Leave the existing Pacific halibut quota allocation alone - SUN

[Sushihunter]

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Leave+existing+Pacific+halibut+quota+allocation+alone/4147425/story.html

Leave the existing Pacific halibut quota allocation alone​

By Chris Sporer, Special to The Vancouver Sun January 21, 2011 5:02 PM Comments (1)​

Everyone loves a good fish story. But the recent tale by British Columbia's fishing lodge and charter vessel interests that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will close the recreational halibut fishery mid-season to protect the interests of commercial fishermen is far-fetched.​

The commercial halibut fishery employs thousands of hard working people on fishing boats, in processing plants and in support businesses. The fishing lodge and charter vessel interests are seeking to have federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea alter a long-standing allocation policy, and re-allocate the halibut resource from commercial fishermen to the fishing lodge and charter interests. Such a re-allocation would take halibut away from Canadian consumers who enjoy eating commercially-caught halibut in restaurants or at home. ​

The fishing lodges and charter vessel companies participated in a process that resulted in an allocation policy implemented in 2003. Now that the policy doesn’t give them what they want —increased access to halibut at commercial fishermen’s expense—they have decided to ignore the official policy and have resorted to political lobbying.​

Is this how Canada’s fisheries should be managed? Whoever can wage the slickest lobbying campaign gets to decide how to manage our country’s fisheries?​

Commercial halibut fishermen are ordinary Canadians who support the rights of individual anglers to catch a halibut every so often for enjoyment and to fill up the freezer. But most ordinary Canadians buy their halibut at the grocery store or enjoy it in a restaurant; they can’t afford to spend thousands of dollars to visit a fancy fishing lodge for a few nights. About 70 per cent of the recreational halibut sector is not made up of individual anglers, but rather lodges and charters businesses.​

B.C.’s commercial fishermen have fished for halibut for more than 100 years. They’ve developed the fishery, just like early farmers developed the land. Over the last 30 years, commercial fishermen have invested in reforms to meet conservation requirements, sustain the resource for future generations, and make Pacific halibut a sustainable, healthy seafood product for consumers. As a result of these reforms and costly investments by commercial fishermen, the B.C. halibut fishery became the province’s first fishery to gain Marine Stewardship Council certification, and groups like the David Suzuki Foundation call it one of the best managed fisheries in the world.​

Canadian commercial halibut fishermen are accountable for every single fish they harvest. As noted by Dr. Scott Wallace of the David Suzuki Foundation in a 2008 news release, “…each fish is videotaped when pulled from the sea, recorded in a logbook, counted again by an independent dockside monitor when brought to shore, and then tagged through the tail with a unique serial number to validate its origin and track it through the market.”​

Halibut is going through a period of low abundance on the Pacific coast. Commercial halibut fishermen know low abundance means lower harvests; the fishing lodge and charter vessel industries want to increase their catch at a time when caution is necessary. Protecting the resource must come first, and we all must bear the costs of conservation.​

A set amount of halibut can be harvested each year. If the sports sector receives more, then it comes straight out of the pockets of commercial fishermen, many of whom have mortgaged their houses to buy licenses and quotas and invested in catch monitoring and enforcement. Reallocating halibut to the fishing lodge and charter vessel industry also reduces the share available to first nations communities who have invested in licenses and quota.​

The halibut allocation policy implemented by the minister of fisheries in 2003—and supported by three fisheries ministers since—doesn’t need to restrict access for individual anglers or shut down the season mid-summer. Instead, fishing lodges and charters vessel businesses that see opportunities to expand can acquire quota from Canadian commercial halibut fishermen.

Such programs have been applied in fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic coast and are proposed for the Alaskan charter vessel halibut fishery.

The federal government should stick with a policy 10 years in the making that is fair to individual anglers, to commercial fishermen and to the fishing lodge and charter vessel interests. Otherwise, fisheries won’t be managed on scientific research, economic analysis, policy and process. Instead, we’ll get fisheries management by political lobbying. And that’s pretty fishy.​

Chris Sporer is executive manager of the Pacific Halibut Management Association.​

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun​

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Le...cation+alone/4147425/story.html#ixzz1BjJoc6ee​

 

[Islandgirl]

Thanks for the post sushihunter
'David Suzuki Foundation call it one of the best managed fisheries in the world"
So I think Mr duncan needs to do his research when he pleads conservation...because the rest of us are getting educated now!

The fact that Canada gave 462 people the personal property of 88% of the fish and the other 270 000 of us Canadians that buy a license for the priveledge of fishing only 12 % of the fish sucks.

 

[Lipripper]

While again a far fetched/biased article to an extent...
I think us sporties need to figure out a better way of accounting our catch........ as mentioned in the article

 

[hali hunter]

It says we want to increase our catch,thats not what we want at all.

