Nova Scotia Fishing Forum banner

Pei Recreational Lobster Fishery

20K views 37 replies 9 participants last post by  basindawg 
#1 ·
I heard a rumor that PEI is now allowing a recreational lobster fishery, any one have a confirmation, or info on this fishery?
 
#2 ·
I believe that it is outside the purview of the Provincial Government. I really don't think that the commercial fishermen would stand for it - especially with the way they have been beaten up price-wise in recent seasons. I think it is probably just that, a rumour started by one of those optimistic, simple souls who believe that if you hear it enough, it will be so. Regards.....
 
#3 ·
There are many people that would like a recreational lobster fishery - it will be tested in court very soon. It would not be the province but the Feds to do it anyway - it is Federally Controlled !!!

Priorities for DFO are Conservation - First Nations - Commercial - Recreational !!

In that order !!!

The Charter of Rights will soon be tested as a defense for the average joe to get a recreational lobster license !!!

If there are no issues with the stock then the arguments will likely be in favour of a recreational lobster fishery.
 
#4 · (Edited by Moderator)
Moose1967; What lawyer/knowledgeable citizen is giving you the information on this subject? Would you please ask him/her what the Charter of Rights has to do with lobster fishing for
sport and recreation? I am curious as to who will fund this challenge on behalf of all us "average joes"?? Or, is this a First Nations fishing issue a la Donald Marshall?? (Which actually had no bearing on the "average joe" in Nova Scotia!!) I'm sure that other enquiring minds would appreciate some light be shed on your rather startling post!! Regards.....
 
#5 ·
The Charter will be challenged - men and women are being discriminatized by way of what I previously wrote - the order of signifigance for DFO is Conservation - First Nations - Commercial - Recreational - every stock in Canada is evaluated on this principal.

An argument in court saying that we are entitled to recreationally fish the stock once all the above first 3 conditions have been attained. I know who is in the process of it now and I can tell you it is pretty close to being a big issue !!!

Look at LFA34 - approximately 1000 boats - they fish 400 traps - they land in excess of 40,000,000 pounds annually. On the basis of the Charter (all Canadians being equal - as this is a basis of the Charter), why can't DFO drop the trap counts to 300 and give out recreational licenses to people who want to buy them.
 
#6 · (Edited by Moderator)
Moose1967, Again I ask,(1) Just who will fund all the fancy lawyering?? (2) Just what is the name of the fancy lawyer presenting the arguement of which you speak?? (3) In which court is it being presented?? (4)Is this an arguement which is being presented on behalf of First Nations peoples (food fishery similar to that of salmon) with none of the benefits trickling down to the "Average Joe" like me?? (5) A"really big issue" for whom?? The question you ask about DFO dropping trap counts is exactly that, a question to which we, (if we really think hard enough), probably already know the answer. No, I am not a commercial fisherman nor do I want to be one. I would prefer not to have nebulous responses hinting at what may or may not be coming down the pike. I would just like five simple answers to the five simple questions I have posed. Regards....
 
#7 · (Edited by Moderator)
1. can't name the lawyer - that is up to the person challenging the law - he is funding it himself
2. can't name the person - that is up to them
3. eventually will get the Supreme Court of Canada - testing in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court now
4. white guy - non native - not meti !!
5. big issue for all involved as the commercial fisherman do not want this to happen
 
#8 ·
Moose 1967: I have difficulty trying to understand your reticence in supplying simple answers to simple questions, but I respect it. What is the big secret?? How can an issue possibly reach "big" if no one knows anything about it?? Is the opposing side DFO or the Commercial Lobstermen Lobby?? You say the arguement is being presented on behalf of a non-native,non-metis, white male. I'm sure the lawyer would be pleased if you mention their name as very few lawyers EVER get to try a case in the Supreme Court of Canada.(Much less win one) Would you please share with us the name of the case which is, as you say, being presented at this sitting of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. As I live in the Halifax area, it would not be difficult to observe arguements, which I, (as an average Joe), would very much like to do. Regards.....
 
