I get some of your letters on your (Canadian) political side. I didn't see anything about the halibut quotas being reduced. Here is one of the letters that might really interest you guys. It is really long but worth reading. Looks like we aren't the only one that is haveing trouble with our fishing department. Good Luck and here is the letter. You might want to write some letters yourself.
December 1, 2006
Halibut Project etc. Update.
Bill Otway
To members of the SFAB Halibut Committee and the SFAB:
I am sad to say the saga continues.
I must report that following my conversations with the PMHA (Commercial Halibut Reps) and the IPHC (International Pacific Halibut Commission) staff, I did a little more in-depth looking at the questions posed by the IPHC.
First and foremost, they gave no recognition whatsoever to the response that J.O. Thomas sent to them on November 3rd. (Copy attached at the end of this report). In fact the response sent to me from Bruce Leahman was simply a repeat of the response they sent earlier in the summer.
I think a sample of some of the questions and concerns expressed by the IPHC will show that their real effort here is to delay and stall this report and not cooperate to make it a useful tool in the future management of B.C. Halibut fisheries.
1 – “This proposal describes a multi-purpose sampling program that is not unique to halibut and does not permit the reader to determine cost components that might be unique to the biological sampling of recreational halibut catches. As such, it is difficult to assess its cost effectiveness for that purpose.” What the hell business is it of the IPHC as to if or not the project is cost effective? They are not paying for it.
2 – “The document does not contain technical details of sampling or estimation (i.e., the algorithms and procedures used) that are sufficient to evaluate whether the estimation of average weights or CPUE from the intercept survey are likely to be unbiased and precise. In particular, it is not possible to determine how undercoverage in the list frame of sampling sites, the stratification associated with the pressure matrix of site selection, the cluster effects created by sample element selection, or the combination of probability and non-probability sampling are accommodated in final estimations. It is also unclear whether more recent developments in statistical techniques for small domain/small area estimation are.” This is more the type of question J.O. Thomas should be expected to answer and I believe he did in his response of November 3. I must say however that I am astounded over the concern the IPHC has for the relevance of Halibut data collected in B.C. from the B.C. fishery and their repeated concern over the possible “cluster” of data biasing the result. It seems to me a bit hypocritical for an organization that accepts and translates directly the data of sport caught Halibut in Ketichikan Alaska, none of which are caught in B.C., but this data is utilized and transferred to be representative for all of the sport caught Halibut in Northern B.C. A similar situation exists at Neah Bay where this same organization uses the sport caught Halibut weights from fish not caught in B.C., landed in one site in the U.S. and transfers this data to be representative of all of Southern B.C. Yet when we propose to cover all the key Halibut landing sites in B.C., all they worry about is that the sample is representative and to avoid the “cluster” problem. If two U.S. sites representing all of B.C. is not the result of cluster data, then I don’t know what the hell is. This is not to say they should not be checking to make sure the data we collect is valid, but lets have a level playing field here!
3 - The document refers frequently to estimation of catch and effort. The context of this estimation is not clear. The sampling plan as outlined in the document will allow estimation of effort for sampled trips only, not total effort. To expand the intercept CPUE estimate to a total catch estimate the total effort must be obtained but it is not clear, from this document, where that measurement arises. Perhaps this is available in another document describing the existing salmon-based component of the study but total catch is not obtainable from the study as described here (nor is it clear that the estimation of total catch is an element of the RFP). It is also puzzling that the existing list frame of licences is not employed in the estimation procedure. It is an obvious and valuable sample frame and not using it sacrifices an extraordinarily valuable asset. The IPHC staff have been repeatedly told that this study is not designed to provide a total catch estimate, however the data collected could prove useful for DFO in their programme of catch estimate for the overall fishery. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY IS TO GATHER THE DATA ON THE STRATIFICATION OF WEIGHTS OF HALIBUT LANDED AT THE KEY LANDING SITES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA BY THE RECREATIONAL FISHERY. THE IPHC HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY APPRAISED OF THIS FACT!
