Halibut Quota Taboo Subject on SFBC?

[Joe]

Hi 007 .. it was agreed by all the SFAC/SFAB's that we would have one rule for all of BC. Another thing that was agreed to was that we had a full season. These two principles do drive the way we make decisions on what the rules are.

I'm not certain that the final projected amount harvested is what has been mentioned in this thread as I may not have the same data as what Ukee posted. I also don't know what the released mortality that we will need to add to that harvest amount. (Not sure if that will need to be accounted for as I don't know if that was agreed to this year) Regardless ... if you think about it, with the TAC at 1.1 million and 100 thousand left on the TAC at the end of the year that is around 9%. Add in mortality then we are in not that bad a shape. Would I like to see the number around 5%? Sure why not... except that brings us close to going over if for some reason there is more pressure on halibut then we projected at the beginning of the season. One thing I can tell everyone is........ we do not want to go over our TAC...... as this would be a huge tactical mistake.

Perhaps someone that was on the Halibut WG calls could post better info then I have.

Gil, Are you still the chair for the area 14 SFAC? If not, that would make sense. If you are how are you so out of the loop? Just curious. No ill intent. I get life gets busy and there are a lot more useful things and fun things to do with your life then the sfac.

One question I do have is why would going over be a huge tactical mistake? How are we ever going to get more TAC if we leave 100's of thousands of lbs in the ocean every year? Every year the SFAB celebrates like its a huge win that we stayed under our TAC. why?

 

[bigbruce]

Funny, by my math, ONE hundred thousand isn't 100's of thousands. I must have missed SFAB' cake and balloon celebrations for coming within 10% of allocation. What I see is a bunch of volunteers scratching against a very large bureaucracy that does not seem to be very favourably disposed to recreational fishers. I applaud the efforts of these volunteers.
Joe - why don't you try to answer your own question - what would you think the impact of going over the allowable catch might be? I would be surprised if the answer was - "gee guys, you exceeded your limit - I guess we better give you more."

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi 007 .. it was agreed by all the SFAC/SFAB's that we would have one rule for all of BC. Another thing that was agreed to was that we had a full season. These two principles do drive the way we make decisions on what the rules are.

I'm not certain that the final projected amount harvested is what has been mentioned in this thread as I may not have the same data as what Ukee posted. I also don't know what the released mortality that we will need to add to that harvest amount. (Not sure if that will need to be accounted for as I don't know if that was agreed to this year) Regardless ... if you think about it, with the TAC at 1.1 million and 100 thousand left on the TAC at the end of the year that is around 9%. Add in mortality then we are in not that bad a shape. Would I like to see the number around 5%? Sure why not... except that brings us close to going over if for some reason there is more pressure on halibut then we projected at the beginning of the season. One thing I can tell everyone is........ we do not want to go over our TAC...... as this would be a huge tactical mistake.

Perhaps someone that was on the Halibut WG calls could post better info then I have.

GLG, if I am not mistaken, the new catch and release mortality is taken off the quota prior to the season. If I find the reference I'll share it.

Also I would offer that it is a matter of opinion how significant 10% left over each year is as well as how significant, tactically speaking, going over our sectors allocation would be. From my perspective, I see the tactics used by the other two key sectors - FN's and commercial and it certainly isn't precautionary as a primary principle, I'd characterize it as fight hard for what you feel is rightfully yours. I would offer that to date those sectors are typically a lot more successful in swaying DFO than ours.

Regardless, 10% left over again this year and a significant trend of left over quota for four years running leads me to form the opinion that a surprise surge in effort/success is unlikely and not supported by the catch data or license number trends - i.e neither is changing significantly. I would think there is at least enough flexibility with 10% to entertain adjustments and/or propose some true rec fishing "experiments" in some select PFMA's - apply each of the regs on their own to see which truly affect harvest rate. Also, the long-term data shows that 70-80% of harvest occurs June through August, as such there would be very little risk with 10% to work with outside of those months to test alternate approaches or to collect real data on the existing approaches.

