Possession limits

[UkeeDreamin]

Don't be greedy - care to explain? Proposing that using the tools at hand to manage exploitable biomass via annual, monthly, daily, slot, etc, etc limits such that they apply to everyone, equitably, and are more easily enforceable is greedy? The current system that allows a local, whether next to a lake or ocean, to take an unlimited number of daily quotas day after day isn't greedy? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as our respective definitions of what constitutes greed appear to be quite different. Also not sure how pointing out the same inequity exists between the coast and interior for a person travelling to catch some trout or kokanee somehow makes the system right or valid - did two wrongs start equalling a right?

Sculpin, not sure what you're getting at with regard to the constitution stating where we should live or how that has anything to do with a reasonable expectation that folks paying the same taxes and licensing fees should expect equitable access. Equitable does not in anyway mean the same. Under a system of reasonable monthly or similar quotas, the person living next door to the resource would still be able to access it month after month, whereas the travelling angler wouldn't unless they're willing to foot the travel bill.

The most direct comparison I can think of is BC's hunting regs - unlike fishing limits, the same limits apply to all residents of BC whether travelling or heading home each night. Again, why are fishing regs different? Have yet to hear a valid argument explaining the why.
Rec angling for the sport vs the "greed" of filling a freezer applies equally to us all whether we're travelling or fishing our home waters. When their are conservation concerns linked to potential rec harvest impacts we see closures, slot limits, reduced quotas, etc. So at a loss of why so many seem to be arguing against this and/or mocking the valid points being raised. Well, I guess that's not true, I know that folks mock when they have nothing valid to add.

Ukee

 

[BearCove]

Walter Quinlan,

I could give a rats a$$ how many times you have heard the "grandparent" story. I am trying to find out if I can gift my grandparents fish when they head back to Nanaimo and what they need in order to do that.

I have since got my answers to those questions and know how to go about gifting and transporting fish.

When your scenario is an honest one and all you want is the answer so you can do it right you ask the questions and hope for the answers not flack from guys like you.

Anyways, tight lines to all of you guys and if you would like the answers to the questions I have posted please feel free to PM me and I would be more than happy to pass on the info.

Cheers,

Wade

 

[ziggy]

Why not just post them for people like you who are looking for answers?

 

[Walter Quinlan]

When your scenario is an honest one and all you want is the answer so you can do it right you ask the questions and hope for the answers not flack from guys like you.

Guys like me do drive certain types right around the bend, I will give you that. But, in saying so, sometimes it would be wise to actually hear what I'm trying to say, instead of going off on a tangent because of a tongue in cheek comment. Cause, when I see this tangent, it's almost confirmation that I hit a nerve somewhere. Remember, I did NOT type this in January,

Pretty sure it's only the letter that has to travel if the fish is gifted, if they are just transporting for you they need the license. When I send my brother back to AB with custom cut fish from my freezer here in BC all I have to do is write a letter stating it was me that gave it to him, my address and my license number.

This is from my local DFO office.

And then this, in April

Any ideas about transporting your own fish or gifting it to someone else?

I generally load up my brother when he comes out from Calgary every summer.

And then you get your answer, something that can be informative to some others but, you want to keep it a "secret"??????

Interesting, and somewhat amusing.

 

[scott craven]

Sculpin, not sure what you're getting at with regard to the constitution stating where we should live or how that has anything to do with a reasonable expectation that folks paying the same taxes and licensing fees should expect equitable access. Equitable does not in anyway mean the same. Under a system of reasonable monthly or similar quotas, the person living next door to the resource would still be able to access it month after month, whereas the travelling angler wouldn't unless they're willing to foot the travel bill.

So would you propose 2 sets of reg's ?
What we have is not perfect, but it's probably as good as we can expect.
as other's have mentioned, everyone chooses their own geographical location.
DFO cannot be expected to change rules to accommodate those who choose
to live further from the resource.

 

[Aces]

So would you propose 2 sets of reg's ?
What we have is not perfect, but it's the probably as good as we can expect.
as other's have mentioned, everyone chooses their own geographical location
DFO cannot be expected to change rules to accommodate those who choose
to live further from the resource.

Well put, sir!

 

[UkeeDreamin]

So would you propose 2 sets of reg's ?
What we have is not perfect, but it's probably as good as we can expect.
as other's have mentioned, everyone chooses their own geographical location.
DFO cannot be expected to change rules to accommodate those who choose
to live further from the resource.