4 - The collection of weight data is troubling. Fish weights can be generated from lengths using the established IPHC length-weight relationship. It is quite likely that a sample of weights would be highly skewed to small fish, as it seems that it would be difficult at best for a dockside sampler to weigh large fish. In addition, fish will likely be landed in several forms (i.e., round or gutted), thereby resulting in weights in differing forms, necessitating conversions to a common form. This will introduce undesirable variability to the data. Collection of fish weights also require the sampler to carry around a scale in addition to their other gear. The scales also unneceesarily [sic] add approx. $5K to the project cost. Once again the concern over the cost of the project! Once again what the hell business is it of the IPHC? They are not paying a thin dime for this. I am particularly interested however in their seemingly paranoid concern that we might be weighing the fish. One must ask why? Are they not interested in a recent comparison of their historic length to weight data? If not why not? I also find their inference that we would be dumb enough to weigh “gutted” halibut and use this data as part of our study. First if they knew anything about the sport fishery in B.C. they would know that 99% of the Halibut that is landed dressed, are in fact filleted, not just “gutted”. This same situation takes place in Washington State where all the party boat halibut are landed dressed, but the IPHC has no trouble accepting this data as accurate! Again do we have double standards here?
5 – “It is unclear how a sampler in Neah Bay would function. Presumably an employee (contract or other) operating in another country (U.S.) will need a work visa, etc. In addition, this work should be coordinated with WDFW to avoid an overlap in sampling effort.” I fail to understand the concern about how the sampler from Neah Bay would work as compared to the sampler at any other site. It seems they do not think we have the common sense to understand that if we did not use a U.S. citizen we would need to get a work permit to operate in the U.S. We did not just get off the boat for God’s sake. Moreover, the most rational way to deal with this and the way we did was to hire a U.S. citizen to carry out the work. And regarding the overlap in sampling work and coordinating with the WDFW people: The facts are, as I reported previously, the WDFW do not take samples of Halibut caught in Canada so there was no overlap, over and above that we did coordinate very closely with the WDFW people who, unlike the IPHC, were most cooperative and helpful.
6 – “There was no discussion of how the catch outside the sampling period will be assessed. Washington anglers are enjoying good success on halibut since the early season East of Low Point opened. If that is true in the Canadian San Juans and Stait [sic], of Juan de Fuca, a portion of the catch might be otherwise unaccounted.” Again J.O. Thomas responded to this on November 3rd. But the IPHC sent these questions back to me on November 22nd as not responded to or not answered. I think Jim has answered the question adequately, however, it seems to me that the IPHC cannot or will not accept the main goal of this effort which is to obtain the weight data on sport caught Halibut in British Columbia. I have seen no data from the Washington reports that would indicate a major change in weight between early May and June for example. On what basis does the IPHC assume that there will be a major difference in the weights of the B.C. catch?
The bulk of the rest of their comments were simply to point out spelling or English mistakes. Obviously they have a lot of time on their hands. I would point out to you the mistakes they made in 6 short paragraphs. Frankly, people make mistakes and if we cannot live with this we should move on, but it serves no one well to have someone who is supposed to be looking at the technical aspects of a project, spending their time identifying picayune items.
As most of you can probably tell I am not a happy camper. On November 22rd I spoke with George Cormier, Executive Director of the Pacific Halibut Management Association, (PHMA) and he advised that they had heard nothing from the International Pacific Halibut Commission, (IPHC), and so would not release any money. I subsequently called Bruce Leahman, CEO of the IPHC and inquired as to where they were on the issue. Bruce advised that he was unaware that they were to advise the PHMA regarding the IPHC position on the project and the terms of work, but as far as he was concerned their questions and concerns had not been answered. He then sent me the document I have taken the questions from. This is the same document the IPHC sent out this past summer with the same questions, with no recognition of the response from J.O. Thomas as is seen attached to this report.
Bruce suggested that we send the data out to an independent scientist and get him or her to comment on it rather than counting on the IPHC. Frankly it is a bit late in the process for this.
