Halibut quota ideas?

[Curtis]

With all the talk about the quotas for the upcoming season, maybe we should look outside the box!

Lets say halibut under 60 lbs are open and just like hunting for trophy Moose we utilize a draw system for fish of a bigger size.

Each area could offer a limit of tags for their respective area. I am sure this would alleviate the poaching of larger halibut

Just a idea?

And really not everyone wants to keep the larger ones anyways!

 

[wolf]

I cant believe you posted something like this !!!!!!!!!!! a guide with k numbers and non compliance regs. missing the point and other things, whos going to get that money ??????whos going to enforce it ????????o is going to administer it if you think DFO will and its going to be put back into the system good luck on that......we get a whopping 99cents back to the province for the so called salmon tag and less now. the MONEY would never go to the fish AND YES im calling a spade a spade dont like come compliant......

Wolf

 

[Last Chance]

I will never support paying for a resource that should belong to all Canadians. . If we go down thag road I think we will just wind up like the East Coast with its vibrant mackeral and herring sport fishin g.

 

[Jencourt]

Just say no to buying quota!!!

 

[Theb55]

X2. Once we do it once it will prove that process works!

 

[Cuba Libre]

Open May 1st, one and one in lean years, one and two in good years, no size limits, and shut the season when the quota is reached.

 

[GDW]

We've already set the Precedent guys how many times have I posted this?

About a decade ago sport fishermen sold excess quota to the commercial fishermen. The money was put into a trust account. Fast forward a few years and the sport sector is facing an early shut down because with a feb1st - dec31st season with 2/3 limits we are running out of quota. Some assholes with access to the hundreds of thousands in the sport fishing trust account had the brilliant idea of buying back commercial quota to extend the season. It worked - for a year or two until the trust account was empty.

Precedent set and the quota transfer system was born - out of our own greed. Quota should have never been sold to the commercials, then when it was it should have never been used to buy quota back. The signs were there that the 88/12 split was going to fail instead of using the trust money to challenge the system and lobby for change it was used as a band aid to keep an un sustainable season open a couple more years. Now here we are in the bed that was made for us.

 

[Curtis]

Ignore the quota idea and let's get back to...

How do we enable all fisherman the ability to catch and keep trophy Halibut?

All the hunters on this site know about trophy hunting draws.

I agree with not purchasing quota, just want to hear some options.

 

[trophywife]

Give us our deserved TAC!!

 

[ziggy]

If a commercial fisherman does not personally fish for five years his or her quota is returned to the pot for redistribution. Only 151 of over 400 commercial fishermen landed fish in 2011 that means significant quota is available. It could benefit both the actual commercial fishermen as well as sport fishermen.

 

[terrin]

Open May 1st, one and one in lean years, one and two in good years, no size limits, and shut the season when the quota is reached.

I agree with that but it probably makes too much sense.

 

[searun]

I agree with that but it probably makes too much sense.

Wish it was that simple. I'm not from the Victoria area, but did have an excellent conversation with someone on this forum who is. I now have a greater appreciation for their fishery. May 1 start would have a major impact on the Victoria fishery - that would be unacceptable. Similarly, risking early closure in my area is unacceptable, and frankly all too often takes place with little or no regard to the impact. At best we get something like..."oh well, fish the TAC until it is gone and close down." Like the Victoria guys we are sick and tired of getting the short end of the stick facing early closures that impact our July to September fishery.

Another simple solution might be to go to an Area specific TAC. That way the fishery could close down in Areas 19/20/21 when they reach a set TAC. Sounds simple enough...well not so. Anglers have boat trailers, and they move around fluidly. All that would do is move angler effort from one area to another....scratch that one sparky. There is no easy solution that works for the entire coast.

All the apparent recent support for 1:1 is kind of laughable...man did people rag all over that option when it was suggested before Christmas..now it's a stroke of brilliance!! Go figure. It seems to me everyone cried foul claiming they absolutely needed 2 fish possession as a minimum...how times have changed so a few can pursue dinos...and yet so few guys actually catch fish over 60 pounds. By the way, that option has the greatest risk of impacts from changing angler behavior. For example, if anglers shifted tactics and targeted large fish, this option was judged to be the most volatile and unpredictable and represented the greatest risk of early season closure - unacceptable to me and apparently others. It was ruled out early in the analysis for those reasons is my understanding.

