DFO 2020 Halibut Fishery Announcement & Regs

[Sea lyin’]

Thanks for that. Next question would be why? What do we get out of being a member. Just wondering if it’s really
something worth being part of? Setting our own regs and limits without outside influence seems like it would be more
beneficial to Canadians than any recommendations by a commission of made up of mostly members of another country.

 

[searun]

Good question. Halibut are migratory and how one jurisdiction fashions a fishing plan can impact fisheries in others. Its not about the jurisdictional fishing grounds or territory so much as the migration highway, feeding, nursery areas etc. The US side of the IPHC are trying to argue apportionment of TAC based on raw calculation of available fishing ground or habitat, which favours their apportionment of halibut. Whereas Canada argues its more about productivity. Let the games begin. That said, if the AK guys really wanted to ramp up some of their fisheries the impact to migratory fish to Canada would be dramatic. Thus the reason or incentive for some form of cooperation between all the jurisdictions. Canada could pull out any time they choose. Would that accomplish anything? Likely not.

 

[Sea lyin’]

Good question. Halibut are migratory and how one jurisdiction fashions a fishing plan can impact fisheries in others. Its not about the jurisdictional fishing grounds or territory so much as the migration highway, feeding, nursery areas etc. The US side of the IPHC are trying to argue apportionment of TAC based on raw calculation of available fishing ground or habitat, which favours their apportionment of halibut. Whereas Canada argues its more about productivity. Let the games begin. That said, if the AK guys really wanted to ramp up some of their fisheries the impact to migratory fish to Canada would be dramatic. Thus the reason or incentive for some form of cooperation between all the jurisdictions. Canada could pull out any time they choose. Would that accomplish anything? Likely not.

Thanks again for the info. Looks to me like it’s six of one half a dozen of the other. Would like to see equal parts Canadian and US members though. Seems pretty unfair if there’s not equal representation.

 

[Jencourt]

Or the other option is start the season with a regulation choice we already have modelling experience with, and if Covid impacts effort and catch as it did last year, ramp up to the IPHC regulations in August after we know more about our catch numbers. 2 per day; 3 possession....til we are done.

Would this not require a significant change in wording to the condition of licence ?

 

[searun]

You can use variation order to amend limits. VO won't work to vary length because you need a standard regulation in place to vary from and to. If we had a minimum size for halibut like we do for Chinook embedded into the regs perhaps that would allow VO to vary size, but we don't. Another option might be to find some crafty way to structure the Condition of License (CoL) so we perhaps split the season into 2 segments aligned to when we have enough catch data to make a prediction on remaining TAC and the rate we will fish it etc. Then you could use a VO to vary from one CoL to another. Or just start with an aggressive plan and fish until its gone, for example go with last year's regulation but increase the max size to 133cm to account for covid and call it good. Lots go different ways to go.

 

[wildmanyeah]

That’s assuming our TAC will be similar to last years correct but potentially carry over could get approved and potentially TAC could go up a bit this year.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Might as well have some fun this year I think there potentially will be a lot of pent up demand for 2022.

 

[searun]

Yup, 2022 will be a gold rush. Not holding my breath on carry-over. Unlikely the IPHC will bite.

 

[Jencourt]

You can use variation order to amend limits. VO won't work to vary length because you need a standard regulation in place to vary from and to. If we had a minimum size for halibut like we do for Chinook embedded into the regs perhaps that would allow VO to vary size, but we don't. Another option might be to find some crafty way to structure the Condition of License (CoL) so we perhaps split the season into 2 segments aligned to when we have enough catch data to make a prediction on remaining TAC and the rate we will fish it etc. Then you could use a VO to vary from one CoL to another. Or just start with an aggressive plan and fish until its gone, for example go with last year's regulation but increase the max size to 133cm to account for covid and call it good. Lots go different ways to go.

I would think that getting DFO to give more flexibility in the wording of COL should be a priority now more than ever in regards to Halibut.

With such a strong likelihood of travel restrictions for 2021 why would we go with 133 max on the hybrid? Would it not be better for everyone if we tried for the split season as you called it. ( pretty familiar to what I have been saying for years)

Open it up for 1/2 no max size and have the provision to bring it in if TAC is getting tight.

I Think it would be better to give max opportunities at the start rather than over restrict everyone for most of the season only to open it up later when weather is shifting and there is next to no fishing taking place.
My thoughts on it anyway.
Cheers

 

[wildmanyeah]

Open it up for 1/2 no max size and have the provision to bring it in if TAC is getting tight.

im sure there would be some that would argue there season does not start to June/july and that type of reg would benefit other areas more and potentially screw theirs.

lots of areas and agendas at play. I think the easiest thing is to default to overly cautious approach that will achieve a full season.

Personally i would like to see a more aggressive approach but i can go to different areas. I'm not running a business selling opportunity out of one area.

 

[Jencourt]

im sure there would be some that would argue there season does not start to June/july and that type of reg would benefit other areas more and potentially screw theirs.

lots of areas and agendas at play. I think the easiest thing is to default to overly cautious approach that will achieve a full season.

Personally i would like to see a more aggressive approach but i can go to different areas. I'm not running a business selling opportunity out of one area

I get what you are saying. I also see yet again another post that highlights what drives the decision making, who matters and who doesn’t.

There are lots of reasons why starting big will never get done. Some valid, others not so much. Most of us on here know what they are. No need to list it all out again.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I missed that what drives decision making?

