New Halibut Quota April 1 2013

[field marshal]

Mr. Dean, Biggar residents are allowed to harvest B.C. mule deer, elk, and pheasants. I on the other hand am not allowed to harvest those same species in Saskatchewan. I guess we are not owners of this Canadian resource as much as Biggar residents are????---Cheers---Field Marshal.

[Mr. Dean]

Mr. Dean, Biggar residents are allowed to harvest B.C. mule deer, elk, and pheasants. I on the other hand am not allowed to harvest those same species in Saskatchewan. I guess we are not owners of this Canadian resource as much as Biggar residents are????---Cheers---Field Marshal.

2 different resources under 2 different bodies of government.
And that fact (along with the laws that oversee it) is what needs to be understood and accepted when one starts to conjure up solutions.

Federal Law states that this fishery is a common property of ALL residents of Canada.
Hence me stating earlier that Hunting and Fishing on the Pacific can't be compared to one another - The distance between them is light years apart.

[Mr. Dean]

The LGAA's are folding the cards and buying halibut like it was cheese.

Of course they are and frankly, I would be too if the shoe was on my foot: Silly not to.

But that's doesn't mean that I agree w/ DFO's decision - All I'm saying is that who would pass on the opportunity like the one presented?
To do so would be suicide for a profit at the end of season.


In a nut-shell, if you're against the decision and wanna do something proactive about making change, get your ducks in a row and learn the fundamentals around the issues, IF you want your voice heard. Or else it will fall on deaf ears; not out of disrespect but because law trumps all decision making.

And Just because DFO *thinks* it can interpret law with its own made-up dictionary, doesn't mean that there's a chance in hell that a small lobby group, will or can.

[IronNoggin]

Lorne Ol' Chap, I see you repeatedly stating that you are "not anti guide by any stretch", however in every occasion you do so the words that follow strongly indicate otherwise...

Your comparison between halibut fishing and sheep hunting is obviously an apples and oranges thing. However for the purposes of education (for those few who will bother to read it) let's run with it anyway shall we... We'll fill in the discrepancies in your description as we go along.

So, the various management bodies involved determine that BC's safe level of harvest is 100 rams. These agencies then begin the process of allocating those 100 tags.

First up is the First Nations. For the moment we will only consider Food, Social & Ceremonial Access which runs right around 9 or 10 %. Let's split the difference and call it 9.5% which translates to 9.5 sheep tags which come off the top before any further considerations.

90.5 sheep still on the block.

The next priority considered relates to an entity you completely forgot to include in your little assessment. That of course would be the "Buffalo Hunters" or Market Gunners if you prefer. A group that the government has placed second in line behind the First Nations in the the list of Priorities, and in their wisdom (or lack thereof) has given 85% of the remaining tags to... In Perpetuity.
Of the 77 tags this represents, nearly 20% (15.4 tags) of those are automatically assigned to First Nations Market Gunners, upping their realized tally to 25 tags overall. For it seems that although unwilling to even consider such options when it comes to the lowest priority on the ladder (it's coming...) they have NO Issue in directly purchasing tags from the Market Gunners to transfer over to the First Nations.
The remaining 61.6 tags rest Securely in the hands of non-FN Market Gunners.

13.5 sheep remain on the block.

Now for the lowest in the priority list as established by "management" - let's call them the "Real Hunters". Chiefly Residents btw...
And here is where we run into a bit of a crunch, because there are more than 13.5 Real Hunters out there who wish to hunt sheep that year. So management has two options to consider in dispersing these remaining tags - LEH or GOS with restrictions to allow for the greatest amount of participation. While a case can be made for either, the general consensus is that the Real Hunters prefer the latter method...

Of those Real Hunters who wish to pursue sheep that year, they are faced with two options to Git 'Er Done as sheep hunting is generally a fairly expensive proposition (somewhat akin to halibut fishing).
The options they now consider include engaging a Man who owns trucks, horses, equipment, has considerable time on the ground (which of course enhances the odds of success) and is willing to bust his butt to get the Real Hunter the ram of his dreams.
The other option is to personally invest in those same trucks, horses, equipment and to put in sufficient time on the ground to get an inkling of where those sheep may be.
One can argue that either option might just be a little insane, as purchasing the meat from a Market Gunner will generally prove to be a much less expensive way to go. Ah, but for some, it is so much more the experience than simply a steak, and so worth the related expenses...