Found the reference, "wastage" is removed off the top as you can see in Table 1 of this report:

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_01_Area2B_IPHCSummaryReport_2015_v2_2.pdf

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[Admin]

We don't usually take the extraordinary step of making a banning public knowledge. However, the above comments directed at GLG by Joe, despite clear direction from us to keep the pot stirring and personal comments directed at volunteers out of posts, have lead us to the point where it is necessary to hammer home the point that this will not be tolerated. We worked hard to clean up this disrespectful nonsense over the past few years and we are not going back. As I stated in an earlier post, you don't have to participate in this forum if you don't like our posting guidelines, but we will be vigilant in keeping this a respectful place to share information about fishing in BC.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Funny, by my math, ONE hundred thousand isn't 100's of thousands. I must have missed SFAB' cake and balloon celebrations for coming within 10% of allocation. What I see is a bunch of volunteers scratching against a very large bureaucracy that does not seem to be very favourably disposed to recreational fishers. I applaud the efforts of these volunteers.
Joe - why don't you try to answer your own question - what would you think the impact of going over the allowable catch might be? I would be surprised if the answer was - "gee guys, you exceeded your limit - I guess we better give you more."

What's not funny Bigbruce is the fact that such a response is not uncommon for DFO. Perfect example is how the US always, and when I say always I mean you can set your watch by it, goes over their allowable Fraser River sockeye take and without a single exception DFO always forgives the overage at the PST meetings when setting allocation for the following year.

More applicable to the halibut issue is the fact that fishery managers know that their harvest extrapolations are just that, they are extrapolations and carry with them a high degree of uncertainty and error. As such, being 10% over is not a lot different statistically than being 10% under and thus when managing close to a quota you would expect some years to go slightly over and some years to be slightly under. What we are seeing is a trend where we are always consistently under, which strongly suggests that harvest could be increased to get into the zone where over multiple years the underage and overage are within an acceptable range and balance out.

The other key consideration is that, even with a conservative approach where the majority of sport fishers support a highly risk averse approach that always ensures we're under quota, a coast-wide "one size fits all" approach is highly unlikely to maximize the rec fishing benefits knowing the diversity of our areas, differing wants/needs, etc.

All points to ponder.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[bigdogeh]

what I foresee happening in the future is a "use it or lose it..." in regard to halibut quota. the commercial and/or first nations will end up getting more and we'll get less because we aren't using it. I think it would be more strategic to try to get as close as possible to what has been allocated to us. and if anything we should be fighting for more as we put more money into the government coffers than the other 2 sectors combined. in business if you aren't using your budget, you will often have less budget to work with years later. why? because you've shown you don't need as much and can do with less.
our sector seems to be the one that continuously seems to be okay with less each year...
just my opinion anyways.

 

[vic-tory]

That's exactly right bigdog and exactly what will happen. We have left over 600,000 lbs of halibut in the water in only four years. To think that DFO would not allow even up to 50,000 lbs overage to go and allow the season to stay open is just plain silly. Of course they would, look at the other sectors. Sad thing is we are shooting ourselves in the foot in this regard, only sector to do so. Hopefully after 4 years of underages, three of which were significant, the philosophy we are taking with this changes as it has proven to not work in getting us more of the pie. This does deserve it's own thread though and a little off topic from thread original topic.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Victory, Getting us or North Island? I admit the system isn't perfect but there is no way you are going to get huge halibut and then tell other areas they must close just because your season is over.

I do agree if we are under maybe we need to look at the rules a bit, but I just can't see you getting big breeders like you use to under current allocation.

If you want that there needs to be more allocation and that needs a payed lobbyist that we must all fund to sit in Ottawa. So far we just don't have that, and I can't see it ever happening unless anglers fund it.

 

[gungadin]

Let me start by confessing, my ignorance on the halibut fishery. I have never caught a halibut, however, l do not understand how the dfo knows how much have been caught or how much we have left. Any halibut that are caught are required to be entered onto your licence, not size, just quantity. How does dfo know what is going on? Not every boat or fisherpersons licence is checked, and when you are stopped, ( at least in my case) it is just a cursory inspection, with no data recorded.
It would seem to me that it is just guess work, and as such any data could easily be "fudged" in whatever direction the analyst (dfo) choses.
There has to be a more accurate analysis, unless I am missing something. I am old enough to remember the zip lock ties for Chinook, that you were required to purchase and use back then. Was it the 80's? Would a system like that work?. Buy a tag for a dollar, with the requirement, that you have to inform dfo when it is used with size of catch, by email?,
From what I understand, commrrcial fishers actually have cameras on board and are required to record every fish retained.

