Derby
Crew Member
That statement tell just really what you know.......
So Let’s Talk About It, Halibut 2013
- Thread starter GLG
- Start date
That statement tell just really what you know.......
lorneparker1
Banned
I sure get alot of attention for someone who doesnt know anything,.
Have a great night fellas!
Lorne
Have a great night fellas!
Lorne
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
trendsetter
Active Member
Yup.. I hear you .....I believe this thread was to hear some suggestions on how best to share what limited amount of allocation we have amoung all of us ......and the same couple people turn in to the same sh*t show....I agree with your statement searun....just one thing missing the BCWF has also been working very hard for all of us... I believe the last time I sat at a SFAB meeting I saw at least 6 plus BCWF reps. at the table..hats off to them also....
If this is really only about what we can/should do to extend the season under the current allocation then I'd vote to leave it as it was this season. It's not worth it to deal in the short term, all energy should be focused on a long term solution.
searun
Well-Known Member
Careful big shooter...you are showing your true colours there. By the way, I would pay big money to watch you up against the very folks you are taking pot shots at. No contest.
That said, this thread wasn't apparently about your debating skills, rather it was all about letting everyone put their thoughts out there about how we should approach the 2013 season and work within the situation we find ourselves in. Nothing wrong with a little debate but you managed to turn it back into a **** show with all this us against them crap. Complete waste of time. Who would want to say what is on their minds with an internet bully lurking about taking pot shots. Like I said, true colours showing there.
lorneparker1
Banned
I am not taking pot shots at anyone but you, and your small little "clan". Like most threads we get involved in. you say a bunch of stuff that is smoke and mirrors., derby says "well said" and tofino guy says, " yah Lorne," then well the next few pages are a wash.
actually what started the whole thing was this
As you should be aware, i hate being spoon fed, ********. So keep it real and so will I.
I am ready to move on.
Lorne
actually what started the whole thing was this
As you should be aware, i hate being spoon fed, ********. So keep it real and so will I.
I am ready to move on.
Lorne
Last edited by a moderator:
Derby
Crew Member
Duffer
Active Member
I'm just curious if a person buys a sportsfishing lisence and pays a guide to take them fishing aren't they a sportsfisherman or women if not what are they??? They are entitled to part of the rec TAC the same as anyone that buys a lisence a matter of fact they individually prob take less of the TAC then the average guy with his own Boat. Increasing the TAC should be our goal fix that and we don't have these issues.
Duffer
Active Member
Maybe the fifth client was taking the pic sorry show me the proof that this is a major problem. As far as I know gifting fish is illegal and morally wrong. Its a non issue that someone has come up with to bring to the table and say hear what we are going to do make it illegal to Gift Fish.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
This is the best common sense solution I have heard.
I would up the ante to $20 with a 12 fish annual limit.
(remember, you don't need to take all 12 if you don't want them all.)
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
I like that number and amount craven. It'd add up fast and stop gifting at the same time. Then buy back quota (I know, we shouldn't have to but in the end that's the only say we are going to get it) and before you know it comfortably 2/3 and even room for more on high abundance yrs
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
This thread is absolute garbage and I'm really glad it's just a place to whine and ***** because if DFO or the SFI was trying to pull a solution from here we would have the most messed up season yet.
My idea?
#1 DON'T PANIC
#2 next season should be similar to this season. If our TAC goes down substantially make it 1 and 1 instead of 1/2 with a slot. Do not decrease the length of the season.
#3 after the supreme court dismisses the case of the commercial fisherman work towards obtaining more quota to first extend the season and second increase the bag limit.
#4 consider a MINIMUM size limit so guys stop hammering those banks where all the small fish grow up.
If they need to do an annual limit but that wont change how many most of us take.
My idea?
#1 DON'T PANIC
#2 next season should be similar to this season. If our TAC goes down substantially make it 1 and 1 instead of 1/2 with a slot. Do not decrease the length of the season.
