Courtenay / Comox SFAC meeting

That motion isn't going forward, it was not supported by the BCWF, nor will it be supported at SFAB South Coast meeting. The current Halibut regulations which include the slot limit were already supported and passed by the SFAB.

The notion of a Halibut Stamp is something worth exploring, and there are some technical reasons why it is now possible whereas previously it was not. There is also some support for exploring a Halibut punch card similar to Chinook, with some form of yearly cap on the number you could retain. My personal view is 10 max. There will be lots of opportunities for people to debate these issues between now and 2013.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks. That meant that if there was to be any change made to the Hali regulations, we needed to get any alternate proposals into them before the regulations went to print. DFO actually held up printing to allow some time for debate and proposals. In fact, we are already into the season one full month and the 2012 regs are only just being delivered to the Island on April 2.

The many conspiracy theorists out there need only to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they might have done differently to create a fair way to spread out the TAC so that everyone had a longer season...and, they needed to get involved in the process as opposed to protesting without taking the time to find out the facts.

Funny how some on this forum who claimed they would be attending the SFAB meetings to get involved and informed were not at the SFAB South Coast meeting today.
 
searun said:
That motion isn't going forward, it was not supported by the BCWF, nor will it be supported at SFAB South Coast meeting. The current Halibut regulations which include the slot limit were already supported and passed by the SFAB.

The notion of a Halibut Stamp is something worth exploring, and there are some technical reasons why it is now possible whereas previously it was not. There is also some support for exploring a Halibut punch card similar to Chinook, with some form of yearly cap on the number you could retain. My personal view is 10 max. There will be lots of opportunities for people to debate these issues between now and 2013.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks. That meant that if there was to be any change made to the Hali regulationus, we needed to get any alternate proposals into them before the regulations went to print. DFO actually held up printing to allow some time for debate and proposals. In fact, we are already into the season one full month and the 2012 regs are only just being delivered to the Island on April 2.

The many conspiracy theorists out there need only to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they might have done differently to create a fair way to spread out the TAC so that everyone had a longer season...and, they needed to get involved in the process as opposed to protesting without taking the time to find out the facts.

Funny how some on this forum who claimed they would be attending the SFAB meetings to get involved and informed were not at the SFAB South Coast meeting today.
Click to expand...

I good motion that would allow for more time for debate and input on regulations changes so that **** would not get rammed sdown our throat denied? Of course!


Well bud, you have continued to make this personal. So i will continue to go along with you.
I cant believe your peers let you speak on behalf of anyone. The best thing the SFAB could ever do is tell you to shut your ******* trap. Especially publicily. Everyone with half a brain knows you are a piece of work and dont give a flying **** about anyone or anyones opinions but you and your guide buddies. You dont give a **** about the south island guys and guides or the north island guy and guides. You dont give 2 ***** about rec fisherman and the average joe. You don't even give a **** about other SFAC. You are a SNAKE. And yes its personal now. Very personal. You continue to wave this slot limit in our faces with this holier then thow attitude, and frankly i hope someone takes you down a notch... Your ego is unreal. I dont speak for anyone but myself. In alot of peoples minds you are the guy speaking and representing the SFAB, and you are doing them a huge dis-service.

I love how you say there was opportunity for debate and input because it was posted on this forum. Let's keep the facts straight. This was put on here because someone slipped up. It wasn't put on here on purpose. LOLOLOLOLOL NOTHING that anyone said would have and did not change anything. The descision was already made. Giving the opportunity for debate when a decision is already made

is backwards and called communism not democarcy. I hope there are many people that see right through you the way i do..

If what you are saying about input had any truth to it what so ever, it sure as hell wouldnt have passed with all the negative feed back it got. The people on the Area 14 council that i met with were 100% against it, from the begininng beoff the record. Funny how when we all sat down at the table at the meeting their tune had changed. Are you saying that after all the input from this forum you guys got together and said "ok well it looks like everyone is for this, lets do it!" GET REAL MAN. WE ARE NOT IDIOTS!!!! Everytime you speak you spit in mine and many others faces. And ive about had enough.

I have a business. A real one, unlike you. One that works all year long and employs over 50 adults and students in the valley. I am one of the biggest employers in town other then big box stores. However i made time to spend over an hour at the enridge pipeline rally, today. Something i felt was a worthy cause. I guess you felt making sure your season was extended by a few weeks, the south island guys take more restrictions, and frankly a big ole cricle jerk of the good ole boys around the round table was more important then a 1000km pipeline ripped through The interior and tankers in our ocean. I didnt.

