Prawn Closures

Next you will be saying the governments is not corruptible. Now that's a joke.

Can you read??..maybe get someone to read ziggys post for you....read the post word for word...in part he states clearly to question your governments actions...did you miss that part?..

I love how some hate change to rules but then how we fish, the technology we fish with has changed by leaps and bounds in just a short (relatively speaking) few yrs..that you dont expect to have limits,closures,tighter rules to live with...yes the rules should change as long as its directed at CONSERVATION of a fishery, and directed to all involved (native,rec,and commercial )..times change
 
Hey Searun,

It was really just reacting to what we all saw in a meeting that started at 9:00 AM and went to 5:00 PM with continual bashing of the recreational sector in a meeting that was supposed to be chaired to an agenda and be respectful in its tone....not. This is indeed about the management of a common property resource and I really appreciate your comments about plugging in " halibut" when you see prawns...I have been saying that for three years now. Same numbers, almost....about 210 prawn licences...about 200 active commercial halibut fishermen...about the same claim on the resource from what we can determine on limited data....seems about 80% of the prawns for commercial, about 20% for the recreational. Constant meetings, detailed and thoughtful responses from SFAB, written out and presented on time according to DFO requirements for Fishing Plan consideration, and the recreational requests ignored....sure is familiar to those of us who sat through the halibut proceedings and two roundtable facilitations. Now we have winter closures announced, but were never shown the fall testing results that apparently dictated the closures....we still have not been shown the commercial harvest numbers from June....just imagine what would happen in the real corporate world not in a Government job, when the harvest numbers from a fishery of 210 people could not be prepared 6 months after it finished?

Hot Rods nailed it...this is maximizing commercial harvest for 210 people over the thousands of recreational anglers who would like to see better access that has been diminished over the last 10 years!

Yup, the way prawns and halibut have been managed are very similar. Priority access for commercial at the exclusion of recreational is the standard. Allocation issues are always going to be messy and as we know from history the rec fleet usually ends up with the short end of the stick. The rec community does a good job with limited resources positioning our side of the allocation debate. Unfortunately we are going to a gun fight with a twinkie. We just can't match the financial resources to hire full time lobbyists like the commercial side. Plus there is a long history of DFO management focus on providing for a commercial fishery. An uphill battle for the rec fleet.

That said, there are major challenges managing a common property resource that is fairly hard to predict how that population of animals is going to fair in terms of abundance. I think all can agree it is very hard to determine sustainable exploitable biomass.
So I do appreciate those challenges DFO managers face as well as the culture of bias towards managing to commercial fisheries.

A good reason why in my earlier posts I stated up front I have a ton to learn about the current management protocols. And..not knowing much about the spawner index methodology, it still seems like a fairly primitive way to forecast abundance when you are attempting to manage how many removals a population can sustain. Being a simpleton, I tend to see the spawner index as analogous to predicting how many jelly beans are left in the bowl by counting the black ones.

So I appreciate any light others who know more about this topic may be able to shed. Maybe there is a better way to determine abundance, then manage the allocation (without making it personal).
 
If you really want to get up to speed, then there is an expert in Nanaimo who has sat at all the meetings.
I am sure he would discuss this with you if you contact him.

However, instead of prawns or halibut add ALL the other species to this senario.
Sooner than you think they will be on the table.
If as you note you do not have someone lobbying for you, then things are not going to go well.
If you think this is about concervation, think again.
This is about the commercial sector.
Forget about First Nations as they will do what they want, when they want and you cannot do anything about it. Now or in the future.





Yup, the way prawns and halibut have been managed are very similar. Priority access for commercial at the exclusion of recreational is the standard. Allocation issues are always going to be messy and as we know from history the rec fleet usually ends up with the short end of the stick. The rec community does a good job with limited resources positioning our side of the allocation debate. Unfortunately we are going to a gun fight with a twinkie. We just can't match the financial resources to hire full time lobbyists like the commercial side. Plus there is a long history of DFO management focus on providing for a commercial fishery. An uphill battle for the rec fleet.

That said, there are major challenges managing a common property resource that is fairly hard to predict how that population of animals is going to fair in terms of abundance. I think all can agree it is very hard to determine sustainable exploitable biomass.
So I do appreciate those challenges DFO managers face as well as the culture of bias towards managing to commercial fisheries.

A good reason why in my earlier posts I stated up front I have a ton to learn about the current management protocols. And..not knowing much about the spawner index methodology, it still seems like a fairly primitive way to forecast abundance when you are attempting to manage how many removals a population can sustain. Being a simpleton, I tend to see the spawner index as analogous to predicting how many jelly beans are left in the bowl by counting the black ones.