#3 after the supreme court dismisses the case of the commercial fisherman work towards obtaining more quota to first extend the season and second increase the bag limit.
#4 consider a MINIMUM size limit so guys stop hammering those banks where all the small fish grow up.
If they need to do an annual limit but that wont change how many most of us take.
gamechanger
Well-Known Member
Guys, just read through this thread as having not seen it till now and wow...seems like its derailed. The whole purpose of this 2013 considerations doc is to give the local committees a voice for input into what 2013 may look like. Last year a working group was formed and some people complained that it was a small group and a lot of people didn't get the opportunity for input as to what happened in 2012.
This is your opportunity to get some input into 2013.
None of the bs and rants from anybody on this forum will get any consideration, no matter how good//funny/stupid they are. What will get considered will be motions put forward from your local SFAC, everybody who is interested has an opportunity to do so. So read the document and make some recommendations, or come up with others if you think the SFAB exec missed something effective. Go to the meetings and get some motions together and pass them up the chain for consideration.
This is your opportunity to get some input into 2013.
None of the bs and rants from anybody on this forum will get any consideration, no matter how good//funny/stupid they are. What will get considered will be motions put forward from your local SFAC, everybody who is interested has an opportunity to do so. So read the document and make some recommendations, or come up with others if you think the SFAB exec missed something effective. Go to the meetings and get some motions together and pass them up the chain for consideration.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Lets get this thread back on track Here isthe original document:
From the SFAB---------------------------
When adopting the Halibut Committee’s recommendation for the 2012 halibut fishing plan, the SFAB executive committee made clear that it considered the approach an experiment. A subsequent motion of the Main Board endorsed this decision calling on DFO “...to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussion re various additional options available at certain levels of the TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Committee in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.”
Against this background, the SFAB has been asked by DFO to provide advice on alternative management options for the 2013 season. This document is intended to give local SFAC’s an understanding of the goals the Halibut Committee has adopted, the tools available within the context of the current 85\15 allocation policy, and a set of parameters by which the effectiveness of these tools can be compared. It is hoped that this document, and a supplementary paper that will be provided once analysis of 2012 catch data is complete, will facilitate discussion at the local level, so that anglers can provide practical advice on the management tool or combination of measures most likely to succeed.
Local committees are requested to carefully consider this information and to frame the advice they wish to offer in the form of motions that can be discussed at the regional committee meetings in early December and the results referred to the Halibut Committee so that it can prepare a report to the Groundfish Shellfish Working Group prior to the Main Board Meeting in early February.
Goals
The SFAB believes that the current allocation formula does not provide the recreational fishery with the ability to maximize its economic and social contribution to Canada available from the halibut resource. However, while the policy debate undoubtedly will continue since the minister’s allocation authority is being challenged in Federal Court by elements of the commercial sector, the SFAB has no choice but to assume that the current 85\15 allocation formula will be in effect for the 2013 season. The Halibut Committee proposes to proceed based on the following goals. Local committees should feel free to comment on these goals and to suggest refinements or additions.
1. Conservation: Since the recreational sector is allocated a very small portion of the overall TAC for Canada, the conservation risk posed by our fishery is proportionate in both a regional and coast wide context. That said, and consistent with the first principle of the recreational Vision that “conservation of naturally reproducing fish and their habitat is the highest priority”, it is the responsibility of our sector first and foremost to conduct its fisheries in a responsible manner that respects the fish, and in no way poses a threat to the future of the stock. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/docs/rec-vision-eng.pdf Maximizing our ability to account for our catch, minimizing release mortalities, complying with all regulations, and doing our part to ensure Canada fulfills its obligation to fish within its national TAC are fundamental aspects of the recreational fishery operating in a sustainable manner, thereby ensuring the conservation of the stock.
2. Full seasons: The SFAB halibut committee is committed to achieving the longest season possible for our sector until the overarching goal of Feb 1st to Dec 31st can be achieved.
