FN0904-Recreational - Halibut: fishery continuing until further notic
- Thread starter UkeeDreamin
- Start date
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Well, Derby, using 2013-2015 numbers, we can expect to see August harvest in the 250-300,000lb range, which will take the rec harvest to the 950-990,000 lb range. Sep average harvest for the same period is about 25k and Oct-Dec ranges from 5k to 12k, so we'll likely be around 1 million pounds harvested in 2016, or about 10% (100k) shy of the quota, fairly similar to 2015.
Also interesting to note that it's really only Areas 19 & 20 (odd fish harvested elsewhere but nothing significant) fishing October through April, at least according to the 2103-15 data. Gotta make one think that with 10% wiggle room based on last two years that some creative solutions are available to keep those areas fishing for "the full season" while adjusting the other regs to make the rules more equitable for the travelling angler and get the sector closer to the quota.
Folks can view the 2013 to 2015 data tables here:
http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_02_Area2B_2015SportHalibutCatchReport_IPHC.pdf
Cheers!
Ukee
Also interesting to note that it's really only Areas 19 & 20 (odd fish harvested elsewhere but nothing significant) fishing October through April, at least according to the 2103-15 data. Gotta make one think that with 10% wiggle room based on last two years that some creative solutions are available to keep those areas fishing for "the full season" while adjusting the other regs to make the rules more equitable for the travelling angler and get the sector closer to the quota.
Folks can view the 2013 to 2015 data tables here:
http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_02_Area2B_2015SportHalibutCatchReport_IPHC.pdf
Cheers!
Ukee
searun
Well-Known Member
Numbers are slightly out there Ukee.
2014 total catch to July 31 was 580,609
2015 was 646,026
2016 was 691,121
Notice a pattern?
The 2015 Aug catch was 302,396, and if we repeat that in 2106 our total would be 993,516 against a TAC of 1,100,950 or 107,433 remaining after August (estimated based on 2015 catch rate which is lower than 2016)
If you examine the catch rate in 2015, the Sept to Dec catch was 36,343. Applied to the current 2016 catch that would be 1,029,760....or an underage of 71,190.
Please remember that the catch rate in 2016 is higher than 2015, so the estimated underage will likely be slimmer than the 71,190.
Essentially the slot limit restrictions are designed to ensure we complete a full season with no early closure. The mandate given to the SFAB Halibut Working Group is very clear, and our policy direction is not to adopt regulations choices that place significant risk of early season closure. Yes the approach is conservative and is intended to ensure we are as close to the total TAC without going over. Accordingly a small underage is an acceptable risk compared to an early closure.
For those who question the methodology and approach, I again ask...where are you in the process? Non participation is no excuse. Moreover, if you participate there will be a lot of information that will help you better understand all the factors that impact our TAC allocation including the significant changes to deductions to the TAC which are applied by the IPHC to account for release mortalities etc. - that is why the 2012 data is really of no use when comparing data.
The local SFAC process is open to all, so instead of flogging that dead horse, it would be more productive to find ways to get involved so you can lend your expertise to the decision making process.
2014 total catch to July 31 was 580,609
2015 was 646,026
2016 was 691,121
Notice a pattern?
The 2015 Aug catch was 302,396, and if we repeat that in 2106 our total would be 993,516 against a TAC of 1,100,950 or 107,433 remaining after August (estimated based on 2015 catch rate which is lower than 2016)
If you examine the catch rate in 2015, the Sept to Dec catch was 36,343. Applied to the current 2016 catch that would be 1,029,760....or an underage of 71,190.
Please remember that the catch rate in 2016 is higher than 2015, so the estimated underage will likely be slimmer than the 71,190.
Essentially the slot limit restrictions are designed to ensure we complete a full season with no early closure. The mandate given to the SFAB Halibut Working Group is very clear, and our policy direction is not to adopt regulations choices that place significant risk of early season closure. Yes the approach is conservative and is intended to ensure we are as close to the total TAC without going over. Accordingly a small underage is an acceptable risk compared to an early closure.