So I appreciate any light others who know more about this topic may be able to shed. Maybe there is a better way to determine abundance, then manage the allocation (without making it personal).
 
There is a very good paper by Boutillier and Bond. available on line, that describes the spawner index process in detail. Well worth the read. "A progress report on the control of growth and recruitment overfishing in the shrimp trap fishery in British Columbia".
 
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2014/prawnshrimp-trap-crevette-casier-sm-eng.pdf

I found this on web. It shredded some light on discussion that I didn't know.... Sorry I may have re posted if you saw it already.... Read page 6 line one.... It reads:

"Funding for fall spawner index surveys
through a use-of-fish or other approach
is uncertain for 2014. This has
implications to the management of the
recreational fishery during the
spawning period. "


Possible Management measure:

The Department and Pacific Praw
n Fishermen’s Association are
pursuing a use-of-fish or other approach to conduct the surveys.
Sampling during the commercial season will continue.
DFO will conduct the survey in Howe Sound.
If surveys cannot be established, local area closure may be
necessary from January 1 until March 31, 2015 while the
spawning cycle completes. Fish
ing time periods (e.g., weekend-
only fishing or pulse fishing) and reduced catch limits will be
considered in areas, where possible,
based on a Scientific review
of past sampling (2000-2011).



I wish Brad would come back on here and answer if that is indeed true...Is our cutback because the federal government did not fund an assessment for 2014 based on cutbacks within DFO itself? Too be safe we were closed as data was not able to be obtained?

I also notice tons of notes down there on DFO not having funding to get data....

I am just trying to understand some of things that went into this please come back on here gamechanger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is something I dug up from 1999, seems respect has been replace with something else in the prawn industry....

Fishing plans for the commercial fishery must consider impacts on all stakeholders. These groups include First Nations, recreational fishers, coastal communities, and the general public. The Oceans Act passed last year demonstrates the public concern for marine harvesters and the will of the people to protect the ocean environment. The people of Canada own the resource, and the privilege to harvest remains at the discretion of the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Therefore, commercial fishers ultimately rely on the support of the public to hold the privilege for commercial harvest.


THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT
OPTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
CO-CHAIRS
T. ORR
K. MIKKELSEN
APRIL 1999
 
I was surprised gamechanger lasted as long as he did. There is a lot of knowledge and intelligence on this board that gets lost when the finger pointing starts. Too bad but about par for any forum.
 
Thanks gents, read both articles. I can't say that I'm overly confident in this method of estimating prawn population abundance. I'm not sure for instance about geographic variability (migration) and how that potentially impacts this sampling method. Perhaps the sample area and size is large enough to account for this variability. Again, I'm very new to this - just trying to understand it all.

I'm also a bit puzzled at how the commercial prawn fleet can increase from 50 to just under 300 since 1979, then catch almost exponentially more prawns than pre-1979 levels and this is sustainable? (that is an increase from under 400K tons to 1700K tons - 1980 to 1998). I'm also having a difficult time rationalizing how the recreational fleet is somehow responsible for threatening sustainability in this scenario??? Has recreational catch truly contributed to reducing prawn abundance to the point a winter closure is required, or is the real culprit the vastly increased commercial exploitation?

I haven't seen any data on historical trends for recreational prawn catch during this same period - I'm sure someone smarter than me has that data so we can compare trending. Commercial v Recreational catch trending analysis would be a constructive way to determine if these prawn closures are in fact necessary. Another way to put it, is there data to support recreational impacts on prawn populations? Maybe that data exists - might help us understand better why a closure is necessary. And, if it is then close it. If not, then I would question it. If the true culprit is overfishing from commercial fisheries then curtail them. Bottom line is we need a fair allocation when it comes to sharing the conservation responsibility.

BTW, I agree OBD - we can replace this same argument with all recreational fisheries. There will be more of these allocation and use debates as we all pursue a dwindling resource. These discussions will really be about wise use of the resource and equitable sharing of the conservation responsibility.
 
Was told there was a post on this thread that said the average prawn fisherman only made $13,000 and change/year. Can't seem to find it now but here is the data from 2012. 216 active vessels participated in the prawn fishery. Landed value was $29.3 million dollars with a wholesale value of $50.3 million. That boils down to $135,648/boat average for just 6 weeks fishing. The average value of a prawn licence in 2012 was $684,000. To their credit, these guys have become very good at what they do. The coastwide catch has steadily increased from 1.6 million pounds in 1990 to 7.6 million in 2009. In that same time period, the average catch per day went from 2.69 tonnes to 49.94 tonnes. The law of supply and demands also helps level out a fisherman's income. As the catch/supply decreases the individual piece landed and wholesale value increases. You make the same money for less work.

