My blog on the fishery got sidetracked.... (Is this a common problem among bloggers?). Since my last post, I have been thinking a little more about the structure of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, and here are a few, random comments:
1.  It seems that (I can't find confirmation of what I read) the Federal Government has slipped into the Omnibus Bill a statement that the fish in Canadian waters  in the North Atlantic will no longer be recognized as a Common Property Resource. With this designation, the fish in Canadian waters are deemed to be the property of the Canadian people, and thus nominally under the control of the Federal Government. This designation is important since it forms the ground for regulations governing quotas and disposal, that is it is the basis for setting the amount of fish caught, species to be harvested, and where the fish may be processed. There is overlap with provincial jurisdiction; the NL provincial government, for example, determines licences for fish plants and whether fish can be exported processed or whole.
But, without the designation of Common Property Resource, fish harvesters will be free to take what they can since no one entity owns the fish.
2.  It is becoming clearer to me that the decline, and slow recovery of the fish stocks, especially cod is not open to a simple explanation. Actions of fish harvesters have contributed: extensive use of draggers disturbing the sea-bed where cod spawn; the switch, after the cod moratorium, to shrimp fishing which reduced the available food supply for cod; the extensive over-fishing of caplin off Iceland which again reduced food supply for cod; and the continued high level of foreign fishing for cod on the noase and tail of the Banks.
However, another factor, which I have not seen discussed, is the effect of con trails, or vapour trails from transatlantic flights that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the ocean surface, thereby reducing the growth of plankton and other minuscule entities that form the bottom of the food chain. When, during the three-day hiatus in flights following the 9/11 disaster, it was observed that temperatures rose, there seems to have been little follow-up to see what other effects might have been produced. A study elsewhere (in Israel, I believe) did show that there was an increase in the amount of beneficial sunlight reaching the ground.
3.  The recent closure of five fish plants in NL (and the confirmation of two further closures) raises certain questions. On the one hand we are told, by plant owners and the government, that there is not enough product to keep the plants going. But at the same time at least two of the plants have applied for permission to export unprocessed fish to China.

I'll leave this blog for now, and look forward to receiving comments.