Firstly you can stash your condescending remarks Nog. I don't think they are your style and certainly don't add to a discussion.
True that.
Apologies. Not in the way of defense, but rather as an explanation: Been under a
LOT of stress the past few days. Not only this issue, but a few private ones as well. Left me with more than a little in the way of a surly attitude. Again, apologies that drifted over into what I posted.
I don't think your point of view represents the sports fishermen, rather it represents the commercial sportsfishing lodges and guides who just like the commercial fishermen are doing this for profit.
...They are not the ones that are protesting the allocation, because it has minimal effect on them.
On the other hand the sportfishing lodges and guides want more quota so that they can extend their season (and profits). Nothing wrong with that except that they are not being honest about it. Instead they are using the public resource argument and suggesting that sports fishermen are being short changed when that is not true.
There is no difference between the
Average Angler and those who cater to them. Nor should there be.
When looking at engaging in angling for halibut, the
Average Angler has three choices:
1) Purchase, outfit, maintain, fuel, insure, etc a seaworthy rig capable of safely transporting them to the grounds and back. Pretty big bucks.
2) Ride with a Buddy who owns and operates the same as above.
3) Engage the services of a charter rig and let them look after all of the related expenses.
Rather easy to determine just which of those represents the least expense, and therefor the more viable option for many.
It is really not all that surprising that ~ 60% of the halibut caught by the recreational fleet (if one believes DFO's suspect numbers) are facilitated by the guide groups.
That is reasonably reflective of the percentage of people that are capable of either 1) purchasing, outfitting and running a capable/safe rig while putting in sufficient time to understand the in's and outs of the fishery, or 2) heading out with a reliable guide who handles all of that for them. It is obvious which represents the greater expense to the Common Man, thus not so surprising which they will choose to action on a more frequent basis.
Truly we are one and the same.
Resident anglers, guides, and lodges - we are one group, that being the Recreational Sector. Taking shots and pointing fingers at who amongst us takes what & where doesn't change anything, but definitely divides the group. Such infighting and internal divisiveness is
EXACTLY what DFO counts on (and often intentionally creates). Divided we FALL. This divisive tactic is employed quite often by those who govern the commercial sector. It is obvious that it is in their better interests to keep us as divided as possible in this matter. For the reasons noted above, it very much is a misnomer.
And FYI: It
VERY MUCH IS the Average Angler that is "
protesting the allocation". Of course the guides and lodges are involved, but it isn't simply them, nor simply their clients taking issue with the way DFO mismanages the allocation of halibut. In fact the greatest number of letters filed, and the highest level of attendance at the many Town Hall Meetings of last year were from the Average Angler or General Public pool. Not surprising. In the area I fish (off Ukee) on the halibut grounds any given good weather day, there will be perhaps a dozen charter rigs, surrounded by up to eighty private rigs working the same fishery. Conditions may be different as one wanders northwards (access issues) but from the North tip of the Island south, the number of private rigs on the water greatly out-number the charter rigs. Thus it follows that many who do own their own rigs are heavily involved with seeking what they consider to be a Fair & Equitable Solution to the current problems related to allocation.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers on the halibut exports but I would venture to say that more than 50% of the sports fishermen who fish for halibut are probably foreigners. So the argument that the sportsfishermen are benefiting only the Canadian public doesn't fly as well.
The numbers regarding export (> 85% of landed catch) come directly from the Pacific Halibut Management Association, the commercial industry's umbrella organization. Likely very close to reality.
A simple look at the BC Government website which lists the relevant statistics note 80% of the participants in the recreational fishery are non- guided. Further it goes on to note that 65% of those who are guided are Canadian. From personal experience, I can attest that the past few years have seen an increase in the percentage of Canadian clientele. Not overly surprising given the economic conditions of many countries these days. The number of foreigners with disposable income has dwindled very noticeably, and that is well reflected in their presence amongst the clientele base.
The truth is the protest about allocation has nothing to do with the ordinary sportsfishermen and everything to do with the commercial sportfishing operations trying to protect and expand their own businesses and profits. Unfortunately presenting it that way probably wouldn't garner the same level of empathy from the public.
The suggestion that the guide / lodge operations are expanding, or seeking the same is in error. In fact, they too have suffered under the current economic climate, and many have been forced to downsize, some even shutting their doors forever as a consequence. There is no hidden agenda related to the protest as you suggest. Most are fighting simply to remain somewhat viable these days.
Nor is there some sinister drive to expand the season as suggested. What they, and their Average Angler allies are seeking is simply
Stability and
Certainty of season from year to year. Something quite unattainable under the current approach.
The TRUTH is the protest about allocation has EVERYTHING to do with Ordinary Anglers. And the focus of their angst has as much or more to do with the process wherein DFO continues to openly support the notion that this resource "
belongs" to a select few privileged Individuals, rather than the Common Property Resource the Supreme Court insists it very much is.
Interesting little bit of related information:
The current commercial "
bycatch mortality" for Area 2B is approximately
16% of the current yield. That would be referring to “commercial” U32 bycatch, which is counted and goes against BC TAC. 16% bycatch mortality for Area 2B? Equals a LOT, especially when looking at 15% total sport TAC! Just to make this clear, "commercial" U32 bycatch mortality for Area 2B is approximately 16% yield
loss! How is this justifiable? Especially in light of the Recreational Sector's total allowance being restricted to a lower percentage than the commercial fleet simply tosses over the side?
Finally (for now I assume) I suggest a a little look at the current pricing for this delicacy in our own Canadian Markets. Even though that market represents less than 15% of the commercial landed catches, it is of course relevant. Current market pricing for actual purchase of Halibut Quota ranges from $ 55 - 65 dollars.
Per Pound. Leasing ranges from $ 5.50 to 6 and change /pound. This of course is reflected in the inflated sticker price in those food markets that carry the product.
Why?The matter of pricing is directly due to DFO turning what was once a Common Property Resource into a
Trade-able Commodity -
OWNED exclusively at one point by those they chose to
GIFT it to. As with any stock market, limited supply translates to ever increasing pricing. Today, less than half of those who "
own" our fish, actually choose to not fish it themselves. Instead they have become "
Brokers", trading on the hard work of Honest Working Fishermen who pay excessive access fees, denying public access in order to keep those massive profits rolling, and openly exploiting their "
ownership" of our resource in order to keep them in luxurious lifestyles.
On the East Coast, DFO has publicly stated that this type of "management" is unfair, and cannot continue. The adage "
Use It Or Lose It" as related to stock quotas very much applies. On our Coast, they are madly pursuing the opposite. To many, this begs the question WHY?
Were, as in the case of the East Coast, the Fish Broker element to be removed (
Use It Or Lose It), costs to the real Working Fishermen would be greatly reduced, allowing more in the way of compensation for them and their crews for the fish they land. This could translate to lower pricing in the market place, of obvious benefit to those who choose to purchase said product. And free up a significant amount of quota for both bycatch purposes (Integrated Groundfish Management) while allowing for a viable, stable and certain sportfishing season on an annual basis. On the surface this would appear to be the appropriate answer. However the
Deep Pockets involved certainly don't wish to see their "
Cash Cow" disappear. And obviously those limited few carry
MUCH more Political Clout than the cumulative interests of guides, lodges, Average Anglers, and the entire industry that supports their endeavors.
Sad in so many ways...
Cheers,
Nog
Author
Topic: Would our salmon fishery go the way of the halibut fishery without salmon farms? (Read 9196 times)