DFO must fix halibut controversy now

Sushihunter

Active Member
http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/must+halibut+controversy/4089958/story.html

DFO must fix halibut controversy now


By D.C. Reid, Times Colonist January 11, 2011 12:07 AM




All saltwater anglers should come to the meeting Wednesday about this season's halibut problems and let the DFO know you are not happy.

This is one with a long history of problems all caused by DFO -- it gave out the public's own halibut for free, called Individual Vessel Quota to commercial fishermen in the 1990s. Quickly the zero value quota gained six-figure value for each of the 436 boat owners. Rationalized over the years, only 140 boats fish halibut against 300,000 sport fishing public.

Two reports have hobbled the process. An economist suggested a split of 88 per cent commercial, 12 per cent public in the Pearce Report. This was not science. A few years later the next report, overseen by a judge, noted the two earlier values. Since then, DFO digs in its heels and says 88/12 is "scientific" proof, even though in Alaska the public share is 20 per cent and in Washington, 36 per cent.

A few years ago, the DFO economists came up with the catchy phrase: a market mechanism; this meant that sport fishers could lease quota from the commercial industry and use it to keep fishing for halibut. Well, the quota owners at first bought up some sport fish, when we fished below the 12 per cent, and put the money in a fund. But when we came calling to lease back our fish, they bumped the price up for the fish we were obliged to buy and laid out conditions on the purchase. Needless to say, the sport delegation refused.

The DFO was asked to hold the money. They said no because it placed them in a legally responsible position. So it was suggested the DFO put a halibut stamp on our licences. The commercial, recreational and aboriginal stakeholders signed off, but it was canned on the desk of a particular assistant deputy minister without a reason.

In 2010, however, when the sport sector came up to the 12 per cent boundary, DFO closed the fishery on Oct. 18. Halibut typically opens Feb 1, in this case 2011. In our area, a lot of halibut is caught in the spring, so this is important to us. But the DFO has also said: when 12 per cent is reached, the sport fishery will close, and estimated it will be July 15, 2011.

The early closure results in huge problems for sport lodges who do most of their business from mid June to early September. They do their booking from summer clients and into early December when most fishing shows are run. But with a one halibut daily catch limit, and one possession limit and fishing cut off before the season is half over, a good chunk of the $500-million sector -- higher than the commercial sector -- is lost.

The B.C. Sport Fishing Coalition is hosting a meeting on:
Wednesday, 7 p.m.
Four Points Sheraton Hotel
829 McCallum Rd., Langford

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist







Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/must+halibut+controversy/4089958/story.html#ixzz1AiqjcT47
 
Those are all true facts its apperant your a commie.......
 
Update from the Coalition:



Its time to keep up the pressure...

Dear Angler

The holidays are over so we would like to encourage you to make this the year that you take action to ensure that your elected officials understand your concerns about the future of the recreational halibut fishery. As SFI President Rob Alcock has said "This isn't the hill we are choosing to die on, but this is a fight that we must win."

BC Sport Fishing Coalition




TOWN HALL MEETINGS ANNOUNCED!


The alliance will be holding a series of town hall meetings on the halibut fishery in communities on Vancouver Island. Dates for the Town Halls are:


Thursday, January 6th in Uclulet at the Sea Plane Base Hall at 7 pm. *Completed



Wednesday, January 12th in Victoria at the Sheraton 4 Points West at 7 pm.



Tuesday, January 18th in Nanaimo at the Beban Park Auditorium at 7 pm.



Wednesday, January 19th in Campbell River at the Marine Heritage Centre at 7 pm.



We strongly encourage you to go to one of the scheduled meetings if you can.

Please visit www.sfibc.com for more information on Town Hall Meetings.
.





Click on image to see video



VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SFI CONFERENCE ABOUT HALIBUT

Gary Cooper has helped us put together a video explanation of the history and depth of the problem facing the recreational halibut fishery.



