wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Is Feb through May when most of the "primary" anglers fish for halibut in that area? Do the numbers bear this out?
Important Victoria & Area SFAB Halibut Mtg Nov. 27
- Thread starter Whole in the Water
- Start date
Is Feb through May when most of the "primary" anglers fish for halibut in that area? Do the numbers bear this out?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
How do you think all the SFAC's feel that mainly fish freshwater, The whole process is controlled by ocean anglers that would prefer to close down all the rivers first.
I don't think the SFAC's on the coast want the rivers shut down, I've never heard that once out of any Victoria meeting. That is DFO. Maybe the boards you are referring to could be guilty of not fighting hard enough to support the fresh water guys...but I've never seen them get stabbed in the back by fellow anglers.
searun
Well-Known Member
All these fisheries are linked. I don't accept your concern that ocean anglers prefer to close down all rivers. That is a crazy idea. Chinook/Coho WG of the SFAB works with DFO models for catch all the way into the river. The salt water fisheries are also significantly impacted in areas/times where specific stocks of concern are intercepted. The Fraser is no different than significant management measures that have been in place for salt water areas such as Area 19 for example. Just ask some of the guys in Area 19 how they feel. Another example is the SARA listing for Steelhead - if that is approved there will be 60 day rolling closures following the steelhead migration along their route in salt water all the way to the river...same treatment. The new mid-Fraser SFAC Chair is excellent, and a new welcome addition to the team. Similarly the lower Fraser Chair. Both have extensive experience, and will bring good perspective to the process. If you have any concerns, please attend your local meeting or reach out to your SFAC Chair to make those concerns known and offer to help.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I know the rational searun, Close the areas that have the most exploitation first of the stock of concern and then work out from their. I was mainly pointing out to profisher that there is already people and areas that feel there are winners and losers in the SFAB process. Not that I agree with them, Conversely people in fresh water were aloud/no cuts to hammer harrison white chinook in the Chilliwack this year and definitely benefited from the cuts in the SOG.
Some people are going to feel like they get stabb in the back no matter what happens
Personally I have set myself up to be able to fish in enough areas that no one area is a concern to me. I want to see what's best for every area and everyone. The fraser chinook is a concern to me because it has the potential to affect just about every area now.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Wild man is not to far off the mark.
There are members who feel that once the fish has reached the river they should be left alone.
The amount of time the SFAB spends on the rivers is small compared to the salt water.
Yes mabey there should be a sub group that deals with all the fresh water concerns just as they do for salmon?
Mabey it is time for the groups to begin evaluating their rivers on a regular basis to see if they are actually ok?
Obviously they are not.
The Fraser and the Skeena alone deserve more than they are receiving.
There are members who feel that once the fish has reached the river they should be left alone.
The amount of time the SFAB spends on the rivers is small compared to the salt water.
Yes mabey there should be a sub group that deals with all the fresh water concerns just as they do for salmon?
Mabey it is time for the groups to begin evaluating their rivers on a regular basis to see if they are actually ok?
Obviously they are not.
The Fraser and the Skeena alone deserve more than they are receiving.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Well that would get people mobilized. (Victoria people being mad about late start).
And it will be March opening no matter what as iPhc meetings are later this year. I’d count on an April or May opening. Just from what I’ve heard from other areas. More likely April.
And it will be March opening no matter what as iPhc meetings are later this year. I’d count on an April or May opening. Just from what I’ve heard from other areas. More likely April.
Derby
Crew Member
Lol.. okay profisher ..i'll bite... please enlighten me about this Secondary and primary issue ... Your self & SVAIC are the only ones that seem to be the only ones bring this up?? 
As for this hali early season threat towards SFAC & SFAB
... U do understand there are 7 votes for the south coast and seven votes for the North coast.. of which the reps vote what there sfac area have asked for?...It's a Democratic system.... If it was so import to you , which everyone in the the South Coast understands that this is import , then why was Chris not at the south coast meeting on the Sunday when the Hali talk was on the agenda?? Guess maybe it was not so important ?? 
You will be happy to Know that Ryan rep 19/20 very well at the meeting..