3. Fairness: Halibut are managed by the Government of Canada on a coast-wide basis for the benefit of all Canadians. Management measures should be easily understood and enforceable. Within this context, there are two ways Canadians benefit from the recreational halibut fishery: first, through the ability to actively participate in the fishery and enjoy the social and dietary benefits it provides; and second to gain employment or economic opportunity by providing services or products to the fishery. It has been the practice of the SFAB to take both of these considerations into account when providing advice to government.
Parameters.
When considering how proposed management options meet the goals outlined above, local committee members should take into account whether such options are conservation-based, measureable, enforceable and timely.
Conservation based: Is the measure a responsible approach that respects the fish and conserves the stock in both the short and long term? Does it present the likelihood of increased incidental mortalities of other species? Does it present the likelihood of increased handling and release mortalities for halibut?
Measureable: Is it possible to quantify the impact of the measure in pounds of catch saved? Can the catch over time be predicted, thereby facilitating an estimate of the potential length of season?
Enforceable: Can the measure be effectively enforced by DFO? Are there legal or practical barriers in place that would prevent its application?
Timely: How long would it take to implement the measure? Is it possible to implement it for the 2013 season?
Management Measures for Consideration
Maximum Size Limit
One version of this approach was experimented with during 2012. As a condition of license, anglers were required to limit their total possession while away from home to one fish of any size and one that does not exceed 83cm in length. The hope was that this measure would reduce the total weight but not necessarily the total number of fish harvested. It would thereby maintain opportunity and a measure of expectation while extending the season length. As this approach can produce measurable results as long as catch and effort do not change significantly, analysis is underway to determine the extent to which opportunities to fish for halibut were extended by implementation of this measure in 2012.
It needs to be kept in mind that a measure related to the maximum (or minimum) size of a retained fish can impact different areas in different ways given variations in the size of available fish. In addition to considering the total impact on harvest, anglers need to reflect on how this rule affected their personal behavior and whether some other choice of maximum size on one or both fish is preferable.
Individual Annual Limit
It has been suggested that total harvest could be reduced through an annual personal limit similar in principle to the rules that currently apply to chinook salmon coastwide and to ling cod in the Strait of Georgia.
The impact of this measure cannot be predicted at the present time and obviously would depend on the number chosen.
From the SFAB---------------------------
When adopting the Halibut Committee’s recommendation for the 2012 halibut fishing plan, the SFAB executive committee made clear that it considered the approach an experiment. A subsequent motion of the Main Board endorsed this decision calling on DFO “...to consider this year’s regulatory measures as EXPERIMENTAL and that discussion re various additional options available at certain levels of the TAC for 2013 start taking place with the SFAB Halibut Committee in a timely manner such that the local SFACs have adequate consultation and input into the 2013 recreational halibut management plan.”
Against this background, the SFAB has been asked by DFO to provide advice on alternative management options for the 2013 season. This document is intended to give local SFAC’s an understanding of the goals the Halibut Committee has adopted, the tools available within the context of the current 85\15 allocation policy, and a set of parameters by which the effectiveness of these tools can be compared. It is hoped that this document, and a supplementary paper that will be provided once analysis of 2012 catch data is complete, will facilitate discussion at the local level, so that anglers can provide practical advice on the management tool or combination of measures most likely to succeed.
Local committees are requested to carefully consider this information and to frame the advice they wish to offer in the form of motions that can be discussed at the regional committee meetings in early December and the results referred to the Halibut Committee so that it can prepare a report to the Groundfish Shellfish Working Group prior to the Main Board Meeting in early February.
Goals
The SFAB believes that the current allocation formula does not provide the recreational fishery with the ability to maximize its economic and social contribution to Canada available from the halibut resource. However, while the policy debate undoubtedly will continue since the minister’s allocation authority is being challenged in Federal Court by elements of the commercial sector, the SFAB has no choice but to assume that the current 85\15 allocation formula will be in effect for the 2013 season. The Halibut Committee proposes to proceed based on the following goals. Local committees should feel free to comment on these goals and to suggest refinements or additions.
