We are glad you are here…

By now you have likely heard that DFO is proposing to implement a mid-season public halibut fishing closure in 2011. DFO says that such a move is needed to protect the interests of the 436 commercial halibut quota holders to whom it has gifted 88% of Canada’s Total Allowable Catch of Pacific halibut. As an alternative, DFO is suggesting that ordinary Canadians who would like to go fishing after the closure should arrange to purchase quota (or the right to try and catch a fish) from one of Canada’s 436 private quota holders who got their quota for free.  We hope that this website will help you become more informed about how a small group of private businessmen…..the majority of whom do not actually fish….are being aided by DFO in their efforts to extract new resource rents from you, the angling public.

Here are a few quick facts for your consideration:

  • According to Ecotrust Canada, in 1993, 19% of the commercial halibut TAC was temporarily leased; in 2008, 106% was temporarily leased….in other words “slipper skippers” are now leasing and sub-leasing their quota!
  • Leasing fees are effectively being charged by the “slipper skippers” on every pound of commercial halibut caught, making it more difficult for even “real” commercial halibut fishermen to make a living. Now they want to start charging ordinary Canadians for the privilege of catching halibut that they already own!

There are solutions to this problem.

In 2008, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries David Bevin told an audience of 100 anglers in Richmond that under the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Minister had “absolute discretion” over fisheries allocation and could change the 88/12 allocation policy with “the stroke of a pen”. We also know that North Island MP John Duncan (who served as a special adviser to former Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn) understands this problem better than most. Indeed this problem affects thousands of people in his riding.

If he has the political will, John Duncan can solve this problem with a simple phone call to current Fisheries Minister Gail Shea. His local paper has urged him to make the call, we hope you will as well. (Please see our media tab for a copy of the Courier-Islander editorial and out Act Now Toolkit for advice on how you can make a difference.)

We have joined forces with the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the Southern Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition who are mobilizing their memberships on this important issue. There are solutions and we encourage you learn more and get involved.

We hope you find this site of use and that you will consider doing your part to ensure that DFO’s current plan for the 2011 season (as outlined in the ad below) does not become a reality.

The team at the SFI.

77 Responses to We are glad you are here…
  1. Rick Baerg
    December 11, 2010 | 3:48 pm

    How would one get on the mailing list for the upcoming meetings in the north west.

  2. admin
    December 11, 2010 | 4:00 pm

    email info@sportfishing.bc.ca and we will add you to our updates list. Thanks for your interest. SFI.

  3. Brian Tutrty
    December 11, 2010 | 10:55 pm

    This is a reason to unite against bad Liberal policy.

  4. Pete Peterson
    December 12, 2010 | 1:08 am

    Dec 12 2010
    No copmmercial halibut fishermen got there quota free you are fear mongering with untrue statements when quotes were introduced all commercial halibut fishermen took a cut in the amount of halibut they could catch around 50% the quotes are set by the international halibut commission not the Canadian govermrnt I bought my quota for $21.oo per lb mortgage my house and boat wife and kids I have been working my butt of to make the payments ever year my fees go up when I turned 65 my license fee did not go down I can not take a halibut off my boat to eat I have to buy it if I eat a halibut on the boat T have to buy it I have two cameras that run 24 hours a day watching to make sure I do not eat any halibut or take any home when the dission was made to give the commercial halibut fishermen 88% of the Canadian halibut quota and the sports 12% they took 12% of my quota that I had paid $21per lb for and gave it to the sports the sports are aloud one halibut a day and two halibut a day for part of there season with a two day passion limit with know size limit ther is know yearly bag limit know counting of halibut some sporties catch as many as 50 halibut per year they can take them home to eat or sell or trade when a sport turns 65 years old there license fee is cut in half to $11.oo from $22.oo a sports halibut fishermens that catches 10 halibut per year gets at least 250 lb of halibut how many people that you know eat 250 lb of halibut in a year what do they do with the halibut that they do not eat do they just throw it away what a wast I have heard that the commercial charter boat guides catch there limit of halibut and give the halibut to there clients they also deal in cash and the cash goes in there back pocket know income tax is this true have you heard this also Pete


  5. Anonymous
    December 12, 2010 | 4:11 pm

    your comments are very false, halibut fishermen did not get their quota free. far from it.

  6. Randy Anderson
    December 12, 2010 | 5:40 pm

    Actually the facts are true. In 2003, 436 Commercial Fisherman were gifted with Quota. Maybe you had to buy your quota but you bought it from someone that got it for free. That doesn’t make it right. Of 436 quota holders only 137 fished last year. It is the Slipper Skippers that are getting rich of Canada’s natural resource.

    You are right about one thing. Quota is given by the IPHC to Canada then it is allocated. This is an allocation issue, not a Canadian Total Allowable Catch issue. All conservation issues are dealt with at the IPHC. The allocation to each sector is the issue at hand. Why should 436 people get 88% of Canada’s Natural Resource and the rest of the people have to buy (as you did) or lease it each year?

    Recreational Fishing generates a much higher economic value to the Province of BC. 1lb of Commercial caught quota creates approx. $4 of economic value n B.C. 1lb of recreational caught halibut generates approx. $17 of economical value to B.C. The Government has a responsibility to manage our natural resources to their best use.

    A a guy that works for a living and a taxpayer, this is appalling.

  7. Leigh McCracken
    December 12, 2010 | 7:25 pm

    Talk about the tail wagging the dog– does anyone have an answer as to why this relatively small group can whipsaw the government into providing them with a huge paycheck when they are such a small percentage of the user group.? Is it because they are more vocal? Have better political affiliations? And if so where & how does it work? Or is only because the Gov’t can control the larger group by controlling the smaller one. I think once we answer these questions how to fix the problem will be self evident–

  8. Jay Moore
    December 12, 2010 | 9:38 pm

    Any commercial Quota holder that doesn’t actively fish their quota them selves (not by proxy!) should have it revoked at the end of that year. At that point the government could issue it out by lottery to a new quota holder (that must fish it or loose it!). Or the government could take the revoked quota percentage and turn it over to the sport fishery 12% there by increasing the percentage alloted to the sector that generates a much higher economic value to the economy. We need to have something done about this, as it is completely unfair that anyone gets a part of OUR resources for free and then abuses it. Under what terms were these Halibut quotas given out for free and why were they given out for free? Were they offered as a lifetime quota or was there a time limit to them? At any rate this issue needs to be re-examined and corrected ASAP – not tommorrow or next year….NOW!

    A Concerned, Tax paying, Canadian, Sport Fisherman.

