IHPC 2013 Halibut Biomass reductions

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by searun, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Here's a link to the recent (Nov 28) IHPC 2012 Stock Assessment report - appears we are looking at significant reduction in available harvestable (exploitable) biomass. If my math is correct it is a 30% reduction for Area 2B - British Columbia.

    http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2012im/im2012_stock_assessment.pdf

    Only issue is we still do not have complete harvest analysis from DFO - for purposes of this report they made assumption our harvest/exploitation was as forecast. Hold on to your hats, its going to be an interesting ride from here forward.:(
     
  2. OldBlackDog

    OldBlackDog Well-Known Member

    If valid, then 1/1 starting June 1 st till Sept 1st..
     
  3. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Maybe. Lets see what the Malcolm case brings. We do have a very strong argument on the legal doctrine of estoppel. The Minister in 2003 did make a promise in writing to the parties not to have any in-season closures until the issue of transferring quota from the commercial to recreational fishery was settled. Since then we have been closed down in-season. In doing so, the Minister has created a promissory estoppel in the purest form from my reading of other precedent setting cases up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This will leave the judge hearing the Malcolm case with no real alternative but to find in favor of the recreational fishery on that issue.

    By the way, scroll down to the table on Page 98 for details of the 2013 forecast. That's where it sets out the exploitable harvest comparisons between 2012 and 2013...and the 30% reduction for area 2b which is us...that is if my math is correct...I hope I'm wrong.
     
  4. lorneparker1

    lorneparker1 Banned

    Im not sure how else to read it.

    30% decrease is huge..... there is zero chance fora full season, and i sure as hell hope we dont do anything else worse then the slot to try and keep it open.

    Lorne
     
  5. OldBlackDog

    OldBlackDog Well-Known Member

    Pretty simple, if the Government of Canada cannot get an increase on this then it will mean a 30percent reduction on what we had this year.

    That would mean to give all the people of Canada a chance at retaining halibut then June to Sept would give them their best chance.
    1/1 would be the only hope to keep the season open.
     
  6. Islandgirl

    Islandgirl Active Member

    June 1st to Aug 31 if we are LUCKY.
    An annual limit needs to be implemented, and it won't be 10.
     
  7. GDW

    GDW Active Member

    1/1 march - aug 31st.

    Or 1/1 march 1- June 15
    CLOSED june16 - aug31
    open sep1 - dec31

    A 3 month season that overlaps our salmon returns is not the best option where I live.
     
  8. Fishtofino

    Fishtofino Well-Known Member

    Closed June 16 - Aug 31 is a dumb idea
     
  9. GDW

    GDW Active Member

    If the choice is a 2 month season during peak time or a 9 month season when the pressure is lower ill vote for the long season every time. Im sure other locals even local guides feel the same way. Cut it down to when the pressure is the highest and we could be looking at a two week season in the future like the Yankees have.

    Let's be real another 30% reduction is a sick joke there are tons of halibut out there my best trip in terms if number of hook up's was on the very last day of this past season.
     
  10. Cuba Libre

    Cuba Libre Well-Known Member

    I cant believe that post......
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2012
  11. Cuba Libre

    Cuba Libre Well-Known Member

    Closed during the peak time when the weather is best and when most Canadians take holidays so only "locals" and "local" guides can get out? Now THAT is a sick joke.

    Can it be this guy is a troll?????? Or just doesnt give a damn about anyone except himself??????
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2012
  12. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Totally agree. We need a fishery that works for most Canadians, not just lucky one's like me who happen to live here.

    While the IPHC data suggests 30% reduction, I think we have to wait a bit and see what they do. There are lots of other potential sources of TAC within the system...but, I agree it is a bleak outlook. To have any kind of reasonable fishery, which I define as an opportunity to fish for as long as possible, then we will need to sharpen our pencils to figure out how to squeeze every bit of TAC we eventually get. That's were it is important for us to all work together to find ways to make the very best of this situation.
     
  13. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    If you look at the data in that IHPC presentation deck, there is clearly some migration issues that account for your experience. Area 2b for example shows an increase (thus your experience) as do a few other areas, while others continued to decline. The overall coast wide situation however was for decline - or at least that's how I read the data. Perhaps our Canadian contingent at the IHPC can mount an argument for greater TAC for Canada on the basis of shifting migration and abundance in our local waters? Plenty of opportunities like this to hopefully reduce the 30% hit. For now our TAC apportionment has gone from 6.63 million pounds last year to 4.58 in 2013, or a 30% decrease (see slide #98). A challenge no matter how we slice it, which means Canada will need to find some real innovative solutions if we want a long season.
     
  14. Jencourt

    Jencourt Well-Known Member

    So ok then. I will humbly admit my ignorance yet again,and make a post consisting of a couple questions and a statement.

    First off, after looking through this thing I will admit I do not know what much of it means nor do I understand most of the graphs and their significance.I do however understand what affect a decrease in exploitable biomass has on the entire pacific Halibut fishery. With that said my questions are.

