Important Victoria & Area SFAB Halibut Mtg Nov. 27

[Jencourt]

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.

I would not argue that lots would say that as well.
I will say though I have 3 or 4 that come out from interior and Alberta that have said what I posted . They like Halibut fishing and don’t care to make a spring trip anymore with the ****** size cap. So now if they come they try to get em while salmon fishing. Example of what I mean wen I say Halli fishing getting mutilated.

 

[SpringVelocity]

So have we formed a group yet?

 

[DC Reid]

The Wild Salmon Secretariat is looking for comments on bringing back wild salmon. This is a good opportunity to get your comments on the record. Please do so. Thanks. There are links in this document, which also lists what I think is important: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/12/wild-salmon-secretariat-make-your-case.html.

 

[The Jackel]

Agreed. DFO could give a rat's butt how we use "our" quota.
BUT, their political masters certainly do care about intense public pressure, and especially so when directed at them.
And I do believe there are enough of "us" to force the issue if we put in an honest effort...



Given the current composition of the SFAB, I do not doubt for a second what you say.
After all, is it not currently comprised of 3/4 or better recreational "business" interests when all is said & done?
And isn't the vested interest of that group focused on maximizing time on the water with clients (aka "opportunity") over damn near anything else? And does that not make them entirely against any action that might threaten their "bottom line"? Fairly obvious which way they are going to vote...

That being the case, is the SFAB actually acting in the best interests of the Entire recreational sector, or simply the business aspect thereof? Can a case not be made for using up the assigned quota in a fair and equitable manner (not full bore, but with given Realistic limits / constraints) rather than relying on ever increasing restrictions to keep "us" within the numbers"? Can you not see the point that the Politicos, DFO and general public see zero reason to support increasing our pittance when we year after year make sure it is "sufficient" to provide a full length season?



Dumb Idea?
Many I have spoken to strongly suggest the exact same for the tack of buying in, and self imposing restriction upon restriction in order to fit within the current confines. Going that particular route holds absolutely zero hope of ever seeing an increase percentage-wise in the future. Period. Full Stop.

And maybe those folks you mention might actually realize they were screwed over by DFO and their political accomplices originally, and that a little pain may be required to get things back on track.
And maybe, just maybe their realizations, and their subsequent anger might just be the incentive that is required to get the halibut ball rolling in the right direction again.
For a change...

Nog

Awesome post Matt, it seems that in the south island the vote will be for 2 fish possession and a long season so these so called interest groups can fish and make money for the majority of the year. **** i did not even fish for halibut last season, year before my brother comes out and guess what released the 2 fish he caught as they were just over the size slot, so a lot of money spent for no meat. In the hockey thread there is a guide who fishes the West Coast, from Vancouver, and he makes fun at the south coast and stating that there was an influx of south coast guides fishing his waters, nimby response

 

[Whole in the Water]

Yeah it's called a 1 million plus court battle. Do you honestly think we can walk and take more TAC without going to court. Hey riddle me this how did we get out last TAC change? Any guesses? I know we love to believe town hall meetings made a difference but come on.

Not sure what your point or why you take an antagonistic tone? My comment is clear and straightforward. If we continue to do what we have done in the past, we will just get more of the same. Simple logic.

 

[Jencourt]

Antagonistic tone? Not trying to at all Christopher. My point is town hall meetings didn't get our win the court room battle did. I am not sure how it is antagonistic?

To be fair the court case upheld the decision that dfo had already made as a result of the combined efforts of SFI, BCWF , etc. Did it not? Then if (I not mistaken) the Supreme Court of appeals backed it. We where already enjoying the 3% long before it went to court. As I remember it anyway.

 

[Derby]

We may have had the 3% already but had the courts not up held that ruling we could have lost it...
thinking that court case cost around $100,000 or more....

 

[Jencourt]

We may have had the 3% already but had the courts not up held that ruling we could have lost it...
thinking that court case cost around $100,000 or more....

No dispute about that at all.
None the less I thought it important to clarify that the decision was made in response by the minister to the work you all did. Is all.

 

[IronNoggin]

... I have NO argument with someone leading the charge to go after more of a fair split in Rec vs Commercial TAC.

