2009 - 2010 Halibut Debate + Poll

[searun]

Amen Profisher -brother you hit the nail on the head. The other is one fish per day limit still rewards or encourages folks to target the large fish. This is counter productive to conservation.

As far as the TAC being the solution, I agree it would be "nice" if the Commercial Sector wasn't given the gift they have...but, we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making much headway on that issue short of collecting a license fee for catching recreational hali's and then using that $$ to buy unused Commercial quota.

And, there is the HUGE hurtle we face of no natural motivation for the Commercial sector to sell to the expanding recreational sector. So, no willing sellers is a problem for us and frankly if I were a commercial hali quota owner I would never sell to the recreational fleet as it would be a threat to my future. Smells like a Mexican Stand off where one side is shooting pea shooters and the other has a Howitzer...[xx(]

What we need is a mechanism to either force the actual quota holder into a "use it or lose it" contract...then unused quota could be transfered through a market share purchase scheme. Not rocket surgery, but DFO needs to evaluate what their former position has been on this topic. I would suggest the only way forward will be for DFO to issue binding quota contracts that form a legally binding sale of quota from the Federal Gov't to the Commercial user with explicit legal conditions for how that contract will manage use and allocation with the Federal Gov't having the ultimate ability to cancel that contract with notice and a set buy out fee structure...and a clause allowing Gov't controlled transfer of quota at the Crown's sole discretion.

This would take some fancy legal dance steps and would take some creative law to get around current statute, but it would be more than worthwhile to explore. The real issue is do we have the leadership necessary within the Dept to man up.[)]

 

[searun]

Amen Profisher -brother you hit the nail on the head. The other is one fish per day limit still rewards or encourages folks to target the large fish. This is counter productive to conservation.

As far as the TAC being the solution, I agree it would be "nice" if the Commercial Sector wasn't given the gift they have...but, we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making much headway on that issue short of collecting a license fee for catching recreational hali's and then using that $$ to buy unused Commercial quota.

And, there is the HUGE hurtle we face of no natural motivation for the Commercial sector to sell to the expanding recreational sector. So, no willing sellers is a problem for us and frankly if I were a commercial hali quota owner I would never sell to the recreational fleet as it would be a threat to my future. Smells like a Mexican Stand off where one side is shooting pea shooters and the other has a Howitzer...[xx(]

What we need is a mechanism to either force the actual quota holder into a "use it or lose it" contract...then unused quota could be transfered through a market share purchase scheme. Not rocket surgery, but DFO needs to evaluate what their former position has been on this topic. I would suggest the only way forward will be for DFO to issue binding quota contracts that form a legally binding sale of quota from the Federal Gov't to the Commercial user with explicit legal conditions for how that contract will manage use and allocation with the Federal Gov't having the ultimate ability to cancel that contract with notice and a set buy out fee structure...and a clause allowing Gov't controlled transfer of quota at the Crown's sole discretion.

This would take some fancy legal dance steps and would take some creative law to get around current statute, but it would be more than worthwhile to explore. The real issue is do we have the leadership necessary within the Dept to man up.[)]

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

...the problem with a 10 per angler per season - DFO would have to guarantee over 3 million pounds to ensure that the TAC would be available for all sport anglers to catch. At this time we use a little more than 900,000lbs. Halibut under 11 lbs. are not measured as part of the TAC. I don't think that we would ever see a 10 per season limit on halibut. It is also to my understanding that we used less quota than we bought this year and that this excess will carry over to next season. It will be interesting to see how they decide to start the new year.

The idea of 10/yr is to stop the guys that go out every other day catch fish and give it away or sell it. not too complicated there.

To the best of my knowledge any ununsed quota that was leased this year can't be carried over for next year, but would be used to cover past overages. Not sure why the person responsible for the leasing of fish for us decided to go that route and throw all the money away in one year when we obviously are going to need more fish next year. Perhaps they are not financially impacted by an early closure.

