Halibut Quota Taboo Subject on SFBC?

[Cut Plug]

Hi:

I do sit on the SFAB halibut working group and have done for over a decade. While I honestly don't have the opportunity to engage in an active debate on this forum, I'll do my best to answer some of the SFAB related questions that have arisen to the best of my ability.

First off, and to clear the air again, those of us that sit on the SFAB have by now become pretty much immune to the ill informed and intentionally confrontational opinions offered by a few on this site regarding the participation, biases, intentions, influence etc, etc of the SFAB process. I've offered my opinion on that subject before so won't waste anyone's time doing it again. What I will offer though, is to be very careful what you wish for. DFO is in an extremely difficult situation right now regarding operating budget and human resources at the fishery management level, so any excuse to cut corners on consultation will be gladly accepted. If you think, however, that what we've got now is likely to be replaced by some kind of internet forum or survey that will need to be read, analyzed, collated and responded to by DFO staff, you're dreaming in technicolor IMO. An SFAB website has been on the table for years now. No action from DFO. What has also been bandied about is replacing meetings with webinars. I guess we'll see how that unfolds. More and more we do utilize conference calls, and for the most part that works well. Being kind of old school, and also one who personally prioritizes fishery management as something I care about deeply, I have no issue making the effort to travel and attend face to face meetings. I simply find them more productive and engaging, and so will continue to lobby for maintenance of the existing system.

So...in no real order here's my shot at issues that have been raised thus far that I have answers for:

• Why do we have a coast wide management plan in effect? The main reason is the desire to offer consistent opportunity and expectation to all anglers across the province. The second is that its reasonable to assume that the fleet is pretty mobile. Lots of boats on trailers out there. It is therefore assumed that differential PFMA based regs will not be enforceable as anglers are not limited to regional opportunities. We have a coast wide license. The third reason is that at the IPHC level we are provided TAC as one management unit. FYI the SFAB has thought this through, and well beyond the concept stage. While it sounds attractive at first blush, the devil is always in the details. How would this option actually be implemented in the fishery? Well, first off who'd like to step up to the plate and lead the process whereby we divvy up our TAC on a PFMA by PFMA basis? That is the likely only way you could effectively manage PFMA based regs in a fair manner. I guess then we'd need to create regional halibut licenses that apply in each PFMA. Maybe then you'd need to pick "your" PFMA in which to fish? When your PFMA has used up its TAC, is your PFMA shut down? Would local residents get priority? Would you be able to fish or buy a license in in more than one PFMA? How would you manage that process? LEH Port Hardy halibut tags?...lol...The more we scratch even a little bit beneath the surface of this idea the more unrealistic it becomes. Any ideas on another way to do it other than just assertion that we should do it?
• What is the projected underage for 2016? Based on the information I have, the total estimated catch to the end of the year is 1,012, 844 lbs. That leaves an underage of 88,106 lbs or about 8.7% of the TAC at the end of Dec. In my experience over the past 25 years or so, managing a catch of anything to within 10% or less isn't something to be ashamed of. FYI - a subtle change in weather, average size or availability of other species leading to a shift in effort could have easily put the catch 10% the other side of the TAC. To put it in perspective, we averaged over 88,000 lbs per week in July this year.
• What about the 2nd fish slot? Well, we've been trying to get additional data on this for a few years now to help answer that question. We still don't have it so until we do I guess we'll continue to take the high road and be precautionary by assuming that no size limit on the second fish may drive catch up. Maybe the iREC or iARC internet surveys will be used this year to help get some data. I hope so.
• The iARC survey did inform us that less than 10% of halibut anglers in the province actually catch their six fish annual limit.
• Why don't we use the overage and underage provisions that are used by the commercial sector? The reason for this is that it would imply that we "own" our TAC when in fact we don't. In 2010 and 2011 the lobby groups that did and still do represent the recreational fishery in BC (SFI, BCWF, SVIAC) engaged in some serious and well organized political action that provided an increase of 3% in our TAC. One of the underlying premises of this action, and a position I believe is still strongly supported by the majority of anglers today, is that halibut are a common property resource managed by the federal government on behalf of all Canadians. The supreme court agreed with this notion in 2013 in the Malcolm Case.

That's about all I can see in the previous pages that I have answers for. I see no point in posting tables or models here. The process where we do that is the SFAB. Make the effort to either participate or call up DFO, and you will be provided the information that goes along with that participation. Fishing is a privilege folks, IMO you don't have a "right" to anything. Now I've done it ! Bust out the flamethrowers...lol..

Back to storm watching. Sure glad I pulled my boat on Tuesday!

