Halibut....The Future.....
- Thread starter richmake
- Start date
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
It was a question, as to where the increases in TAC occur when we get reduced. I know that Halibut Quota in parts of Alaska increase this year while ours is declined.
Take only what you need.
Take only what you need.
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
It was a question, as to where the increases in TAC occur when we get reduced. I know that Halibut Quota in parts of Alaska increase this year while ours is declined.
Take only what you need.
Take only what you need.
Coming from Chris Bos, SFAB (Governer on this site), the increase came as a result of the IPHC's biologists concluding that a lot of our halibut are actually "Alaskan", hence should be allocated to Alaska's quota. Chris, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't our biologists agree?
If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
Coming from Chris Bos, SFAB (Governer on this site), the increase came as a result of the IPHC's biologists concluding that a lot of our halibut are actually "Alaskan", hence should be allocated to Alaska's quota. Chris, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't our biologists agree?
If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
I'm in total agreement with a tag system. That way, there are only so many halibut that can be caught that year. 10 bux a fish is nothing. I'm willing to bet you'll see a lot of WCVI guides steering away from a quick limit of paddles to a few quality fish with that policy.
The only potential problems that I see with that plan is to ensure the money generated will be used for fishery related business (Such as purchase of quota), and how to ensure that the tags are evenly distributed, as a large outfit like Oak Bay could simply buy all of the tags. There would have to be a monthy release of them, or a limit per angler which would be and excellent compliment to an annual limit.
No tag in the halibut? Off to court for a big fine.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
The only potential problems that I see with that plan is to ensure the money generated will be used for fishery related business (Such as purchase of quota), and how to ensure that the tags are evenly distributed, as a large outfit like Oak Bay could simply buy all of the tags. There would have to be a monthy release of them, or a limit per angler which would be and excellent compliment to an annual limit.
No tag in the halibut? Off to court for a big fine.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
I'm in total agreement with a tag system. That way, there are only so many halibut that can be caught that year. 10 bux a fish is nothing. I'm willing to bet you'll see a lot of WCVI guides steering away from a quick limit of paddles to a few quality fish with that policy.
The only potential problems that I see with that plan is to ensure the money generated will be used for fishery related business (Such as purchase of quota), and how to ensure that the tags are evenly distributed, as a large outfit like Oak Bay could simply buy all of the tags. There would have to be a monthy release of them, or a limit per angler which would be and excellent compliment to an annual limit.
No tag in the halibut? Off to court for a big fine.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
The only potential problems that I see with that plan is to ensure the money generated will be used for fishery related business (Such as purchase of quota), and how to ensure that the tags are evenly distributed, as a large outfit like Oak Bay could simply buy all of the tags. There would have to be a monthy release of them, or a limit per angler which would be and excellent compliment to an annual limit.
No tag in the halibut? Off to court for a big fine.
Last Chance Fishing Adventures
www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
fish4all
Well-Known Member
No our biologists do not agree. There are going to be workshops again this year to try to find a fairer way to cut the pie up. The way it was done this year (bottem area of survey stations) does not include a fair bit of bottem off QCI (dogfish bank) areas in dixon entance and the inside water south of cape caution. the working group will be looking at all ways to increase our share.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
No our biologists do not agree. There are going to be workshops again this year to try to find a fairer way to cut the pie up. The way it was done this year (bottem area of survey stations) does not include a fair bit of bottem off QCI (dogfish bank) areas in dixon entance and the inside water south of cape caution. the working group will be looking at all ways to increase our share.
wolf
Well-Known Member
The tag system will not work it lasted only 1 year for salmon as it was too expesive to make and to monitor so and too easy to clip it in and then re attach to use again.
The cost factor to do a tag system I bet you would be in the millions just look at or failed gun registry and the amout of money that just cost us I would rather that money go to more dfo officers and habitat restoration than a dumb tag
With out enforcement it is a mute point anyways and we can debate on here all we want there is no way in hell there going to put more officers in the field they just dont give a $hit we all know it, the people that are trying to run our fishery are probably fed up as well as they are trying to do a job and getting no support. and I hear its only going to get worse in the next few months.