Sitting in a room with you even 1 km near it is enough to make me puke at the moment. However I may make it for the after noon tomorrow as I have work to do till noonish. If i do make it for no other reason to tell you to go F%#(@%)(*@ yourself, it will be worth the trip to parksville.

Discalimer: I think the SFAB has its heart in the right place, But i think guys like this pushing thier own agenda and hiding behind the SFAB umbrella to do so is what leaves a real bad taste in many peoples mouths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
searun said:
The many conspiracy theorists out there need only to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they might have done differently to create a fair way to spread out the TAC so that everyone had a longer season...and, they needed to get involved in the process as opposed to protesting without taking the time to find out the facts.

Funny how some on this forum who claimed they would be attending the SFAB meetings to get involved and informed were not at the SFAB South Coast meeting today.
Click to expand...

You know what searun. All the banter back and forth between your so called "conspiracy" members and yourself and other's has done alot IMO and opened a door that was not thought open before. Stop taking the high road and please just dip a little lower to help the others that look or lurk upon these threads and post's to get involved. This forum has gone downhill big time and needs good members like yourself to look over the bs and get to the point without getting involved personally with the emotions that are incurred on a dialy basis in this forum. I am just pointing out to keep up the good work.

I went to the big one last November at the Coast Bastion as an observer (first meeting I have attended). I didn't see any guides there as observers and I think I was the only sporty there as an observer. I agree that more folks who are concerned should attend these things even as observer\s it is very educational.

I will keep posting up dates of meetings if I can on this site as some more higher up's that are involved seem to think it is not important or don't want JOE fisherman there for some reason.
 
Nice, you are funny. Democracies are decided by those who show up and take the time to get informed. Not every SFAC proposal is accepted by all the other sitting members of the wider SFAB process...it's a democracy...and according to your post, one at a local level that was a waste of time. If you want to affect change, you need to get more deeply involved than just resorting to bully tactics against those you don't agree with.

Have a nice day.
 
searun said:
Nice, you are funny. Democracies are decided by those who show up and take the time to get informed. Not every SFAC proposal is accepted by all the other sitting members of the wider SFAB process...it's a democracy...and according to your post, one at a local level that was a waste of time. If you want to affect change, you need to get more deeply involved than just resorting to bully tactics against those you don't agree with.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

What was democratic about the halibut slot pal? I know that now every SFAC proposal is not accepted. Funny how a Proposal to make sure we dont get blind sided again is denied, and yet The blind side itself was passed so quickly.

Oh the tangled web you Weave Pat Ahern, The tangled web you weave.

Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pat-- perhaps you had better read the motion again:

Halibut Management Motion
Submitted by Area 14 SFAC
March, 2012
WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has only increased the recreational Halibut Quota from 12% to 15% of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch of pacific halibut, and

WHEREAS this allocation is insufficient to allow a full (Feb1 – Dec 31) season fishery, with catch limits of 2 halibut per day and three in possession, and

WHEREAS the late announcement of the new allocation by the Minister has placed the Sport Fish Advisory Board in an untenable position of designing a management strategy in a short time frame for the 2112 recreational season that:

A) Included an untried management regime of one fish per day and 2 in possession with conditions that one fish could be any size, but the second fish must be under 83cm or 15lbs in the round in order to stay within the assigned 2112 TAC, and
B) Did not allow for consultation with the local SFACs for their input:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be asked to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussions re various additional options available at certain levels of TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Working Group in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.

Read it???? Well now tell me what is wrong by asking for a sober second thought on the limits that were done in a hurried fashion to satisfy DFOs need to get the wording on the licences??? Are you suggesting that all discussion must cease on further/alternative options for recreational halibut limits??? FOREVER????? Give your head a shake.... that is total BS.

And as far as the motion not being supported by the BCWF--- The reference to the BCWF that I brought up at the Area 14 SFAC referred to the BCWF SUPPORT for the limit for this year. It had NOTHING to do with the above motion. How do I know?-- because I am the rep for the BCWF on the Area 14 SFAC. This is the official BCWF stand FOR THIS YEAR http://www.bcwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Itemid=405 None of the committee had a chance to vet the minutes before they were sent out and there were SEVERAL minor mistakes.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks.

