searun
Well-Known Member
As mentioned in my earlier post. There isn't much to share at the moment. All the SFAC Chairs from all Areas have been invited to a meeting tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. to see the model, and hear what various management options are under consideration. Cut Plug set out some of those management options nicely, please refer to the list of potential options.
The Fraser River stocks of concern (where management measures might be considered) migrate through all areas, but are intercepted (exploited) to various degrees in each area. So all areas are being reviewed to determine what management measures would be applied. Also in the mix of considerations is timing. Timing is an important consideration as some stocks of concern are highly migratory, and only passing through certain areas and then gone - so why have a fishing regulation in effect when there is no point! While others (Harrison River) are present in specific areas over extended periods.
So this situation potentially could have impacts across a wide variety of areas, and most notably in those where exploitation rates are highest. I'm sure that once the SFAC Area Chairs hear about the potential regulations measures under consideration for their Areas, they will find ways (meetings, conference calls, e-mail polls etc) to engage their local SFAC members to get some quick input.
My personal view is we should follow a few decision principles when assessing what to do:
1. Apply management measures only in places and times where the exploitation history shows the planned measures would actually deliver a reduction in catch that makes a significant enough difference - "Is the juice worth the squeeze".
2. Apply a Minimum Viable Product approach - only the minimum restriction necessary to produce a real outcome, not a politically motivated one where we are doing something just to be seen taking action.
3. Take into consideration the impacts of other management measures such as Area Closures for SRKW
4. Select options that protect to the highest degree possible the "opportunity" to catch fish. As Cut Plug stated, maybe its better to have a 2 fish option by applying a max size restriction than 1 fish?
5. Consider other alternatives for generating angling expectation and opportunity where we apply measures such as maximum size restrictions - So for example, if we implement a max size cap of 85cm, then consider an offset to create opportunity through concepts such as lowering the minimum size restriction in areas with 62cm to 55cm (that could be coast-wide). Maybe if we bump up the min size in areas where it is 45cm to 55cm, that also helps offset where we create opportunities through.
Here's an example of where the various area exploitation concerns are - look at the bubbles - larger bubbles = higher exploitation, so its fairly obvious where the focus will be.
The Fraser River stocks of concern (where management measures might be considered) migrate through all areas, but are intercepted (exploited) to various degrees in each area. So all areas are being reviewed to determine what management measures would be applied. Also in the mix of considerations is timing. Timing is an important consideration as some stocks of concern are highly migratory, and only passing through certain areas and then gone - so why have a fishing regulation in effect when there is no point! While others (Harrison River) are present in specific areas over extended periods.
So this situation potentially could have impacts across a wide variety of areas, and most notably in those where exploitation rates are highest. I'm sure that once the SFAC Area Chairs hear about the potential regulations measures under consideration for their Areas, they will find ways (meetings, conference calls, e-mail polls etc) to engage their local SFAC members to get some quick input.
My personal view is we should follow a few decision principles when assessing what to do:
1. Apply management measures only in places and times where the exploitation history shows the planned measures would actually deliver a reduction in catch that makes a significant enough difference - "Is the juice worth the squeeze".
2. Apply a Minimum Viable Product approach - only the minimum restriction necessary to produce a real outcome, not a politically motivated one where we are doing something just to be seen taking action.
3. Take into consideration the impacts of other management measures such as Area Closures for SRKW
4. Select options that protect to the highest degree possible the "opportunity" to catch fish. As Cut Plug stated, maybe its better to have a 2 fish option by applying a max size restriction than 1 fish?
5. Consider other alternatives for generating angling expectation and opportunity where we apply measures such as maximum size restrictions - So for example, if we implement a max size cap of 85cm, then consider an offset to create opportunity through concepts such as lowering the minimum size restriction in areas with 62cm to 55cm (that could be coast-wide). Maybe if we bump up the min size in areas where it is 45cm to 55cm, that also helps offset where we create opportunities through.
Here's an example of where the various area exploitation concerns are - look at the bubbles - larger bubbles = higher exploitation, so its fairly obvious where the focus will be.
Another conspiracy started.
