Tuna Fishers watch your posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Tidal Chaos
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
No one unless they have a 60 ton master's ticket. Your insurance might be good, but so far the only info we can get from TC is the Near Coastal rules still apply.
Tidal Chaos, thanks again. As I mentioned, I can certainly see where you’re coming from and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify our objectives with the program. By reading a few posts in the forums, I can see how much fun the rec guys are having and we in no way want to change that. Best of luck this season!
Thanks as well to Kelly, searun, IronNoggin and others who have made some great points. As Kelly mentioned, he was the one I first approached and has been very helpful throughout the process. Others have since joined in and we’re hoping for a successful program this year.
Cheers,
Jordan
Thanks as well to Kelly, searun, IronNoggin and others who have made some great points. As Kelly mentioned, he was the one I first approached and has been very helpful throughout the process. Others have since joined in and we’re hoping for a successful program this year.
Cheers,
Jordan
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I think that participation is important. DFO is going to get reasonable data regardless of weather or not we participate or not ie speed air. May as well show interest/respect for the fishery and its management by doing so. Hiding info seems like steeling to me tho I do share some elements of paranoia. While no one has a complaint about the current limits I would suggest concern is legit seeing that there are no limits on the commercial sector but there is on the sports sector. This does not reflect equality at all. And some here will accuse me of being greedy but my angle is not greed but rather more of an interest of equality and future fairness. The limit is 20. And we are already happy with it but it is a limit with an adjustable number. When will it change???? In the political arena us having a limit is already that many more steps towards more restrictions. I am wondering why there is a limit on sporties if there are no limits commercially? Seems unequal. Maybe some will chime in and provide some reasons for these limitations.
Also, why would there be a limit of 20 on hum bolt squid?
Also, why would there be a limit of 20 on hum bolt squid?
Hi Birdsnest,
Thanks for your comments. With respect to the recreational limit, I can offer the following. The reason why the limit is 20, is because tuna falls under section 21 of Schedule IV of the sport fishing regs, whereby all fin fish not listed in the schedule have a daily limit of 20. I suppose that tuna wasn't on the radar when the regs were enacted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tidal Chaos
Active Member
I guess for me, 20 years ago when I was an Urchin diver in a fairly unregulated fishery that we imposed our own quotas to try and make the fishery more sustainable; we eventually started giving numbers to DFO as there was little known about the fishery and its biomass; and everyone wanted to know more; so we did work with DFO; within 5 years it got so regulated and the individual quotas got low and hard to make money; so I moved on; so I guess this is where the paranoia comes from, I still know a few guys doing it and they are only still doing it as there wasn't a lot of work for them so they stuck with it; they are making a living but nothing like back in the early 90's!
With everything else happening with TAC allocation for the rec sector; I feel it will happen with this fishery like so many others that no one knows much about; data gets collected over a number of years; trends start to show a decrease in the stocks and then there is a reduction industry wide! Unfortunately it is inevitable; especially with a highly migratory species that multiple countries have commercial fisheries taking place that are for the most part unregulated; there is an overall working group to look after the fishery in the whole; but once the numbers start showing a decrease in the biomass; who will be the ones seeing the largest reduction in there take; typically the rec sector.
This is just my opinion; and if I was asked by a creole surveyor what I had caught and released; I would tell them as I do with salmon, halibut; prawns and ling; but as for me to carry a log book; unfortunately it would be the furthest thing I would be thinking about at the end of the day after 2.5 hr run back to the beach and another 2.5 hr drive home. I do support the gathering of data if it is for the benefit of the whole fishery and it will help the rec sector in the long run, but until there is equality in the fishery as Birdie says; I still feel in the near future things will change that are not in our favour as they have in so many other fisheries!
Again my opinion; and I guess only time will tell; hopefully it isn't in the near future but as previous fisheries have seen the decline from environmental issues and over fishing; what would be protecting this fishery from the same fate as so many others? I guess as long as it remains a troll fishery it may be able to sustain the levels; but if big business gets involved will it be able to remain this way? Time will only tell!
With everything else happening with TAC allocation for the rec sector; I feel it will happen with this fishery like so many others that no one knows much about; data gets collected over a number of years; trends start to show a decrease in the stocks and then there is a reduction industry wide! Unfortunately it is inevitable; especially with a highly migratory species that multiple countries have commercial fisheries taking place that are for the most part unregulated; there is an overall working group to look after the fishery in the whole; but once the numbers start showing a decrease in the biomass; who will be the ones seeing the largest reduction in there take; typically the rec sector.
This is just my opinion; and if I was asked by a creole surveyor what I had caught and released; I would tell them as I do with salmon, halibut; prawns and ling; but as for me to carry a log book; unfortunately it would be the furthest thing I would be thinking about at the end of the day after 2.5 hr run back to the beach and another 2.5 hr drive home. I do support the gathering of data if it is for the benefit of the whole fishery and it will help the rec sector in the long run, but until there is equality in the fishery as Birdie says; I still feel in the near future things will change that are not in our favour as they have in so many other fisheries!
Again my opinion; and I guess only time will tell; hopefully it isn't in the near future but as previous fisheries have seen the decline from environmental issues and over fishing; what would be protecting this fishery from the same fate as so many others? I guess as long as it remains a troll fishery it may be able to sustain the levels; but if big business gets involved will it be able to remain this way? Time will only tell!
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I agree with your comments. Now that sport tuna is an item of interest perhaps equality between the commercial sector and the sports section should be reflected in the regulation to start on an even slate. This is not about greed it is about equality. I suspect this may not be your department but I would be interested in a response from DFO to the question but I will direct my curiosity through an appropriate avenue ie sfab bc. Thank for your participation here Jordan.
