Time to speak up, I was going to earlier. The disrespect earlier in this thread directed towards anyone involved in the SFAB boards is dead wrong. However wanting to kow who voted for what and having and voicing an opinion is in my mind called democracy. They have put forth their motion and they did it after much discussion and a vote. If you disagree then it is up to you to write DFO and tell them your not in that camp.
60lb/15lb Halibut Limit - Let's Discuss
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
trophywife
Crew Member
id rather have one 150lber!!!
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
I fully and 100% agree with this shooter but how do we do we get there?
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Absolutely GLG, give me the exact numbers you want me to compare/compute, their source so I can validate them, and I'll run a comparison. Pretty simple to do.
The fact remains that no matter what numbers you put into the DFO model, it's assumption that half of fish caught being slot fish is ridiculous and grossly inaccurate so whatever numbers you put into it, or however the season progresses, the model being used will always overestimate the savings by the slot fish. It's also a fact that due to their lack of confidence in their model, based on it's poor performance (read failure) last year, a big buffer was factored in this year, rather than fixing the known sources of problems. This directly resulted in the need to consider shorter seasons, no second possession fish, max size limits, season limits, staged regulations and various combos of all these. The working groups this weekend chose what they felt was the best compromise available. Lesser evils would have been on the table had the faulty model and faulty assumptions been challenged by those participating with readily available information and had the model been fixed/modified.
In fact, this is not dissimilar to what happened at this year's IPHC meetings, but with a different outcome. The IPHC science group came to the table with a new model that they felt was better than the old model and predicted much lower available biomass, both currently and retrospectively. All groups called BS - the model was too new and unproven and conflicted with some of the data sets available, such as commie catch trends. Thus, the new model was challenged, ultimately not endorsed, the old model used and the same TAC as last year resulted.
I feel, and I feel all the available data supports my view, those participating should have called BS on DFO's faulty model and insisted it be fixed or replaced. Would that have cured the whole issue? Of course not. Would it have taken some of the options we're stuck with off the table? Absolutely!
Ukee
steel_dreamin
Member
Why isn't the SFAB funding a model to compare with DFO's which removes these apparent inaccuracies?
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
What funding? I hope our kidding.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Seriously? We have a tiny 15% of the quota, and the amount of fish the rec sector catches that is over 60lbs is tiny as well. Yet the commies get paid more for large halibut and target them specifically and you're trying to say it would be our fault? Come on man, we may have differing views on this but that is far fetched.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
I've asked that many times with no response whatsoever. To date they won't even question the model or acknowledge it's blatantly obvious faults and shortcomings.
The challenge of the IPHC's new model was successful because lower 48 state experts challenged it, DFO experts challenged it and private experts hired by the commercial sector reviewed it and challenged it. I've asked the question, given the way fishery decisions have been going, whether it be the halibut fishery or chinook restrictions due to early timed Fraser Chinook - why don't the sport fish groups come prepared with their own experts to challenge the models and put forth our position? As I stated in the other thread, you wouldn't go to court to battle over these issues without a lawyer, so why do we expect Joe Good-hearted, Well-intentioned Fishermen to be able to represent us on his/their own up against DFO managers and scientists?
Makes no sense and clearly has it's shortcomings. Hopefully SFAB/SFAC folks and the new South Coast Coalition give this some serious thought for the future. Just my opinion.
Ukee
The challenge of the IPHC's new model was successful because lower 48 state experts challenged it, DFO experts challenged it and private experts hired by the commercial sector reviewed it and challenged it. I've asked the question, given the way fishery decisions have been going, whether it be the halibut fishery or chinook restrictions due to early timed Fraser Chinook - why don't the sport fish groups come prepared with their own experts to challenge the models and put forth our position? As I stated in the other thread, you wouldn't go to court to battle over these issues without a lawyer, so why do we expect Joe Good-hearted, Well-intentioned Fishermen to be able to represent us on his/their own up against DFO managers and scientists?
Makes no sense and clearly has it's shortcomings. Hopefully SFAB/SFAC folks and the new South Coast Coalition give this some serious thought for the future. Just my opinion.
Ukee
Dave S
Active Member
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Not only that, we're talking about an animal whose habitat range is as deep as 1500' and is found all along the continental shelf. In BC not sure I've heard of anyone fishing deeper than 400 feet and deeper than 300 feet would be rare. The quota from the IPHC is a small portion of the available Pacific biomass, 2B (Canada) gets an extremely small portion of the North American Pacific quota, rec fishers get only 15% of the 2B quota and due to depth and range limitations target halibut in only a very small fraction of their range in Canadian Pacific waters. While I can't argue that angling can't have a localized affect, it certainly can't have a measurable impact on the spawning population of Pacific halibut as a whole even if all effort were directed at mature female fish.
Ukee
Dave S
Active Member
Who determines when "all canadians needs are met"? And how is this determined?
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Outstanding post lollypop. I concur big time. I acknowledge those folks as well and I really hope some of the posters get to meet those folks some day and understand what they have gone through and what they do to keep us anglers on the water. Apparently a lot of them do not realize the effort put into just the very basic concept.
Dave S
Active Member
The max size is not a safe or easily managed rule. I feel this rule could have some use IF there were some freedom for discretion by guide. (yes, a guides/lodges only rule) Guides are skilled and experienced anglers. They have more of the skills and experience needed to identify, roughly, if the fish is over the limit. If the fish is close to size limit, then it's fair to harvest.
IF fish is not easily released or is fatally wounded from hooks, then it's fair to harvest. Guides would be accountable for their actions and any harvest that does not follow the rules and exceptions, will be held accountable.
This would be a little tougher to model as there are exceptions to the rules, but this would prevent the release of dead fish, and would be less of an impact on the biomass. I don't feel it is reasonable to require an angler who rarely fishes for or catches lots of halibut to identify if the fish is over the size limit. I don't feel it's safe to require the same angler to release any fish that is over the limit, especially if the hook set is deep.
IF fish is not easily released or is fatally wounded from hooks, then it's fair to harvest. Guides would be accountable for their actions and any harvest that does not follow the rules and exceptions, will be held accountable.
This would be a little tougher to model as there are exceptions to the rules, but this would prevent the release of dead fish, and would be less of an impact on the biomass. I don't feel it is reasonable to require an angler who rarely fishes for or catches lots of halibut to identify if the fish is over the size limit. I don't feel it's safe to require the same angler to release any fish that is over the limit, especially if the hook set is deep.
Seperate rules for guides and rec anglers?
Guides and lodges being held accountable if they break the rules? by whom the million fisheries officers i never see on the water? or maybe on board cameras?
Impact on biomass? of the 10's of millions of pounds of halibut up for harvest(and the 100's of millions not) on the coast between alaska, BC and south of us, 7million pounds goes to canada gets the rec sector gets 1 million. How much do you think this release of dead fish is going to effect the biomass? we caould not effect biomass if tried!
/facepalm
Guides and lodges being held accountable if they break the rules? by whom the million fisheries officers i never see on the water? or maybe on board cameras?
Impact on biomass? of the 10's of millions of pounds of halibut up for harvest(and the 100's of millions not) on the coast between alaska, BC and south of us, 7million pounds goes to canada gets the rec sector gets 1 million. How much do you think this release of dead fish is going to effect the biomass? we caould not effect biomass if tried!
/facepalm
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
HUH???.........holmes*
X2.....................
Similar threads