CP

 

[vic-tory]

Only beef I have with that post is the prediction for underage this year, otherwise good post cut! . That was a forecast model for sept (not actual results...) and somehow had us catching 80,000 lbs in sept. 4 times the average. And said 5-6 areas would catch TWICE as much halibut in September as August. Come on now.

So realistically take four year average of 24,000 lbs and you end up at around 130,000 lbs under. That's significant. You can play the what if game like I've said before but what if there was worse weather?! Dfo won't shut us down if slightly over after leaving 620,000+ lbs in water over four years. They know the importance of the fishery.

 

[OldBlackDog]

I agree with Cut Plug as people who criticize the SFAB system usually are not in it, or do not care to join it.

The people who are involved in the Halibut Committee spend hours on it. They do not get paid as none of the people involved are.

The SFAB is and always has been volunteers.

There is no money in the SFAB and if there was it would be a different animal.

Get involved, there is always room for new ideals and people.

Yes these people work for your benefit, they work through the days, nights and weekends.
Appreciate them.

 

[Cut Plug]

Only beef I have with that post is the prediction for underage this year, otherwise good post cut! . That was a forecast model for sept (not actual results...) and somehow had us catching 80,000 lbs in sept. 4 times the average. And said 5-6 areas would catch TWICE as much halibut in September as August. Come on now.

So realistically take four year average of 24,000 lbs and you end up at around 130,000 lbs under. That's significant. You can play the what if game like I've said before but what if there was worse weather?! Dfo won't shut us down if slightly over after leaving 620,000+ lbs in water over four years. They know the importance of the fishery.

The reason catch is up in the forecast for Sept - Dec is because of the integration of iREC estimates into forecasted catch model. iREC is the internet survey some of you may have received, and the catch estimates derived from iREC are being added in PFMA's and times where we previously had no creel survey or log book information and so no catch estimate. The greatest impact of iREC takes place in the shoulder and off season months because there are traditionally no creel surveys and most lodges and charters aren't operating and submitting log books during these times. It is reasonable to assume there is indeed some catch in these areas and times, however we in the SFAB have also questioned some of the numbers as being too high.

The real challenge with iREC moving forward is that iREC was implemented at the p25 or 50% total impact level this year. This was done because DFO accepted SFAB advice that implementing at the full p50 would have a serious and negative impact on both the halibut fishery and future participation in iREC. The p25 level was estimated to increase catch by about 10% based on the average increase derived by adding iREC catch to the 2014 and 2015 final catch numbers. Not too sure yet at what level we'll be asked to integrate iREC into the 2017 fishery. If we are required to integrate at the p50 level then we will be adding another 10% to the overall catch without changing a single thing with regards to any management measure.

So...what this means is that in the 2017 season we could actually end up with an increase in catch of about 10% over this year even if we implement the same suite of management measures. Unless we achieve a greater than 10% increase in TAC, our options for relaxing management measures are pretty darn limited.

IMO there is a difference in achieving an overage because of measures beyond our control, and planning for one. The difference is that we may indeed get some flexibility from DFO if we haven't planned for an overage. Not so much if we have planned for one.

CP

 

[Aces]

Hi:

I do sit on the SFAB halibut working group and have done for over a decade. While I honestly don't have the opportunity to engage in an active debate on this forum, I'll do my best to answer some of the SFAB related questions that have arisen to the best of my ability.

First off, and to clear the air again, those of us that sit on the SFAB have by now become pretty much immune to the ill informed and intentionally confrontational opinions offered by a few on this site regarding the participation, biases, intentions, influence etc, etc of the SFAB process. I've offered my opinion on that subject before so won't waste anyone's time doing it again. What I will offer though, is to be very careful what you wish for. DFO is in an extremely difficult situation right now regarding operating budget and human resources at the fishery management level, so any excuse to cut corners on consultation will be gladly accepted. If you think, however, that what we've got now is likely to be replaced by some kind of internet forum or survey that will need to be read, analyzed, collated and responded to by DFO staff, you're dreaming in technicolor IMO. An SFAB website has been on the table for years now. No action from DFO. What has also been bandied about is replacing meetings with webinars. I guess we'll see how that unfolds. More and more we do utilize conference calls, and for the most part that works well. Being kind of old school, and also one who personally prioritizes fishery management as something I care about deeply, I have no issue making the effort to travel and attend face to face meetings. I simply find them more productive and engaging, and so will continue to lobby for maintenance of the existing system.

