2015 Halibut Regulations

[scott craven]

We aren't going back to the "good old days".
You can accept that or be miserable.
time to move on and deal with the present.

 

[Clint r]

You wouldn't want their Halibut season which is about 2 weeks long

Oh yeah, I know that. But if their limits went up and ours stayed the same, there's definately a problem.

Anybody that's a member of the IHPC should be treated equal. No limit increase for us= no increase for anybody. Or there's really no point in being a member is there?

 

[captmike]

a heads up on halibut Clint. The Pacific halibut thru the IPHC is the best managed and monitored resource on our coast. They hire commercial boats to do annual stock assessments on the whole coast and base the annual quotas in each area on those catches. Alaska has the largest share of the quota, BC next and Washington a handful of a few hundred thousand lbs. The quotas are roughly where the fish are.

 

[drmadcow]

400 were only caught. DFO numbers. The ones they use for poundage. So you're wrong

And DFO numbers have never been wrong in the past? Isn't this why we have slot limits now?

 

[Clint r]

Yep, I read up on the IHPC and couldn't agree more that they're a hard working group that's doing what they can. I also realize the need for an organization like this, I just want a level playing field. I get the chance to halibut fish once a year. On my vacation. I'll never fill my annual catch limit. Only my possession limit. I may not live on the island, but I still live in BC and pay for my license/s both fresh and salt and spend my money in the tackle stores plus ferries plus camping/hotels ect. I think that fisherman from the interior of the province get the short end of the stick in this matter. I'd have liked to see a 3 fish possession limit. I'd give up a few centimetres on my second two fish to add a few centimetres to the larger. And I'm not talking huge. Maybe 145cm 75cm and 75cm? I don't know it just doesn't seem like the people are being heard.

 

[bigbruce]

You guys are preaching to the converted on this Forum. There's a bunch of guys here who do their damndest on our behalf to get what we have. I'd strongly suggest the bunch who are pissed off about the result take their case to their Members of Parliament, march up and down in front of their offices, organize petitions - whatever. Whining on this Forum isn't going to do a hell of a lot of good.

 

[Clint r]

Been there man. I complain to my MLA on a weekly basis. Look where it's got me. I follow the letter of the law, pay my taxes and purchase my fishing license every year. For that I don't expect to get less for my money. I don't poach but things like this are is exactly what drives people off the reservation and starts them down that path.

 

[fshnfnatic]

We aren't going back to the "good old days".
You can accept that or be miserable.
time to move on and deal with the present.

Well said R.S.It is what it is,and I'm grateful for all that the people do for us who volunteer their time in this matter.

 

[fshnfnatic]

We aren't going back to the "good old days".
You can accept that or be miserable.
time to move on and deal with the present.

Well said R.S.It is what it is,and I'm grateful for all that the people do for us who volunteer their time in this matter.

 

[profisher]

Without them you only look south to see what your fishing season would look like...especially here on the Island.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

drmadcow, someone may be on crack but it's not me. Yes, both the max size limit and the annual limit had an immediate and significant decrease in the harvest rate and the total harvest poundage by our sector. However, the 90cm slot size on the possession fish did nothing to reduce harvest rate, average harvest size or total harvest. The two years preceding the possession slot and the years after had identical seasons, harvest rate, total harvest and average size caught. As soon as the max size and annual limit were brought in, all of those metrics changed.

Further, I've showed the data on here numerous times that the average size harvested coast wide is lower than the slot and the median fish harvested is much lower - something like 70+% of fish harvested in BC by the rec sector are below the slot size. The most frustrating thing is that DFO managers and sport fish reps alike continue to endorse a rec harvest model that assumes 50% of fish harvested are subject to the slot - a complete fallacy. Residents are never subject to it, single day trippers, single day charters, those who don't harvest a fish on their first day, those who don't harvest a fish over the slot, etc, etc are not subject to it. So … on any given day only a small fraction of fish would be subjected to the slot. That compared with the coast wide average and median harvest sizes and huge uncertainty in rec fish data means it is statistically impossible for the possession slot to affect harvest rate. This is proven by the data - same harvest rates before and after this regs introduction and further strengthened by the immediate impact of effective regs like max size and annual limit.

Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse but this reg doesn't pass the red-face test any way you look at it. If folks don't speak up, just makes it easy to pass off this type of BS as sound management rather than what it is.

Ukee

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Without them you only look south to see what your fishing season would look like...especially here on the Island.

I'm sorry, Profisher, but that's a disingenuous comparison. As I'm sure you know better than most the waters off Oregon and Washington are at the far southern boundary of halibut distribution and those waters don't support a fraction of the halibut biomass that BC and Alaskan waters do (for that matter, the biomass off BC is small compared to off Alaska). Combine an extremely low biomass with more than 10x the saltwater effort and I'd argue Oregon and Washington do a far better job of managing rec halibut fishing than BC does, which should be the case as they've been actively managing it due to the high pressure and low numbers for far longer.

As both states manage not only by sub-area but also by depth zone, there are some areas and zones that have very short seasons that folks point to but there are also a number of zones that have a fairly lengthy season with good opportunities for harvest. Again, all done with only a small fraction of the halibut allocation we have and more than an order of magnitude more effort. Not surprisingly, both jurisdictions have an open process similar to the IPHC where every license holder is given the opportunity for input both on line and in person.

Ukee

 

[SpringVelocity]

A lot of "me" instead of "we".... That is not what the sector is about.... I for one don't like any restrictions but not about to say the guys in the meetings suck..That's a little low.. What do you think they pull in big wages and spend hours working on this?

Remember " no one is center of universe" every single area has there needs and it is a balance.. The only thing I will agree is the big halibut thing has hurt some guides/lodges business, and that is a fact. If you want things to change we have to do it by lobbying MP's etc... And we all need to work together not against each other.. We need more allocation if you want those big fish back.

 

[searun]

Ukee, like I have asked before, why are you not getting involved in the process? I think you would bring a perspective that could be helpful. Who knows, you may even benefit from considering all the data and issues involved in participating in the decision process. Possibly a win/win.

But, to sit on the sidelines casting stones is kind of like complaining about the outcome of the election without taking the time to get off the couch to vote.

 

[bigbruce]

Been there man. I complain to my MLA on a weekly basis. Look where it's got me. I follow the letter of the law, pay my taxes and purchase my fishing license every year. For that I don't expect to get less for my money. I don't poach but things like this are is exactly what drives people off the reservation and starts them down that path.

Well, for starters, Clint, you might want to direct your anger to your MP as Fisheries is a Federal concern rather than Provincial.

 

[Clint r]

Not anger. Id describe it more as hopeless frustration.

 

[profisher]

UKee the SFAB process involves decisions on a lot more than just halibut. I would hate to see what kind so a salmon season we would have without those same reps being at the table.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi Searun, answered that one quite a few times on here - first and foremost, despite making multiple trips to the saltchuck every year, my home area is in the Interior and the local groups have no interest in saltwater fisheries or the halibut issue. Second, and maybe more importantly, I am very unsupportive of a system that is closed, secretive and not inclusive - particularly when we're talking about the management of a public resource for a public recreational fishery.

The fact I, as an Interior resident, have no meaningful way to get involved is a pretty clear indication of a faulty system. The fact a closed meeting of fishing charter guides (i.e. no where near representing the diverse users of the resource) can come up with a possession slot limit regulation (that made no sense then, and makes even less sense now that we have the data that clearly shows its ineffectiveness) and have it endorsed and implemented cements the fact that the way rec fisheries are managed and the way the rec sector is represented in those decisions needs to be revisited and updated. There is no reason with modern technology the Washington and Oregon models of full inclusion and full disclosure of all decision making information shouldn't be the standard we demand here in BC. I for one can't imagine a single valid argument against a fully open and inclusive system.

Just one opinion of many out there. Promised myself a couple of years ago I wouldn't let this issue get to me anymore. Hard not to speak up some times.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[profisher]

The SFAB board and committees are comprised of 50% primary and 50% secondary users.

 

[Clint r]

Said better than I ever could.