DFO must fix halibut controversy now

[Ding Dong!]

Great post, and respectfully I'd like to offer that your group is still building upon the divide and concur stance that we as sporty's hate when commercials refer to the commercial guide/lodge business. If you are focused on creating solutions, then why use divisive terms like "slipper skipper". Simply move beyond this and focus on the real issue, DFO. It's ok to show that the sport sector is not able to work within it's TAC due to growth.

Ding Dong!

I apologize for the edit as I missed a note that I would like some clarification on;

What really steams me about this whole quota issue is that the approx. 100,000 anglers are held hostage by the 430 commercial licence holders. By calculation they paid about 7 cents a pound for their licence fee last year and the public bought quota from some of them for $ 5.50 a pound. Nice margin if you're one of the lucky.

How much did we sportys charge commercials some time back for quota when they exceeded theirs and needed it? Were we gifted this quota that we sold? Did we profit from it? Just asking.

 

[Lipripper]

How much did we sportys charge commercials some time back for quota when they exceeded theirs and needed it? Were we gifted this quota that we sold? Did we profit from it? Just asking.

Throw it into the conversation.. You seem to know something. I think it will add to it

 

[double trouble]

Slipper skipper is a bit inflammatory, but I like it. This group of quota owners contributes little to the economy, other than the taxes they pay on their windfall profits. If they were not there no one would notice, the Canadian TAC would still be used in the commercial fishery. The non-fisher (note:gender neutral and not inflammatory) quota holders in a round about way actually inflate the price of halibut in charging a lot for no service. Once again the public is getting done.

I think we leased it to them for 3 something a pound, and we leased it back for 5 and a bit this year. But that was the market back then and the same story for the current price we paid.

Good point though, I'll quit using slipper skipper.

 

[Cut Plug]

Bummer, I thought DD would try to answer at least one of the questions posed to him. I was kind of looking forward to responding.

Anyway DD, I've spent WAY too much of my life up to my neck in halibut battles over the past 7 years to have someone like you tell me to get educated. Sorry buddy, but once again it isn't flying. Why not substantiate some of your claims with facts like others do? For a self professed sporty, you sure seem a little desperate to avoid the obvious facts in this issue:

- 12% isn't enough to support a thriving public fishery in 2011.
- the only way to solve this problem is to change the 88\12 allocation.
- the current quota holders are insisting on being "compensated" (quota speak for paid because I guess it sounds better?) for this reallocation.
- the original 435 quota holders paid nothing for the quota they were gifted back in 1991.
- just under half of the 435 quota holders actually fished in 2010. The rest leased out their quota at prices ranging from $3.00 to $5.50 per lb.
- If the reallocation was to come from these non-fishing quota holders, it would have little to no impact on active fishermen - it may even hlep them out due to its potential to stabilize quota lease prices or at least hold back the increase that is predicted for 2011 a little.
- If reallocation was to be done by forcing recreational anglers to lease quota from exsisitng quota holders, it would drive up the price of quota, causing further harm to both the recrational sector and active commercial fishermen to the benefit of only the current quota holders, rewarding the bad behavior of the slipper skippers.
- if DFO wants to adopt a "precautionary approach" to ensure that the rec sector doesn't overfish its allocation, all they need to do in the short term is provide enough fish to the sector to make sure that doesn't happen. In the long term, they can beef up the catch monitoring system until it makes the commercial sector happy - because they're the only ones that are complaining.

This is a political decision we're looking for folks. There is an almost complete deficit of good, current "science" on the social and economic implications of a reallocation which is too bad. Its going to be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease here which is admittedly a poor way to manage a fishery, but its where we find ourselves now after 7 years of honest effort to "negotiate' our way out of this mess. If the commercial sector as represented by the PHMA had any appetite at all for compromise, or had any respect at all for the public fishery we wouldn't be here today.

The good news is that the current system is unfair, unjust, potentially illegal and simply not working. DFO is starting to understand they need to come up with a fix, and they need to do it soon. The amount of public unrest this situation is causing is clear evidence that the status quo is no longer acceptable. 450 pissed off fishermen showing up to a meeting in Victoria is clear evidence of the level of this unrest and public anger.

Write your letters, visit your MP's, haggling over details about what is actually a pretty damn good catch monitoring system (and yes, lodge catches ARE audited - ask any DFO rec fish coordinator) is merely smoke and mirrors.

I want to be able to fish for halibut next year after July 15th, do you?