For those who question the methodology and approach, I again ask...where are you in the process? Non participation is no excuse. Moreover, if you participate there will be a lot of information that will help you better understand all the factors that impact our TAC allocation including the significant changes to deductions to the TAC which are applied by the IPHC to account for release mortalities etc. - that is why the 2012 data is really of no use when comparing data.
The local SFAC process is open to all, so instead of flogging that dead horse, it would be more productive to find ways to get involved so you can lend your expertise to the decision making process.
searun
Well-Known Member
oh ya, forgot to add in one disclaimer....August was pretty bad for weather, which could impact the catch rate as compared to 2015, so if the horrible weather slowed the catch rate that would definitely reduce our catch and impact the estimates noted in the above posts.
My suspicion is the salmon fishing was fairly slow, so more people targeted bottom fish as a result, so even with bad weather we might see a swing in angler behaviour, which of course impacts hali catch...so it is really anyone's guess.
My suspicion is the salmon fishing was fairly slow, so more people targeted bottom fish as a result, so even with bad weather we might see a swing in angler behaviour, which of course impacts hali catch...so it is really anyone's guess.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
August catch will be down from last year. Weather comparing year to year isn't even close...and see, that goes both ways. Could have better or worse so can't effing say weather could of been nice or some bs line that comes from sfab when catch is lower. Also you can easily use 2012 data. Just add release mortality.
I keep hearing nice to be open in sept etc. Yes. No one here is saying we shouldn't be. What we are saying is you could do that and still have more liberal limits 100%! On top of that if you think after leaving OVER 500,000lbs of halibut (re read that...) over the last 4 years that dfo won't be liberal with us for shut down considering they know economic benefits, you're just plain stupid. Period.
I keep hearing nice to be open in sept etc. Yes. No one here is saying we shouldn't be. What we are saying is you could do that and still have more liberal limits 100%! On top of that if you think after leaving OVER 500,000lbs of halibut (re read that...) over the last 4 years that dfo won't be liberal with us for shut down considering they know economic benefits, you're just plain stupid. Period.
searun
Well-Known Member
The SFAB Main Board drafted/passed the terms of reference for the Halibut Working Group. If you want to change the terms of reference you will need to get involved in the SFAB process, and successfully argue to move toward terms that accept more risk. I frankly would not support that as the potential cost to the rec fishery is unacceptable....or rather, you would really need to have a lot of impressive arguments to swing my risk tolerance.
I would love to see some of the guys who call for no slot limits, 2 fish retention and/or larger slot limits to try explaining to an angler who travels from Calgary on his August vacation as to why and who would be so stupid to put in regulations that predictably ensure the fishery closes sometime in July.
I would love to see some of the guys who call for no slot limits, 2 fish retention and/or larger slot limits to try explaining to an angler who travels from Calgary on his August vacation as to why and who would be so stupid to put in regulations that predictably ensure the fishery closes sometime in July.
We only catch 30ish thousand lbs from Sept- December. So I don't think there are "many" sport fisherman fishing. or they are terrible at catching. Was there an online vote or something?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
If you want to go that route. Over 90% of licenses only fish June-August. Soooooo majority wouldn't care using your logic
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Hahaha. Scare tactics. All you have. Close in July?! I haven't seen anyone suggest anything that would make that happen. It's actually hilarious how you try to scare people. You are more similar to Donald trump than you probably want to think.
Tell me how 140/90 or 138/90 or etc would do that. It wouldn't. On top of that ukee showed the 90 doesn't do squat.
We have never closed in july, and only once closed in august in the history of halibut fishing if I remember correctly, and that was with regulations ALOT more liberal then now.
searun
Well-Known Member
Precisely....if we adopted some of the regulation choices advocated here we would predictably reach TAC in late July or early August therefore closing the fishery once again. This was considered to be an unacceptable risk, and therefore the TOR to the Halibut Working Group was drafted with this in mind.
