Sports guides allowed to buy commercial halibut quota.

[calmsea]

I just didn't like the note "I fish for food, my freezer is empty so something better happens". I like eating my catch too but this is not the sole purpose why I go fishing and why I buy a license.

I would never back-stab the sportfishing community by undermining its fight for its right for access for a bit more meat in my freezer.

 

[Clint r]

Says the guy with the full freezer to the guy with the empty freezer.

That's far from what I said. Reread it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with fishing for food. I also enjoy eating my catch just as much as I do catching it. I don't hunt but my buddies do so I eat a lot of venison. Got a problem with that too?

 

[vic-tory]

So we go down the road of buying halibut quota...open your wallets because DFO would love to make it mandatory that you buy salmon quota, crab quota, shrimp on so on. And then guess what...a recent court case proves you don't really own it as the fisheries minister has the right to take it away at their discretion. I think the definition of sport fishing would be a bit more accurate if it stated that 50% was the enjoyment of the experience and 50% was expecting to bring home enough fish to make the effort worthwhile. If one of the two is missing the overall experience suffers and interest will drop off.

ok...keep over restricting yourself on halibut then with zero results on getting more % for years and years going forward. Halibut stamp. Pretty simple.

 

[profisher]

There are people fighting for your right to access more halibut and are prepared to do it years if that is what it takes. They aren't caving in to DFO to buy quota and I think we should support them.

 

[ziggy]

Technically 85% of the quota is being bought and sold, or could be, by its commercial owners already. The problem of granting that commercial ownership has created the current mess we are in. Of course it's not a problem if you are one of the families that rent out their quota!

I do think the only way the government will regain control of the quota is to start buying out the no longer fishing quota holders. In a perfect world the Feds would just say "if you no longer are actually, actively fishing, your quota reverts back to the government". We don't live in a perfect world and therefore the government will likely need to pay for its mistake. That however means that they first off, need to admit they made one.

From the average taxpayers point of view, most of whom will never fish Halibut,it just makes sense that the ones who benefit most, pay the most. Regardless of how we feel as a group, to most Canadians it is the recreational fisherman who stands to benefit from the reallocation of quota. Right or wrong, it's a user pay system.

 

[Whole in the Water]

There is a bigger, more fundamental, point to this discussion. As rec fishers and citizens we should be strongly against any buying or leasing of any fisheries quota. Our ancestors fought hard with sweat and blood to gain the right to access common property resources (such as fish) from the powers that be (then the crown, now our elected leaders who are increasingly beholden to corporate interests). This quota system is complete BS that commercializes our right as citizens to go and catch the fish that belong to every citizen of Canada!

This shouldn't be about filling our freezers, but more importantly about protecting our hard fought access rights. If we go along with buying/leasing quota we will have to pay corporations for the right to catch our fish! Every lodge, guide and rec fisher who buys quota is selling our access rights away for future generations! My 2 bits.

 

[Clint r]

I understand your point(s). Believe me I do. But its not the guys who contemplate using quotas fault If that's the only option left for them. If you want to assign blame, from where I sit it's the fault of anybody who accepts the slow reduction in catch limits with the old "at least we get to keep something" attitude. Thats truly what got us to this point. And that's my two bits worth.

 

[ziggy]

There is a bigger, more fundamental, point to this discussion. As rec fishers and citizens we should be strongly against any buying or leasing of any fisheries quota. Our ancestors fought hard with sweat and blood to gain the right to access common property resources (such as fish) from the powers that be (then the crown, now our elected leaders who are increasingly beholden to corporate interests). This quota system is complete BS that commercializes our right as citizens to go and catch the fish that belong to every citizen of Canada!

This shouldn't be about filling our freezers, but more importantly about protecting our hard fought access rights. If we go along with buying/leasing quota we will have to pay corporations for the right to catch our fish! Every lodge, guide and rec fisher who buys quota is selling our access rights away for future generations! My 2 bits.

Can't disagree but that ship sailed in the 70's when the commercial quota was gifted, in perpetuity, by our politicians of the day! For many on here (not me) our ancestors sold the farm 40 years ago.

 

[profisher]

Wrong...they were gifted the license not the fish!!!

 

[Whole in the Water]

No the ship has not sailed! What is required is a supreme court case to re-enforce our rights to access common property resources that have been established in our legal traditions going back to the Magna Carta. Granted this will take considerable time and money but in the long term it is well worth it for us and future generations. To think it can't be done is erroneous and plays into the hands of corporate interests. We only lose our rights if we give up and do not fight to maintain them.