Cut Bob.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Great post CP! It's obvious that we read from the same page out of the same book and that we both have the same view about 88/12, other than who we each are focused on. You are welcome to focus all you like on the commercial sector. I'll focus on DFO! You will end up there eventually, but with your sights on the commercial sector it may take years longer than simply taking DFO to court. Pretty simple actually. Go re-read my posts they are all focused on 88/12 and DFO. Quota was not free, please show me where it states that it was free or gifted. Either way things will change, the question is when?!

Ding Dong!

 

[Cut Plug]

Thanks DD & others...

I guess the challenge I have is that we've tried for years with DFO, and have got no where. It is indeed their mess and eventually their decision, but as I stated in my earlier post, we have now embarked on a political approach because of the failure over the long term in working within DFO's consultation system.

Notice how the SFAB is not involved in this fight now? Its because they have, in good faith, exhausted every avenue for a negotiated, compromise solution through a series of DFO lead processes to sort this out. The SFAB has advised DFO for many years that this is not working, and has offered solutions that represented significant compromise from the recreatonal sector, but DFO has chosen to ignore that advice. Now it is time for the negotiators to step back, and allow the public to have its say.

The reason I now focus on the unfair allocation and how its has evolved in an ITQ based management system is that it is a broken system that doesn't work for the rec secotor or active commercial fishermen.

The huge problem we face as a fishery is the further privatization of our common propertry resources through the application of ITQ's in fisheries. Mark my words gentlemen, if we lose this one for halibut, get ready to face exactly the same issue with salmon, crab, prawns, and other groundfish. Halibut is the test case.

Many in the commercial sector, and especially the "experts" in Pacific Region Groundfish management, see ITQ's as a panacea for groundfish management in that it makes it easy for them to count every fish, (which they percieve as their main obligation), due to the need to track quota from a financial perspective. While I agree that it is important from a sustainable fishery perspective to do this, at some point in time the equation needs to be less simplistic than that as DFO actually also has a mandate to manage these resources to the best and highest use for the benefit of all Canadians.

Taking the easy way out in terms of catch accountability, while selling out perhaps the best way to actually achieve the highest and best resource rent in both social and economic terms is simply not good enough IMO. The fact that Groundfish Management can simply state that they've done no social and economic analysis on the impact of ITQ's or the impact of reallocation and therefore can't include quality, evidence based information of this type in to the decision making process, is absolutely not good enough, and represents complete failure ofr DFO to do their job.

If I were going after DFO, I'd ask them why they feel that the further privatization of a common properrty resource is OK in their minds. I'd also ask them if the ministers discretion is fettered in their seeming inability to reallocate without compensation.

Fiunally, I'd aske them to get off their asses, do the right thing, and reallocate sufficient fish to the recreational sector so we can have a decent fishery - we own it for god's sake, why can't we access it!

CPGB

 

[profisher]

CP..I agree 100% that 88/12 needs to be changed. But I want to throw this out there purely for debate and feedback. If the minister is unwilling to budge and next season is status quo and it appears that no change may ever be forthcoming, do we need a different tactic. Buying quota seems to be almost a taboo thought in this fight, should it be? Could it be our best weapon for a change of heart from the commercials? What would happen under the present system of quota ownership (one the commercials like) if we (all rec fishers) used our strength in numbers and started buying up quota. Not leasing, buying. We, becoming their fish lords!!! If they knew this was our agenda, do you think they would fold and be more receptive to a fair negotiated settlement? One that DFO could sign off on. Would this action by us may make all involved rethink the whole agenda of quota on all species down the road. 300,000 anglers at $50 each is 15 million bucks. That buys 375,000lbs at $40.00 per pound. Is that a strong enough message to the commercials to make them take us seriously and want to settle this fairly?

 

[Charlie]

"through a bid system to its members in 2004 and 2005. Over the two years the amount transferred was approximately 320 tonnes which generated about $1.8 million CDN or 60% of the $3 million CDN landed value of the fish (the commercial sector also paid a per tone resource royalty to the federal government plus dockside monitoring and other fees)."

I would have to question leasing back and forth numbers?? That's a pretty healty increase in "market Value" isn't it? Let's recap that one... you lease to them 320 tonnes for $1.8 million - they lease to you 375,000 pounds for $40.00 per pound?? I didn't reallize market value had increased that much, since 2005?

 

[Gypseas]

Why would we have to pay anything for something that we own that just happen to have been given away under shady circumstances?

And why would a commie give up/sell something that for them is sure bet....easy monies in their pocket for nothing.

Unless they smell the quota beeing taken back by the DFO, selling I don't see being an option.

 

[double trouble]

To buy a licence is around $ 40 to $ 50 a lb. But the fact remains we have no way of raising the money even if we agreed to buy halibut from the halibut barons. But the bottom line is we shouldn't have to. We aren't looking for a lot of fish, just enough to make the fishery viable.