So...in no real order here's my shot at issues that have been raised thus far that I have answers for:

• Why do we have a coast wide management plan in effect? The main reason is the desire to offer consistent opportunity and expectation to all anglers across the province. The second is that its reasonable to assume that the fleet is pretty mobile. Lots of boats on trailers out there. It is therefore assumed that differential PFMA based regs will not be enforceable as anglers are not limited to regional opportunities. We have a coast wide license. The third reason is that at the IPHC level we are provided TAC as one management unit. FYI the SFAB has thought this through, and well beyond the concept stage. While at sounds attractive at first blush, the devil is always in the details. How would this option actually be implemented in the fishery? Well, first off who'd like to step up to the plate and lead the process whereby we divvy up our TAC on a PFMA by PFMA basis? That is the likely only way you could effectively manage PFMA based regs in a fair manner. I guess then we'd need to create regional halibut licenses that apply in each PFMA. Maybe then you'd need to pick "your" PFMA in which to fish? When your PFMA has used up its TAC, is your PFMA shut down? Would local residents get priority? Would you be able to fish or buy a license in in more than one PFMA? How would you manage that process? LEH Port Hardy halibut tags?...lol...The more I scratch even a little bit beneath the surface of this idea the more unrealistic it becomes. Any ideas on another way to do it other than just assertion that we should do it?
• What is the projected underage for 2016? Based on the information I have, the total estimated catch to the end of the year is 1,012, 844 lbs. That leaves an underage of 88,106 lobs or about 8.7% of the TAC at the end of Dec. In my experience over the past 25 years or so, managing a catch of anything to within 10% or less isn't something to be ashamed of. FYI - a subtle change in weather, average size or availability of other species leading to a shift in effort could have easily put the catch 10% the other side of the TAC. To put in in perspective, we averaged over 88,000 lbs per week in July this year.
• What about the 2nd fish slot? Well, we've been trying to get additional data on this for a few years now to help answer that question. We still don't have it so until we do I guess we'll continue to take the high road and be precautionary by assuming that no size limit on the second fish may drive catch up. Maybe the iREC or iARC internet surveys will be used this year to help get some data. I hope so.
• The iARC survey did inform us that less than 10% of halibut anglers in the province actually catch their six fish annual limit.
• Why don't we use the overage and underage provisions that are used by the commercial sector? The reason for this is that it would imply that we "own" our TAC when in fact we don't. In 2010 and 2011 the lobby groups that did and still do represent the recreational fishery in BC (SFI, BCWF, SVIAC) engaged in some serious and well organized political action that provided an increase of 3% in our TAC. One of the underlying premises of this action, and a position I believe is still strongly supported by the majority of anglers today, is that halibut are a common property resource managed by the federal government on behalf of all Canadians. The supreme court agreed with this notion in 2013 in the Malcolm Case.

That's about all I can see in the previous pages that I have answers for. I see no point in posting tables or models here. The process where we do that is the SFAB. Make the effort to either participate or call up DFO, and you will be provided the information that goes along with that participation. Fishing is a privilege folks, IMO you don't have a "right" to anything. Now I've done it ! Bust out the flamethrowers...lol..

Back to storm watching. Sure glad I pulled my boat on Tuesday!

CP

Thank you for taking the time to write this post and explaining the nuts and bolts of this process

 

[Cuba Libre]

Don't write to DFO! Write to the Minister, your local MP,even your local MLA. DFO bureaucrats don't care, they don't need your vote to keep their jobs.

Ziggy-- Its not that they hardly read them and dont care-- They just have very little influence to get things changed . By all means write them-- But most importantly flood the politicians with questions about why THEY are not fixing the unfair situation we presently have,.

 

[ziggy]

Ziggy-- Its not that they hardly read them and dont care-- They just have very little influence to get things changed . By all means write them-- But most importantly flood the politicians with questions about why THEY are not fixing the unfair situation we presently have,.

Agree completely, my post wasn't mean't to suggest DFO employees don't care, but rather to suggest that they were the wrong target for our letters. It's the politicians who rely on our votes who need to be targeted. I read once that there are 300 k fishing licenses issued, that's a lot of votes! On the BC coast the concentrations could be sufficiently high to sway an election.

Sadly though, to the best of my knowledge recreational fishing never ranks high on the list of town hall topics or election promises. The last Federal election was a prime example, many seemed to just assume the new government would be magically different from the old in regards to fishery! Anyone notice any positive changes? Rec fishery is a low priority because it's viewed as a minor issue, seldom talked about and not politicised. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, write letters, ask questions like any other special interest group!