Although they complain about the shortened season, most actually like it because they hold multiple species licences and they want to max out the prawn fishery and get on to the next species. All they have to do is slow down their effort if they really wanted to fish longer.

SV mentioned funding from the "use of fish" policy and the quote from the article gave credit to DFO and the commercial prawn association. Had not noticed that before. The SFAB has been front and centre in that debate ever since the LaRoque decision made it illegal to use fish to raise funds for research/management etc. We, the rec sector, need to find a way to finance things like the fall spawner index testing. That testing has to be completely industry independent.
 
Very interesting, should chat at South Coast meeting. I was raising via questions above, that I think the rec fleet has a similar case when it comes to prawns as we did with Halibut. A strong case can be made over legitimate recreational use of prawns...and perhaps the historical record will be our strongest ally regarding expected catch opportunity.

Proportionally the commercial harvest has the most significant impact in terms of removals. If the management focus wasn't committed to maximizing commercial harvest we might see that explored more aggressively.
 
BTW - even DFO has listed poor rec catch data as a problem...right from their report:

"Recreational Fishery
There is limited information on
recreational catch and effort"

Ergo, decisions regarding rec fleet removals and conservation impacts are "best estimates" only. Pretty hard to answer my questions above when there is no data to pin the tail on the recreational donkey. Evidence of over-harvest doesn't get any clearer than the 76% increase in commercial prawn removals between 1980 and 1998. Look no further.
 
Thanks gents, read both articles. I can't say that I'm overly confident in this method of estimating prawn population abundance. I'm not sure for instance about geographic variability (migration) and how that potentially impacts this sampling method. Perhaps the sample area and size is large enough to account for this variability. Again, I'm very new to this - just trying to understand it all.


Searun. The spawner index is not used to measure abundance. It simply tells us how many berried and transitional prawns are present. The only guage of abundance in each area is the commercial harvest. I believe all other fisheries are based on preseason estimates of abundance rather than open it up and see what happens. That's one of the reasons we feel commercial spawner index testing, closure decisions and traps out of the water quickly are important.
 
Prawning regulations need change on BC Coast
JEREMY MAYNARD / CAMPBELL RIVER COURIER ISLANDER
DECEMBER 12, 2014 09:40 PM

Email
Print



What a difference a year makes – exactly twelve months ago the southern BC coast was experiencing ocean modified effects of the so-called Polar Vortex. It was minus 10 deg. C. and I was fretting that because it had been so dry and cold for so long I was concerned about the prospect of salmon egg loss in many smaller rivers, because they were so low and even where possibly in wetted areas the eggs would be frozen in the sustained bitter cold.

One year later and enter the Pineapple Express. Now it is plus 10 deg. C., the freezing level is higher than the highest peak on Vancouver Island and all the salmon eggs laid down in the gravel this fall are taking a battering under the enormous water flows coursing down every area river, big and small.

This has happened before of course and the prospects for each egg depend entirely on very local circumstance, with fisherman’s hopes of catching any surviving adult in the season’s ahead contingent on this. Several weeks ago I expressed some concern about the sustained higher than usual water temperatures and the implications of this for salmon egg development and earlier than usual emergence as fry. This accelerated development may in fact save some, possibly quite a number of eggs because far more of them will have now reached the eyed-egg stage and become much more resistant to shock.

Most of the pink eggs have already hatched out and the alevins, with their cumbersome egg sac attached, will be hunkered down in the gravel as best they can but if their surroundings move they will likely be crushed or swept away, end of story.

As I write this on December 11 it looks like local rivers have reached peak flow and thankfully the weather forecast is indicating something of a break in the rain before it starts again next week about the time this column is published.

In what has now become a customary notification at this time of year, early last week DFO announced the seasonal closure (January 1 – March 31) for the recreational prawn fishery in those management sub-areas assessed in the late fall surveys to have too low an abundance of berried (egg bearing) prawns; please check Fisheries Notice # 1278 for compete details.

Regrettably the territory around the south coast subject to closure is more extensive than ever including, in or near the readership area of this newspaper, sub-areas 13-1, -12, -13, -15, -16 and -17. These embrace a large area on the south and east sides of Quadra Island reaching around most of Maurelle and Read Islands and the west side of Cortes Island. Perhaps surprisingly, sub-area 13-14 covering from Fransisco Point up to Rebecca Spit will not close but as a result will surely be subject to more than usual fishing pressure for the three months. As well sub-areas15-1, -2 and -3 will close, covering from the northeast Texada Island shore up to southeast Cortes, including the popular Twin Islands zone.

