2014 IPHC Interim Meeting
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
As well never got the argument against 1/1...angler behaviour is all I ever hear in argument against...well angler behaviour would be same if not very similar as 2012 when 1/2 with one any size! Take away a 2nd fish, even a 15lber for most anglers, and there's no way you go over 1.07 mill. But some say we would go over again...without a 2nd fish? Come on now...there was always high grading with 1/2 with 83cm fish as that's a ping pong paddle and people want their 2nd to be big
Last edited by a moderator:
not really as 2A is shared with CA, OR and WA. what probably needs to happen is 2B quotas along JDF need to include the US side of the strait. or, i'll just buy a non-resident license, cross on the days I can and take advantage of your generous quota and number of fishing days.
we fight this annually, trust me, there are some very involved folks who continue to challenge all of this. I have personally taken on the statistics involved and the projections based on those statistics. turns out, there is no validity to the numbers, that is, they don't represent what they appear to represent. I have taken this right up to the director of WDFW as well as the commissioners, all of whom have some say in the allocations through the IPHC. none of this makes any difference, they simply plod along ignoring it all. its a sad state of affairs but not much of anything is going to change this.
AK believes they are free to rape the landscape, they always have had this mind set. how to turn that back is a giant question that is totally political in nature. with the collapse of the Kenai and now the Yukon, you would think that someone would notice. but just as with your net pens, big business rules the day and that's the end of the tune. when big business can't make a go of it, something will change but probably for the worse, bail out of the industry.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
True, but is not your national quota divided up by your own government. Perhaps less Alaska quota would or should result in more for the lower 48. It's how you decide to divide your pie and has nothing to do with us.
that's not how the allocation works. this is based on samples taken in each management area, they can't be transferred from one management area to another. what comprises the management areas, I believe, needs to be reworked and that includes 2A and 2B. so no matter how much you complain about AK fisheries, that is not going to change unless the biomass sampling indicates it needs to be modified. and keep in mind the methodology for this sampling has been going on for decades so the data does have some precedence. what happens from that point, '...you have so many #s of fish ...' is up to the local government entities determining seasons and so forth. it is at that level that things get messy and can't really be statistically justified. and it is at that level that the pressure is applied, to date, without success.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
This would seem to suggest the fish are not migratory and remain in one artificially designated area? I suggest that if they are migratory, the fish move between areas. If that's true less pressure in one area may result in more fish in another. Am I mistaken?
your hypothesis is as good as any other but demonstrating this as factual could present a serious problem in data collection. it would be near impossible to collect solid data that supported your contention and the costs would be astronomical so you will never see this attempted.
halibut are world travelers as a matter of fact. the sampling that occurs in each management area is tightly controlled and pretty solid from a statistical point of view. by doing this over the decades, IPHC has a pretty good idea about the total biomass in each management area. sure the fish move between areas but that can't be controlled. so that is entered as an 'error' factor, common statistical procedure, and you come up with the quotas for each management area.
from there, the appropriate agencies who manage fishing seasons takes over. it is at that point where there is room for much improvement. WDFW, as an example, samples catch data at selected ports and extrapolates those data for all ports in a geographical area. the ports they choose for this on the ground sampling are the most popular ones, Seiku as an example. unfortunately, for the angler, what happens W of here has little to no bearing on what is happening locally. but they don't seem to understand how to statistically correct their projections and simply lay out seasons that have little to do with reality.
we had a season 3 years back when WDFW claimed the rec anglers were landing 148 halibut/day in each port. now given the biggest halibut derby happens in Port Angeles and that year the biggest day was 84 halibut checked, one has to wonder where and how they generate their numbers. it is at this point that reality leaves the scene and the rec angler gets screwed. and while I have personally argued these statistical points with their statisticians, the data remain without statistical validity. also true for their salmon projections.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
You lost me reel fast. What hypothesis that I suggest would require astronomical funding and present serious data collection issues? I suggest that halibut are migratory which you claim to be fact, so it seems that is not an issue. Sampling occurs in each management zone and you claim is solid and factual, so that is not an issue. So I don't get your point?
