Early Halibut Opening

[ziggy]

Pretty much it's a 1 man problem and we all know that mans name. Hopefully when he dies which at his age can't be too far off the corporation/trust sells off the assets or better yet he gifts it back to the people but I wouldn't hold my breathe on that scenario.

I think his quota is all fished, but I could be wrong? My concern is for all the individuals that lease out their quota and haven’t fished it for decades!
This article says 15% is owned by active fishers

Fight over West Coast fishing licences and quota resurfaces at federal committee

Commons committee told West Coast fisheries increasing corporate controlled, while policies prevent that on the East Coast

vancouversun.com

 

[Salmonslayer1992]

Pretty much it's a 1 man problem and we all know that mans name. Hopefully when he dies which at his age can't be too far off the corporation/trust sells off the assets or better yet he gifts it back to the people but I wouldn't hold my breathe on that scenario.

Pattinson?

 

[Salmonslayer1992]

Pattinson?

Right figured, read the above article. I was on a Gillnet boat 25 years ago and pink salmon was 15 cents a lb. My skipper was pissed, you can’t buy peanuts for that. All the boats were on the radio all day hating on Pattinson, saying he owned the fleet and the buyers, so he set the prices, owned everything. It’s pretty sad what’s happened to all the commercial fishing community’s, used to be good money and good opportunities for all involved to prosper, has now gone to complete *hit!

 

[Capt_Ed]

From my perspective the real problem is the quota held by non fishing, former fishermen. Where else do you get to lease out something that belongs to all of us. People have been profiting off this since the 70’s, so 50 years of free money is enough. This makes things tough on actual commercial fishermen who have to lease the quota as well as public fishers who can’t fish it. We and the commercial fishers should agree that this leased quota need to be returned for reallocation.

Commercial quotas came out in the very late 80's.

 

[Cookie's Cutter]

From my perspective the real problem is the quota held by non fishing, former fishermen. Where else do you get to lease out something that belongs to all of us. People have been profiting off this since the 70’s, so 50 years of free money is enough. This makes things tough on actual commercial fishermen who have to lease the quota as well as public fishers who can’t fish it. We and the commercial fishers should agree that this leased quota need to be returned for reallocation.

Who is forcing people to buy quotas?

 

[ziggy]

Who is forcing people to buy quotas?

Better to ask who is selling quota and how do they happen to own it and why?

 

[ziggy]

Commercial quotas came out in the very late 80's.

I stand corrected I assumed the quotas were based on the 1979 intro of L licenses to determine future quota.

The separate halibut limited ‘L’ licence was established in 1979, based on catch history in 1977 and 1978, with 435 ‘L’ licences created.

 

[Gong Show]

Selling quota is not the big issue.

It is the slipper skippers who are leasing the quota, that are the issue.

If quota had to be fished by the owner, there would be no slipper skippers.

 

[IronNoggin]

If quota had to be fished by the owner, there would be no slipper skippers.

Interestingly enough, DFO forces East Coast Commercial fishermen to use it or lose it (they MUST fish their quota or it is taken from them).

They have the exact opposite stance out here in the west...

 

[Cookie's Cutter]

Better to ask who is selling quota and how do they happen to own it and why

You guys are so off topic it is incredible. Commercial fisherman leasing their quotas has no effect on how much fish recreational anglers can catch.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Other than the fact the the Canadian Halibut TAC needs to move from 85/15% commercial/recreational sector split to 75/25% to get much more money into the BC economy than the current allocation does (i.e. the rec sector generates much more $ per pound to the economy then the commercial sector).

In addition, if the commercial sector does not fish their whole quota then can roll it over into the next, but the recreational sector cannot - another factor why we need to change this illogical and unfair halibut allocation.

Time for DFO to wake up on this issue and start better supporting the recreational/public fishery for the benefit of all Canadians and our local economies!!

 

[ziggy]

Interestingly enough, DFO forces East Coast Commercial fishermen to use it or lose it (they MUST fish their quota or it is taken from them).

