|
Submitter: Bruce Probert
Community: Aldergrove,
Date Submitted: December 15, 2010
Summary:
In its investigation of DFO's management of the commercial fishery, the commission should consider several specific questions pertaining to the Sockeye Allocation Policy, the use of sockeye equivalents and stakeholder consultation processes. The commission should recommend that commercial fishermen be paid not to fish in years of low abundance, which would provide relief while maintaining the infrastructure to harvest strong returns.
|
Submission:
Pat Chamut; have you ever stated to the effect, We cannot allow windfall profits for fishermen?
In the salmon allocation policy was the commercial salmon fleet Garuanteed 95% of the sockeye catch?
Describe how the use of sockeye equivalents provides equivalent income or access to share of TAC in relation to area allocation shares
What is share of TAC in comparison to CAC (commercial allowable catch) by fleet by area? Would this be considered equitable access to sockeye allocation formula of catch share, by area by gear type?
Is there any process that allows input from license holders at large eg. not participating in current consultation process? Some may perhaps chose not to support and therefore validate current 'consultation' with Stakeholders?
I feel that commercial salmon fishermen have been lied to through out the consultation process over the past 15 years. Lack of access to identifiable TAC is de facto;- expropriation without compensation!
Pay commercial salmon fishermen to not fish salmon stocks in years of low abundance. The salmon allocation policy suggests the amount of losses incurred by the commercial salmon fleet in order to reduce pressure on stocks of concern. this should provide relief to management concerns while still maintaining a capacity to crop strong returns on years such as 2010. |