    • AM
      January 11, 2011 | 9:53 pm

      You are right on the point. Sport fishermen/women have never contributed to depletion of fisheries resources, it is only unregulated commercial fisheries that have led to loss of fisheries and species critical to the sustainability of our resources. There are may scientific papers supporting this trend, yet we continue to pamper commercial fisheries at any cost because government refuse to recognize that sport fishery are far more socially rewarding experience and generates significantly more revenue. One halibut per person per day is ridiculous given the time, money and effort it involve to catch a halibut using a rod and reel. I agree with another writer that there should be a seasonal limit (max 10-15 Hali per person per year, that is a lot of hali per family) as it is for Chinook. I also think there should be a limit on the upper size limit (release all halies that over 100 pounds). They are old, not that tasty, probably contain elevated levels of heavy metals, but they contribute significantly to recruitment. I do not know if they will survive if we release them once they are pulled up from 200 odd feet depth and released on surface. Would this work?

  9. john c. anderson
    December 13, 2010 | 2:10 pm

    I am one of a group of fishermen that come to British Columbia every year, and most time twice a year to fish for halibut and salmon. In 2011, I have arranged to bring 3 other fishermen with me. Total cost will exceed $14,000 US dollars. If we cannot or do not have the opportunity to catch halibut, then we will be forced to discontinue our trips to British Columbia and just fish for salmon in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. We stay at different lodges and spend nights in Vancouver, and dine out there. I know a lot of fishermen like me that enjoy the chance for both salmon and halibut. Putting a restriction on halibut will greatly affect out choices in where to go fishing.

    Please do not penalize us. We enjoy the Canadian waters and the people. Can’t we all share in harvest?

    Thank you,

    John C. Anderson

  10. Dale Hills
    December 13, 2010 | 3:50 pm

    Has any petition form been started.? For the many recreational fishermen who love to fish we can speak loudly if we all sign/stand together.

  11. Arne Perrin
    December 14, 2010 | 12:04 pm

    Please create letter template or a petition campaign and I will happily sign and canvass others to do the same.

    Ever since the nice glossy PHC report was completed, the commercial fisherman holds too much power over the allotment. Enough studies have shown a sports caught fish is far more economically productive. Why is it still such a mystery?

  12. admin
    December 14, 2010 | 12:15 pm

    Arne: Select the The “Act Now” Tool Kit tab above. In there you will find sample letters that you can copy and paste. It is important that you add your personal touch to the letter as form letters do not have the same effect. Also, please include a copy tothe SFI.
    Thank you…SFI Admin

  13. Royak
    December 14, 2010 | 1:56 pm

    Every year (for over 10 years) I’ve been coming to B.C. to fish in the Hakai Pass area for salmon and halibut. I’ll put up with the currently poor (for Americans) exchange rate, but the escalating restrictions on what I can catch are a show-stopper. Considering the money I spend for myself and family members, Alaska now makes much more financial & fishing sense. So, Air Canada won’t be getting my money, nor will Vancouver hotels, restaurants or my fishing lodge.
    Royak (California)

  14. darryl choronzey
    December 14, 2010 | 4:09 pm

    It’s obvious it’s time for another inquiry. This time on the worth and intelligence of dfo biologists and other decision makers.

    These folks have to go before our fishery and tourism industry disappears

    Darryl Choronzey

  15. Bryan
    December 16, 2010 | 2:25 pm

    The problem is not with DFO bios this time… It strictly at the POLITICAL level.

  16. Andreas Handl
    December 17, 2010 | 3:01 pm

    To solve the real problem we are facing with overfishing our stocks we have to shut down the commercial fishing for halibut asap, not attack the sportfishing industry where anglers from all over the world come to canada for such an great experience to catch a halibut.
    it worked in the uk, they shut down the commercial fishing for 4 years!!! The people in charge have to realize this is the only way to solve the problem, they should think about how much money the will lose when the commercial fishing industry killed everything. This season pink salmon was closed for sportfishing!, commercial fishing for pinks was open! does this make sense? so whats next are we shutting down sportfishing for salmon as well? you guys in charge have to wake up, it seams like to me they are in the wrong position for the wrong reasons, stop selling out our natural resorces for the wrong reasons! Otherwise we lose everything one day!! regards, Andreas Handl

    • admin
      December 17, 2010 | 4:19 pm

      Canada is not overfishing our halibut stock. This is not a conservation issue, it is an allocation issue. All conservation concerns are dealt with at the IPHC. Once Canada gets its TAC we can fish that safely. The issue is how does the Government of Canada divide up our natural resource. They should give a fair share to the Sport Fishing sector. We are the sector that provides the best economical benefit to the country. One other interesting stat is the over 70% of the commercial caught halibut is exported outside of Canada. The money from those sales goes right into the pockets of the 436 gifted Fish Lords. No economic benefit to Canada at all. There is no question that the decision makers in Ottawa have no concept of the west coast fishery. It is also painful to admit that the combination of arrogance and incompetence we see in DFO Pacific Region Ground Fish management team right now is simply mind boggling.

  17. Doug Gould
    December 19, 2010 | 8:30 pm

    I was shocked and very disappointed when I found out that halibut season was being closed. Like many others in my community, we were finishing up our salmon fishing and were waiting till mid October to get some halibut before we put the boats away for the winter. Not much sense getting it too early as it is nice to have it a little fresher… till we can get some fresh in March or April. So now my family doesn’t have any whitefish for the winter… thank you DFO.
    I would like to see their statistics on the catch and the inherent error. Seems to me that not a whole lot of sport people fish halibut through the winter… how many are they saving with this move and does it really make much of a difference?

    There are a couple of issues here. Many people in our society don’t actually work their licenses in fishing or other endeavours such as logging, where quotas are involved. Many upper income professionals built rental apartments as investments. Halibut licenses have a return on investment in the 10% range; wouldn’t you want that sort of return? There is no sense bashing commercial guys or license holders. They do not make the political decisions. We are all in this together!

