Direct threat to MPI If quota owners perceive that their rights of access are no longer secure, and have the potential to be progressively and repeatedly taken by the Crown (irrespective of compensation), then they will take a short term least cost view to all decision making (e.g.: TAC setting, research, selective fishing technologies, compliance, development of fisheries plans, fish and non-fish bycatch issues etc). Quite simply, why nurture and protect the resource if it is going to be taken off you? Similarly, why would a harvester have an incentive to prevent high grading or dumping if they knew they only had short term access to a fishery? (clause 71 of the SNA 1 Commercial Fishing submission). We interpret this statement as a direct threat to the MPI that unless they tow the line and give them what they demand, the will continue to decimate the fishery. We have outlined some interesting statements made in the submission from SNA1 Commercial. Safeguard the value of our property rights (quota and ACE packages) and our ability to commercially harvest fish, and therefore the jobs and export earnings this contributes to our economy; (clause 12.2 of the SNA 1 Commercial Fishing submission). Here they call the fish their property...which appears rather interesting when you take into account the legislation.
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:03:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015