Are you happy with the recently announced halibut allocations?

[Whonnock Boy]

Go to the link and vote. Right side of the page.

http://www2.canada.com/courierislander/index.html

[Mr. Dean]

55% YES
44% NO

I guess the commies are quicker readers......

[pro 111]

At least the Minister did not fold in to all the bullshit by the lodge owners. Good decision , just to bad average joe has to be left with one fish per day. The local take home for food boys should be aloud more no doubt. I think if you are not guiding there should be an anuall limit just like chinook. 4 per day 10 per year.
Thats a pile of fish if there is two or three anglers in the family. There are five in my family and we eat around 200 lbs per year. 10 , 20 pounders.

[ratherbefishin]

I'm an ''average joe''who gets out maybe 2 or 3 times a year for halibut and I think a more fair distribution for recreational anglers would be an annual limit[20 would be fine-I only take 3 or 4]-not one fish per day.When you're paying $250-$300 for a 5 hour charter, I don;t think 2 fish is excessive-especially when most of the catch are chickens-and some days we get none.I'd hate to pack up and go just because I landed a 15 lb halibut....but I guess thats what we'll be doing.
I strongly think the present system is wrong- 4 major licence holders in the commercial sector-it should be''use it or lose it''

[Peter Pepper]

Word on the street is crabbing and prawning are next. And the lodge owners won't be invloved. And they where the money and organisation in the sport lobby.
The commercial lobby is well organised, and politically connected.

[22savage]

I think the Minster of Fisheries has sent a pretty clear message to the commerical sport sector that it needs to crawl out from under the skirt of the recational angler and stand on thier own .When you have a few thousand for profit charter boats licking up 69% of the recational halibut quota, it's does not have any benefit the the average mom and pop fisher, who want to get out a couple times a year for some halibut. It also looks like they have provided a means for the commerical sport sector to access more halibut so they can book their charters with certianty, and to be able to grow and invest in their businesses accordingly.

[IronNoggin]

I think the Minster of Fisheries has sent a pretty clear message

Yes, she has. She has made it abundantly clear that DFO fully supports the premise that all marine resources (NOT simply halibut) belong to those they have gifted or sold them to. NOT the Canadian Public at large. Directly contravening a Supreme Court Decision to the absolute contrary. This is simply the first step. Crabs, prawns and salmon are up next. Guess YOU believe it is right for all anglers to have to PURCHASE the fish they catch from commercial enterprises. Stay tuned, unless this is overturned, you (and everyone else who likes to fish with a rod) will soon be forced to pay through the nose to keep anything out of the chuck. Oh, and wait for it... Once salmon hits the deck, that WILL effect all freshwater angling for salmon Province-wide. Really.


the commerical sport sector that it needs to crawl out from under the skirt of the recational angler and stand on thier own .When you have a few thousand for profit charter boats licking up 69% of the recational halibut quota, it's does not have any benefit the the average mom and pop fisher, who want to get out a couple times a year for some halibut.

Same old tired Song and Dance from your sector being played over and over. You might have convinced yourself this is so, but the thousands of anglers who you're playing to largely recognize this as an untrue and divisive tactic.

The Guides and Lodges ARE recreational. As much as any "mom and pop show". Mom and pop either cough the coin to purchase, outfit and maintain a safe ocean-going rig, or engage a guide to do that for them. It is obvious which represents the greater expense to the Common Man. There is NO difference, either pays for their access, according to what they can justify and afford. The idea you banter about poor old mom and pop out there in their little tinny trying to catch their dinner is so far from reality as to be ludicrous. Yes, mom and pops exist, yes they target halibut. But that ain't no tinny they are on when doing so. The vast majority of real mom and pops simply cannot afford such a rig. And that, exactly, is why they engage the services of someone who can fulfill their dreams of catching fish offshore in an affordable manner.


It also looks like they have provided a means for the commerical sport sector to access more halibut so they can book their charters with certianty, and to be able to grow and invest in their businesses accordingly.

Nope. Nice spin though. What they have set up is a system where ANY angler can acquire a License, then lease access from a commercial source. Buying the fish they wish to catch before they are even targeted. This furthers the privatization of the resource, and clearly defines DFO's perception that the resource "belongs" in the hands of a wealthy select few. Illegal as defined by our own Supreme Court.

And before you jump on the bandwagon in this regard, you might want to have a quick boo at what this will mean for the honest Working Fishermen, including very much the mom and pop shows involved in that. The absentee Fish Brokers are damn pleased with this decision as they lick their chops in anticipation of yet another windfall. Prior to Shea's response, the lease price began to climb slowly. Within moments after the release, it jumped... dramatically. And is expected to climb even higher. Thus the system you are suggesting support for has just laid a Royal Screwing on those who actually fish as their bottom line literally drops through the floor. A great many in the industry that I know well are as pissed off over this as any angler. They have a right to be! They are being screwed over perhaps even more than we are. Ah, but the Fish Lords are happy and rolling in more dough. Gotta make you happy as well... I guess... http://fishbcforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

I will be quite surprised if any of the leased quota is actually purchased in any amount this season. There is solidarity amongst those fighting this issue, and NONE wish to see our resource privatized any further.

Time for people to wake up here. If you think this only effects halibut, you are woefully mistaken. The plan is to move this same system of mis-management throughout all fisheries under DFO's "control". Which translates to the fact that if you like to fish the chuck for anything with a rod and reel you had better get used to the idea of paying a commercial interest for anything you might catch. And... wait for it... If you also happen to like catching the odd salmon in freshwater, you are next in line for the same treatment. This is not a scare tactic folks. It is VERY REAL.

Up to you what you do with the information. If the thought of paying a commercial interest for both your access and anything you might catch appeals to you, do nothing. Doing nothing will ensure this happens in your own back yard. If you find this troubling, you might want to have a boo at this: http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63296

As for the "poll" that initiated this thread, it is a cheap polling program the newspaper is using without security and is completely bogus because the voting is not tied to your IP Address so that each address can only vote for a particular topic once. After an initial surge of multiple votes spearheaded by a group of quota holders taking advantage of that loophole, the results are now swinging back the other way. 65% opposed, 35% in favor. And given the nature of the poll's design, is completely unreliable in terms of where the general public's REAL perception lies.

Nog

[22savage]

Who are the lodges and charter sector really fighting for . I would think that when the commericial sport sector is taking 69% of the sport caught halibut quota for profit that you are really trying to grow your businesses on the backs of the recreational angler. Kinda like telling them that your best buddies then screwing them at the same time don't you think.

[CanuckShooter]

Yes, she has. She has made it abundantly clear that DFO fully supports the premise that all marine resources (NOT simply halibut) belong to those they have gifted or sold them to. NOT the Canadian Public at large. Directly contravening a Supreme Court Decision to the absolute contrary. This is simply the first step. Crabs, prawns and salmon are up next. Guess YOU believe it is right for all anglers to have to PURCHASE the fish they catch from commercial enterprises. Stay tuned, unless this is overturned, you (and everyone else who likes to fish with a rod) will soon be forced to pay through the nose to keep anything out of the chuck. Oh, and wait for it... Once salmon hits the deck, that WILL effect all freshwater angling for salmon Province-wide. Really.



Same old tired Song and Dance from your sector being played over and over. You might have convinced yourself this is so, but the thousands of anglers who you're playing to largely recognize this as an untrue and divisive tactic.

The Guides and Lodges ARE recreational. As much as any "mom and pop show". Mom and pop either cough the coin to purchase, outfit and maintain a safe ocean-going rig, or engage a guide to do that for them. It is obvious which represents the greater expense to the Common Man. There is NO difference, either pays for their access, according to what they can justify and afford. The idea you banter about poor old mom and pop out there in their little tinny trying to catch their dinner is so far from reality as to be ludicrous. Yes, mom and pops exist, yes they target halibut. But that ain't no tinny they are on when doing so. The vast majority of real mom and pops simply cannot afford such a rig. And that, exactly, is why they engage the services of someone who can fulfill their dreams of catching fish offshore in an affordable manner.



Nope. Nice spin though. What they have set up is a system where ANY angler can acquire a License, then lease access from a commercial source. Buying the fish they wish to catch before they are even targeted. This furthers the privatization of the resource, and clearly defines DFO's perception that the resource "belongs" in the hands of a wealthy select few. Illegal as defined by our own Supreme Court.

And before you jump on the bandwagon in this regard, you might want to have a quick boo at what this will mean for the honest Working Fishermen, including very much the mom and pop shows involved in that. The absentee Fish Brokers are damn pleased with this decision as they lick their chops in anticipation of yet another windfall. Prior to Shea's response, the lease price began to climb slowly. Within moments after the release, it jumped... dramatically. And is expected to climb even higher. Thus the system you are suggesting support for has just laid a Royal Screwing on those who actually fish as their bottom line literally drops through the floor. A great many in the industry that I know well are as pissed off over this as any angler. They have a right to be! They are being screwed over perhaps even more than we are. Ah, but the Fish Lords are happy and rolling in more dough. Gotta make you happy as well... I guess... http://fishbcforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

I will be quite surprised if any of the leased quota is actually purchased in any amount this season. There is solidarity amongst those fighting this issue, and NONE wish to see our resource privatized any further.

Time for people to wake up here. If you think this only effects halibut, you are woefully mistaken. The plan is to move this same system of mis-management throughout all fisheries under DFO's "control". Which translates to the fact that if you like to fish the chuck for anything with a rod and reel you had better get used to the idea of paying a commercial interest for anything you might catch. And... wait for it... If you also happen to like catching the odd salmon in freshwater, you are next in line for the same treatment. This is not a scare tactic folks. It is VERY REAL.

Up to you what you do with the information. If the thought of paying a commercial interest for both your access and anything you might catch appeals to you, do nothing. Doing nothing will ensure this happens in your own back yard. If you find this troubling, you might want to have a boo at this: http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63296

As for the "poll" that initiated this thread, it is a cheap polling program the newspaper is using without security and is completely bogus because the voting is not tied to your IP Address so that each address can only vote for a particular topic once. After an initial surge of multiple votes spearheaded by a group of quota holders taking advantage of that loophole, the results are now swinging back the other way. 65% opposed, 35% in favor. And given the nature of the poll's design, is completely unreliable in terms of where the general public's REAL perception lies.

Nog

SO, is there going to be a court challenge to this??? Big money can challenge the anti-hst campaign surely sportsmen and women and children can challenge this???

[6616]

For Immediate Release – February 17, 2011

BC Wildlife Federation Calls Pacific Halibut Decision an Insult to its 38,000 Members and Demands Prime Minister Harper Replace Fisheries Minister Shea

Vancouver, BC– BC Wildlife Federation President Rod Wiebe issued the following statement

“Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea’s decision to uphold a 2003 give-away of 88 percent of BC’s share of Pacific halibut (not including First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial allocations) to a small number of commercial quota holders is an insult to all 38,000 BCWF members and the recreational fishing sector in general. In our view an East Coast model will not work on theWest Coast of British Columbia.

“By failing to recognize the legitimate concerns of all recreational anglers to a fair share of a common property resource, the Minister has assured continuing confrontations between her officials and those who really “own” the resource…the public.

“The suggestion by the Minister that recreational fishing guides, lodges and individuals be allowed to purchase/lease ‘quota’ from the commercial sector to extend their season after the 12 percent present quota is reached, is an insult to our members. We will NOT help her increase the wealth of a few individuals by buying back fish we already own.

This precedent setting decision by Min. Shea is particularly hard to fathom as the economic value of sports fishing in BC surpasses the value of commercial fishing. Further, the economic impact of the misguided and offensive decision by Min. Shea to privatize the resource is already being felt as anglers cancel or delay booking trips with guides or resorts as seasons are shortened and limits lowered. The ripple down effect will only grow as other fishing supply and support businesses see fewer customers.

The BC Wildlife Federation is committed to continuing to fight for the rights of the public to access THEIR fish. If this travesty is allowed to stand, undoubtedly the public will see their access to other species such as shellfish and salmon restricted as a few friends of the government are gifted most of the resources.

DFO says they no longer know who the quota holders are. How can they possibly manage the fishery under these conditions?

This is an election issue for the Citizens of BC and our members will make sure it remains in the forefront.
We further demand that Prime Minister Harper immediately replace Gail Shea with a minister that understands the social and economic value of recreational fishing in BC. BCWF members and all other resident anglers have been sold out to a well financed commercial lobby and we will not forget it.

For further information, please contact BCWF President Rod Wiebe (250-240-7685) or BCWF Tidal Water Fisheries Committee co-chairs Ed George (604-530-9481) and Ken Franzen (250-624-6431).



Gary Cleave
Marketing and Development Coordinator
BC Wildlife Federation

[Whonnock Boy]

Who are the lodges and charter sector really fighting for . I would think that when the commericial sport sector is taking 69% of the sport caught halibut quota for profit that you are really trying to grow your businesses on the backs of the recreational angler. Kinda like telling them that your best buddies then screwing them at the same time don't you think.


Two questions. Out of that 69%, what is the percentage of Canadians that are landing those fish? Pound for pound of halibut caught, which sector brings more money into the B.C. economy?

The "commercial" sport fishing sector is a facilitator for those that chose not to invest tens of thousands but still want to partake. It seems pretty black and white to me.

[22savage]

Once again hidding under the skirt of the recreational sector . I don,t know how much the commericial sport sector generate off the halibut fishery nor do I no what the commericial halibut fisheries generate ,but why would they take halibut from one business and give it to another.

[ratherbefishin]

so-how do you determine what constitutes the ''commercial sport sector''?-the big lodges with full facilities and multiple boats and employees or the guy who has a boat and guides for salmon and gets a few halibut trips in ?[my guess is he takes less than 20 halibut a season ]Are they BOTH on the same platform?
But whatever the rationale is-I say put the licences in the hands of the guys that fish from boats-not desks.

[IronNoggin]

Kinda like telling them that your best buddies then screwing them at the same time don't you think.

You are so damned far off the wall on this I am more than reluctant to even bother replying to your drivel any more. You keep on trying on the same old tune over and over without realizing all the strings on your banjo are broken.

The announcement from Shea HURTS Working Fishermen, HURTS the Recreational Sector, HURTS BC's Economy and sets the stage for wide-sweeping privatization of a great many Canadian Fisheries Resources. Try and get that through your thick head, and stop with the constant whining drone of misleading, divisive strategies that no-one swallows except yourself and your few allies.

Sheesh!! :confused:

Not very often I go on a rant like this towards anyone, regardless of their approach. But you are wearing much more than thin at this point. There are MUCH larger issues in our face to focus on rather than your pitiful attempts to drive a wedge between those fighting for a very Just Cause. A shame you are so blinded by what your Masters have you convinced of that you cannot focus on the Larger Picture.

Thanks Whonnok, you are Bang-On. It is perfectly black and white, unless you happen to be wearing blinders. Or you work for the absentee Fish Brokers who are the ONLY true winners in this mess... so far...

This fight is FAR from over. There will be some interesting developments over the next short while. I will post them as they become available. We made made some inroads, but the real battle has yet to be commenced, and will involve those from each and every sector. We are ALL getting screwed here, and most are rapidly becoming aware of that fact if they weren't already.

Nog

[22savage]

If you are making money from it you are commercial operator

[ratherbefishin]

this is a question-not an opinion-''what exactly is the ''tens of thousands '' that the commercial guys made that the ''commercial sport sector'' didn't make but ''still want to participate ''?please explain.....I'm trying to get my head around all the aspects of this issue in order to have an informed opinion

[22savage]

I guess I could say the same thing to you nog .

[Whonnock Boy]

The "commercial" sport fishing sector is a facilitator for those that chose not to invest tens of thousands but still want to partake. It seems pretty black and white to me.


this is a question-not an opinion-''what exactly is the ''tens of thousands '' that the commercial guys made that the ''commercial sport sector'' didn't make but ''still want to participate ''?please explain.....I'm trying to get my head around all the aspects of this issue in order to have an informed opinion

My point is lots of people choose to go out on a charter vessel instead of going out and buying and maintaining a vessel. "Tens of thousands" is what someone might pay for such a vessel.

[ratherbefishin]

well,I guess I fall into that camp-I charter for the simple reason it doesn't pay me to own a boat that is safe enough to run offshore to go halibut fishing the two or three times a year I actually go.But does that mean I should feel happy I can't retain TWO fish-especially when the halibut are in abundance?I would be more than happy with a two fish per day limit and even a 10 fish annual limit[which is WAY more than I take now-and some days we get skunked]

[ratherbefishin]

This might be simplistic but to me this whole issue of licences is a huge cost factor that adds nothing but expense to the industry.I can understand quotas, for conservation purposes,but to have a system where an individual can buy up licences and then lease them out does nothing for allocating the resource-which it should be all about-no matter if you are commercial or recreational.I'd even be happy to pay a head tax -as long as it was the same no matter who caught the fish.Course another issue is when you catch a salmon-there is a cost to stream enhancement or hatchery-what actual cost is there to halibut other than policing?

[Tyee]

You know this is just nuts, why ? So I am part of that 69% great my clients are 87 % CDN
Who are the lodges and charter sector really fighting for . I would think that when the commericial sport sector is taking 69% of the sport caught halibut quota for profit that you are really trying to grow your businesses on the backs of the recreational angler. Kinda like telling them that your best buddies then screwing them at the same time don't you think.

[Sitkaspruce]

I think the Minster of Fisheries has sent a pretty clear message to the commerical sport sector that it needs to crawl out from under the skirt of the recational angler and stand on thier own .When you have a few thousand for profit charter boats licking up 69% of the recational halibut quota, it's does not have any benefit the the average mom and pop fisher, who want to get out a couple times a year for some halibut. It also looks like they have provided a means for the commerical sport sector to access more halibut so they can book their charters with certianty, and to be able to grow and invest in their businesses accordingly.


Who are the lodges and charter sector really fighting for . I would think that when the commericial sport sector is taking 69% of the sport caught halibut quota for profit that you are really trying to grow your businesses on the backs of the recreational angler. Kinda like telling them that your best buddies then screwing them at the same time don't you think.

Geeze 22savage....

What do you have against the lodge & guides who fish salmon up and down the coast??? Did you get fired from one......?

If they take 69% of the catch, how does that affect you?? How does that affect anyone??? The sporties of BC could never catch that 69% anyways, so who really cares who catches it, as long as it is mostly Canadian sportfisherman or employes Canadian residents who guide for those fish. Mom and Pop operations are the backbone of a lot of small communities up and down the coast and to tell them they need to BUY quota from someone who had it granted to them is fundamentally wrong.

As I said in another post, the season runs long enough for EVERYONE to put enough hali in the freezer. It opens March for the Sooke boys and usually closes while we are out chasing moose and deer ( I hope it is the same this year....time will tell)

You are so against them, please tell us how the fishery SHOULD be run, without the babaly gook of them buying their quota.....come up with a solution that ALL at the table will be happy with.