 

[ericl]

Looks like most posts represent a good grasp of the situation. Looks like those involved are doing a great job. Getting within 10% is an outstanding result. Tweaking the size of the second fish would be a great way to resolve this.

I have been sport fishing Halibut in WA & BC since 1986. Did a short commercial stint in Alaska in 1990.

The commercial side is pretty brutal. If the gear is left in the water for a long time (measured in hours), the sand fleas eat the fish - many times there was only jaw bones left on the hooks. As a reference we used 15 miles of hooks with a hook every 6 feet & let the gear soak 10 hours or so. The amount of gear fished should be limited.

This video shows the roller/two vertical bars that smaller fish are hauled through - as the fish gets close to the bars, it's gaffed near the head & pulled by the gaff as is goes trough the bars, ripping the hook & part of the head off the fish. Nothing lives after this experience.

Don't ask the commercials to release anything.

In both WA & BC, there are fewer Halibut & more fishermen, WA used to have a 2 fish any size limit & a 3 month or so season. My first swiftshure trip in 1986 netted my a 65 & 35. I caught 9 fish that day & never went more than 5 seconds on the bottom before a hook-up. When I first went Salmon trolling Ucluelet in 1987, Halibut by catch while trolling 100 feet off the bottom was so common the guides cursed them like dogfish. Trolling the bottom would usually get you a 40 pounder. I had my boat moored in Ucluelet/Tofino for several years in the late 80's - early 90's & fished often.

A reasonable person should be really happy to take home one nice Halibut (40-50 lb) per trip . The fact is that there just aren't the fish there used to be to make this happen & no amount of whining or rule/allocation tweaking is going to make this happen. Being content with the current rules & choosing to under fish versus over fish might.

 

[vic-tory]

I don't think anyone reads your posts about the second fish size ukee Still no data to back up it does anything.

 

[GLG]

Hi Vic-tory..... tell us... are you releasing any halibut because of this rule? If so what do you think would happen to the TAC if you keep them?

 

[gone fishin]

Hi Vic-tory..... tell us... are you releasing any halibut because of this rule? If so what do you think would happen to the TAC if you keep them?

I think not targeting the big halibut has more to do with keeping within our TAC

 

[GLG]

I think not targeting the big halibut has more to do with keeping within our TAC

I agree with you. This one measure has the most effect and that's where the first fish rule comes in.

 

[vic-tory]

Waiting on data. 2012-2013 numbers show best example. Very little change. You can't fudge numbers. But you can talk about reasons why but the data just doesn't show it.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Waiting on data. 2012-2013 numbers show best example. Very little change. You can't fudge numbers. But you can talk about reasons why but the data just doesn't show it.

I've presented it many times, simple stuff but hey, why believe data if it doesn't conform with your preconceived notions, right? I get why the average joe can't appreciate the fact a slot that may cause fish to be released doesn't have a measurable impact on harvest rate. However, the reason why is the fact that release size is below the median size fish harvested coast wide, and given that nearly 2/3 of fish encountered are actually below the average harvest size and given the fact two fish over the possession slot would be encountered by a single angler to whom the slot applies is so exceedingly rare ... the few fish released due to this reg larger than the coast wide avg, which is the scenario that would have to occur to reduce the harvest rate, happens so infrequently that once you average it out over every halibut caught in a year it would be well below the rounding error in the avg size used to extrapolate total exploitation. In fact, since the annual limit, the resident folks in areas like the north coast where the bulk of poundage is harvested are actually more likely to high grade their 5-fish which would actually increase the avg weight more than a few slot fish being released would reduce the harvest rate (again a scenario that is extremely rare and rarer still it'd be larger than the avg harvest size).

This is simple to model and there are two full years of data available where the slot was the only measure in place. Anyone can see we had same season length and near identical #'s, avg size and total harvest rate in the preceding years with no reg and the two years with the reg. Further proof in the pudding was the lack of harvest reduction (despite the faulty model predicting there would be reduction) that required the adoption of the additional regs - a max size and annual limit.

I've given up the expectation that logic and data might carry some weight in these discussions.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[trophywife]

sorry if i have not seen it before but is there a % of what the "north" area uses of the ***** low TAC we have?

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Link to Area 2B rec report earlier in the thread but I've posted it again. Areas 1 through 4 harvested just shy of half the rec quota in 2015 (Areas 5 & 6 also fall in the "North Coast" area but their harvest is combined with Central Coast's Area 7 and the combined harvest in those three PFMAs was negligible). Areas 5 through 27 harvested the rest. Over 100,000lbs of rec quota in 2015 was harvested in four areas, ranked from highest to lowest: Area 4 - 143,075lbs, Area 1 - 130,175lbs, Area 2 - 121,780lbs and Area 19 108,837lbs. So, the top three are all in the north and on their own account for almost 40% of the rec TAC

Historically, and I'd have to search again for the historical data, the avg weight harvested off the north coast was significantly larger than most other PFMA's, though some of the southern PFMAs also had higher avg harvest size.