I subsequently spoke with Devona Adams, to bring her up to date and suggested that we need to move in some direction and I suggested we look at having DFO approve the work plan and get them to have the PHMA agree to pay on this basis. Devona said she would move to try to get a conference call together with all the parties and try to get at least a payment released to J.O. Thomas.
I then spoke with Don Radford and proposed the same idea and told him of my conversation with Devona. Don was in agreement that we had to make some move and was going to speak to Devona and get back to me.
In the midst of all this, I attended the seminar on the Right to Fish and the Laroque decision this past weekend in Richmond. (Report shortly). At this seminar I became aware of a fair bit of discontent from members of the PHMA and concern over the situation with ourselves and moreover with money that the PHMA was holding as a major surplus from their payments.
It seems that since the creation of the PHMA, DFO has been withholding 10% of the commercial Halibut quota and providing that to the PHMA who then only released it to the fishermen when and if they paid their money to the PHMA. For some reason some members were not happy with this situation, apparently there is in the order of $1.4 million surplus dollars held now in a separate account which has accumulated from these fees. Moreover, the situation has been very much complicated with the Larocque decision which clearly makes such arrangements between DFO and organizations such as the PHMA, illegal.
I have subsequently learned that some members of the PHMA have hired the New Brunswick lawyer from the Larocque case to address the PHMA regarding these separate funds. She has written to the PHMA and in her letter, says in part; “…I am informed by my client that P.H.M.A. has accumulated a surplus fund of approximately 1.4M$ and that this surplus fund has been generated by the sale of the halibut allocation give to the P.H.M.A. by DFO. Such an allocation constitutes a misappropriation of a resource that should have been distributed to the halibut licence holders.
Therefore, I am putting the P.H.M.A. under notice that the surplus fund is the property of the licence holders and not the property of the P.H.M.A. In fact P.H.M.A. is solely the fiduciary of the fund. As certain legal issues have still to be address [sic] before P.H.M.A. can legally be authorized to distribute the fund to its' members. I am requesting on behalf of my client, that all funds in the possession of P.H.M.A. resulting from the use of marine resource allocations be frozen until the issuance of a Court order directing P.H.M.A. to dispose of the funds legally."
At the same time Mr. Gerry Dalum, a member of the PHMA has written to all the members expressing concern over the money the PHMA is supposedly holding in a trust fund for the SFAB. (Copy attached). In short we have a very big mess on our hands and hopefully over the next week we can get some resolution to this.
The compounding factor is that DFO is now reporting that their catch data, and the IPHC average weight estimate for our Halibut catch, we are now at 18% of the TAC, some 6% over the 12% the previous fisheries minister allocated to the recreational fishery. This situation now makes the data we have acquired in this years study with J.O. Thomas, doubly important and critical to the decision making process DFO now must go through to manage the Halibut fishery in 2007 and beyond.
In the meantime, J.O. Thomas has done yeoman’s service for us and to date has not received on thin dime in payment. The situation so far is a clear indication of how good the word of the directors of the PHMA is and this is a factor we will very much have to consider in future dealings with this group.
Bill Otway.
_______________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION (IPHC)
ON THE J.O. THOMAS PROPOSAL
November 3, 2006
Point 1.
The proposal described a multi-purpose sampling program not unique to halibut because that was requested by the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). The sample program is designed to conduct interviews of completed boat trips, with these interviews capturing information on fishing trip location(s), fishing trip duration (rod hours), angler demographics, the landed catch of fin fish/shellfish denoted by species and number of fish, similar data is captured on released fish, gear used and the adipose fin clip status of chinook and coho. The interview form contains a companion biological sample component where length and weight data is recorded for halibut and chinook and coho – these data are matched back to the trip interview information with a correlating Angler Party number.