Predicting angler behaviour and catch rates without knowing all the uncontrollable variables (weather, salmon abundance, changing average size) is rather difficult. As I'm sure you know, our TAC is measured in pounds caught and even a slight increase in the average size can spike up our TAC usage on a similar number of actual fish landed. Complicate that with a shift (increase) in anglers targeting hali due to poor salmon fishing and you have a double whammy.
Looking back to 2012 and prior years is really very unhelpful because angling methods and effort have shifted considerably in a few short years. Essentially each year is becoming a new game, and increasingly more difficult to use historical data.
The 2016 numbers so far reflect a shift in catch, likely associated with the less than stellar fishing in certain areas which caused anglers to look for hali as opposed to salmon. The only good thing on the horizon is August was really bad for weather, that should slow down the effort on hali....if it doesn't we will land very close or over TAC, and that is before deductions for morts.
When we examine the various options, we carefully anticipate risk and assign predictive TAC to the model to ensure that even if there is a small shift in some of these variables we have built into the model risk factors that help us make choices that get us the most harvest and still remain within (under) TAC.
Hope that helps frame the decision process.
Predicting angler behaviour and catch rates without knowing all the uncontrollable variables (weather, salmon abundance, changing average size) is rather difficult. As I'm sure you know, our TAC is measured in pounds caught and even a slight increase in the average size can spike up our TAC usage on a similar number of actual fish landed. Complicate that with a shift (increase) in anglers targeting hali due to poor salmon fishing and you have a double whammy.
Looking back to 2012 and prior years is really very unhelpful because angling methods and effort have shifted considerably in a few short years. Essentially each year is becoming a new game, and increasingly more difficult to use historical data.
The 2016 numbers so far reflect a shift in catch, likely associated with the less than stellar fishing in certain areas which caused anglers to look for hali as opposed to salmon. The only good thing on the horizon is August was really bad for weather, that should slow down the effort on hali....if it doesn't we will land very close or over TAC, and that is before deductions for morts.
When we examine the various options, we carefully anticipate risk and assign predictive TAC to the model to ensure that even if there is a small shift in some of these variables we have built into the model risk factors that help us make choices that get us the most harvest and still remain within (under) TAC.
Hope that helps frame the decision process.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Searun, you know better than most that the slot limit was shown to have zero effect on harvest rate when it was in place for two seasons prior to max size and the annual limit (both which had an immediate affect!). Further, any competent fisheries scientists or manager can explain to you that a slot size at or above the median fish harvested will have zero affect on total harvest. Finally, those same scientists and managers will tell you that if a management slot only applies to a very small fraction of fish, as is the case in the Pac Region halibut fishery, even if the size were set properly it would be largely ineffective in resulting in any real change to harvest. I've yet to hear or see one valid argument or set of data in its defence.
Also, the fishery has never been closed in August, it was closed in September after the long-weekend on a single occasion and the data shows that after Sept 98+% of effort/interest is done. I'd bet that most of the limited interest in September is done by the middle of the month and the numbers show there is really only interest in two or three areas on the coast after August. It isn't a coincidence that those areas are in close proximity to where the majority of participation in the SFAC/B process occurs.
Joe, both Washington and Oregon use online methods for all rec license holding anglers to have an equal say in licensing and season opening decisions. No reason DFO shouldn't be moving in the same direction. DFO is about to initiate open public consultation on reversing the Conservative changes to the Fisheries Act - a great opportunity to voice our displeasure with the limited voice rec anglers have due to the Departments failure to modernize the engagement process! Hell, in advance of DFO getting their **** together, there no reason the SFAB couldn't use the web to solicit input into an updated Terms of Reference to ensure their mandate reflects the majority of anglers, rather than the fewer than 1% who chose to participate, or who have access to participate, in the local SFAC mtgs. Those who oppose it must have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Cheers!
Ukee
Also, the fishery has never been closed in August, it was closed in September after the long-weekend on a single occasion and the data shows that after Sept 98+% of effort/interest is done. I'd bet that most of the limited interest in September is done by the middle of the month and the numbers show there is really only interest in two or three areas on the coast after August. It isn't a coincidence that those areas are in close proximity to where the majority of participation in the SFAC/B process occurs.
