Halibut! the opening is set the issues are the same???????

[Jencourt]

You know, I read all the threads on halibut. I see many different views, opinions, concerns and complaints. I have found it to be both entertaining and informative. It does raise concern with me as well.

Every thread I read on halibut ends up steering toward one thing and one thing only. The sport sector needs a bigger piece of the pie. The quota holders want to hold on to the 88%. Cosnevation is being used as a spin tactic and I fear it is actually being left behind in the chaos.
The present 88/12 is a system that is ensuring that the total TAC is being harvested most years. Yes I know the commies often "leave some fish in the water" .We know damn well it is not for conservation reasons it is all about the market and price setting. That being driven not by those who fish for a living but by those who are cashing in on the original gift. I can say with full confidence that if the market was begging for more, the price would stay high and they would not be as likely to leave fish in the water. They would probably even be coming after our share. In fact we all know it will in FACT come to that if we do not take steps to ensure the sustainability of the fish. Every single aspect of the commercial side of it is now set up to make sure that the harvest is at rates that are as close to the max as possible. That in itself is a dangerous and flawed system that will inevitably lead to NO MORE FISH!

I for one, although in total support of the work being done to get more allocated our way, do not agree that a few percent is what is needed. If we believe for one minute the voodoo math and agree for argument sake that we are going over our 12 percent each year by what they are telling us is around 200K?,then at today’s TAC a few percent will get us under and maybe a little longer season. What if we had 30 percent instead of 12 and stuck with what we said would be fair. 2 a day 3 possession in good abundance years, back to 1 and 2 in lower abundance. I am positive that we would be leaving a huge number of sport allocated fish in the water every year. Those should be fish left alone, not to be added to future years sport allocation. That means we still get 30 percent of the TAC the following year, not 30 plus what we left in the water the previous. In my mind that is asinine management to add it on later. To leave it and consider it fish saved to build stocks is conservation in itself.
Although the commercial side on paper gives up 18 percent it will be to their benefit long term anyway. Firstly if the 18 percent comes from the right place, those who fish for a living and have to lease quota will make more from their business than they would having to continue leasing. Secondly, as the stocks improve from the decrease in harvest , the pounds allocated will go up without affecting the percent of the biomass that the IPHC sets as the TAC. The kicker is if we do not get greedy on our side and start asking for higher limits and the commies do not push for higher percentage of biomass to form the TAC, the TAC will rise anyway as numbers improve. We will be leaving more and more fish in the water to help maintain a truly sustainable and healthy biomass. All sectors will be looking at a more predictable and consistent season. I think most of us would agree, that with today’s stock levels and with growth in the biomass provide in part from leaving fish in the water we would not be able to catch anywhere near 30 percent of the TAC. That fact alone would eventually allow for growth in both sectors.

Now to answer the inevitable question of, “where is the 18 percent going to come from”? I say it comes from the same place I and many others have been saying for a long time. The Crown needs to recover that portion of the Crown resource that is currently being exploited by those persons that are using it as a retirement ,get rich ,keep the working guys poor, form of fish mongering without benefit to the local economies. If that means they recover more than the 18percent ,then share it amongst those who are fishing it.Put an end to private leasing of crown stocks.Re create the fishery so if you fish it you have it. If you stop fishing it then it is back to the crown to be held or used by the next commercial fisherman who will fish for it.

It would be my hope that they would provide compensation to those who bought quota from the originally gifted few. I do say though, that it is up to me and everyone else out there to save for their own retirement. The feds are not going to take money out of local businesses and economies ( the way they did when they created the 88/12 ITQ system) to cover my butt if I invest poorly or not at all.. Sure I would say differently if the shoe was on the other foot and I was one of the chosen few that stands to loose a freebee. Well, it is not and I am not, it is on the 435 or 436 original quota gifted lottery winners and those who bought in thinking they had found the golden goose. The other more than 30 million of us (including those forced to lease quota in order to maintain their livelihoods) , just got the shaft, most of us not knowing or understanding what was happening. I am all for working together with the commercial FISHERMEN and in full support of their industry and way of life. By FISHERMAN I mean men and women that fish for their money and contribute to local economies in the pursuit of their financial gains. In the case of Halibut, I am not in support of the part that is forcing over exploitation in order to support the ones that found a free ride the day the Idiots in government decided to GIVE them the ability to buy sell and lease 88percent of the fish without doing a day’s work from that point on if they chose not to.