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_02_Area2B_2015SportHalibutCatchReport_IPHC.pdf

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[GLG]

So I plotted up some of the data so we could visualize it rather then just talk numbers. I have used just the June, July and August data as that is common to all years and has a survey rate of between 25 and 35%. I used IPHC data for 2011 - 2015 and DFO draft data for 2016. The cm rules are with the date.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Even focussing on just the three months, which doesn't give as good a data record as using the whole season (this also doesn't have the error bars that a survey-based extrapolation should show. Error bars show the range of actual harvest the extrapolated numbers may represent and where there is an overlap the season are statistically identical), you see the dramatic drop once the max size and annual limit are brought in. If you were to include 2010 you would see that 2010, 2011 and 2012 are nearly identical (and with error accounted for they are statistically identical), not just in harvest but also in the length of season that was allowed. Thanks for plotting and posting this GLG!

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[GLG]

Hi Ukee
Here is another graph with the addition of the data from 2010 (2016 dfo draft data source). I did not use other months because
a) the data is missing for some years because of the season closed early.
b) the data is better supported by survey and logbook (less error).
c) this is when the vast majority of the halibut is caught.
What I am trying to do is tease out the data to test your theroy. As for error bars.... maybe if I just plot out the logbook data that would bring the error bars down even further. I would need to use a further subset of the data. Perhaps area PFMA 1-9 as they should be logbook and not much survey.

 

[Cut Plug]

I've presented it many times, simple stuff but hey, why believe data if it doesn't conform with your preconceived notions, right? I get why the average joe can't appreciate the fact a slot that may cause fish to be released doesn't have a measurable impact on harvest rate. However, the reason why is the fact that release size is below the median size fish harvested coast wide, and given that nearly 2/3 of fish encountered are actually below the average harvest size and given the fact two fish over the possession slot would be encountered by a single angler to whom the slot applies is so exceedingly rare ... the few fish released due to this reg larger than the coast wide avg, which is the scenario that would have to occur to reduce the harvest rate, happens so infrequently that once you average it out over every halibut caught in a year it would be well below the rounding error in the avg size used to extrapolate total exploitation. In fact, since the annual limit, the resident folks in areas like the north coast where the bulk of poundage is harvested are actually more likely to high grade their 5-fish which would actually increase the avg weight more than a few slot fish being released would reduce the harvest rate (again a scenario that is extremely rare and rarer still it'd be larger than the avg harvest size).

This is simple to model and there are two full years of data available where the slot was the only measure in place. Anyone can see we had same season length and near identical #'s, avg size and total harvest rate in the preceding years with no reg and the two years with the reg. Further proof in the pudding was the lack of harvest reduction (despite the faulty model predicting there would be reduction) that required the adoption of the additional regs - a max size and annual limit.

I've given up the expectation that logic and data might carry some weight in these discussions.

Cheers!

Ukee

I must admit to now not fully understanding exactly what it is you're after here. Are you suggesting that we remove or reduce the size limit on the second fish in a possession limit?

If so, and if its simple to model then why not go ahead and model it? If it is indeed tweaking or removing the slot on the second fish in a possession limit, where did you get the data on the number of anglers who actually catch that second fish as part of a multi day trip? I'd really appreciate you sharing that with us if you do indeed have data on that parameter. Then we can use it to estimate the actual catch of only that second fish and thereby model its impact. That's been the stumbling block so far. Cant wait to see how you've overcome it! We've just been estimating the impact in the absence of that data based on experience. Hence the desire to be precautionary. So far it seems like we've been pretty accurate in those estimates, but a data driven prediction would be way better.

If you could also suggest how a regulation that captures your suggested management measure might read it would be helpful. It would also be useful to consider just how you'd enforce such a regulation. Ideas are good, implementation of ideas is sometimes pretty tricky.

As far as I'm concerned the goal is to maximize the opportunity for everyone while staying within the TAC and providing a full season. Any option can be considered as long as it meets those criteria. Of course, if you want it to be considered in an official capacity you'll have to have it submitted as a motion from an SFAC. Not trying to be cheeky here, that's just how the process works.

If you could help us understand what it is you're after without being negative about it that'd be really great. Dumb it down for me please!

CP