Frankly, the only solution that clearly works for all is to work together to get the 85/15 TAC resolved favorably We will need to await the Malcolm decision, and depending on how that positions us, we will need to regroup and look for ways to establish a proper transference of TAC from the commercial to sport sector. Certainly given all the work both DFO and the slipper skippers put into the Experimental Hali Licenses proves there is an excess TAC capacity sitting in the commercial sector to address the needs of the rec fleet. Lets go after that instead of all this infighting over in-season regs!!!

 

[Theb55]

Am I to understand there may be a 60 lb. limit. Tough to calculate at side of boat. One would hope that goes for commercials. If stocks are endangered, it is not a particularly brilliant move to put recreational pressure on under 60 while commercials target the over 60's; the very females who hold the promise of new generations.

 

[searun]

Thanks Lorne...version #5.

 

[Cuba Libre]

All the apparent recent support for 1:1 is kind of laughable...man did people rag all over that option when it was suggested before Christmas..now it's a stroke of brilliance!! Go figure. It seems to me everyone cried foul claiming they absolutely needed 2 fish possession as a minimum...how times have changed so a few can pursue dinos...and yet so few guys actually catch fish over 60 pounds. By the way, that option has the greatest risk of impacts from changing angler behavior. For example, if anglers shifted tactics and targeted large fish, this option was judged to be the most volatile and unpredictable and represented the greatest risk of early season closure - unacceptable to me and apparently others. It was ruled out early in the analysis for those reasons is my understanding.

No Pat-- its a reaction to how things have changed. While some in Victoria may not LIKE a May 1st opening, Victoria, like Toronto, is NOT the center of the Universe. They will still have at least 4 months to get their season limit. Now how is that a hardship when you live withing 1/2 hr from a launching ramp--and dont tell me they NEED those special tides, or they wont be able to catch any halis. The rest of us who dont live in halibut country are lucky to make 3 trips a year.
Yes-- we went into meeting with a bargaining strategy that said full season, no max size, etc. But when reality reared its ugly head, the strategy HAD to change. And in my opinion and a lot of others, a 1/1 no size limit and close when TAC reached makes sense. Hard on guides-- yes, but also hard on the likes of me also. But we choose the one that suits us best.. and its NOT laughable . Its pathetic that we have to have these discussions when we all know that we need an increase in our TAC to at least 20%. On that we do agree.

 

[searun]

Not that I need to defend the Victoria guys, but frankly I have a much better appreciation for their situation and it seems to me that May 1 would not exactly work for them. That was my point. I do agree Victoria isn't the centre of the universe, and perhaps it isn't remotely fair their needs/interests supersede anyone else - which has certainly happened in prior years when we faced early closures and no one seemed to care a bit. Now that the shoe is potentially on the other foot, I can appreciate how they feel - that's all.

But like you I'm also entitled to my views on what serves my needs and that is a season that goes until at least Sept 15 and one where we have 2 fish possession. Could I make 1:1 work, of course. And if that was the decision made at SFAB I would support that also rather than carry on about it after the fact, which I believe was your sage advice to me last year and something I plan to follow.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Thanks Lorne...version #5.

Thought mallardhunter was Lorne?!?! Which one is it...

 

[SerengetiGuide]

For example, if anglers shifted tactics and targeted large fish, this option was judged to be the most volatile and unpredictable and represented the greatest risk of early season closure - unacceptable to me and apparently others. It was ruled out early in the analysis for those reasons is my understanding.

From my calculations in order for 1/1 to shut us down early avg halibut size caught would have to increase by 30-50% coastwide...about as unlikely as it gets. I'll post my math tomorrow when I have more time and let you take a look, but seems like a pretty good estimate.

 

[searun]

From my calculations in order for 1/1 to shut us down early avg halibut size caught would have to increase by 50-60% coastwide...about as unlikely as it gets. I'll post my math tomorrow when I have more time and let you take a look, but seems like a pretty good estimate.

Good, I would like to see the math. 1:1 according to DFO modelling showed us finishing 112,000 pounds under TAC, but cautions were this was based on 2011 catch rates and not adjusted for changes in fishing tactics. Not a particularly difficult calculation even using a low average like 80 pounds per fish that is 1,400 fish. Not hard for the rec fleet to get that in short order as that would only be about 200 - 280 fish per month based on a 5 month season. In my mind this is too risky in terms of early closure of the season which was a main value requested by the SFAC's.

Regardless, the recommendation was voted on at the SFAB and there isn't much point debating this now.