I also don't see where the commercial guys get to catch any or our unused TAC when we have been over for the last few years. Can someone explain that part to me?

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

...the problem with a 10 per angler per season - DFO would have to guarantee over 3 million pounds to ensure that the TAC would be available for all sport anglers to catch. At this time we use a little more than 900,000lbs. Halibut under 11 lbs. are not measured as part of the TAC. I don't think that we would ever see a 10 per season limit on halibut. It is also to my understanding that we used less quota than we bought this year and that this excess will carry over to next season. It will be interesting to see how they decide to start the new year.

The idea of 10/yr is to stop the guys that go out every other day catch fish and give it away or sell it. not too complicated there.

To the best of my knowledge any ununsed quota that was leased this year can't be carried over for next year, but would be used to cover past overages. Not sure why the person responsible for the leasing of fish for us decided to go that route and throw all the money away in one year when we obviously are going to need more fish next year. Perhaps they are not financially impacted by an early closure.

I also don't see where the commercial guys get to catch any or our unused TAC when we have been over for the last few years. Can someone explain that part to me?

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

...DFO has to figure something out as there is no money left to buy additional quota and we did not use all of our TAC with the additional quota this year - they will need to create a mechanism in order to make it all work. However there is still no indication what the opening will be or when it will start in the new year. 10 a year - DFO must then guarantee 3 million pounds which will never happen. When you add in Neah Bay we hit just over a million pounds that still keeps us well with in our limits...it is going to be interesting to see the out come.

so again what was the point of burning up all the money. If the answer is "to put DFO in a bad position" that seems a litte unwise considering we have already had one early closure...

Who made the decision to use all the money and how are they impacted if we get an extremely short season?

Is there not a mechanism in place to move fish from the commcercial group? I thought it was there but we need a way to raise cash.

If raising cash is the last part of of the puzzle then why are the commercial charter operators who are catching 60% of our tac not bucking up for their rich american clients?

Putting a limit on the amount of fish someone can catch makes sense.It doesnt guarantee them that amount of fish so no dfo would not have to raise 3mill pounds.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

...DFO has to figure something out as there is no money left to buy additional quota and we did not use all of our TAC with the additional quota this year - they will need to create a mechanism in order to make it all work. However there is still no indication what the opening will be or when it will start in the new year. 10 a year - DFO must then guarantee 3 million pounds which will never happen. When you add in Neah Bay we hit just over a million pounds that still keeps us well with in our limits...it is going to be interesting to see the out come.

so again what was the point of burning up all the money. If the answer is "to put DFO in a bad position" that seems a litte unwise considering we have already had one early closure...

Who made the decision to use all the money and how are they impacted if we get an extremely short season?

Is there not a mechanism in place to move fish from the commcercial group? I thought it was there but we need a way to raise cash.

If raising cash is the last part of of the puzzle then why are the commercial charter operators who are catching 60% of our tac not bucking up for their rich american clients?

Putting a limit on the amount of fish someone can catch makes sense.It doesnt guarantee them that amount of fish so no dfo would not have to raise 3mill pounds.

 

[searun]

The better way to deal with Neah Bay is to amend the rules to make it necessary for any sport caught Salmon or hali from Canadian waters must be landed at a Canadian Port(meaning if you want to transport it home, it must go from Canada either with the angler who caught it or a designated processing facility).

This would also end the problem with non-Canadian anglers shipping home their possession limits with buddies so they can continue fishing all summer long. End of problem. End of illegal guiding in Canadian waters. Central problem is no one appears to have the guts to take a stand.

I for one get tired of seeing the same WN and OR registered boats fishing the entire summer on WCVI starting in June and ending in September. I see one guy from WN every year who starts his season in Nootka for 4 weeks, then moves to Bamfield for another 4 weeks. He fishes every day.....rarely takes a day off.