1. Conservation: Since the recreational sector is allocated a very small portion of the overall TAC for Canada, the conservation risk posed by our fishery is proportionate in both a regional and coast wide context. That said, and consistent with the first principle of the recreational Vision that “conservation of naturally reproducing fish and their habitat is the highest priority”, it is the responsibility of our sector first and foremost to conduct its fisheries in a responsible manner that respects the fish, and in no way poses a threat to the future of the stock. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/docs/rec-vision-eng.pdf Maximizing our ability to account for our catch, minimizing release mortalities, complying with all regulations, and doing our part to ensure Canada fulfills its obligation to fish within its national TAC are fundamental aspects of the recreational fishery operating in a sustainable manner, thereby ensuring the conservation of the stock.
2. Full seasons: The SFAB halibut committee is committed to achieving the longest season possible for our sector until the overarching goal of Feb 1st to Dec 31st can be achieved.
3. Fairness: Halibut are managed by the Government of Canada on a coast-wide basis for the benefit of all Canadians. Management measures should be easily understood and enforceable. Within this context, there are two ways Canadians benefit from the recreational halibut fishery: first, through the ability to actively participate in the fishery and enjoy the social and dietary benefits it provides; and second to gain employment or economic opportunity by providing services or products to the fishery. It has been the practice of the SFAB to take both of these considerations into account when providing advice to government.
Parameters.
When considering how proposed management options meet the goals outlined above, local committee members should take into account whether such options are conservation-based, measureable, enforceable and timely.
Conservation based: Is the measure a responsible approach that respects the fish and conserves the stock in both the short and long term? Does it present the likelihood of increased incidental mortalities of other species? Does it present the likelihood of increased handling and release mortalities for halibut?
Measureable: Is it possible to quantify the impact of the measure in pounds of catch saved? Can the catch over time be predicted, thereby facilitating an estimate of the potential length of season?
Enforceable: Can the measure be effectively enforced by DFO? Are there legal or practical barriers in place that would prevent its application?
Timely: How long would it take to implement the measure? Is it possible to implement it for the 2013 season?
Management Measures for Consideration
Maximum Size Limit
One version of this approach was experimented with during 2012. As a condition of license, anglers were required to limit their total possession while away from home to one fish of any size and one that does not exceed 83cm in length. The hope was that this measure would reduce the total weight but not necessarily the total number of fish harvested. It would thereby maintain opportunity and a measure of expectation while extending the season length. As this approach can produce measurable results as long as catch and effort do not change significantly, analysis is underway to determine the extent to which opportunities to fish for halibut were extended by implementation of this measure in 2012.
It needs to be kept in mind that a measure related to the maximum (or minimum) size of a retained fish can impact different areas in different ways given variations in the size of available fish. In addition to considering the total impact on harvest, anglers need to reflect on how this rule affected their personal behavior and whether some other choice of maximum size on one or both fish is preferable.
Individual Annual Limit
It has been suggested that total harvest could be reduced through an annual personal limit similar in principle to the rules that currently apply to chinook salmon coastwide and to ling cod in the Strait of Georgia.
The impact of this measure cannot be predicted at the present time and obviously would depend on the number chosen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Page 2:
Daily and Total Possession Limit
The sector has now experimented both through regulation and by condition of license with periods daily and total possession limits of “2 and 2” and “1 and 2” as alternatives to the earlier historical limit of “2 and 3”. It is clear that reduced possession limits have an impact on total harvest, and that this impact is measurable both in terms of catch and effort. They also reduce the economic and social value of the fishery. Until now, the SFAB executive has strongly resisted reducing limits to “1 and 1” due to the potential social and economic damage that could be experienced in small coastal communities as a result of its impact on service providers based in those communities
Season Length
While the SFAB has supported the principle that fishing opportunities should be available as much as possible it has had to balance the desire of anglers to fish in Spring and Fall with the reality that the greatest proportion of the harvest usually takes place during the months of July and August because these are the traditional vacation months as well as times when good weather combines with salmon fishing opportunities to encourage anglers to get out on the water. It also has been observed that anticipation of a shortened season can cause people to change their plans on when to go fishing.