You agree the fish are "world travelers", you agree that we already have a mechanism in place to monitor the biomass in specific areas? All that's left then is to dispute my hypothesis that if you catch less "world travelling " fish in Alaska there will be more elsewhere, for instance Washington State. I think that is commonsense, but by your own admission there is a mechanisim in place to monitor the result.
Follow the money reel fast, the commercial interests are in Alaska where the majority of your national quota will be taken.
You agree the fish are "world travelers", you agree that we already have a mechanism in place to monitor the biomass in specific areas? All that's left then is to dispute my hypothesis that if you catch less "world travelling " fish in Alaska there will be more elsewhere, for instance Washington State. I think that is commonsense, but by your own admission there is a mechanisim in place to monitor the result.
Follow the money reel fast, the commercial interests are in Alaska where the majority of your national quota will be taken.
Last edited by a moderator:
because this sampling is done in specific management areas, you simply can't take tonnage from one area and 'give' it to another area. the fact is, the vast majority of halibut do live and reproduce in AK waters. that has nothing to do with money. reducing quota in AK and lets say reassigning it to 2A does not mean there will be more fish to catch in 2A. the real problem is not the IPHC tonnage methodology, the problem is what the appropriate agencies chose to do with that data, seasons, limits and so forth. I also believe that the management areas need to be examined as they really don't represent halibut domains very well in this day and age. for example why is the N part of JDF included in 2B but the S part of JDF in 2A? since the halibut in the strait are in the strait, it would seem to make more sense to manage the strait in one consistent manner. you seem to think that by simply moving quota from one management area to another you can solve the issue of more fishing days and a bigger take for rec anglers, not so.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I mentioned reducing catch of of a migrating species would likely result in more fish being in the areas they migrate to. I don't think you quite understand the concept of migration, its the movement of the biomass not the quota. If fish migrate, which you agree they do it isn't rocket science to assume the areas they migrate to will benefit from less pressure in the area you claim they reproduce?I'll just back out of this discussion before wasting anymore time trying to convince you of something that should be apparant. Then again if you believe the Alaska share of your national quota has nothing to do with money!
so explain just how you would go about determining biomass and setting catch total tonnage.............i'll standby. certainly fish move but the sampling has to nail one end of the board down in order to come up with a total allowable catch. you seem to think this moving target can somehow be defined by another means. by all means, go ahead and explain your concept so everyone can understand what you are driving at.
AK is run by the sea food industry, just like BC. the total allowable catch is not determined by this industry, however. what is not controlled is the by catch and overharvest by commercials. that is where the slippery slope happens to be with the AK fishery. if by catch were limited or controlled and harvest quotas were strictly enforced, we would have a different scenario in AK. but there is next to no motivation to implement any solutions simply because of the sea food industry running the state, same as BC or you would not have any issues with net pens.
AK is run by the sea food industry, just like BC. the total allowable catch is not determined by this industry, however. what is not controlled is the by catch and overharvest by commercials. that is where the slippery slope happens to be with the AK fishery. if by catch were limited or controlled and harvest quotas were strictly enforced, we would have a different scenario in AK. but there is next to no motivation to implement any solutions simply because of the sea food industry running the state, same as BC or you would not have any issues with net pens.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Did you even read your post #52 para two? Lol. Your argument is a series of moving targets, the biomass estimates are accurate, oh wait there is no way of getting an accurate number and it would be too costly. The Alaska allocation has nothing to do with money, oh wait it's run by the seafood industry. Anyway if you are supplying the logic for your season I'm surprised you have any openings. Out!
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
I sell bait to the halibut guys in southeast. They'd be rolling on the floor if they read your comments about how much "power" their industry has. You can imagine how absolutely drunk with power they felt last year when they took a 25% quota cut in Southeast.
The truth is, everybody took notice when a huge glut of chickens showed up at the dock and almost zero 60/80's and 80+ fish. Even the commercials, the guys that sporties just love to hate, realized that something was happening in the food chain, something was negatively tweaking the oceanographic conditions, or there's been just good old-fashioned over-harvest, and recognized that something had to give.