Hear Martin Paish, Chair of the Halibut Working Group of the Sport Fish Advisory Board, explain how we got to this point.

John McCulloch of Langara Fishing Adventures presents the problems encountered by the Fishing Lodges due to uncertain halibut plans.



Brent McCallum, Redl Sports, discusses the effects of halibut mismanagement on sales for fishing tackle distributors. He also points out who is "Getting it right" as far as management plans go.



Ward Bond from Island Outfitters explains why the uncertainty around halibut plans hurts the independent small business.



Syd Pallister of Gibbs-Delta Tackle confirms the decline in sales and problems from a manufacturer's point of view.


Nice video Gary! We thank you for your assistance.
.




Click to Listen


Juan de Fuca MLA John Horgan spoke about the importance of the recreational halibut fishery to his constituents in Sooke and Port Renfrew during a recent CFAX radio interview. This in turn led to a longer interview with SFI President Rob Alcock.


CFAX radio


New Alliance Members

We are pleased to announce that more organizations are joining the Halibut Alliance.The member organizations now include: SFI, BC Wildlife Federation, Southern Vancouver Island Angling Coalition, BC Federation of Drift Fishers, BC Sport Fishing Guides Association, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, BC Marine Trades Association, the Campbell River Guides Association. We thank all groups involved for their support. If your group has not become a part of the coalition, and would like to be, please contact Alison Obrecht by email at: alison@sportfishing.bc.ca





NEW POLL!

We have posted a new poll on our website at www.sfibc.com. Please visit this site and vote on whether or not you believe that Stephen Harper should get involved in the halibut allocation issue!

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP!


The coalition would like to commend everyone who has helped build our website, write a letter or reach out to their local officials on halibut over the past month. Please continue to write letters and send a copy to the SFI office. Please visit our website www.sfibc.com for regular updates on this issue.

Believe us, Ottawa is starting to understand that they have a problem on their hands. Please keep it up, and if you have not already written, called or emailed, do so now.

Back to work....

BC Sport Fishing Coalition


Please send inquiries to:
Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
info@sportfishing.bc.ca
1.604.270.3439

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP ORGANIZE OR BE A HELPER AT AN UPCOMING COMMUNITY MEETING PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE WILL PUT YOUR EFFORTS TO GOOD WORK!





Forward email
 
so because i am educated in this and disagree I am a commie..... weak arguement..



This is one with a long history of problems all caused by DFO
no arguement here.
against 300,000 sport fishing public.
1/2 truth... I have heard 40k- 100k targeting halibut at best from the SFAB themselves depending on the arguement of the day.

Alaska the public share is 20 per cent and in Washington, 36 per cent.
sure in the last few years when the stocks have crashed... I belive they are now heading for limited entry in the lodge and charter sector.

A few years ago, the DFO economists came up with the catchy phrase: a market mechanism; this meant that sport fishers could lease quota from the commercial industry and use it to keep fishing for halibut. Well, the quota owners at first bought up some sport fish, when we fished below the 12 per cent, and put the money in a fund. But when we came calling to lease back our fish, they bumped the price up for the fish we were obliged to buy and laid out conditions on the purchase. Needless to say, the sport delegation refused.
the original policy stated we must find a way to transfer access... who the hell bumped the price up? Oh yeah the SFAB that ran around with a blank check book, hired license brokers and paid more for fish then the commercial fisherman.

The DFO was asked to hold the money. They said no because it placed them in a legally responsible position. So it was suggested the DFO put a halibut stamp on our licences. The commercial, recreational and aboriginal stakeholders signed off, but it was canned on the desk of a particular assistant deputy minister without a reason.
this makes little sense.. DFO was asked to put up tax dollars not hold money.

In 2010, however, when the sport sector came up to the 12 per cent boundary, DFO closed the fishery on Oct. 18. Halibut typically opens Feb 1, in this case 2011. In our area, a lot of halibut is caught in the spring, so this is important to us. But the DFO has also said: when 12 per cent is reached, the sport fishery will close, and estimated it will be July 15, 2011.
at what level of effort 1 and 1 or 2 and 3???

