Halibut season length - any rumblings?

[terrin]

I have said it from the beginning. I am Not sure the trade off is worth the reward??? Could make it hard to move forward in the fight against the current quota system and allocation if we keep "making it work with what we have". Complacency has and always will work against us and complacency is what comes from keeping our efforts on short term solutions and conceding to what ever restrictions are deemed necessary to make the best out of the bad. I am not arguing that it was a success based on the desire to extend the season. Just pointing out that this dose not fix anything and may have even made the road forward a little harder now.

Also not sure too many of the "own boat" non guided folks that come once a year in the summer months are as happy as the few locals are? They will not be here to top up there freezers or sell a couple more shoulder season trips.

From my experience and conversations this year, I have learned that LOTS of folks that came from off island on their once a year "do it yourself trip "got burned by this slot.
My family got stung on both ends of it. My nephew went home with 1 84.5 cm (edit this may have been 86cm actually as I believe it was about 20lbs) fish after two days of fishing. he released a fish that was about 75 lbs (estimate ) because it was over so he kept the next one( mentioned above) . The second day we could only find fish that where over 83cm so he let them go as he had his 1 over ( all be it not by much) in cooler already. Not everyone books a guide that has the expertise to get them on spots that will consistently produce fish that will conform to what they require. Also to note that those that fish often can say "I only had to release one over sized fish this year so Not Bad" Now ask yourself if that was the only fish you caught and was on the one and only trip you get each year or two, would you still say "Not Bad"

Case in point.
Not so bad for me as I live here and was able to make one more trip and get one more fish so I now have enough halibut that we can eat it once every couple of weeks. Heck if I can swing it and weather permits I may go try for one more this fall. My nephew on the other hand, like the many others saved all year forhis one trip and was forced to let go far more than he kept so a few locals can enjoy the benefits I listed above.

So. At the end of the day the people working on our behalf asked us and as many folks as they could what we all considered the main objective in shaping our 2013 season should be. That answer in vast majority was to try to make the season as long as possible. They did just that.They did so in a way that (after much consideration by folks with a lot more knowlage in this than most of us) would have the most chance of succeeding and the least chance of segregating one portion of our user group. I never argued that point and do not now. I did and continue to question the value in achieving this goal at the cost it took.

Here is hoping that we do in fact re-examine all options and try to find a better way. More important than that!!! Here is hoping that we find ways to put more effort toward solving the problem rather than finding ways to cover the wound for yet another single season.

All this said and putting aside the fact that I do not always agree with the decisions made I am still very thankful for the hard work and endless hours of time our SFAB and other groups dedicate to helping sport fishing. I fear we would be in a much darker place having not had them in our corner all these years.

I agree with you 100 %. I'm on the mainland and although we didn't get to the West Coast this year it was the scenario that you outline that kept us from trying a little harder. Huge cost and not really worth it. Oh well more for the rest you but I must say we do spend a lot in the Local economy when we did come in the past. Hope it changes next year and maybe we will get out to the West Coast for a week.

 

[tubber]

7 chickens for my wife and me. Released a few. All trolling WCVI over the course of 5 trips. Not really a sport fish at that size, yet I can't bring myself to do the per pound math. Got a barbless hootchie stinger hook deep in a finger releasing a 5 lber. Dumb to try to flick him off without pliers.

 

[springnut]

I got one this year trolling a spoon no flasher, what fun on salmon gear. I hope for a break in the weather and work sched to coincide for an October trip.

 

[casper5280]

I have said it from the beginning. I am Not sure the trade off is worth the reward??? Could make it hard to move forward in the fight against the current quota system and allocation if we keep "making it work with what we have". Complacency has and always will work against us and complacency is what comes from keeping our efforts on short term solutions and conceding to what ever restrictions are deemed necessary to make the best out of the bad. I am not arguing that it was a success based on the desire to extend the season. Just pointing out that this dose not fix anything and may have even made the road forward a little harder now.


All this said and putting aside the fact that I do not always agree with the decisions made I am still very thankful for the hard work and endless hours of time our SFAB and other groups dedicate to helping sport fishing. I fear we would be in a much darker place having not had them in our corner all these years.