 

[GLG]

I think us sporties need to figure out a better way of accounting our catch........ as mentioned in the article

Lipripper ever wonder why the commercial halibut fisherman has to videotape, log book enter, count, report over the radio, have and independent observer and serialize every fish they catch? Why cant they just let DFO know how many pounds they land on the dock and be done with it. Why do they have to go through such extremes from getting the fish on the deck until the fish goes to market? You think this a food safe issue or is it an issue for the protection of the Canadian resource? We can trust them right?

GLG

 

[IronNoggin]

The commercial halibut fishery employs thousands of hard working people on fishing boats, in processing plants and in support businesses... Such a re-allocation would take halibut away from Canadian consumers who enjoy eating commercially-caught halibut in restaurants or at home.

And the recreational fishery actually employs more "hard working people" on the water, and on the land. The spin-offs this (Rec) sector creates far surpasses that of the commercial Ladz. A non-point.

Whining about "Canadian'" consumers losing out falls flat in light of the fact only about 35% of their landed catch even remains in Canada. Another non-point.

The fishing lodges and charter vessel companies participated in a process that resulted in an allocation policy implemented in 2003. Now that the policy doesn’t give them what they want —increased access to halibut at commercial fishermen’s expense—they have decided to ignore the official policy and have resorted to political lobbying.

And DFO was told then the 12% was NOT sufficient. That same message has been tossed at them through many processes (SFAB, SFI, SFAC, etc etc) in the years that followed. When adhering to "official policy" and attempting reasonable dialogue gets us NOWHERE over and over and over again, what choice are we left with? I for one detest having to become involved in a political battle. Nonetheless I have chosen to do so. They (DFO) painted both us and the commercial fleet into the corner we now stand in. It should come as no surprise that when repeated reasonable approaches have been so firmly denied for such a long period of time, there is focus now on a different tack to get the proper decisions addressed.
​

Is this how Canada’s fisheries should be managed? Whoever can wage the slickest lobbying campaign gets to decide how to manage our country’s fisheries?

Pot calling the kettle black? Isn't that EXACTLY how they carried the day when the initial allocations were made?
​

Halibut is going through a period of low abundance on the Pacific coast. Commercial halibut fishermen know low abundance means lower harvests; the fishing lodge and charter vessel industries want to increase their catch at a time when caution is necessary. Protecting the resource must come first, and we all must bear the costs of conservation.

Ahh.. the Conservation Concern card again. More smoke and mirrors...

If the sports sector receives more, then it comes straight out of the pockets of commercial fishermen, many of whom have mortgaged their houses to buy licenses and quotas and invested in catch monitoring and enforcement. Reallocating halibut to the fishing lodge and charter vessel industry also reduces the share available to first nations communities who have invested in licenses and quota.

The message all along has been clear - the target is NOT the "working fishermen" who have mortgaged their homes and work damn hard in the fishery to support their families. I am uncertain if this fellow understands that, or is simply using this as a scare tactic to frighten his colleagues.

And again... Ahhh... the Race Card being employed. Funny they hop so quickly to that one when they were so damn determined to ensure the highest dollar for the quotas transferred from them to the FN's. More smoke and mirrors...
​

Instead, fishing lodges and charters vessel businesses that see opportunities to expand can acquire quota from Canadian commercial halibut fishermen.

Sure, buy in to expanding the Privatization of a Common Property Resource. Methinks the turning of that into a Privately Traded Commodity has gone quite far enough thank-you.

Such programs have been applied in fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic coast and are proposed for the Alaskan charter vessel halibut fishery.

He might want to have just a quick check of the allocation ratios for the areas he notes. in almost all incidences these FAR surpass a mere 12%.

Otherwise, fisheries won’t be managed on scientific research, economic analysis, policy and process. Instead, we’ll get fisheries management by political lobbying. And that’s pretty fishy.

The current situation we are in is a DIRECT result of fisheries management by political lobbying. And yes, that is indeed "Pretty Fishy"
​

Easy enough for one who understands the current situation to poke holes in this man's tirade. Not nearly so easy for the every day folks on the street. And while I can counter what he said here, as noted in a related thread, I am now wondering just how to get our message across to the Common Man...
More and more I am seeing references to the "Conservation" concern, the demand that guides and charter operations should be a separate commercial entity to themselves, and more such divisive ramblings. We NEED to be able to counter that in the Public's Eye. The meetings are a good start. Methinks a few more letters to the papers are in order. And I am hoping we can come up with some sort of wide-sweeping educational mechanism to get our REAL message across: All we are seeking is Fair and Equitable Access...

Thoughts on that?

Wondering,
Nog

 

[Charlie]

I personally, until someone can show and prove otherwise, have to believe everyone needs to jump on this 5%!

