SFAB letter to Shea--

Cuba Libre

Well-Known Member
Part One:

March 1, 2010



Honourable Gail Shea,

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Parliament Buildings

Ottawa, On

K1A 0E6

by e-mail

Dear Minister;


On behalf of the executive members of the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, I have been
asked to respond to your recent media release on recreational halibut allocation.

You say in your February 15 statement that you understand the “value of the
recreational fishery to British Columbians and the economic opportunities it provides”.
Unfortunately, your actions suggest otherwise.


. If you understand that recreational fishing is the single largest component of
the fishery economy in British Columbia, at 40 percent of its total GDP value,
why do you continue to restrict and reduce its activity by imposing bag and
possession limits of 1 and 2 for halibut and making it impossible for anglers or
service providers to predict season length?
. If you understand that the economic value of the recreational halibut fishery
based on 12% of the catch is similar to the economic value of the commercial
fishery based on 88% why are you favouring the sector dominated by a quota
leasing market that according to recent academic analysis is “limiting
efficiency, stifling innovation, and causing financial hardship”.


You say that “a ministerial decision is required to move forward for the 2011 season”
but your “decision” was to do nothing. You have chosen to leave the 88/12 allocation
and last year’s possession limit unchanged. You have confirmed that for practical
purposes your authority under the Fisheries Act has been fettered by the 2003
decision of a Liberal predecessor to insist that any growth in the recreational share of
halibut can only take place by means of private financial transactions with quota
holders who have been given what amount to perpetual property rights.



Your media statement confirms that you have abdicated your statutory authority by
giving complete control over allocation to an unregulated private marketplace. It says

that future change can only take place:



. If the sectors develop an acceptable way “to transfer allocation between
them.”
. If recreational stakeholders „lease quota from “commercial harvesters”.
. If MP Randy Kamp can develop options that provide flexibility through “an
effective mechanism for transfers between the sectors”.


You say in your media statement that you have long held the belief “that those who
participate in and depend on a fishery to make their living need to be able to provide
input into how that fishery is managed.” Unfortunately, your actions suggest the
opposite. In British Columbia, participation in the fishery is not a requirement. In fact,
preference is given to non-fishing quota holders. One of the documents issued with
your statement asks the question “Is the Department concerned about commercial
licence holders leasing out their quota without actually fishing? Your answer is to
restrict recreational sector growth to use of an “experimental licence to lease quota”
which extends the right of non-fishing quota holders to not only take financial
advantage of active commercial harvesters but also to hold the recreational sector to
ransom if it wants to get out of the 88/12 prison. You have given the paid lobbyists for
the non-fishing quota holders and their private society, the PHMA, preferential
treatment by confirming that quota has become private property exempt from
ministerial change. By contrast you have ignored the SFAB’s input, presumably
because it represents only the public’s access rights and is required by its terms of
reference to give majority representation to people who do not benefit financially from
the fishery.



It is both ironic and troubling that the privileged treatment of west coast non-fishing
quota holders who “make their living” by leasing rather than fishing, is in stark
contrast to the government’s position on Atlantic Canada fisheries. When approving
“buddy-up” arrangements in 2009, you said that you supported the policy announced
in 2007 by your predecessor Loyola Hearn on behalf of the “New Government of
Canada”, which was “to support the owner-operator principle” and “end policies
that move the wealth generated from the fishery from those who actually fish."
On February 12, 2009 you said “I believe that the fishery resources in Newfoundland
and Labrador should benefit those with a direct investment in the industry. I remain
committed to fleet rationalization and the owner-operator principle.” It seems
obvious that just one year later, because your allocation authority has become
fettered by the quota system, you are taking a diametrically opposed position on the
Pacific coast.


We are troubled because the DFO national website tells us that in Atlantic Canada
the government is moving against people who have been “circumventing licence
policies” to the disadvantage of harvesters. By contrast, in BC your officials do not

hesitate to issue licenses and quota shares to fictitious vessels so that absentee
fishlords, or “slipper skippers” can profit from leasing a majority of the fish to actual
harvesters and now demand the same benefits from recreational anglers. It is
obvious that on Canada’s West coast the government has no objection to a system
driven by non-fishing speculators! Far from being concerned about commercial
licence holders leasing out their quota without actually fishing, the department
encourages and facilitates it.



