Just got off the phone with Chuck Ascroft SFAB regarding Halibut

[Hot Rods]

Hey guys (and girls)...lots of whining about the 1 over - 1 under recommendation. May not be the best but can someone suggest a realistic alternative that would allow us to keep fishing into late September and possibly early October? Our quota this year is 1,084,650 pounds. Last year we harvested 1,219,802 pounds and were closed down on September 5. If we left it to DFO we would continue to fish the 1/day, 2/pos limit and our season would end in early August. Realistically, the only other option was 1 and 1.

The 1 over - 1 under solution was recommended by the guides association and supported by the SFAB halibut working committee and many executive members of the SFAB. Some executive members of the SFI, the Sport Fishing Coalition and even a few from the BCWF participated in the discussions. It was deemed the 'least amount of pain' option. DFO then looked at data from previous years to see what size the second fish would have to be to save enough poundage to extend our season. That's where the 83 cm (15 pounds) came from. And yes, as some of you have suggested, the majority of the savings will come from the lodges. However, that sector was also well represented during the discussions and, under the circumstances, support the recommendation.

The Nanaimo SFAB committee was fortunate to have a meeting last week and all the options were discussed. Everyone realized we are caught between a rock and a hard place and must make the best of what we have for this year. Bluster and beating our chest will not get us another pound for 2012.

 

[GLG]

Hey guys (and girls)...lots of whining about the 1 over - 1 under recommendation. May not be the best but can someone suggest a realistic alternative that would allow us to keep fishing into late September and possibly early October? Our quota this year is 1,084,650 pounds. Last year we harvested 1,219,802 pounds and were closed down on September 5. If we left it to DFO we would continue to fish the 1/day, 2/pos limit and our season would end in early August. Realistically, the only other option was 1 and 1.

The 1 over - 1 under solution was recommended by the guides association and supported by the SFAB halibut working committee and many executive members of the SFAB. Some executive members of the SFI, the Sport Fishing Coalition and even a few from the BCWF participated in the discussions. It was deemed the 'least amount of pain' option. DFO then looked at data from previous years to see what size the second fish would have to be to save enough poundage to extend our season. That's where the 83 cm (15 pounds) came from. And yes, as some of you have suggested, the majority of the savings will come from the lodges. However, that sector was also well represented during the discussions and, under the circumstances, support the recommendation.

The Nanaimo SFAB committee was fortunate to have a meeting last week and all the options were discussed. Everyone realized we are caught between a rock and a hard place and must make the best of what we have for this year. Bluster and beating our chest will not get us another pound for 2012.

So how many tin boat guy's were at your meeting and how did they vote?
A lot of us that are on SFAC did not get a chance to vote.
Our voices were not heard and to tell the truth the guy's that made this decisions have been snookered again.
We have some good chess player here in my SFAC that see many moves ahead of the commercials and DFO.
We should have been listening to them and we would not be in this mess.
Force DFO to make an unpopular decision or give them an option that was not on the table.
That way we could remain true to our beliefs and remain united.
GLG

 

[tubber]

For various reasons our ablity and desire to catch halibut has increased rapidly. Very few sportsfishers went offshore not too long ago for example. The DFO is too bureaucratic to keep up to the pace of change. We would be over the quota by double if only half of the licenses holders caught a single 16lber.
I greatly appreciate everyone who volunteeers tirelessly on the various advisory boards to protect our interests. It will only get harder as more people take up halibut fishing until the long, slow fight to gain more TAC pans out. I will be thrilled if I am able to bring one home from each of my 4 trips this summer. Too much whining lately for me. Go get 'em if you need 'em. It's open.

 

[finaddict]

Hey guys (and girls)...lots of whining about the 1 over - 1 under recommendation. May not be the best but can someone suggest a realistic alternative that would allow us to keep fishing into late September and possibly early October? Our quota this year is 1,084,650 pounds. Last year we harvested 1,219,802 pounds and were closed down on September 5. If we left it to DFO we would continue to fish the 1/day, 2/pos limit and our season would end in early August. Realistically, the only other option was 1 and 1.

