St jeans was over 12 weeks during August. I sent fish in towards end of August and never got it until November. I guess you are supposed to save it all up until your boat is put away for the season then send your fish in so you have no fish at Christmas but can enjoy it the next year.
Possession limits
- Thread starter oilslick
- Start date
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
The possession limit is a conservation measure: It's necessary because without it, people would catch too many fish. Is it always fair in its application? No. Therefore, I don't see the need for some locals to get so righteous about the letter of the law at times. For the record, I've never caught my annual limit of anything.
casper5280
Crew Member
Seems like a bit of a flawed system to me. I'm in Victoria and can go out every day and catch my limit and take it home till I have my annual limit then I'm done. Buddy comes out from Alberta and fishes 2 days and limits out and is done till is fish is home. Doesn't seem quite fair to me. We are both Canadian citizens and we should have equal access to the fishery. His expences are 100x more then mine, and No we are not Meat fisherman. None of his or my fish is ever wasted. Rules are Rules, but I think this and the packaging of fish for transport is something that we need to take a look at.
wolf
Well-Known Member
Cuba libra
This is from the guide barter is "trade" simply put not allowed to do it. as I read all of this it is clear WHY we fish and call it what you want seems everyone wants this for one reason to FILL the freezer, and yes I want to keep fish too, and im with you guys but seems people are TRYING WAYS of fu#%ing the system.
And like someone said earlier dropping off at st Jeans well if you have the money to pay that amount to get it processed and shipped thats even a bigger expense....me personally think that its not fair or right as well... ....
Wolf
This is from the guide barter is "trade" simply put not allowed to do it. as I read all of this it is clear WHY we fish and call it what you want seems everyone wants this for one reason to FILL the freezer, and yes I want to keep fish too, and im with you guys but seems people are TRYING WAYS of fu#%ing the system.
And like someone said earlier dropping off at st Jeans well if you have the money to pay that amount to get it processed and shipped thats even a bigger expense....me personally think that its not fair or right as well... ....
Wolf
fish4all
Well-Known Member
x10....... pretty simple math. If everyone wants to come out and just fill there yearly limit in one go then the yearly limit would end up being dropped to about 3 fish or less. The sfab has now said they THINK 100,000 anglers are targeting halibut(I find that interesting in that 3 years ago they said 30,000). with the low tac that equates to 10-11lbs each.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Interesting comment from someone who makes his living exploiting the resource. However, I don't see a lot of greed being exhibited here. Rather I see a bunch of folks looking to understand the transporting of fish regs and questioning the rationale behind the "counter reset" when the fish hits the home freezer. I think Casper has hit the mark on the issue with his post. I spend at least a month at Alder Bay with my boat and fifth wheel. I have a freezer in the fifth wheel. If I catch my two day limit in the first week of my trip, I have to move the fish from the freezer in my 5th wheel to the freezer in my house before I can fish again. If I forget about Alder Bay and simply fish my local waters, I can put the fish I catch in my home freezer and keep right on fishing with no worries about a 2 day possession limit. I'm having a whole lot of trouble figuring out the rationale here. Greed has nothing to do with any of this.
Big Green Machine
Well-Known Member
It's in the best interests of all guides to preach conservation, their livelihood depends on fish being around to sport fish. How is that exploitation of the resource?
Aces
Well-Known Member
Nice post from someone who doesn't have much of a clue of how the fishing world works. How do i exploit the resource? Us guides take people that don't have boats or can't catch fish out in our boats to have a fun adventure and hopefully catch some fish.
As far as your fifth wheel freezer the law is pretty clear regarding "permanent residence".
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
A workable solution may be to explore a monthly limit that would apply to both local and travelling anglers. Such a tool is used on many in-river salmon fisheries to limit harvest by locals who may participate in the fishery daily - allows them to keep partaking for the sport aspect but limits the overall harvest. I know some will say it's too easy to get around, how is it enforced, etc? The fact is, poachers will poach but most of us respect the intent of the law and limits applied. Licenses already require recording of size, date and location of harvest making it easy for a FO to check how many harvested by month.
I'm no advocate for unlimited possession limit - for locals or travelling anglers, however the two day possession is overly restrictive in comparison to no limits for locals particularly when factoring in the expense for a travelling angler. If I'm not mistaken, it's this discrepancy that is at the heart of a lot of the complaints logged on this thread. I think with reasonable annual limits, recording of catch on licenses and consideration of monthly limits there are tools available to revisit this perceived inequity without increasing total harvest by the sector.