Your press release bemoans the fact that “stakeholders have been unable to reach a
consensus”. What it fails to mention is that in 2008 there was a consensus between
representatives of the commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries as well as
the provincial government. The report from Hugh Gordon proposed that the federal
government fund an allocation transfer, as it has been doing for First Nations, with the
difference that it would then recover the cost over time from recreational anglers. You
rejected this proposal as “not something DFO can support” and now criticize a lack of
consensus from the Stanyer participants despite the fact it was made clear
throughout the Stanyer process that the purpose was not to find consensus but to
evaluate alternative proposals. In any case, consensus could hardly be found once
the PHMA made clear in writing that it no longer favoured any allocation change,
whether compensated or not. This was understandable. Why should a private
society, which your department gifted with 10% of the commercial TAC prior to
Larocque, and which now has privileged status as the commercial sector
representative, explore alternatives. It knows that your authority has been fettered
since 2003 by a series of political guarantees that no change will ever take place
except through arms length transactions between private individuals in an
unregulated market controlled by the current quota holders!
 
Part 2

One astonishing feature of your press statement is that it never mentions the social
value of recreational fishing. Halibut fishing is an important social outlet for 100,000
Canadians and tourists. In addition, while the GDP economic value of the two halibut
fisheries is almost the same despite their very different harvest shares, recreational
anglers pay far more in licence fees to government than does the commercial sector.
Assuming that 30% of tidal angling effort is aimed at halibut, licence fees to
government from halibut anglers amounted to $1.95 million in 2010, or $1.79 a pound
when prorated against last year`s sport catch. It is revealing that in one of the
background documents accompanying your statement, the department bragged
about the fact that commercial quota holders in 2010 paid an average of $1,500 in
licence fees for a total of $575,181. No one thought to add that this was one third of
the recreational fee total and an average of only 9 cents for each pound of halibut!




The same background document mentions that 435 quota shares were issued in
1991 but never points out the decline in the number of active harvesters and the fact
that a majority of quota is now held by absentee “fishlords” who hold active fishers to

ransom by speculating on the margin between harvesting costs and the price paid by
fish buyers. The page never mentions our earlier point (2nd bullet, page 1) that
academic analysis asserts that the current quota system is “limiting efficiency, stifling
innovation, and causing financial hardship”.



In concluding, it seems important to warn that in the aftermath of your complete
rejection of recreational sector interests in halibut, the recreational advisory system is
in jeopardy. Many of my colleagues are questioning the value of participating as
volunteers in the SFAB process when it is clear that government gives no weight to
their advice and when the statutory powers of the minister can no longer be exercised
in the face of the de facto private property rights conferred on quota holders. There is
fear that the same rules will soon be applied to other species like salmon, crab and
prawn, and active discussion about whether the sector might be better advised to turn
its energy and resources to determining whether current government policy is
consistent with Supreme Court of Canada Justice Binnie’s frequent statements in the
Saulnier judgment that fish cannot become property until they are harvested because
otherwise they become a profit à prendre and fetter ministerial discretion. It would be
unfortunate if your department’s single-minded support of non-fishing quota holders,
and your refusal to let the recreational sector leave the 88/12 prison, results in the
loss of an important management advisory tool.



Having recently agreed to a renewed term as chair of your advisory board, I will
continue to serve to the best of my ability. However, unless there is some early
indication that government actually values the social and economic contributions of
the recreational sector, I fear that anglers will abandon the advisory process in favour
of direct political and legal action.



Yours sincerely,

Gerry. Kristianson

SFAB Chair
 
Wonder how many have actually received replies back from the DFO clowns. So far I think I have sent 5 letters since beginning of the year and not one reply received. Usually received them within a month or so during past 'campaigns'.
 
No response from them on my 4 letters! got one from Harper think I posted it in another thread.
 
Same for me, reply from Harper's office but none so far from DFO. I believe that their postage budget has most likely been used up by the incoming letters, just a guess. Or maybe, they (the upper levels of DFO) just really don't give a $#!T!
 
Excellent letter by Gerry - good work in outlining the DFO hypocrisy!

However, IMHO I think we are going to have to take DFO to court to get them to improve this situtation, as the wealthy slipper skippers have too much lobbying power right now. Ity seems obvious to me DFO is not interested at all in doing the right thing here.

Look at how a lot of enviromental and conservation changes have been brought about - only through court action, as it takes fire (i.e. legal power) to fight fire (govt. & lobbyist) power. So maybe we get some wealthy folk (e.g. Bob Wright, etc.) to take up our cause and/or start fundraising to pay the legal fees and take the SOB's to court!!! Any way that's my rant for the day - from a frustrated citizen and sportsfisher.
 
Back
Top