 

[searun]

I missed that what drives decision making?

Great question. SFAB has a set of guiding principles developed and adopted from input received from the entire process (SFAC groups up to the Main Board) to provide guidance to the direction it can take. They are things like maximizing season length (list attached for reference). Of course the largest driver is the assigned TAC Canada gets at the IPHC, everything else rolls down hill.

1. Conservation of the stock and ensuring responsible fishing practices.
2. Halibut are managed on a coast wide basis.
3. Maximizing the length of the season each year.
4. Ensuring certainty and stability for the fishery by creating a management regime that minimizes the likelihood of short notice in season closures.
5. A minimum daily limit of one
6. An annual limit of some kind is an acceptable way to limit catch.

 

[ziggy]

Great question. SFAB has a set of guiding principles developed and adopted from input received from the entire process (SFAC groups up to the Main Board) to provide guidance to the direction it can take. They are things like maximizing season length (list attached for reference). Of course the largest driver is the assigned TAC Canada gets at the IPHC, everything else rolls down hill.

1. Conservation of the stock and ensuring responsible fishing practices.
2. Halibut are managed on a coast wide basis.
3. Maximizing the length of the season each year.
4. Ensuring certainty and stability for the fishery by creating a management regime that minimizes the likelihood of short notice in season closures.
5. A minimum daily limit of one
6. An annual limit of some kind is an acceptable way to limit catch.

What is thought process that drove the coast wide basis instead of an area/sub area breakdown such as the one used for salmon. To be clear I find the number of area, sub areas etc. used in salmon management both confusing and questionable in that it divides both the pie and fishers into small special interest groups. Strange they adopted two different systems?

 

[wildmanyeah]

What is thought process that drove the coast wide basis instead of an area/sub area breakdown such as the one used for salmon. To be clear I find the number of area, sub areas etc. used in salmon management both confusing and questionable in that it divides both the pie and fishers into small special interest groups. Strange they adopted two different systems?

how do you assign tac to one area? And not cause bed wetting?

salmon is manage by stock and halibut is managed as a one aggregate is my guess.

 

[ziggy]

how do you assign tac to one area? And not cause bed wetting?

salmon is manage by stock and halibut is managed as a one aggregate is my guess.

I guess, but both are migratory right, so one area often impacts another ? Just asking though why two systems are employed. Frankly the salmon area ,sub area , system is approaching ridiculous. Illegal unless you move 100 yds then all of a sudden legal, but the same fish Seems more political than conservation driven. Maybe a concerted effort by DFO to look at why they divided the pie into such small pieces needs a second look. Maybe start by eliminating sub areas unless there are very critical to fish survival. IMO too many areas with too many different rules.

 

[wildmanyeah]

. IMO too many areas with too many different rules.

its only going to be divided up smaller as managers try to use a fine tooth comb to narrow down where stocks of concern migrate. Isn't that what the rec community wants tho is for only those areas where stocks of concern are present to be shut down. Not manage by huge areas having to shut down large swaths of the ocean.

 

[ziggy]

its only going to be divided up smaller as managers try to use a fine tooth comb to narrow down where stocks of concern migrate. Isn't that what the rec community wants tho is for only those areas where stocks of concern are present to be shut down. Not manage by huge areas having to shut down large swaths of the ocean.

Indeed if used as a tool to make surgical cuts via openings and closings to protect runs as the pass by, that would make sense. That’s not how the Regs work however! I’m sure you are aware that the same salmon runs face many different restrictions as they pass through the various Areas and Sub areas. Do the closures follow the migration route of the Fraser River run as they work their way down the coast? Absolutely not!
The same salmon run falls under different regulations as it passes down the WCVI/Georgia Strait, Juan de Fuca, individual sections of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, individual areas of Haro Strait, Fraser River Approaches etc. Why does for example area 19 have two different minimum size limits? These are the same fish. How do you propose to protect migration routes over large swaths of ocean if your plan doesn’t recognize the fish migrate through large swaths of ocean? Just asking!

 

[wolf]

The same salmon run falls under different regulations as it passes down the WCVI/Georgia Strait, Juan de Fuca, individual sections of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, individual areas of Haro Strait, Fraser River Approaches etc. Why does for example area 19 have two different minimum size limits? These are the same fish. How do you propose to protect migration routes over large swaths of ocean if your plan doesn’t recognize the fish migrate through large swaths of ocean? Just asking!

AND that my friend is whats been going on for 13 years now ... MAIN reason that area is the low hanging fruit as it has no guides anymore to speak of no lodges etc so it was easy pickings....I said over 15 years ago it was going to spider web out and its going to continue, certain user groups seem to have certain pull when it comes to both halibut and salmon allocation and or privilege's, Its not worth pointing fingers at as it doesn't solve anything, just like politics there is too many fingers in the pie . I personally dont buy into the idea that we cant because halibut are migratory either so are salmon and they seem JUST fine to put restrictions on the salmon .. how come in area 20 cant keep a fish till Aug 1 and only 1 and 21 miles away you can keep 2 any size mid july ??? do you really think it takes 2 weeks for a fish to swim that distance? if you do i have a bridge to sell you from the island to vancouver....Lets hope and be thankful we are allowed to even fish nowadays . So get out while you can we are lucky to do it , its defiantly not our right as a Canadian.....

 

[Derby]

hahahaaha.. I see your back wolfie.. you just keeping on believeing what you believe brother