#9 ·
Moose 1969, This AM I have checked with the Halifax office of Supreme Court NS. They have nothing on their docket regarding challenges to the Federal Fisheries Act. They also advise that they don't do "testing". You either present a case or you don't. I also have contacted the Regional (NS,NB,PEI)Director's office of the Federal Department of Fisheries. They are unaware at this time, of ANY challenge being made to the Fisheries Act regarding recreational lobster fishing and/or licenses for same. Would you please tell us from which town this challenge emanates?? Would you please advise the location (town) of the court where the arguement is supposedly being heard?? Are you getting your information from a source of proven reliability?? Is the person presenting the challenge/arguement actually a member of the bar?? Is this whole thing just some sort of joke which is being played on you??? Regards,......
 
#10 ·
The person is from Meteghan, NS - when I said it will be challenged in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court - it will be - more than likely. If you read my post correctly I said the Charter will be challenged - not the Fisheries Act - there is only one Regional Director of the Maritimes Region one for the Gulf one for Newfoundland and so on. The person I speak of is in talks via email and letters with high ranking DFO officials on his arguments for a recreational fishery. If there is a recreational fishery - we will all benefit. If nothing comes about with his talks and DFO, then once he retires - which will be soon - he will set his first and only pot off a wharf - be charged - and then it will go to court OFFICIALLY !!! He is hoping to avoid this and there be granted a recreational fishery.

Just stay tuned and stop being so pointed - this is a FORUM - not a court of law !!!
 
#11 · (Edited by Moderator)
Moose1967; Corresponding with some official from DFO is, dare I say it, a very, very long way from challenging or changing the Fisheries Act. Always remember that once bureaucrats have been given power they are both loath to give it up or change the status quo without a struggle of epic proportions. In order to have recreational licenses granted, from what I understand either a ministerial order must be made(You can rest assured that dog won't hunt.) or the Act would be changed because it was so ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In order to get to the SCC, there is a very long process to be followed. This process, as you say, will not be starting until your friend has retired. He then must be charged and convicted in Provincial Court,have grounds to appeal the decision to the appeal court,possibly win, have Fisheries appeal(with proper grounds) to SCNS, Win or lose and have the opposing side ask for leave to appeal to SCC in Ottawa (All the while argueing that one section or other of the Charter was violated). If leave is not granted, it is all over for your friend. If leave is granted ,then your chum must stand in line until the matter can be heard. This process can, and does, take years and pots,and pots of money. The reason I have been asking pointed questions is because I wanted to find out where the process is and, now we know that it hasn't even started - and won't - until your chum has retired. Just out of curiosity, what bearing does being retired have on making a Charter challenge to the Fisheries Act?? (BTW, the Charter is what may give your friend the grounds to challenge the Act as it is written. He is not challenging the Charter even though it IS called a "Charter Challenge") I am well aware that there is only one Regional Director for NS,NB&PEI I spoke to that office this AM. I will stay tuned, but I suspect it will be years before a decision is reached, if ,in fact it actually gets that far. Proceedural issues sometimes scuttle court actions before the first salvo is fired. Before your friend begins the process, I would suggest a prayer to St Jude whom, I am sure he is aware, is the patron saint of lost causes. I am sorry to sound pessimistic but, from past performance, I can see no reason for optimism on this issue. I heard an old saying once "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" I know this is not a court of law but, that is where your friend wants to go. He best be very wealthy. He best be ready to part with a lot of his wealth. He best be very prepared for a lot of grief. Now, notwithstanding anything I have written in this thread I sincerely hope that your friend prevails in the Herculean task he has set himself. Please forgive my pessimism. Regards.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: phyl
#12 ·
moose1997, i call BS in what all you have said. if you can give me a clear reason why you cant state the lawers name, and why he is so motivated to get this that he is paying big bucks out of his own pocket, i may revise what i have just stated about this thread.
 
#13 · (Edited by Moderator)
although on one hand this would be nice to have I am not so sure I agree that we will all benefit.