In adding my two-cents, again, it got me thinking - admin of this site should charge a loonie per comment on all these politically charged topics, we'd have raised a tidy sum towards solutions such as for legal challenges or building a better forecast model on the halibut issue alone by now, LOL!!
Ukee
I'm no advocate for unlimited possession limit - for locals or travelling anglers, however the two day possession is overly restrictive in comparison to no limits for locals particularly when factoring in the expense for a travelling angler. If I'm not mistaken, it's this discrepancy that is at the heart of a lot of the complaints logged on this thread. I think with reasonable annual limits, recording of catch on licenses and consideration of monthly limits there are tools available to revisit this perceived inequity without increasing total harvest by the sector.
In adding my two-cents, again, it got me thinking - admin of this site should charge a loonie per comment on all these politically charged topics, we'd have raised a tidy sum towards solutions such as for legal challenges or building a better forecast model on the halibut issue alone by now, LOL!!
Ukee
Too funny was thinking of a similar solution..on the lines of coming up with a new class of daily licenses for those who only fish one multi day trip per license year. They would pay a higher price per day to fish over a regular daily license but would be able to keep their daily limit each day. Say max 5 day option so 10 springs and 20 salmon then you are done for the year, no options to buy any further licenses. I know the online system is flawed when it comes to this in application....this is just an idea and obviously would need other fixes in the present system to make it work.
I'm not nesseccarily in favour of this but not apposed either...it's just for discussion. I understand the reason why there are possession limits as we all remembered the visitors who came each year in their RV's with canners and freezers. However now it may be a bit over restrictive for a fellow Canadian say from Kelowna who has invested the same amount of money in his boat and equipment as someone living on the coast, has bought the same fishing license as someone who lives on the coast, but can only get to the coast once a year for a few days. All this might offer is some middle ground between what was and what we have now. To add, maybe this option only be available to residents of Canada as well.
I'm not nesseccarily in favour of this but not apposed either...it's just for discussion. I understand the reason why there are possession limits as we all remembered the visitors who came each year in their RV's with canners and freezers. However now it may be a bit over restrictive for a fellow Canadian say from Kelowna who has invested the same amount of money in his boat and equipment as someone living on the coast, has bought the same fishing license as someone who lives on the coast, but can only get to the coast once a year for a few days. All this might offer is some middle ground between what was and what we have now. To add, maybe this option only be available to residents of Canada as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbruce
Crew Member
Geez, Shawn, lighten up. I know the law is clear on the permanent residence thing. My whole point was around rationale surrounding the fact that, like you, I can fish and catch my daily limit every day when I'm at home and not have to worry about transport and 2 day possession limits but if I'm 3 hours from home I can't. That's all. I, and apparently a few others have trouble understanding the rationale behind this regulation.
And those "Alberta fish hounds" as you so derisively call them have the same Citizenship rights as you and I, last time I checked. I suspect they even provide you with a bit of income in your guiding business.
Finally there was no malice in my use of the term "exploit" in my earlier post. You do "exploit" (exploit (verb): make full use of and derive a benefit from a resource) the fish resource to make a living. I suspect your business would be enhanced were it not for the transport limits. That's why I thought your comment suggesting people who were questioning the transport regulations were "greedy" was interesting.
BTW I still intend to stagger down to the docks next time I'm in Tofino for that beer we talked about last year...
And those "Alberta fish hounds" as you so derisively call them have the same Citizenship rights as you and I, last time I checked. I suspect they even provide you with a bit of income in your guiding business.
Finally there was no malice in my use of the term "exploit" in my earlier post. You do "exploit" (exploit (verb): make full use of and derive a benefit from a resource) the fish resource to make a living. I suspect your business would be enhanced were it not for the transport limits. That's why I thought your comment suggesting people who were questioning the transport regulations were "greedy" was interesting.
BTW I still intend to stagger down to the docks next time I'm in Tofino for that beer we talked about last year...
bigbruce
Crew Member
I'm not. The possession regulations for salmon are two days possession as well.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
How would you see it working, what would you suggest as a replacement? If we assume the removal of the two day limit would result in more fish being caught they would have to come from somewhere. If there is an annual limit as in the case of say Halibut and Springs i can see where the solution would probably be to reduce the annual limits to offset the larger possession numbers. Are there other options or is this what you see it as well?
