Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Herring Fishery Debacle.


Western Red

Recommended Posts

http://globalnews.ca/news/1899297/first-nation-vows-to-interfere-in-b-c-herring-fishery/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heiltsuk-first-nation-says-commercial-herring-fishery-violated-constitutional-rights-1.3005000

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/commercial-herring-fishery-begins-suddenly-over-first-nations-objections/article23579374/

So after the DFO closed the fishery.. Pressure from international boats already en route caused a direct call from Ottawa to open said Fishery.

First Nations are up in arms. The Salmon sport fishing industry is worried. Tourism is worried. Orca whales are affected. Why? So conglomerates can harvest Herring roe.

I'm looking to hear from people in the comercial Herring fishery, First Nations, Line fishers and everyone that has and actual opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not have to post that, and the fact that you did is kind of insulting to the majority of the community and doesn't inspire me to want to reply in a positive manner to anything you post, it makes me think less of you.

As for the fish; I would have really liked to have heard what the government has to say...

Ok I removed that statement.

I provided a link to what the Government has to say and outlined it in my post.

I'd appreciate if you removed yours as well. The backlash against advocacy has been disrespectful, I just wanted to invite constructive criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the fish; I would have really liked to have heard what the government has to say...

No, don't trust the institution of government to protect the fish... :picard:

The governments of major fishing nations have used taxpayer funds to subsidize their respective fishing industries...(you know, to "create" and/or "protect" jobs and increase GDP thus being able to buy votes in textbook Keynesian fashion) so the resulting overcapacity has the fish being the ultimate losers in this trade...and people in poor countries who rely on subsistence fishing for a living.

But those poor people and the fish can't vote so who cares about their problems, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I removed that statement.

I provided a link to what the Government has to say and outlined it in my post.

I'd appreciate if you removed yours as well. The backlash against advocacy has been disrespectful, I just wanted to invite constructive criticism.

Everybody deserves a second chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a herring fisherman so I cannot comment on the stock numbers, but I can offer some insight into what a highly regulated fishery can offer. I know many BC Spot Prawn fisherman/boats, and have worked several seasons myself aboard such vessels. Landings since guidelines were implemented have on average gone up yearly, with some slight wavering here and there, after all, it's fishing and there will always be an ebb and flow to seasonal numbers outside of human interference (ie: water temp, food sources etc...)

It may be unfair to attempt to correlate a prawn fishery to a fish fishery, so lets try halibut. Regulations for halibut were introduced because while numbers of fish caught were typically the same year after year the average size of halibut was rapidly decreasing. Since you can't just hop into the sea and count all of the available fish you must rely on a somewhat double interpolation on which to base any rules.

Herring has always been popular to fish, but as other stocks tumble perhaps herring has (years ago) fallen victim to fishing down the food chain. Anticipating a tough year for salmon? Buy a herring license to supplement some income.

There are multiple issues here that are not limited to herring numbers, namely, the rights of the Heiltsuk Nation to refuse the right for others to fish in what they say are their waters. I'm not about to delve into the social debate about whether their territorial claim is just or not, but if the DFO feels like the numbers are there (any Fisheries officers have that data to share here?) then fishing will continue.

The only thing the herring care about is that they don't go the way of Atlantic cod, which have just recently began to regain numbers, but are still nowhere near where they were prior to massive overfishing.

The long and the short of it now is that commercial fishing is all politics no matter how you look at it. Why the DFO would open fishing grounds on depleted stock while some other fisheries are in trouble, rebounding, or thriving makes no sense to me.

edit: long lined for halibut for many seasons as well, the average weight/length of halibut we landed was down significantly compared to past "glory years". Very difficult to say mild/aggressive fishing doesn't contribute to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, don't trust the institution of government to protect the fish... :picard:

The governments of major fishing nations have used taxpayer funds to subsidize their respective fishing industries...(you know, to "create" and/or "protect" jobs and increase GDP thus being able to buy votes in textbook Keynesian fashion) so the resulting overcapacity has the fish being the ultimate losers in this trade...and people in poor countries who rely on subsistence fishing for a living.