Here is how I see it, many of the lobstermen I know in area 34( I live here) already want the traps dropped to 300 as they fear the lobsters can't withstand the pressure also if there is less supply in the market the demand and the price goes up so I can't see them giving up 100 traps only to have joe blow set them. I can also see an even bigger paoching and black market prob that could arise. And I don't know if we would all benefit b/c the lobster fishery is the one last thing we got going here in this economy. if the lobstermwn don't make money they don't make boat payments which hurts the local credit union etc, they don't purchase new trucks they don't buy as many groceries they don't buy new boats or make alterations which will end up in shutting down shops which employ alot of ppl. , they don't go to the dentist the hair dresser as often etc you see my point. Their money is what keeps us going they spend so we get a cheque to spend. As much as I'd like to go catch my own feed I think I will be better off buying a few than losing a job and a steady paycheque, I think I would come out farther ahead.

Have some fisherman been living like rock stars and spending and not saving for tougfh times? hell yes. But many have not, it cost a lot to run a rig buy bait fix pots and rope etc and their hired hands don't all make big bucks so food is coming out of their families mouths, if they don't catch fish and the price is low they don't get their cut or very little of one

my 2 cents

gf
 
#20 · (Edited by Moderator)
Here is how I see it, many of the lobstermen I know in area 34( I live here) already want the traps dropped to 300 as they fear the lobsters can't withstand the pressure also if there is less supply in the market the demand and the price goes up so I can't see them giving up 100 traps only to have joe blow set them. I can also see an even bigger paoching and black market prob that could arise. And I don't know if we would all benefit b/c the lobster fishery is the one last thing we got going here in this economy. if the lobstermwn don't make money they don't make boat payments which hurts the local credit union etc, they don't purchase new trucks they don't buy as many groceries they don't buy new boats or make alterations which will end up in shutting down shops which employ alot of ppl. , they don't go to the dentist the hair dresser as often etc you see my point. Their money is what keeps us going they spend so we get a cheque to spend. As much as I'd like to go catch my own feed I think I will be better off buying a few than losing a job and a steady paycheque, I think I would come out farther ahead.
I am going to strongly disagree with your thoughts on this issue!!!!!

In most areas of NS, there are no problems with the stock of the lobsters! This is the ONLY commercial fishery that does not have quotas on the catches for the fisherman. The fisherman can catch ALL THEY WANT, with NO limits on the amount of lobster they can catch!!!

At the present time, the demand is low for the product because of the global economy, so the price the fisherman gets is regulated by the demand. No demand, = a low price for the lobsters!!!

Now, the lobster fisherman in my area of NS fish a short 2 month season, and can gross $30,000 to $50,000 after expenses!!!! Not a bad living as I see it!!! BUT WAIT, these same fisherman can still draw full EI for the remaining 10 months of the year!!!! Most have their wife, and one or two kids hired as deckhands, and pay them a very good daily wage, that gets written off as a business expense! Now, this family of 4, can each draw FULL EI for 10 months of the year. Full EI is $450 a week. a family of 4 now makes $1800 a week for 40 weeks of EI. Do the math, that equals $72,000 a year of EI benefits for that family of 4 that all ready cleared $50,000 for the season!!! Now, the way I see it, a recreational fishery is NOT going to affect a local economy that is supported by 10 months of EI benefits!!!!

Now we have the stability of the resource issue! The resources are very stable, and IMO, can support a recreational fishery that is well regulated by either a trap limit, or catch limits. It works in ALL of the states in the USA, so why can it work here in NS??????

Now you mentioned the possibility of a poaching issue, can you please elaborate on why you think that will be an issue?????
 
#14 · (Edited by Moderator)
Emmett Hamilton, girlfisher
I suspect our friend, Moose 1967 has done some further investigation and may have asked some very pointed questions of his nameless "soon to be retired friend" as a result of doubt expressed by some of our members about the reality behind some of the statements made to him by the anonymous, wealthy, employed, "Mystery Man Of Meteghan". Perhaps Moose 1967 has discovered, to his dismay, that the aforementioned Man of Meteghan made statements,possibly fueled more by alcohol and boozy bravado than sensibility and fact. If the task is carried out, even if it fails, I will be more than happy to retract that statement and offer a full, and unreserved, apology for my erroneous characterisation of his friend. I firmly believe that such a day will not come to pass in this lifetime. Regards.....
 