 

[Clint r]

Hey one more thing. Can I PM my address to one of you guys who say it's not about putting fish in the freezer. I'll pay the shipping on the fish you can send me.

 

[ziggy]

No the ship has not sailed! What is required is a supreme court case to re-enforce our rights to access common property resources that have been established in our legal traditions going back to the Magna Carta. Granted this will take considerable time and money but in the long term it is well worth it for us and future generations. To think it can't be done is erroneous and plays into the hands of corporate interests. We only lose our rights if we give up and do not fight to maintain them.

Well I'll leave that one to youonstitutional lawyerd

No the ship has not sailed! What is required is a supreme court case to re-enforce our rights to access common property resources that have been established in our legal traditions going back to the Magna Carta. Granted this will take considerable time and money but in the long term it is well worth it for us and future generations. To think it can't be done is erroneous and plays into the hands of corporate interests. We only lose our rights if we give up and do not fight to maintain them.

Not being an expert on Constitutional law, I'm interested in what principle is being violated?

 

[Whole in the Water]

So who does own the natural resources of Canada? The Queen? Corporations? Wealthy individuals? Nope, the citizens of Canada!

The following court Supreme Court decision is one common case the highlights that the common property resources of Canada, including fish, belong to the citizens of Canada. The govt. through DFO just "manages" them on the Canadian citizens behalf. The allocation of quota of common property resources is a political/economic decision and ultimately by law it does not trump citizens access to common property resources - in this case for a citizen to go fishing and catch a fish (as long as it does not contravene any reasonable conservation measures).

Ward v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 17

Facts: W took 50 of seals, had a license, but it did not cover this.

Issue(s): Is the fed regulations prohibiting the sale, trade or barter of seals a valid exercise of the fed fisheries power or crim law power?

Ratio: Fed power over fisheries is not confined to conserving fish stock, but extends to the management of fisheries as a public resource

Analysis:
Argue that fisheries act:
*It is about conservation of fish
→ NO – it is regulation of fishery in economic grounds, social, etc – fisheries power extends more broadly
⇒ Fishery is a common prop source – and Minister duty is to regulate/manage/conserve and develop in the public interest (s.43)
⇒ Fisheries under s.91(12) refers to the fisheries as a resource, a source of public wealth

Holding:
Regulation is valid fed leg under fisheries power

 

[Clint r]

So how do we get it back? Pull out of the IPHC and regulate ourselves?

 

[Jencourt]

So how do we get it back? Pull out of the IPHC and regulate ourselves?

IPHC would be the wrong tree to be barking at there Clint. Allocation is a DFO thing.

 

[Clint r]

Thanks. Done deal if it's DFO. They're next to useless.

 

[tubber]

Clint, if you are a fast reader, you should be able to find enough old threads on this topic to last you at least 500 hours of leisure time. It's a devisive issue which has resulted in enough squabbling to drive many worthy contributors away. Everyone wants more TAC, but those that do the work get called out by those that like to complain about how the world sucks. Guess which contributors stay on the forum longest?

 

[Clint r]

Oh yeah I've read a lot of them. Unfortunately they're the same as this thread. No concrete answers just more of the old, get involved or it's about the experience not what you catch. It's so twisted that I'm just asking questions. The whole thing seems shady to me. Somewhere, somehow, someone dropped the ball and I'm just looking for how it was allowed to happen. Someone's responsible, it didn't just happen.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Nothing is a done deal if enough concerned citizens want change! We live in a democracy. If we don't like how things are going we are free to work to bring change. Don't get why rec fishers always look for reasons why things can't change, instead of spending time on making needed changes?

Secondly, in my above posts I am not talking about allocation, this a political/conservation matter. I am talking about common property access of Canadian citizens. This is a legal matter that can impact allocation if the govt. tries to completely commercial access to fisheries (a common property resource) for all citizens. If they try to do this, then citizens need to mount a legal challenge to such a decision. This is my point.

 

[Jencourt]

Secondly, in my above posts I am not talking about allocation, this a political/conservation matter. I am talking about common property access of Canadian citizens. This is a legal matter that can impact allocation if the govt. tries to completely commercial access to fisheries (a common property resource) for all citizens. If they try to do this, then citizens need to mount a legal challenge to such a decision. This is my point.

I understand ,and agree fully with all your points so far. I am sure my endless past posts have shown I share the mindset the the root is in the giving of private ownership of public resources. You are very correct to say that such choices can have an impact on allocation.

In my rushed effort to point out that it is not an IPHC thing to Clint I did in fact confuse allocation with what your post was about.