Recommendations for 2009 Halibut Season

[wolf]

Yes I have to agree with you all on this,Seringenti that is YOUR personal fish and if you want to do it go ahead but dont whine you dont have any. thats what the problem is it seems people feel its ok to take and give to harry down the road some fish well its not if he wants fish he gets a license and goes fishing simple, we have to get away from the mentality the fish is there for us to take and give away.

At our lodge where I work if they want to eat fish we take it out of there daily catch be it salmon,halibut,cod they caught it if they want to share all the power to them.

I usually bring up a few packs of moose or bambi burgers and thats what us guides will eat because as you know after fishing all day all week the last thing we want to eat is fish LOL LOL


wolf

Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com

 

[tingirl]

To Serengeti or anyone else who wants to listen...have you ever heard of Tragedy of the Commons? Look it up if you haven't. A common pool resource, such as a fishery, can be decimated very quickly without wise and respectful use. An annual limit would at least take a small amount of pressure off the fishery. When everyone can take their limit everyday, there will undoubtedly be nothing left sooner than later. "Stocking up" for yourself at home is one thing but stocking to feed guests as well is ethically and morally wrong in my opinion. It is in fact against federal regulations to feed guests sport caught fish, and lodges have, in the recent past, been fined thousands of dollars because of it. I am sure because you are a respectful angler, you are not trying to exploit fisheries knowingly, maybe a little thought into what will happen to fish in the future is a good idea, especially if it is your livelihood.

 

[Rum Buddies]

quote:One thing that would affect me with regards to the annual limit is that we make dinner and meals for all our clients.

i'm not sure if its unethical, but it is illegal.

Call DFO and ask if you are unsure but they can clear it up for I'm sure.

Things are changing and guides and lodges will have to adjust.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

By no means would we ever try to exploit the resource. I know that all the guys up in Hardy and I'm sure most on the island know how important our fisheries are to us and make sure that the only stuff taken is what is needed. And I wasn't trying to whine wolf...just commenting. My Dad has been up here for over 30 years and he has taught me the importance of our resources and conservation...not only fisheries, but hunting, logging etc etc.

I'm a steakaholic, especially since at uni it is easy to make and tastes amazing...I guess you could say I'm actually a meatatarian...its a personal choice obviously lol. So the BBQ is always in use crab. But ya...this year the majority of our guests stay in Hardy so it really doesn't actually matter...I was just saying. Plus that way I get a bit extra sleep

www.serengetifishingcharters.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW1DUrH2H0w

 

[bee15]

personally i could live with one fish limit a day and that might cut down on mericans coming here to greed on our fish

 

[SerengetiGuide]

quote:Originally posted by bee15

personally i could live with one fish limit a day and that might cut down on mericans coming here to greed on our fish

At the same time this does drastically help the small island and coast communities economy and some definitely rely on it as well. Lots of the Americans that do come up are great people as well. Just to present the other side of the coin...

www.serengetifishingcharters.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW1DUrH2H0w

 

[crabbuster]

quote:Originally posted by r.s craven

As long as they are a license holder, they are entitled to their
2 Halibut a day.
4 guys on a boat can legally bring back 8 halibut, wouldn't likely
happen unless you were out on the offshore banks.
But that's why we have the problem !!! people are greedy and will
keep taking until it's all gone.

When you say people are greedy you are stating what I was trying to.

 

[fisher69]

quote:Originally posted by crabbuster

How does one tell the difference between a male and female halibut?I'm new to fishing and if that rule gets set in place next year I had better know!
thanks,crabby.

Pretty much every hail over 30lbs is a female... just thought I would answer your question.

Also I have taken time to talk with some of the commercials and they are willing to release larger animals. I was also at an IPHC meeting 2 years ago when the commercials asked to reduce the quota because they had conservation concerns. It was rejected by the IPHC because the natives and sports were not on board.

Time to bury the hatchet and carry on. Weak stocks hurt everyone. We need reasonable annual limits for all species....

 

[Rum Buddies]

quoteretty much every hail over 30lbs is a female

Ok so first it was anything over 100lbs, then it was 70lbs now its anything over 30lbs is female? So only ping pong rackets are male and we should all be ashamed for anything bigger.

No offence personally to fisher69 - but this whole thing is a total joke. We have 12% of the catch, us releasing females isn't going to do jack sh*t for conservation.

 

[walter]

Yes and that 12% is coming off a shrinking pie for next year.