I disagree. it is NOT the only option. It was the preferred option for the guides who wish for as long a season as possible to effect the greatest number of single day bookings. The vast majority of sporties (and we are supposed to be catering to the majority, not just the guides) want a season that is open from May to September and maintain a 1 (2) with NO restrictions on size.

The 1 over - 1 under solution was recommended by the guides association and supported by the SFAB halibut working committee and many executive members of the SFAB. Some executive members of the SFI, the Sport Fishing Coalition and even a few from the BCWF participated in the discussions. It was deemed the 'least amount of pain' option. DFO then looked at data from previous years to see what size the second fish would have to be to save enough poundage to extend our season. That's where the 83 cm (15 pounds) came from. And yes, as some of you have suggested, the majority of the savings will come from the lodges. However, that sector was also well represented during the discussions and, under the circumstances, support the recommendation.

Yes I am very sure the guides were well represented. And they have committed the sporties to a recommendation that caters to their special interests and not the interests of the sport fishing sector as a whole. I am dissappointed, but not surprised. Up until now, I have supported the guides and the committees that they are overly represented on. I will continue to support them, but I would like it known that if you intend on representing all sporties (and me) you need to be very careful on whether you are representing all or just your personal interests.

The Nanaimo SFAB committee was fortunate to have a meeting last week and all the options were discussed. Everyone realized we are caught between a rock and a hard place and must make the best of what we have for this year. Bluster and beating our chest will not get us another pound for 2012.

I truly hope that the guided side of the sporties takes some of this backlash to heart. If you want to speak for the recreationalists, then you need to look very hard at what you propose and not try to provide a quick fix bandaid solution that looks at season extension as the only objective. Remember that the MAJORITY will only fish May to September anyways, and would likely prefer to leave the possession restrictions alone. Now before anyone gets their feathers in a knot and suggests that I participate in the process, I also recognize that I am not part of the committee and so I shouldn't *****.

 

[Striper Sniper]

Well spoken Finaddict!

SS

 

[Islandgirl]

The 1 over - 1 under solution was recommended by the guides association and supported by the SFAB halibut working committee and many executive members of the SFAB. Some executive members of the SFI, the Sport Fishing Coalition and even a few from the BCWF participated in the discussions. It was deemed the 'least amount of pain' option. DFO then looked at data from previous years to see what size the second fish would have to be to save enough poundage to extend our season. That's where the 83 cm (15 pounds) came from. And yes, as some of you have suggested, the majority of the savings will come from the lodges. However, that sector was also well represented during the discussions and, under the circumstances, support the recommendation.

QUOTE]

Keith MacKenzie, President of the Courtenay Fish and Game Club told me directly Saturday night (March 03) that the BCWF does NOT support or endorse any changes to the 1/2 halibut limits. They do not want size restrictions on our Recreational Halibut fishing.

This size restriction is something that the SFAB (Sports FishingGuide Advisory Board) came up with on their own to benefit a very small group of guides.

The 100,000 recreational anglers were never consulted or advised.
This was then presented to DFO.
The SFAB said they "did not have time" to consult with us, the average Rec fisherman.

It is this backroom deal to benefit a few that has people fired up.
It undermines our entire focus of getting a FAIR share of Canada's halibut allocation.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hot Rods, you express how a great deal of effort was made to be inclusive, which, despite not knowing you personally, I can accept at face value. Consistent with the sentiment to ensure this management proposal is open and inclusive, I'm assuming that the mathematical modelling behind the proposal has been, or will be, made public? While I appreciate what you've provided in regard to your comments about DFO referencing the halibut size charts to determine what size the second fish in possession would have to be to have a meaningful effect on the net catch, it's a long way from actually showing how the rec catch will be measured in season and calculated/modelled to determine the TAC and season length. I'd very much appreciate it if you, or anyone else, can point me and everyone else to the source material, model and/or final calculations.

