M
Mr. Dean
Guest
quote:Originally posted by Tuffcity
Whole in the Water:
The new hali (& lingcod & rockfish) closure is in addition to the existing Swiftsure closure. Basically it's a closure from the 12 mile limit out, but only in area 121. Clear as mud?
And to play devils advocate for a moment...the commercial guys got cut back a little over 2 million pounds. If the rec sector does not catch their "quota" it isn't given to the commercial boats to catch. It's carried over and can be sold by the SFAB to the commercial guys- just like it was for 2 consecutive years a couple of years ago.quote:the commercial sector didnt get touched
RC
Tuff's,
You're correct. sorta...
DFO's mandate is</u> to achieve TAC. How the transfer would be made is mute. Gone IS gone.
The rec-sector saw the same reduction as the comercials. The ruduction of TAC is felt proportionally by ALL user groups evenly. We took the same % hit as the 'Big Boys' did. Breaking down the percentage into poundage is also mute; the reduction was fairly distributed.
Yes. Guota was sold to the commercials several years back. IMO this was a LEASE and not an out right purchase. One act of benevolence should be just that; a kind thing to do. Now that we're in need of more, we shouldn't be fined.
- Just because a person pays rent and 'buys' privliges to a home, does he have say when the owner wants him out, in order for he to move in?
Us commoners we're protected by law to have access to resources that are property of the citizens. These rights were never sold off; that would be illegal also and is also protected.
The guotas should be adjusted to reflect the need of the citizens. NOT the need for corporations.
Canadian Government HAS conceded to the fact that the fishery DOES belong to the citizens 1st (read: 100% of the TAC). DFO is just confused, thinking that overly restricting us to the resource IS granting us reasonable access to it. Sniff around within the BCWF. LOTS of interesting shtuff there...
But if my fellow brethrens keep believing in the erosion of thier rights, as acceptable, then none of this will matter.
All I'm advocating here is that it SHOULD be an individuals decision on HOW he/she CHOOSES to feed their family. Restrictions should only be placed for conservational reasons, not economical ones.