. So please stop trying to be the big bad wolf
As for this hali early season threat towards SFAC & SFAB
... U do understand there are 7 votes for the south coast and seven votes for the North coast.. of which the reps vote what there sfac area have asked for?...It's a Democratic system.... If it was so import to you , which everyone in the the South Coast understands that this is import , then why was Chris not at the south coast meeting on the Sunday when the Hali talk was on the agenda?? Guess maybe it was not so important ?? You will be happy to Know that Ryan rep 19/20 very well at the meeting... So please stop trying to be the big bad wolf
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Is this what he’s referring to? It’s from DFO’s site
Membership
The majority of members of the SFAB will be Primary Level User Group Members.
Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non- industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.
The remaining members of the SFAB will be Secondary Level User Group Members.
Secondary Level User Group Members are persons who receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Secondary Level User Group Member may include a person who represents a recreational industry organization.
Are the majority of board members Primary Level?
Membership
The majority of members of the SFAB will be Primary Level User Group Members.
Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non- industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.
The remaining members of the SFAB will be Secondary Level User Group Members.
Secondary Level User Group Members are persons who receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Secondary Level User Group Member may include a person who represents a recreational industry organization.
Are the majority of board members Primary Level?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
As much as I see where you’re coming from. In lean times we have to do the greatest good for the greatest number. So when do most utilize the resource ? Numbers tell that.
Derby, most people on here are not aware of the proper structure requirements of the SFAB process. But they should be aware and I'm insuring they are. It is not the first time it has been brought up in Victoria. I remember it being a topic for discussion years ago at a Victoria SFAC meeting and a hand count was taken at the time to determine the ratio. I do understand it is a democratic process and with that I hope the voting will be for public viewing once completed so we can see who voted for what and who opposed. I know that this year there were only two reps who voted for an April halibut season start when that option was put forward. People should know who voted for what so they are sure their wishes are being represented at the table.
As far as the south coast meeting..I have been an alternate for many years and have never had to attend a meeting in place of either Chris or Tom because they couldn't go. If he wasn't there I would guess he must have been to sick to attend. BTW ...SVIAC has had no input on this topic that I'm aware of....our board has never discussed it as part of our official business.
As far as the south coast meeting..I have been an alternate for many years and have never had to attend a meeting in place of either Chris or Tom because they couldn't go. If he wasn't there I would guess he must have been to sick to attend. BTW ...SVIAC has had no input on this topic that I'm aware of....our board has never discussed it as part of our official business.
Last edited:
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I for one am glad to see people starting to get pissed off again. I hope
at some point it will lead to folks coming together and making a push to fix the specific problem of present allocation. Too bad the timing is what it is.
Respecting that the resources of those who have the ability to “get it rolling” are stretched thin right now, I will put that aside for now.
I do have a couple things to add to the conversation. Based on my understanding and personal experience of course.
Halibut, specifically the fact that it is a fishery we have some level of control of shaping, (Once TAC has been allocated)
Creates a challenge. Often SFAB Halibut recommendations do not seem to represent the wishes of the majority of rec fishers. I would say that is likely very true. I have never wavered on my belief of this. Often with little to no support. At least beyond private conversations . Seems as of late more are willing to put it out there though. The problem in articulating this point ( especially in text on a forum like this) is that it is often mistaken for a lack of understanding of the process, or a lack of respect for those in it. Speaking for myself, and I would guess most others that have spoken up, that is not the case.
To provide a little to back the belief that, the recommendations made regarding Halibut likely do not represent the wishes of the masses, I will offer this. As mentioned by others, I to have rarely or if at all engaged any non vested fisher outside the process that has not conveyed a close version of “forget the slot.Just give us a decent max size, open it up as early as possible and wen it is done it’s done. “
Accepting this as true, one also needs to accept that the very credibility and effectiveness of the process is dependent upon that process working within the guidelines and TOR set up to provide consistency and structure for decision making. At this point, as I see it, the key component in this is to engage all local SFAC groups and use the information and motions gathered to guide the process. All that is as it should be and is being done as it should be.
