2015 Halibut Regulations

[SpringVelocity]

No its not wrong I am glad you finally cleared that up... Its your wording..You need meetings where you are and that is good point..Solution lobby and take back the % TAC quota that was given to commercial sector...That can only be done through lobbying.... Which right now people or pushing to get someone based in Ottawa representing us...That's only solution I am afraid if you want a clear answer.

 

[Clint r]

No, I'm not on the email list but I certainly will be. I wasn't even aware there was a list. If you don't know where to start you have to ask don't you? But when you start asking question oh the flare ups start. Al I wanted was some clarification on where these meetings are held? Now it's been turned around again to where it's my fault that I'm not going to any meetings blah blah blah. But you can't if you don't know where to start.

 

[Salmon Seeker]

I dont have any personal stake in this discussion because i dont fish for halibut, but it seems to me a practical solution could be to hold the meetings as live interactive webcasts. that way anyone with internet access can take part in the meeting and voice their opinion.

 

[Clint r]

That's brilliant. It's the obvious solution.

 

[Jencourt]

Salmon Seaker Do you fish for other species? Either salt or fresh. Do you you hunt? If yes, then I would argue that you do have a personal stake in this.

Please let me take this time to remind us all of this FACT. This topic. this entire Halibut issue has not been caused by the choices the SFAC/AB process has made. Nor has it been caused by the way in which it is conducted.

This has not even been caused by a lack of Halibut.The fact is even in these years of lower abundance there is more than enough to meet all Canadians needs. If it was allocated properly in a way that accurately represents the value of all sectors,we would not be having these debates.

The root cause of this is the fact that our governments insist on giving private ownership of public resources to commercial interests.Combine that with the systems they have chosen to facilitate this very flawed and dangerous scheme. Most notably in my opinion is the ITQ fisheries that divides sectors, and creates two teared systems in which the rich get the most access.

All this said, I do see the value in getting involved in the process. Yes sometimes even disagreeing while offering respectful and realistic suggestions has a value as well . In the end I wish we as a group could put down our insistent need to lay blame ( I am NOT saying you laid any blame in your post) and start working together to affect long term change that will ultimately put stability back into all aspects of all sectors using these amazing resources. We might even find that it would also result in long term stability for the resource as well.

Ray

 

[SerengetiGuide]

It's almost like a small group of people have made the decisions for a large group of people with limited input and then we're expected to just accept it. No questions asked, don't put up any resistance or your an arsehole. I don't take that view. I have questions and I don't like to be bullshitted. And in this particular subject we seem to get a lot of one and not too much of the other.

Exactly. Come back from a vacation to see one of the dumbest decisions in years. Sweet. So in two years left 400k in the water. Now after this year it'll be over 520k, mark my words. That's a whole half season and if added to our tac would be able to do any size. What a joke the process is as all it did this year is screw over the avg joe fisherman

 

[Aces]

Wow, utter anarchy in the Halibut thread agaih

 

[ziggy]

Guiding Principles
The following principles will be used to guide decisions on the structure and operations of the SFAB:

Transparent:

There should be transparency throughout the process based on open lines of communication and the provision of timely, accurate, accessible, clear and objective information. This information should be available to all participants in the process on an equal basis. DFO organizers, after considering the input of the SFAB executive and members, will provide access to agendas and information needed as a starting point for informed discussion well in advance of meetings. In addition, this information will be posted to a public website to ensure accountability to all Canadians.

Accountable:

Participants who are representatives of a constituency are expected to bring to the discussions the general views, knowledge and experience of those they represent, and bring back an awareness and understanding to their constituencies about deliberations of the consultation activity and reasons for decisions taken. All participants share accountability for the success of the process. The Department is accountable to participants for explaining how their advice/input was used and why and how decisions are taken.

Inclusive Representation:

Representation on advisory bodies should relate to the mandate and function of the committee. Participation in advisory processes should be fairly balanced and reflect a broad range of interests in fisheries and oceans issues in the Pacific Region, to the extent possible, so that a diversity of perspectives is involved.

Effective:

All participants should be satisfied that the process can achieve the goals of the mandate. This does not mean that participants will always agree with the final advice, outcome or recommendation. Processes must set and respect realistic timeframes recognizing the volunteer nature of the SFAB. DFO, taking into consideration its financial capacity and current polices, will provide funding consistent with the effective and efficient discharge of the SFAB and its approved subcommittees in fulfilling their mandate, roles and responsibilities.

