casper5280
Crew Member
I usually catch mine in the south early and then don't need to fish them in the north later. Annual limit is only 6 anyway, and believe me I don't know anyone that got 6 period and a lot of those fished North and South.
Important Victoria & Area SFAB Halibut Mtg Nov. 27
- Thread starter Whole in the Water
- Start date
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't see many towing from Port Alberni to Victoria for early opening or vice versa to be honest.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Aren’t the majority of fish up North, caught by guided trips and by lodge residents? Anyone have a rough breakdown? How many people trailer their own boats up there, relatively few? I’m guessing those hauling their boats up there don’t account for much of the catch?
Most fishing is done in your home waters for the majority of anglers. The early season fishery on the south Island doesn't represent a large percentage of the TAC as most of that is caught in July outside of south Island. The early season does represent a large amount of effort due to the larger population around Victoria combined with protected near shore fishing and the best halibut tides of the year. Taking March and or April away from the south Island from an effort standpoint would be like closing June and July elsewhere.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Having area specific seasons and regs makes so much sense to maximize the beneficial access to a limited quota it is really perplexing that it hasn’t been explored more robustly. Generic, coast-wide regs/seasons make sense when there isn’t a quota issue but name me any of the other key targeted species - whether it be salmon, lingcod, rockfish or even prawns and crab, that have the same regs and season coast-wide? They don’t, and area specific regs/seasons not only address area specific conservation concerns w/out penalizing the rest of the coast, they allow input to the regs and season that make the most sense for the local fishery.
In the past I’ve heard arguments against this because of the complexity and/or against asking for more regulations. In regard to the former, that argument doesn’t hold any water given how every other aspect of our fishery is managed and, regarding the latter argument, it doesn’t get any more ridiculous than the rec sector requested “experimental” slot size that we’ve been stuck w/ ever since despite no experiment or data collection occurring to test it!
In any case, the real interesting discussions will begin once the IPHC meetings occur in the new year and quota allocations are adopted. If folks want to follow or participate, here’s the link to the IPHC website:
https://www.iphc.int/
Cheers!
Ukee
In the past I’ve heard arguments against this because of the complexity and/or against asking for more regulations. In regard to the former, that argument doesn’t hold any water given how every other aspect of our fishery is managed and, regarding the latter argument, it doesn’t get any more ridiculous than the rec sector requested “experimental” slot size that we’ve been stuck w/ ever since despite no experiment or data collection occurring to test it!
In any case, the real interesting discussions will begin once the IPHC meetings occur in the new year and quota allocations are adopted. If folks want to follow or participate, here’s the link to the IPHC website:
https://www.iphc.int/
Cheers!
Ukee
Aces
Well-Known Member
I think it's a great idea and the regs can't get much more complicated than they already are so we don't have anything to lose
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
It’s a shame we don’t have some control picker our fleet and licence fees ect..otherwise we would be able to self fund some of these great ideas
searun
Well-Known Member
The challenge is people will pull up and move elsewhere. We have explored this in detail and for areas that are geographically connected, people are indeed moving from area to area. Just look on the water and see the number of US registered vessels - increasing in numbers year over year. They come here because their opportunity is very restricted - a 6 day halibut season! Similarly, we are seeing a number of vessels coming into our area from other areas to pursue salmon opportunities.
The only possible exception that might be a true candidate for Area specific regulation on Halibut could be a split between the North and South as we are geographically separated. If it worked better for the North to go with 2 fish, and the South to go with 1 fish - perhaps that might work. But, it would be very complicated to model. We again avoided this approach because the Canadian TAC belongs to the entire coast and is therefore something that needs to be shared across all areas as fairly as possible.
I recall hearing the same argument about Area 19 needing their own regulations last year, and that there were no halibut opportunities/catch in June, so a delayed start would not work there because they didn't have access to halibut later in the season. Fair enough. When I looked at the DFO halibut catch data June was one of their biggest months. So much for proving their case in a way we could argue it to other areas such as the North. Everyone tried telling me that DFO was wrong, and they didn't catch fish because of all the doggies. Well no one counted on people switching tactics using grub tails I guess, because the numbers are what they are. People caught hali in June. Someone tried telling me the problem was DFO is extrapolating creel data and using the over-flight data to apply a multiplier on the creel to boats observed. Perhaps, but that is the way they do it....and it appears few guides in these areas must actually do log books...or if they did, I expect their numbers would counter the over-flight data - which by the way, the guide log book data is used and the over-flight data is reduced by the actual log book events recorded. In other words, deducted. Log books aren't sexy, but the data is invaluable in proving cases such as this, and without that data we are sunk when it comes to arguing with DFO and other areas of the coast that want to advocate for their local fishery...everyone has special interests.