Please, please someone step up and get the ball rolling. We need help, not arm chair critics. Anyone?

IMHO, it would be one hell of an uphill battle to try and organize any such movement at his time.
Why?
Pushing against the triad of opponents involved presents a no-win situation at this juncture.
By Triad I mean:
Commercial interests (and their strong economic backing);
DFO itself, with a profound disinterest in change, and an obvious bias towards the commercial sector;
And the SFAB itself, with it's current focus on making the season (TAC) last as long as possible in order to satisfy ongoing business preferences.

Opening a war on one or even two fronts can be a winnable situation.
Against three, especially as noted, it becomes an impossible undertaking.

That said, I stand firmly by my beliefs that the direction of adhering to the pittance TAC "allowed" the recreational sector is an error, and if continued, will ensure we never, ever realize any increase to that down the road...

And that makes me sad for both today's, and tomorrow's fisher folks who wouldn't mind a slab or two of white meat on the dinner table more than once or twice a year...

Nog

 

[Rockfish]

IMHO, it would be one hell of an uphill battle to try and organize any such movement at his time.
Why?
Pushing against the triad of opponents involved presents a no-win situation at this juncture.
By Triad I mean:
Commercial interests (and their strong economic backing);
DFO itself, with a profound disinterest in change, and an obvious bias towards the commercial sector;
And the SFAB itself, with it's current focus on making the season (TAC) last as long as possible in order to satisfy ongoing business preferences.

Opening a war on one or even two fronts can be a winnable situation.
Against three, especially as noted, it becomes an impossible undertaking.

That said, I stand firmly by my beliefs that the direction of adhering to the pittance TAC "allowed" the recreational sector is an error, and if continued, will ensure we never, ever realize any increase to that down the road...

And that makes me sad for both today's, and tomorrow's fisher folks who wouldn't mind a slab or two of white meat on the dinner table more than once or twice a year...

Nog

I would suggest that there are more than a triad of interests.

There are also:

First Nations, which If I understand it correctly get a cut off the top before the current 85/15 split between sport and commercial interests. One wonders in lbs what it actually is? In addition some FN's also have commercial quota which worked against us in the last battle with some speaking against the last 3% reallocation in favour of the sport sector because of commercial self interest.

ENGO's which would oppose all halibut fishing on basic extremist ideology. They won't truly be happy until meat, poultry and fish are removed from all grocery stores. Then there is the related Political Party vote pandering. This will vary by political party but our current government seems to be selling its green credentials in order to get its pipelines approved . So they are looking for anything that appeases the ENGO's and fist nations, which generally means attacking the non first nations interests of communities outside the lower mainland and user groups such as sport fishers.

 

[searun]

The SFAB would not block, nor could it block any effort to deal with TAC allocation...that is an incorrect statement.

 

[IronNoggin]

The SFAB would not block, nor could it block any effort to deal with TAC allocation...that is an incorrect statement.

Wrong.
Defacto Actions make it a Fool's Errand to pursue any additional quota when the SFAB itself is acting directly to ensure our efforts match (or come in under) the pittance TAC in order to realize maximized seasons. Year after year they have done a rather fine job of ensuring just that. And by doing so, signal very VERY strongly to the politico's, DFO and public at large that there is NO Requirement for an increase. Because we "can make it work"...

Perhaps not an overt "block" per-sea, but quite an effective one in function.

Rockfish: FN's do indeed receive quota ("purchased" on their behalf by DFO) before any other assignment is considered.
While this does effect the recreational sector, it hits the commercial aspects much harder.
This function will always be a given, no-one will ever have the intestinal fortitude to proffer any challenges. Period.

NGO's, although a concern (and I DO very much hear your references to the current politicol climate!), they are focused elsewhere for the moment, and not really a player in the halibut issue... For Now...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[searun]

Wrong.
Defacto Actions make it a Fool's Errand to pursue any additional quota when the SFAB itself is acting directly to ensure our efforts match (or come in under) the pittance TAC in order to realize maximized seasons. Year after year they have done a rather fine job of ensuring just that. And by doing so, signal very VERY strongly to the politico's, DFO and public at large that there is NO Requirement for an increase. Because we "can make it work"...