Cheers

SS

[6616]

If you are making money from it you are commercial operator

Maybe that's the way it should be, but technically I don't think that's the case. I'm no expert on this topic, but I'm pretty sure the catch of commercial guides, lodges, etc, comes from the 12% allocated to the sports sector, not the 88% allocated to the commercial fleet and the fish broker quota holders who don't fish, just sell their qiotas.

If the guides/lodges take 69% of the recreation allocation it's actually 69% of the 12% allocated to the sports sector or 8.3% of the total catch, leaving 3.7% of the total catch for the DIY sports fisherman. Is this correct?

Seems to me the issue should not be what the guides/lodges are taking, but the fact that 88% of the catch was allocated to the commercial fleet quota holders...?

[pro 111]

If you could never catch 69% why is the sport sector fighting for more fish.

[Mr. Dean]

6616;

I'm not sure what the guide industry 'takes', but you are correct, their catch IS considered part of the rec allocation.

Which IMO is the way it should be.... The net result is that a recreational fisherman is catching the fish for personal use (feeding family). The guide is there to access grounds and is not reselling the take.

I'm a guy that owns a boat that is capable of accessing the grounds; I lived life in pursuing this 'dream' of mine and made it happen. If truth were to be told, it would be WAY cheaper for me to hire a service instead. And A LOT of fellow CANADIANS do! We can't discount their rights of passage (to go fishing) simply because they care to go about it in a cost effective manner/way.... They are no less a recreational fisherman than I. All we are, are people that are looking for a different experience that yields the same 'net result', which is; to go out and have a fun day on the water, leaving all the stress and worries on shore, and hopefully,,,, catch a couple fish. :mrgreen:

[Whonnock Boy]

If you could never catch 69% why is the sport sector fighting for more fish.

The sport fishing guiding industries take is 69% of the 12% alloted to the sport fishing sector. 6616's math is correct. The guiding industry accounts for 8.3% of the total allowable catch for all sectors combined.

[6616]

6616;

I'm not sure what the guide industry 'takes', but you are correct, their catch IS considered part of the rec allocation.

Which IMO is the way it should be.... The net result is that a recreational fisherman is catching the fish for personal use (feeding family). The guide is there to access grounds and is not reselling the take.

I'm a guy that owns a boat that is capable of accessing the grounds; I lived life in pursuing this 'dream' of mine and made it happen. If truth were to be told, it would be WAY cheaper for me to hire a service instead. And A LOT of fellow CANADIANS do! We can't discount their rights of passage (to go fishing) simply because they care to go about it in a cost effective manner/way.... They are no less a recreational fisherman than I. All we are, are people that are looking for a different experience that yields the same 'net result', which is; to go out and have a fun day on the water, leaving all the stress and worries on shore, and hopefully,,,, catch a couple fish. :mrgreen:

Thanks Dean, I thought that's the way, it was but as you know I'm a Kootenay guy and I'm out of my comfort zone in understanding these saltwater issues. The 69% number the guys are referring to was confusing me.

I love to fish for salmon, snapper, halibut, etc, and I relish eating them, but I don't get to go often and when I do I usually go with a guide since the biggest boat I own fits on the roof of my truck. Without the guides I'd be hooped, thus I support your position on this issue.

Minister Shea's allocation percentages are a severe kick in the groin, but I'm also surprized by the fact that there is commercial quota held by and being sold by guys that don't even fish any longer. I'd imagine if guides and lodges had to buy quota from these commercial "brokers" my few fishing trips could get much more expensive.

[Mr. Dean]

Minister Shea's allocation percentages are a severe kick in the groin, but I'm also surprized by the fact that there is commercial quota held by and being sold by guys that don't even fish any longer. I'd imagine if guides and lodges had to buy quota from these commercial "brokers" my few fishing trips could get much more expensive.

From what I've read, DFO won't be segregating us but rather, making us ALL pay premium. It's their way of mudding up the waters in an effort to divide and conquer. They IMO (DFO) are HOPING that we bring this ideology to the table as a way to facilitate transfer.

True to form..... :(

[Spy]

Time to boycott the DFO! If none of us buy a License come april it would send a clear message!Lets see them police us with no funds!I will not buy a tidal License this year! Unless things change!

[Whonnock Boy]

It's their way of mudding up the waters in an effort to divide and conquer. :(

I honestly don't think it is working, in fact just the opposite.


Time to boycott the DFO! If none of us buy a License come april it would send a clear message!Lets see them police us with no funds!I will not buy a tidal License this year! Unless things change!



I think you would just get yourself into a heap of trouble. In theory it sounds like a good idea but in reality not everyone would know about it and or condone it.

Sport fishing friends and acquaintances that I have talked to about this had no idea this was going on. Our greatest chance of changing this is knowledge, education, and unity. The best thing a person can do is spread the word. Common sense will prevail....... what am I saying, we are dealing with the government. :twisted:

[ratherbefishin]

I really can't see the rationale for penalizing the Canadian tax paying citizen who may not own an expensive boat for the two or three charter trips he chooses to go on-paying $300-$500 for the day-and only being alowed to take one halibut-which will likely be a ''chicken''.Chances are, some days he will go and come home with nothing-so I fail to see retaining 2 halibut is any threat to the resource.I do agree however that an annual limit of 10 or 20 fish would be perfectly acceptable....

[steel_ram]

An annual limit would be acceptable. If it were 10 fish, you'd still get guys taking out their wife, kids, grandkids, friends etc. to load up. I've known a few individuals that have bragged about the 30+ halibut they've taken in a season. That's just plain greedy!

[winchester284]

I'm still trying to get my head around this one.....

No one seems to have a problem with the way sockeye salmon are allocated. After FN get their share the commercial and recreation section get their share of this resource. I think the recreational sector share is about 2 or 3%.

Now the Halibut fishery (which is firstly a commercial fishery just like sockeye) is being allocated with the recreational sector getting their share as well, which is a much larger share than they get in the sockeye fishery, and we have a problem with it??

Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't see a problem, but if I'm one of many then your fight is futile I think. Governments usually make decisions based on votes. I'm quite sure they considered votes in this decision as well....

[Mr. Dean]

I'm still trying to get my head around this one.....

No one seems to have a problem with the way sockeye salmon are allocated. After FN get their share the commercial and recreation section get their share of this resource. I think the recreational sector share is about 2 or 3%.

Now the Halibut fishery (which is firstly a commercial fishery just like sockeye) is being allocated with the recreational sector getting their share as well, which is a much larger share than they get in the sockeye fishery, and we have a problem with it??

Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't see a problem, but if I'm one of many then your fight is futile I think. Governments usually make decisions based on votes. I'm quite sure they considered votes in this decision as well....

Socs are under extreme conservation measures and I think most anglers are just happy to get what the can, when they can.

Different story with Halibut - Stocks are alive and well, we just need some allocations so we CAN go-n-fish.

[winchester284]

Socs are under extreme conservation measures and I think most anglers are just happy to get what the can, when they can.

Different story with Halibut - Stocks are alive and well, we just need some allocations so we CAN go-n-fish.

It's nothing to do with conservation.

Socs are allocated on the same percentage basis between the different user groups whether the sockeye are plentiful (as they were last year) or whether the runs are very low as in 2009. (As you know in 2009 only the FN got a few fish)

The issue is allocation. The recreational allocation is already significantly higher for halibut than for sockeye. Why would the recreational sector demand an even higher percentage of the halibut when they are already getting a significantly higher percentage of halibut quota than they are getting of the sockeye?

[Whonnock Boy]

It's nothing to do with conservation.

Socs are allocated on the same percentage basis between the different user groups whether the sockeye are plentiful (as they were last year) or whether the runs are very low as in 2009. (As you know in 2009 only the FN got a few fish)

The issue is allocation. The recreational allocation is already significantly higher for halibut than for sockeye. Why would the recreational sector demand an even higher percentage of the halibut when they are already getting a significantly higher percentage of halibut quota than they are getting of the sockeye?

There is no sockeye halibut, chinook halibut, cohoe halibut, and so on. Recreational fishermen have different avenues to fish salmon but there is only one halibut. It is a sought after species somewhat like sheep hunting where allocations are a hot topic. Don't be fooled though. Sockeye is not far behind and many sport fishermen don't like being last in the food chain when it comes to these fish.

With that said, I see no problem with having an annual limit. 10 halibut a year is plenty considering their potential size. Maybe even a size restriction to allow the females to do their job. Going back to two a day, three possession would go a long ways to appease the average Joe.

[Sitkaspruce]

But it does have something to do with conservation with respect to Socks.

When there is a run like last year, the % taken by rec anglers was a lot higher than the 2% you say, and just like halibut, DFO really has no idea what gets caught. Hell MOE knows more about muledeer pops in BC than DFO knows about what was caught by rec anglers.:wink:

Halibut are not under any conservation concerns, there is no reason not to have a season of two/day, 4 per possession. The restrictions come from the 12% allocated to rec fishers, not conservation concerns.

And other than possibly Walleye, there is no better tasting whitefish. For socks, you can substitute springs, coho, chum and even lowly pinks and still have a feed of salmon. Not much you can do for halli.

Cheers

SS

[ratherbefishin]

precisely-and when you go on a halibut trip-thats pretty much what you go after-anchor, put out a scotchman and sit and wait-sometimes several hours.If you get your one halibut-you go home-even if its a 12 lb chicken.When you go salmon fishing-as said-you can fish for several species-so trying to compare the salmon fishery with the halibut fishery is apples and oranges.All I'd like is the opportunity to catch a couple of halibut if they happen to be biting -which makes up for the days I when they aren't...
The other question I have is -how accurate is the method they use to report the recreational halibut catch?if its not a creel survey,it cannot be accurate[Ive been told it's a fly over counting the boats and assuming the number of fish caught per boat...,not sure if thats correct or not]

[dawn2dusk]

THe only people winning in this are the commercial quota holders. THere are only a few of them and many lease their quota. THis is a public resource and these funds should be paid to the govt not these individuals who were granted the quota a few years back.

All sportsfishermen (recreational and charters) and the actual commercial fishermen (not the quota holders) need to unite and fight together to bring these quotas back to the govt. so they can re-allocate and keep royalities in-house to put back into the resource management or other public interest.

[ratherbefishin]

yup-I doesn't matter how they slice the the commercial quota pie or who fishes-as long as the 4 quota holders get paid.I totally agree the determining factor should be''use it or lose it''.Its the guys who risk THEIR shirt and sometimes their lives who deserve the quotas-not the businessmen

[winchester284]

There appears to be a lot of misinformation out there.... Halibut allocation is a conservation issue. The International Pacific Halibut Commission sets the amount of fish that can be caught. DFO is only responsible for ensuring that the total catch is not exceeded. The total catch is allocated between the commercial and recreational sector. (FN are actually part of the commercial allocation).

I like a good protest as much as the next guy but I'm still not seeing a valid argument for increasing the recreational allocation. Decreasing the daily catch and possession limit is a common technique used to conserve stocks and is consistently used to control catches. I also don't understand the problem with buying quota from someone in the commercial sector. They have the rights to their allocation, why shouldn't they be able to sell it??

PACIFIC HALIBUT ALLOCATION POLICY -- FACT SHEET

http://phmana.org/pdf/110103_fact_sheet_final.pdf

[22savage]

Halibut allocation down 43% for all user groups since 2006 but no conservation concerns do you think they reduce the quota's for shits and giggles . I am sure glad some of you on here are not managing the halibut fishery then there really would be nothing left for the next generation of fishers commercial or sport.

[22savage]

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/116408124.html

[ratherbefishin]

if halibut stocks are declining-is it the commercial sector and the sport catch that are responsible-or is it the foreign long liners and draggers that are also catching halibut that impact the stocks?If they are-then both the commercial and sport fishery could be cutting back our catch-but it would have little impact as far as conservation is concerned

[Mr. Dean]

[QUOTE]
It's nothing to do with conservation.

Socs are allocated on the same percentage basis between the different user groups whether the sockeye are plentiful (as they were last year) or whether the runs are very low as in 2009. (As you know in 2009 only the FN got a few fish)


I understand that... Personally I don't fish Soc's. I think that the state of the fishery is deplorable and I don't wanna be a part of it. Call it my contribution to the conservation of the species. Because of the state of the fishery, I think many an angler doesn't get all vamped up over it for similar reasons but be assured, there are MANY that do take notice of the point you raised.



The issue is allocation. The recreational allocation is already significantly higher for halibut than for sockeye. Why would the recreational sector demand an even higher percentage of the halibut when they are already getting a significantly higher percentage of halibut quota than they are getting of the sockeye?


Because we've demonstrated a need for it.
The resource is a common property of Canadians. Should we go hungry so someone else, that lives in another country, doesn't?

[Mr. Dean]

With that said, I see no problem with having an annual limit. 10 halibut a year is plenty considering their potential size. Maybe even a size restriction to allow the females to do their job. Going back to two a day, three possession would go a long ways to appease the average Joe.

Conservation measures aren't needed. All we need is for DFO to 'walk the walk' of the Supreme Court ruling.

[Mr. Dean]

TAC is where conservation takes play, not allocation.

[22savage]

[QUOTE=ratherbefishin yup-I doesn't matter how they slice the the commercial quota pie or who fishes-as long as the FOUR QUOTA HOLDERS get paid.I totally agree the determining factor should be''use it or lose it''.Its the guys who risk THEIR shirt and sometimes their lives who deserve the quotas-not the businessmen

Are you saying the all the commmercial quota is held by four people if your going to post that type of bs you really don't have any idea what your talking about.

[ratherbefishin]

frankly,I don't believe a licence or a quota should have ANY dollar value to it-it should be a pure management tool and thats that.All it does is add to the overhead of a fishermans already soaring expenses but it doesnt catch fish

[Johnnybear]

frankly,I don't believe a licence or a quota should have ANY dollar value to it-it should be a pure management tool and thats that.All it does is add to the overhead of a fishermans already soaring expenses but it doesnt catch fish

Great post right there. That would sure fix alot of the problems and put the fish first and the fish brokers or slipper skippers out of business.

Fish is only owned once it is caught.

[ratherbefishin]

maybe they should go to a LEH system ,like we do when we want to hunt an area or species.....and the criteria for APPLYING would be USING.This way the quota could be pretermined,every applicant would have as good a chance as the next one and it would end this huge ''cost'' factor of leasing a quota...who stands to lose?-only the ''businessmen'' who had the money to buy up the quotas which were free in the first place....

[IronNoggin]

Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't see a problem, but if I'm one of many then your fight is futile I think. Governments usually make decisions based on votes. I'm quite sure they considered votes in this decision as well....

I'm quite certain they didn't.

As for voting out the current conservative government entirely, I do not believe that will happen. That said, there WILL be some major ramifications for pretty well every single Conservative MP on the Island (many are under the gun right now, and that pressure will increase right up to and through the next election). That list includes a good number of MP's and a couple of senior ministers - each of which whose riding can (and likely will be) easily consumed by the votes generated by understandably upset anglers. Even in Minister Shea's PEI riding, which she only won by 55 votes last time around, there is a groundswell of anger over this and other (more regional) actions she has undertaken in her role as of Minster of late. So I do expect there will be some pretty heavy prices paid for this latest decision of her Government to further the privatization of what are largely held to be Common Property Resources.

Will that be sufficient to topple the Conservatives? Jury is still out in that regard. But given their "Minority" standing as a Government, it should very much be a cause for concern for them. Not simply swept under the rug believing that anglers cannot, nor will not become organized to any real degree. They apparently appear to have found just the issue to do just that. Believing it will soon pass over or be forgotten is also a mistake on their part. It is of sufficient significance to a great many not to simply go away.

Regardless of the election outcome, the level of angst amongst the recreational sector has never been elevated as much as the Conservatives' actions regarding this matter. If nothing else, they WILL be paying a price in many coastal ridings, and methinks they would be even more the Fools to ignore that message.


Halibut allocation is a conservation issue.

Not really. According to the IPHC's figures, the "standing biomass" is currently at it's highest level in a great many years. And there are a couple of VERY strong year classes now working their way up through the population. It is the "exploitable biomass" that is showing a reduction in most areas. Here in BC that number rose again this year, and the TAC was increased to reflect that. Exploitable biomass refers to size, and while that figure has decreased, it is, and will continue to rise for the next few years.

Allocation is the issue of contention, and simply is not the same as conservation.


I also don't understand the problem with buying quota from someone in the commercial sector. They have the rights to their allocation, why shouldn't they be able to sell it??

The problem with buying quota for recreational purposes from a commercial entity is that this ASSUMES OWNERSHIP of the resource by that commercial interest. The Supreme court has noted this is ILLEGAL. Period.
The commercial interests DO NOT "Own" the resource, it is collectively "owned" by ALL Canadian citizens according to the same Court. What DFO is doing by this action is defying the Supreme Court, while furthering the privatization of our own resources. UNACCEPTABLE!

So, NO angler should have to purchase their right of access, nor pay for whatever their catch from any commercial interest. It is NOT theirs to sell. Again, Period.

The Pitt Meadows / Maple Ridge Meeting is TONIGHT Folks! There is not a better forum for all who wish to become enlightened on this matter, first hand! I hope and trust at least a few of you will take the time to do so!!
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63296

Cheers,
Nog

[Whonnock Boy]

The Pitt Meadows / Maple Ridge Meeting is TONIGHT Folks! There is not a better forum for all who wish to become enlightened on this matter, first hand! I hope and trust at least a few of you will take the time to do so!!
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63296

Cheers,
Nog

On my way!!

[winchester284]

The recreational fishery seems to have accepted less than 5% allocation of the sockeye fishery, yet in the halibut fishery they are looking for more than the 12% allocation they have. While it would be nice to have 100%, is that realistic?

"The problem with buying quota for recreational purposes from a commercial entity is that this ASSUMES OWNERSHIP of the resource by that commercial interest."

On the surface your statement seems to make sense until you look at land ownership in Canada. Most folks don't realize that they don't own their land, they only own the right to use the land. The crown is the actual owner of all land in Canada. Yet people buy and sell their rights to the land all the time.

The same could be argued for buying quota from the commercial sector...... The commercial sector has in some cases been given and in many cases paid big dollars for the right to a share of the halibut quota. That doesn't mean they own the resource, they just own the rights to harvest it. By selling some of that right to the recreational sector does NOT mean that they own the resource.... As far as the supreme court ruling that this is illegal, well you'll have to show me that ruling.....

That's why I suggest that this issue is just a case of the various parties fighting for a bigger piece of the pie. No one is hard done by here. It's just that it would be nice to have a bigger piece of the pie..... particularly if you don't have to pay for it. :-|

[bogman]

The recreational fishery seems to have accepted less than 5% allocation of the sockeye fishery, yet in the halibut fishery they are looking for more than the 12% allocation they have. While it would be nice to have 100%, is that realistic?