 

[Ding Dong!]

"Charlie" you are walking down the right road, but you are mixing up the info a little. Lease price and Lic. buy price are separate things. "If" we lease a portion for the season shortfall is different from "If" we buy quota to own. For instance recently quota was purchased from the commercial sector for use by FN, this is a predominant practice that has been taking place as the Fed readies to settle claims with FN. FN is only affected by IPHC when they discover Canada's quota for the year, as FN is divided at the top with the balance directed by DFO between the Sport and commercial sectors. I know you know that, but I am writing so that it hopefully make sense to others who may not yet be aware.

All I can offer is that the sooner people begin to refocus their efforts and thoughts, the sooner the solution will be met. Go to Court!

Ding Dong!

 

[profisher]

The idea is to buy $40.00 per pound. (not lease at $4.50 to $5.00 pound) Guys this is a worst case scenario proposition. If the minster refuses to budge on 88/12. Everything is for sale for a price. If we start buying quota from those willing to sell. I would foresee someone who is at retirement age who is holding quota excepting a lump sum buy out, rather than leasing it a lesser amount for an unknown number of remaining years of their lives. That becomes a threat to the other quota holders. Would they want us holding quota? I think the idea of them having to come to us begging to buy quota, then paying us market value to fish would be incentive enough to have them rethink this 88/12 split. This idea has nothing to do with "why should we have to buy what is already ours" this is all about playing a game with the intent to win!!!!! The cost of this fight is merely a small loan each year to the cause of buying quota. Once the 88/12 is gone, we can re-sell them back their quota with a small mark up for our trouble and have the money invested and ready for any future fight.

 

[Charlie]

In Canada resource conservation is the highest priority. After conservation needs are met, First Nations aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) requirements and treaty obligations have the next highest priority. The allocation of remaining fish resources to commercial and recreational use is a matter of public policy.

This section focuses on recreational vs commercial allocation of halibut and the innovative allocation process in place today. The total TAC of halibut has been about 6,000 tonnes in recent years – worth about $50 million CDN to commercial fishermen ($60 million CDN at the wholesale level) plus an indeterminate amount to the recreational fishery.


through a bid system to its members in 2004 and 2005. Over the two years the amount transferred was approximately 320 tonnes which generated about $1.8 million CDN or 60% of the $3 million CDN landed value of the fish (the commercial sector also paid a per tone resource royalty to the federal government plus dockside monitoring and other fees).

Since the recreational fishery sector does not have a legal entity to represent itself (the Sport Fish Advisory Board is purely “advisory”), the PHMA set up a separate trust account or endowment fund for the monies collected. The PHMA is awaiting directions from the recreational sector as to how to release the money.

The lack of a legal institutional structure for the sport fish sector is a serious impediment to effecting transfers between the two sectors. Without a legal institution, and if the sport fish sector pushes against the 12% cap, then DFO will be forced to reduce daily limits or to close selected fishing areas and times to constrain the recreational halibut catch.

This day of reckoning is at hand – the recreational sector is estimated to have caught almost exactly 12% of the total TAC in 2005. Accordingly, the 2006 recreational fishery will be managed as if the fishery will catch 12% of TAC, and there will be no surplus for sale to the commercial sector. If the recreational sector catches more than 12% of TAC in 2006, then under the current policy the recreational sector for 2007 will need to: 1) purchase quota from the commercial sector (the “market approach”), or 2) be subject to more stringent bag limits, fishing times and/or fishing areas (the “command and control approach”). But as noted earlier, the present lack of institutional structure for the recreational sector precludes the first approach. We suggest that it would be prudent for DFO to give the recreational sector one year’s notice, prior to enacting regulatory change in April 2007, in order to adjust to the proposed regulations or to suggest alternatives. This would facilitate business planning.

Some elements of the recreational sector think the halibut allocation policy should be revised or abandoned, or that the government should purchase quota from the commercial sector to transfer to the recreational sector i.e., the recreational sector should be allowed to grow with a subsidy from the public purse (Kelleher 2002).

One alternative is to increase recreational licence fees and have the extra monies dedicated to purchasing commercial quota. But the 2004 federal User Fees Act prescribes a cumbersome process involving notification, consultation, an independent advisory board, a performance measurement system as well as debate in Parliament to change fee levels – this process likely would take a minimum of three years.