Efficient:

The size of the advisory committee will reflect a balance between the diversity of fisheries and oceans issues in the Pacific Region, and participant numbers that will facilitate productive discussion. Should committee, or subcommittee size become an issue, the above noted principle of “Inclusion” will be the overriding priority. Wherever possible, links to other departmental consultative processes will be made to realize efficiencies in consultation.

Seems like DFO is not fulfilling its own mandate. Maybe there's where the complaints should be filed?

 

[The Jackel]

So everyone says it is so good to be able fish to the end of the year. Then how nice it is to be able to have a 2 fish possession starting Sept. Now with the same regs as last year one would assume we will leave some more TAC in the water at the end, say maybe the same as last year, so in 3 years we would have left what, approximately half of one years TAC in the water?? Now I know some people are better fishers than others and you are only allowed 6 fish, it seems odd that one could not catch his 6 fish by say the end of Sept, a reasonable assumption?? Or maybe it takes a little longer to fill 6 fish on 3 different licenses (a common practice from what I have seen)? So if we are going to leave TAC in the water again why not have the 2 fish possession for the early months too. For me Sept. 2 possession is mute boat is out of the water, early works, just asking.

Well Jackel I see you have made some valid points... but it seems there is a pissing match going on now between a few of our fine members so there is no opinions on your points. So maybe **** somebody off and then you may get a response or wait till Derby logs on!!!!

 

[GLG]

So where's this list of town meetings? Why do we keep skirting that? Can't attend if we don't where they are.

Hi Clint, read post #148 and PM gamechanger for a location.
I know what it was like to feel out of the loop until the folks here pulled me in.

 

[Clint r]

Thanks. Will do.

Hi Clint, read post #148 and PM gamechanger for a location.
I know what it was like to feel out of the loop until the folks here pulled me in.

 

[searun]

Wow, a lot of passion. Just wish there was this same interest in actually engaging in discussion and attending meetings PRIOR to the decisions...and not after the fact. I hear your comments regarding transparency. As has been said before, the meetings are open to anyone to attend…it is transparent. SFAB has explored ways to post on a website before. Main challenge is if DFO does it, we have to comply with all the federal regulations which means translation into both official lingo...can you image just how costly that would be! Aint going to happen. Its not a forgotten idea, but as was posted before on that topic who out here is going to buck up?? All the internet cowboys who think we can just hook up a web camera and host interactive meetings forget one thing...who is paying for that?? The SFAB is funded by DFO and in case you haven't noticed their budgets are being hacked and slashed....if you want that changed go pound on your MP's door demanding change...there is an election coming!!!


Ray had the best post...this is an allocation issue, not a bash the SFAB process issue. None of this crap storm would be posted if we had lots of our share of TAC. Is 15% enough? Last time I looked the answer is NO. Want to stir it up, go get em on this issue.


Some of the comments on here are disheartening for those of us who donate hundreds of free hours of time to attend meetings, consider the facts, and try to make fair minded decisions. What frustrates me to no end is there appear to be some guys on here who have some thoughtful ideas, but they seem to be refusing to engage face to face and donate their time to the effort. Frankly its a waste of time to spill off on here...no one cares what you say here...what matters is what is said at the decision making table.


Serangetti, your comment is most distressing. Not only do you not attend any SFAC meetings (I checked), but when Derby and I were sitting together and we texted you offering an opportunity to speak with us over the phone to hear your advice on halibut regulations prior to the meetings you refused to even talk on the phone. I can't be any more accountable in the process than offering that! You don't appear to want accountability, you appear more concerned with what is best for your business and picking fights than actually engaging and making a difference. I give up. It seems that it is just safer to hurl abuses behind the safety of a computer screen.


So Jackel you had a great question. Are we going to be able to move up to 2 possession in September and why cant we do it earlier? Basic reason (don't have time to lay out all details) is we do not get a full accounting of all the incoming catch monitoring data (overflights, creel, internet survey etc) in real time...it takes time believe it or not for someone to receive and tally that at DFO and then get that info to the SFAB Halibut Working Group. The historical data demonstrates that July and August are huge catch months, so to make an informed decision you really need the data from those months. By late August we have a reasonable idea where the data is trending, and if it appears we have a surplus in TAC, only then can you make a decision like increasing possession. So hopefully you can see these decisions are carefully assessed and timed to when we actually have reliable data. To do anything earlier would be irresponsible.

 

[tubber]

Nothing to be disheartened about Searun. There are many who don't want to chime in that do understand the process better now, thanks to your posts and others. We greatly appreciate your efforts. I'll be making 5 trips to the coast this summer and hope to get a few hali. Or I could cancel one and buy a hundred pounds, which would be more than enough for my needs. I wonder why the House of Commons doesn't run webinars so all 35.16 million of us can have a fair chance to voice our opinions and vote on important bills/decisions? We have the technology; therefore, it must be simple.

