hooktender68
Well-Known Member
Very nice!! Sad and on the $
Halibut Experimental Recreational Fishery Program
- Thread starter yammy5
- Start date
Bassblaster
Active Member
Because that would be equity in the law and we all know that's not going to happen.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
a commie can carry over 10% of fish caught on an individual license. that is if a boat catches 10,000lbs he can carry over 1000 lbs into the next year. if a license catches 0lbs (in the case of someone leasing their fish) that license can carry over no pounds.
What is this limit that you are asking to carry over. It is my understanding that there is no seasonal limit on a sports license
What are we leaving for the next generation besides polititians with plugged ears?
Being a business owner dependent on recreational fishers on the Pacific coast and a fisherman myself I am totally disgusted with our present minister of fisheries and her total disregard for canadians who have made their views by way of letters, emails, etc, on this halibut issue. They, the government begs for our support to get into power, but besides ripping us off in taxation do nothing in correcting or even addressing our concerns once they are in power.
Being a business owner dependent on recreational fishers on the Pacific coast and a fisherman myself I am totally disgusted with our present minister of fisheries and her total disregard for canadians who have made their views by way of letters, emails, etc, on this halibut issue. They, the government begs for our support to get into power, but besides ripping us off in taxation do nothing in correcting or even addressing our concerns once they are in power.
juandesooka
Active Member
Out of curiosity, I emailed DFO last week about this "selling fish" debate. Their response: "The correct interpretation is that if a business operation would like to provide additional services (whether that be access to halibut beyond the standard recreational opening or more than 1 halibut a day) and if that business charges extra for these services that is between the client and the business operator. The business is charging extra for a service."
So there you go, guides or lodges can charge whatever they want, even if it involves getting compensated for buying quota. And again, not suggesting I support this program! Just clearing up this issue.
So there you go, guides or lodges can charge whatever they want, even if it involves getting compensated for buying quota. And again, not suggesting I support this program! Just clearing up this issue.
alwaysfishn
Member
I don't know much about the experimental halibut program, and quite frankly don't care about it, as it's been years since I last went halibut fishing...
I was thinking though that I would like to see something like this implemented in the sockeye fishery... Before blasting the idea, hear me out.
I already pay to have the opportunity to catch 2 sockeye per day in the non-tidal part of the Fraser. (when the season is open) But let's say I only have a few days to actually go fishing. Wouldn't it be great to pay a little extra for the opportunity to catch more than the 2 per day over that time period? I would get the extra fish I wanted and whoever would also get paid...
For whatever reasons (I really don't care what they are) it's apparently not acceptable in the halibut fishery, how would you feel if it was available in the sockeye fishery?
Holmes... I noticed you seem to be the most vocal on the Halibut issue, what are your thoughts on an experimental sockeye fishery program?
I was thinking though that I would like to see something like this implemented in the sockeye fishery... Before blasting the idea, hear me out.
I already pay to have the opportunity to catch 2 sockeye per day in the non-tidal part of the Fraser. (when the season is open) But let's say I only have a few days to actually go fishing. Wouldn't it be great to pay a little extra for the opportunity to catch more than the 2 per day over that time period? I would get the extra fish I wanted and whoever would also get paid...
For whatever reasons (I really don't care what they are) it's apparently not acceptable in the halibut fishery, how would you feel if it was available in the sockeye fishery?
Holmes... I noticed you seem to be the most vocal on the Halibut issue, what are your thoughts on an experimental sockeye fishery program?
greenhornet
Active Member
If I know holmes personality hell tell you and your sockeye idea to keep it to your self,why would you want to pay more for a resource that is already the publics,what next pay extra for everything dont we already pay enough with this f#@$ed up government???????????????????? Dont get me started...
Tight lines
Billydoo
Tight lines
Billydoo
alwaysfishn
Member
I told you why I would be willing to pay... re-read my post. My time is valuable and if I can maximize the return on time invested, I'm all over that.
I see the emotional side of it, although I don't really appreciate it because I make most of my decisions based on logic and the merits of the choices, not on how I feel about it.
