FN0904-Recreational - Halibut: fishery continuing until further notic

UkeeDreamin

Well-Known Member
Access Fishery Notice here:

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=187504&ID=all

Interesting that the rec sector left a significant amount of quota uncaught last year and, as of the August 31st update in 2015, the estimate was that 958,000+ lbs (of 1,063,550 lb quota) had been caught. This year, as of July 31st, 691,120 lbs, of a 1,100,950 lb quota, has been harvested. Tough that DFO doesn't update this in a consistent manner to allow direct comparison between years but, regardless, looks like the rec sector is well below the harvest rate of 2015 and thus will likely leave even more quota unharvested.

I hope this finally spurs both DFO and the SFAB to review the regs and to abandon the ones that have proven useless (e.g. the undersized fish that only applies to travelling anglers) and adjust the others (annual quota, max size, possession quota, etc) so that we maximize the quota allotment we've fought for (or risk the commie sector requesting it be returned to an 88/12 split!!).

Cheers!

Ukee
 
I'm certainly not holding my breath, that's for sure! The "experimental" regs that were brought in are still with us despite all data captured since showing they don't work, so certainly doesn't inspire any confidence in the system, to say the least.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
LOL..we are certain started early this year...perhaps one of you will show up at your fall meeting & put forward a motion that u would like to see for next year... :)
Ran from Vancouver to Renfrew this summer to get my one 25lb Halibut as I refuse to higrade and understand the mortallity rates. Thats a lot of gas for one fish. Sure hope they never put the same restriction on the Tuna Fishers as it would certainly keep the sport caught numbers down as I don't think they would burn that kind of gas for one fish.
 
Same BS every time over and over .......... Another year of not getting our quota coming up ........

The management of this fishery us as said ... A FARCE

Should be 90 and 133, three possession, 2 per day. At least. And quite frankly, to allow the ZfN and commercial no size limit on big fish but put it on Recreational gushers at 133 wrong.

Nothing seems to amaze me more then Government and DFO.
 
Care to explain the 90 High Tide? That "experimental" "under" slot does absolutely nothing to save quota as the average sized fish is already below the slot and occurs at such an infrequent rate as to be statistically meaningless.

So frustrating to hear folks who don't know how the models and regs work blindly supporting a useless reg!

Personally I'd like to see the slot canned like it should have been after its failed experimental period, a monthly possession quota of 2 or 3 fish instituted so that all anglers, whether resident or travelling are treated equitably, and the numbers run to adjust the annual and max size limits to ensure our sector gets to our quota.

Derby, as soon as there is a modernized, inclusive system set up that engages more than 1% of rec licensed holders I'll be all in. I checked locally and the Mid-Fraser/Thompson/Okanagan SFAC hasn't had more than 8 meeting attendees in a very, very long time. Not surprising with mid-week meetings in a single small community for such a vast area. To pretend that SFAC adequately represents the interests of rec anglers is ridiculous. Oregon and Washington have both embraced modern methods of engaging their large license holder base. Past time that DFO Pacific Region do the same!

Cheers!

Ukee
 
Sad thing is it is our "representatives" that are mismanaging it. EVERY year WAY too conservative of an approach...mark my words, next year will be 133/90...which will be UNDER again (assuming similar TAC)...stupid stupid stupid. It's mind boggling...yet look at those actually on SFAB on this thread deflecting blame and not taking any responsibility for it...and saying "at least we can halibut fish" *eyeroll* ...see above... That's the mind boggling part and part that shows to every one of me and you that things WON'T change...under under under....add up the underages and you have OVER a half season worth of halibut...When will they learn? If the past is any indicator...never.

And fishtofino posting something actually constructive....HA HA....his one liners right behind Deryk (not attacking deryk here) are pretty much 90% of his posts.
 
Same BS every time over and over .......... Another year of not getting our quota coming up ........

The management of this fishery us as said ... A FARCE

Should be 90 and 133, three possession, 2 per day. At least. And quite frankly, to allow the ZfN and commercial no size limit on big fish but put it on Recreational gushers at 133 wrong.

Nothing seems to amaze me more then Government and DFO.