In this scenario I have intentionally left out "designated areas", "committed access" and the related fees so as to bring the apple just a tad closer to the orange isle. The Real Hunters are left to their own to decide which route they wish to hunt with, and each have the same Right to pursue their tag as the other. Neither is afforded Priority over the other based on their chosen hunt method, and IMHO neither should be penalized based on that selection.

It should come as no surprise that somewhat greater than 50% will choose the guide & outfitter route. It is after all much less of a time commitment, and certainly less of an expense in the overall picture. It should also not come as much of a surprise that those who choose to hunt with the guide/outfitter realize somewhat enhanced odds of success. The fellow they hire is a professional, and they are in fact engaging his years of experience not only save them time and money, but to directly to increase their odds of finding the sheep they desire.

Following along? Let's now take it even one step further. The government now makes a decision wherein the Market Gunners can freely sell their tags - both amongst themselves, and to the Real Hunters with sufficient coin to do so. To some Market Gunners the thought of sipping fine brandy and smoking fat cigars at home (or abroad) rather than actually hunting their own tags is downright appealing. So, they establish a price based on the Maximum the market will bear (this IS after all so much more about Money to them than anything else). And thus if a Real Hunter has deep enough pockets, he can now buy yet another tag. Or two. Or all bloody 77 assigned to the Market Gunners should his pockets be as deep as the proverbial well...

One step further again...

Too many sheep are taken, or they suffer a die-off of some sort. The next season only 80 tags are available.
The breakdown now becomes First Nations FSC: 8 tags; Market Gunners 61 tags; Real Hunters 11 tags.

Ahhhh... But if you don't want to "play by the rules" and have the coin, you - as a Real Hunter - can once again buy your tags from a Market Gunner. The government says so, and some are willing...

Starting to get the drift yet?

What you are suggesting is that the Man who takes Real Hunters under his wing should now be forced to purchase tags from the Market Gunners in order to do so. He is already charging what he must to get beyond break-even, but if forced into your suggestion, will obviously have to charge much more to any Real Hunter that elects to use his services.
This model now begins to discriminate based solely upon chosen hunt method, placing an unfair advantage on those with sufficient coin to either outfit themselves, or buy into the corrupt government/Market Gunner collusion of selling tag allocations.

It's a bit of a simplification I realize, but MUCH MORE akin to what is happening in the halibut fishery than the same scenario as you attempted to present it Lorne.

So now I suggest you ask yourself is your drive to "equal" the playing field between those who can afford the time & related equipment and those who choose the guide as the less expensive way to go? Do you actually wish to drive those who simply cannot afford the former away from any possibility of doing so? Are you suggesting they somehow have less "rights" to access based on their chosen hunt method?

And if that is all so, just how much are YOU willing to cough up to hunt halibut the next time you set foot on my boat??

Wondering...
Nog

[IronNoggin]

The jig is up. The LGAA's are folding the cards and buying halibut like it was cheese.

Nope. Actually NOT Happening! The Vast Majority are holding to their principles.

However I must commend you! Spoken as a true Apologist, or Shill as the case may be.

Methinks you've either carried your angst with outfitters into uncharted waters, or perhaps have a family member or friend in the Commercial Industry?

Regardless... Cheers!
Nog

[Caribou_lou]

Nope. Actually NOT Happening! The Vast Majority are holding to their principles.

However I must commend you! Spoken as a true Apologist, or Shill as the case may be.

Methinks you've either carried your angst with outfitters into uncharted waters, or perhaps have a family member or friend in the Commercial Industry?

Regardless... Cheers!
Nog

The Vast majority has yet to buy their Cheese yet Noggin. Or has yet to advertise it. Either way it's happening as some have called it.
Admitting your wrong is the first step but I highly doubt that will happen. You can join Mr. Dean in that hole!

[40incher]

No apologising here bud! Just fighting the good fight. To bad you can't say the same faker.

You can have "whine' with you store-bought cheese if you like.

Let's see who can kill the last halibut. Seems like that's the way it will end.