Well, isnt that just dandy--- Its going to be a new era in public consultation for sport fishing.... All 300,000 anglers in BC will be expected to get their opportunity to speak through this discussion board. And in fact it was NOT stated that the proposal was the from the SFAB-- al I remember was some musing that appeared to come from guides. Damn near everyone I spoken to in this area thinks that it would have been better to have a shorter season , without the slot limit. There was NO consultation-- I heard NOTHING from our Chair-- She never mentioned getting that information so dont tell me that we all knew about it.

Now-- tell me-- what is your REAL objection to the motion? I didnt slam the SFAB, in fact the motion was worded so that it recognized and supported the fact that the SFAB was forced into a corner.

While you may have wanted to go after Lorne, in your reply you have insulted all of us who are working on the local committees to better things for ALL anglers, not just a select few.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great Post

fd

Cuba Libre said:
Pat-- perhaps you had better read the motion again:

Halibut Management Motion
Submitted by Area 14 SFAC
March, 2012
WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has only increased the recreational Halibut Quota from 12% to 15% of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch of pacific halibut, and

WHEREAS this allocation is insufficient to allow a full (Feb1 – Dec 31) season fishery, with catch limits of 2 halibut per day and three in possession, and

WHEREAS the late announcement of the new allocation by the Minister has placed the Sport Fish Advisory Board in an untenable position of designing a management strategy in a short time frame for the 2112 recreational season that:

A) Included an untried management regime of one fish per day and 2 in possession with conditions that one fish could be any size, but the second fish must be under 83cm or 15lbs in the round in order to stay within the assigned 2112 TAC, and
B) Did not allow for consultation with the local SFACs for their input:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be asked to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussions re various additional options available at certain levels of TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Working Group in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.

Read it???? Well now tell me what is wrong by asking for a sober second thought on the limits that were done in a hurried fashion to satisfy DFOs need to get the wording on the licences??? Are you suggesting that all discussion must cease on further/alternative options for recreational halibut limits??? FOREVER????? Give your head a shake.... that is total BS.

And as far as the motion not being supported by the BCWF--- The reference to the BCWF that I brought up at the Area 14 SFAC referred to the BCWF SUPPORT for the limit for this year. It had NOTHING to do with the above motion. How do I know?-- because I am the rep for the BCWF on the Area 14 SFAC. None of the committee had a chance to vet the minutes before they were sent out and there were SEVERAL minor mistakes.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks.

Well, isnt that just dandy--- Its going to be a new era in public consultation for sport fishing.... All 300,000 anglers in BC will be expected to get their opportunity to speak through this discussion board. And in fact it was NOT stated that the proposal was the from the SFAB-- al I remember was some musing that appeared to come from guides. Damn near everyone I spoken to in this area thinks that it would have been better to have a shorter season , without the slot limit. There was NO consultation-- I heard NOTHING from our Chair-- She never mentioned getting that information so dont tell me that we all knew about it.

Now-- tell me-- what is your REAL objection to the motion? I didnt slam the SFAB, in fact the motion was worded so that it recognized and supported the fact that the SFAB was forced into a corner.

While you may have wanted to go after Lorne, in your reply you have insulted all of us who are working on the local committees to better things for ALL anglers, not just a select few.
Click to expand...
 
Cuba Libre said:
Pat-- perhaps you had better read the motion again:

Halibut Management Motion
Submitted by Area 14 SFAC
March, 2012
WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has only increased the recreational Halibut Quota from 12% to 15% of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch of pacific halibut, and

WHEREAS this allocation is insufficient to allow a full (Feb1 – Dec 31) season fishery, with catch limits of 2 halibut per day and three in possession, and

WHEREAS the late announcement of the new allocation by the Minister has placed the Sport Fish Advisory Board in an untenable position of designing a management strategy in a short time frame for the 2112 recreational season that:

A) Included an untried management regime of one fish per day and 2 in possession with conditions that one fish could be any size, but the second fish must be under 83cm or 15lbs in the round in order to stay within the assigned 2112 TAC, and
B) Did not allow for consultation with the local SFACs for their input:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be asked to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussions re various additional options available at certain levels of TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Working Group in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.

Read it???? Well now tell me what is wrong by asking for a sober second thought on the limits that were done in a hurried fashion to satisfy DFOs need to get the wording on the licences??? Are you suggesting that all discussion must cease on further/alternative options for recreational halibut limits??? FOREVER????? Give your head a shake.... that is total BS.

