V
vic-tory
Guest
I'd love to hear the justification on this one from members on the sfab, or wcga (believe a couple top guys from
That are on here!)
That are on here!)
2015 Halibut Regulations
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
V
vic-tory
Guest
I'd love to hear the justification on this one from members on the sfab, or wcga (believe a couple top guys from
That are on here!)
That are on here!)
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Profisher and Searun, would love to chat with the two of you someday as forum posts don't do such topics justice.
Having said that, I have to believe that neither of you really think that falling back on the old refrains of "get involved" or "tired of not being appreciated for all the hard work …" are adequate to address the very real issues with the current system that have been raised. More importantly, Oregon and Washington have modelled the successful implementation of an open and inclusive system to include and empower all rec fishermen. Given that, how can the current closed, secret model be defended? Fact is we all know the current system gets the same participants year after year and voluntary participation under the current archaic model recruits only a tiny fraction of the rec sector. Such a small representation of such a large and diverse group simply isn't adequate when modern technology and modern management systems allow for openness and inclusiveness.
Hopefully, the conversation about a modernized approach gets some traction within our sector one of these days! Cheers!
Ukee
Having said that, I have to believe that neither of you really think that falling back on the old refrains of "get involved" or "tired of not being appreciated for all the hard work …" are adequate to address the very real issues with the current system that have been raised. More importantly, Oregon and Washington have modelled the successful implementation of an open and inclusive system to include and empower all rec fishermen. Given that, how can the current closed, secret model be defended? Fact is we all know the current system gets the same participants year after year and voluntary participation under the current archaic model recruits only a tiny fraction of the rec sector. Such a small representation of such a large and diverse group simply isn't adequate when modern technology and modern management systems allow for openness and inclusiveness.
Hopefully, the conversation about a modernized approach gets some traction within our sector one of these days! Cheers!
Ukee
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
I wonder if DFO would be open to a more inclusive public consultation process? If there was the political will to do this I am thinking they would they would say they need more $ and staff to do this. If we vote Harper in again this won't happen.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
DFO may relax the 1- per day limit if it appears we are staying within our allocation as the season progresses.
I think people have to realize that once restrictions are in place, they may be tempered but they're not
likely to go away.
It becomes a matter of making the best of the system we have to work with.
Scott not so here. If the SFAB board felt after looking at all the data and variables for the coming season and felt comfortable that a full open season was a certainty with an increase in size or limits they would have put that motion forward. DFO doesn't care about how we fish halibut only that there is a fixed number of pounds for our sector and they won't allow us to exceed it. If the SFAB screws up and we take our quota early they will shut us down and the SFAB will bear the wrath not DFO.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying, but last year they opened up for 2 part way through the season no ?
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Yes this is true. they did make it 2 per day 2 pos I think for the start of sept on. Due to the VERY small amount of people fishing and catching Halibut after Labor day. This change had little affect on the TAC thus leaving us 144K at end of Dec.
Because size limmits are a condition of license we need DFO to make a variance order if we would like to see that changed during the season. That's why I asked if DFO is on board to allow for that if the TAC holds up going into Sept. simply going to 2 aday 2 pos will not do it if we are sitting over 100K again at that time. I say If.
Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
What should the system do? Fly interior residents out to meetings on the coast? Host meetings that focus on hali in Kelowna? The meetings are in areas where a large majority of anglers who fish tidal waters live. That's an unfortunate geographic reality.
What "inclusive system" do you think should be implemented? This thread clearly shows a forum where guys can sit down, drink a beer and type whatever they want just doesn't work. You can write to those involved in the process or go to meetings and get involved.
Going back to your previous post you use Oregon and Washington as an example of what works. Have you seen their general regs? Short season and allocation aside, the sheer amount of regs down there would make most British Columbians heads spin.
Last edited by a moderator:
uclueletcharters
Well-Known Member
Well there's no winning or right answer for all here, must be a public forum lol. This in my opinion forums are a think tank lots of ideas and opinions is a good thing no need riding anyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
I would like to see Katy Perry topless but it's not going to happen. Our allocation isn't going to let 3 fish happen. Tailoring regs to suit those not from the coast who only make a trip or two per year would shut things down too quickly.
My beef with everyone venting on here about what's wrong with the system is that they are pointing out everything they see wrong without giving any or realistic alternatives. I don't think the current system or regs are perfect but it's not as simple as some seem to believe. Personally I don't have the answers. I think the current system balances the needs of everyone pretty well. It will be interesting to see how close we get to allocation this year. It should be pretty close which is the goal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Agree would tend to think it would indeed. Although that thought process just might open up another line of questioning that many do not wish to address.