The cost factor to do a tag system I bet you would be in the millions just look at or failed gun registry and the amout of money that just cost us I would rather that money go to more dfo officers and habitat restoration than a dumb tag
With out enforcement it is a mute point anyways and we can debate on here all we want there is no way in hell there going to put more officers in the field they just dont give a $hit we all know it, the people that are trying to run our fishery are probably fed up as well as they are trying to do a job and getting no support. and I hear its only going to get worse in the next few months.
wolf
Well-Known Member
The tag system will not work it lasted only 1 year for salmon as it was too expesive to make and to monitor so and too easy to clip it in and then re attach to use again.
The cost factor to do a tag system I bet you would be in the millions just look at or failed gun registry and the amout of money that just cost us I would rather that money go to more dfo officers and habitat restoration than a dumb tag
With out enforcement it is a mute point anyways and we can debate on here all we want there is no way in hell there going to put more officers in the field they just dont give a $hit we all know it, the people that are trying to run our fishery are probably fed up as well as they are trying to do a job and getting no support. and I hear its only going to get worse in the next few months.
The cost factor to do a tag system I bet you would be in the millions just look at or failed gun registry and the amout of money that just cost us I would rather that money go to more dfo officers and habitat restoration than a dumb tag
With out enforcement it is a mute point anyways and we can debate on here all we want there is no way in hell there going to put more officers in the field they just dont give a $hit we all know it, the people that are trying to run our fishery are probably fed up as well as they are trying to do a job and getting no support. and I hear its only going to get worse in the next few months.
Sushihunter
Active Member
I thought I would throw this into the fray:
Halibut Stamp. Room on the license for two of them. One gets you one per day/2 possesion, two gets you 2 per day/2 possesion. All money goes to support enforcement or other purpose deemed by agreement of fishing public.
Any thoughts?
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
Halibut Stamp. Room on the license for two of them. One gets you one per day/2 possesion, two gets you 2 per day/2 possesion. All money goes to support enforcement or other purpose deemed by agreement of fishing public.
Any thoughts?
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
Sushihunter
Active Member
I thought I would throw this into the fray:
Halibut Stamp. Room on the license for two of them. One gets you one per day/2 possesion, two gets you 2 per day/2 possesion. All money goes to support enforcement or other purpose deemed by agreement of fishing public.
Any thoughts?
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
Halibut Stamp. Room on the license for two of them. One gets you one per day/2 possesion, two gets you 2 per day/2 possesion. All money goes to support enforcement or other purpose deemed by agreement of fishing public.
Any thoughts?
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
wolf
Well-Known Member
Wel a stamp is a whatever thing or increased liscence cost it really doesnt matter most of it goes into general revenue we had a show of hands at the last meeting
"if lisecence cost us a 100 bucks and we know it went to the westcoast it was backed by almost 100 % of the people.
If you do some digging the "SALMON STAMP" we buy for $6.42 , we were told we get a buck out of that now thats a joke a measly 1 dollar and i bet you we sell the most of them in CANADA on the west coast here I dont think there is a great chinook salmon run on the east coast????!!!!!
I would pay as I love to fish if I knew monies were going to the west coast for everything it should habitat,conservation,enforcement,slamming of the logging companies that destroy strems etc but that would be the right thing to do and our federal gov doesnt do that !!! which is quite apparent.
Sorry for the rant
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
"if lisecence cost us a 100 bucks and we know it went to the westcoast it was backed by almost 100 % of the people.
If you do some digging the "SALMON STAMP" we buy for $6.42 , we were told we get a buck out of that now thats a joke a measly 1 dollar and i bet you we sell the most of them in CANADA on the west coast here I dont think there is a great chinook salmon run on the east coast????!!!!!
I would pay as I love to fish if I knew monies were going to the west coast for everything it should habitat,conservation,enforcement,slamming of the logging companies that destroy strems etc but that would be the right thing to do and our federal gov doesnt do that !!! which is quite apparent.
Sorry for the rant
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
wolf
Well-Known Member
Wel a stamp is a whatever thing or increased liscence cost it really doesnt matter most of it goes into general revenue we had a show of hands at the last meeting
"if lisecence cost us a 100 bucks and we know it went to the westcoast it was backed by almost 100 % of the people.
