I see they're still using the same broken model and yet no one with any influence seems willing or able to call DFO on it. This model doesn't assess realistically how many fish are harvested as a second possession fish to accurately predict the real world savings to be achieved by that strategy. We have three years of data where we had pretty much identical TAC and identical season lengths - 2010 with no size limit and 2011 and 2012 with the useless second, possession, fish at 83 cm. All three years resulted in the exact same amount of harvest over the exact same season length. Last year a season possession limit of 6 and a max size were introduced and harvest rates dropped dramatically.
In addition, there is an abundance of historical rec fishing harvest data available. This data shows that the average size halibut harvested annually and historically is smaller than the 83cm possession slot. Any statistical modeller worth his salt will tell you if a modifier, such as the possession slot, applies only to a very small percentage of the sample (in this case, doesn't apply to locals, day charters, those unable to harvest a fish on day 1, those not able to get out to halibut grounds due to weather, those only targeting bottom fish on one day of multi-day trip, etc, etc) and if that modifier is larger than the mean fish harvested, it will have negligible effect on decreasing the average size harvested.
As we know the data sources for rec fish management have a high degree of uncertainty and bias, the precision and accuracy of estimates is extremely low and thus the error is extremely high. Given the very large error in such fish management models, a modifier who's limit is above the observed harvested average will have no measurable effect on decreasing that harvest average. The fact that the model being used is predicting harvest reduction as a result of a possession fish of 83cm is a clear indicator that the model is flawed.
Ukee