As been stated before......if it's wide open for Rec fishers to kill the Halis over 133 there is a chance that we could be closed already. Up north they can catch them all the time, my boat has released at least 14 or 15 over size this season. Times that by another 11 or 12 Tofino guides that also fish the same grounds as me.....there's 120 Halibut that's close to 11,000 lbs at a 90 lb average. Times that by the many guides from our area towards the north end of the west side of the Island plus the north and central coast and it's over early.
 
Or you could just use REAL numbers and see what we caught in 2011/2012 with an any size limit on fish instead of trying to scare people with numbers you thought up in your head?! And go from there...as that is actually practical and far less scary in terms of getting us under 1.1mill. Plus would allow better limits AND using actual numbers..that's the key.
 
Care to explain the 90 High Tide? That "experimental" "under" slot does absolutely nothing to save quota as the average sized fish is already below the slot and occurs at such an infrequent rate as to be statistically meaningless.

So frustrating to hear folks who don't know how the models and regs work blindly supporting a useless reg!

Personally I'd like to see the slot canned like it should have been after its failed experimental period, a monthly possession quota of 2 or 3 fish instituted so that all anglers, whether resident or travelling are treated equitably, and the numbers run to adjust the annual and max size limits to ensure our sector gets to our quota.

Derby, as soon as there is a modernized, inclusive system set up that engages more than 1% of rec licensed holders I'll be all in. I checked locally and the Mid-Fraser/Thompson/Okanagan SFAC hasn't had more than 8 meeting attendees in a very, very long time. Not surprising with mid-week meetings in a single small community for such a vast area. To pretend that SFAC adequately represents the interests of rec anglers is ridiculous. Oregon and Washington have both embraced modern methods of engaging their large license holder base. Past time that DFO Pacific Region do the same!

Cheers!

Ukee

The 90 being last years small fish of two in which again 2015 we did not catch quota ....... So what happens, DFO brings back the 83 ....... For 2016. Still no word of going back to 3 Poss. 2 per day one under 90 one up yo 133. And we STILL won't catch quota.

The tourism dollars, the over all contribution the a Recreational angler SHOULD be slowed to have his 2 fish per day regardless of the rediculious back and forth on measure. Phil short sited.

Thus fishery gas become nothing but another big grab of big business ........ Plus the FN having what they want and when. Yet the recreational get 15 % .............. QUOTA THAT WE NEVER CATCH.

Myself and thousands and thousands if others put HUGE Money into this economy with the RECREATIONAL FISHERY. And we're the ones getting SCREWED.

rant done lol ......... This is my 2 cents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As been stated before......if it's wide open for Rec fishers to kill the Halis over 133 there is a chance that we could be closed already. Up north they can catch them all the time, my boat has released at least 14 or 15 over size this season. Times that by another 11 or 12 Tofino guides that also fish the same grounds as me.....there's 120 Halibut that's close to 11,000 lbs at a 90 lb average. Times that by the many guides from our area towards the north end of the west side of the Island plus the north and central coast and it's over early.


How many of you guides are taking big hali anyways and just buying allocation from the commercial guys? I think it's quite a few. If you guys are doing that then basically you are just privatizing what should be a public resource. I was talking with a friend at work a week ago and he was all giddy after a trip over to the charlottes where him and his buddies had caught a few large hali. the guide said he had quota and asked if they wanted to buy into it... "hell ya" was his response.
******** as far as I'm concerned.
just another nice perk for private lodges and the guiding industry.
 
Care to explain the 90 High Tide? That "experimental" "under" slot does absolutely nothing to save quota as the average sized fish is already below the slot and occurs at such an infrequent rate as to be statistically meaningless.

So frustrating to hear folks who don't know how the models and regs work blindly supporting a useless reg!

Personally I'd like to see the slot canned like it should have been after its failed experimental period, a monthly possession quota of 2 or 3 fish instituted so that all anglers, whether resident or travelling are treated equitably, and the numbers run to adjust the annual and max size limits to ensure our sector gets to our quota.

Derby, as soon as there is a modernized, inclusive system set up that engages more than 1% of rec licensed holders I'll be all in. I checked locally and the Mid-Fraser/Thompson/Okanagan SFAC hasn't had more than 8 meeting attendees in a very, very long time. Not surprising with mid-week meetings in a single small community for such a vast area. To pretend that SFAC adequately represents the interests of rec anglers is ridiculous. Oregon and Washington have both embraced modern methods of engaging their large license holder base. Past time that DFO Pacific Region do the same!