"The problem with buying quota for recreational purposes from a commercial entity is that this ASSUMES OWNERSHIP of the resource by that commercial interest."

On the surface your statement seems to make sense until you look at land ownership in Canada. Most folks don't realize that they don't own their land, they only own the right to use the land. The crown is the actual owner of all land in Canada. Yet people buy and sell their rights to the land all the time.

The same could be argued for buying quota from the commercial sector...... The commercial sector has in some cases been given and in many cases paid big dollars for the right to a share of the halibut quota. That doesn't mean they own the resource, they just own the rights to harvest it. By selling some of that right to the recreational sector does NOT mean that they own the resource.... As far as the supreme court ruling that this is illegal, well you'll have to show me that ruling.....

That's why I suggest that this issue is just a case of the various parties fighting for a bigger piece of the pie. No one is hard done by here. It's just that it would be nice to have a bigger piece of the pie..... particularly if you don't have to pay for it. :-|


Finally,Just a little common sense here:-D Well said winchester

[Whonnock Boy]

Just a question for you Winchester, more of a rhetorical one at that. Now that there is a smaller pie to divide between all sectors, where have all the halibut gone? I'll tell you. Into the bank accounts of all of the commercial halibut fisherman. You, I am assuming that you are a commercial fisherman, have taken, and taken, and taken until there is little to give. Now that you have depleted the resource to where it is today you cannot accept the fact that it was the commercial sector that got us to this point in the first place. Accept responsibility for your actions, accept that it is time to SHARE the resource. You have had your heyday, time to suck it up and give in a little because that is all the recreational sector is asking for.

[Spy]

Just a question for you Winchester, more of a rhetorical one at that. Now that there is a smaller pie to divide between all sectors, where have all the halibut gone? I'll tell you. Into the bank accounts of all of the commercial halibut fisherman. You, I am assuming that you are a commercial fisherman, have taken, and taken, and taken until there is little to give. Now that you have depleted the resource to where it is today you cannot accept the fact that it was the commercial sector that got us to this point in the first place. Accept responsibility for your actions, accept that it is time to SHARE the resource. You have had your heyday, time to suck it up and give in a little because that is all the recreational sector is asking for.

X2 agreed I see the commercials are playing a new game! They have raised the price $$$ of halibut blaming the sports fishermen for price rise!:confused:Its all a big game they are trying to get the public against the sport fishermen!:twisted:Warning of another price hike if they have to share the quota! Fear mongers!:twisted:
This fight is only in the first round & is going to get real nasty!

[Sleep Robber]

Just a question for you Winchester, more of a rhetorical one at that. Now that there is a smaller pie to divide between all sectors, where have all the halibut gone? I'll tell you. Into the bank accounts of all of the commercial halibut fisherman. You, I am assuming that you are a commercial fisherman, have taken, and taken, and taken until there is little to give. Now that you have depleted the resource to where it is today you cannot accept the fact that it was the commercial sector that got us to this point in the first place. Accept responsibility for your actions, accept that it is time to SHARE the resource. You have had your heyday, time to suck it up and give in a little because that is all the recreational sector is asking for.

Sad to see people like this posting absolute bullshit, they obviously have no knowledge of the fishery and are just crying the blues.

The stocks are far from being depleted, I'm a commercial halibut fisherman and I'm not rolling in cash, and it actually wouldn't bother me a bit to see a 80% - 20% split as I consider myself an avid sports fisherman as well and enjoy my time with rod in hand. Guys like this think that we all make a ton out there ??, ha ,,, get a grip on reality buddy, do some research before you go and post nonsense.

[Whonnock Boy]

Sad to see people like this posting absolute bullshit, they obviously have no knowledge of the fishery and are just crying the blues.

I guess the truth hurts. Answer the question then if you think or know my answer is wrong. Enlighten me.

[Sleep Robber]

I guess the truth hurts. Answer the question then if you think or know my answer is wrong. Enlighten me.

Sorry, I don't see a question, just a bunch of jibberish from another sporty with no idea. I won't waste my breath with the likes of your kind, your not worthy. same goes for Spy, I thought he actually learned something from the last time , but obviously not.

[Whonnock Boy]

Sad to see people like this posting absolute bullshit, they obviously have no knowledge of the fishery and are just crying the blues.

The stocks are far from being depleted, I'm a commercial halibut fisherman and I'm not rolling in cash, and it actually wouldn't bother me a bit to see a 80% - 20% split as I consider myself an avid sports fisherman as well and enjoy my time with rod in hand. Guys like this think that we all make a ton out there ??, ha ,,, get a grip on reality buddy, do some research before you go and post nonsense.

I never said you make a "ton" halibut fishing. Can you honestly tell me that halibut are anywhere near the levels that they were before any commercial fisherman ever fished them? Can you say that for any fishery? No, you can't because the commercial sector raped and pillaged for decades. I said they are depleted but I know there are not conservation concerns. I admit that I do not know everything, but I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I stand by my statement. BTW, thanks for the 20.

[22savage]

Hey Whonnock boy you better hit the grounds early looks like the commercial sport sport fleet is going to hit it hard march and april they should be able to get their share of the sport quota up to 85% or 90%. Do you really think all the bs you spew on here is going to get you any more fish .The people who make the decision have the facts .I find it funny that the commercial sport sector is the only one asking for more halibut when the catchable biomass is in a low cycle. Maybe you will be happy when every one has to pay a lodge or charter boat to go catch a halibut.

[22savage]

Time to boycott the DFO! If none of us buy a License come april it would send a clear message!Lets see them police us with no funds!I will not buy a tidal License this year! Unless things change!

That should give you lots of time to tow your boat around Victoria tying up traffic, while the commercial sport boys are out there licking up the the recreational quota.

[winchester284]

Just a question for you Winchester, more of a rhetorical one at that. Now that there is a smaller pie to divide between all sectors, where have all the halibut gone? I'll tell you. Into the bank accounts of all of the commercial halibut fisherman. You, I am assuming that you are a commercial fisherman, have taken, and taken, and taken until there is little to give. Now that you have depleted the resource to where it is today you cannot accept the fact that it was the commercial sector that got us to this point in the first place. Accept responsibility for your actions, accept that it is time to SHARE the resource. You have had your heyday, time to suck it up and give in a little because that is all the recreational sector is asking for.

Whonnock Boy that post is all nonsense! If you took the time to do a little research (by clicking on my profile) you'd see that my occupation is a financial planner.

Based on that, I suggest you do a little more research on the halibut resource before you comment.....

[ratherbefishin]

I know one thing for darn sure and that is the recreational fleet[or the commercial troll fleet] never decimated ANY species-but BOTH sectors are taking it on the chin for the COMMERCIAL net fisheries that DID.I still wonder what damage the factory draggers did to the halibut stocks-even if they were only ''by catch''

[22savage]

I know one thing for darn sure and that is the recreational fleet[or the commercial troll fleet] never decimated ANY species-but BOTH sectors are taking it on the chin for the COMMERCIAL net fisheries that DID.I still wonder what damage the factory draggers did to the halibut stocks-even if they were only ''by catch''

You need to stop living in the past the commercial halibut fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world .The by catch issues of halibut in the other fisheries has been addressed.

[Whonnock Boy]

Hey Whonnock boy you better hit the grounds early looks like the commercial sport sport fleet is going to hit it hard march and april they should be able to get their share of the sport quota up to 85% or 90%. Do you really think all the bs you spew on here is going to get you any more fish .The people who make the decision have the facts .I find it funny that the commercial sport sector is the only one asking for more halibut when the catchable biomass is in a low cycle. Maybe you will be happy when every one has to pay a lodge or charter boat to go catch a halibut.

No, I don't think the "bs" I spew on here is going to get the rec sector any more fish. I will try to refrain from getting riled up on this forum. You know as well as I do the sport sector is asking for more allocation. That means we would like more of your pie. Remember, this is allocation, not conservation. No I will not be happy when everyone has to pay me or my comrades to go catch halibut. Seeing how 80 to 90 percent of my clients are Canadian, I am voicing my opinion for them.


That should give you lots of time to tow your boat around Victoria tying up traffic, while the commercial sport boys are out there licking up the the recreational quota.

What business I do have is peak season based. This is not helping me book clients at all. Canadian clients or otherwise.



Whonnock Boy that post is all nonsense! If you took the time to do a little research (by clicking on my profile) you'd see that my occupation is a financial planner.

Based on that, I suggest you do a little more research on the halibut resource before you comment.....

My apologies Winchester. I should not assume being that it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". I am up to speed.


You need to stop living in the past the commercial halibut fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world .The by catch issues of halibut in the other fisheries has been addressed.

Yes, finally the leash has been tightened.

[winchester284]

My apologies Winchester. I should not assume being that it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". I am up to speed.



No problem... At times I've made an "ass" of myself without any help.... :-D

[IronNoggin]

Interesting parallel happening in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a9fiaVOsqI&feature=related

I'd suggest all of our Working Commercial Fishermen that have to lease quota have a long hard look at that. Jimmy P. has already started this show in Canada, and with the blessing of DFO will certainly carry the day if nothing changes. You already pad someone else's pocket deeper than your own when you head out and actually fish. Just how much are you willing to bend over in that regard? How high does the price set by the Monopoly go before it is simply no longer worth it?

Wondering...
Nog

[RustyRipper]

Nog, I appreciate your concern for the leaser or perhaps just your observation of the apparant unfairness of the leasing situation. However I don't know that you fully understand the predicament most fishermen who lease quota find themselves in. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel for a minute that it's fair for guys like Jimmy to get rich off hard working people's backs without have to lift a finger other than to sign his name, but without guys who own quota, a lot of people wouldn't not be able to fish. It may not be possible for some people to simply stop leasing quota and quit.

Think about this hypothetical yet pretty damn acurate scenario. Say you would like to fish halibut commercially. okay well first you need a boat, perhaps for your first boat you will settle for an old wood boat probably built just after WW2. that'll run you about 40-60,000$. Now you need a license, depending on the market price and who you buy it from, that will run you about 80-120,000$ for an empty L (halibut license with no quota). Now say you want to buy a bit of quota for yourself, ok well that will be about 37$ a pound, at a return of (average) 5$ a lb. that will take roughly 7 years to pay back, if you catch your quota every year. so say you buy a couple thousand pounds just to have a bit of your own. so 2,000 lbs will run you 74,000$, and that's not very much at all. So in order to make any money whatsoever you're going to have to lease some quota ( a lot of quota) and with this kind of investment (over $300,000 so far with all the gear you've had to buy for your boat to even be able to fish) you're going to have to take whatever you can get even if it means a very uneven split not in your favour. We haven't even factored in costs of monitoring and validating or even bait to be able to catch anything, or groceries and supplies, or crew, or repairs that will happen or fuel etc. etc. Now imagine that you have a family to feed. kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it? this may sound like a depressing example of what it takes to fish halibut but it's the reality and more people than you might think are in this situation. However without quota to lease they would not be able to fish at all and make a living.

I think most fishermen would be all for owner/operator, but that would basically end the era where someone can buy a boat and fish. They would be restricted to either running somebody elses boat for them, or investing millions of dollars just to buy a simple boat with enough quota to make an honest living. by the way even a million dollars worth of quota would only get you about 27,000 lbs of halibut, which would gross about $130,000 a year that after expenses would probably net you about 50-60,000$ a year if you're lucky (after expenses and crew and paying your mortgage on that quota). so just for those of you who think a halibut license is a license to print money, think again, it's a lot of hard work that most of you could never do, for not a lot of money. Just like the lodges in the rec sector, the quota holding investers are making the big bucks and grouping themselves in with the rest of the sector to their advantage.

[Spy]

Sorry, I don't see a question, just a bunch of jibberish from another sporty with no idea. I won't waste my breath with the likes of your kind, your not worthy. same goes for Spy, I thought he actually learned something from the last time , but obviously not.

Just as you stated 20% 80% sounds like a good compromise!:-DThats is all the sports fishermen are asking for no more & no less!
:-D We have already agreed to disagree I apologized, looked at things from your perspective & yes I did learn allot. I Don't want to argue with you or my fellow fishermen when we, already agree " 20/80 would be a good split!:confused:

I do not like the game that is being played out at the moment!
Raising the price of Halibut to prove a point Is wrong! Rubbing the sports fishermen's faces in a their loss is only going to make things worse!:(

[22savage]

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/statement-declarations/2011/20110115c-eng.htm

[GoatGuy]

This has divide and conquer written all over it.

Lots of squawking, not much action. If folks would hold their MP's feet to the fire you would be an impetus for change.

Hopefully a few fishermen can see the red herring in this one.

[IronNoggin]

Nog, I appreciate your concern for the leaser or perhaps just your observation of the apparant unfairness of the leasing situation. However I don't know that you fully understand the predicament most fishermen who lease quota find themselves in.

Good post RR.

Actually I do understand and fairly well. Amongst my closest of Friends are several in the Working Fisherman category - no surprise as I am a commercial salmon fisherman (troller) myself, and many work both fisheries.
And what I am hearing from them is that this current system is blatantly unfair to those who actually fish in that sector as they pay more at each landing into the absentee Fish Broker's pocket than theirs, and their crews for having to lease quota at exorbitant prices. Truly they are as, or even worse affected by Minister Shea's latest decision. The price of lease quota continues to climb, even in the face of the collective recreational sector publicly noting they will not buy in. Should they stick to their guns on this one (and I have very much reason to believe they will) the ONLY one's who will be hurt by the increasing lease prices are those who must do so to maintain their livelihoods. And for that I feel damn sorry. Really.

The best method for us to move forward on this issue would be for the Working Fishermen to join the Recreational Sector at the table to design a fair and equitable program of allocation. This latest volley from DFO very much hurts us both, and many on both sides can easily see that. What we need now is to come up with some type of mechanism that would allow those within the commercial sector that are concerned to join us at the table without fear of retribution. The absentee Fish Brokers have made it painfully clear that ANY who cross the line had best start seeking another form of employ, as any and all quota will be withheld from them as punishment for even speaking with us. VERY tough decision for those Folks to make. On one hand they understand this isn't right and that they, along with us, are getting screwed. On the other to say anything to that effect will result in the loss of their livelihood. Horrible position to be in, and yet another reason those Fish Brokers can so tightly control the reigns.

Lease quota is a necessity for many reasons: bycatch issues, fishing operations viability, etc. I, we, are not advocating for its' complete disappearance. However the current system of Monopoly by Private Interests is where the problem lies. DFO should NEVER have made the quota allocations a lasting and permanent transfer. That created the Monster we now face today. And since DFO created the problem directly, the onus is rightfully on them to rectify the situation.

A Best Case Scenario IMHO goes something like this: Buy back the quota from those that do not actively use it themselves. Use It Or Lose It Policy. The quota that is thus freed could be offered on an annual basis to those that actually do fish at a greatly reduced lease rate. Eventually this type of investment will not only pay itself off, but actually generate revenue directly into DFO's coffers for the management and maintenance of the resource. Split off the required percentage for the FN's and hold that separate for their use only. Split off 20 percent (for arguement's sake, could be perhaps 25%) for the Recreational Sector, and affix a Halibut Stamp much as we have in place for salmon. Again the funds thus generated would cover the costs of the 8 to 13% addition to the existing 12%, and eventually the stamp sales would generate a profit.

That in a nutshell would adequately address the needs and concerns of those actually on the water. Of course it makes way too much sense for DFO to consider it. And of course those that hold their Cash Cows in perpetuity would scream Blue Murder over the loss of their DFO granted "rights". Regarding the latter I couldn't care less. DFO transferred "ownership" over to them without Legal Standing to do so, and continues this travesty to this day. Suck it up, you made your coin on their error, now it is time to return ownership to where it belongs: ALL the People of Canada.

The groundswell continues to grow, likely surprising DFO and the Government that it simply is not going away. MP's, MLA's City Councils, and the General Public across Canada are making their distaste of the handling of this issue known. DFO continues to issue platitudes, while actually aggravating the situation. They truly have found a method to incite disbelief and downright anger amongst many more than they believed possible.

I am fervently hopeful that between the Working Fishermen and the Recreational Sector we can come up with a legitimate, honest answer to this quagmire. We have a little time to do so, and I, amongst many, are working diligently towards that goal. We ask your support in this initiative, for if DFO gets their way, this is but the first of many forthcoming battles regarding allocation.

A related clip, Larry King Live discussing the Canadian Halibut Fishery with Minister Shea: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11217935/

As Loyd Robertson is prone to saying: And that's the way it was...

aYup :evil:

Nog

[22savage]

http://moldychum.vodspot.tv/video/4684709-firefighter-goes-part-time-guide

[RustyRipper]

good theory nog, however I think you have overestimated dfo's power greatly. The buy back idea seems logical, however do you really think dfo has a billion dollars lying around to get rid of some of our fortune 500s cash cows? the salmon buy backs have been going on however they have been bought back with american money. those quota holders aren't going to lose thier quota that way, if ever at all. even if they did, your friends at the reins won't be seeing it unless they want to fork over the cash. If it were given to them, we would be right back here with everybody else whining that they were given something they shouldn't have been. owner operator would be the only way to control the leasing, but then not much would change. all it would mean is the quota holders would have to buy an actual boat and hire a skipper. just a minor expense, really. then you would have skippers and crew leasing their boat for an unfair deal and they would be held by the balls again. also if someone ever went over their own quota by accident, they would be screwed. obviously this would try to be avoided but it does happen, which is when leasing comes in handy. I see where you're going with this but I don't see a way to make everybody happy, and believe me I have thought about this one for some time. Somebody is going to get the short end of the stick in this deal and it may just come down to who has the most money. We basically both have represetitives of our sector that we may not want to be associated with fighting this battle (quota holders vs. lodges) for us, where we don't see what happens. deals are made and business goes on in nicely decorated offices deciding our fate. but perhaps the little guys in each sector can become one voice to go up against both opposition. kind of david vs. goliath. who knows, maybe democracy can work.

[GoatGuy]

Good post RR.

Actually I do understand and fairly well. Amongst my closest of Friends are several in the Working Fisherman category - no surprise as I am a commercial salmon fisherman (troller) myself, and many work both fisheries.
And what I am hearing from them is that this current system is blatantly unfair to those who actually fish in that sector as they pay more at each landing into the absentee Fish Broker's pocket than theirs, and their crews for having to lease quota at exorbitant prices. Truly they are as, or even worse affected by Minister Shea's latest decision. The price of lease quota continues to climb, even in the face of the collective recreational sector publicly noting they will not buy in. Should they stick to their guns on this one (and I have very much reason to believe they will) the ONLY one's who will be hurt by the increasing lease prices are those who must do so to maintain their livelihoods. And for that I feel damn sorry. Really.