Last edited by a moderator:
the fog ducker
Well-Known Member
im gonna stick ta fishin anf fishin reports , stay outta the annual $hit slingin ,
heres the best i could do for ya Kelly , retro style lol,,,
later
whack n stack !!
fd
Katy, The wonders of plastic. 
Maybe a halibut card like we have in California for sturgeon. An annual allotment. You can catch and release or tag a couple. That way an interior person could take a couple on his annual trip, and the locals could tag 2 of their annual allotment in one day. As to the amount of the allotment, would have to decided. We have a slot limit on Sturgeon, 60" max and I think 4 a year to keep. I rarely keep one, but need the tag to fish for them.
Maybe a halibut card like we have in California for sturgeon. An annual allotment. You can catch and release or tag a couple. That way an interior person could take a couple on his annual trip, and the locals could tag 2 of their annual allotment in one day. As to the amount of the allotment, would have to decided. We have a slot limit on Sturgeon, 60" max and I think 4 a year to keep. I rarely keep one, but need the tag to fish for them.
Humpbubble
Active Member
X2 never been into fatties myself either.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
One thing I am hearing on here is that some people on here want to more involved/complain about that..On south this has been strongly voiced to SVIAC and SFAB... Since DFO cancelled our fall and spring sessions in Victoria which allowed the public including members on here to engage..That was a complete mistake, and I have requested those meeting take place again as soon as possible..I know it is being worked on by the SFAB chair down here, and heard it was brought forward.
If I personally want to go to any meeting south guys have to go to Nanaimo, or get the news at the SVIAC meetings/or phone the chair.. This is not just me personally asking for this. It was a little insulting to get closed out. I know you know this WIW so probably just echoing what you guys are working on.
I am sure others in areas may have same issues..The only thing I will add is that I know from experience that many of things said here never make it to the meetings, and they are poorly attended... I think it would be awesome even to have these people making these comments show up and discuss these things face to face...
I know its helped me to understand the process better....
If I personally want to go to any meeting south guys have to go to Nanaimo, or get the news at the SVIAC meetings/or phone the chair.. This is not just me personally asking for this. It was a little insulting to get closed out. I know you know this WIW so probably just echoing what you guys are working on.
I am sure others in areas may have same issues..The only thing I will add is that I know from experience that many of things said here never make it to the meetings, and they are poorly attended... I think it would be awesome even to have these people making these comments show up and discuss these things face to face...
I know its helped me to understand the process better....
Last edited by a moderator:
Derby
Crew Member
Recreational Halibut Management for 2015
In January the SFAB Main Board confirmed that providing opportunity over a full season (February 1 to December 31) at the historical limit of 2 per day and a possession limit of 3 continued to be the SFAB’s primary objective with respect to management of the recreational halibut fishery.
However, since it is obvious that this objective cannot be met within the sector’s 15% share of the harvest currently allotted to Canada by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, in considering its advice to DFO the Board has been forced to devise ways in which to ration the recreational allocation amongst anglers by constraining both the possession limits and the size of halibut that can be retained.
The measures put in place for 2014 were successful in that the fishery remained open from February 1 to December 31 and it was possible to relax the possession limit from “1 and 2” to “2 and 2” on September 1. When the recreational fishery closed at the end of December, anglers had caught a total of 913,461 pounds of halibut out of an allocation of 1,057,500. In other words we had left 144,039 pounds in the water although this number is deceiving since it is Halibut Commission policy to manage by total fishing mortalities which means that our sector (like commercial harvesters) has to account for the fish that do not survive release. While there is dispute about the way in which the IPHC “wastage” number is calculated, for this year it is around 34,000 pounds so our true “underage” was about 110,000 and this doesn’t take into account that there are areas of the coast for which catch estimates are currently lacking and where improvements are planned to remove uncertainty.