Our main focus now should be on preparing for the Malcolm decision and developing our strategies to deal with the potential outcomes. I certainly see some real advantages potentially if the decision supports the recreational arguments argued at trial and the fact that the Minister created an estoppel by stating the recreational fleet would not be adversely impacted by the allocation policy without first solving how to transfer quota from the commercial fleet to the rec fleet to ensure our needs were met.

If we lose at trial, then my view would be to look more closely at the Halibut Punch Card license as a means to collect fees from rec anglers that we could place into a separate fund managed by the rec sector to permanently purchase and transfer quota to us. The Malcolm case could also direct the Minister to come up with expedited legislation to change the User Fees Act (sc 2004) to make it possible to direct user fee funds into such separate funds and not into General Revenue. Even if the gov't didn't want to go to the expense of amending the User Fee Act, they could direct separate payment in kind into a special fund - they just need to have the political will to make that happen.

 

[Rockfish]

All the apparent recent support for 1:1 is kind of laughable...man did people rag all over that option when it was suggested before Christmas..now it's a stroke of brilliance!! Go figure. It seems to me everyone cried foul claiming they absolutely needed 2 fish possession as a minimum...how times have changed so a few can pursue dinos...and yet so few guys actually catch fish over 60 pounds. By the way, that option has the greatest risk of impacts from changing angler behavior. For example, if anglers shifted tactics and targeted large fish, this option was judged to be the most volatile and unpredictable and represented the greatest risk of early season closure - unacceptable to me and apparently others. It was ruled out early in the analysis for those reasons is my understanding.

No Pat-- its a reaction to how things have changed. While some in Victoria may not LIKE a May 1st opening, Victoria, like Toronto, is NOT the center of the Universe. They will still have at least 4 months to get their season limit. Now how is that a hardship when you live withing 1/2 hr from a launching ramp--and dont tell me they NEED those special tides, or they wont be able to catch any halis. The rest of us who dont live in halibut country are lucky to make 3 trips a year.
Yes-- we went into meeting with a bargaining strategy that said full season, no max size, etc. But when reality reared its ugly head, the strategy HAD to change. And in my opinion and a lot of others, a 1/1 no size limit and close when TAC reached makes sense. Hard on guides-- yes, but also hard on the likes of me also. But we choose the one that suits us best.. and its NOT laughable . Its pathetic that we have to have these discussions when we all know that we need an increase in our TAC to at least 20%. On that we do agree.

What’s with the shots at Victoria CL. In every measurable way, the Victoria/Sooke area IS arguably the center of the saltwater sport fishing universe in BC. Consider the number of anglers, dollars added to the economy, volunteer fundraising which is increasingly being spread around the province, and most importantly of all advocacy for the interests of all sport fishers. We are the first to put a lot of our own money and effort into starting up the South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition to advocate politically for the interests of all anglers and hope in time such efforts will spread to other areas including yours. We are working towards having our own spokes persons in Ottawa to offer a counter balance to the other sectors full time lobbyists.

Arguably the South Vancouver Island sport fishery is as important a sport fishery as the other salt water sport fisheries in the province combined. When your area can also put 400 pizzed off anglers into a room with DFO officials when they try yet another draconian move we will happily relinquish that title to your area.

The early season halibut fishery is critical to our area, and not just for the reason you mentioned concerning the few days where weather and high currents in the strait don’t keep us from anchoring and thus we need more time to accommodate those few days.

You may also want to consider that our area is the sacrificial lamb with DFO’s use of the slot restriction to eliminate our ability to keep large Chinook for half our season in order to appease the FN lobby so they can continue to slaughter those same fish in huge numbers in the river.

Without access to those Chinook that early season for Halibut helps keep our fishery alive. But perhaps it is time for a change. Perhaps if we accept a May first opening for Halibut as you advocate, the rest of the province will accept a slot restriction on Chinook for a few years so that other areas cannot keep any non clipped Chinook over about 8lbs for half your season and then just one per day for half of the 2nd half of the season. That may give you a little more perspective and empathy for the sacrifices our area has been forced to accept. In fact perhaps that change would allow our Chinook slot restriction to be reduced or eliminated for a few years. A little sharing of the pain so to speak.

I do agree that it is absurd for us to be fighting over the scraps. There is an old quote that I am fond of that goes something like this; “The animals look at each other differently when the watering hole begins to dry up”. The issue we should all be working towards is a fair allocation of Canada’s TAC and an end to the corporate privatization and ownership of our fish though quota systems. An 85/15 allocation is unfair; it should be 50/50.