In theory this ensures that the choices to be considered for recommendations made will represent the majority of rec fishers up and down the coast. In reality it only represents the majority vote of those who provided input.
This is to NO fault of the members. I in am IN NO WAY diminishing the value of the sfab.
But , here in lies the problem. How do we engage the masses? Maybe some recently suggested funding will be used to digitize and create a platform that the average joe can easily utilize. Would that help? Would giving all anglers a realistic oportunity to have a say and a vote be helpful? If the goal is to represent the beliefs and wishes of the majority of anglers, then the answer has to be yes.
Before anyone reminds me that the process is open to everyone and already provides that ability, please acknowledge this. The vast majority of the often cited 300k licence holders do not even know the SFAB exists. Many of those who do are not able to or confident enough to attend meetings.
What will happen if the SFAB finds itself in a room full of non vested anglers, or a digital platform and the overwhelming majority gives a message, that in turn will not align with the needs of lodges and guides .
For example;
“Just give us a decent max size, open it as early as possible and when it is done it’s done”.
Will the board respect the wishes of the majority? Or will they look beyond that to what their experience tells them is in the best interest of rec fishing.? If That is different than the majority of the public’s wishes, will that be the choice? Or will it simply be the influence and the concern for potential loss to the industry that rules the day?
If the majority of anglers wishes are to be honoured despite being in contrast to the industry, How many times can that happen. How long before we would see the industry of sportfishing rally togeather to affect the changes necessary to protect their priorities? We have often heard statements that “the needs of the industry side and those of the non vested are the same. If a choice is good for business it is also good for “average joe”. “Our goals are the same” Or some form of the same message? Is that always true?
To complicate this issue is the fact that, to my knowledge, most of the outside of the SFAB groups that have formed to fight for rec fishing are made up of people who do have a vested interest. Yes they have components that are outside that, but the foundation is vested. Makes sense as they have the most $$skin in the game$$. So they have gotten organized to protect it. As it be they are also the ones that the rest have relied on wen **** hits the fan.
It is that aspect of our sector that to date gives us what strength we have. To separate the two and find industry and the non vested pitted against each other would undoubtedly end with the industry side on top . What would rec fishing look like then?
So what is the point of me putting all this out there?
Mostly it is to remind us all that this crap storm is hard to navigate at the best of times. I support the growing notion that the time may have come to try something else regarding Halibut recommendations. There is more than just one way to look at this stuff. There are very legitimate views and thoughts and concerns being put out here. Just because they challenge the current beliefs or understanding of how things are or should be, does not make them wrong. For the first time in a long time I am seeing more honest posts being made on this forum. I think that is testament to how frustrated everyone is getting watching this unique portion of our sport get mutilated despite the effort to keep it workable.
If we forget for a moment what was pointed out above, that the majority has given no input. It is clear the there are two very strong and different sets of needs being projected. South guys need March April May. Feb has mostly been conceded due to timing. Clearly June, July Aug for most of the rest. If we consider the push for a 2 fish possession and reasoning of 115cm falls well within the scope of most fish kept historically. Then add the 2017 stats that show yet again most fish came in the summer months . Roughly 68k fish caught by sept 6 closure. Tac was 1.1m. So 16lb average . Rough numbers. All that shows that a crap load of very small fish come out of summer.
If it comes to having to shorten season. Before delaying to a June start , why not look again at the combo shoulder idea. To satisfy the desire to have oportunity at a bigger fish, keep the 2 fish option alive for those who think they need it. and more importantly give oportunity for March to sept. I am again suggesting a long look at March April May be 1/1 at least 126cm then June July aug be 1/2 say 115/83 or what would work.let it end on long weekend. Again gives oportunity for bigger fish.keeps Vic in the The game and falls into the majority of fish caught in the summer.
Some how, wen considering the 50-60k left this year and the fact that even at 133 max we only used about that much in feb March and April in the past . We should be able to make something work.
Again this is a compromise in the absence of gaining a better allocation from dfo.!
