SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
If every guest can average a 75lber, then sign me up for the lodge that does that...ill go there in a second! lol
Halibut Notice
- Thread starter gamechanger
- Start date
- Status
Isn't that your boat ... Lol
Dave S
Active Member
I never said SFBC was going to be a springboard for civil disobedience, i said that changing rules or laws sometimes requires civil disobedience....is there a problem with discussing the option?......are the idle no more and occupy movements not forms of civil disobedience?...those were allowed to be posted and discussed......holmes*
here is the deffinition and a little history lesson for some...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
Gotta have the last word eh Holmes? Sleep it off.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Dennis.t
Active Member
Pop,pop,pop,munch,munch,munch...well one guy isnt going to change it all buddy, it takes a muti-faceted approach from a united front...and you have already stated you are just fine sitting on your azz...so why don't you just EDITED BY LAST CHANCE?.....as for myself, i am totally willing to do whatever it takes, including civil disobedience, sometimes rules only get changed by breaking those rules, what is the point of 1 guy being civilly disobedient?, the strength is in numbers, and don't worry, we know you aren't on board, i imagine your apathetic attitude stems from the fact that you have leased quota...........holmes*
*Edited by Lastchance - SFBC will not be a springboard for Civil Disobediance. And if anyone on this forum is going to tell anyone to STFU, it's going to be me and it's going to be for good.
okie dokie hokie pokie....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
Theb55
Active Member
1/1 argument is about numbers of Halibut while 1/2 argument is about weight. Apples and oranges. Both are correct. Ideally a fifty/fifty split or 85/15 between recreational fishermen and Commies would be best and we could sell our unused allocation back to the Commies instead of visa versa and use the money for stock enhancement. We should be doing that for salmon too.
Trucking eh
New Member
Wow! Some of you guys just dont get it. Lodges and charters down to the kid fishing off the dock are all in the same boat, and that we all love to fish. Many of these big lodges supply thousands of dollars to many enhancement groupss such as PSF. I can not speak of what any of the big companies will do if a fellow shows up with an experimental liscences, however have yet to see one and would assume he would be limited to weight anyhow. Most lodges must fly their fish out so dont expect them to be buying up all the quoata( not even sure that is possible). Another point is yes there were Northern lodges apposed to te big halis being slaughtered, because they arebig females with millions of eggs. I am all for the big girls going home. Anyhow entertaing read, but some of you fellas need to get a grip and stop trying to divide everyone.
Dave, I think we're all adults here and we're not concerned about 'having the last word'. We've all got our opinions, and we're all fishmen here and all our opinions are equally valid. The problem is that our opinions our not equal to that of the commercial sector which is were all our problems stem. Remember guys, were all on the same team here!
to whom it may concern
SFAB is clearly looking out for the best interests of the lodge and guiding groups so after talking with more than 100 local NON guide/lodge fisherman this could be used as a new model
1. 60/40 split of rec sector quota 60% to be SOLD to the for profit rec sector fishing while 40% goes to protect the rights and access to non profit rec fishing
-in previous years 85% of the allocation to rec fisherman has been used by for profit fishing. (unacceptable)
-with 40% being set aside for non profit rec fisherman the season should be able to return to the feb1-dec31 openings with no slot for non profit fishing
-guides lodges would be responsible for purchasing halibut quota annually for there right to sell it. as mentioned it would come from the totals from the rec sector with a max of 60%
-each year the numbers would be re evaluated to guarantee a feb1 -dec31 opening for the non profit portion of the rec quota.
2. 1/1 for all fishing 1 per day 1 possession for both groups
3. to help protect the for profit fishing the current slot limit which SFAB and the Guides/lodges fought for should remain in effect to help "protect" there "peak" seasons
4. i Guides fishing license is void when out with paying guest
-if a trip has 2 guest the limit would be 2 fish and it would also apply to salmon.
5. Annual limit of 6 fish to remain with knowledge that it will be reassessed annually and adjusted to maximize the allocation.
in the past sport fishermen have not wanted to look at splitting up the already small amount of allocation between sub-groups but with new rules put in place to protect one groups rights and throw the other under the bus a new need to revisit that option is gaining momentum.
other fisheries have always had to pay for there rights to sell fish the argument has been the "guests" are rec fisherman but the operators are commercial a new allocation is needed for rec/commecial with fees and regulations to control this sub group of the rec sector from taking more than its fair share as they have been able to do in the past.
yours truly
Joe Shmoe (a non profit fisherman)
SFAB has drawn the line in the sand separating guides/lodges from the average fisherman putting forth an agreement that was submitted to them by the lodges and guides the interests of the average fisherman are no longer (if ever) represented by this group.
i sent this letter to media dfo sfab mla's. i plan on sending more to get the commecial/rec fishery recognized as it own group.