And as far as the motion not being supported by the BCWF--- The reference to the BCWF that I brought up at the Area 14 SFAC referred to the BCWF SUPPORT for the limit for this year. It had NOTHING to do with the above motion. How do I know?-- because I am the rep for the BCWF on the Area 14 SFAC. None of the committee had a chance to vet the minutes before they were sent out and there were SEVERAL minor mistakes.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks.

Well, isnt that just dandy--- Its going to be a new era in public consultation for sport fishing.... All 300,000 anglers in BC will be expected to get their opportunity to speak through this discussion board. And in fact it was NOT stated that the proposal was the from the SFAB-- al I remember was some musing that appeared to come from guides. Damn near everyone I spoken to in this area thinks that it would have been better to have a shorter season , without the slot limit. There was NO consultation-- I heard NOTHING from our Chair-- She never mentioned getting that information so dont tell me that we all knew about it.

Now-- tell me-- what is your REAL objection to the motion? I didnt slam the SFAB, in fact the motion was worded so that it recognized and supported the fact that the SFAB was forced into a corner.

While you may have wanted to go after Lorne, in your reply you have insulted all of us who are working on the local committees to better things for ALL anglers, not just a select few.
Click to expand...

A totally outstanding post. Bravo Brian!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian, I read the motion. It speaks about a process that will not be necessary. This whole motion is basically redundant because the SFAB already voted 3 weeks ago to go in a different direction. Let's just say its now about working together for next year. Each year as you know we start afresh when it comes to Halibut mgmt options. We will be debating the merits of various options again next season, and true to form we will likely get everything dumped on us at the last minute. The SFAC's had about as much time to debate and inform as the main board did. 2 weeks - that's it. We didn't create the time crunch. One thing we all agree upon is the situation was ugly for everyone, and we had very little benefit of time to consider/debate options. Time for us all to move onto other ways to resolve our issues and needs.

One other thing I should say, is DFO actually worked with us under these time constraints to make things happen and they should be commended for listening and being flexible in allowing us to find solutions in a difficult situation for all (DFO and Rec sector). Another thing we should remember is the IHPC rec regulations are 2 and 3; everything else is done by variance order season to season....so the normal limits we revert to are those set by the IHPC.
 
searun said:
Brian, I read the motion. It speaks about a process that will not be necessary. This whole motion is basically redundant because the SFAB already voted 3 weeks ago to go in a different direction. Let's just say its now about working together for next year. Each year as you know we start afresh when it comes to Halibut mgmt options. We will be debating the merits of various options again next season, and true to form we will likely get everything dumped on us at the last minute. The SFAC's had about as much time to debate and inform as the main board did. 2 weeks - that's it. We didn't create the time crunch. One thing we all agree upon is the situation was ugly for everyone, and we had very little benefit of time to consider/debate options. Time for us all to move onto other ways to resolve our issues and needs.

One other thing I should say, is DFO actually worked with us under these time constraints to make things happen and they should be commended for listening and being flexible in allowing us to find solutions in a difficult situation for all (DFO and Rec sector). Another thing we should remember is the IHPC rec regulations are 2 and 3; everything else is done by variance order season to season....so the normal limits we revert to are those set by the IHPC.
Click to expand...

The word redudant the way i understand it means unnessescary because its already been done, but then you say they voted to go in a different direction? So which one is it.?. So are you saying SFAB passed a motion 3 weeks ago that is similar or not? If not, what was the motion because none of us know, including SFAC people apperently. I guess this is more of the transperency you speak of? Maybe i should search the forum and see if its posted somewhere.

The whole motion has everything to do with NOT being in the same situation as this year in regards to being rushed. Are you missing that part of the motion? Its very hard for many of us to move on with people we dont trust.

Maybe you guys and the DFO can become great friends. You are both great at smoke and mirrors and putting the screws to people while trying to make it look peachy.
 
I fully agree and support this post Bryan.

I have tried to stay out of the open forum banter,but the suggestion that the motion to ensure things are done properly is redundant or not necessary is pure crap and I will not let it go quietly. It dose not matter what direction the board has voted to head in. It was handled poorly and we need to ensure it dose not happen again and that it is not swept under the carpet.

Pat
It is absolutely necessary to have the way in which this regulation was handled be questioned and corrected. There is a definite need to make sure there is more time provided to allow for due process to ensure the views and needs of all parties are in fact being heard and addressed. Yes we know DFO did not allow for much time at the 2012 juncture and that is probably where the correction needs to begin.