Joe, both Washington and Oregon use online methods for all rec license holding anglers to have an equal say in licensing and season opening decisions. No reason DFO shouldn't be moving in the same direction. DFO is about to initiate open public consultation on reversing the Conservative changes to the Fisheries Act - a great opportunity to voice our displeasure with the limited voice rec anglers have due to the Departments failure to modernize the engagement process! Hell, in advance of DFO getting their **** together, there no reason the SFAB couldn't use the web to solicit input into an updated Terms of Reference to ensure their mandate reflects the majority of anglers, rather than the fewer than 1% who chose to participate, or who have access to participate, in the local SFAC mtgs. Those who oppose it must have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Cheers!
Ukee
searun
Well-Known Member
Size at age is actually up over last year, so the lowering of the small slot fish was designed to help slow down catch as more fish will migrate into above 83cm range resulting in more releases, less TAC, longer season given increasing angler effort and catch efficiency. Despite lowering the small slot limit we are up over the 2015 catch. Explain how we could make our TAC at 90/140? Not possible without some weird weather to slow down the catch.
So how would your numbers work out when we are sitting at an estimated underage of 71K not counting mortality deductions that come off the top? I would suggest we will be quite close if the current pattern continues. Not Trump like scare tactics, simple reality of the numbers. If you are so smart, then I guess we will see you sitting at the SFAB table sharing that knowledge next year and convincing the Area 19/20 reps that accepting more risk of an early closure is a good thing for them.
These choices have to be made bearing in mind this is a coast wide decision. There is a significant and growing Area 19/20 fall fishery. So just because some guide operations close in September does not mean that local anglers should get the short end of the stick.
Managing the fishery to the guide/lodge interests would not be a fair minded approach, and represents too much risk in my mind....I haven't yet heard anything convincing (yet) that taking something from the folks who like a fall fishery is a good thing.
So how would your numbers work out when we are sitting at an estimated underage of 71K not counting mortality deductions that come off the top? I would suggest we will be quite close if the current pattern continues. Not Trump like scare tactics, simple reality of the numbers. If you are so smart, then I guess we will see you sitting at the SFAB table sharing that knowledge next year and convincing the Area 19/20 reps that accepting more risk of an early closure is a good thing for them.
These choices have to be made bearing in mind this is a coast wide decision. There is a significant and growing Area 19/20 fall fishery. So just because some guide operations close in September does not mean that local anglers should get the short end of the stick.
Managing the fishery to the guide/lodge interests would not be a fair minded approach, and represents too much risk in my mind....I haven't yet heard anything convincing (yet) that taking something from the folks who like a fall fishery is a good thing.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Just read the entire thread.
What limits would shut us down in July searun?! One no size wouldn't even do that #searunscaretactics. Or should I say #sfabscaretactics ?
What limits would shut us down in July searun?! One no size wouldn't even do that #searunscaretactics. Or should I say #sfabscaretactics ?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
500,000 POUNDS left in water in four years.
And here you are defending how it's been managed. If anyone managed anything like sfab has our halibut. You'd be crying bloody murder and there is NO way you can deny that. Zero. Or you're a hypocrite...
And no limits suggested would shut us down in July.
Taking responsibility for your actions (failed or succeeded) is also a trait or people that "grow up"....
And here you are defending how it's been managed. If anyone managed anything like sfab has our halibut. You'd be crying bloody murder and there is NO way you can deny that. Zero. Or you're a hypocrite...
And no limits suggested would shut us down in July.
Taking responsibility for your actions (failed or succeeded) is also a trait or people that "grow up"....
Last edited:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
So Joe and Serengeti from their posts would be happy with a Sept. halibut closure...in exchange for no size limit.
Just where did Serengeti come up with 90% would be happy with June to August fishery.
I THINK YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH!!