They have the exact opposite stance out here in the west...

That’s the way it should be and I think that was intended, but instead leasing and selling became the norm.

 

[Tips Up]

No posts by anyone since "Whole in the Water " posted this one. I'll go since I've often posted something stupid so I have a question on the following post

From the post above. If it were a conservation issue we may be able to agree but this is an allocation issue.
Isn't the overall cuts in the quota (commercial and Rec) directly related to a conservation issue or in other words, the need to maintain a sustainable fishery? No doubt we can argue if the 15/85 split is fair or not but from what I've read online, according to the data that's used the spawning biomass is at a 40 year low. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the economic benefit of pound for pound with Commercial versus Recreational but my biggest fear is that with the known mismanagement of fisheries in the past by DFO we may not have a fishery at all in a few years if the biomass stays on this trend. Maybe I've misinterpreted what I've read on the matter.

IPHC Cuts Coastwide Commercial Halibut Catch By 18% – Fishermens News

fishermensnews.com

Thank you for correcting me. You are correct. The Total Allowable Catch is set to maintain a sustainable fishery.
This is hard to remember when I can pay to play and retain what ever I like.
IMO....For conservation this needs to be looked at and regulated by area like other fisheries. The fishing pressure and biomass I imagine varies from one area to another.

 

[Tips Up]

You guys are so off topic it is incredible. Commercial fisherman leasing their quotas has no effect on how much fish recreational anglers can catch.

Please explain your post?

Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is... If the allocation was correctly adjusted the Rec Sector would not be under these same size and season restrictions.
The Experimental Lease Program was and is the kiss of death. This was DFO’s way of adjusting the allocation but on your dime and to benefit those holding and not fishing quota. We should all be fighting to have this experiment ended. Then fish it or lose it. This would be benefit rec anglers to access the resource and younger commercial fishermen to make a decent living. Also supports the local businesses and economy.
Sadly with more restrictions there will be more people buying in making it a successful experiment and those with $$ will do their thing.

 

[Hardy Guy]

It's been said before : leasing is needed in the commercial ground fish fisheries for several reasons, and the fishery is better because of it. The issue right now us 15 percent of a low TAC does not cover Rec needs. It the TAC goes way up again then 15 percent may be way more than we need .... it's complicated and even more so with a lower halibut biomass.

 

[Cookie's Cutter]

So the issue is not with leasing quotas, because it doesnt matter who owns the quota or who leases it. It is the fact that the commercial allocation is too large and the rec/sporty allocation is too small.

 

[Capt_Ed]

Let me put this in terms that are little more relevant to the times . In the beginning Canada and the USA came to an agreement on trade issues and who should get what and how much, a negotiation if you will. Now Trumpy needs more so he starts whining and trying to change the deal.
In case you havent figured it out yet, if you think 85/15 should change........your Trumpy.

 

[Gong Show]

So the issue is not with leasing quotas, because it doesnt matter who owns the quota or who leases it. It is the fact that the commercial allocation is too large and the rec/sporty allocation is too small.

Yes, allocation of the resource.



Active commercial fishermen like owner operator. Commercial interests like leasing.



If only active commercial fishermen can have quota, it would free up TAC for recreational.



As long as quota is leasable, strong

interests will oppose TAC reallocation.



It's a pipe dream, but it would give active fishermen, commercial and recreational, more quota.

 

[Hardy Guy]

I agree Ed. As much as I want more rec halibut the fishery was started and fished almost exclusively by commercial fishermen for decades with very little catch by the rec fleet until recent times. When the quotas came in and the TAC was high the rec fleet had lots with their allocation .. now that the TAC has dropped . Not so much. What people forget is as the rec TAC drops so does the commercial TAC and their quotas. I want more rec opportunity but people need to remember the history. Commercial has taken a hit also. I can also feel for the salmon trollers .... we have all got shafted.

 

[Gong Show]

If Jimmy and DFO had their way, there would only be one vessel fishing the coast. Period.