DFO Announcement Prawn/Shrimp Reduced Dalily Limit

[Chasin' Dreams]

Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Shellfish


Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Subject: FN0186-RECREATIONAL - Shellfish - Prawn and Shrimp - Reduced Daily Limit

Effective April 1, 2020, the recreational daily quota (daily limit) for Shrimp,
including Prawn, is reduced from 200 to 125.

The combined possession limit is 250, which is twice the daily quota (daily
limit).

This is a precautionary fisheries management decision made to provide stable
access to the recreational fishery for the future.

In recent years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been making
adjustments to how the prawn fishery is managed under a conservation framework
guided by the Prawn and Shrimp by trap Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for
all sectors in support of conservation and sustainable management. This
adjustment to the recreational daily limit is responding to increased interest
and effort in the recreational prawn fishery.

The Department has consulted on reducing the recreational limit with the Sport
Fishing Advisory Board over the past four years. This is the first time the
recreational daily limit has decreased since 1996. Reducing the daily limit is
part of a broader effort to ensure responsible fishing practices and
sustainable prawn harvests throughout the BC coast.

Daily, possession and trap limits are in effect coast-wide.

Variation Order 2020-RFQ-067


Please consult the online BC Sport Fish Guide on our web page at
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/index-eng.html to confirm the latest
information on:
-species regulations;
-open areas where these species may be retained;
-gear restrictions; and
-protected areas where these species may not be retained.

For planning ahead, please refer to the following website: Seasonal Prawn
Closures
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/shellfish-coquillages-eng.html#prawn

 

[Cuba Libre]

Just plain stupid... It is nothing more than reallocation to the other sectors-- Has nothing to do with conservation

 

[Whole in the Water]

Total BS by DFO as they have little science to base this on as none of the other sectors have been hit with any reductions. We should be able to see the "data" they used to base this decision (i.e. reallocation) on. This is a blatant example of throwing the rec sector under the bus to benefit the commercial sector and FN's! .

More of this BS will happen unless the whole rec/public fishery sector works together to push back, lobby and protest like the other sectors do.

 

[John s]

Total bull sh-t. That’s all I can say

 

[sundance]

Total bull sh-t. That’s all I can say

Attended the SFAB MEETING IN Vancouver mid February was told it went to the Commercial sector because of there Short season

 

[Whitebuck]

Why abide by rules that have nothing to do with conservation!

 

[ziggy]

Can hardly wait for all the “Sustainable catch” hype when the commercial harvest starts. Clearly this isn’t the case given they feel the need to limit Canadian access in order to support the overseas market. Time Average Canadians be made aware of the concern for the stock when the commercial harvest is branded as sustainable.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Why are we hashing this out again? It wasn't an allocation to commercial it was an allocation to FN full stop. One band up north on island complained. Sorry that is what it is. As to not complying you just do that and see what happens. All you do is make the case to close it. To get this overturned it needs to go to court.

 

[wildmanyeah]

IT's tough to say that this will even reduce the overall rec catch. Whereas someone went out once a year and got 200, they may now go out twice and get 250. Annual limits IMO is really one of the only effective methods to reduce the rec sector.

Another political move for optics but perhaps it's the best option given the circumstances. Just don't bend me over and tell me its for conservation.

 

[ziggy]

Why are we hashing this out again? It wasn't an allocation to commercial it was an allocation to FN full stop. One band up north on island complained. Sorry that is what it is. As to not complying you just do that and see what happens. All you do is make the case to close it. To get this overturned it needs to go to court.

Actually it is an allocation to commercial Fishery in a roundabout way, a case of addition due to lack of subtraction. If the commercial catch was reduced in conjunction and relative to the recreational catch in order to appease the First Nations, you would have a point. In this case only one sector pays the price of reallocation, one stands pat and the other receives and increase.
If “one band up north complained”, does it make sense to reduce recreational catch around southern urban areas? Seems to me reducing commercial harvest in the area of the northern band would make far more sense? Is there a link to this bands complaint? Just interested.

 

[Captain PartyMarty]

My kids will be spending more time on the boat this year

 

[Rain City]

My kids will be spending more time on the boat this year

Does my 18 month old count?

 

[Gong Show]

Does my 18 month old count?

Hell yes!
My kids all held valid licences, where I declared their age, from six months old.
They make these stupid rules, we just be following them to the letter of the law.

 

[Rain City]

Hell yes!
My kids all held valid licences, where I declared their age, from six months old.
They make these stupid rules, we just be following them to the letter of the law.

I thought kids didn't need licenses at all until they're a certain age. To be honest I actually never really looked it up.

 

[walleyes]

Regulations

A Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licence:

• is required to fish for any species of finfish or shellfish.
• is not transferable.
• does not need to be signed by the licence holder.
• can be obtained in person; a parent may obtain a licence for a child under age 16; and a licence can be obtained for a spouse.
• must be produced on request by a fishery officer, conservation officer or fishery guardian, so ensure you have your licence with you while fishing or transporting your catch.
• When you purchase your licence online, you must print it and carry it while fishing
• All chinook, lingcod, and halibut catch must be recorded on your licence in ink.
• Children under 16 years old are required to obtain a licence, however there is no fee.
• Annual licences are valid from date shown on the licence to the following March 31. Licences of a shorter duration expire at midnight on the final day of validity.
• It is illegal to hold more than one licence.

 

[Rain City]

Oh that's what it was it's just free but still needs to be obtained. Thanks @walleyes

 

[Gong Show]

You are still required to buy a salmon stamp for kids' licences, the licence is free.
But for prawns and Hali, it's totally free.

 

[ryanb]

You are still required to buy a salmon stamp for kids' licences, the licence is free.
But for prawns and Hali, it's totally free.

But only if they are fishing (retaining) salmon on their license. All my kids have licenses but we don't need (or want) that much salmon so they don't have salmon stamps.

 

[Gong Show]

That's a fine line, fishing and retaining are two different things.
If you are fishing for salmon, you should have the stamp.
I understand that the kids could be fishing for greenling while you fish for salmon, but, again a fine line.

The stamp money does not go to DFO, it goes to Pacific Salmon Foundation, so that's a plus.

 

[Cabezon1]

The reduction in prawn limits has everything to do with money. While it is true there has not been a reduction since 1996, neither has the price of prawn been going up as fast as the past couple of years. Some local restaurants are selling them for 50$ a pound. Overseas, restaurants are charging $10 per prawn. Don’t kid yourself, there is huge money in prawning so the commercial guys would naturally lobby to get their hands on more. The Commercial fleet cannot get more from the FN so they naturally turn their eyes to rec sector’s limits. The saddest thing is DFO working in tandem with the commies in this shady re-allocation of resources all in the name of conservation.