Islandgirl
Well-Known Member
alwaysfishing..
so you think allowing the rich to buy the opportunity to catch more fish is a Good thing and you would like to do that with sockeye because that is what matters to you?
You clearly don't give a sh*t about anyone else, sportfishing or the resource IMHO
alwaysfishn
Member
First, I'm not rich.
Second, how can you derive from my question, that I don't give a sh*t about sportfishing or the resource? In my opinion, sockeye flossing in the Fraser is not a sport, it's a harvest! If I was buying some quota from a commercial fisherman, it just means he isn't taking his allocation, I am. That will not change the effect on the resource in any way!
Of course it matters to me. If I have limited time to catch sockeye, I'm already on the river, and the cost of buying the quota is lower than the cost of buying the sockeye from a commercial fisherman, I would not only be saving money but also catching more than I could otherwise catch given the time. I know I could buy discounted sockeye from the local natives, but I strongly object to that practice.
No need to make the debate personal, the Halibut debate just got me thinking about something I can relate to...
Lipripper
Active Member
If you were willing to pay extra to catch more fish why wouldn't you just get your 2 and buy more from a store?
Paying for the extra fish is not beneficial to anyone including the fish... License fees are supposed to help with the cost of running DFO even though its a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme, that license gives you the right to fish. Paying for the extra quota only makes the person that you bought it of richer off something that wasn't really theirs to begin with. It puts $ signs on the animals head.
I just gotta figure out a way to charge people for sunshine.
Paying for the extra fish is not beneficial to anyone including the fish... License fees are supposed to help with the cost of running DFO even though its a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme, that license gives you the right to fish. Paying for the extra quota only makes the person that you bought it of richer off something that wasn't really theirs to begin with. It puts $ signs on the animals head.
I just gotta figure out a way to charge people for sunshine.
alwaysfishn
Member
Because I'm already standing up to my neck in the Fraser and I'd have to take off my waders to go into the local Save-on, that charges 2 to 3 times(guessing) what it would cost me to buy quota from a commercial guy...
This has no detrimental effect on the fish..... I'm just paying the commercial guy for the right to catch a fish that he otherwise would have caught. The commercial fisherman wouldn't be getting any richer than if he caught the fish himself, sold it and pocketed the money! The fish already have $ signs on their heads!
Lipripper
Active Member
Yes..... The price in store isn't that bad.... It is more often than not American caught fish. Even without the extra cost of buying quota (especially with a boat), gear, gas any food etc etc it usually works to be cheaper to buy 
.
Why should you pay the commercial guy for the right to fish? It costs quite a bit of money to fish their quota with no overhead they would make a lot more money. There in lies the problem... how can they own the fish
.Why should you pay the commercial guy for the right to fish? It costs quite a bit of money to fish their quota with no overhead they would make a lot more money. There in lies the problem... how can they own the fish
Last edited by a moderator:
alwaysfishn
Member
Yes..... The price in store isn't that bad.... It is more often than not American caught fish. Even without the extra cost of buying quota (especially with a boat), gear, gas any food etc etc it usually works to be cheaper to buy
Why should you pay the commercial guy for the right to fish? It costs quite a bit of money to fish their quota with no overhead they would make a lot more money. There in lies the problem... how can they own the fish
They don't... they own the right to go fishing, and I'd be willing to pay to have some of that right. Heck it doesn't have to be a commercial guy... I'd be willing to buy the right to catch and retain sockeye, from another recreational fisherman that doesn't fish for sockeye, or a recreational fisherman that just catches and releases. (although I think catch and release sockeye fishermen should be shot)
Why should I care how the person I'm buying from benefits? If I want to buy a new boat I don't care that the salesman is making a commission, I just want the boat at the best price.
You seem to view this as a moral issue, I just see it as a new market opportunity.
eaglemaniac
Well-Known Member
Who to hell hired you?
eman
eman
sammyslabber
Active Member
eman,he sounds like a broken record doesn't matter what's the topic...agrees to disagree...sammy
Lipripper
Active Member
I guess.... Its more the ITQ that bothers me
sammyslabber
Active Member
Who to hell hired you?
A slipper skipper who loves the hst...sammy
Similar threads
