'S would be putting CANADA'S personal intrests ahead of the fiduciary duty. In other words it would be ILLEGAL.
Take only what you need.
P
powder
Guest
FA, you stated that these big corporations are mis-managed,and F/N should be given the bail out money. My thought is and correct me if wrong here, is not Indian and Northern Affairs one of these mis-managed and poorly run corporations?
As much as I'm chomping at the bit to get into this FN rights debate, let's get it back onto the "Upset about Halibut" discussion.
FA, feel free to start a new FN debate thread if you like.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
FA, feel free to start a new FN debate thread if you like.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Latest:
I agree rather strongly with Bill on this one, and will be firing off a few letters of support. Those that feel the same should rightly consider doing the same.
Cheers,
Nog
I agree rather strongly with Bill on this one, and will be firing off a few letters of support. Those that feel the same should rightly consider doing the same.
Cheers,
Nog
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
And would you care to tell us what you see wrong with Bills letter?
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
fish4all
Well-Known Member
In every instance, after the agreement was reached, the commercial sector breached or ignored that agreement. Now your government has spent over a year, reviewing the latest proposal that we jointly put forward and the commercial sector has again breached, and after a year, you reject it out of hand.
The commercial group sat at the table and worked with the sports group, FN, and province. To the best of my knowledge it was the commercials who made the suggestion that it would be a good idea to spread the 1.8mill over 3 years so that an alternate form of funding could be developed. It was only a suggestion and DFO decided to use it.
The amount of Halibut needed to maintain a viable and vibrant recreational fishery amounts too far less than the commercial sector will leave in the water in 2009.
With a 15% reduction in the Canadian TAC do you really see this happening. It is speculation at best. The rec sector needs close to 600,000lbs to stay within last year’s numbers. That is if last year’s numbers are accurate.
The processing industry advised the Commission that they currently have in storage some 10 million pounds of Halibut from last year’s harvest
The minutes from IPHC show that the number used was 5million lbs.
Of the 435 holders of commercial Halibut quota in 2008, only 168 actually fished for Halibut. The majority Halibut quota holders, 267 take this resource that was gifted to them by the government and sit on the beach while they collect rent for a Canadian resource from the few who are actually willing to go to sea and fish. All fish allocated to and caught by recreational fishers are taken by the anglers themselves not by third parties..
The reason that only 168 vessels fish is that many small boats have sold their quotas and now have an empty “L” tab. This is because fisherman that wanted to stay in the business of halibut fishing decided to purchase more quotas to make a viable business plan.
I would consider a paying guest as a third party.
Yours in conservation.
Show me where the sports group has ever practiced conservation. When have they ever agreed to take less fish, reduce their limits with the increased pressure, or even agree to have better accountability.
I have the out most respect for Mr. Otway. He has been an incredible asset to the sports community. I don’t see the point of sending letters that embellish the facts to the point of being ridiculous.
capncrunch
Member
[/quote]
Show me where the sports group has ever practiced conservation. When have they ever agreed to take less fish, reduce their limits with the increased pressure, or even agree to have better accountability.
[/quote]
How do you take less fish when you are alloted ONEfish??? Half a fish ???
Show me where the sports group has ever practiced conservation. When have they ever agreed to take less fish, reduce their limits with the increased pressure, or even agree to have better accountability.
[/quote]
How do you take less fish when you are alloted ONEfish??? Half a fish ???
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
Did sport fishermen agree to one fish? That's the point he's making.
Take only what you need.
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
I did get "Upset about Halibut" when somone tried to claim them as a public Canadian resouce. Why start a new thread when it was mentioned in this topic? This isn't a F/N's rights debate its a clarification.
Take only what you need.
Now you are showing your real flag! You obviously know nothing about the sportfishing community.
1) The whole SFAB is run by volunteers who not only represent the anglers interests but most often the interests of the fish. SFAB has regularly proposed reasonable changes to regulation such as closures and restrictions if warranted by conditions. The problem is that the decision maker often ignores or mutilates the original suggestions. I have witnessed numerous votes during SFAB meeting where reasonable and useful restrictions have been passed by the crowd without arguments. I have yet to see any commercials proposing to close or restrict their fishery.
2) No other stakeholder invests that much effort into rebuilding stocks and habitat.
3) No other stakeholder has so little environmental impact with such a big benefit to the economy.
4) There is a whole catch-and release industry on the freshwater sportfishing side of things. I also know a lot of anglers who now stay away from river-salmon fishing since the stocks tanked - just to leave those few poor boots alone.
5) Besides from the occuring idiots and inevitable bad apples, the sportfishermen in total have an ideological interest in intact aquatic ecosystems and are not based on short-term financial interest since anglers fish for fun and not for money. Therefore it is the only stakeholder group that can actually claim to conduct conservation without a conflict of interest.
This was really a cheap shot and lame try! [xx(]
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Chris73-- you beat me to it. He knows absolutely nothing about what drives sportsfishermen. Out local SFAC lobbied to close Ajax/Achillies Banks years before the RCA stituation hit us. We have worked closely with Puntledge hatchery to make sure the fish made it into and past the hatchery before any river openings, offered to cut our crab limits locally in half until a proper inventory to assure strong stocks was available. I could go on but I am sure that sport fishermen will recognise his BS for what it is.
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
20ft Alumaweld Intruder
fish4all
Well-Known Member
In 2005 the commercials asked IPHC to reduce the Canadian TAC by 1,000,000 lbs. It was rejected on 2 reasons. 1) The FN groups said science should know best. 2) There was no input from the rec sector... because they did't attend.
We have had a 45% reduction in TAC in 5 years and we keep hearing the same bogus stuff. "It's not a conservation issue." "we are not catching more it's just better accounting." "our numbers on the water haven't increased"....."Don't reduce our efforts reduce everybody elses" 30 springs, unlimited halibut, great conservation measures.
Similar threads