The best method for us to move forward on this issue would be for the Working Fishermen to join the Recreational Sector at the table to design a fair and equitable program of allocation. This latest volley from DFO very much hurts us both, and many on both sides can easily see that. What we need now is to come up with some type of mechanism that would allow those within the commercial sector that are concerned to join us at the table without fear of retribution. The absentee Fish Brokers have made it painfully clear that ANY who cross the line had best start seeking another form of employ, as any and all quota will be withheld from them as punishment for even speaking with us. VERY tough decision for those Folks to make. On one hand they understand this isn't right and that they, along with us, are getting screwed. On the other to say anything to that effect will result in the loss of their livelihood. Horrible position to be in, and yet another reason those Fish Brokers can so tightly control the reigns.

Lease quota is a necessity for many reasons: bycatch issues, fishing operations viability, etc. I, we, are not advocating for its' complete disappearance. However the current system of Monopoly by Private Interests is where the problem lies. DFO should NEVER have made the quota allocations a lasting and permanent transfer. That created the Monster we now face today. And since DFO created the problem directly, the onus is rightfully on them to rectify the situation.

A Best Case Scenario IMHO goes something like this: Buy back the quota from those that do not actively use it themselves. Use It Or Lose It Policy. The quota that is thus freed could be offered on an annual basis to those that actually do fish at a greatly reduced lease rate. Eventually this type of investment will not only pay itself off, but actually generate revenue directly into DFO's coffers for the management and maintenance of the resource. Split off the required percentage for the FN's and hold that separate for their use only. Split off 20 percent (for arguement's sake, could be perhaps 25%) for the Recreational Sector, and affix a Halibut Stamp much as we have in place for salmon. Again the funds thus generated would cover the costs of the 8 to 13% addition to the existing 12%, and eventually the stamp sales would generate a profit.

That in a nutshell would adequately address the needs and concerns of those actually on the water. Of course it makes way too much sense for DFO to consider it. And of course those that hold their Cash Cows in perpetuity would scream Blue Murder over the loss of their DFO granted "rights". Regarding the latter I couldn't care less. DFO transferred "ownership" over to them without Legal Standing to do so, and continues this travesty to this day. Suck it up, you made your coin on their error, now it is time to return ownership to where it belongs: ALL the People of Canada.

The groundswell continues to grow, likely surprising DFO and the Government that it simply is not going away. MP's, MLA's City Councils, and the General Public across Canada are making their distaste of the handling of this issue known. DFO continues to issue platitudes, while actually aggravating the situation. They truly have found a method to incite disbelief and downright anger amongst many more than they believed possible.

I am fervently hopeful that between the Working Fishermen and the Recreational Sector we can come up with a legitimate, honest answer to this quagmire. We have a little time to do so, and I, amongst many, are working diligently towards that goal. We ask your support in this initiative, for if DFO gets their way, this is but the first of many forthcoming battles regarding allocation.

A related clip, Larry King Live discussing the Canadian Halibut Fishery with Minister Shea: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11217935/

As Loyd Robertson is prone to saying: And that's the way it was...

aYup :evil:

Nog

Nog, appreciate all the time you put into this.

The decisions come from the top that means elected officials. DFO eee's either do what they think they should do or what they're told to do by their boss.

Have a relative who's been there for 30+ years. Just like wildlife here in BC it's ALL POLITICAL. If you want to drive change start hammering on the MPs and the MLAs.

[RustyRipper]

also dfo's decision are based on whats going to cause the least amount of flack towards them and whats going to cost the least.

[GoatGuy]

also dfo's decision are based on whats going to cause the least amount of flack towards them and whats going to cost the least.

Not towards them, towards the minister and the government. :wink:

[RustyRipper]

Not towards them, towards the minister and the government. :wink:

that's what I meant by DFO. the department. or more directly the minister.

[winchester284]

A Best Case Scenario IMHO goes something like this: Buy back the quota from those that do not actively use it themselves. Use It Or Lose It Policy. The quota that is thus freed could be offered on an annual basis to those that actually do fish at a greatly reduced lease rate.

What you are suggesting is that DFO take my tax dollars and buy up some quota leases, which they should then lease at a reduced cost to "somebody that actually fishes".

Isn't that called subsidy? Why should someone "that actually fishes" get a subsidy with my tax dollars? Why not just just send someone "that actually fishes" a cheque at the end of the season? :confused:



Eventually this type of investment will not only pay itself off, but actually generate revenue directly into DFO's coffers for the management and maintenance of the resource.

I'm not aware of any subsidy system that pays itself off or generates revenue.... this is no different.



Split off the required percentage for the FN's and hold that separate for their use only. Split off 20 percent (for arguement's sake, could be perhaps 25%) for the Recreational Sector, and affix a Halibut Stamp much as we have in place for salmon. Again the funds thus generated would cover the costs of the 8 to 13% addition to the existing 12%, and eventually the stamp sales would generate a profit.

I think you're talking out of your hat on this one.... Show me some numbers. :confused:

In the end you are suggesting that we the taxpayer subsidize the industry! This only adds additional costs and increases my taxes to pay for the subsidies.

Maybe the current system isn't "fair" but I see it costing me a lot less than your "Best Case Scenario".

[ratherbefishin]

if they were serious they could merely make the existing quota's null and void and come up with a annual fishing licence based much like an LEH.Why should taxpayers ''buy back'' something that was free in the first place?I suggest the quotas were never initially intended to be like what they are-a monopoly to fish that went to the highest bidder.Commercial fishermen who actually fish could apply for an annual non transferable quota on a lottery system.I say lets put fishing back in the hands of fishermen...

[RustyRipper]

if they were serious they could merely make the existing quota's null and void and come up with a annual fishing licence based much like an LEH.Why should taxpayers ''buy back'' something that was free in the first place?I suggest the quotas were never initially intended to be like what they are-a monopoly to fish that went to the highest bidder.Commercial fishermen who actually fish could apply for an annual non transferable quota on a lottery system.I say lets put fishing back in the hands of fishermen...

So one would be expected to own a $300,000 rig (at the bottom end) which one would most likely be making payments on, and not be guarenteed to fish? putting it to chance that they will be able to get the chance each year? I'm sorry but that's even less sensible than the status quo.

[winchester284]

if they were serious they could merely make the existing quota's null and void and come up with a annual fishing licence based much like an LEH.Why should taxpayers ''buy back'' something that was free in the first place?I suggest the quotas were never initially intended to be like what they are-a monopoly to fish that went to the highest bidder.Commercial fishermen who actually fish could apply for an annual non transferable quota on a lottery system.I say lets put fishing back in the hands of fishermen...

The same could be said of property in this country. It was free for the taking to the original settlers....

Farmers have been given quotas over the years which are now worth something and can be sold by the farmer...

I see a similarity with the Halibut quotas.

[GoatGuy]

The same could be said of property in this country. It was free for the taking to the original settlers....

Farmers have been given quotas over the years which are now worth something and can be sold by the farmer...

I see a similarity with the Halibut quotas.

What are the similarities and what are the differences?

[22savage]

What I fun funny is how many of you guys think that this quota was just given away . 56% of this quota has changed hands since 2003 that means quota bought by the commercial guys for 25 to 55 dollars a pound hardly a gift in my eyes .16% of that quota has been set a side for first nations fisheries. That would leave about 16% of the quota that was allocate in 2003 that is still in the hands of guys who were busting the asses for years fishing in the derby style fisheries before the quota system was started.Yes there is some quota that has been purchased by large companys to address the by catch in other fisheries namely the drag fleet is this a bad thing. I am getting really tired of the bullshit of 88% and free gifts that a few commercial sport operators are spewing .The people that manage the fisheries have the facts and are not buying into your bullshit. 69% of the sport quota is being taken by the commercial sport sector for profit who is really getting the free ride here .

[winchester284]

What are the similarities and what are the differences?

Similarities...... initially something was given away, and over time the market established a value.

The differences..... land, farmer production quota, halibut quota.

[Johnnybear]

The differences..... land, farmer production quota, halibut quota.

I would have suggested the difference is that farmers raise domesticated animals in a controlled environment where as commercial fisherman fish for a wild and publicly owned resource in an uncontrolled evironment:-|.

[ratherbefishin]

what about the troll fleet that has a huge investment tied up-and can now barely make ends meet?Somehow,I think the average halibut FISHERMAN[not BUSINESSMAN]who has to pay big bucks just to USE his $300,000 plus investment in boat and gear might not object to a diferent allocation method-maybe a base amount plus the right to apply for additional catch might work...

[RustyRipper]

I would have suggested the difference is that farmers raise domesticated animals in a controlled environment where as commercial fisherman fish for a wild and publicly owned resource in an uncontrolled evironment:-|.

I think he was referring to the land, not the animals. the land used to be a publicly owned resource (yes land is a resource) and is now a transferable and profitable property. nobody complains about that though. Another good example is logging rights. are you happy with the allocation of trees? I guess nobody wants a trophy tree though. people need to stop living in the past and thinking about the future.

[GoatGuy]

Similarities...... initially something was given away, and over time the market established a value.

The differences..... land, farmer production quota, halibut quota.

Pretty simplistic approach, no?

[winchester284]

Pretty simplistic approach, no?

Probably is......

It's when individual interests try to redefine how programs should work in order to suit their own needs/wants that things become complicated.

I am on neither side of the issue. I'm just calling it like I see it.

[IronNoggin]

good theory nog, however I think you have overestimated dfo's power greatly.

Actually not. DFO can do pretty well anything they want regarding fisheries, even to the point where their actions are in contravention of the Fisheries Act and Supreme Court Rulings. They hold dominion over this issue, one which they, directly, created. Therefore the onus is rightfully upon them to rectify the situation they very much initiated. All it takes is the political will to do so as they certainly will not do what is right if left to their own devices - simply doesn't fit their rather twisted Agenda.


What you are suggesting is that DFO take my tax dollars and buy up some quota leases, which they should then lease at a reduced cost to "somebody that actually fishes".

There are many methods to secure the required funding. Here's a case in point for you:

If the reclamation of quota requires further compensation to the original people who were actually given that, or those who have purchased quota from them subsequently, so be it. DFO is the entity that carried out that illegal act, and they should be the one on the hook for rectifying the matter. Such compensation should not come from the public tax base but rather from the money saved by eliminating most of the DFO excess baggage in Ottawa. Why is it a department with no fish in the Rideau Canal needs 1 Deputy Minister, 1 Associate DM, 8 assistant DM's, 30 Director Generals, 106 Directors, and another 200 supervisors for 1800 employees in the Ottawa headquarters, particularly when the DG's and lesser bureaucrats are duplicated in each of the four departmental regions across Canada. The calculated cost of this extraneous bureaucracy is well in excess of $25 million per annum in salaries alone. That presents a good starting point in finding the funding required to purchase back what was wrongfully "given" in the first place.

Regardless of just how DFO comes up with the funding, it is very much a mess of their making and as such it falls upon them to make it right. This can only occur when the Department begins to reclaim the quota, and is not advanced by spreading that even further amongst the fishing Community.

I did not suggest that the subsequent DFO quota holdings be subsidized. What I did suggest is that today's exorbitant pricings are based on the maximum the market can bear (although that is already showing signs of breaking down) and fixed by those who carry larger holdings in order to maximize profit. Once the quota not held by active fishermen is back in management's hands, the price could be adjusted to reflect a more realistic value, in accordance with attracting a larger Canadian market for Canadian product. And of direct benefit to those who work the fishery in lowered leasing rates. Such a mechanism could also allow those who require lease quota greater stability in terms of access, in addition to a greater reward for their efforts.

Agreed such a system would take time to implement. Initial expenditures are significant in nature, and will take focused effort to locate and dispense. And of course it will take time for that outlay to be recouped. A matter of years is likely. However the final outcome would be well worth the experience - available quota in the hands of management (where even though I completely distrust this current form of "management" I do believe it rightfully belongs), access at realistic rates for those who require it, a more consumer-friendly shelf price in the marketplace, and sufficient, fair and equitable access for ALL sectors. An additional benefit is that given time, once the initial outlay for quota reclamation has been realized, the funds generated by leasing directly from management would flow directly into management of the stocks, rather than the hands of a few Monopolies where it is lost for such purposes.


Perhaps the little guys in each sector can become one voice to go up against both opposition. kind of david vs. goliath. who knows, maybe democracy can work.

That is the way "democracy" is supposed to work. Unfortunately Capitalism often supersedes that ideal, as it very much has in this case. Collectively we CAN bring this issue to a favorable close, if we are willing to work together to make it so. I believe we can and I, amongst many, am striving towards that end. The ramifications of not doing so unfortunately go far and beyond the single issue of halibut.

Cheers,
Nog

[22savage]

Same old song and dance give me ,give me ,give me . Why are you so against investing in your own business. Why should anybody subsidize your business. I see you guys are already trying to black ball anybody that dosen't share in your tunnel vision to get more for the commercial sport sector for free.

[Trapper D]

as an avid fisherman, i caught 2 hallies last year. about 35 pounds of meat in the freezer. i still have some left , and eat it fairly regular. this allocation will not affect me, and am satisfied with whats allowable. any less then yes it might concern me. also , commercial fisheries , are easier to account for fish taken, for management of the fishery. imo

[IronNoggin]

Same old song and dance give me ,give me ,give me .

Yes, Exactly. Give me the coin or you don't fish. Fatten my already bulging wallet just like all of those in the industry that actually do fish which I charge through the nose for access.


Why are you so against investing in your own business. Why should anybody subsidize your business.

No-one is against investing in their business. Whether that be recreational fishing or actually on the water commercial fishing. What many (including myself) have an issue with is that your idea of "investment" constitutes paying a Private Enterprise for what is rightfully a Common Property. The fact that DFO GAVE that access away (no denying that IS what happened, regardless of who got richer by selling that off) is nauseating. Buying into such a preposterous notion would align us with this immoral and illegal activity. That AIN'T "investing in our own businesses", that is very much buying into DFO's vision of privatization. No Thanks. I ain't fishing to make Fat Men Fatter.

Speaking of "subsidies", can you honestly suggest that is not exactly what happened in the original handing over of the quota to but a select few? I certainly would call that a subsidy no matter how you want to spin it.

And speaking of "same old song and dance", we've been over that ad nauseatum. You can believe the spiel being dribbled down by your Masters, but most recognize that as a somewhat desperate ploy, apparently the only one they are capable of, to try and create division. While we're on that matter, you may want to consider dropping the "69%" Bull$hit. DFO's own figures suggest somewhere in the neighborhood of less than 60% of the Average Angler harvests of halibut are facilitated by riding with a guide. Again, representative of the economic capabilities of the Common Man Angler deciding whether to hire a guide, or buy, outfit and maintain an expensive ocean-going rig.

Just for your information (not that it makes any difference and I am openly questioning whether or not your limited focus can input this or not):
I work for a very small company having sold my own rig many years ago. Two boats is all. I am very much known as a hunter of salmon, and halibut play a very minor role in our operations. Thus, even if things were to remain as they were last year, I, personally, feel little of the pinch. However I am concerned with the way DFO is playing this out (and already expanding that to more of the marine fisheries). I am not prepared to stand idly by while they privatize every Canadian's access, and force them to pay a commercial entity for that access. Whether that be halibut, crabs, prawns, salmon or ANYTHING else. That move is wrong, is immoral and is in fact Illegal. Sorry (NOT) I ain't buying into anyone's perception that somehow that is right. It Ain't. Period.

Amongst those effected by this fiasco are the MAJORITY of Working Fishermen. Many, if not most, already understand they are getting screwed by DFO and their wealthy minions. I do understand there are hold-outs, foremost among them the Fish Brokers who hold court over all the rest. Thus I find myself questioning whether You are one of those, or simply bow to them?

Nog

[22savage]

If you could please post a link or any information you may have regarding the immoral and illegal position you have implied. Just the facts please.

[22savage]

[QUOTE=IronNoggin;865327]Yes, Exactly. While we're on that matter, you may want to consider dropping the "69%" Bull$hit. DFO's own figures suggest somewhere in the neighborhood of less than 60%

You may want to take that up with who ever posted the Pacific Halibut Allocation Policy FACT Sheet on the IHPC web site . Do you think I just pulled the number out my a$$. What are you are saying that you believe the DFO's figures that must be a first for you .

[ratherbefishin]

my position as a sport fisherman is pretty simple-all I want is the right to go out and catch a couple of halibut-which makes up for the times I came home skunked[about half the time]Why a ''couple''instead of one?-for the simple reason that many times you get a small one[under 20 lb] and it would be nice to be able to keep on fishing in hopes of getting one a little bigger-maybe 40 lb.

Halibut is absolutely supurb fresh,good frozen but not as good as fresh,so when I get one, I generally share it with friends and family who like my''free'' fish[they don't figure in the price I pay for my charter]

I really don't see why a daily possession limit of two and an annual limit of 10 wouldn't be more than acceptable to 90% of the sport fisherman.Thats about 6 or 7 more than I've EVER taken

[Mr. Dean]

I see you guys are already trying to black ball anybody that dosen't share in your tunnel vision to get more for the commercial sport sector for free.

Commercial Sport Sector..... There isn't such an entity. Quit bringing up.


When I read things like this post, all I see is greed from one half of a 2 part equation, that's trying to encite infighting amoungst the other party to accomplish THEIR goals.... The goal of not giving up what they feel is "their's" (fish).

[Mr. Dean]

I really don't see why a daily possession limit of two and an annual limit of 10 wouldn't be more than acceptable to 90% of the sport fisherman.Thats about 6 or 7 more than I've EVER taken

I hear ya. I think I've taken 6 in one season. But to be fair, I woulda taken more if I had access AND/OR more liberal possession limits. Also one of them fish entered the tripdigits, a couple were 70 sumthing... We had a nice take and a chest full.

It was all gone come next season and 99% of it was eaten on my table.
I find when it's available, we'll dine on it twice a week, sometimes more and it simply disappears. FWIW, I'm not a big salmon fan; I'll eat it but only when there isn't any 'good' fish left.

Frankly, I'd just as soon for-gave salmon retention in lieu of more halibut possession.


The problem I have with restricting measure (annual limits), is that IMO they should be saved for conservation purposes ONLY.

Now lets pretend there is an annual limit; why not just say, 10 fish? Get them in one day or take 90 - Your choice! There isn't a conservation concern so it wouldn't be 'greedy',,,, but it might f-up long-liners... I'd LOVE to take off for a week and do that! It would address my limited access issues. :mrgreen:

[22savage]

COMMERCIAL-engaged in, bearing on commerce, interested in financial return rather than artistry, broadcasting in which advertisements are included to gain revenue. RE COMMERCIAL SPORT SECTOR.

[22savage]

[QUOTE=Mr. Dean Commercial Sport Sector..... There isn't such an entity

What are they doing charters for back rubs & blow jobs.

[22savage]

Sportfishingbc.com under forums -conservaation,fishery politics and management -thread -halibut experimental fishery post #19 read the last three paragraphs.

[lorneparker1]

[quote=Mr. Dean Commercial Sport Sector..... There isn't such an entity

What are they doing charters for back rubs & blow jobs.