 

[theJohnD]

As an american that brings his boat to Port Hardy and spends 6 weeks, and many thounsands on my one main vice my opinion my surprise some. I would support the concept of the halibut stamp and the different cost to the non-canadians like myself that has been proposed earlier. An annual amount seems like a good idea although one possession limit is all I take as its to far to come twice and I don't believe in shipping fish home, seems unethical if not illegal. I do not support the 60 in size limit, for the same reasons already stated. Its too dangerous if the fish is close to 60 to be measuring and the comercial will just keep it anyway. I hope something can be worked out, always making the adjustment on the backs of the sportfisherman and never on the commercial is wrong. Where in the world did the 88/12 ratio come from. I am sure that my $4600 fuel bill alone plus marina, food, hardware camping, etc,etc. put alot more mone in the local economy that the comerical industry did for the same 4 halibut that we took home (a 60, a 63, and two 25 chickens). I also think if you are fishing in canadian waters you should be staying in canada and therefore be giving back economically rather than just coming across the border on theocean, taking the resource and then going home. Just my opion, probably not what most would expect from the enemy down south. Only kidding, I sure never feel like the enemy in Canada, Port Hardy has some of the friendlist people on the planet.

 

[fisher69]

Ok so first it was anything over 100lbs, then it was 70lbs now its anything over 30lbs is female? So only ping pong rackets are male and we should all be ashamed for anything bigger.

No offence personally to fisher69 - but this whole thing is a total joke. We have 12% of the catch, us releasing females isn't going to do jack sh*t for conservation.

Bad attitude Poppa. If we all do our part the resource can bounce back that much faster. If you look at the IPHC data almost every fish over 30lbs is a female. That is not to say to release them all but it makes sense that large females(60+) produce way more eggs than a 30lb fish and should be released. It should be manditory for us and the commercials to release the big spawners.

What I find a joke is that the commercial charter operations have grown so fast and big that now they expect the allocation to be changed to keep there out of town clients happy. What happens next year on a reduced quota? The guides and charter operations will have our allocation cleaned up before most independant anglers even have a chance.

12%... For the last 3 years we have gone way over the 12%. This year alone we are 300,000lbs plus over our allocation. That puts the 3 year total at well over 1,200,000 lbs.

Personally this fishery should go the same way hunting has. If you don't have a tag you don't fish. If you run out of tags go buy or lease some off the commercial sector... seems easy enough.

 

[richmake]

quote:Originally posted by fisher69

Ok so first it was anything over 100lbs, then it was 70lbs now its anything over 30lbs is female? So only ping pong rackets are male and we should all be ashamed for anything bigger.

No offence personally to fisher69 - but this whole thing is a total joke. We have 12% of the catch, us releasing females isn't going to do jack sh*t for conservation.

Bad attitude Poppa. If we all do our part the resource can bounce back that much faster. If you look at the IPHC data almost every fish over 30lbs is a female. That is not to say to release them all but it makes sense that large females(60+) produce way more eggs than a 30lb fish and should be released. It should be manditory for us and the commercials to release the big spawners.

What I find a joke is that the commercial charter operations have grown so fast and big that now they expect the allocation to be changed to keep there out of town clients happy. What happens next year on a reduced quota? The guides and charter operations will have our allocation cleaned up before most independant anglers even have a chance.

12%... For the last 3 years we have gone way over the 12%. This year alone we are 300,000lbs plus over our allocation. That puts the 3 year total at well over 1,200,000 lbs.

Personally this fishery should go the same way hunting has. If you don't have a tag you don't fish. If you run out of tags go buy or lease some off the commercial sector... seems easy enough.

Fisher69..it all sounds good except that I will never pay a commercial guy living in Hawaii anything for his quota ever.
The quota is not really there's to begin with, it's an allocated catch presented to them each year that they never paid a dime for to begin with...instant millionaires through poor management.
The tag idea is good, except that the money from each tag should go back into a pool that directly buy's commercial quota.
Remember that the tourism dollars that are created by us guides is worth far more to the economy than any commercial vessel.

www.coastwidesportsfishing.com

 

[fisher69]

Fisher69..it all sounds good except that I will never pay a commercial guy living in Hawaii anything for his quota ever.
The quota is not really there's to begin with, it's an allocated catch presented to them each year that they never paid a dime for to begin with...instant millionaires through poor management.
The tag idea is good, except that the money from each tag should go back into a pool that directly buy's commercial quota.
Remember that the tourism dollars that are created by us guides is worth far more to the economy than any commercial vessel.

I have to tell you that years ago I was able to go on a commercial longline trip. Anyone who thinks these guys got something for nothing is nuts. I've never seen people work that hard and long to make a living. Glad I was only there for a short time. Also I know quite a few commercial fisherman and most, if not all of them are definitly not millionairs. They have been screwed by DFO as bad if not worse than the sports sector.

I do whole heartedly agree that paying an arm chair to sit at home is wrong. If you speak with an "active" commercial fisherman they would totaly agree with you.