 

[ziggy]

Searun, as I read the Terms of Reference published by DFO, the ones I posted, they are required to make the information available to the public. If they are using translation and cost as an excuse to not publish this info, I suggest we all contact our various MP's and request they ask DFO why they are violating their own transparency policy, in an official letter. Other than the fact they have failed to carry out their mandate to publish, is there any instance where they have gone on record,and used this excuse? A link where they stated that would be helpful!

I support your guys efforts, but IMHO DFO attempting to download their responsibilities regarding publication of minutes from official meetings to volunteers is BS. The cost of publishing minutes and translation (if required) is also bogus, it is the cost of doing business for a Federal Department. We have a plethora of Opposition MPs who I am sure would love to run with this. I have no problem contacting mine.

 

[bigbruce]

Thanks, searun, and all of the other dedicated folks who put in the time on our behalf beating your heads against the walls of the Government bodies that set the regulations as well as the walls created by the people who are apparently happiest bitching about the results of your efforts.
I'm one of those guys who manages to get through a fishing season bringing in 3 or 4 small - mid size (15 -30 lb) halibut that seem always to be sufficient to feed my family until the next season. Just as I'm able to catch enough salmon of various species to also put enough into the freezer until the next season rolls around. I'm retired now - having spent a whole lot of my working career in meetings of various sorts and while I have no interest in getting involved in more meetings, I truly appreciate the efforts of those who do so on my behalf. Keep it up, folks, there's a whole bunch of us out here who do appreciate what you do for us.

 

[searun]

Searun, as I read the Terms of Reference published by DFO, the ones I posted, they are required to make the information available to the public. If they are using translation and cost as an excuse to not publish this info, I suggest we all contact our various MP's and request they ask DFO why they are violating their own transparency policy, in an official letter. Other than the fact they have failed to carry out their mandate to publish, is there any instance where they have gone on record,and used this excuse? A link where they stated that would be helpful!

I support your guys efforts, but IMHO DFO attempting to download their responsibilities regarding publication of minutes from official meetings to volunteers is BS. The cost of publishing minutes and translation (if required) is also bogus, it is the cost of doing business for a Federal Department. We have a plethora of Opposition MPs who I am sure would love to run with this. I have no problem contacting mine.

You may want to re-read my post.. the issue of setting up a website has not been forgotten...just ran into temporary technical issues. For now the material available on the web complies with the TOR, and our intent is of course to expand when things are in place. The TOR does state the minutes etc are to be available to all "participants to the process". DFO does a good job informing the participants - that's why the suggestion people become involved - please. We also need to recruit more talented people to help continue to build the SFAB - again if good people come and get involved all our efforts will make the process better. Thanks for your encouragement, and it would be even more encouraging to see more people come out and get involved.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Unfortunately there are no meetings in Ottawa Pat. Otherwise I'd be there, and all the meetings are in the September to April region, none in the summer. So pretty impossible for me to teleport to Port Hardy. And I was in class?!?! Also, talked more than once with my sfac chair on the phone. I will be back in BC permanently in May onwards and you can bet your butt I'll be at those meetings.

If we are under by a significant portion again will you call the regulations a success Pat? Yes or no? Over restricting the sector and leaving over 500,000lbs in the water over 3 years a success?!?! I don't know how anyone could justify that as a success. Grasping at straws a bit. While I realize these decisions are not easy, it was pretty easy to see we were over restricted last year, 15% left in the water.

 

[Aces]

Here is one of the reasons our allocation didn't go up...........



" A huge issue for us is the catch and release mortality now being charged against our overall TAC. The IPHC took the Alaska study results and used that to determine our reduced TAC. Canada did not have any reliable study to refute this and also has some concerns with release practices which are known to result in release mortality. For example, some anglers are placing tail ropes on large fish and hauling them into the boat for hero pictures, and DFO has grave concerns over this practice as an example. We will need to find some best practices and find ways to complete support studies to help demonstrate we have a lower release mortality."

 

[ziggy]

Well I did reread your post Searun and I guess I am still confused

"SFAB has explored ways to post on a website before. Main challenge is if DFO does it, we have to comply with all the federal regulations which means translation into both official lingo...can you image just how costly that would be! Aint going to happen. Its not a forgotten idea, but as was posted before on that topic who out here is going to buck up??"

Whose responsibility is the translation and publication?
Thanks

 

[mhbradley]

Pierre and his bilingual legacy succeeds in once again screwing Canadians...