    How much should a person earn from a publically owned resource? For many years the fishing industry was just a gold rush with conservation and return to taxpayers seemingly a secondary consideration. Remember when herring licenses were $10 and were rented out for thousands.
    To my way of thinking, the fish belong to our society as a whole and as a citizen I want to see a good return to justify the cost of management(DFO) and the risk to fish stocks. Should the “profit” go to the people who own the fish (us) or to the people licensed to harvest the fish? What is a decent return to the commercial harvester given the investment and the risk involved? Since the sportsman is theoretically not in the game for profit he is somewhat of a side issue to DFO.
    However there are people who invest in sport fishing lodges that create jobs and hope to make a return on their investment, an investment that depends on publicly owned fish stocks. They do not hold quotas but depend on licensed sport fishing to make their living. This is a different sort of fish in the mix as they profit on an individuals right to sport fish. I believe it is necessary to have a regime that splits the allocation four ways. Commercial, commercial sport fish, sport fisherman and food fisherman.
    I do not fish for sport, though I do enjoy the pursuit. My family enjoys a whole range of seafood as we are lucky enough to live where there are good stocks. When going out in the boat to fish for food I need to catch something to eat. Otherwise it is not worth the trip. I do not go out to troll a line aimlessly and unless we catch enough to justify the expense there is a real deterrent to the trip. I do not spend $3000 on a lodge trip to get my seafood nor do I have an employer who pays for such things. My neighbours across the water enjoy that privilege simply due the the ancestry of their parents but I am not of the gifted people! If I have to spend $100 in gas to catch fresh halibut, then I’ve got to catch a big one when the limit is only one. I would rather catch two 30 to 50 lb and let the big females go… but DFO make rules that push me to do otherwise.

    Two halibut per day and two in possession makes sense to me. This limits the lodges without limiting the food fisherman. I would prefer to be able to go to DFO and purchase a food fish license and make just one trip to get my catch. I would pay for this “service”.. possibly buy halibut tags for the day or week?
    Collectively we must pressure DFO to prioritize and divide the halibut (and other seafood) catch in a fairer manner that first and foremost recognizes the right of BOTH native and non-aboriginals to food-fish.
    Secondly there must be a distinction between sport-fishermen that fish for the “sport” and those who go the route of lodges. I believe that the lodges should be treated as commercial fish license holders and they should purchase the fish from the overall allocation at a free market rate similar to the methods of setting stumpage in the logging industry. In the same manner as a deer tag, they can purchase a salmon or halibut etc., tag to distribute to the guests. These guests should not be fishing under a sportfishing license system.
    Thirdly, a system must be devised that gives commercial fisherman a reasonable livelihood from their profession without the right (licensed quota) to fish being, in itself, the profit making instrument. The profit should be made from fishing the quota, not simply holding, transferring or selling the quota.
    It very expensive to buy halibut in a fish store as the cost, which involves high license fees paid to DFO, high purchase price for the quota and or possibly quota rental from a license holder, landing fees and then a mark up at the store. does one have to be wealthy to eat fresh seafood? DFO seems to think so.
    If 70% of the halibut is actually exported, then I guess we can afford the extra middle men taking a bite of the ocean gold, but these rules should not prevent my family form eating fresh fish this winter.
    I would be happy to hear comments and discussion as this issue needs a lot of well thought out ideas and the political will to push to have them implemented.

    As a final question: Does DFO spend all of the money collected from licenses etc within DFO or does it create a profit that is passed on to help fund schools(other than fish) hospitals etc.

    Please respect peoples right to an opinion and please be sure to correct them when they are wrong. We are free to think someone is stupid (not the same as miss-informed) without telling them!

    Cheers, Doug

    • admin
      December 20, 2010 | 8:56 am

      Thanks for the comments, you’ve obviously thought a lot about this and I support many of your comments. I respectfully disagree, however, that lodges or charter boat operators should be in a different category from sport anglers, simply because they do not actually catch fish….they provide services to individual anglers who don’t have the time, skills or equipment to go it alone but want to catch a fish. I simply don’t believe that you can compare these service providers to commercial quota holders in any meaningful way”

  18. Perspective please....
    December 20, 2010 | 10:38 pm

    News Flash: Moose Hunting Now Closed.

    “Commercial moose quota owned by 436 private individuals restrict public access to 12% of available wild species. No conservation concern exists. Public moose hunting now closed due to allocation of 88% of species to private business entities.”

    September 18th – “Public Moose Hunting Closed Early”
    September 23rd – “For Sale or Lease -10,000 pounds moose quota -cash only. Contact Hugh.G.Ripoff@screwcanadianpublic.ca

    Sounds silly?

    What wild land species has ever survived it’s commercial harvest as a food source? You guessed it. None.

    Hugh’s banking on being retired by then- fat, happy and compensated by taxpayers.

  19. school grants
    December 21, 2010 | 12:13 am

    Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

  20. dental assistant
    December 23, 2010 | 5:00 am

    Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article

  21. inheritance
    December 24, 2010 | 1:17 am

    Thanks for an idea, you sparked at thought from a angle I hadn’t given thoguht to yet. Now lets see if I can do something with it.

  22. Dale B
    December 28, 2010 | 12:45 am

    After alot of good reading here I am left with a few questions that need answers. I am sure it will only add as to why we all seem to think that the DFO and its quota restrictions are blatantly ludicrus.

    As this quota all stems from the IPHC, Are there stats available to show the american quoatas and how they decided their split? What respect is given to the sportfishing industry on the american side, Alaska included?

    If the commercial halibut export numbers do total 70% of the allowable catch, of what percentage of that goes to the U.S.

    With respect to the Canadian allocation. How many of the so called “slipper skippers” are even registered as “tax paying canadian companies”? Does this locally generated revenue also leave the country along with the 70% commercial quota? I just dont see alot of benefit here?

    With the tourism potential and its direct effect on the local economies along the coast, why would our government not direct its focus to a clean and replenishable resource? Is tourism not looked upon as revenue? Maybe we should rename it “commercial tourism” to get their attention.

    Maybe we need to form a commission to run the fisheries where all user groups are given fair opportunity? I could live with the decision of the majority as apposed to the present.

    There should be a reduced quota on bad DFO decisions!

  23. steel tip darts
    January 5, 2011 | 8:28 pm

    Concise and written well, thank you for the post

  24. angry fisherman
    January 6, 2011 | 12:49 pm

    an alocation issue? perhaps.is it right that in my industry quota owners rip me off with outrageous lease fees that last season amounted to over $5.00lb on a fish thats worth $6.50lb.thats no typo.quota owners that own 20 or 30 thousand pounds of qouta, some own a lot more…..do the math. the $1.50 i get can barely keep my operation alive. change the alocation, i do not care. just means less money for a bunch of rich quota holders.. fish are for fisherman, sport or commercial.

  25. keith morris
    January 9, 2011 | 2:03 pm

    Personally I think the federal goverment should get the hell out of B.C. fisheries. Everytime they try to do something they screw it up. They don’t listen to the fishing community (fisher people). What qualifications do these minister’s have to hold the post they are given. They can’t even enforce the dam regulations that are in place now. They only take care of themselves and special intrest groups, not the general public in whole.