The Canadian delegation to the IPHC annual meeting fought successfully against efforts to reduce Canada’s share with the result that the 2015 allocation to the recreational sector will be slightly higher than in 2014, by about 6,500 pounds for a total of 1,063,550 pounds. Against this background the SFAB Halibut Committee discussed a range of options including a change in the annual limit and adjusting the size of halibut that could be retained. In the end the committee decided that there simply was too much risk or lack of information attached to either kind of change if members were to be confident in avoiding a mid-season closure. They recommended to the executive that the 6 halibut annual limit be continued and that no change be made to the length regulations in effect for 2014 or to the “1 and 2” possession limit, at least until catch numbers might allow a change to “2 and 2” as happened in 2014. The executive unanimously endorsed these recommendations and forwarded them to the Department, which indicated its approval by issuing recreational Fisheries Notice 0134 on February 24. The bottom line is that the rules now in place will continue into the new licence year.
In addition, the department has been asked to consider whether it might be possible to alter licence conditions in-season to improve opportunity and expectation now that all licenses are issued electronically, providing a data base by which it is possible to contact anglers about rule changes.
While it might seem tempting to try and reduce the potential underage of around 100,000 pounds to zero by tinkering with the length of either the smaller or larger fish, or changing the annual limit from 6 to 8, the risks associated with such changes have to be considered against the fact that we are trying to manage the behavior of 100,000 or so individual halibut anglers in an uncertain situation where we do not have control over such things as the growth rate and average size of fish, changes in water temperature, the weather during the main
fishing season, and the cost of gas. Against this background, anglers have to ask themselves, would they rather leave a few pounds uncaught or take the risk that the season could be closed in late August or earlier. For the future only one thing seems certain. We will not be exceeding our annual allocation. Instead we will be taken off the water as soon as we bump up against it.
In January the SFAB Main Board confirmed that providing opportunity over a full season (February 1 to December 31) at the historical limit of 2 per day and a possession limit of 3 continued to be the SFAB’s primary objective with respect to management of the recreational halibut fishery.
However, since it is obvious that this objective cannot be met within the sector’s 15% share of the harvest currently allotted to Canada by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, in considering its advice to DFO the Board has been forced to devise ways in which to ration the recreational allocation amongst anglers by constraining both the possession limits and the size of halibut that can be retained.
The measures put in place for 2014 were successful in that the fishery remained open from February 1 to December 31 and it was possible to relax the possession limit from “1 and 2” to “2 and 2” on September 1. When the recreational fishery closed at the end of December, anglers had caught a total of 913,461 pounds of halibut out of an allocation of 1,057,500. In other words we had left 144,039 pounds in the water although this number is deceiving since it is Halibut Commission policy to manage by total fishing mortalities which means that our sector (like commercial harvesters) has to account for the fish that do not survive release. While there is dispute about the way in which the IPHC “wastage” number is calculated, for this year it is around 34,000 pounds so our true “underage” was about 110,000 and this doesn’t take into account that there are areas of the coast for which catch estimates are currently lacking and where improvements are planned to remove uncertainty.
The Canadian delegation to the IPHC annual meeting fought successfully against efforts to reduce Canada’s share with the result that the 2015 allocation to the recreational sector will be slightly higher than in 2014, by about 6,500 pounds for a total of 1,063,550 pounds. Against this background the SFAB Halibut Committee discussed a range of options including a change in the annual limit and adjusting the size of halibut that could be retained. In the end the committee decided that there simply was too much risk or lack of information attached to either kind of change if members were to be confident in avoiding a mid-season closure. They recommended to the executive that the 6 halibut annual limit be continued and that no change be made to the length regulations in effect for 2014 or to the “1 and 2” possession limit, at least until catch numbers might allow a change to “2 and 2” as happened in 2014. The executive unanimously endorsed these recommendations and forwarded them to the Department, which indicated its approval by issuing recreational Fisheries Notice 0134 on February 24. The bottom line is that the rules now in place will continue into the new licence year.
In addition, the department has been asked to consider whether it might be possible to alter licence conditions in-season to improve opportunity and expectation now that all licenses are issued electronically, providing a data base by which it is possible to contact anglers about rule changes.
While it might seem tempting to try and reduce the potential underage of around 100,000 pounds to zero by tinkering with the length of either the smaller or larger fish, or changing the annual limit from 6 to 8, the risks associated with such changes have to be considered against the fact that we are trying to manage the behavior of 100,000 or so individual halibut anglers in an uncertain situation where we do not have control over such things as the growth rate and average size of fish, changes in water temperature, the weather during the main
fishing season, and the cost of gas. Against this background, anglers have to ask themselves, would they rather leave a few pounds uncaught or take the risk that the season could be closed in late August or earlier. For the future only one thing seems certain. We will not be exceeding our annual allocation. Instead we will be taken off the water as soon as we bump up against it.
Similar threads