Fisheries has boarded him several times, and he gets around the regs by indicating on his license "fish driven home" with a one day in between each possession limit so one of his guests can drive the fish home. Something wrong here when a guy can get around the rules by shipping fish home with guests or buddies every 3rd day. He should be forced to drive all his fish home and then back again, which would slow down the number of fish whacked.

So, I think there are plenty of ways we can deal with getting the TAC down to our numbers and still allow a reasonable season from June to August....and if 10 fish limit wont do it, then take it down to 6....but I would think we could get our TAC numbers by trying 10, closing off the Neah Bay guys, area closures on some areas known to have large females frequenting them to prevent targeting the large fish etc.

Then deal with your TAC allocation issues in another way as suggested by changing the Commercial allocation to a contract with ability to enforce use it or lose it quotas....with no ability to sell that quota on the open market, rather they have to sell it to DFO so it could go into a pool of allocation that could be transferred or sold in a controlled environment.

Searun

 

[searun]

The better way to deal with Neah Bay is to amend the rules to make it necessary for any sport caught Salmon or hali from Canadian waters must be landed at a Canadian Port(meaning if you want to transport it home, it must go from Canada either with the angler who caught it or a designated processing facility).

This would also end the problem with non-Canadian anglers shipping home their possession limits with buddies so they can continue fishing all summer long. End of problem. End of illegal guiding in Canadian waters. Central problem is no one appears to have the guts to take a stand.

I for one get tired of seeing the same WN and OR registered boats fishing the entire summer on WCVI starting in June and ending in September. I see one guy from WN every year who starts his season in Nootka for 4 weeks, then moves to Bamfield for another 4 weeks. He fishes every day.....rarely takes a day off.

Fisheries has boarded him several times, and he gets around the regs by indicating on his license "fish driven home" with a one day in between each possession limit so one of his guests can drive the fish home. Something wrong here when a guy can get around the rules by shipping fish home with guests or buddies every 3rd day. He should be forced to drive all his fish home and then back again, which would slow down the number of fish whacked.

So, I think there are plenty of ways we can deal with getting the TAC down to our numbers and still allow a reasonable season from June to August....and if 10 fish limit wont do it, then take it down to 6....but I would think we could get our TAC numbers by trying 10, closing off the Neah Bay guys, area closures on some areas known to have large females frequenting them to prevent targeting the large fish etc.

Then deal with your TAC allocation issues in another way as suggested by changing the Commercial allocation to a contract with ability to enforce use it or lose it quotas....with no ability to sell that quota on the open market, rather they have to sell it to DFO so it could go into a pool of allocation that could be transferred or sold in a controlled environment.

Searun

 

[profisher]

Unknown...where is there any guarantee with fishing? They can shut the season down with a special order if they want to. Do they guarantee 30 chinook for every sport license holder...no. There is no link between 10 per year and the TAC!

 

[profisher]

Unknown...where is there any guarantee with fishing? They can shut the season down with a special order if they want to. Do they guarantee 30 chinook for every sport license holder...no. There is no link between 10 per year and the TAC!

 

[reelfast]

i do appreciate the human sentiment to point the finger at the other guy. but, folks from the US coming N to fish canadian waters is hardly the problem.

when i look at your regs and compare them to the WA regs, you are your own worst problem. you continue to live in a different century pretending these fish resources are without end. the wise thing for you folks to do is step back, look around you and realize that the fish stocks are crashing.

YOU need to do something to limit your take. that simple and that traumatic. there is no way you can defend a 10 halibut take, no way, no one needs that many fish in the freezer, you are not subsistence fishing, you are 'sport anglers.'

go look in the mirror and you will see the immediate problem you face.

 

[reelfast]

i do appreciate the human sentiment to point the finger at the other guy. but, folks from the US coming N to fish canadian waters is hardly the problem.

when i look at your regs and compare them to the WA regs, you are your own worst problem. you continue to live in a different century pretending these fish resources are without end. the wise thing for you folks to do is step back, look around you and realize that the fish stocks are crashing.

