Now That We Know TAC, What Should 2014 Limits Be?

[Fish Assassin]

I really like option A2,A3,B1,B2 as a rec. fisherman that only gets a couple opportunities a year to try and put halibut on my families table. These options are allowing a guy to take those average sized fish home that we normally catch...... Thanks Gil

A2 is my favourite choice......

 

[GLG]

Thanks for your feed back guys
It would be helpful to get more comments because this is being looked at right now.

 

[bigbruce]

I'm for any option that does not result in a restriction in possession in July and August because that's when I and most of the others at Alder Bay - or any other marine resort - are fishing for Halibut. If that means the slot and bag limits stay the same as last year, so be it.

 

[spring fever]

I like option A2 the best out of a bad bunch. Agree with Wolf -no matter what option-gotta make sure the TAC is used!! Seems stupid but DFO would see a shortfall as "we don't need so much TAC as we didn't use it" Even though it wasn't used because of overly strict regulation!!

 

[GLG]

It's risky business looking into the future unless you have thousands of professionals using independent lines of evidence and data. These are things we don't have when making decisions on 2014 Halibut rules. Using the precautionary principle is prudent. I don't want to leave TAC in the water but I don't want to go over again. I would error on the side of the resource rather then the anglers.

 

[Jencourt]

It's risky business looking into the future unless you have thousands of professionals using independent lines of evidence and data. These are things we don't have when making decisions on 2014 Halibut rules. Using the precautionary principle is prudent. I don't want to leave TAC in the water but I don't want to go over again. I would error on the side of the resource rather then the anglers.

I would agree with this statement.

I am a little surprised that more of you have not chimed in. For the length of this thread we read of people telling everyone what they want and how all the options suck.Or some see it one way others see it another way. From it we get that the majority want a full season, two fish possession and no upper size restriction,or at least bump it up. We recently see some asking about bumping the small fish up.

After some work by a couple of us,GLG has put out for your thoughts a list of likely workable options that by combining a couple of the original options, show that almost all of those wishes can be met. All of them seem to get us close on the TAC which is another goal.

The big thing for me is that they allow 2 fish all season and for a portion of it there is no upper size restriction. In Heavy use months of July and Aug we still get 2 fish and there seems there could be room to bump the larger fish restriction (that only applies to those two months) up a bit as asked for by many. Yet for the heavy use months it still appeals to those who like to see us not keeping the big big ones.

I am not saying it is the be all that ends all I just figured after everyone's points have been made we would see some more input as to your thought on this new idea. For me if we need to restrict our limits and possession beyond 1/2 no slot, then I see this as the one choice that meets most of the criteria established ,while being the least invasive upon any one portion of our user group.

It's all your's now : Ray

 

[SerengetiGuide]

I would agree with this statement.

I am a little surprised that more of you have not chimed in. For the length of this thread we read of people telling everyone what they want and how all the options suck.Or some see it one way others see it another way. From it we get that the majority want a full season, two fish possession and no upper size restriction,or at least bump it up. We recently see some asking about bumping the small fish up.

After some work by a couple of us,GLG has put out for your thoughts a list of likely workable options that by combining a couple of the original options, show that almost all of those wishes can be met. All of them seem to get us close on the TAC which is another goal.

The big thing for me is that they allow 2 fish all season and for a portion of it there is no upper size restriction. In Heavy use months of July and Aug we still get 2 fish and there seems there could be room to bump the larger fish restriction (that only applies to those two months) up a bit as asked for by many. Yet for the heavy use months it still appeals to those who like to see us not keeping the big big ones.

I am not saying it is the be all that ends all I just figured after everyone's points have been made we would see some more input as to your thought on this new idea. For me if we need to restrict our limits and possession beyond 1/2 no slot, then I see this as the one choice that meets most of the criteria established ,while being the least invasive upon any one portion of our user group.

It's all your's now : Ray

Couldn't agree more. It gets us close to using up all our tac which is perfect, and has a lil of something for everyone. Win-win-win. It's about compromise.

 

[Samnjoe]

B1 or B2 works for me.
With no shoulder season option.

 

[GLG]

Cleaned up those tables dates to better show what this is all about.
Thanks guys for your input so far.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi GLG, in your options, what percentage of harvest, by month or year, is the "2nd size fish" applied to and what is the data basis and/or rationale behind the percentage used?

I think most of us would expect the majority of the harvest in the shoulder season to be harvested by locals and day charters such that the "2nd size fish" would come into play so infrequently it would be a statistical throw away. During the heart of the sport fishing season, June through August, when lodges are open and the majority of multi-day trips are taken, I think most would expect the percentage of "2nd size fish" harvested to still be a very small percentage of total harvest on a daily, weekly or monthly basis as locals and day charters still make up a sizeable portion of the effort during that time period while those on multi-day trips and at lodges won't target bottom fish everyday, will be targeting their 1st fish a percentage of the time, will be unsuccessful, will harvest a fish below the limit as their first fish, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, the "2nd size fish" would likely not be a statistically significant factor for the majority of what is labelled as the shoulder season and would be a very small percentage of harvest during the rest of the season. As such, how does the model used account for this?

Additionally, as the historical and ongoing average and median size fish being harvested coast wide is smaller than the worst-case 83cm "2nd size fish" limit how is it statistically possible for such a size limit to decrease the average size harvested to realize a reduction in theoretical TAC harvested?