The early closure results in huge problems for sport lodges who do most of their business from mid June to early September. They do their booking from summer clients and into early December when most fishing shows are run. But with a one halibut daily catch limit, and one possession limit and fishing cut off before the season is half over, a good chunk of the $500-million sector -- higher than the commercial sector -- is lost.
since the real push is from the lodges and charters why not delay the opening. This is not about the rec angler.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hear Martin Paish, Chair of the Halibut Working Group of the Sport Fish Advisory Board, explain how we got to this point. Oak Bay marine Group

John McCulloch of Langara Fishing Adventures presents the problems encountered by the Fishing Lodges due to uncertain halibut plans.


Brent McCallum, Redl Sports, discusses the effects of halibut mismanagement on sales for fishing tackle distributors. He also points out who is "Getting it right" as far as management plans go.

Ward Bond from Island Outfitters explains why the uncertainty around halibut plans hurts the independent small business.

Syd Pallister of Gibbs-Delta Tackle confirms the decline in sales and problems from a manufacturer's point of view.

So who in this motly crew is representing the recreational fishermen???? looks like all lodge owners and tackle suppliers..
 
A couple of questions for fisher69

You seem to be very well informed on this subject and my assumption is that you are quota holder. Correct me if I am wrong.

1) Of the the 145 commercial boats fishing Halibut in BC how many of the boats fish there own quota besides the basic % needed to participate in the fishery?

2) With the price of leasing quota anticipated at more the $5.00lb this season, will the fishermen leasing quota make more money this year compared to the last 10 seasons.

3) Has their been any new boats built for Halibut fishing in the 20-30 years and do you anticipate any new boats in the future?

4) How much does quota cost in Alaska and how does their system work? Halibut Quota price could hit $50lb here and I was wondering where they are at?

5) Do Halibut boats and their crews make the same in Alaska as our guys do? The price is the same so they must.

A little insight would be great
 
It wasn't DFO that came up with the possible July closure. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (which represents the recreational industry in negotiations with government) advised the government they wanted a daily limit of two halibut, up from one halibut per day last year – which they predict would close the fishery in July.
 
"godeep" has the right idea, I don't think that we have actually heard the real perspective or had the true life observations of a commercial halibut or seafood fishing business eloquently explained to us here, as of yet. There is quite a history behind the industry and how we ended up to where we are all now placed today. I am certain that the story will get told eventually, hopefully sooner than later. So far we have had a great exchange and an excellent explanation via qualified and respected sport groups, but it is still only one sided & that would have everyone thinking that the sport economy by far out weighs the seafood industry here in Canada. However if we do ever develop a fair expanded analysis of both sectors, what then would the true economic value for each really be? I know that it is a complicated issue, but thus far we have only really heard one side of a weighted story.

I look forward to understanding both sides, it would be great to have all of the information related to each in order to develop my own opinion. I am sure that the seafood industry is much larger than just the fisherman who provide the catch.

Ding Dong!
 
1) Of the 145 commercial boats fishing Halibut in BC how many of the boats fish there own quota besides the basic % needed to participate in the fishery?
There are 145 halibut boats that fish their own quota, some of these 145 boats may lease quota off other vessels if they choose. That being said you are only talking about halibut boats. The total groundfish fleet rockfsih,dogfish,lingcod,and sablefish also need halibut to execute their fisheries (as there is no releasing of legal fish) so they must lease halibut to cover their encounters. One other things to remember is that with a 45% decrease in TAC it was obvious that the fleet needed to rationalize itself.

2) With the price of leasing quota anticipated at more the $5.00lb this season, will the fishermen leasing quota make more money this year compared to the last 10 seasons.
I don't think anyone is anticipating a $5 lease. The lease value is worked out between fishermen. Most vessels will have a slightly different variation of lease agreements. The other part of leasing that is never mentioned is the "lease to own" part of the fishery. Banks don't like to lend money on a privledge so there are many "lease to own" arrangements in the industry. Will they make more money, I would say yes.