Time and Area Closures
As distinct from reducing opportunity by later opening and earlier closing dates, DFO has the regulatory authority to implement a series of in-season time and area closures which would, in effect, ration access by preventing anglers from fishing in particular places for stated periods. Given the complexity and contentiousness of determining where closures would take place and at which times, the halibut committee has so far not been prepared to move in this direction. No data is currently available by which the harvest, social and economic impact of such closures could be measured.
Area Allocations
An alternative to sporadic time and area closures would be allocation by area, with closure coming when the assigned TAC was harvested. The process by which areas would be defined and their shares established inevitably would be both controversial and divisive. At present, the international allocation of halibut to Canada applies coast-wide and to date, government has suggested no management or biological basis for PFMA or other area-based allocations.
Restriction on the “Gifting” of halibut by service providers
It has been suggested that the total harvest would be reduced if service providers such as charter operators and lodge guides were prohibited from “gifting” to a customer halibut which they have harvested on their recreational license. In Southeast Alaska charter guides and crew members are not allowed to catch and retain halibut while guests are on board. No current data is available that would allow one to quantify the impact of such a measure.
Other Possible Approaches
Can you suggest other approaches that might help the recreational sector meet the requirement to stay within its assigned allocation?
Reporting Discussion Results
This sheet has been provided to facilitate the recording of comments and especially any motions that may result from the consideration of this paper and the accompanying analysis of the results of the 2012 season. Use additional sheets as necessary.
Maximum size limit
Individual annual limit
Daily and total possession limit
Season length
Time and Area closures
Area allocations
Restriction on the “Gifting” of halibut by service providers
Other suggestions
These are the issues that the SFAB is going to have to address with DFO. Lets try focusing, without the grandstanding to see what the majority (here and elsewhere) would like to see. Get you butts away from your pute screen and attend your local SFAC meeting and put your comments into the discussion mix. The inflamatory BS that has been generated by a few on this thread does not help
Daily and Total Possession Limit
The sector has now experimented both through regulation and by condition of license with periods daily and total possession limits of “2 and 2” and “1 and 2” as alternatives to the earlier historical limit of “2 and 3”. It is clear that reduced possession limits have an impact on total harvest, and that this impact is measurable both in terms of catch and effort. They also reduce the economic and social value of the fishery. Until now, the SFAB executive has strongly resisted reducing limits to “1 and 1” due to the potential social and economic damage that could be experienced in small coastal communities as a result of its impact on service providers based in those communities
Season Length
While the SFAB has supported the principle that fishing opportunities should be available as much as possible it has had to balance the desire of anglers to fish in Spring and Fall with the reality that the greatest proportion of the harvest usually takes place during the months of July and August because these are the traditional vacation months as well as times when good weather combines with salmon fishing opportunities to encourage anglers to get out on the water. It also has been observed that anticipation of a shortened season can cause people to change their plans on when to go fishing.
Time and Area Closures
As distinct from reducing opportunity by later opening and earlier closing dates, DFO has the regulatory authority to implement a series of in-season time and area closures which would, in effect, ration access by preventing anglers from fishing in particular places for stated periods. Given the complexity and contentiousness of determining where closures would take place and at which times, the halibut committee has so far not been prepared to move in this direction. No data is currently available by which the harvest, social and economic impact of such closures could be measured.
Area Allocations
An alternative to sporadic time and area closures would be allocation by area, with closure coming when the assigned TAC was harvested. The process by which areas would be defined and their shares established inevitably would be both controversial and divisive. At present, the international allocation of halibut to Canada applies coast-wide and to date, government has suggested no management or biological basis for PFMA or other area-based allocations.