If you look at IPHC exploitable biomass e.g. “Table 4. Exploitable biomass by area according to various apportionment methods.” You will see IPHC allocates are 20% (which is 5% more) for areas 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3A! I believe that additional 5% allocation would be strictly and solely to accommodate the - “SPORT” sector! Look at the other IPHC allocations, where there is no sport, are 15%. Other words – NO SPORT – NO EXTRA 5%, regardless of which option is used!

If DFO justs allocates that 5% to “SPORT” where it belongs that would equal 5% of 38.350, or 1.9125 million sport allocation! That is almost twice what DFO now allocates the sport sector! I would be glad to send this information to anyone, but it clearly shows in the Table 3, 4, and 6 here:
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/papers/sa10.pdf

 

[Rockfish]

I personally, until someone can show and prove otherwise, have to believe everyone needs to jump on this 5%!

If you look at IPHC exploitable biomass e.g. “Table 4. Exploitable biomass by area according to various apportionment methods.” You will see IPHC allocates are 20% (which is 5% more) for areas 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3A! I believe that additional 5% allocation would be strictly and solely to accommodate the - “SPORT” sector! Look at the other IPHC allocations, where there is no sport, are 15%. Other words – NO SPORT – NO EXTRA 5%, regardless of which option is used!

If DFO justs allocates that 5% to “SPORT” where it belongs that would equal 5% of 38.350, or 1.9125 million sport allocation! That is almost twice what DFO now allocates the sport sector! I would be glad to send this information to anyone, but it clearly shows in the Table 3, 4, and 6 here:
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/papers/sa10.pdf

Interesting Charile, so if I read this right that would mean that the commercial sector in collusion with DFO has been taking an additional 10 % or so of the halibut allocation that actually belong to the sport sector. Even if they give us back the 10 % all they are doing is returning what already belongs to us but was misappropriated. DFO really has created a screwed up unfair allocation system. They really are in bed with the slipper skippers, it is difficult to conclude anything else.

 

[IronNoggin]

...I believe that additional 5% allocation would be strictly and solely to accommodate the - “SPORT” sector! Look at the other IPHC allocations, where there is no sport, are 15%. Other words – NO SPORT – NO EXTRA 5%, regardless of which option is used!

Interesting thought Charlie. Is there any way to verify that is the intent of the IPHC regarding this 5%. If so, we may have an answer to the problem!!

HOPING!!
Matt

 

[Charlie]

Interesting thought Charlie. Is there any way to verify that is the intent of the IPHC regarding this 5%. If so, we may have an answer to the problem!!

HOPING!!
Matt

Someone needs to go back and look at every IPHC annual report and etc, from the beginning - I have not done that; however, again... I personally believe, until someone can show and PROVE to me otherwise, I have to believe everyone needs to jump on this 5%! That almost doubles the "sport" harvest in/for Area 2B!

 

[Jencourt]

hey Charlie.
Please excuse my ignorance to the table mentioned. Is this 5% all ready in the TAC that is determined before the season.If so, then am I correct to assume that it has been thrown into the allocation pot as oh I don't know say "General revenue".before allocation.thus giving the commercial sector 88 percent of that 5 percent?

Thanks;Ray

 

[Charlie]

I personally do believe, until someone can show and/or prove otherwise, do believe everyone needs to jump on this 5%!

 

[Ding Dong!]

Charlie, I personally believe that the sport sector has been leaving fish in the water over the past few years, however this is just a theory that I am investigating. I beg someone [entity] to look at sport quota lease purchases, timing and log book data, and historical sector growth for any anomalies or spikes in the past three to four years, especially where there has been connections, observation or complaints regarding decline in business while the effort appears to show growth and ultimately exceeding TAC. There is an obvious conflict between the message being delivered and the actual end result.

Ding Dong!

 

[Charlie]

I personally do believe, and until “SOMEONE” can show "ME" and/or prove "OTHERWISE", do believe everyone needs to jump on this 5% issue! PROVE "ME" WRONG!

 

[Ding Dong!]

As much as It would be fun to bounce "ËGO's" around, as you, I do believe in my theory too, and until “SOMEONE” can show "ME" and/or prove "OTHERWISE", I will continue to dig and ask for data from DFO and through Access to Information queries. Hopefully for Joe angler's sake, either you, or I are correct.

 

[Gunsmith]

Raise the price of halibut per pound and watch how "conservation minded" the 362 commies are when they are trying to fill their holds with this fish.