For the record I support the wishes of mostly all the casual Fishers I have talked to over the years. Open it up March first 1/1 decent max size. Say 133 and let the tac land wen it lands. If it sucks try something else or get busy on allocation
at some point it will lead to folks coming together and making a push to fix the specific problem of present allocation. Too bad the timing is what it is.
Respecting that the resources of those who have the ability to “get it rolling” are stretched thin right now, I will put that aside for now.
I do have a couple things to add to the conversation. Based on my understanding and personal experience of course.
Halibut, specifically the fact that it is a fishery we have some level of control of shaping, (Once TAC has been allocated)
Creates a challenge. Often SFAB Halibut recommendations do not seem to represent the wishes of the majority of rec fishers. I would say that is likely very true. I have never wavered on my belief of this. Often with little to no support. At least beyond private conversations . Seems as of late more are willing to put it out there though. The problem in articulating this point ( especially in text on a forum like this) is that it is often mistaken for a lack of understanding of the process, or a lack of respect for those in it. Speaking for myself, and I would guess most others that have spoken up, that is not the case.
To provide a little to back the belief that, the recommendations made regarding Halibut likely do not represent the wishes of the masses, I will offer this. As mentioned by others, I to have rarely or if at all engaged any non vested fisher outside the process that has not conveyed a close version of “forget the slot.Just give us a decent max size, open it up as early as possible and wen it is done it’s done. “
Accepting this as true, one also needs to accept that the very credibility and effectiveness of the process is dependent upon that process working within the guidelines and TOR set up to provide consistency and structure for decision making. At this point, as I see it, the key component in this is to engage all local SFAC groups and use the information and motions gathered to guide the process. All that is as it should be and is being done as it should be.
In theory this ensures that the choices to be considered for recommendations made will represent the majority of rec fishers up and down the coast. In reality it only represents the majority vote of those who provided input.
This is to NO fault of the members. I in am IN NO WAY diminishing the value of the sfab.
But , here in lies the problem. How do we engage the masses? Maybe some recently suggested funding will be used to digitize and create a platform that the average joe can easily utilize. Would that help? Would giving all anglers a realistic oportunity to have a say and a vote be helpful? If the goal is to represent the beliefs and wishes of the majority of anglers, then the answer has to be yes.
Before anyone reminds me that the process is open to everyone and already provides that ability, please acknowledge this. The vast majority of the often cited 300k licence holders do not even know the SFAB exists. Many of those who do are not able to or confident enough to attend meetings.
What will happen if the SFAB finds itself in a room full of non vested anglers, or a digital platform and the overwhelming majority gives a message, that in turn will not align with the needs of lodges and guides .
For example;
“Just give us a decent max size, open it as early as possible and when it is done it’s done”.
Will the board respect the wishes of the majority? Or will they look beyond that to what their experience tells them is in the best interest of rec fishing.? If That is different than the majority of the public’s wishes, will that be the choice? Or will it simply be the influence and the concern for potential loss to the industry that rules the day?
If the majority of anglers wishes are to be honoured despite being in contrast to the industry, How many times can that happen. How long before we would see the industry of sportfishing rally togeather to affect the changes necessary to protect their priorities? We have often heard statements that “the needs of the industry side and those of the non vested are the same. If a choice is good for business it is also good for “average joe”. “Our goals are the same” Or some form of the same message? Is that always true?
To complicate this issue is the fact that, to my knowledge, most of the outside of the SFAB groups that have formed to fight for rec fishing are made up of people who do have a vested interest. Yes they have components that are outside that, but the foundation is vested. Makes sense as they have the most $$skin in the game$$. So they have gotten organized to protect it. As it be they are also the ones that the rest have relied on wen **** hits the fan.
It is that aspect of our sector that to date gives us what strength we have. To separate the two and find industry and the non vested pitted against each other would undoubtedly end with the industry side on top . What would rec fishing look like then?
So what is the point of me putting all this out there?
