Delayed Opening of Halibut

[Mr. Dean]

quote:Originally posted by fireex[/i]

A lot of talk, but I am a sport fisherman and I don't think a guided tour is.

I don't make any money at what I do, just spend it. I a lone maybe get 3 or 4 halibut a year not the 12 or more per trip that a guided fishing trip gets.

So limit me????????

These concerns are understandable but don't really warrant discussion with these propasals. The TAC, is what it is. If the Guide Industry wasn't lumped in with the Sport Catch, then changes to the allocations would be in order to accomadate them somewhere else. Remember, the TAC of this fishery is</u> being achived, a dead fish is a dead fish.

Doesn't much matter what 'type' of fisherman is doing the killing. The fishery is sustainable at present harvest levels. The problem were faced with is that some user groups want a bigger slice of pie that's only so big. To start finger pointing within our group will only lead down the path of "divide and conquer". In the end we'll all lose, and this has been exampled throughout history.


I'm a guy just like you. I take my family out and spend GHASTLY amounts of $$$ in the pursuit of a passion. Fixed costs/expenses alone for last years 2 week trip ran five grand (give or take...). Other than the cost of 2 fill-up's for the P/U and $500 for ferries, that money was a direct boost into the local economy of where we 'play'. Then start adding the equipment costs of boat, gear, bait, tow vehicle, trailer light bulbs.... One's head starts getting the 'spins'!!

Of all this expense, I personaly put 6 fish (2 limits) in the freezer. I also introduced a long dear friend to the fishery and he grab'd two more fish. Now he's chomping at the bit to 'rig up' to do it alone also (read: more economic spin-offs)

Obviously, he and I are both mental.
Why do we do it?
Why would we want to?

- Is it for the meat? We could walk on down to the Save-On and just buy this meat MUCH cheaper. I think the answer is no.

- Is it for the 'quality time' fishing? I don't think so. That can be had sitting on the bank of a local pond/river and not involve the extremes of chasing Hali's.

Then why???

I firmly believe that for most, if not all of us enthusiasts, are driven</u> in the pursuit of the chance of happening into that MONSTER of a fish, which for most is a pipe-dream at best (But hey many of us like buying Lotto tickets too!). And we take pride in accomplishing things for ourselves, not relying on a guide to do it for us.

Needless to say, it down right pi$$es me off that our modern day government feels that they can just 'flick' me off and out of the equation, AND my inherent RIGHT to fish as a Canadian, with the stroke of a pen. IMO, these above "causes" is where we should be directing our attentions, without adding more "battallions" to the fight. We are all people that share</u> in the 12% take of the fishery. As is, our voice is small and is not being heard. No sense in making it 2 smaller, less heard voices.

These tabled propasals are little more than a Polliticly Correct interpretation of saying FU. Not much more than anything else gets my knuckles clenched as when somebody tells me that.

Not to mention, not doing it face to face.


The fishery is an asset to ALL Canadians. As a sportie, you are born w/ rights, and one of them is to fish. Restricting your rights via regulations while permitting other user groups to carry on (harvest mature fish in this case)IS IMO a violation of these rights.

Also, not allowing greater access when the need is CLEARLY demonstrated, is an infringment also... Especially when there isn't a conservation concern looming.


Get into that IPHC web-site and start digging. Think of questions and use the search engine. Get informed then go kick some government but!

Otherwise, your 'Butt' will be toast, or at the very least, shipped to another country.


*** fireex***
I used your post as example only.
Mine isn't intended as being personal.

Hope to see you ALL still fishing!

 

[Tailspin]

Serngheti,

I was spot checked last Spring by RCMP on the water. I also know of a few guide boats with logo's(won't mention names) in Victoria who were told to shut down for the day with guests on board, until comliant with Med certs and C# on boat.

As for the Hali, Im lost as to what the little man can do? The lodges are going to need to speak up!

 

[chris73]

Mr. Dean; send your opinion to the SFAB because they will do the negotiations with DFO...Send it quick because the meetings are these days.

 

[Lipripper]

If they do imply the &lt;90 cm rule. Cant wait to see guys hanging over the side of a boat on the bank trying to tail a 30lb hali with a tape measure in thier teeth

Would deffinately curb my port renfrew $$'s,

 

[Tuffcity]

quote:The commercials said thanks and took the excess share of the sporties

Actually the SFAB sold it to the commercial sector.

The 12/88 is a realatively new thing (past 4 yrs?) And probably alot of the discrepancy has to do with the movement and poor reporting of hali from the Canadian to the Neah Bay side.