#17 ·
WOW, I should scroll down to the bottom of the message board more often!!! I have been missing out on a good discusion!!!

I think I know who is pursuing this matter in court? His name is Al, and if anyone has a strong case, with the ammunition to back it up, it his him!!!
 
#19 · (Edited by Moderator)
I am saying that this sounds a lot like a guy Al I met a few years ago, who had every intention of pursuing the recreational lobster fishery here in NS. He could not pursue it at the time, because of a conflict of interest with his current employment!!!! He said once he retires, he would have his day in court concerning the issue!!!!


I never said he was charged with illegally fishing for lobsters????? Where you got that from what I posted, I have no idea????
Was it possibly fueled more by alcohol and boozy bravado than sensibility and fact.
 
#21 · (Edited by Moderator)
X,
Not at all! No booze! No bravado! Just common sense. You must not have noticed the ?? marks at the end of my sentence?? I may have made an assumption that I shouldn't. The reason I asked if he had been charged was because, in order to change the Act, your friend "Al"(of Meteghan??) will have to challenge it - on what grounds, I do not know. The easiest, and least expensive, way to challenge legislation is to offend the legislation as it is written and then proceed as I have described earlier in this thread. (This is a long and arduous process. It is not for the faint of heart or the impecunious!!) The Federal Dept of Fisheries and Oceans will not change the statute just because you and "Al" think that it is a good idea - no matter how politely you present your idea. With the greatest of respect, you of all people, ought to know this. (If you're just trolling - Congrats! - you have gotten a bite!!) Regards.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmorris
#22 ·
X,
Not at all! No booze! No bravado! Just common sense. You must not have noticed the ?? marks at the end of my sentence?? I may have made an assumption that I shouldn't. The reason I asked if he had been charged was because, in order to change the Act, your friend "Al"(of Meteghan??) will have to challenge it - on what grounds, I do not know. The easiest, and least expensive, way to challenge legislation is to offend the legislation as it is written and then proceed as I have described earlier in this thread. (This is a long and arduous process. It is not for the faint of heart or the impecunious!!) The Federal Dept of Fisheries and Oceans will not change the statute just because you and "Al" think that it is a good idea - no matter how politely you present your idea. With the greatest of respect, you of all people, ought to know this. (If you're just trolling - Congrats! - you got a bite!!) Regards.....
I am not quite sure why you are accusing me of "TROLLING" when all I did was make a statement concerning a guy I met a few years ago?????? Is this the same guy as mentioned previously in this message thread? I am not sure, and I can only speculate to that!!!!

This person I met is involved in fisheries management, and will have all the "DATA" to back up his claim that there is no "LOGICAL" and/or "BIOLOGICAL" reason why we should not have a recreational lobster fishery here in NS!!!

Have a great day.
 
#23 · (Edited by Moderator)
X,
I did NOT accuse you of "TROLLING". Any accusations that I make are done head on and NOT in an obtuse manner. I commented that, if you were trolling, I had bitten. The fact that "Al" has all the data etc, etc, etc and could not change the system while he was part of it, (by either logic or moral suasion), continues to butress the position which I have previously stated. IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE FISHERIES ACT ONE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO VIOLATE IT AS IT IS WRITTEN. THEN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION (FCC,SCNS or SCCC)WOULD HAVE TO ORDER THE MINISTER (BUREAUCRATS)TO CHANGE IT AS PER THE ORDER. This would/could take years. Regards....
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmorris
#24 ·
The fact that he has all the data etc, etc, etc and could not change the system while he was part of it, (by either logic or moral suasion), continues to butress the position which I have previously stated. IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE FISHERIES ACT ONE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO VIOLATE IT AS IT IS WRITTEN. THEN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE TO ORDER THE MINISTER (BUREAUCRATS)TO CHANGE IT.
The FACT of the matter was stated in post #19 in this message thread: http://novascotiafis...dpost__p__24638

He could NOT change the system while he is/was actively involved because of a conflict of interest that would have terminated his employment!!!!