But those poor people and the fish can't vote so who cares about their problems, right?

No, trust the corporations that do all the damage. Brilliant!

I see the circus is back in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

argh, you knew I meant veil!

Do you think limited-liability protection as it is currently practiced is ethical/morally right to start with?

Do you find my question difficult to answer? Is there any part of it you don't understand? Why are you asking my opinion on ethics? Seems irrelevant to what you think should be implemented in corporations' place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you find my question difficult to answer? Is there any part of it you don't understand? Why are you asking my opinion on ethics? Seems irrelevant to what you think should be implemented in corporations' place.

What you don't seem to understand is that government gave an entity legal privileges with a stroke of a magic government pen that sole proprietors/partnerships don't naturally have.

If you owned an oil pipeline under a corporation with limited-liability protection like it exists today, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

The corporation, but not you personally.

Is this ethical/morally right to you? Government sure thinks it is...so it must be kosher because the Holy Government said so?

If you owned an oil pipeline in a limited-liability-free "fantasy" world, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

You are. Fully...down to the last penny.

Because that to me is taking responsibility and being accountable for your actions.

Stripping corporations of their limited-liability protection would be enough for me, but governments aren't going to do something against their own interests now, will they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you don't seem to understand is that government gave an entity legal privileges with a stroke of a magic government pen that sole proprietors/partnerships don't naturally have.

If you owned an oil pipeline under a corporation with limited-liability protection like it exists today, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

The corporation, but not you personally.

Is this ethical/morally right to you? Government sure thinks it is...so it must be kosher because the Holy Government said so?

If you owned an oil pipeline in a limited-liability-free "fantasy" world, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

You are. Fully...down to the last penny.

Because that to me is taking responsibility and being accountable for your actions.

Stripping corporations of their limited-liability protection would be enough for me, but governments aren't going to do something against their own interests now, will they?

rekt +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://globalnews.ca/news/1899297/first-nation-vows-to-interfere-in-b-c-herring-fishery/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heiltsuk-first-nation-says-commercial-herring-fishery-violated-constitutional-rights-1.3005000

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/commercial-herring-fishery-begins-suddenly-over-first-nations-objections/article23579374/

So after the DFO closed the fishery.. Pressure from international boats already en route caused a direct call from Ottawa to open said Fishery.

First Nations are up in arms. The Salmon sport fishing industry is worried. Tourism is worried. Orca whales are affected. Why? So conglomerates can harvest Herring roe.

I'm looking to hear from people in the comercial Herring fishery, First Nations, Line fishers and everyone that has and actual opinion.

Interesting I hadn't heard this before thanks for the links too bad this thread got derailed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you don't seem to understand is that government gave an entity legal privileges with a stroke of a magic government pen that sole proprietors/partnerships don't naturally have.

If you owned an oil pipeline under a corporation with limited-liability protection like it exists today, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

The corporation, but not you personally.

Is this ethical/morally right to you? Government sure thinks it is...so it must be kosher because the Holy Government said so?

If you owned an oil pipeline in a limited-liability-free "fantasy" world, and it leaked and caused a major spill, who would be responsible?

You are. Fully...down to the last penny.

Because that to me is taking responsibility and being accountable for your actions.

Stripping corporations of their limited-liability protection would be enough for me, but governments aren't going to do something against their own interests now, will they?

Oh no, I do understand that.

So if I invest in a business I should be personally liable if something goes wrong? Good luck getting any kind of economy going. In a round-about way, you're pushing toward a communist state where all liability is on the government. :lol:

Forget about pipelines for a second and think about what most corporations are, private enterprises incorporated for liability purposes. Should a food producer, like a pizzeria owner, be personally liable if one of his products makes someone sick? Should a paper cup manufacturing plant's owner be personally liable if one of his millions of cups suddenly fails under heat and burns a customer? Should a hair salon's owner be personally liable if one of the employees cuts someone's ear off?

More than that, if I'm personally liable, that means all other businesses I may have are also in danger of being lost. Think about the impact on the local economy. The jobs potentially lost.

What you're suggesting is beyond stupid, impractical, and impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...