The problem here is fairly simple. We face another year of low abundance, and were fortunate enough to get the same TAC as last season. That is 1,080,450. It is a hard cap. We will not be able to exceed that as in prior years. Last year even with the 1:2 slot restriction we fished our TAC prior to predictions. While the causes are extremely difficult to model, DFO assessed the probable causes as:
1. Increase in ave size likely by 5% - models did not factor in anticipated growth in individual halibut size as noted by IHPC set line survey data and also commercial stats.
2. Increase in effort - the model used to predict our fishery was static, meaning it did not account for shifts in angling effort.
3. Changes in angler behavior - targeting larger fish.
DFO determined that without the slot we would have fished the TAC out by early August.
Looking forward to 2013 with the same (actually smaller) TAC as 2012 it doesn't require rocket surgery to figure out we cannot expect a full season (March - Dec) by even carrying on with the hated 1:2 slot. If we value a long season (that seems to be what most are saying), then you then need to considering regulatory options which further restrict the exploitation rate in order to spread the rate of catch out over that season's length.
This is where the devil is truly in the detail. It is practically impossible to model such things as human behavior and the changing biology of fish. Selecting a regulatory option that further restricts the sport fleet such that it delivers a full season is analogous to jumping from a plane at 30,000 feet and hitting a bulls eye the size of a basket ball.
To illustrate, the TAC is 1,080,450 pounds, and last season we caught 1,157,879 pounds (an overage of 73K). Last season's catch was 74,157 fish, divided by the total pounds is an average weight of 15.61 pounds. If you shift angler effort to simply target larger fish (only one variable we are modelling here, not multiple ones) the impact on season length becomes dramatic. So multiply 74,157 fish by an average weight of 18 pounds (modest increase), the total catch in pounds is 1,408,983. Result = early season ending with slight shift (3 pounds per fish) in catch effort.
Compared another way the same example, last year we caught on average of 2,852 fish per week. At 18 pounds (just 3 pounds per fish more than what was actually caught in 2012), that works out to a weekly catch of 51,339 pounds per week, divided by the TAC = 21 weeks total season or 5 weeks shorter season than in 2012.
So the problem really is that small changes can have a dramatic affect on how quickly we run out the TAC. That is the danger of 1:1 - if we increase the average size of fish caught only slightly it will be a short season. Easy to predict with 1:1 anglers will target large fish, and hammer our spawning females. No one wants that result - I hope.
Running a season with a split in 1:2 then backing down to 1:1 could create a gold rush and see us catching our fish early, resulting in an August closure unless we can somehow restrict when the season started to delay the gold rush.
I could critique any option you might select - the problem with each is they will restrict anglers, change their habits and no one wants to accept changes to what they are doing.
Now comes the complex part of the problem. Imagine trying to make a decision on a regulations option that delivers a long season and meets the desires of every angler....impossible...or like threading an elephant through the eye of a needle. Messy.
So regardless of whatever decision the SFAB comes up with, let's remember the complexity of reaching those decisions and respect the SFAB process and those working within it - they are working for all of us trying to make an impossible decision that will never please every angler's desires. I sat in a room full of guys last night going over every option with a fine toothed comb, and in the end we realized that whatever decision is reached it will be a pick of the best of a bunch of bad choices. We left there realizing how difficult the choices would be, and we plan to fully support whatever decision the SFAB arrives at.