I along with many others are sick of hearing the BS about not having much time. Quit hiding behind a convenient excuse provided by DFO. We all know that this was not just magically thought up on a whim. Many of you at different levels have been kicking the tires on the slot idea for some time now. There was plenty of time to put it forward and have it discussed ,voted on and supported or rejected at all levels. The fact is that some of you are coming off no differently than the politicians we find ourselves battling daily, for our fishing rights.

If you truly wanted people to get more involved you would have made an effort to post time date and location of the area 23 meeting for instance. After all you just proudly announced how this forum was used to let everyone know about the slot so we had time to present our views.. It seems like you are saying it but really do not desire the input of those of us that have no vested interest. I believe you are correct though,in stating more people should get involved. I fully support the system and I understand why we have committees and regional boards and ultimately the main board.We need those very smart people at the head of this to make sure educated decisions are being made.That is why it is not the slot I bring to question(that is another subject all together) it is the way it was brought to realization that needs to be addressed.
It also appears we may need more rec fishers without a vested interest in this to work with those that do to help ensure things are looked at from all points of view.

My opinion and my concerns.


Cuba Libre said:
Pat-- perhaps you had better read the motion again:

Halibut Management Motion
Submitted by Area 14 SFAC
March, 2012
WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has only increased the recreational Halibut Quota from 12% to 15% of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch of pacific halibut, and

WHEREAS this allocation is insufficient to allow a full (Feb1 – Dec 31) season fishery, with catch limits of 2 halibut per day and three in possession, and

WHEREAS the late announcement of the new allocation by the Minister has placed the Sport Fish Advisory Board in an untenable position of designing a management strategy in a short time frame for the 2112 recreational season that:

A) Included an untried management regime of one fish per day and 2 in possession with conditions that one fish could be any size, but the second fish must be under 83cm or 15lbs in the round in order to stay within the assigned 2112 TAC, and
B) Did not allow for consultation with the local SFACs for their input:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be asked to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussions re various additional options available at certain levels of TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Working Group in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.

Read it???? Well now tell me what is wrong by asking for a sober second thought on the limits that were done in a hurried fashion to satisfy DFOs need to get the wording on the licences??? Are you suggesting that all discussion must cease on further/alternative options for recreational halibut limits??? FOREVER????? Give your head a shake.... that is total BS.

And as far as the motion not being supported by the BCWF--- The reference to the BCWF that I brought up at the Area 14 SFAC referred to the BCWF SUPPORT for the limit for this year. It had NOTHING to do with the above motion. How do I know?-- because I am the rep for the BCWF on the Area 14 SFAC. None of the committee had a chance to vet the minutes before they were sent out and there were SEVERAL minor mistakes.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks.

Well, isnt that just dandy--- Its going to be a new era in public consultation for sport fishing.... All 300,000 anglers in BC will be expected to get their opportunity to speak through this discussion board. And in fact it was NOT stated that the proposal was the from the SFAB-- al I remember was some musing that appeared to come from guides. Damn near everyone I spoken to in this area thinks that it would have been better to have a shorter season , without the slot limit. There was NO consultation-- I heard NOTHING from our Chair-- She never mentioned getting that information so dont tell me that we all knew about it.

Now-- tell me-- what is your REAL objection to the motion? I didnt slam the SFAB, in fact the motion was worded so that it recognized and supported the fact that the SFAB was forced into a corner.

While you may have wanted to go after Lorne, in your reply you have insulted all of us who are working on the local committees to better things for ALL anglers, not just a select few.
Click to expand...
 
I respect your opinion and concerns. Like me, you are entitled to your views. As I stated, NO one was happy with the situation and time crunch created by the late announcement. Bottom line is we were all up against giving up on a March 1 start date for the season, which would have impacted the guys from Victoria area as they very much depend on this fishery and had events planned etc.

Could this happen again, yes. What can we all do about it...get involved if you can, stay informed, and share your views and interests in a respectful way. No matter what, there is no way to keep everyone happy unless you are saying we are back to full limits (that ain't happening), so next season will be all about making choices yet again. When it comes to future choices between a shorter season or modified catch regulations that extends the season, I for one will choose the later again.