I request this as I'm still having a hard time logically seeing how an in possession slot limit could either a) be effectively implemented and assuming it could be, b) how it'd have any meaningful impact on the avg size used in a mgmt model. My logic tells me that a high % of the harvest will never be in the possession scenario - that'd include all day trippers and all single day charters, which I'd hazard a guess would represent the majority of fishing effort. I may be wrong there and, again, would love to see the stats used to make the projections. Based on my assumption, the proposed management action would affect only a small portion of the effort and even within that proportion of the effort, a good number of catches will have one fish that will be large enough that it will skew the average fish size high - as harvesting anything over 35 lbs would make the two fish limit over 20 pounds. Thus, the number of possession fish under 15-pounds would have to be significantly high to off set the proportion of first fish that would be larger. Again, I'd love to see the data showing the predicted average size catch in the proposed scenario as it presumably shows a very low probability of a large first fish and a very high probability of a small second fish.

The projections and data used must be fairly robust if the DFO managers are confident that the smaller number of second fish vs first fish will be so greatly reduced in size as to have a meaningful reduction in the composite average size so as to reduce the poundage harvested per day estimate and thus extend the season by 6+ weeks as many are purporting. I think I heard a 4000 lb per day average so we'd be talking a reduction in the 170,000 lb range to effect the 6-week extension.

Anyway, we've heard lots of commentary on DFO's voodoo math, which I don't necessarily agree with, however it indeed would have taken some slick data and modelling to make a slot possession fish have an impact and I'm very curious to see this model and supporting data!

Thanks in advance. Ukee Dreamin

 

[Hot Rods]

I'm oviously missing something in this discussion. I'm a tin boat day angler as were 16 or the 21 people at the Nanaimo SFAC meeting. I don't guide or make a nickle from my fishing habit. The one over - one under recommendation will have no impact on the majority of local anglers. We can go out and catch and keep a 25 pounder today and do the same next trip out. That's exactly the same situation as last year. In my fish-mush brain this recommendation was designed to benefit me and my fellow tin boat anglers rather than guides and lodges.

I'm told posession limit only applies 'in transit'. Once you put the fish in your home freezer you can go out the next day and keep another "over' if you wish. (I'll check this interpretation with C&P to make sure it is accurate). I'm also past the point in my fishing career where I feel my family will starve next winter if I don't fill the freezer with halibut. Two or three a year constitutes a great season for me.

I still don't understand why some of us are demanding we stay with the 1/day - 2/pos limit and be allowed to fish well into September this year. We know that will not happen unless the wind blows 50k for all of July and August and keeps us off the water. We've been given our quota and now are forced to find a way to slow down the harvest so we can stretch out our season.

Please, if there was another realistic option to accomplish the goal of allowing us to fish well into Sept/Oct. would someone please explain it in detail.

 

[Hot Rods]

Will get you that info Ukee Dreamin. I did not participate in the final discussions but it looks like your math is reasonably close. I have heard we had to save 160,000 pounds in order to stretch the season well into Sept. I do have the month by month and area by area catch data from last year if that would interest you.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Thanks for the reply Hot Rods. Interested in any info you can provide but, in particular the model and numbers being used to generate 160,000 pounds of conserved fish by use of a possession slot limit. Still trying to fathom how it can be effective when, at any given time, only a fraction of the boats targeting hali on any given day would be working on their second fish, as the majority will either be day trippers or working on their first fish. As such, very interesting on how the numbers work out such that a small fraction of the effort being restricted can be effective in making up that savings.

Regarding your first point - i.e. not understanding why folks are upset (I'm paraphrasing, of course), I can provide this from my perspective on the issue:

First and foremost, a good many of us believe that a short term - i.e. only this year and what will only amount to 6-weeks in the best case scenario, sacrifice is more than worth it to send a firm message to DFO and the Gov't of Canada that the rec sector in no way buys into the continuation of the ITQ system. There are a lot of posts in the various halibut threads to this effect. The common message is that the risk of entrenching the current quota and the ITQ system forever far outweighs the benefits of a 6-week extension for just a single year. Many of us can't see how making the 85/15 split within the ITQ work for the rec sector doesn't betray the firm stance against it we've been consistent on for many years. It's also been pointed out that supporting the quota split, even if just for this year, but not the quota purchase part of the mgmt equation, is selective and hypocritical - i.e can't say one is bad and risks being entrenched for the future, but the latter isn't as bad and doesn't run the same risk.

