Its a tough call, but

Its a tough call, but perhaps a very obvious one.

Im a little confused why we are all lapping up salmon, boasting about it on our menus, etc when our fisheries are in so much trouble.

I friend of mine insists that Russian salmon arent under the same pressure, and that stopping eating salmon altogether is an overreaction... but is it?

business practice as per usual

It would seem to me that larger fishing companies have slowly changed the pattern by sailing further out to catch the fish that otherwise would swim to shore by themselves.
The idea of wasting rescources in order to get to the fish first, shows clearly that it is the usual big business response to competition: Squeeze out all competitors even if it costs a fortune!
Once they dominate market they can set the price, and they surely have done that!
In the end nobody benefits, except the usual money-men.
It is almost futile to try to stop their pillage, as they get involved in anything that smells of money, and every time will resort to underhanded methods.

Are we ready for a revolution? or are we going to keep bitching?

Just leads to more fishing

"Subsidies currently account for at least 20 per cent of the industry's profits, so cutting them drastically should translate into fewer fishermen and more fish in oceans, rivers and lakes."

Wrong.

The story of the 'commons' is a sad one.

Cutting off that money, while it will work-out in the long run, for the immediate short-term future all that will happen is a mad dash to fish out whatever you can get before the $$$ is gone.

Poaching and illegal fisheries would be the result, not even getting into the native claims and their cross-purposes with such a conservation measure.

Fisheries and Oceans cannot patrol the fisheries adequately right now...what this proposal would do is declare a wild west show that would result in the destruction of many runs that may take decades to recover, if ever.

If this plan is to be taken on then enforcement measures MUST be factored into the cost, otherwise the resulting damage to the 'commons' of the sea will become irreversable

a better plan

Over fishing isn’t the problem; it’s overpopulation. If it was just over-fishing, Sumaila’s scheme might stand a chance. Unfortunately, all of our primary resources are either “on the brink” or have already dropped off the edge.

A far better plan would see governments around the world cutting subsidies to the massive Ponzi schemes called ‘the dept. of immigration’.

Instead of providing capital for retraining it could be redirected to those counties that are interested in reducing birth rates. A 30 percent reduction would be a good start.

eat less meat

The earth can support many more people than exist at present if we choose to eat less meat. I practice what I preach having eaten a vegetarian diet for over 20 years. It amazes me how many enviro-freaks worship eating salmon and every other creature of the sea while waging war on SUV drivers or loggers and fishermen. Removing subsidies for fishing would result in higher prices for fish. Higher prices will help to moderate consumption. It is an economic and sound idea.

Must be working on the behalf of the big guys

The author is no friend for the small independent owner of 1 or 2 fishing vessels. His solution is no solution at all.
The real solution is to stop countries from fishing within the 200 mile limit of any country. Stop countries that are land lock from fishing altogether. Stop countries who live on the other side of the world, from fishing in Canada and American waters. Stop Canada and American fishermen from fishing in the waters of China and Japan. Quotas should be reduced for countries who decide to fish in international waters that are far away from their countries. For fishermen within and outside the 200 mile limit, environmentally fishing practices. Lets stop tearing up the sea bed, leaving nothing behind.
Nothing makes me madder than someone who is advocating more of the same, by going after the small guys who are not the problems nor do they have the means to cross long distances of ocean water.
The idea of retraining fishermen, is already happening and has been for some time. We have enough fishermen go to the oil fields of Alberta for 6 months or more, and fish part of the time. In the last two years, it has been more commenting to Alberta because of low prices for fish and high fuel costs.
Now tell me, what jobs are you suggesting for retraining for one to stay in their community and have comparable wages. You just have to look at Newfoundland and Labrador, to see our way of life is disappearing along with our small fishing communities, compliments of the same ideas try out in NL. It did not work because no one went after the big guys. It was business as usual, doing whatever they wanted because the biggest supporters are the governments and the hacks that write in support of the big guys.

Wrong use of the term angler

I thought the word angler inferred some form of sport.

In any event, wasn't a study done on the value of B.C.'s commercial fishery compared to that of the recreational fishery? Didn't it report that when you take all of the subsidies into consideration, such as UIC, the commercial fishery costs taxpayers something like $25 per fish caught while the recreational fishery contributed a similar amount to the BC economy.

The world's economy is changing - fast. Smart policiticians - at least those who want to be elected - will get rid of this subsidy and others such those in the agricultural sector.

Peck

I think the cost of each salmon caught today is upwards of $100. There was a time when the subsidies were limited to EI (or UI) and $25 made sense. However, when SEP was introduced, and salmon hatcheries were touted as the new saviour, the cost skyrocketed as fast as the salmon disappeared, and in direct proportion to the increase of staff at DFO. Hatcheries have proven to be a disaster and an admission of our failure to get a grip on environmental destruction. DFO is a make work project.

As far as “angler” is concerned, the term has been walleyed by the monetary interests of two different kettles of fish: commercial fishing industry and recreational sports fishing industry. The only difference between the two is the volume (number of pieces) caught. The sole interest of both is making money. Neither is particularly interested saving salmon and they are overjoyed when they are allowed to “limit out”.

The term angler refers to the two or three guys, still hung over from the night before, who just spent 3 hours driving their pickup along a bone-jarring logging road to their favorite fishing hole, and are getting ready to slog for another hour through thick second growth just to get a chance at doing battle with their favorite quarry; winter run steelhead.

There were never any guarantees. It was a bonus if you had one on for a few minutes. Getting hooked on the angling experience was the biggest catch

No easy answers

Peck opines :

"The world's economy is changing - fast. Smart policiticians - at least those who want to be elected - will get rid of this subsidy and others such those in the agricultural sector."

Sorry Peck. Every nation in the world subsidises the production of food, which should be proof enough that any politician who threatens this system isn't going very far.

Angling as a "sport" is limited to a few of the well-fed industrialised nations. And DFO hatchery fish are necessary to keep the sport fishermen unconcerned about the commercial overharvest.

Good posts

The author seems to be angling for subsidizing himself!
While DFO is the worst thing ever to happen to fish, the fishers themselves lived like kings and thought little about the fish for years...
3rd and 4th generation fishers have got their roots in the water though....
This is another argument for guaranteed annual incomes...