Mostly it is to remind us all that this crap storm is hard to navigate at the best of times. I support the growing notion that the time may have come to try something else regarding Halibut recommendations. There is more than just one way to look at this stuff. There are very legitimate views and thoughts and concerns being put out here. Just because they challenge the current beliefs or understanding of how things are or should be, does not make them wrong. For the first time in a long time I am seeing more honest posts being made on this forum. I think that is testament to how frustrated everyone is getting watching this unique portion of our sport get mutilated despite the effort to keep it workable.
If we forget for a moment what was pointed out above, that the majority has given no input. It is clear the there are two very strong and different sets of needs being projected. South guys need March April May. Feb has mostly been conceded due to timing. Clearly June, July Aug for most of the rest. If we consider the push for a 2 fish possession and reasoning of 115cm falls well within the scope of most fish kept historically. Then add the 2017 stats that show yet again most fish came in the summer months . Roughly 68k fish caught by sept 6 closure. Tac was 1.1m. So 16lb average . Rough numbers. All that shows that a crap load of very small fish come out of summer.
If it comes to having to shorten season. Before delaying to a June start , why not look again at the combo shoulder idea. To satisfy the desire to have oportunity at a bigger fish, keep the 2 fish option alive for those who think they need it. and more importantly give oportunity for March to sept. I am again suggesting a long look at March April May be 1/1 at least 126cm then June July aug be 1/2 say 115/83 or what would work.let it end on long weekend. Again gives oportunity for bigger fish.keeps Vic in the The game and falls into the majority of fish caught in the summer.
Some how, wen considering the 50-60k left this year and the fact that even at 133 max we only used about that much in feb March and April in the past . We should be able to make something work.
Again this is a compromise in the absence of gaining a better allocation from dfo.!
For the record I support the wishes of mostly all the casual Fishers I have talked to over the years. Open it up March first 1/1 decent max size. Say 133 and let the tac land wen it lands. If it sucks try something else or get busy on allocation
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I guess the argument could be made is this the greater good for business or for Canadian Fishers. What portion for the TAC is being used by non residents, do the numbers tell that? I get your greater good for greatest number, provided we are talking looking after Canadian Residents first in lean times!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I agree that this probably pretty close to true for people that live on the island, but If I was to guess I would say the vast majority of tac is used up by people that have to travel to the island or north coast to get it.
For them a combo trip of salmon + halibut is ideal.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Yup - 1/1 works great for anyone who can fish these things from home every day. For those of us who take the odd guys get away for a few days to a BYOB lodge or up Island to Alder Bay or Telegraph Cove (for example) for a few weeks, it sucks. Then there's anyone coming over from the Mainland or Interior. I realize this is a Victoria and Area thread, but c'mon gang there are others interested in this fishery.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
True. But 115cm is a no go from all accounts I heard. And you’re only giving up a 12-14lb halibut for a larger upper limit. Trade off really.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I fish Halibut on the same type of trips as you refer to. The reality for me
Is it has been 1 fish since the slot. I never catch a fish under 15 lbs with the exception of wen I am salmon fishing.
That said , the points you make are why I favour the. Combo as a suggestion . I gave my preference based on my personal opinion. But suggest the combo. All be it different from the ones on the options sheet.
Derby
Crew Member
Well as it is a transparent process that why the minutes are post on this forum... ... its been my experience that those who are trying to point fingers else were are usually adverting them away from themselves... There was some really great conversation on the Sunday @ South Coast.... it seems some skeletons fell out of the closet ... As for this little game your playing here it would be just one of many subjects that were discussed among all the South Coast chairs..very eye open for all...... I'll make sure the minutes get posted up......
On great note for your area 19/20 Ryan got vote in the Group of 5 and will be representing the South Coast & Victoria at the main board meeting in Vancouver... This should show u that the SFAB does understand Victoria & needs it requires....I believe this would be one of the first times that have seen a new chair make the group of 5 on there first ballot....
Derby I'm aware of some things that would raise eyebrows as well, but that would involve exposing individuals to personal attacks which I won't do. I'm not playing games I care to much for what was my hobby and passion long before it became my profession. I will retire one day or be forced to quit if things keep going the way they are and hope to go back to just fishing for the fun of being on the water again. Its looking more and more like that may be fresh water fishing.
Similar threads