  26. Fisherman
    January 9, 2011 | 2:20 pm

    I hope people understand that the sport sector has two parts. Sport lodges and charters catch 70% of the sport halibut not mom and pop sport fishers. Why should another commercial buisness get fish that i payed $37 a pound for? Can’t you see that you are getting used! If lodges had to buy their halibut quota like I did they could ensure that their guests would catch fish and mom and pop would never come close to their 12% share. WAKE UP GUYS Bob Wright is using you!

    • admin
      January 9, 2011 | 3:55 pm

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this comment section.

      Our perspective is that no one should have to pay for fish that Canada already owns. Aboriginal, Commercial or the Angling Public should not pay a private third party for access to fish. Our view is that it should be shared (allocated) – fished – then use it or loose it!

      We are unanimously opposed to the privatization of Canada’s fisheries resources. Furthering the privatization will only make the “Fish Lord” situation worse.

      From a legal perspective what quota holders have is a defined proportionate share of a future years expected Commercial Allocation. That total commercial allocation/public allocation is at the sole discretion of the Minister of the day.

      At the initial inter-commercial division when the halibut fishermen entered into the “Individual Vessel Quota” system. They were assigned a proportionate share. They were not given “ownership” of halibut.

      Some commercial fisherman have since “sold” their anticipated future catch to another private business/ person for money. There is no guarantee and never was as to what the actual amount of halibut would be year to year. They bought “anticipation” and today still sell amongst themselves “anticipation”.

      The fisheries act clearly states and the supreme court of Canada has re-affirmed that fish belong to Canada for the benefit of all Canadians.

      “It is important to recognize that, in Canada, fishing privileges are granted, and fisheries resources are allocated, at the discretion of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under Section 7 of the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has absolute discretion in the issuance of licences. Therefore, when considering rights-based fisheries management in Canada, it is should be noted that resource access is a privilege granted by the Minister, not a property right.”

      The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled (re affirmed) that halibut are not owned or become property until they are caught.

      The annual allocation/split to the sectors is at the sole discretion of the Minister of the day.

      The 88%/12% split was the Minister of that day utilizing his discretion. There was no compensation to commercial quota holders in 2003 when that allocation decision was made because it was made clear by the Minister that the halibut belong to Canada and always will.

      The Angling Public can use their own boat, a friends boat, rental boat, guide boat or a lodge boat to access their fish.

      A lodge and or a guide is merely the taxi driver. Some of the angling public use the services of lodges/ guides and the angling public catches their fish

    • Henry
      January 11, 2011 | 2:40 pm

      The lodges are NOT keeping the halibut. They offer the services of access to harvest the halibut and coastal accommodations like any hotel/motel on route. Many lodges service the public fisherman with their own boats. “Mom and Pop” are taking home the halibut to their families. So obviously the 12% is not enough for the amount of sport fishers in relation to the 88% given free (and leased or sold for profit) to a LESS than 500 individuals (with over half of them not even fishing it)!!!
      The issue at hand is FAIR allocation of a resource to the different user groups. And DFO has the power to correct their error of 2003.
      But, I’m sorry you paid to too much for a quota that was given free to the person you purchased it from? But that’s your business…..

  27. John Wells
    January 10, 2011 | 10:28 am

    I would like to see the commercal and sport fishery work together on this as we will all have kids in our families that will like to fish Halibut in the future.
    I come from a commercal fishing family and now have taken a new route to make a living. This should be a choice for all of our children and Grandchildren. It should start now that we work together on this issue.

  28. Gordon Judzentis
    January 10, 2011 | 6:27 pm

    Follow me on twitter9(BC SALMON CHARTERS) This is ****unbelievable. We need to get all Chamber of COmmerce’s involved.Where are our so called gov’t reps who are here for the people and small business,all anglers need to contact their MLA’s and chamber offices.

  29. Gordon Judzentis
    January 10, 2011 | 6:29 pm

    According to the international halibut commission report the halibut quotas are up and they have no intention of making such suggestion that the DFO is trying to implement.

    • admin
      January 10, 2011 | 10:04 pm

      Thanks for your contribution Gordon.
      The IPHC decides on the Canadian Total Allowable Catch. Canada decides on how they deploy the Canadian Fisheries. Canada has tried to keep their domestic planning issues in house. But if Canada fishes beyond the Canadian TAC, then the IPHC takes an active role.
      Thanks Again!
      The Coalition Team

  30. Al Kennedy
    January 10, 2011 | 7:00 pm

    It would be nice to see DFO come up with a simple solution. Like a quota system, like we have for Chinook
    salmon. Where we limit our catch to a respectable number to help keep our numbers down, and purchase a halibut tag to generate money to help purchase quota when need be. Oh, that is right, our brain dead
    fisheries came up with a constitution that we couldn’t
    use a tag system, or a system like that to help buy quota.It is time for a new structure in DFO because the old one is not working. Pretty soon the West Coast will be like the East Coast (dead). That is all to do with are incompetent fisheries. I hope my kids, kids will be able to catch a salmon, or halibut,
    but I kind of doubt it. If we are still dealing with
    this old fisheries structure(good luck).

    • admin
      January 10, 2011 | 10:13 pm

      Hi Al

      Thanks for thinking outside the box….Ironically your idea was actually one that was put on the floor by DFO in an SFAB brainstorming session back in 2003. DFO looked into the halibut stamp concept and determined that it would not pass the User Fee Act.

      The likely reason being is “how can Canada tax its constituents and then expect Treasury Board to write a cheque to private business men for access to a resource that Canada already owns!”

      DFO could not pass the red face test so they didnt even try the Halibut stamp option.

      The practical reality now is that CANADA has two choices:
      1.) Rescind quota from non fishing quota holders and re distribute that to active commercial and public angling fisheries. (eliminate 3rd party resource rent to all fishers)
      2.) Increase the proportion to the angling public up from the current 88 %.

      Thanks again for your comments and we hope you find the site useful.

      The Coalition

  31. Scruff MacGregor
    January 11, 2011 | 6:43 pm

    How can us Albertans help you guys out in this horrible situation?

    Please just post how we can help you.

  32. AM
    January 11, 2011 | 9:28 pm

    If we depend up on our PM Harper to make comments or decisions on the sustainable management of our environment and natural resources, we will not have any environment or natural resources left for our kids and grand kids.

    It is amazing that Harper continues to be popular in the poll regardless of nonsense environmental and social policies.

    Vote him out if you want to see an environmentally sustainable and globally respectable Canada.