How do you see it working for species with no annual limit? I know it's a different fishery, but I also fly fish in the interior where I can currently keep a max of two days limit on a fishing trip. I'd be concerned that if the two day limit was abolished many lakes would be overfished. I think that also,well on a larger scale the same would happen with salmon that have no annual limit. Would we need an annual limit on all species to make this work?
Maybe if we just stick with halibut though someone good at crunching numbers would be able to tell us what the annual limit would have to drop to in order to facilitate more fish being taken through an increased possession limit.
Just throwing this out there. Maybe someone has an idea how to make it work.
Last edited by a moderator:
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Reasonable annual limits, monthly limits, zone limits, modified possession limits (don't necessarily have to be tied to a set # of daily limits, could simply be X # of a given species), etc - lots of available tools.
Ziggy, you use the example of Interior lakes but your argument about over harvesting in that context isn't strong as each lake has different regs to ensure this doesn't happen, regardless of possession limits. Most of the quality waters are 100% catch and release, while others have very limited daily harvest allowed - i.e. not somewhere someone is going to camp out and fill freezer after freezer if just one fish per day can be harvested. Lakes with larger daily limits typically are nutrient limited and thus have smaller trout competing for limited groceries so harvest is encouraged.
Back to the saltwater issue, a monthly limit would still allow the local angler to access plenty of fish over the course of the fishing season, as would limits by fishing zone (whether monthly or annual). Such approaches wouldn't curb the sport side of it, which I think everyone agrees on should be open and the main focus for all rec anglers, while approaching more equitable sharing of the total harvest between all anglers accessing any particular fishery.
Counter argument, of course, is that we're already over regulated and they're damn confusing to boot - which is a very valid argument. Having said that, pretty clear from this thread travelling anglers who invest a lot of $'s into the rec fishing economy definitely feel an unfair disparity exists in the current possession regs between local and travelling anglers - so worth sussing out.
Ukee
Ziggy, you use the example of Interior lakes but your argument about over harvesting in that context isn't strong as each lake has different regs to ensure this doesn't happen, regardless of possession limits. Most of the quality waters are 100% catch and release, while others have very limited daily harvest allowed - i.e. not somewhere someone is going to camp out and fill freezer after freezer if just one fish per day can be harvested. Lakes with larger daily limits typically are nutrient limited and thus have smaller trout competing for limited groceries so harvest is encouraged.
Back to the saltwater issue, a monthly limit would still allow the local angler to access plenty of fish over the course of the fishing season, as would limits by fishing zone (whether monthly or annual). Such approaches wouldn't curb the sport side of it, which I think everyone agrees on should be open and the main focus for all rec anglers, while approaching more equitable sharing of the total harvest between all anglers accessing any particular fishery.
Counter argument, of course, is that we're already over regulated and they're damn confusing to boot - which is a very valid argument. Having said that, pretty clear from this thread travelling anglers who invest a lot of $'s into the rec fishing economy definitely feel an unfair disparity exists in the current possession regs between local and travelling anglers - so worth sussing out.
Ukee
bigbruce
Crew Member
Frankly, I don't know what the answer is, Ziggy. Perhaps limits on total catch by species. As it stands now, we have catch limits on Halibut and Chinook that are tracked via our licenses. If we're concerned about coho - limit and record them as well. I don't think there's an issue with Pink and Chum so probably nothing needs to be done with them. Ukee makes a valid point about the myriad of regulations we have to deal with now so adding more might not make a whole lot of sense.
Of course it could well be that there really isn't a problem. If a guy goes out with FishTofino for a couple of days and catches 8 salmon, a couple of Hali's and whatever else he's allowed to catch and keep, he's done pretty bloody good. Maybe I should take my own advice on a previous thread and just STFU and leave this one alone.
Of course it could well be that there really isn't a problem. If a guy goes out with FishTofino for a couple of days and catches 8 salmon, a couple of Hali's and whatever else he's allowed to catch and keep, he's done pretty bloody good. Maybe I should take my own advice on a previous thread and just STFU and leave this one alone.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Bruce, i want to apologize for getting hot under the collar there. I get defensive when i get accused of exploiting the fishery. I take great pride in following the rules and doing what i can to help in conservation and management issues on the front lines and have all my fishing career.
bigbruce
Crew Member
No worries, Shawn. While I'm not in your business, I feel the same way about the rules and also do what I can to "give back" to the fishery.