BTW, this discussion between you and I is a moot point!!!! I am not even sure this is the same guy, so I am done debating this any further with you!!!


Have a great day!
 
#28 ·
Debate be damned!! I just told you the facts on how the system works. Looks like GF is in schooling/spanking mode!!! BTW, now, I AM trolling!! Have a nice week....
I think I'll set up a troll booth to collect money for my next toy


Paul

P.S: Good seeing you today, SM, and thanks for the help with my most recent toy.
 
#29 ·
just b/c there are presently no catch limits does not mean that the fishery can continue to sustain the current or any more pressure, it could just very well mean the data isn't there to prove otherwise b/c noone has taken the time to study it. That is like the guys who go to the lake and day after day take their limit of trout b/c there seemd to be plenty there then after awhile stand there scratching their heads wondering where all the fish have gone. Assuming somthing is sustainable and knowing it is sustainable is totally different. And unfortunately we may only find out once it is too late and we will look back in hind sight and realise the mistake, but it really won't matter at that point will it?

I might add that there have been other fisheries that had limits and some with no limits and they ended up in trouble, whether the gov has put limits on it or not does not mean they won't have to in the near future. And for the record in many parts of district 34 the catch was down and my bro inlaw has records to prove it and he is one of the better fisherman down this way, thankfully though he was one of the few that was smart with his money when things were going well and didn't live like a rock star.

Enough industry is going to sh!! around here we don't need to mess up another part of the economy that for the present is still going.

For the record many seasonal workers make 30,0000plus and still collect ei so why pick just on the fisherman. I think the whole ei system is screwed and I have a right to say it as I am the one working all year long paying for it and it aint right but it is what it is.

Some industries need to be controlled inorder to keep order in the world. A friggin free for all like there in the states as you mentioned obviously doesn't work. Maybe if there had been checks and balances they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. I for one would not want to mimic anything the states does here in canada, thank you very much, they obviously made a lot more bad decisions than our gov

gf
 
#30 · (Edited by Moderator)
Some industries need to be controlled inorder to keep order in the world. A friggin free for all like there in the states as you mentioned obviously doesn't work. Maybe if there had been checks and balances they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. I for one would not want to mimic anything the states does here in canada, thank you very much, they obviously made a lot more bad decisions than our gov.
Here is where YOU are 100% incorrect!!!!!!

ALL of the Atlantic states in the US recognize the social and economic benefits of a recreational fishery in their coastal waters!!!! Thier recreational fisheries are well managed, and controlled with catch limits, and it's not a "FRIGGEN FREE FOR ALL" as you described!!!! And from that statement it is clear you have NO clue what you are talking about!!!! Every US state that has a lobster fishery, allows the recreational take of lobsters, it has been that way for YEARS!!!!! BTW, the USA has never had a fishery collapse like the Cod fishery in Canada!!!! So, IMO, Canada can learn a lot from fisheries management in the US!!!


Just because the US economy is in the toilet, has NO bearing on fisheries management!!! BTW, in a poor, or lagging economy, that is when a recreational fishery benefits the residents the most!!! It allows people to feed themselves, when times get tough!!!!! What would be a greater benefit???????
 
#31 ·
I have no problem having a civil debate, I respect others right to an opinion even if it does not coincide with my own. However the constant caps is rude and disrespectful, there are many times I felt passionate abt my posts to you but refrained from screaming my point acrossed as that turns a debate into an argument which is beneficial for noone and it is leaving me wondering if you are just trolling as others have mentioned.

just saying
gf
 
#32 ·
I am aware that typing a full message in ALL CAPS is considered yelling or screaming at someone!!! But by using caps to just put emphasis on certain words is not considered screaming in a message thread. I have been posting on internet message boards for over 15 years, and I am well versed in proper "netiquette" when posting.

Anyhow, let me share this pic of a 12lb Spiny Lobster I caught while "SPORT FISHING" when I lived out West in the US some years ago! This large lobster is considered a trophy catch, and was donated to a local marine aquarium for everyone to enjoy!!!!


 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top