  33. Gordon Judzentis
    January 12, 2011 | 9:50 am

    With all the political politics happening in BC. Those individuals that are running for leadership of the Liberal and NDP parties should have this as part of their mandate. And should be offering to fight this unethical closure of the halibut recreational fishery.

    Vote for those that are willing to represent you. There are far better ways to manage this fishery , rather than a total closure.

  34. Organic Foods
    January 16, 2011 | 9:51 am

    Thanks for this interesting post. I will be sure to get the word out about this site :) Excellent post. Can’t wait to see the next article.

  35. Jens K
    January 16, 2011 | 11:01 am

    Quotas owned, leased, etc. by commercial fishery, has been tried elsewhere, e.g. in Iceland, and the system has been subject to many studies (e.g. by the leading Icelandic scientist Gisli Palsson). The conclusions are clear, the effects of such a system are disasterous, both for fish stocks, and for people variously affected. Is DFO completely oblivious to science done on this issue?

  36. Ed Look
    January 16, 2011 | 3:38 pm

    Unbelievable. I guess the votes of a few hundred commercial fisherman is worth more than the millions of dollars and thousands of votes of sport fisherman.

  37. Cam
    January 16, 2011 | 6:37 pm

    1) Not every commercial fisherman who owns halibut quota fishes – we know this. But many don’t fish beause they can’t afford the annual license fees and monitoring fees. They are left with no choice but to lease their quota.

    2) If the sportfishing community wants greater access to fish (not just halibut) then start reporting your catch. There needs to be a system in place that accurately tracks every single halibut and salmon taken out of the water. Only a small percentage actually report their catch, therefore DFO (who are terrible at math to begin with) are only guessing on whats actually been caught by sports fishing. My guess is that 30% of sports caught fish are reported. So, saying that 12% of the allocation isn’t enough, is like saying 18-20% isn’t enough.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  38. mark vizzolini
    January 17, 2011 | 9:23 am

    What about the economy. What about the jobs. Its not just about fishing. ITS ABOUT A WAY OF LIFE. Goverments are becoming kingdoms and we have freedoms. For god sakes we are only allowed to keep 1 halibut.

  39. Anonymous
    January 18, 2011 | 12:57 pm

    How many hotel rooms and jobs does the commercial sector fill?
    How many tables at restaurants?
    Each charter boat can easily fill 100+ rooms and meals per guest per season. Plus flights, gas, gifts, novelties ect. Marketing money………
    Thats alot of jobs and money back into local economies besides the fuel docks, marine and tackle shops.
    All to catch 1 halibut/day or 2 total trip!!!! @ 12% of the catch?
    Tourism is sustainable, raping the ocean has never been.
    Look at the math!!
    Why has tourism been growing while commercial fishing has not.
    Remember the East Coast…buffalo….

  40. AM
    January 18, 2011 | 10:36 pm

    I like the suggestion of buying a halibut tag like a tag for salmon that lets a sport fisher (a single license) to catch a maximum of 10 hali per season per year (maximum 2 per person per day, no mid season closure). I would not mind to pay $10 to have a sticker to have this right. Again, I think we should release the large halis over 100 pounds. They are the ones that produce halis for you to catch. It is well known that when it comes to fish, large females produce significantly many more off springs than smaller females. DFO should create more effective Marine Protected Areas, restricted to both commercial and sport fisheries to protect halibut than this stupid policy.

    • admin
      January 19, 2011 | 5:03 pm

      Thanks for your comments AM. The concept of a halibut stamp has been tested in the early days of the halibut policy. The SFAB was advised that the USER FEE ACT and Treasury Board would have a hard time passing a “consumer tax” on the public (anglers) and then direct the proceeds to private business interests (quota holders). Lawyers at the time suggested that Canada would have a hard time paying someone for something they (Canada) already own.
      Appreciate your thoughts and also please write your thoughts to the Minister and the Prime Minister!
      The Coalition Team.

  41. Lawrence Pearce
    January 19, 2011 | 8:45 am


    Regarding the proposed HALIBUT FISHERY CLOSED IN 2011!
    I would like to send a fax to Hon Gail Shea, do you have a fax # for her? OR can you put my mane down against this closer and I agree with Dr. Keith Martin’s coments.

    Thank you
    Lawrence Pearce

    • admin
      January 19, 2011 | 5:06 pm

      Minister Gail Shea’s FAX number is (613) 992-1974

  42. Todd Jennings
    January 19, 2011 | 9:37 pm

    I understand there are many different groups affected by the possibility of early season Halibut closures, I would like to share some of my personal concerns. I own two Charter boats out of Ucluelet on the West coast of Vancouver Island. My bookings are down about 75% compared to this time last year! A vast majority of my regular clients have indicated that despite their love for Salmon fishing they cannot justify the expense if there aren’t any opportunities to catch and retain Halibut. We must work together, as restauants, hotels and many other businesses will also be affected.

  43. Geoff Viljoen
    January 20, 2011 | 8:10 am

    If the government is so intent on “Saving” our precious resources…why don’t they show some intelligence in the matter of protecting the spawning rivers from the horrendous over-development some of them are being subjected to.
    For YEARS a group of my buddies have been fishing the “Two-Bit-Bar” near Fort Langley,until the Parks board decided to “Build a Park”. After massive dredging etc etc, they have effectively changed the course of the natural flow of the river, destroying the many channels these fish used to use. THE BAR IS DEAD…(No, MURDERED).
    My brother in law and I have been frequenting the Canadian Princess lodge in Ucuelet for years. We eagerly await the ONE halibut trip, PER YEAR. We are both of modest incomes…so much so, that we take our trip in the “Low” season, when rates are lower.
    In all the years we’ve ben going, we’ve never witnessed any of the aforementioned attrocities some letters are suggesting. The only attrocity, as I see it, is the plan to close this simple pleasure, to a pair of simple old men.

    Geoff V
    (PS…Am I to see a reduction on my angling licence this year)?

  44. Dale Pearce
    January 20, 2011 | 8:15 am

    I have been coming out to fish for Salmon and Halibut for 10 years and this idea of closing the halibut season will greatly affect my decision to return this year. I have followed up with a letter to my Member of Parliament seeking his assistance in discussing this with the Hon. Gail Shea.

  45. Darryl Webber
    January 20, 2011 | 10:24 am

    I have been sports fishing for 5o+ years. Hate to think what the total $$$ is that I’ve spent. Been giong to Barkley Sound for 35yrs, haven’t missed a year.DFO has ruined the Eastcoast fisheries completely, and are doing a good job of going the same route out here. (how can you ‘miscount’ 20+ million fish ????) I have no intention of letting a bunch of Eastern chair warmers ruin my fishing, and also have no interest in ‘buying back’ a quota halibut!!