Judging from what came in from Swiftsure last year the &lt;90 cm (if that's what's coming down the pipe) won't affect the fishery much.

Strike back, buy a Washington state licence and hammer their side when it opens and report it as WA caught fish.

Just a thought

RC

 

[Pablo2079]

Isn't Feb. when Halibut usually spawn?

 

[fishingbc]

Good Evening Devona and Chuck,



Please consider my personal response and comments regarding the Halibut options provided, as well as approx. 10 separate responses from members of our local Tofino-Ucluelet SFAC committee. These will be forwarded to you separately following this e-mail.



First and foremost, I have deliberated in length to which proposed scenario would best serve the broad interests of the recreational fishing community, as well as citizens of Canada.

I consider the fact that the conundrum we face is not based on conservation concerns, but is due to a sectoral allocation which we have adamantly disputed as a Canadian common property resource, turned beneficial commodity. I don't need to remind you that the benefits are currently not pointing to the Recreational Sector in this allocation based mechanism.



I can not find a suitable solution to the issues at hand, based on the provided options alone. My recommended approach to DFO for Short and Long term solutions are;



Neah Bay Fishery;

To be forced into the allocation process and growth cap to our popular and economically beneficial Canadian Halibut fishery is one step that our sector has had to adapt. To witness an illegal, non-resident fishery extract a percentage of our allocation, it seems logical that this issue should receive priority focus by DFO. I try to understand the political challenges, but the fact is we are witnessing Canadian Halibut being "stolen" while we watch.

Consider if you were a Car Dealership, and your neighbouring Car Dealership came over and took about 20% of your vehicles to sell on their own lot, while you watched-with no compensation. Unfortunately those were the only cars made for that year, and the local law enforcement were already too busy with people stealing hubcaps...........I'm sure you understand.



On-Line License sales are a start, and potentially a way to decrease a fair portion. Adding area 1-23 to the existing area 1-21 exclusion is important.

Area 1-21 closure outside 12nm may be necessary as a pilot to assess the decrease of Neah Bay Fleet. Understanding that this fleet also fishes 1-23, temporary closure of the main accessible area of 1-21 should provide a message to this fleet, along with changes to the on-line licenses, that Canada is not welcoming this illegal activity. To date, it has been far too easy for them, but this will not work alone. Increased enforcement will have to be juxtaposed with these new measures to get the message across.



I am not an advocate for requesting decreased access for Canadians that fish area 1-21, but this is not unlike what we have lived with in Clayoquot for some time. We have had to face measures in a terminal area that are unlike other areas. Ideally this would not be a long term closure if DFO/IHPC/WSFG deal with this accordingly.



Transfer Mechanism

Aside from focus on stopping the Neah Bay fishery, the potential transfer of allocation should be exercised if at all possible, and that DFO should utilize existing funds held in trust by the PHMA to acquire quota for the recreational sector in 2008.





Size Limits

I do not agree or support any of the options regarding the listed maximum size limits, as I question the legitimacy of these size limits being beneficial to the health of the overall biomass. Understandable that these were factored in the absence of quota transfer and unknowns of decrease in the Neah Bay fleet, but a maximum size limit of such small proportion is not the answer. Numerous scenarios, that include increased release mortality, and degradation in the global sportfishing market are probable.

Consider that you are planning a fishing trip somewhere in North America prior to attending the 2010 Olympics. You peruse the Web, and collect copies of various Sport Fishing magazines like "B.C. Outdoors", "Island Fisherman" and "Fishing Alaska" It doesn't take long to consider which destination might fulfill the fish of your dreams.....The British Columbia angler is proudly displaying his maximum size Chicken Halibut of a whopping 18lbs. The front cover of "Fishing Alaska" shows Halibut in the 70 lb. range. Though this is not an outrageously large Halibut, it easily helps the travelling angler with his choice.............



Possession/Daily Limits

I am adamant that the only option to consider at this time, is the temporary reduction in possession from 3 to 2 Halibut, with a daily limit remaining at 2 per day. Keeping the size limit the same will still achieve the desired temporary decrease in catch, combined with decrease of Neah Bay fishery and/or Transfer of Quota.

We have been told that a change in the possession limit would require 2-3 years. I have confidence that there is a way to make it happen if there is a will within the department and Ottawa to facilitate the change.

