sammyslabber
Active Member
I'd accept that, but I've seen how irrational you can be in your hate towards the canucks....
When The People Fear The Goverment, It's Tyranny...When The Goverment Fears The People It"s Democracy!!!
Halibut Experimental Recreational Fishery Program
- Thread starter yammy5
- Start date
When The People Fear The Goverment, It's Tyranny...When The Goverment Fears The People It"s Democracy!!!
alwaysfishn
Member
I'm sure I can come up with another idea of how to get more sockeye allocation over a shorter time period.... Maybe if the halibut program is successful.....
Westcap19
Member
This halibut quota purchase program has been giving me a slow burn since I first hard about it--not withstanding the fact its mere existence is total b@#$s&&t, it's not very well thought through . The icing on the cake for me was my recent thought that the whole thing may be illegal (Quote from Page 5 of the regs): UNLAWFUL ACTIONS: It is illegal to buy, sell, barter or attempt to barter any fish caught by sport fishing. Of course the original meaning is it's illegal to sport catch a fish, then sell it or what have you, BUT when you think about what DFO introduced, I think it meets the test of being illegal:
You pay money to another party to catch fish
Then you sport catch the fish.
D'OH!!!
Same actions, but bass ackwards--just like the whole program
You pay money to another party to catch fish
Then you sport catch the fish.
D'OH!!!
Same actions, but bass ackwards--just like the whole program
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Fixed that for ya.
MORE than agree.
We WILL Fix the ******** in the long run... Really
United We can do it.
Cheers,
Nog
Lipripper
Active Member
sammyslabber
Active Member
I left this one a few pages ago............. I will read it...
But really??
Lippy, how about re-working the Dumb & Dumber(troll twins f4a/af) pic of the 2 guys on the couch(canucks thread)...sammy
Last edited by a moderator:
alwaysfishn
Member
Is that how you treat everybody that disagrees with you?
sammyslabber
Active Member
AF,you talken to me? sorry for all of my life ,i can't recall you replying/disagreeing to any of my posts...nevertheless continue with your visions of grandeur...sammy
alwaysfishn
Member
I guess I'll have to re-read the forum rules.... Don't recall reading that I needed permission from you to post.
sammyslabber
Active Member
Wow dude,i think you're spending to much time fishing lol... maybe a tad to much sun / hst...fill your boots post away... last time i checked it was a free world...sammy
fish4all
Well-Known Member
had a few extra shots that night and read enough of your posts to unfortunatly tar a few too many with the same brush. But keep up the great posting holmes there must be at least one dfo person you have not **** on yet...lol
alwaysfishn
Member
I can see this being an administrative or political issue, but I don't believe it has anything to do with morals or ethics....
alwaysfishn
Member
Not really...
I could probably come up with all kinds of examples over the history of this country where decisions were made and then years later those decisions were questioned. Why did some settlers have to pay for their land while other settlers received their land for free? Why did the white guys supposedly take the indian's land and allocate small reservations for them to live on? I hunt and often come across roads that are blocked by forestry companies. Why do they have more rights than I do on public land?
I don't believe that the people that made those early decisions were either morally or ethically bankrupt. They made the decisions based on the information on hand. In the case of the indians, political pressure has forced the governments to make monetary restitution to try and "right the wrongs".
In the case of the commercial fishermen, I believe the allocations were incentives to try and tap a resource that could create a market. Without that incentive it is unlikely that fishermen would have made the investments into boats and equipment. It was also at a time of a much healthier halibut fishery. My guess is that no one did the calculations to see what effect fewer halibut would have on the allocation of the resource.
I have no issue with a campaign to try and change the halibut allocation policy, but all this crap of moral or ethical issues has nothing to do with how the allocation policy came about.
It's like arguing the HST is no good because Campbell lied... Even if I believed that, it has nothing to do with the HST policy.
alwaysfishn
Member
As I said earlier, giving away our "rights" has been done through out history.
I really don't know the historical aspect of the allocation decisions but I don't see it any different than issues like giving cattle ranchers grazing rights on crown land or forestry companies the right to harvest our forests. At Cultus lake here in Chilliwack the original settlors were leased the land to build their homes around the lake. The property wasn't theirs, they only had the right of use. Over the years this has changed to where the selling price of those cottages and homes reflect today's market value of the land as well as the home. The land is still not theirs but they are buying and selling properties like the land is included. Some of those homes are worth a million bucks. It's not fair but it's pretty hard to roll back the clock on the homeowners.
Unfortunately once you give away the rights its tough to take them back.
I really don't know the historical aspect of the allocation decisions but I don't see it any different than issues like giving cattle ranchers grazing rights on crown land or forestry companies the right to harvest our forests. At Cultus lake here in Chilliwack the original settlors were leased the land to build their homes around the lake. The property wasn't theirs, they only had the right of use. Over the years this has changed to where the selling price of those cottages and homes reflect today's market value of the land as well as the home. The land is still not theirs but they are buying and selling properties like the land is included. Some of those homes are worth a million bucks. It's not fair but it's pretty hard to roll back the clock on the homeowners.
Unfortunately once you give away the rights its tough to take them back.
alwaysfishn
Member
Where were the protests when the original allocations were made 10 years or so ago? That's why I use the word giving.
My guess is there were no conservation concerns at the time, so the allowable catch numbers were a lot higher and probably sports fishermen were not catching their 12% of the allocation. The sporties probably thought they were getting a great deal (specially when compared to the sporties 3% allocation of the sockeye fishery). Of course once the allowable catch numbers were reduced and there was a possibility that the sporties would be shut down, then it became an issue.
Am I close?
My guess is there were no conservation concerns at the time, so the allowable catch numbers were a lot higher and probably sports fishermen were not catching their 12% of the allocation. The sporties probably thought they were getting a great deal (specially when compared to the sporties 3% allocation of the sockeye fishery). Of course once the allowable catch numbers were reduced and there was a possibility that the sporties would be shut down, then it became an issue.
Am I close?
Wow, I don't know where to begin after a remarkable post like this. So, shaking my head sadly, I'll move on.
alwaysfishn
Member
I agree DFO has a agenda that seems to be driven by politics rather than science.
If the commercial guys aren't fishing their quotas, isn't that good for the resource? The only reason they wouldn't be fishing is because there is no market for their fish or there are excess fish on the market resulting in deflated prices. Now if no one is buying their excess quota, then a lot of fish will remain uncaught. That would leave more fish on the spawning beds, which will eventually result in a larger total allocation, ultimately meaning more fish for the sporties.
Maybe DFO is being smarter than you give them credit. Maybe they are using this "transferable quota" to naturally help with conservation of the resource.
If the commercial guys aren't fishing their quotas, isn't that good for the resource? The only reason they wouldn't be fishing is because there is no market for their fish or there are excess fish on the market resulting in deflated prices. Now if no one is buying their excess quota, then a lot of fish will remain uncaught. That would leave more fish on the spawning beds, which will eventually result in a larger total allocation, ultimately meaning more fish for the sporties.
Maybe DFO is being smarter than you give them credit. Maybe they are using this "transferable quota" to naturally help with conservation of the resource.
Last edited by a moderator:
alwaysfishn
Member
Why even post if that's all you have to add? Why not just shake your head and then move on quickly with a click of your mouse?
As a result of your pointless post, you just caused me to respond with another pointless post!
alwaysfishn
Member
Sometimes the best solutions come about by thinking outside of the box. On this one I'm not convinced what the problem or the solution is. Just throwin out some thoughts....
Similar threads