  46. gordon forster
    January 20, 2011 | 12:59 pm

    i am originally from kitimat, we used to catch monster halibut everywhere, it seemed the commercial fishing was mostly around prince rupert. I can remember my dad had his “spot” . he told a fisherman friend of his and of course the next time we went there, all the islands around the “spot” were completely encompassed with long lines!!! ( one line many, many hooks). Since that travesty there is literally no halibut left , they cleaned out the area. I am wondering how the dfo has the right to re sell the coast to specific groups of people, who in turn profit without doing anything, that adds cost to everything. for the people of BC the casual angler, if there is a quota , it should go to the non-commercial first ,this is what makes bc bc our fishing brings people from around the world. banning halibut fishing to the public is hurting all of us.

  47. Richard
    January 20, 2011 | 1:16 pm

    I would just like to point out that there were more people attending the Victoria Town Hall meeting than there are commercial license holders. If numbers matter in this problem that should speak huge volumes.

  48. Reg Moody
    January 20, 2011 | 1:51 pm

    Good. I’ve always thought that the sports fishing industry halibut allocation was an unjustied unallocated allocation. In the past when these sports fishing lodges were given their 1.2 million pound allocation there was no monitoring and compliance procedures in place. When sports fishing was good and there were lots of salmon to be caught – what wasn’t used out of this 1.2 million pound quota was leased out to thses same commercial halibut fisherman and the profits were used by the Sports Fishing Alliance to buy up more halibut quota. I guess all DFO and Industry abusive presure tacics come to an end sometime. Point in case. Herring. The stocks are in trouble literally. Three major areas are shut down. The last two areas the Gulf of Georgia and the North Coast are on the brink – in danger of being over fished to the point where it would be difficult to recover. BUT as usual, the industry says they still HAVE to fish. Why? Because they are afriad of losing their established roe herring markets in Japan. What ever happended to conservation? The doctrine of of priority. No no, DFO will have to do with hearing these concerns. Industry pressure tactics and DFO mismanagement will continue to destroy our marine ecosystem. What processes are in place to hold DFO accountable for their mismanagement. Personally this DFO announcement on a halibut closure means nothing to me. My people have an aboriginal right that is protected by section 35. Only when there is a conservation issue with halibut – then we will comply with this closure. If these armchair fisherman and DFO want to challenge our right to access food, social and ceremonial halibut let them try we will continue to exert our constitutional rights as outlined in section 35. We will not comply with this announce and sit back just so these armchair fisherman can eat their cake too. Forget that.

  49. Eric Goodman
    January 20, 2011 | 3:24 pm

    The Pacific Halibut fishery is one of the few in the world that has been widely accredited as sustainable. US-Canada have been advised (and adhered to) the recommendations about stocks by the thorough and independent science of the International Pacific Halibut Commission for more than 100 years. Google the IPHC to look at all their reports, stock recommendations and the science of how they arrive at them.

    Yes, the quota system is broken. Most commercial fishermen make less than 25% ($1.25-2/lb usually) on Halibut after leasing quota from ‘slipper skippers’. This has created a false economy and one that screws the average fisherman.

    We all need to unite to address the quota problem, then we can have a reasonable conversation addressing allocation. But as it is, we as commercial fishermen can barely turn a profit for hard and dangerous work (read: Queen Charlotte Sound in early March). As a deckhand, a reallocation that you’re talking about will cost me as much as 25% of my total yearly income (since our profit comes after cost in the last 10% of the catch).

    This whole SFI campaign is a bait and switch. Quota is the problem and the only one they present.
    “..making it more difficult for even “real” commercial halibut fishermen to make a living.”
    Guess what reallocating quota does to “real” fishermen?
    Makes it even harder.

    Yes, a mid-season recreational closure is ridiculous.

    But you have been lured here into the role of patsy by two groups of warring millionaires: Commercial recreational owners and commercial quota owners. This campaign is a political ploy by commercial recreational interests to expand their industry. Fishing lodges represent a small minority of recreational fishermen, but are accessory to the catch of an overwhelming proportion of the recreational quota. If you are wondering why a closure? It’s because the mom and pop fishing lodges are dying and multi-millionares have taken over and want MORE. They have burned up what was once a generous recreational allotment. It seems unfair to me that we pay a lot to make meagre wages for our fish, but fishing lodges get to make loads for free. So FIX the QUOTA SYSTEM, free the fish. Once we are making reasonable money again, a reallocation for more recreational halibut would be MUCH easier to swallow.

    But by just re-allocating as-is, you are making mine and others slim-pickings even slimmer by taking money away from deckhands and everyday commercial fishermen. This isn’t what I do for a fun Sunday, it’s what I do to LIVE.

    Eric Goodman
    Deckhand – Ocean Twilight

  50. Larrie Connell
    January 20, 2011 | 3:28 pm

    This sounds like typical bureaucratic policy developed without the facts. Probably a minority pressure group has lobbied for it to protect their money.
    The sports fishery is far more valuable to the province and country than a few commercial exploiters who are hurting the reputation of the real commercial fisherman. Leasing out licences should be prohibited.
    The spin-off from sports fishermen is gigantic for many fishing companies and for tourism.
    This policy does not make sense at all.

  51. Justin Wood
    January 26, 2011 | 2:06 pm

    I am an avid sports Angler from Alberta. For a couple of years now, my Dad and I have been planning on buying a boat just to go halibut fishing in BC. I did a budget of how much this would cost annually, and once I budgeted the lodging, bait, tackle, gas, food and e.t.c, the costs would be annually contributing thousands of dollars to the BC tourist industry. If this allocation remains the same, many Albertans like me would not be as appealed to visit the BC coast anywhere near as much or at all; hence thousands or even higher amounts of tourist dollars would be lost. I have written two letters to my local MP and the Fisheries Minister.