Perhaps not an overt "block" per-sea, but quite an effective one in function.

Rockfish: FN's do indeed receive quota ("purchased" on their behalf by DFO) before any other assignment is considered.
While this does effect the recreational sector, it hits the commercial aspects much harder.
This function will always be a given, no-one will ever have the intestinal fortitude to proffer any challenges. Period.

NGO's, although a concern (and I DO very much hear your references to the current politicol climate!), they are focused elsewhere for the moment, and not really a player in the halibut issue... For Now...

Cheers,
Nog

This just shows how little you understand the SFAB process. The SFAB isn't a lobby group, its mandate is purely to provide advice to the Minister as to how we can manage the fishery within the existing TAC. That is why the SFAB isn't a roadblock to someone like you from taking up the cause and fighting a political battle to secure a larger recreational share of Canada's overall TAC. But, you may have already answered that question as to why your not going to take up the cause, and instead sit back and rail on about how stupid volunteers who are working within the SFAB process on your behalf apparently are. No wonder nothing gets done.

 

[halimark]

I for one am understanding SFAB better and better as time goes on. Tell the minister we cannot manage to our pittance of a public resource of 85/15% TAC. We are sick of less and less each year, this has nothing to do with conservation, just a few wealthy rich. There is no foreseeable future in halibut fishing if we keep making do. Draw a line and say no. Run out of TAC early, get the shitstorm started and see what happens, when towns, cities, lively hoods, resorts, sport fishers, the BC economy and all news channels react I do not think a lawyer and court fees will be an issue. Worst case scenario DFO mandates/dictates our limits and season, at least WE sport fishers did not fish to TAC ourselves EXTINCT. We tried our dam best to make a wrong right.

HM

 

[wildmanyeah]

Were on the verge of having coast wide chinook reductions and closures.

When that happens you will get your wish of using up the halibut tac in short order.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I personally could care less about halibut. At least with this one we are fishing. Is it the best maybe not but we are still on water. Have a look gentlemen I can't say the same thing for salmon next year. We could not be fishing at all. It is that serious. Which one would you rather focus on if you had to pick? I know I would rather be fishing myself.

DFO and the management of the resource within Ottawa is the problem. This has been 20+ years coming. Now everything we fish for is getting tested at same time.

It isn't the SFAB volunteers fault of where we are on this issue. Get mad and direct the anger at the department and politicians.

All of other groups are trying to save our salmon season from closing next year. No one has any time to spare. But if someone wants to take it on we will all do our best to support them.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Were on the verge of having coast wide chinook reductions and closures.

When that happens you will get your wish of using up the halibut tac in short order.

Pretty much my thoughts.

 

[searun]

Were on the verge of having coast wide chinook reductions and closures.

When that happens you will get your wish of using up the halibut tac in short order.

You bet, that is precisely what will happen. And, as I have been saying, someone please step up and start your political lobby fight. Lots of people who can help, but we need thorough bred horses to run the race!

 

[fishin solo]

Seems everyone has a opinion but nobody wants to cough up any $ towards any of this. Just my opinion... I’ve been following this thread and others similar to it....thanks to the guys that volunteer their time and on their own dime that fight for EVERYONE. I’m sure there is lots going on behind the scenes that can’t be shared publicly as it would be like playing poker with you cards turned over. Just my opinion

 

[searun]

Not everyone is sitting back waiting for someone else to draw attention to our issues. Thanks to a few people involved on this forum, we have the financial support to develop some media to help build public awareness around SRKW's and how we can work cooperatively to coexist alongside SRKW by implementing science-based management measures. Key among them being Avoidance - staying well back from foraging killer whales to let them successfully find their prey. As recreational fishers we can do the right things to protect whales, while allowing responsible fishing to take place.

One example of how people on this forum have come together for the positive. I think the same or better is possible on the halibut issue - we just need some talented people to step up who have the time and energy to help carry the ball to the goal line!

Website =
http://orcawhales.org/

Facebook =
https://www.facebook.com/bcorcawhales/

and Instagram =
http://www.instagram.com/bcorcawhales/