3) Has their been any new boats built for Halibut fishing in the 20-30 years and do you anticipate any new boats in the future?
Yes there have been a couple of new boats built. The groundfish fleet is going through huge changes with integrated fishing so some boats are being converted to be more effiecient. Will there be more boats built... I would say that depends on the exploitable biomass.

4) How much does quota cost in Alaska and how does their system work? Halibut Quota price could hit $50lb here and I was wondering where they are at?
just did a quick search. Depending on area the top price I see on quota in Alaska is $33/lb. That being said their fisheries are about 5 years behind the monitioring standards and accounting practices of the Canadians, they are about to get hit with a 25% reduction, and they don't have the government in their with a blank check buying up quota. Today the highest price paid was by DFO for the PICFI program.
Their system works similar to the one in Canada. At one point they had use it or loose it but the lawyers found a way around that.


5) Do Halibut boats and their crews make the same in Alaska as our guys do? The price is the same so they must.
Prices are a little less in Alaska due to the freight costs to get it to market. Alaska is also not limited to the 1% that canadian boats are. So some boats make more and some boats make less..
 
So who in this motly crew is representing the recreational fishermen???? looks like all lodge owners and tackle suppliers..
of course they do stupid...lodge owners, tackle mfg guides , tackle suppliers, they are all rec fishermen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasn't DFO that came up with the possible July closure. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (which represents the recreational industry in negotiations with government) advised the government they wanted a daily limit of two halibut, up from one halibut per day last year – which they predict would close the fishery in July.

look another commercial with under 10 posts.....now its the canadian people speaking up for their own rights......finally a political solution is the only way to get whats due.....strength in numbers......350,000 anglers vs 430 commercial.....do the math
 
One other things to remember is that with a 45% decrease in TAC it was obvious that the fleet needed to rationalize itself.

I'd like some insight on this as I assume I cannot interpret what I see from IPHC site. Firstly, I am just an angler, I am not a guide or whatever - I am not happy that the 1/day reduction a few years ago was a big part of the decision for our company dropping our $5000/trip summer party in Port Renfrew. I am also not happy that I have 'finally' found someone I can go out halibut fishing with locally and my opportunities have been dwindling year after year. How about my son? What opportunities will he get down the road? It pisses me off to get squeezed out of my resource over some arbitrary number established years ago and I have never once bought fish from a store and am not about to start now.

So back to the decrease in TAC in the quote above...I ask why?? I assume I read different numbers than the numbers used to determine this. Is it not based on biomass plain and simple? Are the numbers here wrong?

<<Coastwide exploitable biomass at the beginning of 2010 is estimated
to be 334 million pounds. The assessment revised last year’s estimate of 325 million pounds at
the start of 2009 downwards to 291 million pounds and projects an increase of 14% over that
value to arrive at the 2010 value of 334 million pound>>

Judging from that, and the chart on page 105
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/annmeet/2010/bluebook/BBpopass_revised2_10.pdf
seems to say biomass is at record levels. I recall at one of the recent SFAB meetings this was also stated as the case. So, why does IPHC reduce the TAC year after year to put both commercial and sport in this situation? This I don't get, but I'm sure some of you have the answer to this. Love some insight (of course I will probably get more of this out of tomorrows meeting, but I would rather make sense of this beforehand).
 
You need the 2010 book. there was a huge drop in wpue in the commercial and survey fishery... In short the move to the new aportionment model did not work and it appears that for the 2010 year the model exagerated what was in the norhern areas. The 2010 surveys came in very weak and that is the reason for the large cut slated for this year
 
look another commercial with under 10 posts.....now its the canadian people speaking up for their own rights......finally a political solution is the only way to get whats due.....strength in numbers......350,000 anglers vs 430 commercial.....do the math
it may be a commie but is what he wrote true?
 