  52. Justin Wood
    January 28, 2011 | 11:12 am

    From what I understand, this system is not just hurting the sport fishing industry. I have heard from many sources too that even the commercial fishers that actually go out there can hardly make a profit after paying the ridiculous lease fees from the “Slipper Skippers.” If DFO remains to keep this flawed system in place, halibut stalks will suffer, the sports sector will suffer the non quota commercial fishers (“real commercial fishers”), the First Nations sector, and the food fisher sector will also suffer. From what I understand, only the “Slipper Skippers” will benefit. Some “Slipper Skippers” have been making the excuse that they were ill, or their boat sunk, and e.t.c. I find it funny though how suddenly more than half of these quota holders would suddenly have these “big misfortunes happen.” The suggestion that other sport anglers have made about the tag I think would be very fair. The tag system is used for salmon and it looks like the Salmon stalks are still running strong and it seems like the Salmon Sport fishing sector is still prospering as well. The money spent on the tag would most likely contribute to sustaining the fishery instead of just filling the pocket of private business owners. I agree with others that all sport fishers need to report their daily catch. If there are any sectors besides the sport sector too where less than 100% of the catch is being reported, then these sectors should have to report all of their daily catch as well.
    I as well honestly think that the sport sector needs more of the allocation. The BC sport fishing industry is a very large and growing vital industry. I think a measly 12% is very unjust. The DFO seems to misunderstand the economic and social importance of this industry. However, the government in the U.S.A. seems to understand the social importance and economics of the sport industry, which is why about 36% of the halibut are allocated to the sport sector in Washington and 20% allocated to the sport sector in Alaska.

    • Justin Wood
      January 31, 2011 | 12:46 pm

      To let everyone know, there is a petitioning face book group against this flawed DFO system named “Vote Out John Duncan MP Should He Not Change Halibut Stance”. The organizer still wants many more face book users to join the group.

  53. Don Sikstrom
    January 29, 2011 | 8:30 am

    Why on earth a hard working commercial fisherman should have to buy halibut quota from a non fishing “Slipper Skipper” is beyond me. Talk about an unfair and flawed system. This is just another example of DFO incompetence. Any and all non fishing holders of quota should have their quota rescinded and the rescinded quota should be allocated firstly to the sport fishing sector so as to allow for a halibut limit of 2 per day with a 2 day possession limit. This I believe would more than satisfy the needs of the sport fishing sector. There should be a guarantee of NO CLOSURES for sport fishing unless the Halibut commission declares the TAC to be non sustainable. So let’s for the sake of discussion assume this would increase the sport fishing quota share to 30% TAC. This would leave 70% TAC for the aforementioned hard working commercial fisherman who after all are just trying to support themselves and their families. This 70% could then be allocated on an equitable basis to HARD WORKING individual commercial fishermen. The only looser in this equation would be the “Slipper Skippers” who for little or no actual investment reap the cash rewards. One would think this would more than satisfy the concerns of the legitimate commercial sector. This to me seems like a very fair and common sense solution – or am I missing something.
    On another issue why on earth doesn’t one of the sport fishing organizations put together a petition and make it available to tackle shops, marinas, etc. If this petition were also made available to private individuals I’m sure that anyone concerned about this issue could collect signatures from a large number of people. I’m sure that any effort made in this area would reap incredible rewards. Of course this would carry a lot more weight if organized by a recognized organization as opposed to a private individual. Does any one else have any comments?

  54. tyson
    February 1, 2011 | 8:16 am

    this is all a big cash grab for the commercal holders witch is bul*&^ what about the sport fishermen the lemit was 2 a day last year it that make a big differnce what about haveing a closure commercal holders i bet they woundent like that too much they wound loss billions well too bad its all about the
    sport thanks

  55. Nigel Picard
    February 1, 2011 | 5:04 pm

    I have been a recreational angler all my life and and am very upset with the halibut allocation. It is great for a few phat cats who have basically won the lottery. For the average working class Canadian it is a great loss. I am tired of seeing such inequality. Commercial fishing is a risk. Just like opening a restaurant, you might make a killing or you might lose your shirt. There was no reason to guarantee these fishermen anything. My mother has a commercial clam digging lisence. After 30 odd years she can’t sell it, lease it out, or even hire anyone to dig for her. At over 65 years of age she has to do the backbreaking work herself if she wants to participate in the fishery. Where is her golden ticket? Why should halibut fishermen be treated any different? At the very least their interests should come after the public has been given it`s fair share of the resource.

  56. Justin Wood
    February 2, 2011 | 9:55 am

    I’ve thought about this flawed DFO policy more and I think this flawed system might also be disaster to halibut stocks, ling cod stocks and especially the rockfish stocks. Seeing since anglers can only keep one halibut a day, and have a shorter season, some may feel encouraged to keep the bigger halibut to make up for the extra halibut they could not keep. These bigger halibut are the big spawning females that carry millions of eggs. The more spawners that are kept, the less halibut there will be in the future. Also, if the halibut season closes early, many anglers may try to focus on fishing for ling cod and rockfish more. Ling cod grow fairly slowly and the stocks may not ne able to handle the sudden shock of increased fishing pressure. For rockfish this may be a total disaster because rockfish grow very slowly and it takes along time for their population to recover; hence why they are very vulnerable to overfishing. The greatly increased pressure may cause the rockfish to become overfished.

    I have also wondered why halibut was so expensive that my family and I, and the average Canadian citizen would hardly buy it. I found out that this was because the non quota holding commercial fishers (“real commercial fishers”) would have no choice but to make the price of the halibut high so they could actually make a profit after paying the outrageous fees from the “slipper skippers” that lazily stay at home and get rich of our public Canadian resource we already own. I think that if a quota holder does not agree to use their granted quota, then it should be withdrawn from them and equally split among all the other sectors for free.
    If it wasn’t for these “slipper skippers”, then the Sport fishers, First Nation fishers, Food fishers could remain to keep their way of life. Real commercial fishers once again could make a fair profit, and perhaps the average Canadian citizen could also afford to buy halibut from their local grocery store or at a restaurant again. Perhaps the halibut, ling cod, and rockfish stocks wouldn’t be at as much risk either.

  57. Jake Grypma
    February 8, 2011 | 6:47 pm

    I see the solution as very simple, this is a common property resource, there for if a fisherman no longer fishes his quota then he forfiets his quota back into the pool where another fisherman (or fishing sector ie; recreational fishery or commercial fisherman) can apply for quota. Quota to a commercial fisherman should be like a fishing licence for a sportsman, if I have room on my licence for let’s say chinook salmon that I’m not going to use (I catch and retain on average 8 to 10 chinook salmon per year) then can I sell or lease my excess that I don’t use? NO, of course not! should I be able to? NO of course not! Should the commercial business man no longer using his quota be able to sell or lease his quota? NO, of course NOT!