What I've been suggesting is for their not to be two sets of regs, as many of us feel currently exists, but rather one set that treats everyone equally. As exhibited by our BC hunting regs, a person's geographic location doesn't need to factor in. Perhaps I'm missing something/not understanding something with regard to the consistent geographic rationale offered up by locals - can someone explain to me why a local should be allowed under the regs to keep more fish each week/month than a travelling angler? My understanding is that we're all in the same boat with regard to wanting to conserve the resource, enjoy the sport as our primary focus and enjoy some to quality seafood within a reasonable exploitable biomass.

Personally, I don't want anymore fish but the overly complicated and anal regs make it a pain to process what I do harvest in a way that ensures a good quality product that won't be wasted. I travel a week at a time and the current regs require me to keep my harvested chinook and halibut in large pieces that are well above serving size for my family. Given that 99% of enforcement occurs on the water or at the dock/launch it would be nice to see reasonable regs like what someone posted Washington has so, once landed, a person can reasonably process, vacuum seal and freeze their fish so quality is maintained. Ironic that the original possession regs were developed to avoid large amounts of retained fish from being wasted.

Also ironic that a common theme on this site is that sport fishers need to remain united as a single voice yet threads like these show a clear difference in the opinions of our sub-groups: in this instance local anglers wanting things left as they are and travelling anglers wanting modernized possession regs that are equitable.

Good discussions.

Ukee

 

[scott craven]

can someone explain to me why a local should be allowed under the regs to keep more fish each week/month than a travelling angler?

Because they have chosen to pay overinflated real estate prices in order to be closer to the ocean.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

LOL, best response on this thread!

Ukee

 

[blackvelvet]

Because they have chosen to pay overinflated real estate prices in order to be closer to the ocean.

......and overinflated fuel, food, alcohol etc......and I gladly pay up when I visit the WCVI.

I kinda feel sorry for those that live WCVI year round. They should have "double daily limits" to make up for cost of living and amount of raingear they require... lol.

It's the same on the U.S. side. Those that live close can access fresh limits everyday while people that trailer to a location and stay for a few days can only take 2 fresh limits home.

Only fishery in my back yard is coho in September and a little blackmouthing in the winter, otherwise I'm a traveling man for kings, hali, lings, tuna, etc. and till I convince my wife to move to the coast, it is what it is.....2 fresh limits

 

[seadna]

......and overinflated fuel, food, alcohol etc......and I gladly pay up when I visit the WCVI.

I kinda feel sorry for those that live WCVI year round. They should have "double daily limits" to make up for cost of living and amount of raingear they require... lol.

It's the same on the U.S. side. Those that live close can access fresh limits everyday while people that trailer to a location and stay for a few days can only take 2 fresh limits home.

Only fishery in my back yard is coho in September and a little blackmouthing in the winter, otherwise I'm a traveling man for kings, hali, lings, tuna, etc. and till I convince my wife to move to the coast, it is what it is.....2 fresh limits

On the U.S. you can only take 2 fresh limits home but you can also take another 40lbs per person in frozen or processed form. Most people won't take two days limits in fresh form home but rather will vacuum pack and freeze the fish. I have a vacuum packer on board. When we hit the dock the fish get filleted, portioned and vacuum packed. They then go into the freezer at the marina (tagged with my name, number of fish, species etc). I portion the fish to 1-2 person portions and when I go home, I take them on ice with a little rock salt mixed in to keep them frozen. WAYYYYYYY simpler than the BC laws and I rather doubt that there's significantly more rule breakers with this simpler (and better for the quality of the fish) packaging system. IMHO, what's really needed is more enforcement on the water. Unfortunately, both in BC and in WA, the funding for enforcement is being reduced. I fear that may lead to even more complicated rules on both sides of the border - e.g. rules designed to make limited enforcement go farther at the expense of convenience for law abiding citizens.

 

[Samnjoe]

Also ironic that a common theme on this site is that sport fishers need to remain united as a single voice yet threads like these show a clear difference in the opinions of our sub-groups: in this instance local anglers wanting things left as they are and travelling anglers wanting modernized possession regs that are equitable.

Good discussions.

Excellent point about the infighting in user groups.
Governments love this and use it strip away the rights of citizens to access public resources.