Cheers!

Ukee
Makes good sense to me.
 
"as soon as there is a modernized, inclusive system set up that engages more than 1% of rec licensed holders I'll be all in. I checked locally and the Mid-Fraser/Thompson/Okanagan SFAC hasn't had more than 8 meeting attendees in a very, very long time. Not surprising with mid-week meetings in a single small community for such a vast area. To pretend that SFAC adequately represents the interests of rec anglers is ridiculous. Oregon and Washington have bothembraced modern methods of engaging their large license holder base. Past time that DFO Pacific Region do the same!"

Yep.
 
Anyone know if there is a fudge factor incorporated in the catch numbers and if so what % it is? I suspect there must be given the way the estimate is made? At any rate it's hard to get worked up without knowing how accurate or even how the estimate is done. There may be a lot more or a lot less fish harvested or left in the water?
 
Ziggy, it is far more fudge than substance. First off, DFO is utilizing an outdated model that doesn't properly characterize the halibut rec fishery, nor does it account for the vast difference in the regional fisheries (for instance the fact that a high percent of rec halibut are by-catch on the troll in 121, 123 and 124, which yields a much smaller fish on average than anchoring up or drifting with bait on bottom). The outdated model also assumes 50% of harvested fish are subject to the slot limit, which is ridiculous as all rec fishers know that a high percent of effort is made by local anglers, one day charters, travelling anglers on their first day and travelling anglers who have yet to harvest a fish over the slot, all scenarios not subject to the slot limit. Thus the slot adjustment is misapplied in the model. Given the infrequency that a rec caught fish would be subject to the minimum slot and the fact the average and median fish harvested in the rec fishery in all historical data is lower than the slot size, statistically there would be no adjustment in a proper model.

Further, the data collected at a limited number of creel survey locations, supplemented by collection of voluntary charter log books, is not a random sample, or even a stratified random sample. Such non-random data sets introduce huge error into any predictive model (in fact, most stats experts would say that any extrapolation based on data that isn't randomly or stratified randomly sampled is not reliable at all). Add to that the highly inaccurate overflight estimation of halibut effort, which is extrapolated from # of boats counted compared to percent reporting they targeted hali during their creel interview, and more estimation error is introduced.

When modelling such numbers, every time there is a source of error, it multiplies as the estimate is generated. Given the poor data source and poor model, the error/uncertainty on the modelled halibut rec harvest would be very large, like more than 50% on the error bars/probability range - e.g. 600,000 lbs to date likely has an error range of 300-900k if the error were calculated correctly, assuming you have any confidence in the data or the model at all.

I'd be 100% supportive of a halibut harvest tag surcharge IF 100% of funds went to the IPHC as an independent science organization to develop a proper model and data collection protocol to properly assess BC's recreational halibut fishery.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
So in essence there could be a huge discrepancy between the numbers left on the table and those being served at the table? I guess the prudent course has to be to error on the side of caution. I agree the system needs more research funding and would also support a Halibut harvest charge if as you say it goes directly into improving the conservation of the species.
 
So in essence there could be a huge discrepancy between the numbers left on the table and those being served at the table? I guess the prudent course has to be to error on the side of caution. I agree the system needs more research funding and would also support a Halibut harvest charge if as you say it goes directly into improving the conservation of the species.

YA ok get the Pattison Group to fund it. Sure thing.
This is BIG BUSINESS no different the the GO issue and resident hunters. The Feds and Prov Gov care less for the little guy. The back bone of the entire lot. Always the little guy fundraising, doing, hatcheries stream work etc etc yet are the FIRST TO GO. First to get cut, first for legislation that make Zero since 85/15 on Allocation ...... What a complete FARCE !

No I do NOT SUPPORT YET ANOTHER TAX THAT WILL DO DICK TO HELP THE RECREATIONAL FISHER !

I DO SUPPORT mandatory reporting of all catch on licenses at years end by every one including recreational, Com and FN ..... Every one. A false statement is against the law. So is REPRINT of a new license that DFO has turned a blind eye too. Pathetic management period.
Thus coast is going the way of the East, given time. Terribly terribly sad.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top