X2. We have to get more TAC. I would like to have 2 a day to save on the fuel costs. I'm fine with the 6 or what ever a year, because really how much does a person need. I would also like 1 over once a year just in case you ever do luck in to a big one. Again to all the people that do fight for us, thank you.

 

[GDW]

Well it's a long process lots of time to see how it all plays out. I hope season length is still a main factor in the decision making process some of the suggestions like 2/day. 1 over 126 per year come with a 3 month or shorter season.

The guide fleet will make sure a lot of their clients have their 2/day and as many overs as they can catch. I'd like the stats on what % of the TAC is taken by guides I bet it's way more then half.

I think the gas argument is a joke anyways you only need to travel far for halibut if you want to. off Victoria and Sooke we catch them 5 minutes from the dock from just about any launch I'm sure the rest of the west coast and Sidney is no different just everyone wants to go way offshore to the hot spot with easy fishing instead of finding the local honey holes.

 

[Reel Obsession]

They have announced we will be open until December 31st. We still have over 200000 pounds to catch. Looks like there will even be quota left over.

 

[wolf]

THEY will not carry it over trust me on that they wont/allow that, cmon if we have too much there selling sporties quota would be for a waste of time. dont think with common sense that confuses them..........

 

[GDW]

Last time there was left over quota the sporties sold it to the commercials. We might have to repay our overage from years past but if there is some left on top of that I wont be surprised if it could be carried forward. If it can we should bank it for a truly lean year not make management plans to use it all up next year.

 

[Jencourt]

If there is left over TAC then leave it in the water. Time to change the way everyone thinks on this thing.

I understand fully what drives many to believe we (all sectors) should utilize to the fullest the quota we receive. I also understand who truly benefits by this way of thinking'

I just do not agree with it or with the fact that there are many who also do not agree but feel we must keep doing so to ensure we get what we always get, because "that’s how it works like it or not"

I propose that it in fact dose not work at all. TAC has been falling for years. Other species are falling under this type of management. Changing rules or participating in the ITQ practice of selling unused quota between sectors in an effort to use every last pound provided is a disease that needs to be cured IMO.

This is a quote taken from GDW's post. No offense intended GDW just happens to fit my input perfectly.

Quote: "if there is some left on top of that I wont be surprised if it could be carried forward. If it can we should bank it for a truly lean year not make management plans to use it all up next year. "

As I read this it sounds to me that the suggestion is that we keep quota if left over to use on a year that there is not enough quota.

My point confirmed. Lets take more from the biomass than it can support on a year when the science says it is in low abundance ( Quote: "we should bank it for a truly lean year") and then justify it by saying we did not use all our quota a few years back when the biomass was more plentiful. These are not imaginary fish we can move around from year to year. Regardless of how we utilized our TAC in years past, if we are at a year that tells us it is, how was it put? "a truly lean year" then it needs to managed as such not fished as always so we can keep things as they always where. We would still be taking more from the present biomass than it can support at that time. One only needs to realize in this scenario, that even though we left fish in the water in past years we are still in a " truly lean year" now.

If we finally achieve the goal of having our rec sector receive the recognition from DFO it deserves ,what would be so wrong in designing our fishery so as it would utilize the resource and grow it at the same time?

Anyway: I do not like the carryover I do like the idea of being able to leave fish in the water. Changes need to be made. As long as the present ITQ is in place we will only see changes that are short term and do nothing to actually create a truly long term and better way to utilize the resource.

 

[Jencourt]

Yes they are allowed. I believe it is to a max of 10 percent I am not sure on that number so if someone can correct me on it I would appreciate that.

I disagree with that. I feel they should not be allowed to carry over either. For the reasons stated in my last post. I intended my reasoning to apply to all sectors. The entire practice only makes sense as far as the pocket book.In no way dose it promote longevity and growth in the biomass. regardless of the fact no one would be exceeding the IPHC given TAC. trend in TAC numbers do not support that the current way of thinking is working as well as some would have us believe. That is why I say a change to how everyone thinks is needed.