If you do some digging the "SALMON STAMP" we buy for $6.42 , we were told we get a buck out of that now thats a joke a measly 1 dollar and i bet you we sell the most of them in CANADA on the west coast here I dont think there is a great chinook salmon run on the east coast????!!!!!
I would pay as I love to fish if I knew monies were going to the west coast for everything it should habitat,conservation,enforcement,slamming of the logging companies that destroy strems etc but that would be the right thing to do and our federal gov doesnt do that !!! which is quite apparent.
Sorry for the rant
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
"if lisecence cost us a 100 bucks and we know it went to the westcoast it was backed by almost 100 % of the people.
If you do some digging the "SALMON STAMP" we buy for $6.42 , we were told we get a buck out of that now thats a joke a measly 1 dollar and i bet you we sell the most of them in CANADA on the west coast here I dont think there is a great chinook salmon run on the east coast????!!!!!
I would pay as I love to fish if I knew monies were going to the west coast for everything it should habitat,conservation,enforcement,slamming of the logging companies that destroy strems etc but that would be the right thing to do and our federal gov doesnt do that !!! which is quite apparent.
Sorry for the rant
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Hey richmake,
Good on ya for starting a discussion on next steps. Exchanging ideas in a respectful way is great, but the problems with halibut management unfortunately go much deeper than the equity of the 88/12 split.
I've been personally involved in the politics of the halibut fishery since I deck-handed for a troller who refused to accept the limitation on his "A" license in 1979. I had to clean and ice all the fish which were later confiscated by DFO upon delivery. No crew share from that. At least I didn't have to help pay the fine! I later worked for many other boat owners, sometimes risking life and limb out there fishing around the clock in the derbies of the '80s helping to establish the "history" upon which they were gifted their ITQ. Millionaires were created overnight with the stroke of the DFO pen, but no recognition ever returned to the deckhands of that era who worked our collective butts off. After the ITQ system was entrenched without the slightest look back to assess how well it was working or thought for future fishermen, I retired from the grunt work of a halibut deckie as there was no chance of ever being able to afford buying in at that point. So my only access to a flat one now is thru my sportie license. I'm not fussy about whether it's 1 a day/2 possession or whatever. I don't much care if there is a closure mid-season because I just want a few halis to eat. However, I agree that the 88/12 split introduced to balance increased recreational effort continues to send halibut management downhill as envinced in the last couple of years.
I think it's time to think outside the box. Other jurisdictions are grappling with the same problems that stem from incomplete ITQ/IVQ systems in need of upgrades. Here's a paper written for ADF&G that offers another perspective and some fresh ideas;
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/dbromley/pdfs/alaska.pdf
If you only make it through the exec. summary it's worth it for provoking thought. The details of the recommendation come later on along with lots of other good reference material. It doesn't offer the quick fix for 2009 that some are after, but if the concepts are considered in the broader picture, they could lead to some long term solutions for many of the problems with various ITQ systems. Food for thought anyway.
Good on ya for starting a discussion on next steps. Exchanging ideas in a respectful way is great, but the problems with halibut management unfortunately go much deeper than the equity of the 88/12 split.
I've been personally involved in the politics of the halibut fishery since I deck-handed for a troller who refused to accept the limitation on his "A" license in 1979. I had to clean and ice all the fish which were later confiscated by DFO upon delivery. No crew share from that. At least I didn't have to help pay the fine! I later worked for many other boat owners, sometimes risking life and limb out there fishing around the clock in the derbies of the '80s helping to establish the "history" upon which they were gifted their ITQ. Millionaires were created overnight with the stroke of the DFO pen, but no recognition ever returned to the deckhands of that era who worked our collective butts off. After the ITQ system was entrenched without the slightest look back to assess how well it was working or thought for future fishermen, I retired from the grunt work of a halibut deckie as there was no chance of ever being able to afford buying in at that point. So my only access to a flat one now is thru my sportie license. I'm not fussy about whether it's 1 a day/2 possession or whatever. I don't much care if there is a closure mid-season because I just want a few halis to eat. However, I agree that the 88/12 split introduced to balance increased recreational effort continues to send halibut management downhill as envinced in the last couple of years.