If so i wanna be a charter captain!

[RJ]

I have a question for the guides on here,
obviously some people are trying to cause a rift between the average sport fisherman and guides. How many of your clients are residents of BC? As far as Im concerned residents using fishing guides are in the exact same boat as residents using their own boats and are nothing like hunters and guide outfitters.

I still find it hard to believe that commercial guys figure they should be able to sell me something I already own, as opposed to me getting it for myself.
That would be like selling me a bottle of water and preventing me from taking a drink from the stream.

[ratherbefishin]

I'm local and I fish with a Guide-same guy for over 10 years.I did the math and the number of times I go fishing and divide that by the costs of owning, mooring and maintaining a boat with a replacement value of about $75,000 ,then adding in gas, bait and gear,and paying $250 a trip is worth it for me-and besides all that he's a nice guy ,but yes,even so,I'd like to be able to take home two halibut-which makes up as I said-for the times we came home with nothing...
But am I paying ''my fair share''?-I think so,I'm a BC taxpayer and figure the natural resources belong to ALL Canadians,within conservation reasons,-especially those on the high seas[my tax dollars pay the DFO as well as the next guy]....

[Whonnock Boy]

I have a question for the guides on here,
obviously some people are trying to cause a rift between the average sport fisherman and guides. How many of your clients are residents of BC? As far as Im concerned residents using fishing guides are in the exact same boat as residents using their own boats and are nothing like hunters and guide outfitters.

I still find it hard to believe that commercial guys figure they should be able to sell me something I already own, as opposed to me getting it for myself.
That would be like selling me a bottle of water and preventing me from taking a drink from the stream.

I stated in a earlier post that 80 to 90% of my clients are Canadian. I would say that in general though the percentage is a little lower. Don't quote me on that. I don't have any charts, graphs, or equations to base my opinion on.



I'm local and I fish with a Guide-same guy for over 10 years.I did the math and the number of times I go fishing and divide that by the costs of owning, mooring and maintaining a boat with a replacement value of about $75,000 ,then adding in gas, bait and gear,and paying $250 a trip is worth it for me-and besides all that he's a nice guy ,but yes,even so,I'd like to be able to take home two halibut-which makes up as I said-for the times we came home with nothing...
But am I paying ''my fair share''?-I think so,I'm a BC taxpayer and figure the natural resources belong to ALL Canadians,within conservation reasons,-especially those on the high seas[my tax dollars pay the DFO as well as the next guy]....

That is right. You have just as much right to the halibut as, lets say a guy from Edmonton does. Isn't that right 22Savage. :wink:

[Trapper D]

we might see less illegal back woods canneries now, with the allocations a little less. time will tell, might discourage them americans from coming up here with there boat full of mason jars

[dryflyguy57]

I'm local and I fish with a Guide-same guy for over 10 years.I did the math and the number of times I go fishing and divide that by the costs of owning, mooring and maintaining a boat with a replacement value of about $75,000 ,then adding in gas, bait and gear,and paying $250 a trip is worth it for me-and besides all that he's a nice guy ,but yes,even so,I'd like to be able to take home two halibut-which makes up as I said-for the times we came home with nothing...
But am I paying ''my fair share''?-I think so,I'm a BC taxpayer and figure the natural resources belong to ALL Canadians,within conservation reasons,-especially those on the high seas[my tax dollars pay the DFO as well as the next guy]....

Do you honestly think you deserve a share of any natural resource in this country . Are you prepared to start a mine or bid on a timber sale or would you like to just come along and get a piece of the action without investing any of your money . That argument is not realistic in my opinion . On another point i think the guides and lodges have started something they would rather not finish as the general public has seen thru this attempted fish grab . Can't for the life of me understand why some recreational fisherman are ass kissing the lodges who by the way are saying very little . Why would some of you care that Langara Lodge may purchase quota to guarantee some business . They should have been counting their removals for years but apparently some still haven't figured out how to . Can you say BOB WRIGHT !

[ratherbefishin]

I am NOT ass kissing the lodges[Bob Wright] the guy I fish with is an ''owner operator''.Maybe the lodges should pay a ''boat tax'' recognising they are ''commercial''or even pay for a tag.Maybe a some sort of tax per halibut landed payed at the processor would be a viable replacement for ''quotas'' that working fisherman now have to lease.

And yes, as a Tax paying Canadian citizen I most certainly DO consider its my''right'' to the reasonable share of the natural resources of this country-which is precisely WHY any forestry or mining company pays ROYALTIES-which recognise the natural resources BELONG to the Canadian citizens.And, yes,I DO ''invest my money'' REGUARDLESS of whether I OWN my own boat or HIRE a guide.I also PAY for a fishing licence,just like I pay for a hunting licence or buy game tags .I don';t set the fees-they do.THAT entitles me to fish and hunt and harvest fish and game.Its NOT a '' free ride''

Reguardless of what the commercial sector may say or wish-there is likely to be even MORE recreational demand for fish-people have more discretional dollars to spend and what was once out of reach for the average guy is now within reach-and they want it.Like it or not-tourism,including fishing is taking its place with heavy industry.Our economy is changing rapidly-many manufacturing jobs are gone forever-but replaced by recreational industry that can't be ''exported'' to China.Indeed we have industries today that never even existed 100 years ago[the recreational industry] and industries that existed 100 years ago[canneries all over the coast] that are gone forever.We can't stop change-or market demand,we adapt or die.And to those who say we don;t have to,the Natives couldn't stop the flood of Europeans coming into this country and changing THEIR way of life either

[Mr. Dean]

What are they doing charters for back rubs & blow jobs.


1st; watch your language!
2nd; charters AREN'T harvesting catches. Their clients, whom are SPORTFISHERMAN, are.

And that's the bottom line, net result, common denominator.


Now feel free to continue on down your delusional path....
:wink::razz:

[Mr. Dean]

I still find it hard to believe that commercial guys figure they should be able to sell me something I already own, as opposed to me getting it for myself.


They either want you to buy it off the shelf, or have you pay them for a privilege to YOUR resource.

pay pay pay.......

[RustyRipper]

Originally Posted by RJ http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=866033#post866033)
I still find it hard to believe that commercial guys figure they should be able to sell me something I already own, as opposed to me getting it for myself.



They either want you to buy it off the shelf, or have you pay them for a privilege to YOUR resource.

pay pay pay.......

Gimme a break, you guys are just me, me, me and you try to say commercial guys are greedy. Firstly nobody is selling you something you already own because you don't own it, and anyway it's called fascilitating, just as some of you have said that is all that lodges do. What you pay at the store for halibut is for the hard work somebody had to do to get that fish and then sell it to a middle man who has to market it and then sell it to your supermarket. Do you think you could get it much cheaper by catching it yourself? consider the cost of owning your own boat, or paying 500 bucks a day to catch it. do your math. also consider that maybe not everbody can phisically be on the water, or have the time. I think some of you don't realize how priveledged you already are but yet you want more. whos really the greedy ones.

[RJ]

Gimme a break, you guys are just me, me, me and you try to say commercial guys are greedy. Firstly nobody is selling you something you already own because you don't own it, and anyway it's called fascilitating, just as some of you have said that is all that lodges do. What you pay at the store for halibut is for the hard work somebody had to do to get that fish and then sell it to a middle man who has to market it and then sell it to your supermarket. Do you think you could get it much cheaper by catching it yourself? consider the cost of owning your own boat, or paying 500 bucks a day to catch it. do your math. also consider that maybe not everbody can phisically be on the water, or have the time. I think some of you don't realize how priveledged you already are but yet you want more. whos really the greedy ones.

You are blinded by dollar signs. Sure, I could go buy a pound of halibut for much cheaper, but thats not what this is about. This is about someone deciding that me, as a born and raised tax paying person (and part owner of all canadas resources) being prevented from fishing.

You want to talk about math? How much of an economic benefit comes from my pound of halibut that I caught? Money into the boat, money into the ferries, money into the tackle shops, money into the place we stay, money into the food we eat there, money into licensing. Most of this is going directly to people, not some fat cat with a quota to sell.

What if Im busy all summer, and can't get away until late August to go fishing? How is that being greedy?

[winchester284]

You are blinded by dollar signs. Sure, I could go buy a pound of halibut for much cheaper, but thats not what this is about. This is about someone deciding that me, as a born and raised tax paying person (and part owner of all canadas resources) being prevented from fishing.

Wow! Now you're prevented from fishing??..... If you're going to argue your point, try keep it real!


You want to talk about math? How much of an economic benefit comes from my pound of halibut that I caught? Money into the boat, money into the ferries, money into the tackle shops, money into the place we stay, money into the food we eat there, money into licensing. Most of this is going directly to people, not some fat cat with a quota to sell.
I agree with you about the economic benefit, but that doesn't always dictate government policies. The same argument has been used in the salmon fishery for years.

As far as the "fat cat", he probably has a family to feed, and why shouldn't the "fat cat" be entitled to a return on their investment?


What if Im busy all summer, and can't get away until late August to go fishing? How is that being greedy?

Perhaps you'd like your hunting seasons opened longer for your convenience as well.... :mrgreen:

[RJ]

Wow! Now you're prevented from fishing??..... If you're going to argue your point, try keep it real!


Perhaps you'd like your hunting seasons opened longer for your convenience as well.... :mrgreen:

We're talking about the Halibut fishery being shortened. So yes, I could be prevented from fishing a species that I could fish last year.

Im not talking about keeping the hunting season open longer, although that would be nice :-D . But if they all of a sudden shortened it by a month an a half would that be ok? Im sure there are lots of people that hunt late season that would be impacted...

[Tyee]

Use caution 22 at the meeting you where shaking a little, a little pissed you where. slow down no need to fight you will still be fishing. You have more things to worry about than a few sport anglers...DFO is looking hard at the commercial fleet....

[22savage]

Use caution 22 at the meeting you where shaking a little, a little pissed you where. slow down no need to fight you will still be fishing. You have more things to worry about than a few sport anglers...DFO is looking hard at the commercial fleet....

you talking to me

[22savage]

Never went to any meeting, are you talking about the huge ground swell of people who attended the meetings at meadow gardens .120 people of which 30 were from the commercial sector .I wonder how many of the remaining 90 were from the commercial sport sector and how many were true recreational fishers. I might be shaking in the morning from the whiskey and I don't get mad at anybody except my kids for not doing their chores.

[Spy]

Never went to any meeting, are you talking about the huge ground swell of people who attended the meetings at meadow gardens .120 people of which 30 were from the commercial sector .I wonder how many of the remaining 90 were from the commercial sport sector and how many were true recreational fishers. I might be shaking in the morning from the whiskey and I don't get mad at anybody except my kids for not doing their chores.

LOL!:lol:What do you have to do, to become a, "True recreational Fisher?":confused: Please only facts you can back up with documented proof will be accepted! LOL:???::roll:
Commercial Sport sector?? :confused: Please can you elaborate,once again please back this up with hard evidence!

[22savage]

Got your boat ready to tow around vic it opens on tuesday

[Spy]

Got your boat ready to tow around vic it opens on tuesday

Are you going to answer my questions! :confused:

[Sleep Robber]

Got your boat ready to tow around vic it opens on tuesday

Is he old enough to drive :???:

[Trapper D]

i ,myself have been wanting to get ready early, but due to the cold weather , im skepical of de-winterizing my motor. jeebs its cold. not just for the hallies, but the herring should be starting to spawn anytime now. i bought one of those herring throw nets, that im wanting to try out. since its pricy buying frozen herring all summer long, it adds up.

[22savage]

COMMERCIAL-engaged in, bearing on commerce, interested in financial return rather than artistry, broadcasting in which advertisements are included to gain revenue. RE COMMERCIAL SPORT SECTOR.

Here you are spy do you need the definition of sport or recreational

[lorneparker1]

The boat you are missing....(no pun intended) Is the charters are not the ones actually catching the fish. It is the rec angler. That is the part that thick skull will not let through. Are the charters making money off of the resource? yes. Not one is questioning that. Do they get screwed by this allocation and it hurts thier pocket? yes. But the truth of the matter is the Rec guy (me) gets screwed as well. The fact that it is even insinutated that i should have to purchase MY fish from a guy that it was given to is BS and i will never EVER do that. I will be arrested for poaching halibut with a shotrened season long before i ever bow down to that power to be. THe commie/rec allocation EVERY WHERE else is 30/70 40/60 and we are stuck with 88/12 which is complete bullshit!
United we stand, like it or not.

Lorne

[Spy]

Here you are spy do you need the definition of sport or recreational

Still don't see how it is sporting to do it commercially?How about Gary Cooper/Nice fish fishing productions seeing, as though he makes money off his TV fishing shows is he also a commercial sports fisher? What do you have to do, to become a, "True recreational Fisher" or is that just the opposite of a commercial sport fisher, where you fish to loose money!:confused:

[Johnnybear]

The boat you are missing....(no pun intended) Is the charters are not the ones actually catching the fish. It is the rec angler. That is the part that thick skull will not let through. Are the charters making money off of the resource? yes. Not one is questioning that. Do they get screwed by this allocation and it hurts thier pocket? yes. But the truth of the matter is the Rec guy (me) gets screwed as well. The fact that it is even insinutated that i should have to purchase MY fish from a guy that it was given to is BS and i will never EVER do that.The commie/rec allocation EVERY WHERE else is 30/70 40/60 and we are stuck with 88/12 which is complete bullshit!
United we stand, like it or not.

Lorne

Kind of makes the greed thing go right back at em in a way doesn't it Lorne:-D.

[22savage]

You boys backing the commercial sport sector better tow the party line or this may happen to you (re participating in experimental halibut fishery ) and if they do they will face alienation and wrath from their peers that have advised them not to.I'd hazard a guess that directed public awareness campaigns right in thier clients faces may give them pause before getting to cozy with the idea . METHINKS any considering selling out OUR SECTOR had better think long and hard on that -is crawling into bed with the dino and a handful of wealthy friends worth the anguish certian to follow.

[Johnnybear]

You boys backing the commercial sport sector better tow the party line or this may happen to you (re participating in experimental halibut fishery ) and if they do they will face alienation and wrath from their peers that have advised them not to.I'd hazard a guess that directed public awareness campaigns right in thier clients faces may give them pause before getting to cozy with the idea . METHINKS any considering selling out ARE SECTOR had better think long and hard on that -is crawling into bed with the dino and a handful of wealthy friends worth the anguish certian to follow.

Do you "TROLL" for your halibut:twisted:?

Scare tactics now:confused:.

[Spy]

You boys backing the commercial sport sector better tow the party line or this may happen to you (re participating in experimental halibut fishery ) and if they do they will face alienation and wrath from their peers that have advised them not to.I'd hazard a guess that directed public awareness campaigns right in thier clients faces may give them pause before getting to cozy with the idea . METHINKS any considering selling out ARE SECTOR had better think long and hard on that -is crawling into bed with the dino and a handful of wealthy friends worth the anguish certian to follow.

You have been warned!:twisted:Do it or face our wrath!
Thats Intimidation! :twisted:

[RJ]

Commercial quota is cut, supply goes down, demand goes up, price per pound goes up, commercial have to catch less to make the same $$. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

[Johnnybear]

Commercial quota is cut, supply goes down, demand goes up, price per pound goes up, commercial have to catch less to make the same $$. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Exactly why the working commercial fisherman should be teaming up with the recreational sector to get DFO to change the system that is in place now.

People are fed up period with DFO and are going political for a very good reason.

[22savage]

[QUOTE=Spy You have been warned Do it or face our wrath!
Thats Intimidation .

You may want to take that up with iron noggin as these were his words not mine.

[22savage]

[QUOTE=Johnnybear Do you "TROLL" for your halibut

Scare tactics now

Like I said you may want to take it up with iron noggin as they are not my words but his

[Sleep Robber]

Commercial quota is cut, supply goes down, demand goes up, price per pound goes up, commercial have to catch less to make the same $$. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Hey !!!!, We won't have to be out there for as long as we usually are, we make the same dough { more actually, smaller fuel/grub bill} and can get on with the next fishery we're involved in. :wink: :mrgreen:

I still think the 80% - 20% split would be good, then everybody can fish and be happy, and the one per day for sporty's could perhaps be upped to 2 per day. This is what I would like to see happen, for now anyway. You know that this is not going to be their "END PLAN" :wink:

[Tyee]

Gimme a break, you guys are just me, me, me and you try to say commercial guys are greedy. Firstly nobody is selling you something you already own because you don't own it, and anyway it's called fascilitating, just as some of you have said that is all that lodges do. What you pay at the store for halibut is for the hard work somebody had to do to get that fish and then sell it to a middle man who has to market it and then sell it to your supermarket. Do you think you could get it much cheaper by catching it yourself? consider the cost of owning your own boat, or paying 500 bucks a day to catch it. do your math. also consider that maybe not everbody can phisically be on the water, or have the time. I think some of you don't realize how priveledged you already are but yet you want more. whos really the greedy ones.

I thought I would leave you alone, but really a fellow that lived off the sport fishery for years is all of a sudden knocken it. WOW come on between you and 22 its a farce. Its all about the future and which way we all want it to go sport fishing for the public, commercial for profit. Now you piss m o-- Priveledge now you are saying that you own these fish or resource and i am lucky to be able to fish or my children or your future families are lucky to fish Halibut. If I could change the way it is now I would buy all 436 quota holders out and turn it over to the sport sector to generate many more jobs and pump Billions into the ecomony of Canada. Let the sport sector sell fish. You where living for years in the sport sector industry what a shit. I just do not get it I thought for sure we could all work together and get it done so every one could come out a winner meaning OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS.. But if this is to continue you will need guards on those long lines...you went over the line on the word Priveledge) I am Canadian and will stand up for my rights. I am from a family of commercial fisherman.

[Trapper D]

is anyone in the north island planning to get out early this season for A HALLIE OR 2. im thinking about it . maybe the hump, not into going to cluxewe ,road to sketchy still

[22savage]

Use caution tyee your shaking a little ,a little pissed you are. Slow down no need to fight you will still be fishing you have more to worry about than a few commercial fishermen .DFO is taking a hard look at the commercial sports fleet.

[Tyee]

Ya you got me had a smile after I read your post.. just wish we could get this shit out of the way so we can all go fishing,.. I hope we can come to some agreement

[Sitkaspruce]

Hey !!!!, We won't have to be out there for as long as we usually are, we make the same dough { more actually, smaller fuel/grub bill} and can get on with the next fishery we're involved in. :wink: :mrgreen:

I still think the 80% - 20% split would be good, then everybody can fish and be happy, and the one per day for sporty's could perhaps be upped to 2 per day. This is what I would like to see happen, for now anyway. You know that this is not going to be their "END PLAN" :wink:

Wow Sleep Robber, great post!!!!

Are you sure the 22savage is agreeable to that????

