Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
No problem at all. Its good to know more people are aware of this important common resource issue. Best of the season to you and yours!
Sports guides allowed to buy commercial halibut quota.
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Nice, and as per the info you quoted you have confirmed that the people own the resource and their elected representatives have the duty to regulate/ manage and conserve on our behalf?
Oh and as for rights in the Magna Carta, ask someone from the UK how much access the average citizen has to a salmon stream.
Anyways IMO interpreting the law is like handling wet dynamite, better left to the experts.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yes. I met a young fellow from Germany once who explained their system to me. as flawed as ours is it's nothing compared to what they have to deal with. Kid lives in Germany and had to go to Belgium to catch his first fish. We need to be very careful what we allow to happen here or we'll be in the same boat.
On a side note, took him fishing on a local lake and he was ecstatic to be able to catch and keep what many here would consider bait.
On a side note, took him fishing on a local lake and he was ecstatic to be able to catch and keep what many here would consider bait.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
I agree, handing the fine points of law is better left to the experts. However, citizens knowing their basic rights is something every citizen should know for a democracy to function well.
As for citizens access to fish for salmon in UK streams - all the more reason for Canadians to work to not let it happen here.
Not interested in a long running discussion about how screwed up things are for our fisheries, I recommend focusing our energies in not just identifying the problems, but acting on solutions to the problems.
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
As a shared resource the onus should be on the commercial sector to buy TAC from the Canadian public who own the resource, not the other way around. In a perfect world the resource should be split evenly. If the Canadian public that own the resource don't use the entire 50% they should be entitled to, then the excess could be leased to commercial harvesters that would still make a profit off its sale. That would lead to higher costs at the supermarket, but why should the commercial operators be gifted the harvest of our common resource for free. The timber in the country is not given away to forest companies for free, they have to pay stumpage fees to harvest our timber resources.
Unfortunately, it will take big money to assert our rights as the owners of the resource. A Supreme Court challenge is the only way we will ever see an increase in our share of what the Canadian public rightfully owns. A Supreme Court challenge to the DFO's policies would be very expensive. Although, the case might not actually have to proceed all the way to a final ruling. Just bringing the challenge might be enough to make the commercial fishing interests nervous enough about a negative outcome to cough up more of the TAC. We have nothing to lose with a challenge other than the court costs. The commercial industry could end up with a smaller share and paying dearly for the privilege of harvesting fish from the rightful owners (the Canadian public).
Unfortunately, it will take big money to assert our rights as the owners of the resource. A Supreme Court challenge is the only way we will ever see an increase in our share of what the Canadian public rightfully owns. A Supreme Court challenge to the DFO's policies would be very expensive. Although, the case might not actually have to proceed all the way to a final ruling. Just bringing the challenge might be enough to make the commercial fishing interests nervous enough about a negative outcome to cough up more of the TAC. We have nothing to lose with a challenge other than the court costs. The commercial industry could end up with a smaller share and paying dearly for the privilege of harvesting fish from the rightful owners (the Canadian public).
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think you mean lease TAC to the commercials? If you sell something, it belongs to the new owner to do with it what they wish, which is why we have slipper skippers etc.. If you lease it, they can have the use of it for a limited time and the government can alter who gets what % much easier and if need be take it back when the lease expired.
I doubt there is an easy solution, but I do think the government may at some point have to buy back the commercial gift it foolishly gave away and hold it for the people of Canada
At any rate I think we all want the same thing. Can you imagine what would happen if Jimmy Pattison goes into the lodge/guiding industry? Pretty much could transfer his commercial quota and drive the high end lodges out of business, by offering fish of any size.
Only entity that should ever own is the government to prevent this type of takeover.
I doubt there is an easy solution, but I do think the government may at some point have to buy back the commercial gift it foolishly gave away and hold it for the people of Canada
At any rate I think we all want the same thing. Can you imagine what would happen if Jimmy Pattison goes into the lodge/guiding industry? Pretty much could transfer his commercial quota and drive the high end lodges out of business, by offering fish of any size.