The full suite of interview and biological sample information is captured by one technician working an assigned morning or afternoon shift. Given the array of multi-tasking and associated data delivery, the program is very efficient. It should be noted that this program is required to coordinate interview and sample activities with creel surveys sponsored by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and DFO to avoid duplicity with angler contact. These cooperative efforts, while necessary and important, will introduce some negative influence on program efficiency and possibly sample precision. Still, the key elements of the fishing trip are shared and this program retains responsibility to acquire halibut length and weight. The shared and coordinated nature of some of these work environments resulted in revisions to randomly selected stints – alternate sample sites or time frames were inset to the sample stint array to ensure program continuity and to respect existing, long term survey designs.
Point 2.
The underpining of this halibut survey is to acquire length and weight size data on a temporally and spatially representative component of the British Columbia recreational halibut catch. Data collection will originate from the interviewing of anglers from completed boat trips; interviews will acquire a detailed array of information involving angler characteristics, trip length in hours, fishing location(s) and the species specific number of fish harvested and released. The second stage of sampling involves the collection of halibut length and weight data, with this biological information correlated to the original fishing trip interview.
The survey sample was conducted five days per week at all locations, including all weekends and statutory holidays. The hours sampled varied by port and day in response to angler activity profiles and tides, but generally included the period 1100 to 2200 hours when the majority of trips concluded.
The survey was designed to acquire representative samples of the BC tidal recreational fishery encompassing all primary ports and periods. The program also collected data from Neah Bay in Washington State given the prominence of anglers landing catches from Swiftsure Bank in British Columbia. This location was also important for the use of halibut size data by the IPHC as a proxy for analysis of catch information for southern British Columbia.
Sample ports included:
Port Fishery Covered
1. Neah Bay Swiftsure Bank
2. Port Renfrew Juan de Fuca Strait/Swiftsure Bank
3. Ucluelet/Tofino Barkley/Clayuquot Sounds & Outer Banks
4. Tahsis Nootka Sound
5. Zeballos Esperanza Inlet
6. Fair Harbor Kyuquot Sound
7. Kyuquot Kyuquot Sound
8. Winter Harbour/Coal Harbour Quatsino Sound (Cape Scott to Solander Island)
9. Port Hardy/Port McNeil/ Queen Charlotte Strait
Telegraph Cove
10. Rivers Inlet Rivers Inlet
11. Shearwater Milbanke Sound
12. Kitimat Douglas Channel/Caamano Sound
13. Prince Rupert Chatham Sound/Portland Inlet
14. Queen Charlotte City Area 2W/2E/Skidegate Inlet
15. Masset McIntyre Bay/Wiah Point
16. Langara Langara Island
Each port was then assessed to incorporate and stratify the optimum sample locations to intercept and interview a representative and proportionate component of that region’s recreational fishery. The resultant stint schedules considered frame attributes of vessel traffic rates, angler composition (guided/unguided), fishing areas being landed and daily landing patterns (AM/PM shift schedule implications).
It should be noted that to enhance temporal and spatial frame halibut sample coverage that data forms and sample instructions were provided to lodge and guide based fisheries off the west coast of Vancouver Island, the Central Coast and Queen Charlotte Islands.
Copies of the angler interview, biological sample and lodge based data forms and sample coding instructions employed during the 2006 survey are attached.
This survey was not able to incorporate a universal appraisal of angler effort over the myriad of fisheries it sampled due to budget constraints. Fisheries such as Juan de Fuca Strait, Area 23/24 (Barkley/Clayuquot), Nootka/Esperanza, Winter Harbour, Queen Charlotte Strait and Chatham Sound, however did support companion effort surveys involving primarily DFO sponsored creel surveys. As well, the Langara fishery is essentially a closed fishery due to constraints provided by the finite number of lodges and similarly limited angler vessels available and therefore offers a means to estimate effort in this unique fishery.
The Statement of Work (SOW) for the study and the primary objective of verifying the size of halibut caught by recreational fisheries in BC is attached.
Point 3.