Still do not really understand about the "Commercial Sport Fishery" when someone purchases a boat, gear and guide, but no fish. Does the the "guide" become the commercial fisherman??

I do not consider myself a commercial hunter when taking someone out hunting as they are not buying and animal and I am not selling an animal.

Anyways, great post Sleep Robber, it would be nice if DFO would understand that way of thinking.....

Cheers

SS

[RustyRipper]

It amazes me how single minded some of you guys are. As soon as someone says something you don't agree with you blow up, but if they say something that supports your own agenda you comend them. The ironic part is how those I speak of keep saying that we should work together and come to agreement, but you seem to only want everyone else to come to your terms. working together works both ways, it can't all be in your favor, and just because you don't agree with someone does not make it right to slander another or their industry. again, works both ways.

[RustyRipper]

I thought I would leave you alone, but really a fellow that lived off the sport fishery for years is all of a sudden knocken it. WOW come on between you and 22 its a farce. Its all about the future and which way we all want it to go sport fishing for the public, commercial for profit. Now you piss m o-- Priveledge now you are saying that you own these fish or resource and i am lucky to be able to fish or my children or your future families are lucky to fish Halibut. If I could change the way it is now I would buy all 436 quota holders out and turn it over to the sport sector to generate many more jobs and pump Billions into the ecomony of Canada. Let the sport sector sell fish. You where living for years in the sport sector industry what a shit. I just do not get it I thought for sure we could all work together and get it done so every one could come out a winner meaning OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS.. But if this is to continue you will need guards on those long lines...you went over the line on the word Priveledge) I am Canadian and will stand up for my rights. I am from a family of commercial fisherman.


First off let me just say this is one of the dumbest posts I've seen yet. I'm not saying your dumb and I'm not saying you're wrong to believe in what you believe, but what you just wrote sounds really stupid and hypocritical. Let me elaborate. Firstly I did not say that "I" own these fish, all I said is that "you" do not own these fish. you are obviously choked because of the commercial sector essentially owning a public resource, yet you say that if you could you would buy them all and give them to sports fishermen only, meaning you would take away hundreds of peoples jobs so you and your buddies can catch a couple more halibut and have some more fun and make more money guiding. Is that not just taking from one entity and giving to another? that kind of sounds childish like a kid who is jealous of what another kid has and just wants it for himself. and yes you are priveledged to be able to catch what you do. many places don't have that priveledge. I know many other people, by the way, who catch plenty enough halibut to eat for a year, I don't know how much halibut you would like to eat, but unless you are on a strict seafood diet then I don't know how you can't meet your own need. and then you say the sport sector should sell fish instead? do you even read what you write? what is the difference if sport sector is selling fish or if commercial is selling? thats the same damn thing except the sports sector will NEVER meet the demand commercial boats meet. then you go as far as threatening with damaging longlines? I assume thats what you meant by saying we should have guards at our longlines. I really hope others don't rely on you to represent them with this attitude because it is very immature and undignified. Also I never once said I was opposed to changing the allocation, I just don't necessarily agree with all of you since everyone seems to want to put in their own two cents about what would suit their needs. But I'll keep in mind how sensitive you are to this subject so I don't set you off again.

[Tyee]

It amazes me how single minded some of you guys are. As soon as someone says something you don't agree with you blow up, but if they say something that supports your own agenda you comend them. The ironic part is how those I speak of keep saying that we should work together and come to agreement, but you seem to only want everyone else to come to your terms. working together works both ways, it can't all be in your favor, and just because you don't agree with someone does not make it right to slander another or their industry. again, works both ways.

Look in the mirror, I do not agree with such a policy that takes away from future generations and Canadians in general. we need to make sure that the sport sector has room to grow. Commercial fishing is not growing, sport fishing for Halibut is and Canadians want to get out on the water and catch Halibut.
When I look in the mirror I see that more Canadians fishing Halibut less sells in the store, and more taken off my quota shit man that sucks.
I can see that owning a quota is great, money in the bank even if you do not fish it. I would put up a fight also as all of us would.

We have a problem and we need to do something about it.

No Monopoly quota holders, this would be a good start.
If the packers own quota you are as a working stiff really screwed.

[ratherbefishin]

well,weather permitting,I'm heading out Tuesday morning.Maybe we'll get lucky,maybe we won't,thats fishing.I do admit to really liking a piece of fresh halibut, but if price was the main factor,buying it in the store would be WAY cheaper.I just like getting out on the water,and coming home with a couple of fish-sometimes

[RustyRipper]

Look in the mirror, I do not agree with such a policy that takes away from future generations and Canadians in general.

Why should I look in the mirror. that's not my policy, I did not come up with the way this fishery is divided and run, nor do I try to make you agree with it. But it is not all bad, but you would just as soon get rid of all commercial fishermen because you have this resentment that runs deep and simply because you believe they are at fault for keeping you from catching as much fish as you can. what do you do for a living may I ask?

[RustyRipper]

well,weather permitting,I'm heading out Tuesday morning.Maybe we'll get lucky,maybe we won't,thats fishing.I do admit to really liking a piece of fresh halibut, but if price was the main factor,buying it in the store would be WAY cheaper.I just like getting out on the water,and coming home with a couple of fish-sometimes

I agree with you completely. Given the choice I would go out and catch my own fish every time, and generally I do. However this year I'm going to school and don't have the time to get out until the end of summer and even then I'm going to have to go back to work. So unfourtunately I will probably not get a chance to get out, luckily I still have some from last year. If I need more I know that I can buy it in the store. A lot of other people either can't afford to go out or maybe are just too old or scared of the water whatever. There are more of these people than there are who go out and get it themselves, that's why commercial fishermen are vital. by the way good luck ratherbefishing, hope you load up.

[ratherbefishin]

clearly theres a legitimate place for BOTH recreational AND commercial fisheries-the guy who either has his own boat-or like me-charters, and the Commercial working fisherman who put halibut on the store shelves for non fishing consumers[at MUCH less cost than I pay for mine,paying $300 for a halibut charter you got to catch a lot of halibut to break even-and I don't,and never will -but thats not why I go out there]

But clearly as we have more discretionary dollars,more is going to go into recreation be it skiing,boating, fishing,whalewatching -whatever.That market is is growing and its not going away.Where and how the allocation is going to provide for it I don't know.But as far as ''owning'' the right to fish any species-the bottom line is there has to BE a resource to fish-the pilchard fishery being a prime example...

[srupp]

hmmmm I guess I can post my view..:mrgreen:

I must say upfront I have a twin brother that guides for salmon and halibut ...

I do not have a boat fort the ocean.

I think it will hurt the guides when they can only allow 1 hali a day..for $300 or more for 1/2 day...makes the experience $$$$$$ for that 15 pound hali..I am in favour of a 2 fish day quota..even if it means cut back to 8 hali /year...I can barely afford 1 day guided..let alon several..so teh 10 quota mean zip to me personally...

It hurt the industry when the coho gota cut back..

on BCTV several years ago they showed a big freezer with a afew hundred chinooks from the PREVIOUS season still "unsold?..

the numbers used I remember

1 30 # chinook is worth $ 3 to the economy if harvested by a First Nation...$30 if harvested by a comercial fishermaan...$300 if harvested by a sports fisherman...wondering if the same corolation applies to halibut...???


I would be really reconsidering my summer hali trip for 1 day and 1 hali?? and $1,000....hmmm most probably not////

it does change it for me personally..

steven

[Trapper D]

you never really know the inner workings behind the governments decisions ,on things like this. but considering who it is, most likely , its a number of things. i could think of a couple, like, the commercial fisheries have been decimated over the years, over wher what and when they could fish. i used to commercial fish and when i did the regs were pretty generic. now its pretty complex, with areas , zones , times , allottments. then costs which are exhorborant to fish. also , theres some guys in the industry that carry some weight. ie jimmy pattison. as well as all this i also think to regulate and monitor the species, financially, and acuratly, or at least a little more acuratly, it seems to me it might be easier through the commercial routes. less boats needing monitoring for a shorter time , with stricter regs. the risk to the species , being over fished via rec fishing seems possible. like how many times do you see the fisheries out and about on the water. not very often to me. ive never been checked ,and im in the water, at least twice a week through the season. ive talked to dfo guys who say they pretty much do the jobs of 2 to 3 people, basically driving to checkpoints, and not having time to do much else. just my opinion those of you who are regulars inthe water know about all the make shift canneries on a lot of the uninhabited islands throughout this province. and its not just salmon. that alone im sure has done some damage to the fishery. the guys who have invested there lives into fishing, arent going to risk there livelyhood on trying to cheat. at least most anyway.

[IronNoggin]

If you could please post a link or any information you may have regarding the immoral and illegal position you have implied. Just the facts please.

Certainly :wink:

Immoral: (ih-mawr-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl) 1. violating moral (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral) principles; not conforming to the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

2. licentious or lascivious.

Illegal: (ih-lee-guhl)
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

By definition it can be seen that the two are very closely intertwined. So, as you wander through the various literature's cited, I'll leave the matter of which definition that each may be more closely related to up to the reader...

DFO's Mandate is centered on these principles: biological conservation, economic efficiency and social concern for the benefit of present and future generations.

It would strongly appear that the principles of "economic efficiency", "social concern" and "the benefit of present and future generations" was not adhered to by Minister Shea by actively promoting the further privatization of this particular (halibut) fishery, nor a consideration in the ongoing development of that same privatization in most marine fisheries. While YOU may wish to argue the point, methinks most understand the economic role recreational fishing carries far surpasses that of the commercial operations; that the social concern amongst the vastly larger user group has reached unprecedented levels; and that the wisest use, therefore benefits for today's and future generations relies heavily upon equitable access.

So, with that addressed (immoral yes, illegal - likely) let's get on with what the Professionals in these matters have to offer:

"Canada’s fisheries are a “common property resource”, belonging to all the people of Canada. Under the Fisheries Act, it is the Minister’s duty to manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of Canadians in the public interest"
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997scr1-12/1997scr1-12.html

"The constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada has a strong non-discrimination clause that offers individuals "... the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...." Certainly, the case can be made that in Canada, as in Iceland, ITQ provisions have discriminated in favor of particular groups in the fishery, allowing them substantial wealth benefits from the public fishery resource, at the expense of others."
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CCAQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2 Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.152.8852%26rep%3Drep1%26t ype%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=Canada%20Supreme%20Court%20Common%20Property%20F ish&ei=pr5qTYaIM4eesQOU6dSEAg&usg=AFQjCNEA8z-y1KwOeF0qiMJEJ88nwj2Utg&cad=rja

"A major objective of Canadian fisheries policy is to ensure that allocation of fishery resources will be on the basis of equity, taking into account adjacency to the resource, the relative dependence of coastal communities, and the various fleet sectors (impacts) upon a given resource, and economic efficiency and fleet mobility."

"The management process for halibut has successfully accomplished the goal of maintaining the productivity of the stock but has failed miserably in managing the fishery or the people harvesting the resource to achieve an efficient use of human and capital resources"
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/CAN/body.htm

"The third major principle that comes into play is equity, or, the equitable allocation of access rights among competing interest in accordance with government policy... Of equal importance is the notion that fishery is a common, public resource that should be managed in a way that does not create or exacerbate excessive interpersonal or interregional disparities.
http://www.caricom-fisheries.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L8U3BuEh5LA%3D&tabid=198

"Canada’s fisheries are a “common property resource”, belonging to all the people of Canada. Under the Fisheries Act, it is the Minister’s duty to manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of all Canadians in the best public interest"
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc58/2008scc58.html

"The Crown is the steward of the resource for the public, not its owner."

"It is recognized in Magna Carta. By reason of that statute, ". . . no restriction can be put upon that right of the public by an exercise of the prerogative in the form of a grant or otherwise"
http://www.aspercentre.ca/Assets/Asper+Digital+Assets/Supreme+Court/Kapp+Intervener+-+Sportfishing+Defence+Association+et+al.pdf

"Concerning the owner-operator policy, I think government feels the same
as we do: that an individual is given a license, and that individual should be the one who fishes. That’s not what’s happening, of course. …

"I have said right from day one that fish in the ocean are a common property resource. The resource is owned by all the people of Canada. We need to get it back into the hands of the people of Canada because we have not properly managed that over the years…"
Then DFO Minister Hearn: http://www.ccpfh-ccpp.org/cgi-bin/Files/Vol2-Issue3%2CE.pdf

"It may be observed that the notion of common access property rights operates at different scale levels. In Canada the federal government represents the ownership of tidewater fish resources in which all citizens of the country may thus claim an interest. Appropriately, it is at this national level that the federal government recognizes universal citizen access to recreational fish resources."

"The nature of common property marine resources precludes individualized assignments of full property rights to individual fish in the wild"

"In several of BC's fishery dependent communities there is an evidently high level of concern that their interests have been severely harmed by recent rationalization matters to "privatize" fisheries access."

This paper has also drawn attention to continuing effects of a previous fisheries policy imbalance, where an exclusive focus on narrow considerations of economic efficiency led to the installation of fishery access rights based on such devices as ITQ's and stacked licenses... Both devices have adverse social impacts. They lead to relatively high-level capitalization of fishing enterprises, tending to concentrate fishery access rights and rent capture (lease) opportunities disproportionately in the hands of well-heeled individuals and enterprises.
http://www.econ.sfu.ca/research/discussion/dp00-9.pdf

"Some quota leasing is necessary, especially in BC’s integrated groundfish fishery, for conservation... However, by far the greatest volume of leasing is motivated by lucrative quota lease fees. In some cases, processors even lease and then sublease quota, passing on all the costs to fishermen. Working fishermen are increasingly becoming “tenants” who pay exorbitant rents to landlords, or “sealords,” who own the quota. The lucrative leasing has, in turn, driven up the price of purchasing quota, making ownership prohibitively expensive for many fishermen.

"Privatization is probably the most controversial and convoluted issue in the ITQ debate."

"Quota values are completely out of proportion to catch value."

"High lease costs have had a ruinous effective on the competitiveness of the BC halibut fishery."
http://www.ericennotamm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ITQ_Cautionary_Tale_FINAL2.pdf

And last on this list (not exhaustive by any means) is the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein it is noted that the Government is NOT legally authorized to transfer ownership of marine resources still "at sea" to anyone, under any circumstances. Something which the current ITQ system very much does.
Saulnier vs RBC: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc58/2008scc58.html

I would encourage you to take a moment and review each of the documents cited above. It will take a little time, but collectively they are very enlightening on the subject matter at hand...

Regardless of whether you prefer the "immoral" or "illegal" definition, it is more than apparent that the standing very much exists for a class-action lawsuit against DFO and the Federal government regarding the halibut fishery, and likely several more that are under current development. While the current politically oriented protest was and is an interesting experiment which continues, methinks it may eventually take intervention by the Supreme Court to put the matter to bed.

I still hold out hope that by working together we can forgo such a drastic turn of events. The Working Fishermen and the Recreational Sector have so much in common in this regard as to be considered nearly the same. I very much hope their are sufficient enlightened individuals within each of these sectors to begin the process of drastically needed positive change before the matter escalates even further into legal actions.

Cheers,
Nog

[Spy]

Thanks nog that pretty much sum's it up! A very well thought out & educated post!:-D You are doing a great job thank you!:-D:-D

[IronNoggin]

For just a moment, let's put the shoe on the other foot as it were. What if the commercial holders were subject to forgoing a percentage of their overall collective quota, and in order to acquire access, were forced to pay the entity that held that an inflated rate to do so? All directly supported, in fact imposed by none other than DFO.

OH! Wait a minute! That has already occurred!! http://bestsmileys.com/wow/4.gif

That's right Folks. Back in 2001 the DFO Minister instituted the practice of holding 10% of the entire quota to be granted to the holders of Halibut Licenses in British Columbia and assigning that to the Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA). Then, as in now, the PHMA was and is a Private Organization - a commercial fishermen’s association, with claims of representing 80% of commercial halibut license holders in British Columbia.
This private club's website is located here: http://www.phmana.org/

Over the years, some of the fishermen who had to pay the PHMA for access to something they thought they "owned" became disgruntled at having to do so. Not much unlike the recreational angler of today. Their answer was soon forthcoming in a Class Action Lawsuit filed against both the PHMA and DFO.

Within that Lawsuit, they claimed:

- The PHMA acted directly as both Agent and Partner with the Minister;

- That in 2001 and subsequent years, the Minister issued a Licence for the PHMA (# 437) and fueled that annually with 10% of the overall quota annually;

- The plaintiffs were forced to pay a "levy" to the PHMA for the 10% of "their" quota thus granted to the PHMA by the Minister;

- And that this practice was conducted from 2001 through 2007.

The granting of this quota generated huge sums of money, some of which the PHMA was remitted directly to the Minister for purposes of funding government fisheries management activities, and a further part of that funding collected from License holders was used to fund fisheries management activities that the PHMA conducted as Agent or Partner of the Minister.

In the original Writ, the plaintiff noted that by taking "his" 10% away annually and using that for fisheries management purposes, the Minister:

- Appropriated a Public Resource that did not belong to him to finance fisheries management activities;

- Violated the provisions of the Financial Administration Act (sect: 19 & 32)

- Levied a Tax unauthorized by Parliament;

- Collected monies from the plaintiff without Legislative or Constitutional Authority;

- Converted to his Ministry's use monies and/or halibut Quota "Belonging" to the plaintiff;

and,

- Illegitimately used his power, either tortuously or contractually or both to coerce the plaintiff into paying excessive and unlawful fees.

And so, based on these accusations, the Suit demanded a Public Statement from the Minister that his actions in this matter were Unlawful, accounting and restitution of all monies paid in this regard by all effected parties from 2001 forward, Damages for Misfeasance in Public Office, Damages for Unlawful Administrative Action, and of course, related Court Costs.

WOW! What a Tremendous Response! When they perceived they were being downtrodden, they very much did grab the Bull($hit) by the horns and stood ready to do Battle! Impressive to say the least!

And... Guess what... THEY WON!

At the time of ruling the Recreational Sector politely inquired as to the possible availability of accessing that 10%, as it was already recognized that 12% was not adequate. Not hard to guess what the answer was...

Imagine, 10% to a Private Club - some for the purposes of bolstering fisheries management, the balance for purposes of their own. This when the Recreational Sector was afforded barely a scant amount more. Unbelievable if it weren't true!

And so now, when the shoe is on the "other" foot, why do they find it so difficult to understand that we are simply standing up for what we believe to be Fair, Right and Just? What's Good For The Goose...

And nope, I ain't making this stuff up. Here it is in Black & White for any who wish to verify: http://www.bcbusinesslawblog.com/EBL_DFO.pdf

Man what a complicated web... :confused:

Cheers,
Nog

[22savage]

Thanks for the info nog Just a quick question what are the lodges and charter fleet paying to make a profit from resources that belong to all canadians I think that most bussineses that use our resources for profit are paying a fee, royalty or buying a licence of some sort for that privlege. logging ,mining ,fishing, hunting guides and outfitters (and many more) all have to pay something if they want to profit from the resources that belong to all canadians.