I know some of this is just a repeat of last year’s thinking and I am sure some of you are past that now and are willing to accept any increase that makes the season longer or limits higher. I am concerned where that would come from and that we will be just made passive by number manipulation until we are faced with decreased seasons and limits again I cannot dismiss my gut feeling that this is what will happen and that the real issue will be left untouched in trade for a short term increase and false sense of accomplishment.

You will notice I did not get into things like by-catch and whether or not we should be exporting as much as we do ect,ect. These are all things that need to be addressed, but I wanted to keep this to the point at hand and the issue that this keeps coming back to. I know that for some of you, this may read as a pretty idealistic and simple minded way of looking at it. I am sure it will not be popular with some also. It is how I see it and I do think that, although not as easy as just saying this is what we are going to do, it really is a lot simpler than the politicians and fish lords would like us to think it is. This is my opinion and these are my thoughts on the matter. I felt it was time for me to once again voice them.

I would again like to restate my appreciation for those doing the work on our behalf. I in no way am suggesting that they are not doing good work. I am just letting my views be heard.

After all, if this were to end up being only about getting full seasons and full limits with no regard for where it comes from then we are all the FOOL!!!

 

[GLG]

The TAC for area b (BC) is what can be safely taken with no effect on the biomass.
At least it should be. If this is right the TAC should be the same or going higher.
As this is not the case you may have a point that we are harvesting too many.
But is it area B or somewhere else that is harvesting too many.
Don't forget fish have fins and they can swim.

The commercials and DFO have a ponzi scheme going and I say fill your boots.
Your game will crash at some point. Perhaps right now.
Strip one point (%) off the commercial every year we need more in the public fishery.
Give it back to them if it is found we don't need it.
That way the public fishery is allowed to grow, after all it is a public resource.
2 per day and 4 total is my idea of how it should be.
Years of low abundance should hurt the commercials not the general public.
Why should the public suffer it the TAC goes down?
There is 100 times more halibut out there then the general public could harvest.
The public should get first dibs on the TAC then the commercials can have at her.

GLG

 

[Jencourt]

The TAC for area b (BC) is what can be safely taken with no effect on the biomass.
At least it should be. If this is right the TAC should be the same or going higher.
As this is not the case you may have a point that we are harvesting too many.
But is it area B or somewhere else that is harvesting too many.
Don't forget fish have fins and they can swim.

The commercials and DFO have a ponzi scheme going and I say fill your boots.
Your game will crash at some point. Perhaps right now.
Strip one point (%) off the commercial every year we need more in the public fishery.
Give it back to them if it is found we don't need it.
That way the public fishery is allowed to grow, after all it is a public resource.
2 per day and 4 total is my idea of how it should be.
Years of low abundance should hurt the commercials not the general public.
Why should the public suffer it the TAC goes down?
There is 100 times more halibut out there then the general public could harvest.
The public should get first dibs on the TAC then the commercials can have at her.

GLG

I was not saying we are harvesting too many at all. I am saying that if we re allocate some of the TAC we would be able to get traditional seasons back and still end up harvesting less in the end which will lead to more being available to all.

 

[GLG]

My bad. I mis read.
Will reread and get back to you.
GLG

 

[Jencourt]

No worries Gil. I just hope I did not imply that that is the point I am trying to make as it most definitely was not. But ya never know once I get babbling on. ha ha ha

 

[Little Hawk]

Sounds like you don't have much faith in the IPHC Jen. From my view, I can't blame you considering our own governments abysmal job of Pacific salmon management. Yet it's my understanding that Pacific Halibut are likely one of if not the best managed fisheries on the planet.

I also agree with Gil: pound-per-pound the recreational hali fishery is the best bang for the countries economic buck and should take priority over the commies and I say this with all due respect to each and every guy out there making a living on the water.