SFAB is clearly looking out for the best interests of the lodge and guiding groups so after talking with more than 100 local NON guide/lodge fisherman this could be used as a new model
1. 60/40 split of rec sector quota 60% to be SOLD to the for profit rec sector fishing while 40% goes to protect the rights and access to non profit rec fishing
-in previous years 85% of the allocation to rec fisherman has been used by for profit fishing. (unacceptable)
-with 40% being set aside for non profit rec fisherman the season should be able to return to the feb1-dec31 openings with no slot for non profit fishing
-guides lodges would be responsible for purchasing halibut quota annually for there right to sell it. as mentioned it would come from the totals from the rec sector with a max of 60%
-each year the numbers would be re evaluated to guarantee a feb1 -dec31 opening for the non profit portion of the rec quota.
2. 1/1 for all fishing 1 per day 1 possession for both groups
3. to help protect the for profit fishing the current slot limit which SFAB and the Guides/lodges fought for should remain in effect to help "protect" there "peak" seasons
4. i Guides fishing license is void when out with paying guest
-if a trip has 2 guest the limit would be 2 fish and it would also apply to salmon.
5. Annual limit of 6 fish to remain with knowledge that it will be reassessed annually and adjusted to maximize the allocation.
in the past sport fishermen have not wanted to look at splitting up the already small amount of allocation between sub-groups but with new rules put in place to protect one groups rights and throw the other under the bus a new need to revisit that option is gaining momentum.
other fisheries have always had to pay for there rights to sell fish the argument has been the "guests" are rec fisherman but the operators are commercial a new allocation is needed for rec/commecial with fees and regulations to control this sub group of the rec sector from taking more than its fair share as they have been able to do in the past.
yours truly
Joe Shmoe (a non profit fisherman)
SFAB has drawn the line in the sand separating guides/lodges from the average fisherman putting forth an agreement that was submitted to them by the lodges and guides the interests of the average fisherman are no longer (if ever) represented by this group.
i sent this letter to media dfo sfab mla's. i plan on sending more to get the commecial/rec fishery recognized as it own group.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Brutal post. If there was ever a such thing as a troll, just found him.
shocking a guide doesn't like it. because it doesn't benefit him welcome to what rec fishermen have delt with for years.
like usual guides quick with personal attacks
show me why this is wrong besides that fact it doesn't make you money.
i'm taking the same approach guides/lodges are "what best for me" and this is way better for me than the stupidity that sfab recommended.
like usual guides quick with personal attacks
show me why this is wrong besides that fact it doesn't make you money.
i'm taking the same approach guides/lodges are "what best for me" and this is way better for me than the stupidity that sfab recommended.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think so, Joe. You are on your own on this. Think about if lodges and guides really - quote you: "sell fish" and need a - quote: "right to sell it"? Think about it. You are on a dead end trail.
Also an non-profit fisherman
fogged in
Well-Known Member
I see SerengetiGuide says to Combover "Brutal post. If there was ever a such thing as a troll, just found him."
Why is someone a "troll" or worse when they post an opinion that some on this site do not agree with.
I for one agree with Combover and others who say 1 halibut per day and 1 possession is acceptable.
No surprise the "Guides" would not like it,.
The guides generally go for their limit on halibut, then go for limits on Springs, Coho, Pinks, Sockeye or whatever else is open and available and then finish off with some crabs.
Ya...I know this doesn't happen every day with every guide but it is often the goal and result with the good guides I know.
The "sports" fishery has become far too commercial and this is causing BIG problems for the traditional SPORT fisherman.
Guides fish for profit, not for sport.
AND I too have heard all the arguments from the Guides and they have not changed my mind on the subject or the minds of many other 'SPORT FISHERMAN" not for profit fishermen.
Good on you Combover, you have my support....but then again I too have been called a "troll" on occasion and will go doubt be called that and worse sometime soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Wrong again calmsea
I am a sports fishermen who has invested over $30,000 in my boat, fished for over 30 years off Sooke mainly.
Fish mainly in the summer...get my share of halibut and springs and Coho when they are open...don't like Pinks, don't bother with sockeye.
Thanks for the polite reply though.
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
BTW, I am a rec fisherman, thinking about guiding in the future, and 12 halibut up to 60 lbs (caught by my son & myself) will be more than enough to last my family through the winter, actually 1/4 of that would do.
My $.02 - there are two ways of looking at the 15/85 - which is the real problem as far as the rec sector is concerned.
Are guides Rec, or Commercial?
Whether or not guides are Rec, the rec sector deserves a higher % because of the $ generated (see recent reports on other threads). Lets say 50%, because of the $ generated.
Now if you remove guides from Rec (as they are a commercial venture) you remove the % relative to the $ generated.
So that would shift guides into Commercial, and give them a portion of the Commercial %. Maybe 75% for all commercial, then including guides.