There was a lot of moaning, but nobody doubted the resource needed some TLC. The way it was done will always be open to question but at least something was done
yes, I followed that reduction in 3A with some interest. but the fact remains that overharvest still continues pretty much unabated by various commercial sectors in AK, particularly the drag fleet complete with processing ships. until all of those folks are on the same page with regard to the resources, it will continue to decline. the 3A folks are but a small drop in the bucket with regard to AK fisheries so their taking it in the shorts was bound to happen.
what I find puzzling is the consternation of you folks in 2B who can't quite get your head around this same issue and realize this is a new day and what was possible a decade ago is not today. change is not easy but change will happen whether or not you agree.
and what can I say ziggy, you comprehension skills are obviously lacking so there is no point in trying to explain how this system works and where the flaws exist. I guess all you want is a bigger quota and unlimited season lengths, good luck with that.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
For those that want to give input and have their voice heard, here is a form where you can comment and give recommendations to IPHC. Be sure to fill out the why do you believe this should be done section a little better than some of those in 4E. Try and use science or observed trends such as how area 2B is the only area with leveling and even increasing statistics, yet we still face the same decreases as Alaska (where their trawl fleet takes more biomass than our whole area rec and commie combined).
I'm just writing out my recommendation then emailing it in now, here is the link:
http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events/annual-meeting/catch-limit-comments.html
I'm just writing out my recommendation then emailing it in now, here is the link:
http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events/annual-meeting/catch-limit-comments.html
searun
Well-Known Member
Halibut Options paper is now out to SFAC Chairs. Excellent job done to get this out as early as possible to maximize opportunity for input. If interested you should contact your local chair. Bear in mind the options are based upon same TAC as in 2013. IPHC is announcing their interim forecast for Area 2B at 4.98 million pounds or 747,000 pounds based on 85/15 split. To put in perspective that is 333,450 pounds less than 2013. That would be about 26 days in peak season(not factoring in shifts in variables impacting catch).
There are several options that have been forecast for the SFAC's to provide input into the Halibut Working Group. Your best way to provide input is to work within your local SFAC.
Also, we should take all this with a huge grain of salt until we actually know the TAC. IMO hugely speculative without actually knowing the final TAC announcement, which will come on Jan 17 at the final IPHC meeting. Good idea to provide input on possible options, but we should all strongly consider there well could be some last minute scrambling to recalculate various options if the TAC announcement is lower than 2013 TAC (1,080,450 pounds). I recall a lot of anger posted in prior years because the final decision process happens very quickly.
Timelines for decisions are basically compressed, but less so than in previous years because the 2014 regulations will need to be posted in time for online licenses to be developed and loaded (no paper fishing licenses this year). IPHC TAC announcement is Jan 17 and licenses have to go up April 01, so likely they need to be loaded into system in early March - roughly 6 weeks.
There are several options that have been forecast for the SFAC's to provide input into the Halibut Working Group. Your best way to provide input is to work within your local SFAC.
Also, we should take all this with a huge grain of salt until we actually know the TAC. IMO hugely speculative without actually knowing the final TAC announcement, which will come on Jan 17 at the final IPHC meeting. Good idea to provide input on possible options, but we should all strongly consider there well could be some last minute scrambling to recalculate various options if the TAC announcement is lower than 2013 TAC (1,080,450 pounds). I recall a lot of anger posted in prior years because the final decision process happens very quickly.
Timelines for decisions are basically compressed, but less so than in previous years because the 2014 regulations will need to be posted in time for online licenses to be developed and loaded (no paper fishing licenses this year). IPHC TAC announcement is Jan 17 and licenses have to go up April 01, so likely they need to be loaded into system in early March - roughly 6 weeks.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
And as there are no paper licences to make then there is lots of time for this decision to be made by all the SFAC 's.
V
vic-tory
Guest
Size limit is not the way to go. People want to catch a fish of a lifetime and get pictures with them. Options that include a fish of any size should be those considered. I had to release a couple over 80lbs this year and could of used that meat in my freezer.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Time to express your opinion to your area SFAC. They looking at what people think of the various options. Expressing an opinion here really goes nowhere. This time it is smarter to let the SFAC know where you are coming from. I should add that contact through the various participants in the SFAC process ( SVI, BCWF, SFI, BCFDF, etc will also enter the mix as well.......
BTW- If you want to see the whole number of options.. contact a SFAC area member.