The survey, consistent with the SOW, will assess different methods of estimating halibut catch in the absence of universal effort determination originating from over flights – catch per effort (cpe) data from the sampled vessels will be available but not representative estimates of fleet effort (boat trips). The primary mandate of the program was to acquire representative and random size data on halibut for the 2006 British Columbia recreational fisheries. Length and weigh data will be reported by area or region of catch on the basis of catch period and analyzed to report the overall average size, with this information demarked by refined time, area and angler type. Alternate sources of effort and catch data will be explored to improve existing catch monitoring tools and programs. These data will include logbooks, existing or recommended creel surveys and the use of licenses (mail survey) to render catch estimates and acquire size data.
Size data and its analysis will follow accepted statistical methods to investigate the utility of estimation parameters respecting mean halibut length and weight and address the influence of any defined bias resulting from the individual or collective sample frame challenges.
Point 4.
While the power and utility of the IPHC length weight relationship is acknowledged, it is felt that the collection of actual size data from the British Columbia fishery was important and pertinent to the goals of this project. Again it should be noted that the Statement of Work specified by the SFAB and DFO both stipulated the collection of length and weight data. The provision of standardized, certified scales to program staff should eliminate concerns over verified fish weight. Fish larger than the capability of available scales will of course be measured for length and these fish (like all those sampled) could apply the IPHC weight; to date fewer than 2% of the sampled halibut have exceeded the measurement parameters of the scales.
We expect to sample fish landed in a variety of forms; the data forms will code fish accordingly and employ standardized conversion factors as used by DFO for the commercial fishery. This program encountered a variety of guided vessels which provided filet services for their clients and therefore landed halibut which could not be measured or weighed. The program responded to these circumstances in two ways: 1) the carcasses of filleted halibut were measured, or 2) the survey expanded the array of sample sites to incorporate the locations these guides were landing.
We view the investment of scales as a means of enhancing the data base on halibut length weight relationships for the future use by all agencies.
Point 5.
The sampler in Neah Bay is an employee of J.O. Thomas & Associates Ltd., although a citizen of the United States. The sampler’s employment met all requirements of U.S. Federal and Washington State labor standards and criteria. The sampler was hired and trained by JOT management personnel and received weekly guidance and data quality assurance through telephone and fax conferencing. Completed interview and biological sample data was mailed to our project office weekly. This component of the halibut sampling program was fully coordinated and integrated with WDF creel survey staff operating in Neah Bay. By example, on days our scheduled shifts overlapped with WDF stints, our sampler only collected halibut catch, effort and size data, whereas on days WDF was not active, we collected the full array of creel data on all fin fish and all associated halibut size data.
Of interest, we note that WDF has not recently sampled halibut from Canada (Swiftsure Bank) and that any proxy average weights available to the IPHC originate from U.S. waters only. Obviously given the sample frame concerns to the overall design raised by the IPHC, this too requires an appraisal for its affect on historical BC recreational halibut average weights and associated catch estimates.
Point 6.
Catches accrued outside the May 15 to September 15 survey period will be investigated by employing a standardized data form supplied lodges and guides fishing in areas expected to yield such catches. Additional logbook and DFO creel survey information will also be evaluated to identify any substantive gaps. At this time, we have identified an early fishery in Juan de Fuca Strait and off Barkley/Clayuquot as areas of concern to this study.
_______________________________________________________________________
GERALD DALUM LETTER:
November 30, 2006 Fishing For Freedom
Gerald Dalum
805 13th Street South
Cranbrook B.C.
V1C 1X4
To All Halibut License Holders,
As you by now are probably aware, I have started a legal action against PMHA to seize funds of the organization. In light of the recent “Larocque decision” in June 2006, these funds may have been acquired and used illegally for the management of the halibut fishery. In fact, these funds have been used towards expenses in other groundfish sectors. For those of you that are saying, “What the hell is he doing?” I would like to explain.
As a result of the recent Larocque decision, it was found that the Fisheries Minister cannot legally expropriate fishing resources for the purpose of fisheries management. My understanding of this decision is that the 10% of the commercial halibut TAC that has in the past been annually reallocated by DFO from the halibut license holders to the Pacific Halibut Management Association for purposes of managing the fishery is potentially not legal.