25% left for Rec, you could probably go to 2/4 year round.
If they stay in Rec, fine, with the Rec at about 50%. Guides within the guidelines SFAB has proposed, rec 2/2.
Estimate the Rec catch at the middle of Oct, and as almost all guides and most rec are off the water then allow commercial to use up the rest of the TAC through the end of January?
Dates may be off by a bit, and could be corrected by those that know more.
My $.02 - there are two ways of looking at the 15/85 - which is the real problem as far as the rec sector is concerned.
Are guides Rec, or Commercial?
Whether or not guides are Rec, the rec sector deserves a higher % because of the $ generated (see recent reports on other threads). Lets say 50%, because of the $ generated.
Now if you remove guides from Rec (as they are a commercial venture) you remove the % relative to the $ generated.
So that would shift guides into Commercial, and give them a portion of the Commercial %. Maybe 75% for all commercial, then including guides.
25% left for Rec, you could probably go to 2/4 year round.
If they stay in Rec, fine, with the Rec at about 50%. Guides within the guidelines SFAB has proposed, rec 2/2.
Estimate the Rec catch at the middle of Oct, and as almost all guides and most rec are off the water then allow commercial to use up the rest of the TAC through the end of January?
Dates may be off by a bit, and could be corrected by those that know more.
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Hi Calmsea
not sure what you mean "on what side you are on". Didn't know you had to be on a side to have an opinion and I am not trying to hide anything.
I don't mind the guides, many of them are friends of mine.
That does not change the fact the they have changed the face of Sports Fishing from what it was 30 years ago.
AND Guides do fish for profit.
it is what it is, as the saying goes
All I am saying is I agree with most of what Combover had to say
Enjoyed talking to you...I'm off to do some work on the boat...AND spend some MORE money to support the economy.
El Capitan
Member
I'm now convinced combover is a troll. Classic divide and conquer. The only thing gaining momentum is a unified recreational sector, pressing for fair access to our common property resources. One thing is certain, SFI + BCWF + SVIAC + SFAB will be walking together, supporting each other, looking past minor differences, fighting for the rights of all recreational anglers. The tsunami of change is coming combover, and you can't stop it.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Joe Shmoe (a non profit fisherman) Combover
So if I go fishing in my boat I get free TAC but when I go with a guide I have to pay for my TAC.
Or put it another way.... If I own a boat I get free TAC... If I don't, I have to pay for TAC.
Would I also have to buy some new kind of Fishing License that separates me from normal license?
Should anglers that have more money, that can drop 30K on a boat, have a special license for free TAC?
Should anglers that don't have as much money, drop 400 on a charter, have a special license pay $ TAC ?
Should we ask them to shell out another 200 bucks to buy 40 lbs of TAC so that cost 600 for a charter ?
Wait that don't work
Lets see.... If you charter / lodge and spend more then 1K then you need to buy your TAC
Oh and get a special license because you spent that 1K for your trip.
Wait that don't work....
Lets see .... If you spend over 5K for your boat then you need to buy your TAC
Get a special license because you have money for a boat so you have money for TAC
Your going down the road of "All anglers are created equal... but some are more equal then others".....
This is a Canadian resource not "richman against a poor man" system.
Some would like to see that, as there ideology points them in that direction.
Look for the answer in "market based system" as the best way to manage the resource.
Perhaps you could expand on your ideas and put some dollar amounts to them.
I see you suggested that your 30K boat entitles you to free TAC is that where you draw the line?
GLG
So if I go fishing in my boat I get free TAC but when I go with a guide I have to pay for my TAC.
Or put it another way.... If I own a boat I get free TAC... If I don't, I have to pay for TAC.
Would I also have to buy some new kind of Fishing License that separates me from normal license?
Should anglers that have more money, that can drop 30K on a boat, have a special license for free TAC?
Should anglers that don't have as much money, drop 400 on a charter, have a special license pay $ TAC ?
Should we ask them to shell out another 200 bucks to buy 40 lbs of TAC so that cost 600 for a charter ?
Wait that don't work
Lets see.... If you charter / lodge and spend more then 1K then you need to buy your TAC
Oh and get a special license because you spent that 1K for your trip.
Wait that don't work....
Lets see .... If you spend over 5K for your boat then you need to buy your TAC
Get a special license because you have money for a boat so you have money for TAC
Your going down the road of "All anglers are created equal... but some are more equal then others".....
This is a Canadian resource not "richman against a poor man" system.
Some would like to see that, as there ideology points them in that direction.
Look for the answer in "market based system" as the best way to manage the resource.
Perhaps you could expand on your ideas and put some dollar amounts to them.
I see you suggested that your 30K boat entitles you to free TAC is that where you draw the line?
GLG
- Status
Similar threads