The Tofino area is an example of challenges to the Size limit and daily limit combined. We are currently fortunate to have a consistent mixed size Halibut fishery, within a very safe and fuel efficient distance of our coastline. Often this happens within 1-3 miles of Lennard Island Lighthouse, with very few Halibut in the proposed max size of 85-90cm. If anglers are not fortunate to find a legal Halibut in this area, they can then choose to travel approx. 12-16 miles further offshore to known Chicken Halibut areas to fish for their 1 (18-20 lb) Halibut per person. The Juice isn't worth the squeeze!!!







In Conclusion; Facilitate Allocation Transfer, Neah Bay Decrease, Change on-line Lic. sales, No Max. Size Limit, Temporary 2 possession Limit



Thank You for your time and efforts in helping with this process, and the favourable outcome.







Jason Mohl



Chairman Tofino-Ucluelet SFAC

Chairman Tofino Harbour Authority

Director SFI of B.C.

Clayoquot Ventures Guide Service ltd.
Clayoquot Vista Guesthouse
Jay's Fly & Tackle

 

[fishingbc]

30th January 2008


Response to DFO on proposed Halibut Management Measures:



Communication with Victoria SFAB Constituents:

In the past five days I have fielded a large number of telephone calls from angry and upset anglers, concerned about the potential of restrictive halibut management regulations being implemented this season. I have also met in person with several key local committee members. It should also be noted that I have received and forwarded over seventeen email responses to DFO from concerned constituents in my community. The majority of all of these responses do not look favourably on ANY of DFO’s proposed scenarios.

Also I find the last minute eleventh-hour rush attempt to seek advice from the recreational angling community on halibut most egregious.


Our Intolerable Position is Not Related to Conservation:

I, as do many of my constituents, hold a very negative opinion about the recreational sector being placed under any additional halibut angling management restrictions by DFO when there is NO conservation concern.

This whole halibut allocation situation forced upon us by the DFO and the government has been a farce from the start in 2003, when then Minister Thibault implemented a 12% recreational allocation ceiling and suggested the recreational sector would have to secure additional halibut quota on an open market.

At the spring 2007 Main Board SFAB meeting the RDG explained to the delegates that no in-season measures during 2007 would be taken and the department would work with the recreational sector to resolve the allocation issue. Yet another full year has passed and our sector is again placed in an intolerable position at the eleventh hour. Why has the Department spent yet another whole year and has still not secured the necessary quota for the recreational sector?

Witnessing how the events and circumstances have changed for the recreational sector since 2003 and hearing from the Minister and the department how positive the 12% allocation ceiling was for our sector, makes me now seriously question why in only FOUR SHORT YEARS our sector has arrived at the point where restrictive measures will be placed on our fishery. I personally believe that this serves to prove what the SFAB has always maintained that percentages of TAC, forced allocation quotas and market-based transfers do not work for our sector.


Why the DFO Presented Scenarios DO not Work:

While each scenario presented by DFO may provide a “savings” of halibut poundage caught over the course of a year, each measure has significant pitfalls or harms specific groups within the halibut fishing community.

SIZE LIMIT - Implementing a halibut size limit will result in significant halibut mortality and will also be a safety concern. This is not an acceptable regulation change.

LOCAL AREA CLOSURES – closing one specific area over another area only serves to harms the local angling community in the area where the closure is established and makes this a very unfair method of reducing catch where no conservation concern has been identified.

MEASURES THAT USE TIMING – the fishing for halibut in Area 19, 20 and off Swiftsure Bank (accessed by many by Victoria area anglers and guides in the summer) have completely different timing focuses. Choosing to utilize regulatory management measures bounded by time will again only serve to penalize and hurt one group that fishes over another.

DAILY BAG LIMIT CHANGES – reducing the daily catch limit to (1) halibut per day will serious harm the healthy guided fishing business off Swiftsure Bank and reduce business revenue in Port Renfrew as fewer anglers will venture there. The halibut from Swiftsure are generally small (chickens) and the cost involved to access the offshore bank are high.


Response to DFO on the presented Halibut Management Scenarios:

As a chair of the local SFAB committee with many constituents (both primary and secondary) and a local angling community of 7.000 anglers in the greater Victoria area (CRD), I am not willing to suggest or choose any of the department’s scenarios as presented. There is very simple reason for this. I cannot with a clean conscience recommend any scenario that favours one group within the recreational halibut community that I represent over another. The Department’s request places me, as chair, in a very intolerable and awkward position. By providing any preference to a single scenario will only serve to divide the sub-groups within my diverse angling community. I cannot and will not be party to dividing my constituents amongst themselves. They deserve better of me.

