I'm sure you guys will correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that they are retiring a certain number of licenses as well as boats.

Although I don't have facts sitting in front of me, its my understanding that fish stocks in Canada have benefitted from buyouts in the commercial industry.

Finally, I've come to the conclusion that the commercials have much more political clout than we sport fisherman and they have been significantly more effective at getting their way so to speak. So even if the price is seems high, taking some number of commercials out of the picture (voluntarily) is still better than doing nothing.

LF, i think they bought back ALL the commerical stuff up north, thats why the fish did better,this plan means fewwer boats to catch the same amount of fish as before.

havenfun:

Sorry to burst your bubble but they sure as heck didn't but back all the commercial boats or licenses up north. They did buy back a few purse seiners that were promptly replaced by fewer but larger boats. One man owns the vast majority of the B.C. commercial purse seine fleet. He owns B.C. packers Overweita foods and a ton of other stuff apparently including politicians.

The B.C. gov. did limit coho interception on the west side of Vancouver Island and chinook fisheries in other areas. In part due to the success of recent Canada.U.S. salmon treaty negotiations.

The moneys these guys are recieving will barely get them out from under there boats and buisnesses.I am not going to break the costs down but overhead is high,you don't even want to hear an insurance quote.

Who sets the quotas??????The comercial fishermen???No,the goverment.So ultimately who is responsible for the decline??The people that follow the rules or the people who make the rules??

ltlCLEO

You claim to be a carpenter, so if your business goes tits up, does that mean that the government should buy back your truck, lumber racks, skill saws, nail guns, levels, hammers, screw gun, air compress, and tool belt?

What's the difference?

Where these poor commercial fishermen forced to take up fishing for a living? I also fished commercially when I was in California for 15 years, and when I was done fishing I had to sell my own boat and commercial gear for whatever it was worth! Why should these guys be any different?

Cowlitzfisherman

No where in that post do I say that I agree or disagree,just letting you what i do know as an ex-deckhand.

I will say that when I got out I got offered the chance through the state to use your tax dollars to be retrained in something else.I turned it down because it is not how I was raised.

I do not claim to be a carpenter I am.

So you would rather see these guys out there scratching the bottom,catching nothing marketable,but killing the rest of the food chain trying?That is what this buy out is about more than anything else.

How come you do not address the reel question of whos fault it is in the long run.The comercial fishermen can only operate under the rules set buy our gov bios and politicians.true or false?Maybe the fishing industry should sue the gov for mismanagement?Now that would be expensive.

You are also missing the fact that the fleet is paying the gov. back and this is a loan of our tax dollars not a hand out.

ltlCLEO


Oh really, what are those rules that you are referring to? Is it the bios, or is the commercials who are sitting in at the North of Falcon meeting that are dividing up the pie?

It's amazes me how people can read the same article and come up with 2 completely different readings on what the article said! Apparently you do not believe that it's not a hand out, because the guys that have decided to stay and continue to fish will be paying the government back…maybe!

I see… we buy 92 boats back at an average $497,000 each to "permanently remove" these vessels from fishing, and then we transfer the quotas of those 92 boats to the remaining 171 Commercial holders that are left. They in turn, if successful, will pay 2/3 of that back to the goverment….if they can make enough profit from the ttransfer of their quotas.

The article says;
Then it states;
When I went to school, they taught us that $36 million subtracted from $46 million left $10 million! Anyway you spin it ltlCLEO, someone getting $10 million free!


Apparently, some people just can't get it!


Cowlitzfisherman

Whatever cw,you tire me.This is why I do not usually even read your long winded posts.I am back to not even reading your bulshiat

It kind of hurts when you proven to be wrong doesn't it

Cowlitzfisherman

Oh no ….now it’s the three Musketeers!

I'm doomed now

Cowlitzfisherman

So CF, I'm curious.....What do you propose as a solution?

It seems to me there are no perfect solutions, only partial, imperfect solutions that are small steps in the right direction. Hopefully, over a long period of time these small steps will add up to something.

Little fish

I guess you could pass legislation declaring salmon a sport fish! That way, salmon would have to be managed for sport instead of being managed as a "food fish" I have never heard anyone make any such proposal on this board before, so maybe that could be a step in the right direction.

It would certainly change the way that salmon can be harvested at the very least! As far as paying off the commercials, they knew the risks when they bought that commercial fishing license and they certainly didn't share any of their profits with us when the times were really good, so who owes them a damn thing now?

Cowlitzfisherman

I remember when Chrysler got a nice fat Govt. bailout of billions of dollars. Did they pay it back??

Not too long after when I worked for Eastern Airlines, we could've used a nice bailout but didn't get it. We all showed up Monday morning to locked gates. I seem to be doing ok without the bailout.

Yep, no failing business should expect or receive any government bailout. That would almost seem socialistic.

I was also offered money to retrain, but didn't take it. I know many who did.

Seems to me if they take out those boats, their quota amount should also be taken out or else you do nothing to lower the total catch. Like taking away five dogs but giving the other five twice as much food thinking you will save money or food.