 

[reelfast]

from what i have read and observed, the IPHC is probably the one and only group that has a firm handle on stock management. their methods have been solid and stable for decades so i have confidence in their estimates. that is something to say as our local WDFW is a joke and is totally clueless with regard to stock management and predictions.

back in the days of yore, king crab fishing in AK was a derby event. the gun went off and everyone and their dog raced to fill their holds with a valuable product. that lead to fishing in weather which was sketchy at best and as a result led to the deaths of many folks. AK somehow took all of this into consideration and revised their policy. they reviewed the license holder catch records, uncovered those who didn't fish but 'leased' their licenses to others and changed course. if you could demonstrate that you were the one fishing and using your license going back some number of years, your license was renewed. if you were one of those trying to make money by having other folks do the work, your license was revoked, period, no exchange of dollars, license gone.

that has now lead to a license quota based on past performance. you can fill that quota in a week or over the course of months, the fishermans choice. but once you reach your license quota, you are done for the season.

i strikes me the exact same thing is going on in BC waters regarding the commercial hailibut fishery. it would seem to me a better strategy to argue for the AK model of extraction management instead of continually complaining about percentages. eliminitating a bunch of non fishing license holders just might have a significant impact on readjusting harvest quotas for all concerned, making it a bit easier for the commercials who are actually out there working to make a living and perhaps loosen up those percentage numbers for the sport anglers.

you should feel quite lucky that your season has a beginning date. our totally ineffective WDFW is still struggling with what to do and probably won't be making any decisions until march sometime. i expect our 12 day season from last year will look pretty similar even thought the TAC for 2A has increased. but, if you don't get involved with managing your stocks, you should expect to fall into the same rat hole that we down south of the border have to deal with each and every year.

 

[Jencourt]

I think I may have expressed my point poorly? I apologise if that is the case. Please allow me to sum up what I was trying to get across.

QUOTE "Sounds like you don't have much faith in the IPHC Jen."

That is not the case at all. I have never made a beef about the IPHC at all. Since learning a little about it and starting to form and express my opinion I have always tried to convey that very point. The IPHC has done a good job and because of it, as you said " it's my understanding that Pacific Halibut are likely one of if not the best managed fisheries on the planet." I agree fully. So if that is the message I implied then I apologize.

All I was really trying to say was that the issue was, is, and will be until changed, allocation not TAC. I was re stating what we all heard and said last year at the town hall meetings. We can change the allocation, get more of the available fish allocated to where it should be and we can do so without challenging the TAC as we have already determined we trust that.

I then tried to make the point, If we move more than a couple percent and took the rec side to something like 30 percent we would always be leaving fish in the water.

Then, if they put the remaining available TAC in the hands of the working fisherman and got rid of the ITQ and maybe to the IVQ. the fish being harvested will benefit the FISHERMAN and the local economies far better than the current system allows now. As long as DFO keeps the current system of allocating the TAC, and our small percentage stays the same or even very close, we will always (ACORDING TO DFO’S MATH) fish our's near the max and the commies will continue to do what they do as most of the money is going to the wrong people.

Lastly and probably my main point. I was expressing my concern that the point MAY be getting lost. I have been hearing more and more things like. If they got the US bi-catch under control The IPHC could give area 2B more and then we would have enough to make 12- percent be enough." Or another I am hearing witch concerns me greatly is "if we get our 2 and 1 limits back and do not loose any more season then who cares about percentages? .Another one is “The writing is on the wall, it is only a matter of time and they will close us out completely and it will ALL be in the hands of the commercial sector”. I just read on one of the other threads a comment from one of the south island guys. I hope he does not mind me quoting him? Quote" don’t mean to hack on you man but if we take ill accept whatever they give us attitude there really is no hope now is there.” I thought that summed up part of my concerns very well. As far as the bi-catch goes, I do not understand how it all works nor do I understand completely how the IPHC arrives at the numbers, so I trust them and concern myself with our DFO controlled allocation. After all, that is the very “WRONG” that (after attending the meetings and reading the hand outs)most of us committed to investing time in helping to get corrected in the first place.

Seems I managed to turn a short response into another half a page again. Sorry for that. I am not looking for everyone to agree with me just trying to make sure my point was not lost .
Thanks for the feed back
Cheers: