Under the current policy, Constant Escapement, the fisheries must comply with a quota procedure that allows a surplus production to be harvested if the population is above the optimal level. The rationale for its conclusion is that under the proposal, the fisheries would have notice of the guidelines three to four months in advance. As such, the fishermen could determine whether or not to enter the fishery that year. It also submits that the proposal is beneficial to the fishermen because there will be fewer years that the fisheries are closed. The proposal will affect the manner in which the fisheries operate in terms of maintaining a competitive market, planning for short term operations, and exploring long term growth opportunities.
Advocacy disagrees with that assertion.
Advocacy submits that the variability of the constant harvest proposal may force some of the fishermen out of business and ultimately interfere with the current competitive market structure. An industry with only 15 small competitors could be sensitive to the type of change that is being proposed. In a year with a low harvest guideline, a substantial number of businesses may decide not to participate. Similarly, given the variable nature of the proposal, a substantial number of fishermen may decide to exit the market permanently. If a substantial number of the fishing businesses decide not to operate in a given year or to exit the market permanently, the competitive market structure may be disrupted.