Please also be clear I would be, as I am sure my many constituents agree, most angry if the department touted any new restrictive regulations as having received the approval or acceptance of the Victoria SFAB Committee.

American Halibut Charters in Canadian Waters:

Allowing American fishing charters to enter Canadian waters with non-resident alien anglers on Canadian Halibut when Canadians will now face restriction is totally unacceptable.


What the Victoria SFAB Committee Can And Do Recommend:

The long-term successful management of coast-wide recreational halibut fishery has to include the ability for the fishery to be vibrant and provide opportunity for reasonable future growth when there is no conservation concern.

The department must:

Immediately stop American fishing charter operators catching Canadian halibut in Canadian waters.

Immediately introduce a change of regulations to amend the possession limit of halibut from the current (3) three total possession to a reduced (2) two total possession

This will (or in combination with a small halibut quota transfer) provide the immediate reduction in total recreational halibut catch to meet the 2008 poundage targets of the 12% forced allocation.

The department can in future also:

Institute a license where the annual number of halibut a license holder can catch be capped at 20 fish

If the department seeks to rebuild confidence and trust with its client groups, there must be a commitment to consult effectively on any proposed regulatory changes with the client groups. I received a firestorm of complaints about the unexpected “delayed season opening” for halibut, because many local Victoria anglers are negatively and /or financially damaged by this department action that received no consultation.

Finally, the department has to address and resolve the halibut allocation transfer issue in a timely manner. This matter has been in the department’s hands for four years since November 2003. Many anglers in area 19 and 20 rely on certainty of opportunity when planning their holidays, booking their clients trips or budgeting for their business. Our local recreational fishery puts millions of dollars into the regional economy and provides hundreds and hundreds of better paying jobs. It is really not acceptable when the national economy is poised to slow down, the US/Cdn dollar value has changed significantly and there is no halibut conservation concern, to further harm the many individuals who rely on recreational fishing for a living.


Respectfully Submitted,


Christopher Bos
Victoria Committee Chair
Sport Fishing Advisory Board

 

[Rum Buddies]

Great Letter, I'd love to hear the response.

 

[OldBlackDog]

The Main Board of the SFAB meets this weekend.
Needless to say, this is a high priority.
Now, if DFO decides to make a decision at this meeting is another matter.
Will know next week.

 

[chris73]

Love it! Speaks from my heart! Well done you guys from SFAB! Glad to have you stand up for us all in such respectable manner!

 

[fishingbc]

Hi Devona

Please accept the following as our Area 14 SFAC response to the draft DFO recently issued on possible changes to reduce catch.



While we appreciate the timing was not of DFO's doing, we still have to object to ANOTHER example of reactive management.



Thanks

Bryan Allen

Acting Area 14 SFAC Chair



26-Jan-08



Area 14 Sports Fish Advisory Committee

Acting Chair: Bryan Allen

Courtenay, BC



Attn: Devona Adams









RE: Potential 2008 management Actions for the Recreational Halibut Fishery



The Area 14 Committee has reviewed the referenced draft document and has the following comments to put forward for consideration.



We feel that this no-win situation for recreational fishers has been instigated and mishandled by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The LONG term solution is for the Department to work out a fair Allocation Transfer Mechanism that will not put the recreational halibut fishery in jeopardy. The fish in our waters belong to ALL Canadians, not just the commercial sector.




The proposal to reign in the American Neah Bay charter fishery operating in Canadian waters has our full support. A temporary groundfish closure outside of 12 nautical miles in Area 121 , while onerous, may be acceptable to our committee after further discussion. Expanding the e-licensing restriction for aliens in areas 121, 23, and 123 makes sense in view of the expanding capability of the US charter fleet to range further up the BC coast. It is seen however, as just a temporary stop-gap measure until the issue of Americans landing halibut in Canada, and having those fish counted toward OUR quota is properly dealt with.




Our committee is adamantly OPPOSED to the implementation of a small MAXIMUM size limit for recreational halibut. It makes NO sense whatsoever to expect the recreational fleet to pick up essentially what are the commercial undersized discards, while at the same time watching the commercial fleet continue taking any decent sized fish that comes over the rollers. In addition, it would result in a large increase in discards and an increase in mortality. It makes far more sense to take a fish AFTER is has grown large enough to have spawned, rather than removing it from the biomass BEFORE it can spawn.




We are willing to discuss the possibility of implementing a MINIMUM size limit. We believe that minimum size limit in the 85cm range would result in less discards as anglers would not be willing to sit on a patch of very small halibut. Rather, they would move to another area in order to find acceptably sized fish.