Ukee[/QUOTE]

 

[scott craven]

Perhaps I'm missing something/not understanding something with regard to the consistent geographic rationale offered up by locals - can someone explain to me why a local should be allowed under the regs to keep more fish each week/month than a travelling angler?

its actually simple, DFO has to make up rules that apply to everyone.
if you choose to live inland that's up to you.
you can make more trips and fish more often.
these rules aren't meant to inconvenience anyone, but to protect the resource from over harvesting.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

I respectfully disagree on two counts. First, where is it stated that possession limits are a conservation strategy rather than an enforcement strategy and an assurance, dating from back even before the field canning days, that harvested fish aren't wasted? As local anglers make up the majority of angling pressure on any given day, whether it be on an interior lake or a coastal area, allowing no limit to daily harvest by that majority is not a sound conservation strategy. Perfect example of this is the inside coho fishery of the 80's, ask folks from Campbell River (myself included) how many were harvested every fall day after day after day. Regardless, as everyone on here seems to agree on, sport is the focus and a bit of meat is a bonus when it comes to all of us rec anglers, whether local or travelling. If conservation of any species or stock in general or in a given area has a conservation concern as it relates to rec harvest, there are countless regulations to ensure sustainability - closed areas, closed seasons, wild vs hatchery harvest, slot limits, reduced harvest limits, etc, etc, all of which are far easier to employ and enforce than possession regs.

Second, I've yet to hear a single travelling angler ask for two sets of rules but most of us see the fact locals can take an unlimited number of daily limits, while a travelling angler who's bought the same license and pays the same provincial and federal taxes that fund the system, can take only two - that to me and many is two sets of rules. Again, I point to my example of our BC Hunting regs - locals and travelling hunters alike get the same quotas - daily and possession. So why a different set of rules for angling in this province?

Are resident anglers really worried that if there are modernized regs that address current inequities that they're annual harvest of fish and shellfish will be noticeably reduced? I may be very wrong but I can't imagine any modernization of the current regs that still wouldn't allow locals to harvest 100's of lbs of multiple species over the course of an angling season.

Anyway, obvious this is a moot argument at the moment - both local and travelling anglers appear to be very set in their opposing opinions of the status quo. Such contentious issues will hopefully remain open for respectful dialogue into the future as I agree with previous comments that our sector certainly doesn't need additional wedges driving us apart as there are far more issues that unite us and we're a more powerful voice united than divided into sub-groups.

Cheers everyone.

Ukee

 

[trendsetter]

A two day possession limit for 2 anglers fishing the west coast (area 23/123) etc is 16 salmon, 12 lings, 4 halibut, 12 rockfish, 24 crab, 800 prawns...

Seriously, is that not enough for you? How much do you think you're entitled to per trip to the west coast? Gimme a break...

 

[searun]

Interesting debate indeed. I'm all for simplified rules that take into account the legitimate needs of anglers (local or otherwise) to transport their catch home. The overall possession limits are really the big picture way to sort out the conservation issue. Maybe even have to look at some alternative ideas like 15 to 30 day possession limits. Take as many as you want with a specified period and number of fish, transport it home however you want so long as you can prove your catch and be done with it.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

A two day possession limit for 2 anglers fishing the west coast (area 23/123) etc is 16 salmon, 12 lings, 4 halibut, 12 rockfish, 24 crab, 800 prawns...

Seriously, is that not enough for you? How much do you think you're entitled to per trip to the west coast? Gimme a break...

As I've already said, I harvest more than enough for my use annually from all the various fisheries I participate in - freshwater and saltwater, throughout the year but I'm lucky as I have the ability to travel and access to lots of different fisheries. However, this discussion is not about one individual, it's about whether the current system works for those who participate in and fund the rec fishery and whether the current regs are meaningful, fair and equitable. Realistically, I think we all know that this time of year the reg means 4 chinook, two halibut and maybe some ling and rockfish. But again, that 's not the point. Trendsetter, you're pretty emphatic about what you've listed as being enough fish but what I'm curious about is are you emphatic that its enough for anyone or just enough for travelling anglers? I'm with you 100% if your saying there's a limit for all of us that makes sense and is "enough" fish for any individual. What I don't agree with is arguments that attempt to paint travelling anglers as greedy when those who've commented in this thread are interested in only a fraction of what a local can legally harvest in a month let alone a year. Such attitudes exhibit the true greed in our recreational community - Gimme a break indeed!

