Halibut Allocation Court Case Decison

IronNoggin

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member

[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 1"]

[TD="colspan: 1, align: left"]
4.jpg

​
Halibut Allocation Decision Upheld in Malcolm Hearing
Minister's Discretion Preserved
April 12, 2013


​
​
​
[/TD]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 1"]
[/TD]

[TD="width: 100%, bgcolor: #AAB8C3, colspan: 1"]

[TD="colspan: 1, align: left"]
hisp_pro1div_top1.jpg
[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1, align: left"] We told you late last year that a group of commercial halibut quota holder had asked the courts to review Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield's 2012 decision to increase the recreational halibut allocation from 12% to 15%. These fishermen believed that when Ashfield's predecessor (Liberal Fisheries Minister Denis Thibault) made his initial 88:12 allocation decision in 2003, any subsequent changes could only be made through a "market-based" transfer.

The SFI and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF) realized that the outcome of this case could significantly undermine the recreational fishery. As a result, our two organizations decided to join forces, hire respected BC lawyer Chris Harvey Q.C. and gained responder status in the hearing. We were successful and this week's judgement by Justice Donald Rennie underscores the importance of our involvement.


Rennie dismissed the commercial quota holders' application and ruled that the Fisheries Act granted the Minister broad discretion to allocate halibut as he saw fit, provided that his decisions do not hamper his duty to preserve the fisheries resource. He also ruled that the Minister possessed great latitude to modify or reverse previous Ministerial decisions and even renege on his own personal political commitments. While this means that the Minister is able to reallocate fisheries as he sees fit, it also means he is entitled to make in-season closures to the recreational fishery, despite having made explicit promises to the contrary.

While Justice Rennie made the counter factual observation that the commercial halibut industry "was by far the larger industry", he nonetheless found that fisheries allocation decisions are political in nature, and that ministerial decisions regarding allocations cannot bind future Ministers.
 We will take some time over the coming weeks to delve deeper into this decision and will report back to you on what else it might mean for the ongoing debate over halibut allocation in BC. But it is clear that our decision to join forces with the BCWF ensured that our interests were considered and protected by the courts. It is also clear that future allocation decisions will be made as a result of political pressure. While the courts have upheld the Minister's 85:15 reallocation decision, they have also made it clear that government cannot consider the move to be a "final" reallocation.

[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 1, align: left"]
hisp_pro1div_bott1.jpg
[/TD]
[/TD]

[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 1"]

[TD="colspan: 1, align: left"]
For more information contact:

Sport Fishing Institute of BC
t: 604.946.0734
w: www.sportfishing.bc.ca
e: info@sportfishing.bc.ca

The SFI Team,
Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
[/TD]
[/TD]
Opens the door... ;)

Cheers,
Nog
 
Answers the question that a few negative posters have asked "What good is the SFI and the BCWF? " The money spent on the court case was well worth it.
 
That's right Cuba!!

One for the good guys.

Now maybe all the naysayers will jump onboard instead of sniping from the sidelines
 
Many thanks to SFI-BC, BCWF and all the other people we put in the time, money, hard work and dedication to represent the recreational angling sector in this important court case. We need to show our thanks and support by supporting these organizations who have been working on our behalf, again thank you!
 
Great news..... We do owe these groups a lot.
I was speaking to one of the organizers last week and he told me that they need our help.
Pick a group and send a cheque and make sure you put on it for the "Halibut Court Case".
These guy's took a chance we would support them.... time to step up.
GLG
 
Finally some good news, I'll happily pony up again to these organizations that stepped up for us.

C'mon guys $100 bucks each will go along way to help out. BCWF has mine already.
 
This is awesome. And I don't think anyone on the forum has ever bashed BCWF. Will be contributing personally, as well as I know parents are lifetime members and do annually as well.
 
Cuba Libre said:
Answers the question that a few negative posters have asked "What good is the SFI and the BCWF? " The money spent on the court case was well worth it.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't bye chance have the info to where money could be sent to help the groups out for the costs of this ? Every bit helps. ... :)
 
Cuba Libre said:
Answers the question that a few negative posters have asked "What good is the SFI and the BCWF? " The money spent on the court case was well worth it.
Click to expand...

Coming out of retirement to simply say amen. Fix the allocation issue, and we can move forward in a positive direction. Other issues to deal with, so hopefully we can work together as one unified group of concerned recreational anglers. Out.
 
Yes, glad to see you posting there Searun

Thanks for the links Cuba
 
I read about this today in an email I received from the SFI. It is great news. I have read many posts and threads about getting involved with these organizations. This is proof in the pudding so to speak for results.

These long existing organizations went to bat for us and we all need to help them out. The links have been posted. Time to step up to the plate as recreational anglers and help these folks out with the legal cost. They are the ones who duked it out in court for us. Time to pony up folks.

Let's keep the support up for the folks that do battle for us, the recreational angler.

Thank you to all that were there and put your time in and fought for the cause. Thank you big time.

Cheers,
John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this also shows the benefit of combining resources for the overall good of the sporties, regardless of individual interests. Wouldn't it make sense for the SFI and BCWF to encourage more representative group involvement and have some of the smaller groups to also contribute and further demonstrate a unified front? Just thinking that since all decisions from here on will be political in nature, the only way we can apply the necessary pressure to be truly heard in the numbers that can only be represented by all groups together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Five Nations Multi-species Fishery Management Plan available online
Replies
3
Views
1K
wildmanyeah
W
B
Integrity commissioner launches investigation of DFO officials over alleged attempts to silence scientists IAN BAILEY
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fishing?
F
Eden Island
  • Locked
2024 Halibut Fisheries Notice
Replies
62
Views
7K
Admin
Admin
OldBlackDog
About that Selective Fishery, by Bob Hooton
Replies
9
Views
2K
wildmanyeah
W
W
Stay Tuned....Salmon Allocation Policy Review Overview
Replies
6
Views
946
ericl
E
Back
Top