    1- Is this still a case of having lots of fish in total, but still not having enough of them being big enough to allow them to be entered into the exploitable biomass class?

    2- If this is the case,then do we have a reasonable estimate as to how long before there is a significant entrance from these small fish to the size class necessary?

    3- assuming the answer to question 1 is yes then I also would ask. Dose there appear to be significant numbers of new fish to make up for the large number we keep hearing about that although still "smaller per age class" are getting closer to recruitment size?

    I understand fully that any change to allocation or how the ITQ operates for 2013 is Highly unlikely to the point of being surely not to happen.
    With that belief I will say I am 100% confident that the commercial sector will also feel the decrease in TAC that seems likely to coincide with the smaller numbers.That said, I am also 100% confident that we will yet again see a very select few people export many times the amount of fish that the rest of Canadians will have the opportunity to enjoy. This will happen ahead of meeting domestic needs and it will happen at the hands of what is a very flawed ITQ system.

    No matter how you slice it. If this 30% is close to accurate at the end of the process I do think we will see some kind of significant effort to manage the season to its most useful extent. I also think what ever choice is made will result in a shift in peak effort time periods where weather will allow.This shift in effort has the potential to offset much of the intended results from many of the management measures being considered. I fear it will be a season to remember, yet one many may like to forget.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2012
  15. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Lots of good questions there. I realize that is a long presentation, however well worth the time to read it. Essentially what the science guys are learning is the previous methodology utilized to determine exploitable TAC used a flawed approach. Adjustments were made for errors by going back retrogressively comparing forecast to actual survey data. Going forward the model will change, and simply they have been over-estimating the actual numbers and size of fish available and about to enter exploitable size in future years. The good news, if any, is that in Area 2 B our NPUE (Number per unit effort) increased by 28% - see side 28. Also our WPUE (weight per unit effort) increased by 30% - see slide 29. Also the log book data shows an increase of 8% - slide 31. So regardless of which indice you use to measure, it would appear either more fish are migrating to our Area, or ocean conditions are more favorable.

    The bad news is this is a coast wide fishery, not just an area specific one. See slide 90 for specific conclusions regarding recruitment of new fish - slowed down and will not change regardless of harvest effort - will delay stock increases. Ergo, we own this problem for a while to come. That being the case, best to plan out the fishery so we can stretch our available TAC....which depends on what you view as a priority. Could be catch them as early as you can and get off the water, or it could be try for a full season. For me personally, I would go for longest possible season that extends to at least the end of September...and I would be willing to get a later start in the season to help that take place so we can fish in the better weather that comes in June to September.

    That's my flawed read of the data, I'm sure there are others on here that are more in touch with the data and management issues.
     
  16. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    I know this is unlikely as the Gov't seems to be against halibut stamp for some reason, but anyone think that the gov't buys a certain % from the Commies (Don't start on how we shouldn't have to, we WILL have to if we want more %) this year then implement halibut stamp, then the money from the halibut stamp over how many years is necessary goes back to paying back the government...with interest if necessary!?!
     
  17. lorneparker1

    lorneparker1 Banned

    I think thats a fantastic idea, but given how much the goverment values the Rec fishing group i cant imagine they are willing to spot us the money.....
     
  18. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    Wonder how this will impact the 154 commercial boats that landed fish (2011 from DFO,latest record available), or even the 435 licensed vessels , of which281 never landed fish (also DFO 2011)?
     
  19. OldBlackDog

    OldBlackDog Well-Known Member

    Your point is?
    They loose as well.



     
  20. fish4all

    fish4all Active Member

    lets not forget this is a first draft with two new leading biologists being brought in. I did listen to the webinar and there are many questions that are not being answered. The biggest question being why is area 2 (A,b,c) all showing increases in survey cpu( +30%) and commercial cpu (+8%).

    Although I understand the science I still completely disagree on the apportionment model that splits up the pie between areas. I think it is completely flawed and our representitives are going to have a tough go beating it up.

    Another note that nobody is mentioning is the estimated 10 million lbs of bycatch coming out of Alaska from the cod and trawl fishery. On the webinar they explained that every pound of bycatch taken up there works out to 1 lb of exploitable biomass and 5X for the spawning biomass. Those areas that are killing all that fish need to be responsible. It is not Canda's fault if they choose to kill all their allocated catch by trawl. (interesting read http://tholepin.blogspot.ca/2012/11/halibut-quota-slashed-draggers-kill.html )

    To sum it up the yanks are killing 10 million lbs exploitable biomass and 50 million lbs of spawning biomass every year. Now they are asking BC to help repopulate these northern regions(if possible) by taking a cut of 34% based on the apportionment where bc only gets 13.4% of the bottom area. Absolutely fricken nuts. To top it off the Alaskan fleets are pushing back hard on any type of increased monitoring of their fisheries... absolutely disgraceful.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2012

Share This Page