  58. Alain losier
    February 10, 2011 | 5:46 pm

    Fishing and hunting is not a cash crop. It is every Canadians privilege to go out and feed their family with there own two hands. We must not let the lure of money harm the environment and keep us from living off the land. The last resort to any fishing crisis should be to stop the public from catching there own food. It makes me sick to think that the law makers are lining their pockets for their own gain instead of doing what is right. The only regret that i have is that i never hear of these issues until it is too late. I would like someone to make the public aware of what is going on as soon as it happens so we can fight for the right of the average canadian. Whatever the outcome of this i will continue to put food on my table from the work of my own two hands and will be ready to suffer the greatest consequence to make sure the sport fishing (not guiding) continues for everyone.

  59. ernie Bianco P.eng
    February 11, 2011 | 4:09 pm

    I pretty much agree with the comments put forth by jake Grympa. definitely quotas if not used by the holder himself should be redeemed.

  60. ernie Bianco P.eng
    February 11, 2011 | 4:16 pm

    THE HANDLING OF THE halibut resource should be similar to what we are doing with salmon and should study the american experience.

  61. angry fisherman
    February 15, 2011 | 8:22 pm

    sorry to hear that the slipper skippers were not defeated.now for slap in the face number two: the federal government of Canada has already purchased 31% of the halibut quota(in the commercial portion of course) for the native bands of the west coast of B.C. this amounts to roughly 2 million pounds.purchased by the generous people of Canada for the bargain basement price of 35 to 45 dollars per pound.ouch,too many zeros for me to count.our government is still purchasing quota at this very moment for the native bands. the last block of quota we bought(Canadian people) sold at 50 dollars per pound. i get the forms in the mail every 3 months for quota relenquishment. i hold an active halibut licence(commercial) own no quota,lease from fish lords and pay taxes to buy quota for native bands. go figure? dont give up…….

  62. Anonymous
    February 15, 2011 | 9:24 pm

    Mr. Pete Peterson.

    Lets be honest you dont have 2 cameras that run 24 hours a day. They only run when they are activated by either the drum sensor that counts rotations of the longline drum or the hydrolic pressure sensor that monitors the pressure of the hydrolic system. By the way you dont pay quota on any fish that you eat on the boat.

    You and I both know that you can eat fish on the fishing grounds and choose not to record the eaten fish in the logbook. It isnt hard to do the math Archipelago only reviews ten percent of the sets made in an entire trip so do the math if there was only Ten sets made, that means Archipelago is going to review the video of one random set. What happened in the remaining Nine sets. How honest did you fish through the sets that were not reviewed.

    By the way when was the last time your measuring device on the side of your vessel measured? I have heard that the service provider does not check the measuring grids to be sure they read the required lengths, some have been rumored to be changed and the legal lengths have been modified to high grade the smaller barley legal fish and to lower the cost of the quota to release the fish.

    Now to speak of quota and cost, I am going to assume that you are not one of the boat owners that lease their own quota that is caught on their own boat to their own crew? So, you don’t go to your crew and say,”I could have leased the Halibut quota for $5.00 a pound this year”, so you lease yourself your own quota at your crews expense Then you take up to 40 percent for a boat share, Up to a $500 a trip gear share, grub, fuel, the cost of EM, data retrieval, video review, dock side monitoring then after deducting all that you can from your hard working crew that has broken their backs for the entire Halibut season making you rich you at the end of the year claim all of the deductions on your business income tax claiming that you have paid all of the said expenses.

    When it wasn’t you at all, your crew has paid some of them and you get the benefit of it because you own the boat and control the cheques. Now I don’t know how your boat is run and how the expenses are taken but, both you and I know that there is a lot of commercial boats run just how I have described and its criminal.

    So before you go and point your finger and yell “SHAME”, on the Guiding industry and make blatant false statements about the electronic monitoring system and the cost of fishing know there is always two sides to every story and there are two types of people, there are the good honest types that are the salt of the earth and always try to do what is right. Then there are the types of people who are only worried about themselves. Lets hope you are in the first group Mr.Peterson. But to say that all guides are crooked and don’t pay income tax and do everything that they can dishonestly is like saying all commercial fisherman are thieves and are dishonest themselves and that’s why they had to get an Electronic Monitoring system.

  63. angry fisherman
    February 16, 2011 | 7:37 am

    hey now, dont go pete bashing.he does nothing different than other large quota holders do. he may gaurd his pennies like they are gold coins but you have to give this man some well earned respect.he is in his late 60’s and instead of leasing his quota he has fished his quota every single year but one when he broke his leg.worked right along side young men less than half his age through the night on the deck of his boat.his hard work (plus some major cheapness) in the system our govt. has created has gotten him the 120,000lbs of quota he owns.he fishes what the govt. allows him to fish and leases the balance out(60,000lb). Leasing fish is the problem.OWNER operated quota (like the Alaskans) and user pay is the only answer.

  64. Darcey Janes
    February 17, 2011 | 9:23 am

    I grew up on the east coast and have first hand experience of what happens to a mis-managed commercial fishery.We shut it down and now it is rebuilding. The sport fishery will not kill the fishery. Commercial and non regulated aboriginal fishery will deplete the stock. My advise is regulate the commercilal and aboriginal fishery and the stocks will re-bound.I fish for halibut in the north west and certainly do not over fish or sell fish illegaly, control this and the fishery will prosper.

  65. Geoff Chislett
    February 17, 2011 | 1:00 pm

    I find it almost impossible to compose a comment with out resort to foul language, however I will try. This government and their handmaiden DFO have again demonstrated their “let them eat cake” attitude. They are ignorant and pompous beyond words. Shea is a fatuous shill who could not manage a pop stand. I have never voted conservative and now I would rather vote for a golden retriever than vote for them.

  66. Phil
    February 24, 2011 | 1:49 pm

    The end result of this will be that many anglers will simply opt out of DFO’s management model. It is very difficult to condemn people for behaving in such a fashion when it is abundantly clear that the management regime is not designed to allocate an existing public resource in an equitable manner, but is simply acting to preserve the privilege of a chosen few. As has been pointed out endlessly by recreational angling supporters, this is not a conservation issue and has nothing to do with recreational anglers wanting to catch more fish than are allocated by the PHC; it is all about the equitable allocation of the resource among the different user groups. Comments by commercial quota holders indicating that their quotas have been reduced by half are fallacious; their quota (as a % or the TAC) has remained constant. It is regrettable that many anglers will now simply fish as they see fit, without regard for regulations due to the incompetence of the management agency and the greed of the commercial industry.

  67. ken collins
    February 26, 2011 | 8:20 pm

    I have a short message for Shea and our useless MP Duncan, I for one will continue to fish, these idiots can go to hell, it is time to defy and protest the irrational political idiots who think they are gods. It is time to kick their asses out of power, they are nothing more than the mouth pieces for the buisness sectors who are paying these clowns off.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?