The proposal to reduce the daily limit to 1/day, with a possession of three, is not acceptable to our committee. It imposes an unnecessary hardship on independent anglers, who may only have the opportunity to fish halibut a couple of times a year, as well as charter operators with a one day charter. What IS acceptable, however, is an ANNUAL LIMIT of 10 halibut. This would, of course, result in reduced annual catches in some areas and sectors. ( and prevent the practice of some guides giving thier personal daily limit to clients)




Adjusting daily limits to reduce catch at this time (early 2008) for the upcoming 2008 season is particularly onerous to the charter fleet , as well a large number of anglers from across BC and the rest of Canada, who plan their trips a long time in advance.








Area 14 Sports Fish Advisory Committee

 

[Tailspin]

Some Hope instilled

 

[Fingers]

fishingbc,

Good to have you input on the halibut dilema...

But, I do want to give you a couple of thoughts to think about in regards to Lodges. They too contribute much to the enconomy, not just through the lodge, but with air service, hotels, employment, boat and engine sales (ask S&G Power about lodge purchases), fuel, fishing gear, advertising, shipyard repair, and other capitol expenditures. While there are some large lodge groups on the coast, most are more smaller "Mom & Pop" lodges. Most small lodges started out as one person guiding operations who wanted to "Live the Dream" and become a fishing guide, so 'slagging' the lodges only creates more problems.

While Devona says that "50% or more is taken by lodges", can this be the result of the information that was given to DFO, particulary to log books. Under Section 61, (which applies to all fisherpersons) a record of fish caught has to be kept and if the info in requested by DFO, one must produce the information. Most lodges on the coast are requested by DFO to submit their catch records a least once during the season and again at the end of it. After hearing a number of independent guides on this post say that they have had limited or no dealings with DFO on this matter, makes me wonder if the catch estimates for areas with a large percentage of day charters is accurate. In some of the area's, lodges are the only ones fishing (Westcoast Charlotte's) so the hali numbers are almost exculsively theirs.

One other item regarding lodges it that they have a set number of guests who fish a set number of days. If a lodge was to have 10 boats with 2 anglers each (most common); and the lodge was open for 90 days (assuming 100% occup) and the average trip was for 3 days, then the total number of guest would be 600 for the season. A single independent guide, using the same guidelines, would have 180 guests for one boat. This is just about 3 times more fishing pressure compared to lodges. There are certain lodges on the coast that offer day trips to hali grounds, who's catch numbers are included in the 'lodge counts'. This is where the 1 fish per day comes to effect. This evens out the fishing pressure on hard hit areas. Sure the guests are there for 3 days, and would be entitled to 3 fish, but so would daily charters if they chartered for 3 days. Knowing the prices that the lodges charge, 3 single day charters are still way cheaper.

You mentioned that the lodges are booked solid. Anything to back this up? I know 4 lodges, ranging from 'bring your own boat' to the fully guided, alcohol infused fishing adventures. Not one is booked solid. They are having a decrease in sales for the first time in about 7 years. Reasons for this are a higher dollar (which means that Alaska is a more viable option for US residents), increased uncertainty in both Canadian and US markets, and the passport issue. A cheap fishing trip to the Baja sells, even for us Canadians. All these were affecting sales way before this halibut dilema. Once the verdict is in about the halibut closures, and if it's bad, then all areas of the commercial, commercial-recreational, and recreational fisheries will suffer. Just remember that while Washington, BC, and SE Alaska are being cut in the quota, some western parts of Alaska are getting an increase. According to the IPHC numbers, NW Alaska will have over 85% of the halibut catch for Pacific NW America. Most of which is commercial catch (some areas don't even register a recreational catch).

Which brings me to the comment about the guides. Most of the guides that I know work long hours, and in the same or worse areas/conditions of the coast. Living in camp or in the hold of a ship/barge for 3 months is definitely not the best way to be away from one's family. I hope that I am reading your comments about saltwater guides at other lodges wrong and it was just a boo-boo.


Enough for one post I think. Brain is starting pixelate[xx(]

Regards,

Fingers

 

[wolf]

Thank you fingers someone who sees a it!!!!!!!!!

Wolf

 

[Mr. Dean]

quote:Originally posted by Pablo2079

Isn't Feb. when Halibut usually spawn?

I've read that Jan is the month and that this is done in extremely DEEP waters, off of the continental shelf.

 

[Mr. Dean]

quote:Originally posted by chris73

Mr. Dean; send your opinion to the SFAB because they will do the negotiations with DFO...Send it quick because the meetings are these days.