I have no problem endorsing many of the options you present, provided they are based on a realistic model that is likely to result in real harvest similar to what is forecast. What I have a problem with is myself and others putting faith in a model that is clearly broken (same harvest in 2010 through 2012 with and without a slot, harvest prediction for last year's regs resulting in 25% of TAC not being harvested, model continuing to predict same regs resulting in over TAC harvest despite last years real season results …). There is a reason there is a derogatory term for people who keep doing the same thing but expecting different results … and I don't think our rec sector wants to be associated with that.

Ukee (still "Dreamin" of some answers some day)

 

[SerengetiGuide]

No clue about 2nd fish ukee but what is worrisome is some on sfab board still take the numbers from this model as accurate. A few on this forum too. How do they figure our catch if kept at60lbs will be 150k more than last year? Using 860k as baseline for 60lb it would make it quite possible to use 80lb all year and still have a bit left over but using the model 70lb barely is under. So the working group, if they don't use this combine method we showed yesterday would work, will get over cautious and over regulate once again. Hell, even if they use this combine method I bet they'd be over cautious and use 60lbs instead of 70 which would work

 

[Purple Hazer]

Why the hell are we still talking slot size on the bigger fish, get rid of it period, keep the small size slot if you must have one, and the season is over when the 15% is reached!

 

[UkeeDreamin]

What rationale is their for a smaller slot Purple Hazer?

Serengeti, I hear you!! The only thing more frustrating than the continued blind acceptance of an obviously badly broken model is the complete silence from those who have seats on the halibut board to provide transparency and open access to information for all interested stake holders. The SFAC/SFAB committees appear to be as bad as the Harper Conservative Caucus!

Ukee

 

[GLG]

Ukee (still "Dreamin" of some answers some day)

Thanks for the questions. I wish I could answer them but I have no access to the model.
I only took the data that everyone was given and tried to work with it.
So if the question is the model correct.... well my personal experience say's there is a few %'s too much risk.
I don't think it is a whole lot but clearly there is some wiggle room in there.
How that was put into the model I do not know. It could be average size fish or effort or weather.
It could also be good salmon year or bad salmon year, who knows.
I think the model is still very useful tool and could be refined if DFO had the budget to do so.
I would rather see DFO hand it off to UVIC or another university.
Perhaps then we would truly see a tool that can be used into the future.

GLG

 

[GLG]

What rationale is their for a smaller slot Purple Hazer?

Serengeti, I hear you!! The only thing more frustrating than the continued blind acceptance of an obviously badly broken model is the complete silence from those who have seats on the halibut board to provide transparency and open access to information for all interested stake holders. The SFAC/SFAB committees appear to be as bad as the Harper Conservative Caucus!

Ukee

You lost me there Ukee....... Sorry I don't see it that way.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi GLG, you don't see that the folks with seats at the table and thus access to info on the model aren't sharing it? You don't see that the model, even setting aside massive flaws like inaccurately assessing % harvest of 2nd fish, is highly inaccurate as evidenced by identical years 2010-2012 with and without slots and mis-forecast last year's harvest by a quarter of the entire TAC (that's like missing the broadside of the barn!) and yet it's still being accepted/endorsed by those participating? I'm overly passionate about this and don't intend any offence, but what other way of seeing those facts is there?

Ukee

 

[GLG]

Ukee
Lets take this to another thread and leave this one out of it.
We need this thread for another reason.

 

[Purple Hazer]

Hey Ukee I do not want a slot size for anything but it seems some people think that if they can catch their 2 for possession that they are coming out ahead. In my math it doesn't add up but then again as stated in another reply I am ignorant and so Blissed All's I can say is we better not leave another 25% in the water. GLG appreciate all your hard work with the numbers, Serengeti do you ever go to class

 

[Derby]

Hi GLG, you don't see that the folks with seats at the table and thus access to info on the model aren't sharing it? You don't see that the model, even setting aside massive flaws like inaccurately assessing % harvest of 2nd fish, is highly inaccurate as evidenced by identical years 2010-2012 with and without slots and mis-forecast last year's harvest by a quarter of the entire TAC (that's like missing the broadside of the barn!) and yet it's still being accepted/endorsed by those participating? I'm overly passionate about this and don't intend any offence, but what other way of seeing those facts is there?

Ukee

Perhaps if this is what you feel...step up & pull out one of the chairs & have a sit down to the table..????

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Is that a formal invite to the Halibut Working Group table Derby? LOL

Whether your invite is rhetorical or not, it does nothing to address the fact that key information about this issue is not being shared with interested and vested parties - i.e. rec fishermen who take an interest and ask questions, there is no transparency in the process and the model is clearly broken. Everyone deflects away from these very basic, but important facts. The old catch all defensive response "step up and get involved" does nothing to answer the valid questions being asked about information the average rec fishermen should expect to have access to.

Is it not embarrassing to us all that we can't answer basic questions from these "experimental" regs, like how many fish are harvested as first versus 2nd possession fish at various times in the season and at various locations? Funding is not a defence, it costs DFO nothing to add a question or two to their creel survey data sheet in their Excel file to give out to the creelers at the beginning of the season.

Anyway, I guess I'll continue to dream about a day where an average joe interested party can get some answers from those "representing" him.

Ukee