... As everyone knows my thoughts on the ITQ they also know I have suggested that the IVQ would be a more reasonable approach...
Yes, I have occasionally seen your posted support for IVQ's. Again, from the perception of viewing the matter
outside of the effected industry, I can to some extent understand why those in that position may align themselves behind this method. Those
inside however recognize IVQ's as more than a little problematic.
Although I can only answer your questions from the viewpoint of an Area G Troller, I will attempt to do so as it relates to that particular sector...
Q=1 What am I not seeing here? Would this kind of fishery still promote large interest groups to buy up the bulk of the boats and lobby for the lions share of the quota? If so I can see the little guy still getting pushed out and having only the option to work for a quota holder for wages . Not good as his ability to be an owner operator would vanish to the big boyz . Even worse it lessens how many people benefit from the resource as well as puts those large interest groups at the front end. That through political greasing and lobbying, always leads to less than stellar decision making regarding conservation and sustainability.
One of the foremost dangers associated with the IVQ's is just as you have stated. Given the exorbitant pressures placed on our fleet over the recent past (constantly reduced operating quota's, quota re-assignment to FN's and the recreational sector, shotgun style openings, pressured into working through inclimate weather periods, intentional devaluation of the Area Licenses via low-ball "buy-back programs" etc etc) many are now looking to get out. Were IVQ's to be imposed in this situation, the large interest groups you mention would perceive an obvious advantage in acquiring as many vessels as possible in order to garner the largest possible portion of the available quota. This in turn would present to these groups an incentive to purchase said vessels & Licenses at a rate somewhat higher than the current deflated value assigned by DFO. For some owner-operators, this would in turn present the opportunity to "escape" the fishery while actually recovering a little of that which they have put into it over the years. While perhaps good for these individuals in the short term, it has obvious negative implications for the fishery down the road. More than a few would take this route IMHO, with the result that the
Lion's Share of the vessels, and their assigned quota would end up in the hands of those you refer to as the
Big Boys.
Consolidation of the vessel / quota ownership in large private interest hands brings multiple problems, and you have touched on a couple of these. Owner-operators simply vanish, and those working the fishery would be doing so simply for wages. Benefits from the fishery in this situation are consolidated in the hands of those with deep enough pockets to acquire the largest shares, and greatly reduced to both working individuals and the smaller Communities they operate from.
Q=2 If the above is true for an IVQ as it has proven to be for the ITQ, How dose an open fishery protect against one or a few large interests gaining control of it all anyway. JP already owns the seine fleet dose he not?
Under a Traditional Competitive Fishery, the "ownership" is retained by the Crown as "managers" for the rightful owners - all Citizens of Canada. There is no current method to end-run that beyond imposing ITQ or IVQ management systems. Simply enough, the quota is assigned to the fleet as a whole, is prosecuted by those who are properly Licensed and wish to engage in the fishery, and there is no possibility of quota consolidation by any given private interest group.
Mr. Pattison is simply a figurehead for a very large corporate entity - one which he did indeed take a large role in developing, but a corporation (an entity unto itself at this stage) nonetheless. The seine fleet operates under a much different set of management protocols than does Area G. Those protocols allowed the JP corporate entity to procure the majority of ownership of the vessels, and as a result, the majority of their assigned quota. Yes, that entity now does have controlling interest in both.
If the ability to lease or own quota was removed,would it not put everyone on even terms again. Or would we see more small ops never getting quota therefor being shut down?
The ability to lease or own quota as pertaining to the Area G fleet does not currently exist. Everyone already is, as they always have been, "
on even terms".
The same is not true of the northern troll fleet. They bought in to the ITQ system, despite educated warnings of the consequences of doing so. Now they operate under ever shrinking time constraints (they were promised coho to entice them into buying in. What was failed to be mentioned was the fact that the instant WCVI or other "stocks of concern" are encountered at a minimal rate, their fishery is immediately shut down. DFO let them slide on this latter until the majority had come in under the ITQ banner, then began enforcing the noted restriction as soon as they had). Quota's exchange hands frequently amongst the Northern Troll Fleet, and some are actively seeking to acquire consolidations of that. For the private owner-operators, this has become something of a nightmare, as they are rarely afforded the potential of realizing the individual quota share they "own". Most now admit they "made a mistake" by buying into the ITQ system.
As noted above, the current system does not allow for private ownership nor consolidation of the assigned quota - once let, it "belongs" to the fleet as a whole. Under this type of management, those who work the hardest (aka
Highliners) reap the largest rewards for their efforts. Whereas those that choose a more laid-back approach realize lesser dividends from their efforts. IVQ's carry with them all of the negative implications that ITQ's do and beyond. Why should those who work their asses off have to give up any of their access in order to support those that do not follow suit?
One other parameter not so openly considered is the timing of these fisheries. Competitive fisheries generally are of short duration and excruciatingly managed to a fine number. Going to an IVQ system suggests that any wishing to prosecute their own personal quota could drag that out for as long as they wished. As much as I and my colleagues would love to return to fishing the summer months (instead of the dead of winter), methinks the recreational fleet might have an issue with trollers wandering around the grounds through their "peak season". A distinct possibility under the IVQ system.
I consider myself somewhat "lucky" in that my Partner & I are considered "
Highliners" amongst our fleet. We put in one hell of a lot of time, money and effort to get there. I'll be Damned if I'll give that access up simply so those who are not willing to do the same can benefit via reductions in the percentage we take.
Trolling has been a "
Sunset Industry" for many seasons now. For whatever reasons (political methinks)
The Dino has decided to favor the bag fleets, and squeeze the troll fleets out of existence. Bizarre way of thinking IMHO, as we are the most, perhaps
only truly selective fishery going, and the products we produce command the highest prices (value enhanced) at market. Nonetheless, the imposition of ITQ's AND / OR IVQ's
WILL sound the final
Death Toll for this fleet should they come to realization.
Many consider me and my Buddies
Nuts for sticking with what we do. But it is a Sincere Love for the
Way of Life involved that keeps us coming back, regardless of ever diminishing returns for doing so. As long as we are "managed" under a Competitive Fishery model, I will indeed be amongst
The Last Men Standing at the wheel and in the stern of an individually owned and operated West Coast Troller!
Hope this clarifies some of it for you Ray...
Cheers,
Nog