Ukee

 

[trendsetter]

As I've already said, I harvest more than enough for my use annually from all the various fisheries I participate in - freshwater and saltwater, throughout the year but I'm lucky as I have the ability to travel and access to lots of different fisheries. However, this discussion is not about one individual, it's about whether the current system works for those who participate in and fund the rec fishery and whether the current regs are meaningful, fair and equitable. Realistically, I think we all know that this time of year the reg means 4 chinook, two halibut and maybe some ling and rockfish. But again, that 's not the point. Trendsetter, you're pretty emphatic about what you've listed as being enough fish but what I'm curious about is are you emphatic that its enough for anyone or just enough for travelling anglers? I'm with you 100% if your saying there's a limit for all of us that makes sense and is "enough" fish for any individual. What I don't agree with is arguments that attempt to paint travelling anglers as greedy when those who've commented in this thread are interested in only a fraction of what a local can legally harvest in a month let alone a year. Such attitudes exhibit the true greed in our recreational community - Gimme a break indeed!

Ukee

Hey, I live in the fraser valley. I have to travel EVERY time I saltwater fish and it's not cheap. A limit out day means a ton of fish even with the current regs. You're assuming every local is fishing every day and taking their limit. That's not the case for the majority of guys out there I'm sure. We have to be realistic about what the stocks can handle or we'll all end up with nothing. I'm all for filling the freezer but we have to be reasonable.

 

[Aces]

......and overinflated fuel, food, alcohol etc......and I gladly pay up when I visit the WCVI.

I kinda feel sorry for those that live WCVI year round. They should have "double daily limits" to make up for cost of living and amount of raingear they require... lol.

It's the same on the U.S. side. Those that live close can access fresh limits everyday while people that trailer to a location and stay for a few days can only take 2 fresh limits home.

Only fishery in my back yard is coho in September and a little blackmouthing in the winter, otherwise I'm a traveling man for kings, hali, lings, tuna, etc. and till I convince my wife to move to the coast, it is what it is.....2 fresh limits

SEE?? Ted gets it!

BTW, i don't think your wife will fall for that buddy, lol!

 

[gamechanger]

I respectfully disagree on two counts. First, where is it stated that possession limits are a conservation strategy rather than an enforcement strategy and an assurance, dating from back even before the field canning days, that harvested fish aren't wasted? As local anglers make up the majority of angling pressure on any given day, whether it be on an interior lake or a coastal area, allowing no limit to daily harvest by that majority is not a sound conservation strategy. Perfect example of this is the inside coho fishery of the 80's, ask folks from Campbell River (myself included) how many were harvested every fall day after day after day. Regardless, as everyone on here seems to agree on, sport is the focus and a bit of meat is a bonus when it comes to all of us rec anglers, whether local or travelling. If conservation of any species or stock in general or in a given area has a conservation concern as it relates to rec harvest, there are countless regulations to ensure sustainability - closed areas, closed seasons, wild vs hatchery harvest, slot limits, reduced harvest limits, etc, etc, all of which are far easier to employ and enforce than possession regs.

Second, I've yet to hear a single travelling angler ask for two sets of rules but most of us see the fact locals can take an unlimited number of daily limits, while a travelling angler who's bought the same license and pays the same provincial and federal taxes that fund the system, can take only two - that to me and many is two sets of rules. Again, I point to my example of our BC Hunting regs - locals and travelling hunters alike get the same quotas - daily and possession. So why a different set of rules for angling in this province?

Are resident anglers really worried that if there are modernized regs that address current inequities that they're annual harvest of fish and shellfish will be noticeably reduced? I may be very wrong but I can't imagine any modernization of the current regs that still wouldn't allow locals to harvest 100's of lbs of multiple species over the course of an angling season.

Anyway, obvious this is a moot argument at the moment - both local and travelling anglers appear to be very set in their opposing opinions of the status quo. Such contentious issues will hopefully remain open for respectful dialogue into the future as I agree with previous comments that our sector certainly doesn't need additional wedges driving us apart as there are far more issues that unite us and we're a more powerful voice united than divided into sub-groups.

Cheers everyone.

Ukee

Ukee, who ever said this was about conservation? It's not. It's about harvest control and enforcement capabilities. You say you want a system that's fair for everyone? You have one right now it treats everyone THE SAME regardless of where u live. You say you want simple uncomplicated regs? You have them right now, daily limit, possession limit. SIMPLE. That's the letter of the law and the exceptions outside of that will be grey areas where fishery officers can and will use their discretion. Sounds pretty simple to me. All of this boils down to you not being happy with how much you can keep on a fishing trip and if we had enough room to list it all on here people would realize how fortunate they are. I'm going to the wcvi for a week in a couple hours and im going to bring home 4 springs and 4 coho and not ***** about it because thats fine with me and im not greedy. maybe you should change your handle to ukeemoving instead of just dreamin and then you could really step it up. I'll buy you an extra freezer as a house warming gift.