You need the 2010 book. there was a huge drop in wpue in the commercial and survey fishery... In short the move to the new aportionment model did not work and it appears that for the 2010 year the model exagerated what was in the norhern areas. The 2010 surveys came in very weak and that is the reason for the large cut slated for this year

you mean the original model? Ie, chart per that link or are you strictly saying a descrepancy between the models and the actual surveys that have created serious concern for 2010? Hasn't the TAC fallen every year for the last 4 or 5 yet the biomass trended up for the most part? Aside from 2010, why doesn't TAC movement mirror biomass in the prior years?

If the models are screwed and the biomass is infact sliding fast, yep, i'm all for the 1/2 or whatever it takes to be sustainable, but as has been echoed around here, I expect ALL those commercial to actually fish themselves as well!
 
I wouldn’t get into biomass or exploitable biomass with anyone who knows halibut – you will lose that argument! A slight increase in Area 2B biomass for a couple of years, does NOT mean the biomass isn't in decline - it is! That is well documented and has been in a steady decline for years. Those numbers go back years, not just 2007 or 09. Stick with the 88/12 split issue, at least you have a VERY VALID issue there and a good chance of winning, especially with an average split of 80/20, including BC's 88/12! If you muddy the water talking biomass, you are subject to lose on the VALID split issue! Let IPHC handle the biomass (seem to be doing pretty good there) and biomass really has has nothing to do with the 88/12 split issue! The TAC for Area 2B will be very close to the same as 2010, according to estimates. IPHC doesn't care if you catch them all in one day, one month, or the entire year, as long as it is within 20% biomass, which equates to exploitable biomass.

Regarding the studies on the biomass rather than trying to interpet charts, I suggest reading the text and studies. They give the actual numbers and estimates.

Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C indices illustrate vetween 1997 and 2006, total removals were stable in all three areas, averaging 1.6 million pounds in Area 2A, 13.5 million pounds in Area 2B, and 12.4 million pounds in Area 2C. Removals declined sharply between 2007 and 2009, in response to the change from closed-area to coastwide assessment and the resultant revised view of relative halibut abundance in Area 2. Bycatch of U32 fish, and subsequent lost yield to Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY), is estimated to be rather low, though O32 bycatch in Area 2A still represents a sizable portion of total removals. Surplus production estimates suggest that removals have exceeded surplus production in Area 2 for most of the past decade. Commercial effort has steadily increased in Area 2A for almost a decade but dropped sharply in 2009. In Areas 2B and 2C commercial WPUE has declined for the past three to four years. The main indices of abundance all suggest a steady decline in biomass from the mid 1990s to the late 2000s. Area 2A saw in 2009 a drop to the lowest survey WPUE on record, and a drop of 50% from 2008, to an average survey catch of 8 pounds of O32 halibut per standard skate. Area 2B had seen an increase in survey WPUE of 50% between 2007 and 2008; the 2009 value was nearly as strong as the 2008 value, suggesting a change in the declining trend in that area. For Area 2C, the increase in survey WPUE, while relatively minor, was the first in nearly a decade. Survey partitioning of the coastwide biomass suggests that the beginning of year 2010 EBio is down in 2A, up strongly in 2B, and up slightly in 2C from 2009 values. What is still a strong concern to staff is the generally much younger age structure of fish caught in Area 2. Mean age is around 11 years of age, with little difference between males and females. In particular, the catch of females is concentrated on ages where maturity at age is low thus removing females from the population before many have the opportunity to contribute to the spawning biomass.