I think it's time to think outside the box. Other jurisdictions are grappling with the same problems that stem from incomplete ITQ/IVQ systems in need of upgrades. Here's a paper written for ADF&G that offers another perspective and some fresh ideas;
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/dbromley/pdfs/alaska.pdf
If you only make it through the exec. summary it's worth it for provoking thought. The details of the recommendation come later on along with lots of other good reference material. It doesn't offer the quick fix for 2009 that some are after, but if the concepts are considered in the broader picture, they could lead to some long term solutions for many of the problems with various ITQ systems. Food for thought anyway.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Hey richmake,
Good on ya for starting a discussion on next steps. Exchanging ideas in a respectful way is great, but the problems with halibut management unfortunately go much deeper than the equity of the 88/12 split.
I've been personally involved in the politics of the halibut fishery since I deck-handed for a troller who refused to accept the limitation on his "A" license in 1979. I had to clean and ice all the fish which were later confiscated by DFO upon delivery. No crew share from that. At least I didn't have to help pay the fine! I later worked for many other boat owners, sometimes risking life and limb out there fishing around the clock in the derbies of the '80s helping to establish the "history" upon which they were gifted their ITQ. Millionaires were created overnight with the stroke of the DFO pen, but no recognition ever returned to the deckhands of that era who worked our collective butts off. After the ITQ system was entrenched without the slightest look back to assess how well it was working or thought for future fishermen, I retired from the grunt work of a halibut deckie as there was no chance of ever being able to afford buying in at that point. So my only access to a flat one now is thru my sportie license. I'm not fussy about whether it's 1 a day/2 possession or whatever. I don't much care if there is a closure mid-season because I just want a few halis to eat. However, I agree that the 88/12 split introduced to balance increased recreational effort continues to send halibut management downhill as envinced in the last couple of years.
I think it's time to think outside the box. Other jurisdictions are grappling with the same problems that stem from incomplete ITQ/IVQ systems in need of upgrades. Here's a paper written for ADF&G that offers another perspective and some fresh ideas;
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/dbromley/pdfs/alaska.pdf
If you only make it through the exec. summary it's worth it for provoking thought. The details of the recommendation come later on along with lots of other good reference material. It doesn't offer the quick fix for 2009 that some are after, but if the concepts are considered in the broader picture, they could lead to some long term solutions for many of the problems with various ITQ systems. Food for thought anyway.
Good on ya for starting a discussion on next steps. Exchanging ideas in a respectful way is great, but the problems with halibut management unfortunately go much deeper than the equity of the 88/12 split.
I've been personally involved in the politics of the halibut fishery since I deck-handed for a troller who refused to accept the limitation on his "A" license in 1979. I had to clean and ice all the fish which were later confiscated by DFO upon delivery. No crew share from that. At least I didn't have to help pay the fine! I later worked for many other boat owners, sometimes risking life and limb out there fishing around the clock in the derbies of the '80s helping to establish the "history" upon which they were gifted their ITQ. Millionaires were created overnight with the stroke of the DFO pen, but no recognition ever returned to the deckhands of that era who worked our collective butts off. After the ITQ system was entrenched without the slightest look back to assess how well it was working or thought for future fishermen, I retired from the grunt work of a halibut deckie as there was no chance of ever being able to afford buying in at that point. So my only access to a flat one now is thru my sportie license. I'm not fussy about whether it's 1 a day/2 possession or whatever. I don't much care if there is a closure mid-season because I just want a few halis to eat. However, I agree that the 88/12 split introduced to balance increased recreational effort continues to send halibut management downhill as envinced in the last couple of years.
I think it's time to think outside the box. Other jurisdictions are grappling with the same problems that stem from incomplete ITQ/IVQ systems in need of upgrades. Here's a paper written for ADF&G that offers another perspective and some fresh ideas;
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/dbromley/pdfs/alaska.pdf
If you only make it through the exec. summary it's worth it for provoking thought. The details of the recommendation come later on along with lots of other good reference material. It doesn't offer the quick fix for 2009 that some are after, but if the concepts are considered in the broader picture, they could lead to some long term solutions for many of the problems with various ITQ systems. Food for thought anyway.
Similar threads