I think we have been and will continue to be on dangerous ground if we continue to do or feel we should be able to do things that we know are fundamentally wrong just because someone else is allowed to do it.

Just my opinion but one I believe strongly in.

Ps: Just to note I do not disagree with the thought that For Now even with today's numbers if allocated properly there is still enough to provide a good season for all. Just don't like the trend in those numbers and wonder for how much longer that will be true?

 

[SerengetiGuide]

What if we traded the 200,000lbs to the commies this year for 200,000lbs next year?

 

[Jencourt]

What if we traded the 200,000lbs to the commies this year for 200,000lbs next year?

My opinion. Is NO! any mechanism of transfer for any other reason than to address bi-catch is still a dangerous thing. especially wen between sectors. sounds good on the surface if no cash is exchanged but I think it has too many risks. and more importantly to me it still dose nothing to help grow the resource.

 

[Dave S]

Doesn't IPHC generate their numbers based on lots of science and number modelling? And isn't the TAC they allow supposed to allow the resource to grow?

 

[Jencourt]

Doesn't IPHC generate their numbers based on lots of science and number modelling? And isn't the TAC they allow supposed to allow the resource to grow?

Has it grown? what has the trend been over the last couple decades? How has managing Chinook stocks to minimum required numbers worked out so far? Dose the current ITQ promote the continuation and development of good science. Is the current ITQ management tool working against achieving long term stability for all sectors? Do we need a change in how we do things?

 

[profisher]

We have changed the commercial fishery so that waste is reduced in BC, now we have to force Alaska to do the same. They kill and discard more than we catch.

 

[Dave S]

Has it grown? what has the trend been over the last couple decades? How has managing Chinook stocks to minimum required numbers worked out so far? Dose the current ITQ promote the continuation and development of good science. Is the current ITQ management tool working against achieving long term stability for all sectors? Do we need a change in how we do things?

Chinook management is totally different and IMO failing on so many levels. I am unaware of the trend for Canada's TAC over the last couple decades, but I have a feeling they are being more conservative with the amount they are allowing each area now when compared to decades past. I fully agree that leaving fish in the water is never a bad thing. And I fully agree that the resource should be managed to allow growth. But I am not so quick to blame the IPHC for poor management or estimating. Maybe the biomass is dropping due to other issues that they can not forecast or predict. Ocean conditions, food sources, slow growth, poaching.

 

[Jencourt]

Good point Profisher I agree .

Dave sorry if I made it sound like I was blaming the IPHC .I do not blame them at all.I think without them this would look much worse.What I meant to convey is that I think DFO's adoption of the ITQ management tool has contributed largely to our situation. I only used chinook as an eg because it shows a clear direction that managing to minimum perceived required numbers takes a fishery and the health of the stocks.

You are also correct there very likely is other conditions contributing to the reduction of exploitable biomass that is hard or even impossible to predict. The fact still remains that despite the science that the IPHC uses to determine the TAC we are still seeing a general trend of reduced TAC and we are told that it is a result of a reduced size of the biomass. I blame constant pressure frome the big business of quota holders and DFO"s choice in management tools and allocation along with other things for this. Yes I do think the 10 million plus lbs of mostly very small juvenile halibut killed and dumped each year by the Alaskan pollock Trawl fleet is a major contributor to this.

At the end I think maybe we agree on more than we disagree on so I take that along with any other informed dialog regarding this topic as a positive.

For those wondering about my statement that the ITQ dose not promote the use and development of good science here is that link to a good read on the ITQ. Yes I have provided it before but maybe some did not have time to read it.

http://ecotrust.ca/fisheries/cautionarytale

 

[wolf]

ITS really simple actually Commies carry over alot of times so time to change for whats best for the economy and the well being for the province and most importantly ....JOBS..... make it a 75/25 split there done see how simple then we could have any size stick to 1 a day poss of 2 and max per lic 6.... there solved it all and NO CARRY OVER and NO QUOTA sold......

in a perfect world..........


WOLF