Islandgirl
Well-Known Member
Great Post Charlie,
Could you give the crystal ball thought on 2013 and going forward?
I think we will be stuck with this " slot size" that some guides wanted FOREVER!
Last edited by a moderator:
Halibut: Bad News
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
Great Post Charlie,
Could you give the crystal ball thought on 2013 and going forward?
I think we will be stuck with this " slot size" that some guides wanted FOREVER!
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more Charlie, this whole situation is about 2 large political groups appeasing one another...
it's not about a lack of fish, and it's not that we're catching too many of them.
it's not about a lack of fish, and it's not that we're catching too many of them.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
i keep pointing out that the WA seasons are what is to be expected on the other side of the line unless something changes. BTW, the 16 day season, even with an increase in TAC, is the result of the faulty statistics from 2010 where WDFW claimed the sport anglers were harvesting 120 halibut/day out of our areas 5 and 6. talk about a bunch of ********.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Yep!
Why aren't you fishing? And, BTW... Happy Birthday old man!
Gotta pay the bills ! and thanks Charlie !
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Is this for real? If so this is total bullshyte in my opinion, for many of the reasons stated on other related posts .
Where was the discussion of this at local SFAB meetings where the general public/sport fisherman can attend and provide their input??? There has been no such meeting on the Victoria area on this. How did this decision get made with out public consultation with the sportfishing community??? Since when does the WCGA make decisions on behalf of all the sport fisherman in BC???
March 5, 2012
Ms. Susan Farlinger
Regional Director General
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Region
The SFAB Executive Committee is pleased to endorse the recommendation of its Halibut Working Group that effective April 1 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans implement by condition of licence a “normal and under” possession policy in which recreational anglers for the remainder of the 2012 fishing will be allowed to retain one halibut a day, and two in total possession away from their place of residence, but with one of these fish being subject to a maximum size restriction of 83 cm. which translates to 15 lbs in round weight and 11.25 lbs in dressed weight.
The Executive Committee notes that this recommendation came forward following a series of electronic meetings with DFO staff in which productive dialogue was greatly assisted by an analysis of Draft Regulatory Tools for Recreational Halibut Management prepared by Pacific Region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This document provided the basis upon which the SFAB members of the working group reached the conclusion that the “normal and under” approach provided the best chance for a full season in which predictable opportunity was available to all participants in the fishery on a coast-wide basis, although at a reduced level.
FROM THE SFAB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Anyone Happy..?
I know I am not.
. Where was the discussion of this at local SFAB meetings where the general public/sport fisherman can attend and provide their input??? There has been no such meeting on the Victoria area on this. How did this decision get made with out public consultation with the sportfishing community??? Since when does the WCGA make decisions on behalf of all the sport fisherman in BC???
March 5, 2012
Ms. Susan Farlinger
Regional Director General
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Region
The SFAB Executive Committee is pleased to endorse the recommendation of its Halibut Working Group that effective April 1 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans implement by condition of licence a “normal and under” possession policy in which recreational anglers for the remainder of the 2012 fishing will be allowed to retain one halibut a day, and two in total possession away from their place of residence, but with one of these fish being subject to a maximum size restriction of 83 cm. which translates to 15 lbs in round weight and 11.25 lbs in dressed weight.
The Executive Committee notes that this recommendation came forward following a series of electronic meetings with DFO staff in which productive dialogue was greatly assisted by an analysis of Draft Regulatory Tools for Recreational Halibut Management prepared by Pacific Region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This document provided the basis upon which the SFAB members of the working group reached the conclusion that the “normal and under” approach provided the best chance for a full season in which predictable opportunity was available to all participants in the fishery on a coast-wide basis, although at a reduced level.
FROM THE SFAB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Anyone Happy..?
I know I am not.
As I stated in another post, I absolutely do NOT support this proposal and SFAB does NOT have the right to make deals with DFO on my behalf!
That would mean that if I have the luck to hook up with a couple of 20 lb chickens that one has to go back. What a load of BS!
Looks like it's time for us 'regular' guys to write to DFO.
That would mean that if I have the luck to hook up with a couple of 20 lb chickens that one has to go back. What a load of BS!
Looks like it's time for us 'regular' guys to write to DFO.
lorneparker1
Banned
Here we go!
scott craven
Well-Known Member
You can better believe they are still an authority Holmes, was chatting to a C.O. on the weekend and his side arm told me so !
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, Holmes it is like ignoring a cop when he pulls you over for speeding ticket becasue you saw him speeding. The laws don't work that way. The only recourse the people have is to demand that the laws change, or suffer their consequences!
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Disobey your heart out, no problem unless you get caught.
then you will get fined and go to court like any other law breaker
then you will get fined and go to court like any other law breaker
juandesooka
Active Member
Thinking about this suggested size limit change ... for people who live by the coast and recreational fish personally, this suggested change will have no impact, as you'd normally take your fish home, then start a new day under a new limit....possession limit of 2 is never achieved. Same applies to rec fishers on one day charters. Seems to me this reg change would force a drop in DFO's calculation of average size fish taken ... which to me always seems a dubious stat, applied to a large estimate of anglers/boats, to give a very conservative estimate of total rec catch (any error is on high side). If so, this forced reduction in their average should help the cause.