Restriction on the “Gifting” of halibut by service providers
It has been suggested that the total harvest would be reduced if service providers such as charter operators and lodge guides were prohibited from “gifting” to a customer halibut which they have harvested on their recreational license. In Southeast Alaska charter guides and crew members are not allowed to catch and retain halibut while guests are on board. No current data is available that would allow one to quantify the impact of such a measure.
Other Possible Approaches
Can you suggest other approaches that might help the recreational sector meet the requirement to stay within its assigned allocation?
Reporting Discussion Results
This sheet has been provided to facilitate the recording of comments and especially any motions that may result from the consideration of this paper and the accompanying analysis of the results of the 2012 season. Use additional sheets as necessary.
Maximum size limit
Individual annual limit
Daily and total possession limit
Season length
Time and Area closures
Area allocations
Restriction on the “Gifting” of halibut by service providers
Other suggestions
These are the issues that the SFAB is going to have to address with DFO. Lets try focusing, without the grandstanding to see what the majority (here and elsewhere) would like to see. Get you butts away from your pute screen and attend your local SFAC meeting and put your comments into the discussion mix. The inflamatory BS that has been generated by a few on this thread does not help
Duffer
Active Member
There ya go Cuba part of the paper was about Guides gifting and its been beat to Death here so go to your meeting and propose Gifting Hali and Salmon be illegal. I thought it already was but me dumb.I would also be willing like Serengeti said pay more for my lisence as long as the money go towards buying more Quota so this BS ends. Or pay a decent lawyer for the Sports Fishing Sector.
lorneparker1
Banned
I LIKE STUFF!
Lorne
Lorne
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
While I agree that the quota issue, with the commies currently allocated the lion's share and which doesn't allocate enough for the rec fishery to have a reasonable and predictable fishery, I strongly believe that Canada needs to follow what Alaska learned long ago and recognize that, outside of first nations, there are three distinct user groups: Rec Fishers, Commercial Guide/Outfitters and Commercial Fishers. A split amongst these three distinct groups has been effectively employed in Alaska for years, and they've been up against the issue of not enough quota to go around to all sectors a hell of a lot longer than it's been an issue here in Canada. In Alaska, rec fishers get a 2/day, 4/possession defined season off the top. Guide/Outfitters and Commies split the rest.
As I stated last year, any concessions that "make it work" are only screwing our sector. Yet again this year, despite the over/under retarded slot quota and a very similar TAC as last year, we got pretty much the same season as the previous few - no surprise to most of us. As I and others stated last year, there's more error in the creel survey/overflight catch estimates than in the supposed extra 3% allocation (yes, I'm skeptical, I think Harpo et al threw us some "estimation error", just my opinion, based on analyzing the catch data), so the same old season should have surprised no one. At some point folks are going to have to choose - keep trying to make an insufficient quota for two similar, but still distinct, user groups (Rec and Guide/Outfitter) "work" year after year after year or fight for an allocation system that recognizes the value of all the user groups and allocates quota to each in a fair and transparent manner.
As I stated last year, any concessions that "make it work" are only screwing our sector. Yet again this year, despite the over/under retarded slot quota and a very similar TAC as last year, we got pretty much the same season as the previous few - no surprise to most of us. As I and others stated last year, there's more error in the creel survey/overflight catch estimates than in the supposed extra 3% allocation (yes, I'm skeptical, I think Harpo et al threw us some "estimation error", just my opinion, based on analyzing the catch data), so the same old season should have surprised no one. At some point folks are going to have to choose - keep trying to make an insufficient quota for two similar, but still distinct, user groups (Rec and Guide/Outfitter) "work" year after year after year or fight for an allocation system that recognizes the value of all the user groups and allocates quota to each in a fair and transparent manner.
Similar threads