YOU need to do something to limit your take. that simple and that traumatic. there is no way you can defend a 10 halibut take, no way, no one needs that many fish in the freezer, you are not subsistence fishing, you are 'sport anglers.'

go look in the mirror and you will see the immediate problem you face.

 

[chris73]

@ searun:

quote:...still allow a reasonable season from June to August...

That is not even close to being acceptable. I demand a season from March - December. Nothing less. 88/12 needs to change and that is all there is required. Simple enough to understand - maybe not so to do. But only target worth fighting for on this front. Everything else is a useless distraction of our attention in regard to halibut.

And reelfast: for you AGAIN and AGAIN: halibut stocks are NOT crashing and are not in bad shape! Don't make confusing and outright wrong statements like that! It was mentioned even throughout this thread over and over and the fact will not change because this may be your favourite point of view. THERE IS NO CONSERVATION ISSUE WITH HALIBUT, got it now?

 

[chris73]

@ searun:

quote:...still allow a reasonable season from June to August...

That is not even close to being acceptable. I demand a season from March - December. Nothing less. 88/12 needs to change and that is all there is required. Simple enough to understand - maybe not so to do. But only target worth fighting for on this front. Everything else is a useless distraction of our attention in regard to halibut.

And reelfast: for you AGAIN and AGAIN: halibut stocks are NOT crashing and are not in bad shape! Don't make confusing and outright wrong statements like that! It was mentioned even throughout this thread over and over and the fact will not change because this may be your favourite point of view. THERE IS NO CONSERVATION ISSUE WITH HALIBUT, got it now?

 

[OldBlackDog]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

i do appreciate the human sentiment to point the finger at the other guy. but, folks from the US coming N to fish Canadian waters is hardly the problem.

when i look at your regs and compare them to the WA regs, you are your own worst problem. you continue to live in a different century pretending these fish resources are without end. the wise thing for you folks to do is step back, look around you and realize that the fish stocks are crashing.

YOU need to do something to limit your take. that simple and that traumatic. there is no way you can defend a 10 halibut take, no way, no one needs that many fish in the freezer, you are not subsistence fishing, you are 'sport anglers.'

go look in the mirror and you will see the immediate problem you face.

Completely wrong.
This has nothing to do with a conservation problem.
This is an allocation problem.

This has nothing to do with keeping large halibut, however some think it is.

This is about the Government being lobbied by a bunch of rich commercial halibut fishermen who in most cases do not even fish any more. They just sit around and sell quota that they got for free from the Government.

If all the people and groups they are involved in were to actually do something by sending letters to their MP's MLA"s a DFO in Ottawa, they might even begin to change things for the better.

The other sectors lobby every day with these people.
Sports fishermen are unable to do this why?

 

[OldBlackDog]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

i do appreciate the human sentiment to point the finger at the other guy. but, folks from the US coming N to fish Canadian waters is hardly the problem.

when i look at your regs and compare them to the WA regs, you are your own worst problem. you continue to live in a different century pretending these fish resources are without end. the wise thing for you folks to do is step back, look around you and realize that the fish stocks are crashing.

YOU need to do something to limit your take. that simple and that traumatic. there is no way you can defend a 10 halibut take, no way, no one needs that many fish in the freezer, you are not subsistence fishing, you are 'sport anglers.'

go look in the mirror and you will see the immediate problem you face.

Completely wrong.
This has nothing to do with a conservation problem.
This is an allocation problem.

This has nothing to do with keeping large halibut, however some think it is.

This is about the Government being lobbied by a bunch of rich commercial halibut fishermen who in most cases do not even fish any more. They just sit around and sell quota that they got for free from the Government.

If all the people and groups they are involved in were to actually do something by sending letters to their MP's MLA"s a DFO in Ottawa, they might even begin to change things for the better.

The other sectors lobby every day with these people.
Sports fishermen are unable to do this why?