With formal allocation naturally comes increased scrutiny of catch monitoring systems for both commercial and recreational sectors. The commercial halibut sector has one of the best catch monitoring systems in the world with mandatory hail in, hail out of fishing trips, 100% Dockside Monitoring, tagging of all fish landed, and starting in 2006 observers and/or video cameras on all vessels. In contrast, the recreational fishery monitoring program consists of a variety of adhoc creel census, lodge and charter logbooks, and other programs – the recreational sector needs to improve its catch monitoring program substantially.

Many segments of the recreational sector agree and point to increased licence fees dedicated to catch monitoring as a natural way to address this issue - but again the provisions of the federal User Fees Act make this option difficult to implement. But apparently active investigation of this and other user pay options are underway.

The fact that now both commercial and recreational sectors are fishing to a prescribed TAC has enhanced sustainability of the resource, and the users dependent on it (see discussion of commercial sector benefits in Gislason 1999). Unlike the salmon situation, the halibut resource and its aggregate TAC does not fluctuate widely from year to year. Therefore it is feasible for the recreational sector to fish to a formal TAC and not incur mid-season closures or dramatic year-to-year regulatory changes. The transfer mechanism inherent in the halibut allocation policy allows for an orderly transfer from one sector to another.

In summary the intersectoral allocation process for halibut is innovative and unique in Canada, and perhaps in the world, as it involves both necessary conditions for efficiency, namely well-defined initial allocations and the ability to transfer these allocations. However, it is premature to ascertain whether or not this allocation process is working.

How the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deals with the need for the sports sector to adhere to the 12% halibut TAC ceiling and the need for better recreational catch monitoring will test its resolve, as well as the efficacy of the halibut allocation process overall.

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/halibut_issues/stakeholder/April/CommercialRecreationalCanada.pdf

 

[double trouble]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but I get back to "where do we get the money from"? As a desperation move we suggested DFO do a buyback and then introduce a stamp for those of us that want to go hali fishing. But that idea got squished as there is a "no new user fees" act in place and therefore DFO can't do it.

And as far as buying it from an old timer that wants to sell it, it's unlikely as the quota is allowed to be passed on to heirs. Who in their right mind would sell? The Halibut Barons renew it every year for about 7 cents a pound and then lease it for well over $3.00 a pound. I know if that was me, I wouldn't sell.

Keep on writing letters to your MP and the minister.

Double Trouble

Sorry, I didn't hit refresh before adding my two bits. Charlie's quote above is from years ago. DFO ramped up it's monitoring and catch data on the sporties since that report. And I don't see what his point was in posting the above. Is the whole thing a cut and paste or are some of the words his? Charlie, could you tell what the point of the posting was, I've missed it?

 

[profisher]

Where does Greenpeace get their money?

 

[AlGee]

Good information posted here and brings to mind another factor regarding the sports TAC allocation. The TAC number is static while the pressure exerted by the sports fishery on halibut stocks is not. When there are restrictions on certain areas/times/species of salmon stocks, sports fishers will invariably target other species, namely rockfish, lingcod and halibut. I don't know if DFO considers the repercussions when they change fishing strategies in midstream.

 

[Charlie]

Not one word of that last post was mine, if you check the link... It was ALL cut and paste from a presentation to:

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]COMMERCIAL VS RECREATIONAL FISHERIES ALLOCATION IN[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]CANADA: PACIFIC HERRING, SALMON AND HALIBUT[/FONT]
[/FONT]Paper Presented to Sharing the Fish 06 Conference
Freemantle, Western Australia
26 February – 2 March 2006
Gordon Gislason
GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
PO Box 10321, Pacific Centre, 880-609 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V7Y 1G5​

gsg@gsg.bc.ca

The reasons are highlighted in bold and red? Sorry, the point being... Stick with the 88/12 unfair split issue! As the above points out the transfer back and forth from one sector to the other is/will never work, way to many variables!

 

[double trouble]

But usually when the sporties are restricted it is because of a conservation issue, something that we are in full support of, the halibut issue is not one of those situations. This time it is about the minister splitting up the Canadian catch, no conservation issue. I know I for one won't be chartering a guide to go offshore for rock cod, even though they are tasty!

 

[double trouble]

Charlie, thanks for the clarification. I'm in total agreement.

 

[Charlie]

But usually when the sporties are restricted it is because of a conservation issue, something that we are in full support of, the halibut issue is not one of those situations. This time it is about the minister splitting up the Canadian catch, no conservation issue. I know I for one won't be chartering a guide to go offshore for rock cod, even though they are tasty!

THANK YOU... That is the point! It has nothing to do with conservation (conservation is IPHC's job), in Canada (and in Area 2C)... THIS IS ALL POLITICAL, IHMO!