So its complicated and often what seems like a good idea, isn't once you dive into the details. And the other large problem is the Halibut TAC is Canada's TAC meant for the entire coast, not for special areas to divide up as they see fit because when you give to one area, you have to take from another. No easy way to carve it up. Especially this season where we anticipate losing a lot of TAC once the IPHC process is concluded Feb 1.
Stizzla
Crew Member
That’s a good point. With seemingly less people targeting them and more being released based on size limits plus the longer off seasons of late, why aren’t the stocks increasing?
fish brain
Crew Member
People are moving up and down the coast to catch Salmon too, that is why there is a yearly limit on our license. Hardly anyone catches their annual limit, so the whole moving around argument holds no water for me. Let's cut it back to say four per year, with area specific limits
searun
Well-Known Member
fish brain
Crew Member
We had 4 modelled, no meaningful difference in the pounds caught - most anglers are on short single trip fishing adventures. For example, the lodges up North most guests are only there for a few days and then don't fish again until the following season. Lowering to 4 isn't going to make a marked difference.
So based on this information, why won't area specific regulations work? First the argument is people move around too much, then it's most just fish a short season and they are done. Not trying to be *****, but I am having trouble following the logic.
So based on this information, why won't area specific regulations work? First the argument is people move around too much, then it's most just fish a short season and they are done. Not trying to be *****, but I am having trouble following the logic.
Searun, when the closure to Otter Point west was sprung on us down here on top of the already no wild Chinook over 67cm (9 pounds) that caused a couple of things...some moved their boats out of the area for the season (Renfrew or elsewhere) or to say f&ck it and not fish , or switch to hali fishing and put up with dogfish and crappy tides. More boats will fish in June as the weather warms up and people take holidays...the SRKW closure was the reason for the shift in additional pressure to hali. Obviously that couldn't be foreseen back in Feb. Not that it matters the season is still open and the model used brought us close to using all the TAC without going over.
searun
Well-Known Member
Actually quoting data from the prior year, not 2018 when we had the closure. I do agree that effort shifts, so my point is still the same and you appear to agree and point out even more examples of why it is so darn hard to find something that works for everyone. Not easy...and not about to get any easier. This year will be full of fun (lower hali TAC, failing Fraser Chinook, SRKW management measures etc). The social and economic impacts will be potentially very significant. Many small coastal communities that rely heavily on the recreational, commercial and FN fisheries will be hard hit. Salmon alone is worth over a $billion/year. How to small communities replace that?
searun
Well-Known Member
Pretty simple logic - people move. If you assign a TAC for one Area, when that is fished out and the fishery closes, people move elsewhere. So there is no way to actually control the catch engine if you assign TAC based on Areas that are in close proximity geographically. PFMA Areas close to heavily populated cities will close down early - then the fleet just moves. Secondly, tracking the catch becomes increasingly more difficult when we are zeroing in on small PFMA areas, so when in doubt the Department will close them down if they think we might be getting close to hitting the TAC for that area. No lea way because you have restricted any wiggle room you may have enjoyed with a larger coast-wide number or TAC. Who gets the spoils if we are actually under once the final numbers come in and dust settles? Pretty soon what happens is areas close to larger urban centers are having much less access and opportunity, and other areas that are more remote will enjoy longer seasons. That will eventually shift effort in a gold rush mentality. In other words, that becomes a management night mare. Not something anyone would actually want once they have to live with it.
Not to mention, who decides how much TAC each area gets? Divide it up equally, proportional to area size, number of boating days per PFMA, historic catch...what a dogs breakfast!
searun
Well-Known Member
Could it because the Alaskans kill more in by-catch dirty fisheries in the halibut rookery area that is closed to halibut fishing but not hake fishing? Those guys take more baby hali than Canada's entire TAC.
searun
Well-Known Member
We could start by addressing the pinniped predation that is scooping up 47% of out-migrant Chinook smolts. We can produce more fish with habitat improvement and in hatcheries and sea pens, but what is the point if they are eaten?
Sea pens do help get hatchery raised Chinook past the problem river mouth seals. Wild stocks would benefit from getting rid of the seals that sit and wait in river or estuaries for salmon fry. That has to be explained to the public, its selective and not meant to reduce their overall population.
Similar threads