Perhaps others on this forum would like to offer their opinion
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Searun, I 100% agree with you that, given 90+% of the rec TAC is take in June annually there is a very fine balance to be walked and that even minor changes to regs that affect harvest rate can manifest themselves quickly during those three peak months.
However, I'm not sure how or why you still don't get the ineffectiveness of the slot. It has been shown by real data not to have any effect on harvest and, similarly, theoretically it is impossible for it to have an effect. Harvest rate is based on numbers of fish caught multiplied by the average size of fish caught. For a reg to be effective in reducing harvest it either has to reduce the numbers caught or the avg size caught. The max size obviously takes away the really big fish that artificially skew the avg size higher, particularly when the majority of data comes voluntarily from lodges and guides who are more likely to successfully target bigger fish. Daily, possession and annual limits also reduce harvest in a very straight forward manner. As such it wasn't surprising to see those regs have an immediate impact on harvest rate when instituted.
A slot size that applies to a very small fraction of fish encountered in the fishery will not reduce the harvest rate when the uncertainty introduced by the data quality is higher than the % of fish subject to the slot. This is the case for our rec halibut fishery. Further, the slot size has consistently been larger than the median (which is smaller than the mean/average) fish harvested, let alone encountered, thus the average size of fish showing up in the fishery will never be reduced by this reg. When running a faulty model that falsely predicts 50% of fish encountered will be subject to a slot, you will get an artificial result. However, in the actual harvest you will see exactly what would be predicted and exactly what we saw when instituted with no other reg changes - no effect at all.
I honestly think that the SFAB entrenching themselves on some of these nonsense issues that should have been dealt with long ago undermines what I believe to be great work for the most part under very difficult circumstances (restrictive quota, varied interests with very little active participation, extremely poor data and an invalid harvest model).
Again, I agree it is a tough task and changes can't be hasty or extreme given the harvest rates june through August. However, the data clearly shows very consistent effort and harvest by month and area. There is more than enough evidence to safely discard the slot size and I believe the data shows more than enough flexibility to be able to have a full season in the few areas that want it/use it while making concessions on an experimental basis in other areas.
Cheers!
Ukee
However, I'm not sure how or why you still don't get the ineffectiveness of the slot. It has been shown by real data not to have any effect on harvest and, similarly, theoretically it is impossible for it to have an effect. Harvest rate is based on numbers of fish caught multiplied by the average size of fish caught. For a reg to be effective in reducing harvest it either has to reduce the numbers caught or the avg size caught. The max size obviously takes away the really big fish that artificially skew the avg size higher, particularly when the majority of data comes voluntarily from lodges and guides who are more likely to successfully target bigger fish. Daily, possession and annual limits also reduce harvest in a very straight forward manner. As such it wasn't surprising to see those regs have an immediate impact on harvest rate when instituted.
A slot size that applies to a very small fraction of fish encountered in the fishery will not reduce the harvest rate when the uncertainty introduced by the data quality is higher than the % of fish subject to the slot. This is the case for our rec halibut fishery. Further, the slot size has consistently been larger than the median (which is smaller than the mean/average) fish harvested, let alone encountered, thus the average size of fish showing up in the fishery will never be reduced by this reg. When running a faulty model that falsely predicts 50% of fish encountered will be subject to a slot, you will get an artificial result. However, in the actual harvest you will see exactly what would be predicted and exactly what we saw when instituted with no other reg changes - no effect at all.
I honestly think that the SFAB entrenching themselves on some of these nonsense issues that should have been dealt with long ago undermines what I believe to be great work for the most part under very difficult circumstances (restrictive quota, varied interests with very little active participation, extremely poor data and an invalid harvest model).
Again, I agree it is a tough task and changes can't be hasty or extreme given the harvest rates june through August. However, the data clearly shows very consistent effort and harvest by month and area. There is more than enough evidence to safely discard the slot size and I believe the data shows more than enough flexibility to be able to have a full season in the few areas that want it/use it while making concessions on an experimental basis in other areas.
Cheers!
Ukee
Similar threads