Again in this is not about whether or not a limit of 20 is enough or too little this is about equality between the two user groups. IMO.
Again in this is not about whether or not a limit of 20 is enough or too little this is about equality between the two user groups. IMO.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I guess my question would be why there was a limit of 20 put on all of those other "non interest" species in section 21 of your link when there are no commercial limits on those species?
Tuna in the Pacific Ocean is managed by two international bodies that set the management rules for the fishery. Currently, there is a limit in place on the amount of effort (vessel-days) that each country shall not increase effort beyond the average of 2002-2004 levels. For Canada, we are not surpassing these levels but if we do, we will have to implement some changes in order for us to remain compliant with that requirement. In the future (I don't see it happening anytime soon), managing by TAC is a possibility, whereby each country would be allocated a quota based on some historical catch data. This is where the rec sector would want to establish catch history, as others have mentioned, to keep their fair share. But, the last two stock assessments (2011 and 2014) have indicated that the stock is not in an over-fished level - so implementing a TAC in this fishery is not even being talked about at the international level right now. The next stock assessment is not until 2017.
For our commercial sector, we have a monitoring program that includes hails, logbooks (catch, effort, biological, bycatch, offload, etc), and VMS. Logbook compliance is at 99%, so the data that we have for the fleet is quite complete. We also use sales slips to verify the catch estimates from the logbooks. We're currently piloting an e-log program for the tuna fishery.
For our commercial sector, we have a monitoring program that includes hails, logbooks (catch, effort, biological, bycatch, offload, etc), and VMS. Logbook compliance is at 99%, so the data that we have for the fleet is quite complete. We also use sales slips to verify the catch estimates from the logbooks. We're currently piloting an e-log program for the tuna fishery.
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
Here's an idea - why don't you err on the side of caution with the commercial fleet and put some limits in place. 50 years ago we all thought there was millions of salmon and we'd have them around forever, now port alberni can't even have a chinook derby because you guys let the commercial sector mop everything up.
Very relieved to hear DFO is on top of it and protecting the resource for generations to come
Very relieved to hear DFO is on top of it and protecting the resource for generations to come
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me there are two separate issues here - collection of data and what (if anything) the government or others do with the data. In my experience, data is good regardless of of how it is used. If the data isn't available and the government decided to implement a quota, it's likely they would do so based on some estimated numbers as opposed to actual data (think of the hali/salmon flyover estimates). Then all the same guys who are kvetching about the possible misuse of this data would be kvetching about the quality of the estimates. So IMHO, the bottom line is that kvetchers need to kvetch.
saanauk
Well-Known Member
Seems crazy that there is a limit for the sport guys and not for the commercial boats. Seems backwards. Sport guys have lots of other limitations such as ice, space, weather, etc.
Gong Show
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence of any recreational tuna fisher being 'limited' by the current limit.
Jordan has indicated that the commercial fleet likewise is not currently hitting their limit.
Sure looks like equality to me.
I do not trust the out east DFO at all. They have a terrible record of broken promises to all fishing sectors.
I am totally surprised that Jordan is able to give out information on this forum. When I had a bit of an inside edge, all communications had to be approved.
In saying that you will not give accurate catch data when reasonably requested, you are rightfully seen as a problem. This is true for recreational and commercial, unfortunately not for FN.
Unreliable catch data plus the precautionary principle, keeps you on the beach.
Good catch data indicating healthy stocks, keeps you on the fish.
There is lots to criticize DFO over, this is not one.
Gong Show
edited for grammar
Jordan has indicated that the commercial fleet likewise is not currently hitting their limit.
Sure looks like equality to me.
I do not trust the out east DFO at all. They have a terrible record of broken promises to all fishing sectors.
I am totally surprised that Jordan is able to give out information on this forum. When I had a bit of an inside edge, all communications had to be approved.
In saying that you will not give accurate catch data when reasonably requested, you are rightfully seen as a problem. This is true for recreational and commercial, unfortunately not for FN.
Unreliable catch data plus the precautionary principle, keeps you on the beach.
Good catch data indicating healthy stocks, keeps you on the fish.
There is lots to criticize DFO over, this is not one.
Gong Show
edited for grammar
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ill repeat myself. This isn't about the limit it is about equality between the two sectors. If you can't get past that then you promote/accept the inequality that we are currently struggling with in other fisheries. This is how it starts. IMO. Never the less the Heath of the fishery must remain the priority and adjustments must be distributed equally. What is that going to look like when the time comes for further restrictions and we have accepted an unjustified limit for so many years prior. We get the short end of the stick is what will happen. Because once again we did nothing when we accepted inequality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gong Show
Well-Known Member
Birdsnest, I will copy and paste the response to your question found in Jordan Mah's post at the top of this page:
Currently, there is a limit in place on the amount of effort (vessel-days) that each country shall not increase effort beyond the average of 2002-2004 levels. For Canada, we are not surpassing these levels but if we do, we will have to implement some changes in order for us to remain compliant with that requirement. In the future (I don't see it happening anytime soon), managing by TAC is a possibility, whereby each country would be allocated a quota based on some historical catch data.
Currently, there is a limit in place on the amount of effort (vessel-days) that each country shall not increase effort beyond the average of 2002-2004 levels. For Canada, we are not surpassing these levels but if we do, we will have to implement some changes in order for us to remain compliant with that requirement. In the future (I don't see it happening anytime soon), managing by TAC is a possibility, whereby each country would be allocated a quota based on some historical catch data.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
My response is if the commercials are not even fishing/ meeting their allowable fishing days then why do we have restrictions. It further supports my point.
maybe one day we can purchase their remaining fishing days that they did not use. Lol wafj!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tidal Chaos
Active Member
So how many days on avg would this number be for 2002-2004 as well as the avg pcs for these seasons?
Similar threads