[Spy]

Thanks for the info nog Just a quick question what are the lodges and charter fleet paying to make a profit from resources that belong to all canadians I think that most bussineses that use our resources for profit are paying a fee, royalty or buying a licence of some sort for that privlege. logging ,mining ,fishing, hunting guides and outfitters (and many more) all have to pay something if they want to profit from the resources that belong to all canadians.

You still have to buy a license to go fish even if you use a guide!:confused::confused:

[RJ]

Thanks for the info nog Just a quick question what are the lodges and charter fleet paying to make a profit from resources that belong to all canadians I think that most bussineses that use our resources for profit are paying a fee, royalty or buying a licence of some sort for that privlege. logging ,mining ,fishing, hunting guides and outfitters (and many more) all have to pay something if they want to profit from the resources that belong to all canadians.

Name a few business that take you into the forest to cut down your own tree, or take you up a mountain to mine your own ore. With respect to hunting guides, as a resident you don't pay royalties on GOS animals (from what I understand).

[22savage]

Your missing the point you buy your licence for personal use not to make a profit from it.

[RJ]

Your missing the point you buy your licence for personal use not to make a profit from it.

You are missing the point. This is not about money, this is about catching fish!

[22savage]

Name a few business that take you into the forest to cut down your own tree, or take you up a mountain to mine your own ore. With respect to hunting guides, as a resident you don't pay royalties on GOS animals (from what I understand).

THEY are paying for the access to be able to make a profit from the resources that belong to all canadians .

[22savage]

Then don' t charge them take them fishing becuase you want everyone to catch fish not make a profit off it.

[Spy]

THEY are paying for the access to be able to make a profit from the resources that belong to all canadians .

Thats why all canadians have to buy a fishing license if they want to go fishing?

[22savage]

You still have to buy a license to go fish even if you use a guide!:confused::confused:

I didn,t think you were buying one this year some thing to do with boycotting the DFO

[IronNoggin]

Still stuck on the one-line response 22? Not all that surprising as that appears to be the same tired old response from your Masters.

In light of all that I posted regarding legalities, is that really the best you can come up with? Grasping at Straws no longer cuts it my Friend. Even the absentee Fish Brokers are beginning to get that, why else would they in fact be asking us back to the table?

Have a GOOD read of what I posted, and when you come up with any reasonable and related response, I will again consider replying directly to you...

Until Then... http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

Cheers,
Nog

[Spy]

I didn,t think you were buying one this year some thing to do with boycotting the DFO
Savage if you wrong & you know you are wrong!:confused:Just admit it & say sorry!:-D
Don't change the subject this is not about me!:-D

[22savage]

Still stuck on the one-line response 22? Not all that surprising as that appears to be the same tired old response from your Masters.

In light of all that I posted regarding legalities, is that really the best you can come up with? Grasping at Straws no longer cuts it my Friend. Even the absentee Fish Brokers are beginning to get that, why else would they in fact be asking us back to the table?

Have a GOOD read of what I posted, and when you come up with any reasonable and related response, I will again consider replying directly to you...

Until Then... http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

Cheers,
Nog

I don't have any masters WHO DO YOU WORK FOR LET ME GUESS A CHARTER OUTFIT YOU BETTER BOW TO YOUR MASTERS OR YOU WON'T HAVE A JOB. FOR YOUR INFORMATION I DON'T OWN ANY QUOTA OR FISH FOR HALIBUT EXCEPT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING

[Spy]

I don't have any masters WHO DO YOU WORK FOR LET ME GUESS A CHARTER OUTFIT YOU BETTER BOW TO YOUR MASTERS OR YOU WON'T HAVE JOB. FOR YOUR INFORMATION I DON'T OWN ANY QUOTA OR FISH FOR HALIBUT EXCEPT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING

So why do you have a hard on for what we are asking for?:confused:

[22savage]

WHO'S WALLET are you making fat nog.

[Spy]

I don't have any masters WHO DO YOU WORK FOR LET ME GUESS A CHARTER OUTFIT YOU BETTER BOW TO YOUR MASTERS OR YOU WON'T HAVE A JOB. FOR YOUR INFORMATION I DON'T OWN ANY QUOTA OR FISH FOR HALIBUT EXCEPT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING

Why in your Public Profile under "Ocupation" does is say "Commercial fisherman"!!:confused::confused:

[22savage]

I do a couple of drag trips a year to help out a buddie when he is short of crew.

[Spy]

I do a couple of drag trips a year to help out a buddie when he is short of crew.

For Halibut?

[22savage]

No They Don't Drag For Halibut

[Spy]

No They Don't Drag For Halibut

Does your Buddy Own a quota & fish for Halibut?

[lorneparker1]

I don't have any masters WHO DO YOU WORK FOR LET ME GUESS A CHARTER OUTFIT YOU BETTER BOW TO YOUR MASTERS OR YOU WON'T HAVE A JOB. FOR YOUR INFORMATION I DON'T OWN ANY QUOTA OR FISH FOR HALIBUT EXCEPT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING


He is also a commericial salmon troller..... More so then he is a guide. I;m not sure which takes up more of his time, but i know he does both. He works for a small 2 boat operation out of ukee. Him and one other guy. How do i know? Because he guided me and some friends last year! My 16 foot welded aluminum isnt exactly worthy of the banks off ukee. I am done speaking for him. Have a great day.

[Mr. Dean]

22;

I believe Aliens pay premium when purchasing a tidal licence in British Columbia.
And if they happen to hire a Guide Service, we/us/the general public, then reap the rewards from the influx to the economy that 'they' contributed.

FWIW, I believe the alien licence fee's should be increased and that that $$$ should go back into the recreational fishery.

[22savage]

GOOD LUCK in your court case nog could you please say hi to jimmy for me . LMAO

[Spy]

22;

I believe Aliens pay premium when purchasing a tidal licence in British Columbia.
And if they happen to hire a Guide Service, we/us/the general public, then reap the rewards from the influx to the economy that 'they' contributed.

FWIW, I believe the alien licence fee's should be increased and that that $$$ should go back into the recreational fishery.

Non-resident
Annual $101.00
5-day $31.00
3-day $19.00
1-day $7.00

[Spy]

GOOD LUCK in your court case nog could you please say hi to jimmy for me . LMAO

Can you answer my last question Does your Buddy fish Halibut?

[Sitkaspruce]

22 always avoids the actual questions Spy.

He as never answered mine from way back, about what would HE do to come up with a solution to the on going problem.....but as always, he only focus on the questions that he can answer that will inflame everyone else.

My suggestion, leave him alone and ignore him.

Nog knows what he talking about.

Cheers

SS

[22savage]

Can you answer my last question Does your Buddy fish Halibut?

NO he does not fish halibut our own any halibut quota

[22savage]

22 always avoids the actual questions Spy.

He as never answered mine from way back, about what would HE do to come up with a solution to the on going problem.....but as always, he only focus on the questions that he can answer that will inflame everyone else.

My suggestion, leave him alone and ignore him.

Nog knows what he talking about.

Cheers

SS

No I have never worked for or been fired from any lodge or charter boat. I don't think the sport allocation was intended to facilitate the charter boats or lodges businesses. (my opinon as you have yours) I don't have a solution to the problem we are in now but I don,t think taking from one business and give it to another is acceptable .The allocation has shurnk a fair bit for every one since 2006 and I can only hope it will get better for all who do it for fun or profit

[Spy]

No I have never worked for or been fired from any lodge or charter boat. I don't think the sport allocation was intended to facilitate the charter boats or lodges businesses. (my opinon as you have yours) I don't have a solution to the problem we are in now but I don,t think taking from one business and give it to another is acceptable .The allocation has shurnk a fair bit for every one since 2006 and I can only hope it will get better for all who do it for fun or profit

Thanks for the reply Savage!:-D

[IronNoggin]

I don't have any masters WHO DO YOU WORK FOR LET ME GUESS A CHARTER OUTFIT YOU BETTER BOW TO YOUR MASTERS OR YOU WON'T HAVE A JOB. FOR YOUR INFORMATION I DON'T OWN ANY QUOTA OR FISH FOR HALIBUT EXCEPT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING

Don't have to "yell" 22. But thanks for clearing that up. I simply assumed (and we all know where that leads) that given your stance on here that you were either a Lease-Holder or working for the same. I stand corrected.

And yes, I work with a charter company, as well as being a Commercial Salmon Troller (Area G) and a Licensed Big Game Guide in Alberta. As far as the charter job goes, they would likely be somewhat better off were they to lay me off... LOL! I am one of the toughest individuals to "manage" that I am aware of and am relatively certain that has probably caused them some pain over the years. Not overly likely over this matter though, as they, and all of my Average Angler buddies btw, completely support my efforts in this regard. And for the record, the impact on my budget that the fishing guide position entails is insignificant. I do it because I like to, because I enjoy getting people out there to see the magnificence this coast has to offer, and yes, enjoy watching their excitement when they catch a fish. For me, that's what it is all about as I could make substantially more doing damn near anything else.

Another little tidbit for you: I am a retired marine biologist, and as such have a rather decent understanding of our ocean's inhabitants, and the methods employed to "manage" these. Gotta say here I am not impressed with the "management" regime currently in practice here. I was told things were a tad convoluted regarding fisheries and this particular form of "management" before I left the Arctic. Didn't put much stock in that back then, as I thought those rumors to be next to impossible. Sadly, I find myself reporting to the Ladz still back up there that they were sorely misinformed in this regard - things are MUCH WORSE than we had been led to believe.

As for who is making "my wallet fat" these days, the realistic answer is: No-One. I decided when we moved here money was no longer the be-all end-all for me, and wandered off into areas of employ that while providing excitement and satisfaction, in no way represents anywhere near a good economic engine. My choice, and one I continue to be largely happy with today.

The various musings and postings you see from me here come directly from me, no-one else. No one has offered me any incentive for doing so, and were they to, I would politely decline. These are the Honest perceptions of one who has been involved directly in fisheries and their management for a VERY long time, and are an expression of the depth of concern the current "management" policies cannot help but generate within me.

As for the potential of pending legal action...

By presenting the information I have, I was simply pointing out that there MAY exist grounds for legal action in pursuit of a more realistic allocation ratio. I am not a lawyer by any means, so am treading on somewhat unsafe ground in that regard. From this Layman's point of view, it does appear I have interpreted the matter correctly, however would caution that a review by someone with a good deal of Legal Experience is warranted to validate my suspicions.

I should also note that although this does seem to be a possible avenue for us to explore, I am not advocating that we jump into such an action right away. There is a hell of a lot we would have to consider before doing so IMHO. The first step would seem to have a couple of lawyers experienced with this type of suit review the current Legislation and Case Law to determine if there exists a good chance of success. Then of course is the matter of whom we would be targeting - obviously the Minister, but what if she is defeated in an upcoming election or replaced in that office prior to the suit being launched? Also mustn't forget that DFO likes the way things are, and have an entire battery of their own lawyers, both in-house and on retainer, twiddling their thumbs and just hoping for some "meat to chew on" to justify their existence. And finally the money. Bucking one with as deep pockets of the Gov (who actually employs your own tax dollars against you) would take a lot of time, and a LOT of jingle! Are we prepared to suffer along under the status-quo through the required time to realize a Court Decision (there would likely be a series of appeals, regardless of which way the winds were turning) and can we realistically come up with the HUGE sums of money such an undertaking will most certainly consume? While I sincerely appreciate the offers to help in this last regard, we would literally be looking at hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to effectively proceed. All factors we would have to clearly address before jumping into the fire methinks...

That said, I do believe that initiating a Legislation and Case Law review to determine the potential viability of such a Class Action Suit is warranted at this point. The findings of that would help immensely in deciding any future direction. And were the findings to be of sufficient strength in our favor, that, in itself, may form the lever we need to get DFO back to the drawing board. While perhaps a remote possibility, many cases are settled well before they enter the Court when one side carries an obvious and overbearing legal persuasion on its' side. Thus such an exercise would be well worth the effort methinks.

In the meantime, we must continue to keep the pressure on the Minister, the PM, our MP's & MLA's to the maximum extent we are able. This matter has not slid off the plate, and will not as long as we keep those letters rolling in to them. Keep it up Folks! They are aware we are ticked off, now let's let them know just how much!

Cheers,
Nog

PS: 22 Still awaiting any comment regarding the "immoral" / "illegal" ramifications I noted a few pages back... :wink:

[22savage]

RE immoral & illegal The immoral and illegal ramifictions are your opinion ( or how you see it) if you feel that is the case by all means persue that venue .

[22savage]

For those about to start a war and may shoot them selves in the foot I seen a great pair of bullet proof boots for sale on ebay.

[22savage]

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?15196-Shame-on-Shea-B.C.-needs-its-own-fisheries-minister

[22savage]

Can you pick out the facts or the fiction in dc reids letter, give it a try and post the facts or fiction as you see it here.

[Spy]

For those about to start a war and may shoot them selves in the foot I seen a great pair of bullet proof boots for sale on ebay.

You are always so vague!:confused:Stop beating around the bush & spit it out!:confused:Nobody can read your mind, say what you want to say (How are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot?)You should change your name to
:twisted: FEAR MONGER!!!!:twisted:

[22savage]

You are always so vague!:confused:Stop beating around the bush & spit it out!:confused:Nobody can read your mind, say what you want to say (How are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot?)You should change your name to
:twisted: FEAR MONGER!!!!:twisted:

I think you commie sport guys got that one wrapped up .

[Whonnock Boy]

I think you commie sport guys got that one wrapped up .

Stir... stir.... stir.....

[Spy]

I think you commie sport guys got that one wrapped up .

I am an average Joe fisherman, now stated twice!:confused:
Iron Noggin Has got some real life experience & has Plenty to add to this thread!:-D You 22 savage drive trucks & have Helped your Commercial Buddy Drag the Bottom a couple of times! You have added nothing to this thread except for wasting our time with pure Dribble which is an insult to us intelligent folks!!!

You Obviously "think" you know much, But it has become pretty clear to us that you are a waste of time with no experience!
Spy:-D

[22savage]

Spy I am Not sure you have intelligent post in any of the forums regarding halibut . Go back and read the bullshit you have posted then come back and tell me you have had any factual information to contribute.

[Johnnybear]

Spy I am Not sure you have intelligent post in any of the forums regarding halibut . Go back and read the bullshit you have posted then come back and tell me you have had any factual information to contribute.

Maybe he's waiting for you to lead by example:tongue:.

[22savage]

keep patting him on the back johnny bear you just seem to agree with everybody that is anti commmercial regardless of the bullshit posted but if it makes you feel good then all the power to ya.

[Spy]

Spy I am Not sure you have intelligent post in any of the forums regarding halibut . Go back and read the bullshit you have posted then come back and tell me you have had any factual information to contribute.

Ive just stated in my last post Im an average Joe fisherman!:confused:
You are the one that seems to know it all!:confused:Continually arguing the point with IronNoggin & others that agree with him!:twisted:So if you have the life experience in fishing & the industry that IronNoggin does, tell us about it!

Otherwise like I have stated you have nothing to add to this thread that is credible, believable or otherwise worth us reading!
Spy:-D

[22savage]

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/statement-declarations/2011/20110115b-eng.htm

[Johnnybear]

keep patting him on the back johnny bear you just seem to agree with everybody that is anti commmercial regardless of the bullshit posted but if it makes you feel good then all the power to ya.

I don't pat anyone 22savage. Is your boss patting you on the back for all your negative posts towards the recreational sector of fishing? I am not anti commercial fishing. In fact I looked to get into it a couple of years ago. I own a business and I am self employed so I get the business end of the whole thing. You are the one that doesn't get it. The fight is with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not the commercial fleet.

Do you really go drag-net fishing a couple times a year? How does this help Halibut habitat and the sustainability of the resource?

[Johnnybear]

Jumping to another thread doesn't save you from answering the important questions:-?. Come on man tell us.

[22savage]

Your confusing recreational fishing and commercial sport fishing, show me any post I have made against the recreational angler. That haven't posted bullshit information as you can see I have my own opinions and you have yours so I think we will just agree to disagree.

[22savage]

The resource is sustainable not sure about the habitat you may what to ask iron noggin about that I would rather not comment on something I no nothing about. What do you know about halibut habitat.

[Sitkaspruce]

Your confusing recreational fishing and commercial sport fishing, show me any post I have made against the recreational angler. That haven't posted bullshit information as you can see I have my own opinions and you have yours so I think we will just agree to disagree.

So 22, you are against the change in allocation because of the lodges and guides getting a share??? You say you are for the rec fisherman, but you are against any change for the rec sector???

So how do we come up with a plan that increases the rec fisherman's opportunity, both the ones who own a boat and the ones who do not, or come from across Canada, without an extra cost??

The way I see it, from your point of view, is to charge the guides and lodges a $$$ amount for any extra quota, which will then make it even more expensive for the non boat owning Canadian to come fish here for two fish, yet the lucky few of us here that own a boat and have access to the resource (like you, I assume) would still be stuck on the one/day, two possession, unless we cough up more $$$ for more fish.

I am also curious, would your commercial halibut buddy gladly sell some of his quota to a Canadian rec fisher?? Before you answer, give him a call and ask.

Cheers

SS

[Peter Pepper]

Just remember when the nice cheap halies are for sale at thrifty foods DON'T BUY THEM. My family used to but, i will put and end to that. Instead I'm gonna make a point to fill my own freezer the hard way

[22savage]

http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/Canada-Pacific-halibut-bc/assessment-downloads-1/DFO_response_to_PIs_final.pdf

[IronNoggin]

Here is an enlightened response from an "outside observer" whose only interest in the fishery is to take an occasional fish back to his home country with him when he wanders up to do a little fishing. C&P'd from another site where this topic is the subject of much discussion:

"I believe if you check you will find halibut futures can be bought and sold, just like a “stock investor,” actually even by a stock investor, ever heard of “Commodity Futures Trading?”

Those are actually NOT rules DFO designed, DFO did NOT design anything… check YOUR history. Everything was designed by commercial fishermen organizations! Might I also add – WITH NO RECREATIONAL VOTE ALLOWED! About the only THING correct, “You can continue to flog a dead horse or you can find a solution that DFO will actually implement.” As far as choice… tell that to ALL those crews and families to feed, that were part of the commercial “cod” fishermen! I can’t see any “Joke” there, at all!

I am NOT saying the commercial halibut fishery didn’t do a good job running the commercial fishery; in fact, they did a very good job. Did you note the word “running?” The commercial sector has ran that fishery from the beginning! About the only thing DFO can do at this point, is try to keep the commercial sector within Canadian law - and THAT seems to be under question, as we speak!