As for the dollar value I have to question that. I notice some of the folks on here like to boast about hotels,fuel,gear, blah blah and that's what a sports fish is worth. If you take the commercial price add on the unloading,fuel,families,shoreworkers, truckers,restaurants, amd consumers there is very little difference. Some might even argue that we are on the short end of the stick.

This same old arguement is the guides and lodges (who take 70% of the rec sectors allocation) looking to get there hands on a resource that people have harvested for decades to make a living.

Don't get me wrong I agree that the allocation needs to be changed. It just needs to be done in a fair way. I also agree that if a stamp ever makes it past the user fee act then 100% of the revenue should be used to buy quota.

 

[Nimo]

Re the dollar value: The difference is all of those commercial costs you mention including fuel, unloading, gear etc etc is already accounted for in the $28 per kilo cited previously. That's what it's worth to the end user.

The sports sector's value added on top of what they receive for a trip is astronomical - ask any tourist how much they spend having been enticed to come on a trip. There is absolutely no comparison.

 

[fisher69]

quote:Originally posted by Nimo

Re the dollar value: The difference is all of those commercial costs you mention including fuel, unloading, gear etc etc is already accounted for in the $28 per kilo cited previously. That's what it's worth to the end user.

The sports sector's value added on top of what they receive for a trip is astronomical - ask any tourist how much they spend having been enticed to come on a trip. There is absolutely no comparison.

Then there should be no problem having the commercial sports sector buck up and purchase quota. That way there would be more fish left for the average joe.

What about the public that don't have the time or money to pay for an expensive charter... are they suppose to be denied access to the resource?

 

[richmake]

quote:Originally posted by fisher69

quote:Originally posted by Nimo

Re the dollar value: The difference is all of those commercial costs you mention including fuel, unloading, gear etc etc is already accounted for in the $28 per kilo cited previously. That's what it's worth to the end user.

The sports sector's value added on top of what they receive for a trip is astronomical - ask any tourist how much they spend having been enticed to come on a trip. There is absolutely no comparison.

Then there should be no problem having the commercial sports sector buck up and purchase quota. That way there would be more fish left for the average joe.

What about the public that don't have the time or money to pay for an expensive charter... are they suppose to be denied access to the resource?

Here's what you forget to realize Fisher69...
Charter operators are commercial, but what you fail to realize is they are just simply a platform to allow people that choose to, a way to access the fishery.
We don't own the clients licences nor to we offer them any access to a commercial product per say.
The only thing that makes me a commercial vessel is the fact I carry passengers...it has nothing to do with fishing by the eyes of the law.
I offer a way for people that can't afford a vessel, a way to get to the grounds....
You can argue all day that your commercial quota buddies have 88% right to a public resource...maybe they do...maybe they don't...but arguing that the sports sector doesn't bring in neer the money that a commercial sector does on a wide spectrum is not right.
i used to fish for halibut commercially in the off season. When the government went to quota....they left the crew/deckhands with nothing...just like the salmon buyback.
Don't tell me I need to buy quota because it ain't gonna happen, and if you want to classify me as a commercial operater, I've got DFO landings documented that will be classified as commercial landings and you know what that means...we don't want to go down that road!


www.coastwidesportsfishing.com

 

[Tips Up]

On the subject of Commercials leasing out their quotas and not actually fishing. Why is this allowed?
Why not make a ruling that you have to be active with your quota or put it back in the pool?
Would it not be better for the commercials that are fishing to have access to these quotas without having to purchase them from someone who has no intention of fishing?
Less boats making more money and a more honest living?
Use it or lose it.

Tips

 

[Last Chance]

quote:Originally posted by Tips Up

On the subject of Commercials leasing out their quotas and not actually fishing. Why is this allowed?
Why not make a ruling that you have to be active with your quota or put it back in the pool?
Would it not be better for the commercials that are fishing to have access to these quotas without having to purchase them from someone who has no intention of fishing?
Less boats making more money and a more honest living?
Use it or lose it.

Tips

That may be a viable option. It would suck if you are a commercial guy who's boat hasn't left the dock, but I don't get paid in full for a charter if I send another guy out with my guests, may make sense here.

Might convince a few guys to sell the quota back to DFO, and make some available to the sporties.

Last Chance Fishing Adventures

www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com

 

[godeep]

This how the fishery was run in Alaska. I haven't kept up on the fishery in the last couple of years but I do know that you don't have to have a boat to own quota but you do have to be on the boat to catch the quota.
Not sure how it works when corporations own the quota and the boat.
My friends are young commercial fisherman and if wasn't for Tuna they wouldn't be able to just make a living on Halibut. They have a small quota and they lease 100,000 + every year. Fishing for Halibut is no easy living and only guys making it are sitting in Hawaii with quota.
Time to re think the gift.