Oh.... Its done!


To: Chuck Ashcroft
Chair SFAB Groundfish Shellfish Committee
chuckashcroft@telus.net

Re: Recreational Halibut Proposals 2008



Dear Sir;

Please read this bearing mind that my family and I are Recreational Halibut fishing enthusiasts. Among us, we annually buy 2 sport-fishing (tidal) licenses. Halibut fishing is one of our dearest pastimes. This fishery is second to none other in our opinion. My experience fishing for halibut is approximately that of 10 years.


I have recently received/viewed the three proposals concerning this fishery and immediately went on an information quest, seeking the need for these “necessary” changes. At a glance, these proposals would have it appear that this fishery is in dire straights of some serious conservation. Not withstanding the opinions of others, I also dove into the IPHC website for the better of the past three days. WOW! Is an appropriate term, in regards to what I have learned.

From the research that I’ve undertaken, it is crystal clear too me that there is absolutely no concern with fish stocks, especially when the reduced TAC is factored in. The only reason that I can surmise the need of such a drastic change within ‘my’ fishery is, it would appear that DFO would like to see the Halibut Sport Fishery either extremely reduced, or possibly shut down all together, in attempt of permitting the commercial fishery to prosper.

It is of my judgment, that if any of these proposals make it to regulation, it’ll surely be not only the demise of my beloved pastime, but some local economies as well.

Reason being is fairly simple. These proposals are extremely harsh in regards of both fish limits and size restrictions. Any one of the three proposals will undoubtedly cause a large decline of participants. As participation slumps, the remaining allocation will then transfer to the commercial fishery. DFO’s mandate is to achieve TAC. If the sport-fisher doesn’t demonstrate the need via catching, then it’ll go where it is needed.

One of, if not the reason we Halibut fish, is the fact that one day we could go out and hook into the Mother of all halibut’s. I further believe that the Sport Fishery is mainly comprised of similar individuals. If the allure of this happening is taken away, I just can’t come up with reason to stay actively involved.

While Halibut flesh is one of the finest dining options available, it can be had for much cheaper than it is to “rig-up” for access too this fishery; via a trip to the local supermarket.

Aside from the hard fixed costs (boat, gear, tow vehicle…), our family put out the additional costs of approximately five thousand dollars, in order to access halibut on the northern portions of Vancouver Island, for a period of about 2 weeks, last summer. These costs would include; meals and accommodation, marina fees, boat gas, ferry fee’s, fuel for tow vehicle, bait, repairs, etc. Yes! Fishing for Halibut is very expensive.

Other than a couple tanks of diesel for the pick-up and ferry costs, the remaining balance of monies was directly injected into the economy of Port Hardy, with several business types that cater to the fishery, benefiting. It wouldn’t just be the angler that got hurt, there’s a huge ‘trickle effect’ that also needs to be accounted for.


One also needs to look at the ethics and safety of releasing mature fish.

It has been my experience that these larger fish have a tendency to ‘gulp’ the baits. This results with fish being hooked deep within their throat, or even in their stomachs. I am of the opinion that the only safe way of releasing any halibut of ‘size’ (over 35 pounds), would be to cut it off. Bearing this information to mind; what kind of mortality rate would DFO find acceptable?

In closing, I would also like to add that as a Canadian, it is of my belief that I do have inherent rights to fish. For DFO to unjustifiably make propositions of restricting my rights (with regards to the Recreational Halibut Fishery), which carry no conservational merit in the least, both perplexes and offends me. Not to mention it being an infringement.


How rude!



Bets of wishes and good luck!



PS.
Please feel free to use this letter as may be deemed necessary.

 

[fishingbc]

Hon. Loyola Hearn, PC, MP Jan 30 2008 Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street Ottawa, ON KIA OA6
Dear Minister,
I am writing you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia to outline our views with respect to your department's proposed halibut management regime for 2008. We have given this issue serious consideration over the past several months and are extremely disappointed that by adhering to the halibut allocation policy of the previous Liberal government, you will be under-mining the recreational halibut fishery.
To be clear, in 2008 DFO Pacific Region will be imposing restrictions on recreational halibut fishing that are not based on halibut conservation objectives. Indeed, while overall halibut abundances have dropped, stocks are healthy, and your department's proposed restrictions are designed to meet allocation rather than conservation objectives.
While we are disappointed with the outcomes of this flawed allocation policy, we have nonetheless given serious consideration to Pacific Region's proposed management measures and would offer the following recommendations:
1) DFO should be directed to use existing funds held in trust by the Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA) to acquire quota to offset the needs of the recreational halibut fishery in 2008 and beyond. In addition, the government needs to move quickly to implement the recommendations on a market-based transfer that will be coming to you soon from the recreational and commercial sectors via your Pacific Region staff.
2) DFO should not seek to reduce the normal daily possession limit of halibut from two to one.