Historically under this scheme, DFO has removed 10% of our halibut quota from each license holder annually and reallocated it to PHMA for managing fisheries. License holders have then paid annual fees to PHMA to buy back their ability to access their 10% share of their halibut quota. This process has financed PMHA, the co-management arm of DFO. The PMHA has set the cost of re-accessing your 10% share of the quota, which has been expropriated from you, above the actual costs of the expenditures of PHMA, which were necessary to manage the fishery annually. This has now resulted in an accumulation of your money in PHMA accounts. This money is referred to by PHMA as “members equity”. There is approx. $1,400,000.00 in this fund. The DFO is now trying to dictate what these funds, which belong to you, can be used for. The PHMA Board of Directors has now agreed with DFO that they will only spend member’s money on expenditures approved by DFO . This is without membership approval.
Under an apparent order from DFO that fishermen be more responsible and accountable for their fishing practices, the PHMA Board Of Directors have approved and authorized spending your money for developing camera technology, software, rockfish surveys, etc. However, both the B.C. Terms of Union and the Larocque decision, indicate management of the halibut fishery is the financial responsibility of government. It is in fact the government, not the fishermen who are responsible for these costs and it is they who should be held accountable. As a license holder, I believe the monies in PHMA have come directly out of the license holders/fishermen’s pockets and as such, in view of this recent court ruling, I for one, am asking for my money back.
Another issue of concern that has recently been brought to my attention is that of a tentative allocation agreement that was made between the halibut sports fishing advisory board and the commercial halibut advisory boards, these boards are referred to as the SFAB and HAB. Being as HAB and SFAB are not legal entities, this allocation agreement was funded and administered through PMHA.
My understanding of this situation is that there was an agreement between these groups that the sports allocation of the halibut TAC would be 12% and the commercial 88%. Two years ago, because the sport sector didn't catch all of their 12% allocation, the underage of 409,000 lbs. was allocated to the commercial sector by DFO to PHMA. This 409,000 lbs. of the sport TAC was put out to bids to PHMA members. PHMA members bid a lease price to be able to access and fish this 409,000 lbs. of halibut. The highest bidders paid their lease money to PHMA and were given the access to fish this 409,000 lbs. I am uncertain how the tendering process for this 409,000 was administered to the members of PHMA. But the lease revenue, which for all intents and purposes is viewed by our PHMA board to belong to the sports fishermen, is currently being held in a PHMA trust account called Commercial-Recreational Contingency Fund. I have been told there is approx. 2,000,000.00 in this fund. PHMA is hoping to have the SFAB utilize these funds in order to get them to “cement” the 88/12 agreement.
The questions that come to my mind are:
Why wasn't the sports quota underage of 409,000 lbs. just divided up between commercial halibut license at no charge?
If the sports sector sells their uncaught quota isn't that a commercial activity? Presently they can’t sell the quota they catch, so how can they sell the quota they didn’t catch?
If the SFAB did sign the agreement, who would get the trust money? Anyone in the world can fish the sports halibut, so it is unlikely that it would be distributed amongst sports fishers?
Will this trust money again be funds that will be turned over to the SFAB and then used for the policing or management costs of the sport fishery?
Aren't these commercial halibut fisher’s funds?
My position as a halibut license holder is that since the financing structure of PHMA has been basically deemed inconsistent with law as demonstrated in the Larocque decision, all monies held by PMHA should be returned and redistributed to all commercial halibut license holders.
To the best of my knowledge, the member’s equity and sports commercial trust monies amount to close to 3.4 million dollars. I would like to see this money divided up amongst the 435 commercial halibut license holders.
My actions will undoubtedly alarm many of you and people will rightly be asking, “Where is Gerry going with all of this?” My answer is that I want to see the present advisory/management processes in the Pacific Region reformed so that there is a lawful and democratic process that will protect, support and uphold the rights of all fishermen and ultimately all of us as Canadian citizens.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification or with any concerns you may have about this situation.
Yours truly,
Gerald Dalum
“Fishing for Freedom”