 

[searun]

Strongly encourage all to write letters to the Editor of the Sun and your local newspaper in response to these. All you need to do is e-mail to the editor with your address and phone number (very important to include as they will not publish without ability to verify who you are etc.) Here are some of the contact info for Vancouver Sun and Times Colonist:

Letters to the editor; Times Colonist - letters@timescolonist.com

The Vancouver Sun newspaper: sunletters@vancouversun.com

Please take a few minutes to draft and send your concerns to local media. We need to get our concerns voiced where it matters most to political decision makers - this is the public's issue, and they need to know why they will not be able to plan a vacation and catch their fair share of halibut.

Here's my letter:

Dear Editor,



I’m writing in response to the Halibut Quota issue reported recently in your paper.



As an avid sport fisher who has pursued recreational fishing for both Salmon and Halibut my entire life, I feel compelled to address this issue responding to a number of misconceptions widely reported in recent days.



Halibut are a common property resource owned by all citizens of Canada, and should not be reserved for the nearly exclusive use of a few privileged commercial fishermen. Ordinary Canadian anglers and our First Nations Communities should be afforded first priority access to pursue our proud heritage and right to fish. For many anglers such as myself, this is a way of life that we hope to pass along to our children. Unfortunately those hopes are dashed as it appears DFO’s Halibut allocation policy hands our heritage over to commercial interests. Who is standing up to protect the rich heritage of recreational angling to ensure fishing opportunities for many generations of ordinary Canadians into the future?



In 2003, DFO and the Minister of Fisheries imposed an allocation policy which gifted 88% of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) to the commercial fishery, leaving only 12% to ordinary citizens. Prior to this, the recreational fishery was managed ensuring recreational anglers could plan their fishing vacations with certainty they could fish the entire season. Today the current allocation policy means we cannot plan our vacations, as the fishery could be closed at any moment. To illustrate my point, as I pen this letter, DFO still has not announced fishing plans for the 2011 season. How can anyone plan with such uncertainty? With our shaky economic recovery, how can we afford to risk our tourism industry – no doubt with such uncertainty many recreational anglers from across Canada have cancelled their vacation plans. This is a crushing death blow to tourism and B.C.’s economy.



The recreational sport fishery generates many more economic benefits to Canada than does the Commercial Fishery. An estimated 100,000 sports anglers pursuing halibut purchase fuel, food, tackle, accommodation, charters, and vessels on a magnitude far in excess of the 145 commercial halibut vessels actually fishing. In my view, the recreational fishery represents the wisest use of Canada’s allowable catch. Why has DFO by policy placed the vast majority of available catch into the hands of a few at the expense of ordinary Canadians? Shouldn’t the allocation policy protect the fishing heritage of ordinary Canadians first, and allocate excess allowable catch beyond these needs to commercial fishing interests second?



One can only hope that Fisheries Minister Gail Shea recognizes her fiduciary duty to change DFO policy so we provide both Recreational anglers and First Nations priority access to our fish ahead of commercial fishing.

 

[Silver Streak]

Good letter Searun.

 

[juandesooka]

fish lords

In the comments section for that article, "citizen33" made an excellent response, copied below. The concept of a "Fish Lord" is perfect for the slipper skippers ... like the European feudal landowners, gifted land by the king, staying rich by leasing it out to the peasants to work the land. There's an editorial cartoon in there somewhere!

[but thinking about the analogy further ... in feudal times, the king also stayed rich by taxing the landowners ... that's the case for halibut too, commercial sector pays lots in fees and taxes for every halibut caught -- the recreational sector pays license fees but does not fill the coffers quite as directly...so unfortuantely that might be an economic reason for the gov't to leave things 88/12]

CITIZEN 33: "The gifting of Canada’s halibut allocation to a few fish lords resulted in what sports fishers refer to as instant DFO lottery winners. Some immediately sold it for big money, bought themselves a Mercedes and never have to work again. Others lease out their quota for say $3.50 a lb to actual working halibut fishermen. The working fishermen ends up only making $1.50 a lb. but can’t speak out because the fish lords will cut them off. The fish lords and their children can milk their free quota for generations. If we were to take the $3.50 a lb they get for doing nothing off of the cost of halibut production perhaps that halibut meal Canadians eat would be just a little cheaper. Most halibut is exported because the Canadian market is small. The fish lords have a lot of money, pro-lobbyists, political influence and a sense of entitlement. Sport fishers have none of those things but our cause is just, there are a lot of us, and we know how to vote."

 

[sammyslabber]

We want our public resource back in the hands of the Canadian citizens not a group of Fat cats who lease there quota & sell 75% abroad while the avr, Joe Blo can't afford to buy a peice in the local store! We want a fair deal not the one they gifted away .No CUTBACKS,NO REDUCTION ,NO EXTRA $ TO BUY BACK OUR RESOURCE. FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS TO FISH OR WATCH IT GOBBLED UP BY SOME SLIPPER SKIPPER!
"IF THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERMENT ITS TYRANNY,IF THE GOVERMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE ITS LIBERTY"