Specific to the possession slot quota, as you say your self - it doesn't affect the day tripper/local at all. I also offer that it hurts the lodges very little because they have the ability on a 3-5 day trip to ensure each client has a good "anchor fish" to go with their smaller slot so they still have lots of white meat to take home. But what about those of us who make a trip or two to the coast - spending $'s on gas to get there, ferries, equipment for our boats, tackle, bait, accommodation rental, groceries and restaurants? For my part I go to Ukee twice each year for a 4-6 day trip, thus I get two halibut possession limits (if I'm lucky). The way the proposal's been structured, my typical catch experience is greatly impacted - I typically get a couple butts in the 20-40 range. In this scenario I'll have to sacrifice one of those and hope to get something in the 12-15lb range. So, instead of a couple of 30's that dress out to 40'ish lbs of meat, I'll be looking at a 30 and a 12 for a fraction of that.

Given our constitutional principals I could even swallow what I've outlined above IF it applied equally to everyone and it were conservation based. But, as we all know, thanks to the ITQ system, it is not conservation based nor is it based on there not being Canadian TAC available. As you state, locals and day trippers won't have a slot quota to worry about and those with reasonable guaranteed access to plentiful big fish won't be effected by this. So, explain to me how the proposal meets the most basic of our Constitutional principles that all Canadians should be treated fairly, equally and reasonably? That's a rhetorical question because of course we all know that it can't apply equally, not when many will never be in a possession scenario and thus never affected by the imposed restriction.

Finally, you ask for an alternative - one that's been consistently presented on the many threads is an annual limit for all rec anglers which folks pretty much unanimously agree would be reasonable, manageable and effective. Many have mentioned the gifting of fish by guides - I've been gifted fish by guides many, many times and it's perfectly legal as long as you have the license info of the one gifting you. With an annual limit, though, the guides would take their share as any other rec for their own use and have limited ability to gift fish. Locals and day-trippers, as you suggest, could still reasonably meet their personal needs and do it yourself trippers like myself could also have a reasonable limit to meet our needs. As I've mentioned in previous posts, the slot size limit of the possession fish is not enforceable as C&P now require warrants to search coolers, vehicles and such unless you're in the act of fishing or under unique circumstances where they have specific intelligence of poaching. Creel surveyors have no search abilities at all so would have no ability to collect accurate possession info. An annual limit would be as easy as policing the same limits on Chinook and ling - if you haven't recorded the fish in your possession, your in violation and once your season limit is met and recorded you'd be in violation if retaining any more fish. Easy to manage, would allow equal access by all the rec sector and a reasonable personal use amount.

Was this even a consideration?

 

[GLG]

An annual limit would be as easy as policing the same limits on Chinook and ling - if you haven't recorded the fish in your possession, your in violation and once your season limit is met and recorded you'd be in violation if retaining any more fish. Easy to manage, would allow equal access by all the rec sector and a reasonable personal use amount.

Was this even a consideration?

I think the number that was under consideration was an annual limit of 5.
GLG

 

[godeep]

Last year in one of the areas in Alaska there was a upper slot limit which I believe would yield a 25 pound fish. Predictions were that everyone would high grade and try to hit that number and release fish until they were close. The opposite happened, people kept the first fish and the average weight for the entire area ( we are talking huge numbers of fish) was 10.5 pounds. I always thought the fish were bigger in Alaska but guess what, that 10.5lb average was just slightly larger than the 13,000 caught from Renfrew to Ucluelet, but just slightly smaller than the 10,000 caught in the top of Queen Charlottes.
All us sporties have a vision of a 20-30 pound average but the reality is 10-15lb is the norm for the majority of the fishers catching Halibut. Sad but true. The numbers don't lie and this is why everyone was onboard making this decision. It is best option for the majority of the fishers on the coast.

Annual limit and Halibut stamp are great ideas and I sure both will be here sometime soon.

UkeeDreamin, you seem to have a lot of passion and you would be doing rec anglers a great favor by getting involved. They are some great people on this forum that put it relentless hours of travel and time to make a difference to your fishing experience. One only has to look at the east coast to see what government thinks of sportsfishing. It will never be easy and we should all be thankful that we have do have the ear of the few select people in Ottawa.