In our view, this measure would have a tremendous negative impact on independent local anglers and customers of day-charter operators.

*****WHAT ABOUT THE CHARTER OPERATORS AND THEIR FAMILIES****







Most anglers have to travel long-distances offshore to fish for halibut and we believe that reducing the daily possession limit to one halibut would discourage many anglers from halibut fishing entirely.
More importantly, reducing the daily possession limit could have the unintended consequence of encouraging anglers to target other ground fish species that while not threatened, could not support more targeted fishing activity. Rather than changing the daily limit, we recommend that DFO change total halibut possession limits.

3) DFO should not impose a maximum size limit for the recreational fishery. While few anglers actually catch large halibut, the opportunity to "catch a big one" is a strong motivator for many anglers to incur the expense of engaging in recreational halibut fishing. Indeed, many charter boat operators and lodges market halibut fishing based on the opportunity to catch a large fish and to deny anglers that opportunity would further undermine an economically important fishery.
4) DFO should seek amendments to section 13 and Schedule VIllI of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations regarding total halibut possession limits. While the regulation currently allows anglers to possess three halibut, we recommend that that the regulation be amended to allow the Minister to establish possession limits on an annual basis and that the 2008 possession limit be reduced to two halibut. We understand that DFO is of the view that changing regulations is a lengthy process that often requires up to three years of consultation and background work. We think that most Canadians would find the suggestion that the Government of Canada cannot readily change regulations that are in the public interest to be patently absurd.
5) DFO should take steps to ensure that US-based charter operators do not continue to catch halibut in Canadian waters and assign that catch to the Canadian recreational fishery. The situation is now so intolerable, that Washington State charter boat
operators are advertising Canadian trips to their US customers and even going so far as to note that while Washington State fisheries are closed, harvesting our halibut and bottom fish is acceptable because "its OK, its Canadian" (please see
for examples of some of this outrageous advertising.)
6) DFO should reiterate that current daily and possession limits for halibut are the norm
and the reduced limits we are proposing are exceptional. We stress that in our view, the normal and appropriate limit on halibut possession should be two per day and three in total possession. The reduction to two in total possession is strictly an interim measure designed to deal with the extraordinary circumstances we face in 2008 and 2009.
7) In 2009, DFO should begin acquiring halibut quota to be transferred to the recreational sector. As will be recommended in the consensus document to be forwarded by Pacific Region, DFO should seek funding from Treasury Board to purchase quota sufficient to meet the requirements of the recreational sector, and then develop appropriate mechanisms for recovering those costs over time.
I must reiterate that our membership is deeply disappointed that you persist in endorsing the past Liberal government's halibut allocation policy. Quite frankly, we find this decision perplexing.
Moreover, we are truly offended that despite repeated assurances to the contrary, halibut is being treated as private property rather than as a common-property resource, and that as Canadian taxpayers, we are being asked to purchase something that we already own, especially when more than half of the halibut quota is now owned by people who do not fish, but simply lease this valuable commodity to others. We urge you to seriously consider overturning this indefensible policy .
In the interim, however, we hope that you will give serious consideration to our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Syd Pallister CA, CBV President
Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia

 

[fishingbc]

thanks to you as well for the reply...just to follow up

But, I do want to give you a couple of thoughts to think about in regards to Lodges. They too contribute much to the enconomy, not just through the lodge, but with air service, hotels, employment, boat and engine sales (ask S&G Power about lodge purchases), fuel, fishing gear, advertising, shipyard repair, and other capitol expenditures. While there are some large lodge groups on the coast, most are more smaller "Mom & Pop" lodges. Most small lodges started out as one person guiding operations who wanted to "Live the Dream" and become a fishing guide, so 'slagging' the lodges only creates more problems.