The people this change directly affects are rec fishers who travel with their boats on multi-day overnight trips, or most of all, people on multi-day charters. Also seems to me this is a shot across the bow of the so-called "sports commercial sector" ... has SFABC separated the needs of the lodges/guides from the needs of "joe average angler", and pursued one at the expense of the other? Or is it simply sacrificing prospect of multi-day charters for a longer-season of single-day charters?
"Interesting times" indeed.
Something else to consider ... there's that old saying about negotiations, that the best settlements are those where both parties leave a little angry, feeling they lost. That's where the middle ground lies, with neither party celebrating a win, and both getting to complain to their constituents about the unfairness of the decision maker. That's good political strategy, and it sounds about right here.
The people this change directly affects are rec fishers who travel with their boats on multi-day overnight trips, or most of all, people on multi-day charters. Also seems to me this is a shot across the bow of the so-called "sports commercial sector" ... has SFABC separated the needs of the lodges/guides from the needs of "joe average angler", and pursued one at the expense of the other? Or is it simply sacrificing prospect of multi-day charters for a longer-season of single-day charters?
"Interesting times" indeed.
Something else to consider ... there's that old saying about negotiations, that the best settlements are those where both parties leave a little angry, feeling they lost. That's where the middle ground lies, with neither party celebrating a win, and both getting to complain to their constituents about the unfairness of the decision maker. That's good political strategy, and it sounds about right here.
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Good post. These last two years have been pretty interesting for sure. I think a positive thing that has come out of all of this halibut issue is that it has opened the eyes of many folks. It has made us become more educated on the matters at hand.
Fisher Down
Active Member
Well said Mr Sculpin. I've never paid so much attention to DFO (nonsense) than I have in the past few years.
Yes, I've fished on and off for 50 years; with Pa in his tiny tin boat, then on a Commie troller, and the past
30 years with friends and family.
F D
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you and I are using the same math on the proposed slot limit Juandesooka. I see three scenarios: A) those who pay to go to the northern lodges, B) those who live near the coast and do day trips and C) the multi-day tripper or multi-day charter. In scenario A), just one fish over 40lbs guarantees the avg of the two fish is over the 20 lb avg currently used to calculate the rec catch, the not that uncommon barn doors those on a "trip of a lifetime" harvest shoots the avg way up. In scenario B) the local can take a fish over the slot limit of 15 every day he goes out since they'll never be in a possession scenario, so again, no reduction of the avg size. Finally, scenario C) if you've read most of the posts on here, folks plan on culling so, not only will they be killing halibut biomass above and beyond the rec TAC, they'll do their darndest to ensure one of their two is a substantial size (particularly if paying for 2 or more days of charters or hauling their boat on ferries and many miles!!). One fish only has to be 25+ pounds to guarantee the avg of the two fish is over 20.
So, as I've now said many, many times, unless I'm missing something obvious, this proposed approach will do nothing to reduce the avg size harvested and thus can't see how it will extend the season. As bad or worse, this approach is not assessable in a creel survey and its not particularly enforceable. I wouldn't worry Holmes, there's no slot requirement on your daily harvest and no way for FO's or CO's to check your possession once secured in your hotel/cabin/motorhome/car/etc without a warrant. I don't foresee many warrants being sworn by the FO's this summer just so they can check rec anglers possession limits.
While I've voiced my opinion against compromising the rec moral position on the ITQ and the inequitable 85/15 split by actively trying to "make it work", I would have at least expected those in support of such an approach would have chosen a management option that could be implemented in such a way that it is enforceable, measurable and has a certainty of affecting the TAC calculation. This possession slot idea meets none of those three tests.
So, as I've now said many, many times, unless I'm missing something obvious, this proposed approach will do nothing to reduce the avg size harvested and thus can't see how it will extend the season. As bad or worse, this approach is not assessable in a creel survey and its not particularly enforceable. I wouldn't worry Holmes, there's no slot requirement on your daily harvest and no way for FO's or CO's to check your possession once secured in your hotel/cabin/motorhome/car/etc without a warrant. I don't foresee many warrants being sworn by the FO's this summer just so they can check rec anglers possession limits.
While I've voiced my opinion against compromising the rec moral position on the ITQ and the inequitable 85/15 split by actively trying to "make it work", I would have at least expected those in support of such an approach would have chosen a management option that could be implemented in such a way that it is enforceable, measurable and has a certainty of affecting the TAC calculation. This possession slot idea meets none of those three tests.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Hey holmes, i'm not the bad guy...
i just don't wanna see a fellow fisherman get in trouble .
regardless of what we think they are going to uphold the law
and if you break it they will charge you.
trophywife
Crew Member
Similar threads