It is important to know exactly where the boundaries of these fishery management sub-areas lie and as I have before will recommend going to a DFO office and picking up a copy, for free, of the excellent sub-area map. I have a laminated copy on my boat, an essential document for the wandering fisherman. Alternatively, in the modern fashion you can go on-line to the DFO website and find this information there and print out what is relevant to your owns needs.

The reality is the management regime for the recreational prawn fishery in southern BC doesn’t work, except in years of unusually high abundance. Like all wildlife prawns respond to their surrounding environment and in recent years they seem to be doing less well. Meaningful recreational opportunity depends on some expectation of catch and that essentially disappears once the annual commercial fishery gets underway in early May. This fishery is highly efficient and is managed in-season to a prawn spawner (berried female per trap) index, with fisheries in recent years lasting weeks not months as the available resource is quickly harvested.

Most recreational effort ends once the commercial fishery gets going, only to restart in the fall as the prawn stock starts to rebuild. This is why the winter seasonal closures have such an impact on recreational opportunity as they take away the heart of the best prawning season available to the non-commercial fishing public.

The Pacific Prawn Fisherman’s Association, representing commercial harvesters, recently recommended to DFO that there should be a coast-wide closure of all prawn fishing from December 1 to March 31. No question about whose interests the association is advocating for because as noted the commercial fishery doesn’t fish then!

This is unlikely to occur as such an act would be a gross violation of the principles that the department theoretically subscribes to as described in the Vision for the Recreational Fishery document. That said, the prospect of wide-scale winter seasonal closures remains a possibility because of a shortage of funds to conduct stock assessment surveys in the fall. DFO has indicated that should this situation continue it would institute automatic seasonal closures in those sub-areas with a history of them.

There’s two ways out of the current unsatisfactory situation. One is to create areas that would be out of bounds to the commercial fishery, reserves for the recreational and First Nation food fisheries. These reserves would have to be of large enough area to be meaningful.

The other approach would be to close the commercial fishery at a higher spawner index level than the other fisheries to leave more mature prawns in the water at the cessation of the fishery. This has been tried in Howe Sound with some success and deserves to be implemented more widely. Of course should this management tactic come into effect there’s no guarantee there wouldn’t be subsequent seasonal recreational closures but the likelihood of them occurring would be lessened.

Meanwhile both ideas have been firmly rejected by the commercial interests and the current situation looks set to continue.

- See more at: http://www.courierislander.com/spor...ge-on-bc-coast-1.1664126#sthash.FBj0HM3e.dpuf
 
Well written article, not much to disagree with there. Thanks for sharing. Pretty sure commercial prawn interests are not going to be too quick to get onside with notions such as commercial free zones and cessation of commercial fishery at a hight spawner index level. However, if they were themselves forced to move into Area licensing there would be greater motivation for them to look out for the best long term interests of that local fishery by adopting concepts such as these. There certainly isn't much impetus to change when you can invest in a fast boat and move from area to area as soon as it gets fished out. Helps slow down the run and gun mentality by going to an Area licensing scheme.

I personally think it is time to move towards trying an experiment in a high use area to see if we can make this concept work for all users.
 
Prawning regulations need change on BC Coast
JEREMY MAYNARD / CAMPBELL RIVER COURIER ISLANDER
DECEMBER 12, 2014 09:40 PM

The Pacific Prawn Fisherman’s Association, representing commercial harvesters, recently recommended to DFO that there should be a coast-wide closure of all prawn fishing from December 1 to March 31. No question about whose interests the association is advocating for because as noted the commercial fishery doesn’t fish then!

- See more at: http://www.courierislander.com/spor...ge-on-bc-coast-1.1664126#sthash.FBj0HM3e.dpuf

I guess this has nothing to do with why the commercial fishers are asking for a closure during the winter months.

Most females are ovigerous (carrying eggs) by late October in BC (Butler
1964), and they carry the eggs throughout the winter months. During this 5 to 5½ month
period, the females continue to feed and move about and hence are vulnerable to fishing.
The eggs are released by the female and hatch in the late spring. This happens at night in
deep water. The female raises her abdomen and flaps the pleopods until the eggs are free,
and they hatch immediately (Figure 6). Eggs are hatched in late March or early April
throughout the range, although larger females seem to shed their eggs later than smaller
females within any particular area.
 
I have no problem with closing for spawning, in fact I doubt anyone does. However, how do you justify recreatonal pulse fishing to protect a stock that is commercially fished without similar restrictions? If commercial vessels were limited or only allowed to fish for a similarly reduced time then maybe it would be fair? As I understand it though, no such restrictions exist? Am I wrong? Are the areas subject to reduced rec fishing to protect the stock only open for half as long as other areas for commercial fishery? Is there a maximum tonnage figure? Restriction on number of boats?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top