There is no doubt lopdges are BIG business on our coast, but the fact remains by DFO info supplied from Devona Adams that the coast wide % of halibut taken by lodges, whatever size is 50% and more in some areas. That said add in the 20% or so that the Americans steal, 70% of the halibut is being taken on the coast is by these two groups. If DFO is using these figures, which I would surmize by the info Devona Adams released then that is what one would have to believe. If there is any other calculations or totals being used DFO should publically devulge them. Why would any lodge owner be concerned about any the the three senarios put forth by DFO when it will not affect their clients.That said in no way should this be taken as critism of anyone working in the sportfishing industry...we are all in this together, but the way DFO is treating the rec anglers and the indpendant guiding industry, the facts and figure must be made public. A level playing field is what we should all be standing up for and making sure no one sector gets screwed during this mess. SFI's letter of today to the fisheries minister while making some very valid points, excluded any mention of the hardships the DFO plan has or will have on independant guides choosing to express concern over the "customers of day charters"....if they "customers" don't show up, then who are the ones who are negatively impacted....


While Devona says that "50% or more is taken by lodges", can this be the result of the information that was given to DFO, particulary to log books. Under Section 61, (which applies to all fisherpersons) a record of fish caught has to be kept and if the info in requested by DFO, one must produce the information. Most lodges on the coast are requested by DFO to submit their catch records a least once during the season and again at the end of it. After hearing a number of independent guides on this post say that they have had limited or no dealings with DFO on this matter, makes me wonder if the catch estimates for areas with a large percentage of day charters is accurate. In some of the area's, lodges are the only ones fishing (Westcoast Charlotte's) so the hali numbers are almost exculsively theirs.

Due to the cutbacks at DFO enforcement, does it surprise you or any other angler that they have little or no contact with DFO

One other item regarding lodges it that they have a set number of guests who fish a set number of days. If a lodge was to have 10 boats with 2 anglers each (most common); and the lodge was open for 90 days (assuming 100% occup) and the average trip was for 3 days, then the total number of guest would be 600 for the season.
A single independent guide, using the same guidelines, would have 180 guests for one boat.
This is just about 3 times more fishing pressure compared to lodges. There are certain lodges on the coast that offer day trips to hali grounds, who's catch numbers are included in the 'lodge counts'. This is where the 1 fish per day comes to effect. This evens out the fishing pressure on hard hit areas. Sure the guests are there for 3 days, and would be entitled to 3 fish, but so would daily charters if they chartered for 3 days.

85% or more are one day trips after speaking with guides from Prince Rupert to the island. Which brings me back to the main point regarding the average rec fisherman and independant guides,who take approx 30% of the halibut coast wide. Both groups would be soley responsible for reducing halibut catch and at the same time asking their clients to still come to BC to catch half as many halibut. With thousands of trips booked with independant guides up and down the coast these "small businessmen" will be the first to feel the results of DFO's brilliant plan.

Knowing the prices that the lodges charge, 3 single day charters are still way cheaper.
You mentioned that the lodges are booked solid. Anything to back this up? I know 4 lodges, ranging from 'bring your own boat' to the fully guided, alcohol infused fishing adventures. Not one is booked solid. They are having a decrease in sales for the first time in about 7 years. Reasons for this are a higher dollar (which means that Alaska is a more viable option for US residents), increased uncertainty in both Canadian and US markets, and the passport issue. A cheap fishing trip to the Baja sells, even for us Canadians. All these were affecting sales way before this halibut dilema. Once the verdict is in about the halibut closures, and if it's bad, then all areas of the commercial, commercial-recreational, and recreational fisheries will suffer. Just remember that while Washington, BC, and SE Alaska are being cut in the quota, some western parts of Alaska are getting an increase. According to the IPHC numbers, NW Alaska will have over 85% of the halibut catch for Pacific NW America. Most of which is commercial catch (some areas don't even register a recreational catch).

Which brings me to the comment about the guides. Most of the guides that I know work long hours, and in the same or worse areas/conditions of the coast. Living in camp or in the hold of a ship/barge for 3 months is definitely not the best way to be away from one's family. I hope that I am reading your comments about saltwater guides at other lodges wrong and it was just a boo-boo.

There was no comment made toward ANY guide in my post. I know many guides up and down the coast, many working for small and large lodges. Any reference was to the major lodges and not their employees. Many smaller lodge owners guide as well and sure understand the postion the indendant guides find themselves in as most got their start the same way

 

[fishingbc]

Jay-- perhaps it would be better to concentrate on getting DFO to change-- rather than going after the lodges-- "United we stand-- devided we fall" is the reality


its not a matter of going after anyone, your missing the point...just stating the facts....having the info out there for all to consider shouldn't offend anyone.....

tens of thousands of rec anglers and independant guides will be the ones taking the brunt of any change to the single day limit....under the present propsals put forth by DFO......its just that simple....