As for the SFAC processes, they are e-mailed out to members who have participated or asked to be kept informed in their local committees. Those dates/places are all posted, not to mention in all the banter on this site the meeting info was cross posted, so I assume everyone can read. I note from the SFAC minutes (Area 14, you were in attendance) so would naturally assume you are involved there. Good on you for participating. So if you want to sit in on an Area 23 meetings send me a pm with your e-mail address and I will ask Bob to add you to the list.
 
You have shown to all that you really do not know what is gong on.
Everyone, please remember this in the future on his claims to know something.


searun said:
That motion isn't going forward, it was not supported by the BCWF, nor will it be supported at SFAB South Coast meeting. The current Halibut regulations which include the slot limit were already supported and passed by the SFAB.

The notion of a Halibut Stamp is something worth exploring, and there are some technical reasons why it is now possible whereas previously it was not. There is also some support for exploring a Halibut punch card similar to Chinook, with some form of yearly cap on the number you could retain. My personal view is 10 max. There will be lots of opportunities for people to debate these issues between now and 2013.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks. That meant that if there was to be any change made to the Hali regulations, we needed to get any alternate proposals into them before the regulations went to print. DFO actually held up printing to allow some time for debate and proposals. In fact, we are already into the season one full month and the 2012 regs are only just being delivered to the Island on April 2.

The many conspiracy theorists out there need only to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they might have done differently to create a fair way to spread out the TAC so that everyone had a longer season...and, they needed to get involved in the process as opposed to protesting without taking the time to find out the facts.

Funny how some on this forum who claimed they would be attending the SFAB meetings to get involved and informed were not at the SFAB South Coast meeting today.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
searun said:
That motion isn't going forward, it was not supported by the BCWF, nor will it be supported at SFAB South Coast meeting. The current Halibut regulations which include the slot limit were already supported and passed by the SFAB.

The notion of a Halibut Stamp is something worth exploring, and there are some technical reasons why it is now possible whereas previously it was not. There is also some support for exploring a Halibut punch card similar to Chinook, with some form of yearly cap on the number you could retain. My personal view is 10 max. There will be lots of opportunities for people to debate these issues between now and 2013.

As for the assertion there was no opportunity for debate and input into the current Hali regulations the slot limit proposal was put out there on this public forum ahead of the proposal going forward. All the chairs of the SFAC's were e-mailed the proposal and afforded opportunity to debate and forward along to their local SFAC members if they chose to do so. Let's not forget that the time between when DFO made their announcement as to the recreational TAC and 1 and 2 regulations and when the 2012 fishing licenses were to be printed was only 2 weeks. That meant that if there was to be any change made to the Hali regulations, we needed to get any alternate proposals into them before the regulations went to print. DFO actually held up printing to allow some time for debate and proposals. In fact, we are already into the season one full month and the 2012 regs are only just being delivered to the Island on April 2.

The many conspiracy theorists out there need only to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they might have done differently to create a fair way to spread out the TAC so that everyone had a longer season...and, they needed to get involved in the process as opposed to protesting without taking the time to find out the facts.

Funny how some on this forum who claimed they would be attending the SFAB meetings to get involved and informed were not at the SFAB South Coast meeting today.
Click to expand...

Really strange how some people seem to know what's going to happen before it actually does. For those of you who are interested, the motion in question was flagged early on in the day for further discussion. It was then brought back at about 12:50 PM for discussion. There was very little discussion needed and there was probably no reason to flag it in the first place. Voting on the motion took place at about 12:53PM and it was passed unanimously (even by the BCWF guys of which I am one). This was a good motion, penned by a top notch guy, who is part of a top notch Advisory Committee.
Some guys should try to get their facts straight before they put things into print.
Dave
 
searun,
you wont hear this much from the forums.
But a big congrats on all you do for us, by this I mean thank you!

I've sat on an exectutive before representing others, and you never really get a thanks.

keep up the good work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SpringVelocity
Sport Fishing Advisory Area 17 - Spring meeting Thursday March 2nd 7-9pm
Replies
16
Views
5K
Derby
Derby
Derby
BC wildlife federation town hall meeting
Replies
0
Views
159
Derby
Derby
Tight Roll
Garmin UHD 93SV GT54 vs Hummingbird Helix 9 Chirp MDI G4N
Replies
5
Views
553
Tight Roll
Tight Roll
W
Five Nations Multi-species Fishery Management Plan available online
Replies
3
Views
1K
wildmanyeah
W
SpringVelocity
Area 17 Fall Sport Fishing Advisory Meeting Oct.27th
Replies
7
Views
2K
Derby
Derby
Back
Top