 

[reelfast]

and, of course, it is easy to argue there are zero fish stock issues. unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether the halibut stocks are healthy or not until they fail to show up. no one thought the columbia river or fraser river anadramous fish stocks could ever be depleated, ah-huh.

at the end of the day, this is, as usual, all about money. the commercials will harvest to the last fish simply because there is money to be made. same with ground fish, no problem, until they are were longer there.

how anyone can know, with any degree of certainty, that a specific fish stock is healthy is beyond credible. are these DFO numbers you are believing? our WDFW uses Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) to defend their mismanagement of fish stocks. what does your DFO use to mask the truth?

once the halibut fail to show up, it will be too late for you folks to have learned from those of us at a different lattitude, too bad, but human nature is what it is.........

 

[reelfast]

and, of course, it is easy to argue there are zero fish stock issues. unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether the halibut stocks are healthy or not until they fail to show up. no one thought the columbia river or fraser river anadramous fish stocks could ever be depleated, ah-huh.

at the end of the day, this is, as usual, all about money. the commercials will harvest to the last fish simply because there is money to be made. same with ground fish, no problem, until they are were longer there.

how anyone can know, with any degree of certainty, that a specific fish stock is healthy is beyond credible. are these DFO numbers you are believing? our WDFW uses Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) to defend their mismanagement of fish stocks. what does your DFO use to mask the truth?

once the halibut fail to show up, it will be too late for you folks to have learned from those of us at a different lattitude, too bad, but human nature is what it is.........

 

[Governor]

Hey Reelfast,

What Old Black Dog says is on the money.

FYI - Canada and DFO do not actually set annual harvest levels of halibut in Canada. The research, science and management of halibut in the North Pacific are carried out by a group called the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) under the authority of the oldest existing fisheries treaty between Canada and the USA. They are regarded as the best managed stock in the Pacific, even by the science community.

So please go to the IPHC website and spend time reading science papers and literature cited on how they arrive at management decisions and catch numbers. And also read how the precautionary principles are applied diligently. Plus understand how eventhough the total North Pacific halibut biomass (biomass = the total of all the live halibut) is higher than it has ever been recorded there are still very high management restrictions to assure certain categories of spawning halibut year classes are not over-exploited.

It is unfortunate that you have such a negative outlook on halibut management, which appears to me to be jaundiced by examples of mismanagement of other species of fish. In some of those cases your negativity is well justified. I realize that often people are so set in there ways, they will not listen to others regardless and I am not trying to change your opinion or stiffle you passion for fish conservation. But please before you gob off here on the SFBC forum about over-fishing of halibut by Canada or USA for that matter, do your homework and write from an informed place. Because to some on here your apparent unwavering emotion-based irrationality makes you come across as an enlightened nincompoop.

Gov



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton

 

[Governor]

Hey Reelfast,

What Old Black Dog says is on the money.

FYI - Canada and DFO do not actually set annual harvest levels of halibut in Canada. The research, science and management of halibut in the North Pacific are carried out by a group called the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) under the authority of the oldest existing fisheries treaty between Canada and the USA. They are regarded as the best managed stock in the Pacific, even by the science community.

So please go to the IPHC website and spend time reading science papers and literature cited on how they arrive at management decisions and catch numbers. And also read how the precautionary principles are applied diligently. Plus understand how eventhough the total North Pacific halibut biomass (biomass = the total of all the live halibut) is higher than it has ever been recorded there are still very high management restrictions to assure certain categories of spawning halibut year classes are not over-exploited.

It is unfortunate that you have such a negative outlook on halibut management, which appears to me to be jaundiced by examples of mismanagement of other species of fish. In some of those cases your negativity is well justified. I realize that often people are so set in there ways, they will not listen to others regardless and I am not trying to change your opinion or stiffle you passion for fish conservation. But please before you gob off here on the SFBC forum about over-fishing of halibut by Canada or USA for that matter, do your homework and write from an informed place. Because to some on here your apparent unwavering emotion-based irrationality makes you come across as an enlightened nincompoop.

Gov



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton