SFI - Newsletter... confusion.

Little Hawk

Active Member
Below is copied a portion of the SFI Newsletter concerning the halibut fracas.
Is it just me, or do the 3rd & 4th paragraphs basically contradict each other?


SFI Member Update April 13, 2012 2012 Issues

April 13, 2012 Halibut

By now you've all read or heard a lot on the recent 2012 change to government's halibut allocation policy and the likely fallout from the decision. While we don't want to revisit those issues, we do want to offer some thoughts on an aspect of the decision that has received less attention.

As part of the policy announcement, DFO said that it plans to make last year's experimental pilot program for halibut leasing a permanent fixture of the recreational fishery. This program was an unmitigated disaster last year, with few participants, few fish recorded and with widespread acknowledgement from the department that its lacks the staff and resources to police or effectively monitor the program in any meaningful way.

We believe that the program is unnecessary and divisive. It attempts to create user-group distinctions within the recreational fishery where none exist. The recreational quota leasing program is inappropriate as it turns recreational fishing into a quazi-commercial harvesting activity; it seeks to create different classes of recreational anglers when all recreational anglers ought to have equal access to a Canadian public resource; it unjustly enriches a small number of commercial quota holders; and, it simply distracts anglers from government's principal error which was granting private property rights to a Canadian public resource.

Ultimately we remain firm in our belief that a fixed number allocation system or some method to permit the entire recreational sector to acquire more quota if necessary through license fees or a halibut stamp is the only real solution to address establishment of certainty and stability and the challenges facing our critical halibut fishery.


What part of this am I not getting?
 
I read it as buying back quota through licence fees or a surcharge stamp? (increasing our quota)
 
Below is copied a portion of the SFI Newsletter concerning the halibut fracas.
Is it just me, or do the 3rd & 4th paragraphs basically contradict each other?

...

What part of this am I not getting?


I thought the same thing when I read it, use a Halibut stamp to buy more quota from the slipper skippers. WTF. Makes me wonder who SFI is really working for?
I've been an SFI member for 14 years and for 14 years I've watched things get worse and worse. All those years I read all the newsletters about how SFI was working to make things better and here we are with things worse than they ever were. Now we have the possibility of no chinook on the south island and the suggestion of buying more Halibut quota with a stamp. For 14 years I've watched salmon stocks decline and listened to SFI say they are going to do something about it and you know what, things have only gotten worse. I have absolutely no faith in SFI anymore, in my opinion they are working against us not for us. Strong sentiments I know but look at their record. Go back and read all their newsletters then ask yourself if SFI ever made anything better and the answer is a resounding NO. SFI is not the answer to our problems and unless we organize as a group with elected members to represent us we can say goodbye to SPORTSFISHING as we know it.
 
I think SFI has done lots for us, another divisive issue however. While buying back quota would go against the premise of no one owns halibut, I think it will probably be one of the only ways to get it back...it seems like the most simple solution, but government won't do it...makes you wonder why and what they have planned for us...
 
Saveoursalmon.... perhaps you can educate us as to just what YOU have done to make things better for the angling community... thank you.
 
Saveoursalmon.... perhaps you can educate us as to just what YOU have done to make things better for the angling community... thank you.

This thread is not about what I've done but rather the contradictions posited in the latest SFI newsletter. I will stand by my post however and challenge anyone to go back through 14 years of SFI newsletters and show where SFI has done anything to make things better. I don't have all the answers I wish I did but SFI has had its chance and has failed miserably.
 
And of course you are not aware that the SFI plays a major role in the SFAB? Unless you have stepped up to the plate personally, I dont think its right to diss an organization that has tried to work for the betterment of sport fishing, even tho they do have a vested interest.
 
And of course you are not aware that the SFI plays a major role in the SFAB? Unless you have stepped up to the plate personally, I dont think its right to diss an organization that has tried to work for the betterment of sport fishing, even tho they do have a vested interest.

Totally agree with what Bryan is saying here. Some people spout off without thinking about what they're saying.
Dave
 
Back
Top