My father used to say. It is easy to **** on the tent when you are not in it.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

As you mention the results from one of the Alaska sub-areas, Go Deep, you must also be aware that Alaska abandoned the slot limit size as a useless management tool, which only adds to the irony that BC is adopting one despite recent, directly applicable evidence that such an approach/management tool is not effective. To listen to many on this and other forums, DFO aspiring to be on the "trailing edge" of outdated, rejected fishery science wouldn't be a surprise to most. I'm less pessimistic than that but, in this case it's the SFAB that's brought this approach forward and is championing it, I'd assume their intention is not to be painted with that same brush of obsolescence!

You're also likely aware that in Alaska the majority of rec pressure, 80-90% range depending on the sub-area, is facilitated by "party style" charter boats. As such, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone analyzing the results that such operations target areas of high abundance, which many of us refer to as "chicken ranches", which correlates precisely to the smaller average size reported. Such "party boat" style fishing is extremely rare here in BC and certainly doesn't account for the majority of effort so I'm not as confident as you are at making a direct comparison to our BC situation.

In any case, taking the point and data you provide at face value, it actually contradicts the need for any slot limit - the very management action you're attempting to defend. The data you present says folks should be left alone to take any two fish into possession as the reality of actual catch data, as compared to the "myth" of fisherman's perception, dictates that on average both fish will be under 15 pounds. So, it begs the question - why the support, or need, or proposal for a slot limit? If the data you are purporting is true, that being that the average fish caught is well under 15 pounds, there'd be no need for a slot limit, at least not a slot limit requiring the second fish, at 15 pounds, being larger than the aggregate average fish size that you report. If this is truly the case, such a slot limit will have ZERO effect of lowering the harvest rate and extending the season.

So which is it? Is the possession slot limit a meaningful tool that will reduce harvest such that the season will be extended or is it just smoke and mirrors to appease who knows what?

Lastly, you suggest I get involved, which is a presumption that I'm not already actively engaged and involved. What leads you to that assumption?

 

[Last Chance]

I concur. The bulk of the WCVI fish are less then 25 pounds. Won't work. Equitable allocation of the resource is the final solution.

 

[Jockey]

What about a different solution that involves a size limit but instead of an upper slot limit make a minimum size limit. Most fisheries have a minimum size limit not an upper size limit.

It sounds really silly to me that the average fish off of WCVI is under 15 pounds. Why are people targetting those small fish? I guess because they are easly to catch and provide lots of action.

Maybe if they said keep nothing under 30 pounds all those small fish we are taking would have time to grow, spawn and make millions of babies, and then get caught. I don't know how big a halibut needs to be to spawn once but all fish that are able should be given a chance to spawn before they are taken.

I bet if all the chickens taken last year were able to grow and spawn in 5-10 years our TAC would be going up instead of going down each year. I understand halibut are slow growers so it would probably take quite a while before the results were realized but something has to be done to turn around the TAC so it increases each year instead of decreases.

The 85/15 split sucks but lets be real if the TAC was as high as it was 10 years ago we wouldn't care about the 15% split because we probably would not reach it. People like to say there is no conservation issue but that is dead wrong. The TAC is going down becaues the avaliable halibut is also decreasing. It's true the 85/15 split is not a conservation issue but the overall TAC canada gets IS a conservation issue. Get that TAC increasing and like I said we won't care if it's 12, 15 or 20% because it will be more than enough. Likewise the commercial fisherman won't care if we have as much as 20% of the TAC because their share will have grown too. The annual decrease of the TAC is causing stress on both sides and it appears it is only going to get worse.