All the indices are consistent with a picture of a steadily declining exploitable biomass up to at least 2007. The reasons for the decline are likely twofold. The first is the passing through of the two very large year classes of 1987 and 1988. Every assessment over the past decade has shown that those two year classes were very strong in comparison to the surrounding year classes. Now that those two year classes are 20 years old, their contribution to the exploitable biomass and catches has sharply declined and the drop in biomass is to be expected as they are replaced by year classes of lesser magnitude. Removals have been generally larger than surplus production and this prevents rebuilding of regional stocks. Our present view of Area 2 is that harvest rates have been much higher than the target rate of 0.20 over the past decade and are not sustainable, particularly with the passage of the 1987 and 1988 year classes. There are multiple signs that two or three large year classes are set to enter the exploitable biomass, however, the exploitable biomass will not increase strongly as long as harvest rates remain high. On that score, it is encouraging that removals have been brought down over the past few years. Realized harvest rates remain above target in all of Area 2 but are closer to target than at any time in the past decade. Finally, in 2009 Area 2 presently accounted for 26% of total removals coastwide but contributes just 20% to the female spawning biomass, a byproduct of their young age structure.
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/annmeet/2010/bluebook/BBpopass_revised2_10.pdf

Regarding another post, referring to "whining." Area 2A has a biomass of 6.63 and Area 2C has a biomass is 25.05. Area 2B biomass is 40.89. 3A biomass is 109.39. Regarding that post, basically Area 2A has NO halibut to “whine” about-we have already over fished them out! If you don’t think commercial and sport in Area 2C aren’t “whining,” I would suggest rechecking that - they are! There is REAL problems in Area 2C. Before anyone jumps up and down, don't even compare Area 2B and 2C sport guides, I would suggest reading more, prior to doing that.

Regarding the 88/12 split, here is an "eye opener" for you! “Other Removals” is where IPHC shows ALL sport catch! Start by asking DFO to reply and account for this statement, “That is, the yield lost due to U32 bycatch mortality for Area 2B is approximately 16% of the current yield whereas the yield lost due to unbalanced harvest rates is from 160% to 260% of the current yield.” That would be referring to “commercial” U32 bycatch, which is counted and goes against BC TAC! 16% bycatch mortality for Area 2B? Equals a LOT, especially when looking at 12% total sport TAC! If I am ready right - Just to make this clear, "commercial" U32 bycatch mortality for Area 2B is approximately 16% yield loss - that would be commercial U32 bycatch! I would be asking DFO to justify that, and some restrictions on the 16% U32 commercial bycatch. That unwanted 16% wasted yield could be added to the current 12% sport, for a total of 28% sport TAC? I am talking percentages considered "wasted yield" via IPHC actual studies.

Scroll down the to Table 5. 2010 Other removals in detail and look at that, very closely! You will find in 2010 Area 2B sport removal (catch) was 1.092. Want to put that in prospective? Area 4CDE “bycatch and waste” was 1.606. Just in Alaska Area 4CDE - they throw away in bycatch and waste, more than DFO allows their entire sport fishery! Then look at Area 2B closer, you find - take out the sport and personal use, the commercial halibut fishery in BC bycatch and waste is 0.533. Then look at “Other removals, not subtracted from Total CEY” for commercials. There is another 0.336 in there, not subtracted from Total CEY”O26/U32. Now not knowing any better, if I add those numbers, I come up with a total bycatch and waste of 0.869 by the commercial fishery and that compares to a total of 1.092 allowed TAC the sport sector? Yep, I can see where they come up with that 16% wasted yield number! If I am reading right, the combined commercial bycatch and waste… is documented and real close to total allowance DFO allows the entire sport fishery? Nope, I don’t see anything wrong there, if you are in the commercial fleet and you bet, if I was a commercial operator - I would be right there arguing and trying to protect that one, also!
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/2010IM_presentations/im2010catlimv7.pdf

Of course, you also have the rest of that statement regarding British Columbia commercial halibut fishery that gives the approximate number of pounds in commercial 'lost yield', “The expected level of lost yield due to recent unbalanced harvest rates, as well as its level relative to the lost yield to bycatch, varies among areas. Taking Area 2B as an example, there is about 1.3 Mlb yield loss due to U32 bycatch mortality, compared to the 2009 Area 2B total yield of 8 Mlb. The estimated yield loss due to recent unbalanced harvest rates is approximately 13 Mlb for a scenario with coastwide total yield set to that of 2009 (65.8 Mlb, Fig. 14 top) and about 20.7 Mlb for a scenario of high coastwide total yield (90 Mlb, Fig 15 top).” Yes, that is MILLIONS of pounds lost each year!
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/papers/Mig_Bycatch_RARA2010_web.pdf

It is starting to sound to me more like DFO really needs to get a handle on the proper accounting for the commercial bycatch and waste, and I would recommend a size restriction on U32 and then they can adjust that commercial number to more correctly account for and reflect the “commercial” U32 and other bycatch and waste accordingly?

Hope I didn't bore you to much! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No closure announcement

"is what he wrote true? "


Yes it is true.

DFO has NOT announced any mid season closure. See below.


A spokesman with the Department of Fisheries & Oceans says the prediction of a mid-July closure is based on the recreational industry’s advice to the government. Tamee Mawani, the regional manager for groundfish in the Pacific region for Fisheries & Oceans, says the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (which represents the recreational industry in negotiations with government) advised the government on a daily limit of two halibut, up from one halibut per day last year – which they predict would close the fishery in July.
“That was their advice to us,” says Mawani.
Mawani also points out the Department of Fisheries & Oceans has not yet set a daily limit for the recreational halibut fishery for the 2011 season, and it has not decided when it will open. She says the government is aware of the concerns over the 88-12 rule, and it has discussed the issue since April 2010 with the recreational & the commercial industry (represented by the Pacific Halibut Management Association).
Mawani says it is ultimately up to the minister to decide whether or not to increase the 12 per cent allocation.
Meanwhile, the total allowable catch for halibut in both industries will be set by the IPHC at its annual meeting, held this year in Victoria from January 25-28.


The whole story is here:

http://www.muskegnews.com/charter-halibut101
 
"is what he wrote true? "


Yes it is true.

DFO has NOT announced any mid season closure. See below.


A spokesman with the Department of Fisheries & Oceans says the prediction of a mid-July closure is based on the recreational industry’s advice to the government. Tamee Mawani, the regional manager for groundfish in the Pacific region for Fisheries & Oceans, says the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (which represents the recreational industry in negotiations with government) advised the government on a daily limit of two halibut, up from one halibut per day last year – which they predict would close the fishery in July.
“That was their advice to us,” says Mawani.
Mawani also points out the Department of Fisheries & Oceans has not yet set a daily limit for the recreational halibut fishery for the 2011 season, and it has not decided when it will open. She says the government is aware of the concerns over the 88-12 rule, and it has discussed the issue since April 2010 with the recreational & the commercial industry (represented by the Pacific Halibut Management Association).
Mawani says it is ultimately up to the minister to decide whether or not to increase the 12 per cent allocation.
Meanwhile, the total allowable catch for halibut in both industries will be set by the IPHC at its annual meeting, held this year in Victoria from January 25-28.


The whole story is here:

http://www.muskegnews.com/charter-halibut101

So the main reason for the early closure is because the SFAB is trying to increase the limits from 1/1 to 2/3? Did I read that right?
 
So the main reason for the early closure is because the SFAB is trying to increase the limits from 1/1 to 2/3? Did I read that right?

sure reads that way .....you know, if there is no budge on the 88/12, perhaps the way to make EVERYONE happy is to push forward the opening as I think has been mentioned a few times....lets say Apr 1 - Sept 1, but 2/3 possession....I'm good with that and I assume all lodges and all west coast tennis racket fishery would be happy with that. Is the fringe fishery of Feb-Mar really that important (I made 2 weeks shorter to offset the likelihood of more caught July 15-Sept 1 then there would in Feb to March). Even if thats pushing it, 2/2 isn't that bad if thats what it would take to make the Apr to Sept timeblock work - only really impacts the remote lodges and those boys trips to the middle of nowhere in Nootka or something.

Much prefer the move on the 88/12 though!
 
Back
Top