Only entity that should ever own is the government to prevent this type of takeover.
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to my post, if you read it carefully you will see I did state "lease" it to the commercial fishing industry. It's all rather academic anyways, because until one of the fishing groups like the BCWF or or others band together to fight this nothing will probably ever change. Just filing the challenge alone might be enough to spur change.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I was referring to your post. I guess I was mistaken when you said buy TAC. I apologize if you mean't lease! Seems over the course of this thread, buy and lease has been used interchangeably, which may be splitting hairs but IMO are two very different things. Kind of like leasing a car as opposed to buying. Anyway thanks for clearing that up.
GLG
Well-Known Member
One other way to increase TAC is to increase the biomass. There was a time that the biomass was large enough that we had a full season with no size limits. That was when we were at 12% and we even had spare that we leased to the commercial sector. Them's were the days..... The biomass started taking a dive and we got into this mess.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Here is some history on the "halibut war" we had a few years ago. At that time I got involved as a foot soldier and met many folks on this board that lead that fight. There are still a few that post here and when they do it's best to listen to them.
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=25809.0
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Hey I gotta say thanks again. I googled "halibut wars" tons of reading there. Would like to add that if you hadn't mentioned halibut wars I'd still be stumbling around looking for the info I'm after. And I'm a life long fisherman. Most of my life in the interior but still. This is something that should be taught in school.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Yup used to be more halibut biomass before the US pollock fishery (supplies white fish to fast food chains) catches 9 million lbs of halibut as bycatch! How is that sustainable? That is more then the total IPHC TAC for the entire rec sector for the entire coast of from Alaska down to California. Shows you the power that a well funded lobby group has.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I think we all agree that it is vitally important that everyone does what can be done to help maintain and grow the biomass. I would also say that aplies to more than just halibut. As many know, all are connected. That said having even 10 times the fish swimming in the sea does not remove the fundamental,and divisive issue that will continue to undermine our ability to access the resource.
Until everyone realizes that this is about so much more than how many halibut we can kill, private ownership of the resource and things like ITQ management SCHEMES will continue to reduce public access to all species.
Acknowledging that nothing in the post I quoted suggests buying quota, I will say this also . I am and will always be DEAD SET AGAINST leasing and the rec sector buying quota. We have almost all agreed that leasing is divisive, bad for sport sector and plain wrong. having the rec sector buy quota is just another variation of the same thing. More over by doing so we are agreeing to taking part in the ownership program and opening the door to a whole lot more hurt. That door is already open and how wide depends on how much or how little resistance is applied.
That is my two bits.
Merry Christmas everyone!!
Last edited:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more! Wish more folks in the rec sector felt as strongly as this!
Aces
Well-Known Member
I think the majority do feel this way but don't publicize it
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I agree that to be true among those who have a basic knowledge of the situation. there is however a very large portion of recreational fishers that do not. Heck I would hazard to guess that out of 250-300k fishing licenses sold every year there are far more that do not even know we have the SFAC/AB process with volunteers working on our behalf than do. Thankfully those dedicated to making the difference clearly do.
However I do think if we are to make change we need to educate those who do not (no matter how frustrating it is at times) and help grow memberships in the key groups that can ultimately band together to do what is needed to challenge the key issues.
I guess that is why no matter how many times I say I am walking away I never do.
However I do think if we are to make change we need to educate those who do not (no matter how frustrating it is at times) and help grow memberships in the key groups that can ultimately band together to do what is needed to challenge the key issues.
I guess that is why no matter how many times I say I am walking away I never do.
Last edited:
Well then you need to represent all the recreational anglers in an even handed manner. The current retention regulation supported by the SFAC for Halibut means anyone in the Lower Mainland or Interior basically only gets 1 of their six annual halibut allotment plus a ping pong paddle if they go a second day. To get a larger buy in they need to reflect this problem in the the proposed solution otherwise it doesn't really change the logistical inequality of the current setup leaving one to wonder if that is done by design and then further how that then can be considered to represent their interest.
Similar threads