Speaking of history… ever heard the name A. L. Hager: "... spent much of his time furthering conservation measures in the halibut and salmon fisheries. He is known as the father of the Halibut Treaty which was consummated between Canada and the United States in 1923. Under this treaty an outstanding success was made in rehabilitating the fishery and was considered a model for future international fisheries conservation. In 1940, A.L. Hager received a letter from Prime Minister McKenzieKing acknowledging the beneficial results of co-operation between the governments of Canada and the United States under the Halibut Convention."
http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/salmon_history.asp?article=8 (http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/salmon_history.asp?article=8)

The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the IPHC consists of three government-appointed commissioners (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/about-iphc/27.html) for each country who serve their terms at the pleasure of the President of the United States and the Canadian government respectively. Those current Commissioners are:
James Balsiger United States
Ralph G. Hoard United States
Larry Johnson Canada
Philip Lestenkof United States
Laura Richards Canada
Gary Robinson Canada

The Commission encourages public participation in the management of the resource and regularly seeks advice from the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group (PAG), and various State and Federal agencies.

The Conference Board is a panel representing Canadian and American commercial and sport halibut fishers. Created in 1931 by the Commission, the Board gives the IPHC the fishers' perspective on Commission proposals presented at Annual Meetings in January. Members are designated by union and vessel owner organizations from both nations.

The Processor Advisory Group (PAG), as the name suggests, represents halibut processors. Like the Conference Board, PAG lends its opinion regarding Commission proposals and offers recommendations at IPHC Annual Meetings. The group was formed in 1996.

The Research Advisory Board (RAB), which formed in 1999, consists of both fishers and processors who offer suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission research should focus. RAB generally meets in November, prior to the IPHC Interim Meeting.

So, with the IPHC, does Area 2B recreational sector get to vote on anything?

Now let’s look at DFO “Halibut Consultations.” The “Halibut Advisory Board Members 2009-2011” consists of 20 members and alternates, with another 11 appointed for a total of 31 – ALL are in or associated with COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, except, a Tribal Council, and two very lonely SFAB individuals! Yep, that sure sounds fair to me!

The Groundfish Hook and Line Advisory Committee (GHLAC) Terms of Reference states its members will be: Commercial Rockfish Outside licence holders; Commercial Rockfish Inside licence holders; Commercial Schedule II Lingcod licence holders; Commercial Schedule II Dogfish licence holders; United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union (UFAWU); First Nations. With “Participant observers”: Government of BC; Government of Canada. Membership, “Each of the interests noted above will be represented by”: Elected ZN licence holders; 2 appointed Schedule II Lingcod licence holders; 2 appointed Schedule II Dogfish licence holders; 1 appointed UFAWU representative; and 1 appointed First Nations representative. Participation by the federal and provincial government as participant observers will be determined on an as needed basis. The Committee can invite people to participate when appropriate.

I can go on forever, but I believe it is quite clear who has been running British Columbia fisheries, since at least 1923 – THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR! The ONLY THING Canada or DFO has ever done, and ever will do – is enforce Canadian Laws! And Yes the tide is turning – those laws are about to be tested in your Supreme Court – good luck to the “commercials” on that one!

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/images/Eloquent/miscblue/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fish4all http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/images/Eloquent/buttonsblue/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?p=168970#post168970)
not arguing with your point. The problem at the moment is DFO cannot distinguish between fished quota and leased quota. Not saying that won't change but at the present it doesnt work.




That is not true – DFO has that capability and the information is provided! That information is actually input directly to DFO through the internet.

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/images/Eloquent/miscblue/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fish4all http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/images/Eloquent/buttonsblue/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?p=168971#post168971)
might want to be careful with that. I believe dfo has made the decision already as to who is going to be cleaned up.




Well, I certainly agree DFO needs to install an accurate accounting system for the sport sector; however, I actually do believe that decision is nothing more than a stall tactic being used by DFO, until your Supreme Court makes that ruling! IMHO, if the commercial sector was smart, they would come to an agreement now – while they have a choice. Once that ruling is made the commercial sector may just get its quota found un-constitutional! I might even take bets on that one!"

And my response on that site:

"Yet another enlightened set of observations my Friend! You are absolutely correct regarding just who designed, and who runs the fishery in Canada... at this point. I do believe we are on the precipice of substantial change. As you have indicated, the current system is not only broken, it is most likely in fact illegal according to the Constitution, related Legislation and Supreme Court Rulings.

I do hold out some hope that the matter can be resolved to the betterment of both Working Fishermen and the Recreational Sector without actually going through the legal process. However as more resistance to that effort, including intentionally misleading "facts" from the opposing sector, is being realized (rather than constructive investigations towards a realistic solution), my hopes are fading in this regard. DFO will not do ANYTHING beyond their simplistic "band-aid" approach as put forth this year without the implicit support of those who in fact and function actually do run the fishery. Given their stated position, that has a very poor chance of ever occurring. And for that I am actually saddened. We COULD work this out in a Fair and Equitable manner were both sides to lower their horns a little and agree to work together towards our common goals.

Time will tell if the political actions bear much in the way of fruitition. In this I also still retain some hope. If we have to go the way of an inordinately expensive legal action, methinks the end result will be of considerably more discomfort to the Commercial Sector than simply setting aside a few percentage points of the TAC to adequately address the requirements of the Recreational Fishermen."

Cheers,
Nog

[Spy]

IronNoggin Thank you once again for another informative post!:-D
We are all being educated.It sounds like we have a pretty good case & I am thinking this will end up in court!:-|As you have mentioned this will be costing lots of money$$$$,Is there any specific organization we should be donating to?
Who will be leading the fight, if it comes to that?
Thanks
Spy:-D

[SUAFOYT]

Maybe a little info as to who owns most of the quotas for halibut would be of interest.

[22savage]

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?15216-It-happened!

[22savage]

http://www.alaskabroker.com/listings/sptcharter.html

[IronNoggin]

It sounds like we have a pretty good case & I am thinking this will end up in court!:-|As you have mentioned this will be costing lots of money$$$$,Is there any specific organization we should be donating to?

There are grounds for more than a "pretty good case", initial investigations have held this to be true. That said, it is still premature to jump right into that without exploring the possible alternatives first. As I noted previously, I do think the possibility exists that those of us actually on the water amongst the two sectors can work something out for our mutual benefit - we are not far apart in our desire for improvements in the system. Should that effort fail, and it well may given the stance of some, then will be the time to initiate legal action. Investigations into that possibility are continuing, only time will tell if that becomes a necessity...

SUAFOYT: The matter of who actually holds the various shares of the TAC is also being investigated. Contrary to what some will suggest, Jimmy P and his various companies own a considerable (likely majority) share, not only in Canada btw. I'll post more on this once we have the answers in hand. Also contrary to DFO's assertions that they "do not know" fully who the actual owners are, there are methods to track ownership of numbered and/or blind companies. That effort is ongoing...

22: While your posts regarding the somewhat parrelel situation in Alaska are interesting, they are actually of little bearing on Canadian Fisheries. We have vastly different sets of Legislations and Rules of Law, and what has occured up there simply cannot, nor will not in Canada.

Cheers,
Nog

[22savage]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Halibut+fishery+debate+boils+down+semantics+spin/4189282/story.html

[bogman]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Halibut+fishery+debate+boils+down+semantics+spin/4189282/story.html


ALMOST an unbiased spin, .......but a SPIN none the less

Stop argueing and complaining people and get TOGETHER and solve this thing

[IronNoggin]

ALMOST an unbiased spin, .......but a SPIN none the less

Yes, very much a "spin". Dated to boot, from back in January. Wasn't it you 22 that took part in the discussion of this same article on the other site? Running out of steam? Or just ammo?

Upcoming meeting in Vancouver later this week. More information as it becomes available...

Cheers,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

A little video that would be Damn Funny... if it weren't so damn close to the Truth of the matter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxpVhXRRFo4

Cheers,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

While that joke video is indeed a little off the wall, this report from the CBC is much closer:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/07/f-vp-rowland-bc-sport-fishing.html

While it does contain the odd error, it does encompass the situation we are in rather succinctly.

Cheers,
Nog

[22savage]

Glossary of terms related to fishery management - FREE RIDER- One who enjoys the benefits of a public good or common- pool resource without paying a share of the cost of providing for maintianing it.

[Whonnock Boy]

Glossary of terms related to fishery management - FREE RIDER- One who enjoys the benefits of a public good or common- pool resource without paying a share of the cost of providing for maintianing it.

Stir..... stir..... stir...... are you paid per post Savage?

[ratherbefishin]

we opened the season this morning, tides were supposed to be good, and we put the scotchman out and settled in to soak some bait....nice day, calm seas,but the tide was running stronger than we thought it would ,anchor dragged and we couldn't get the gear down on the bottom and so after 4 hours came home-no halibut,not even a bite.The charter cost me $300, the usual rate ,but thats fishing-maybe next time.Hope springs eternal.But even if they ARE biting-I'll have to pull up and go home with my one[1]halibut,even if it is a 12-15 lb chicken....sure would be nice to take a couple when they ARE biting,makes up for days like this when we didn't get even a sniff.This is precisely why I strongly advocate a 2 fish per day possession and 10 or 20 fish annual limit,thats more than ennough for me

[Johnnybear]

At least you got out there and had some fun and enjoyed the calm sea's rbf:-D. The 300 bucks doesn't even cover my marine insurance:(. Nice to see some folks getting out there and going for it.

[ratherbefishin]

Oh,I'll make at least a couple of more halibut trips-probably spend close to $1000-and maybe if I'm lucky bring home 2 or 3[this year the best I can do is going to be 2,since I can only catch 1 per trip]

[IronNoggin]

Ever wonder about the commonly made claim that the commercial fleet provides access to halibut products to the vast majority of Canadian Consumers? You know, those that choose to eat in restaurants or buy that pricey stuff on the supermarket shelves, rather than fishing it themselves.

On the surface it sounds like a good argument... even though the number of ~ 70% or so is "recognized" as an export product.

Appears that number ain't quite what we have been led to believe. In fact, a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse on behalf of the PHMA suggests exports are much higher:

"Approximately 95% of Pacific halibut from British Columbia is exported with 90% being sold to the United States and the balance of that being sold to European markets."

A simple slip, or sleight of hand? Makes one wonder when it is listed on a site the PHMA openly endorses...

http://www.bcseafoodonline.com/files/pacific_halibut.html

So much for providing for Canadians. Guess it simply all boils down to Profits...

Hmmmm...
Nog

[Johnnybear]

Interesting. Thanks for the link IronNoggin. I have said (kind of joking) in the past- "I don't really care if Billy Bob and Mary Jo in South Dakota get to eat halibut. They can stick to their local corn fed beef".

Makes one wonder is 5% is enough for a whole country that actually owns the fish?

[22savage]

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-2006.pdf

[Opinionated Ol Phart]

You seems you like to quote figures, so I guess I can too. They refer directly to that nice clean commercial fishery on the Pacific North-West.... Bycatch mortality in 2010. 10.5 MILLION pounds, The American and Canadian sport catch of halibut in 2010--- 9.1 Million lbs. So in other words the commercial halibut fishery WASTES more than all the sport caught fish in total in the US and Canada. Gee-- maybe that is why camera monitoring is necessary on BC commercial halibut boats?? ???

[22savage]

http://www.bcseafood.ca/PDFs/fisheriesinfo/fishery-pacific-halibut.pdf

[Spy]

http://www.bcseafood.ca/PDFs/fisheriesinfo/fishery-pacific-halibut.pdf

Do you Know what Price Waterhouse is ?:confused:

[22savage]

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?15273-ACCOUNTABILITY-in-the-Sport-Fishing-Sector&p=169840#post169840 WOW!!!!!!

[IronNoggin]

No real wow there. In the words of one who knows:

"The idea that the recreation sector is not accountable is a myth told by the commercial sector to deflect the true problem of the 88/12 split...

...this is a smoke screen to hide the real issue...

Watch TV? There is a commercial on right now that shows a teenage daughter sneaking out her bedroom window. She is caught by her father, in the act. A sign pops out and says “Going to the library” The commercial sector is the teenage daughter and the sign is the recreational needs better accountability."

And from an Official Audit of DFO's current system:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/09-10/6B205-eng.htm#ch1

"Based on the results of the risk assessment of its preliminary findings, the audit team found no major risks in the context of information quality associated with the fisheries management decision memoranda. Though minor risks were identified, the audit team considered that they were addressed by sufficient mitigation strategies. The audit team is satisfied with the relevant control framework in place for Resource Management, Science and Policy and Economics.

Given that adequate controls are in place to ensure the quality of information for decision-making pertaining to fisheries management decision memoranda, the audit team considered that pursuing a detailed examination in the conduct phase would not add value at this time. As the Internal Audit Directorate needs to conduct audit work only on areas of high risk and materiality to optimize the use of its resources, the Directorate recommends concluding the internal audit engagement at this stage."

Want a Real WOW? How about a few words from one of your own wherein he suggests to the Recreational Anglers: "Let Them Play GOLF" and then further suggests that the profits generated by that industry from offshore sales somehow exceeds the "worth" of access for all other Canadians.

Original post and my response is posts # 54 and 56 here: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?15246-Fish-advisory-board-to-talk-halibut/page6

You, in particular, might just want to pay a little attention to the thrust of what I wrote in response. The ramifications of the path you have chosen becomes clearer each and every day...

To summarize for you:

"I do believe there remains a place for commercial operations on this coast. How much of a place has yet to be determined. Taking the stance that you and so many others of your ilk continue to demand will bring the matter to its' likely conclusion - Legal Action. And as I and many others have pointed out, in that you simply do not have a leg to stand on! And as such, you have a LOT more to lose than were you to join us in settling the issues of Fair and Equitable access cooperatively. Your call. Only fair to warn you however that continuing down the road you have decided to follow WILL result in that fatal sunset arriving for many within your sector on a much quicker timeline."

Cheers,
Nog

[22savage]

Nice to see you supporting DFO's numbers nog. When do you anticipate the Court Date. Do you really think they will limit one of the best managed fisheries in the world to give the lodge and charter fleet more fish. Not sure that fish 4 all speaks for all commercial fishers just as you do not speak for all recreational fishers.

[22savage]

Are you ready to take on the 7 BILLION DOLLAR MAN.

[Spy]

Are you ready to take on the 7 BILLION DOLLAR MAN.

I wonder how many of the 400 odd halibut quotas he owns!:confused:Im going to take a huge guess maybe 40% - 50 %:confused:
Im sure we will see who the owners of the quotas are in time to come.It should be Interesting to see who the stake holders are!:twisted:

[Dutch]

I have been a lurker for a while but it is time to say my piece my grandfather fished halibut commercially, so did my father but I agree fish it yourselves or lose it no more investment groups DFO has not only lost their minds but there way...:evil::evil:

[22savage]

[QUOTE=IronNoggin

You, in particular, might just want to pay a little attention to the thrust of what I wrote in response. The ramifications of the path you have chosen becomes clearer each and every day...

To summarize for you:

I do believe there remains a place for commercial operations on this coast. How much of a place has yet to be determined. Taking the stance that you and so many others of your ilk continue to demand will bring the matter to its' likely conclusion - Legal Action. And as I and many others have pointed out, in that you simply do not have a leg to stand on! And as such, you have a LOT more to lose than were you to join us in settling the issues of Fair and Equitable access cooperatively. Your call. Only fair to warn you however that continuing down the road you have decided to follow WILL result in that fatal sunset arriving for many within your sector on a much quicker timeline[/I

Cheers,
Nog[/QUOTE]

The only ramifications of the path I have chosen will be if they shut down sports fishing in bc nothing else will effect me. Would the place for commercial fishing operations on this coast happen to be area g troll. I don't have a sector. Thanks for the warning but the sunsets in my world really have very little to do with your opinion on halibut allocation.

[Spy]

The only ramifications of the path I have chosen will be if they shut down sports fishing in bc nothing else will effect me. Would the place for commercial fishing operations on this coast happen to be area g troll. I don't have a sector. Thanks for the warning but the sunsets in my world really have very little to do with your opinion on halibut allocation.

Wow Im going to sleep better tonight after reading that!:-D Thanks for the piece of mind!:-D

[22savage]

Ever wonder about the commonly made claim that the commercial fleet provides access to halibut products to the vast majority of Canadian Consumers? You know, those that choose to eat in restaurants or buy that pricey stuff on the supermarket shelves, rather than fishing it themselves.

On the surface it sounds like a good argument... even though the number of ~ 70% or so is "recognized" as an export product.

Appears that number ain't quite what we have been led to believe. In fact, a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse on behalf of the PHMA suggests exports are much higher:

"Approximately 95% of Pacific halibut from British Columbia is exported with 90% being sold to the United States and the balance of that being sold to European markets."

A simple slip, or sleight of hand? Makes one wonder when it is listed on a site the PHMA openly endorses...

http://www.bcseafoodonline.com/files/pacific_halibut.html

So much for providing for Canadians. Guess it simply all boils down to Profits...

Hmmmm...
Nog

Maybe while your at it you could also stop the export of lumber ,oil, grain, hydro ,coal ,gravel, potash, canola, and a few others that drive the economy of canada. Guess it simply boils down to profits. Hmmmmm

[Johnnybear]

I have been a lurker for a while but it is time to say my piece my grandfather fished halibut commercially, so did my father but I agree fish it yourselves or lose it no more investment groups DFO has not only lost their minds but there way...:evil::evil:

From what I have been reading it appears you are right:cry:.

[IronNoggin]

Maybe while your at it you could also stop the export of lumber ,oil, grain, hydro ,coal ,gravel, potash, canola, and a few others that drive the economy of canada. Guess it simply boils down to profits. Hmmmmm

The odd thing is that I have never heard of "recreational" mining, oil-drilling, hydro development, crop production (although some farmers I know might disagree with that LOL) etc.

The point, which most likely get unless they are wearing blinders, is that suggesting exported product for profit somehow exceeds the "Best and Wisest Use Policy" over fair access by the Real Owners of the fisheries resource is completely Ludicrous. Non-valid argument, and non-valid comparison. You know, the apples and oranges thing. Next...

Nog

[22savage]

The odd thing is that I have never heard of "recreational" mining, oil-drilling, hydro development, crop production (although some farmers I know might disagree with that LOL) etc.

The point, which most likely get unless they are wearing blinders, is that suggesting exported product for profit somehow exceeds the "Best and Wisest Use Policy" over fair access by the Real Owners of the fisheries resource is completely Ludicrous. Non-valid argument, and non-valid comparison. You know, the apples and oranges thing. Next...

Nog

We are not talking about RECREATIONAL halibut we are talking about COMMERCIAL caught halibut being exported ,please remove your blinders .We are talking about COMMERCIAL caught fish that the commercial sector owns because it is already caught. NON VALIID ARGUMENENT,AND NON VALID COMPARISON AND COMPLETELY LUDICROUS. You know the apples and oranges thing. NEXT