Local SFAC's need your input on Halibut
- Thread starter searun
- Start date
One thing I find interesting from the document linked to in GLG's post is that in 2010,2011 and 2012, the rec sector was over it's TAC by 135k, 275k and 73k lbs respectively. So to me, it seems a bit strange to complain vociferously about the 250k TAC "left on the table" in 2013. While I certainly agree that the rec sector deserves a larger share, 3 years over TAC followed by one year under TAC doesn't IMHO suggest that the regime used last year was particularly bad. Sure it could be better, but I don't hear those who are complaining about the left over TAC and suggesting that the rec sector get the "carry forward" also mentioning the overage of the previous years or suggesting that if the rec sector gets carry forward from one year, they'd be willing to subtract out overages from the following year's TAC. It just seems to me that a littler perspective is gained by looking at the previous years of data.
V
vic-tory
Guest
One very important fact people are forgetting about is the clear connection between a size limit and an increase in the experimental halibut fishery being used. People have been saying long season is best to ensure experimental fails and no more quota is used. Yet the one year while the experimental has been in place where we have a full season the amount used goes up by 10x. Never mind the amount actually leased (the government would still look at that as a success).
Thinking long term in getting more % (having the experimental fail is key to this), it seems that a large fish is actually more important than season length. The facts over the past 3 years shows that pretty clearly, no?
Thinking long term in getting more % (having the experimental fail is key to this), it seems that a large fish is actually more important than season length. The facts over the past 3 years shows that pretty clearly, no?
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Not this past year, seems smaller fish were the greater part of the biomass.
without a full season, the average angler would struggle to get his halibut.
V
vic-tory
Guest
Not allowed to catch large fish = 10 times more experimental used; compared to not allowed to catch fish past september 9th, much less experimental used. Shows right there r.s. Now some are suggesting status quo for this season which would result in the combination of these, genius, experimental will go up even more this year, therefore no more % for us in future.
Aces
Well-Known Member
I don't think there will be much quota bought. Very few people want to pay that $5/lb on top of what the fishing trip costs
V
vic-tory
Guest
10,000lbs this year, then 2 years in a row of size limit, then 3 years in a row of size limit, etc. Don't be naive. Many more people than you think will do it, I know a few friends said they'd get the minimum just in case they hook a big one as they released enough last year. We'll look back and say this was the dumbest move for rec sector halibut fishing.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
How many lbs of halibut dose the sport sector need to ensure a full season at 2/3 no size restrictions and 1/2 on low abundance years.Also allowing for growth within our sector. I know a couple of you that have posted are part of groups that have asked and answered this question before.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I like a longer season, nice to catch a big one but not that important to me. I won't take six because it's more than I'd use. I like the idea of being able to get a fresh fish in Spring ,Summer, fall and maybe winter. Just what works for me, I know others have different needs and wants.
I am so confused and pissed. SophiaB, Duffer and GLG said things best. When will we (Sporties) get it right. All these crazy numbers should be $ we are sending to the best dam lawyer to get sport allocation changed. Said this last year and all previouse years. Lodges, guides, family fisherman and all who buy sport licences band together= 1 UNITED COURT CHALLENGE, that is the only way to stop giving. Last I heard its not about and is still not about conservation as long as we only get comi leftovers. Again Jimmy is howling at our posts. Keep fighting each other, after the new regs are announced will we say bad things about all who tried???? What is our legal reps name and where do we "donate" money to his outlandish pay cheque. We have all to loose and nothing to win without.
HM
HM
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Problem is with status quo and 850 k you won't get either of those. No big fish and no long season. Option that uses least about of tac is 1/1 and it benefits every day joe angler most too.
It shouldn't be what benefits you or I the most it should be what benefits the every day joe the most anyways.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Well then it would be 1/1.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
You could start here........... http://bcwf.net/index.php/committees/fisheries/tidal-water-fisheries. Read the first page-- Malcolm Case. It has still not been resolved as the commercials are appealing the judges decision that said it was legal for the Minister to give us the extra 3% They want compensation for us getting some of THEIR fish. The BCWF and the SFI worked together to get intervenor status and it cost around $80k to do so (Searun- correct my figures if I am off a bit). Both organizations have had to pony up even MORE money to fight the appeal. So who do we tap in future to lobby for more quota above out 15% ??? Hopefully guys that have been riding on the backs of those of us who have put money forward , will open their wallets . Action counts-- posting on a discussion board really does nothing concrete but makes the poster feel good.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Sorry but the reduction in the quotas for every user group is due to a reduction the Halibut biomass. That sounds like a conservation issue to me, what about you?
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I do not agree we are in this situation due to conservation efforts. We are here for one reason and only one reason, That reason is the fact that our federal government gave ownership of the vast majority of the exploitable biomass to big business. The canadian TAC even at worst case projected scenario is still way large enough to meet all Canadians need if it where allocated properly.
If the exploitable biomass rises in coming years and Canadian TAC goes way up, Do we think the problem goes away? If anyone thinks more fish solves this problem then they are horribly mistaken.
If the exploitable biomass rises in coming years and Canadian TAC goes way up, Do we think the problem goes away? If anyone thinks more fish solves this problem then they are horribly mistaken.
The fact that the overall TAC has fallen or stayed the same for the past however many years is in my opinion a conservation issue. Yes the way TAC is handled could be improved for all Canadians including many commercial fishermen but don't let the conservation issue that is a decrease in overall TAC for everyone get completely lost in the fight for a fair division of that TAC.
I'm not saying the rec fishermen need to take less I'm just saying underneath all of this there are fewer fish to be caught by everyone every year and perhaps better conservation from Oregon through BC and all the way up to Alaska could change that trend.
I'm not saying the rec fishermen need to take less I'm just saying underneath all of this there are fewer fish to be caught by everyone every year and perhaps better conservation from Oregon through BC and all the way up to Alaska could change that trend.
V
vic-tory
Guest
Until commercials who take 85% of the fish release fish over 60lbs, I won't either, especially this year after seeing long liners not far from me last year while I release a 65lber for them to catch.
Similar threads