 

[godeep]

On the first day the average will most likely be the same that it was in all areas this past year. Not all areas areas have a 10lbs average. 25 north and 10 & 11 north, with the exception of area 1 are all much higher average. On the second day anglers will fish other area's (chicken ranch). The second day average Halibut will be under 10 pounds and this is your savings. Where I fish in the summer I have never caught on under 15 pounds and now this year if I want a second Halibut I need to go else where, because that second fish doesn't hang out with my first day fish.
Big and little fish don't mix that much and I think this is the lesson learned from the Alaska upper slot.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

"Most likely be the same ...." does not sound like very definitive science-based fact to me GoDeep. In fact, sounds very much like in your response you've backed away from your definitive statements that anglers' impressions of the size fish they catch does not match the actual data and that the data shows the coast wide average fish is below 15lbs, even despite attempts to high grade. You originally stated that the expectations of high grading didn't materialize, the average fish remained small. Now you're stating that everyone knows that big and little fish don't exist in the same areas and all one has to do is move from one area to the other and there'll be a completely different average size expectation from one day to the next. Is it just a coincidence that you supported one set of facts/data until they're shown to contradict the logic behind, and effectiveness of, a possession slot limit and then abandon them for a new set of facts - that being anglers have the ability and knowledge to target size specific areas of fish, an ability they conspicuously lacked in your first post?

You can't play on both sides of the fence - either the Alaska example you presented clearly shows the futility and ineffectiveness of a slot limit approach or the data you originally presented isn't valid and thus shouldn't have been presented in the first place. Either way, it's this type of double talk and contradiction that has so many of us rec anglers highly suspicious of both the motives behind and in particular the effectiveness of the slot quota.

I fall in the latter group. I don't believe that a slot quota, based on the Alaska trial of the same as well as simple logic, has any chance of being effective in lowering the average size fish harvested, at least not significantly enough to extend the season significantly. However, I remain open to being convinced otherwise and eagerly anticipate seeing the modelling calculations and historical data used.

 

[Fisher Down]

The rec. day tripper won't be affected, as they can only have one fish anyway.
every new fishing trip is a one fish experience.

This isn't necessarily true. Unless the fisherman can fish in his back yard and return home every day, this does not apply.
I don't have halibut in my back yard, and not even within a reasonable tow away. When I've gone halibut fishing, we go
away for a multi-day fishing trip. Now, after 1 butt, we must switch to other fish, and just prey we don't catch another hali.'

F D

 

[Dave S]

This isn't necessarily true. Unless the fisherman can fish in his back yard and return home every day, this does not apply.
I don't have halibut in my back yard, and not even within a reasonable tow away. When I've gone halibut fishing, we go
away for a multi-day fishing trip. Now, after 1 butt, we must switch to other fish, and just prey we don't catch another hali.'

F D

I think the key words in rs craven's post is "day tripper". If you are not crashing in your own bed, your not day trippin. When you go on an over nighter, make sure you have more than one person with a license in your crew, that way you can catch more halibut. It's 2 in possession per license.

 

[Hot Rods]

Yes Ukee D the yearly limit was considered, and in fact, has been suggested several times by various SFAC committees. However, grab your calculator and do your math and you quickly see why it has not gone anywhere with DFO. The number being tossed around was 10/year. Roughly 100,000 rec halibut anglers X 10/yr X 16 lbs. comes out to 16 million pounds of halibut or more than double the total Canadian TAC. I for one would not feel comfortable standing in front of a TV camera defending that demand. Even a yearly limit of 1 fish puts us over the 15% rec quota and clearly shows why 15% is not fair. The gifting of fish has also been a hot topic at many SFAB meetings. Until the law can be changed the onus falls on us to apply peer pressure. As a consumer, don't ask the guide to take an extra fish for you and, as a guide, don't offer the option.

Upper size limit was also considered. That is one area where the guides were vocal in their opposition. They, and BC Tourism, need the attraction and promotional value of the potential of catching and keeping a big fish. Without it, many of their guests would go elswhere. It was also pointed out that, in order to have any impact, that upper size would have to be in the 30 pound range.

Banning anchoring and only fishing halibut on certain days of the week were also suggested as ways to slow down the catch.

And by the way Ukee, you may still get your wish and have your opportunity to protest when we have the shortest halibut season on record this year. Everyone involved realizes how much the variables such as weather and fishing conditions will have on our total catch. We will have a major problem stretching out the season if the majority of days in May, June and July turn out to be flat calm.

If and when that happens, please come up and introduce yourself this time. I'm the guy at the head of the protest line with the trunk-load of hand painted signs. That's how we had the pleasure of meeting Island Girl last year.