 

[scott craven]

It would seem to me that it is just guess work, and as such any data could easily be "fudged" in whatever direction the analyst (dfo) choses

Creel census is the only real data as they don't require sport licenses to be submitted for analysis.
which would make more sense

 

[Clint r]

Victory, Getting us or North Island? I admit the system isn't perfect but there is no way you are going to get huge halibut and then tell other areas they must close just because your season is over.

I do agree if we are under maybe we need to look at the rules a bit, but I just can't see you getting big breeders like you use to under current allocation.

If you want that there needs to be more allocation and that needs a payed lobbyist that we must all fund to sit in Ottawa. So far we just don't have that, and I can't see it ever happening unless anglers fund it.

Someone was kind enough to explain the TAC system to me in the deleted thread. The reason we let the big ones go is that we would quickly reach our TAC quota. Resulting in a shortened season. The fact that they are "breeders" doesn't really matter. If it did commercial fisherman would be under the same size regs. As it stands today we release the big mommas and they get to keep them. Sure would like to see some standardization across the sectors.

 

[Degree of Freedom]

We don't usually take the extraordinary step of making a banning public knowledge. However, the above comments directed at GLG by Joe, despite clear direction from us to keep the pot stirring and personal comments directed at volunteers out of posts, have lead us to the point where it is necessary to hammer home the point that this will not be tolerated. We worked hard to clean up this disrespectful nonsense over the past few years and we are not going back. As I stated in an earlier post, you don't have to participate in this forum if you don't like our posting guidelines, but we will be vigilant in keeping this a respectful place to share information about fishing in BC.

This is my first post in many many months, and likely my last. I totally agree with your policy of keeping it clean on here, but you do not apply this policy to all members. This is what drove me away from this forum originally and what will keep me away permanently.

 

[GLG]

GLG, if I am not mistaken, the new catch and release mortality is taken off the quota prior to the season. If I find the reference I'll share it.



Found the reference, "wastage" is removed off the top as you can see in Table 1 of this report:

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_01_Area2B_IPHCSummaryReport_2015_v2_2.pdf

Cheers!

Ukee

Hi Ukee, thanks for the link but I don't think that amount is the mortality that I was talking about. Like I said, I was not on the halibut WG conference calls so I don't know what happened there. I do know that it was an issue that was brought up here last year and we will have to deal with it at some point. Maybe someone that knows more then I do can address this. Here is a link if others wish to read up on some of this.
http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_02_Area2B_2015SportHalibutCatchReport_IPHC.pdf

When reading that PDF note that the logbook is where we get most of the data then creel survey. What is new is iRec, this will impact the numbers going forward and I'm not sure what that will be. I would also point out that the SFAB folks that work on all this are top notch and they have my confidence. That confidence was earned from many conversation and also working with the folks on other issues that represent our rec sector. I would also like to point out that Halibut is the only resource that DFO gives us a chance to say what the rules are. That's something that we need to consider when we look at the the long term benefits to our decisions.

I'm not here to be the official rep from SFAB on halibut but I do know that we have the right people working on this and I trust them.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi GLG, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about how/when release mortality is accounted for. Those in the know that I've talked to confirmed that "wastage" is release mortality and it is taken off prior to the season opening and the announced quota is what we get to harvest, thus it does not have to be rationalized end of season.

Regarding confidence in the reps and the process, the fact that key issues like the "possession slot experiment" hasn't been address by that group gives me serious doubt. As we all know, it never was an experiment and we've been stuck with it since. There's also the fact the model in use is known not to reflect our fishery as it applies the possession slot to 50% of modelled harvest when all the SFAB reps, being anglers and guides, should know that is ridiculous as it wouldn't be more than 1 in 10 and more likely less than 1 in 20. Knowing this, why aren't there Q's in the creel surveys, IREC or log book requirements to collect this data to find the real number? Why aren't they looking at opportunities to fine tune regs by PFMA as an opportunity to maximize the fishery and meet local fishing desires? To be fair, perhaps they are and we just don't know about it. Sure would be nice if there was info sharing. SFI comes on this site and other social media to share what they've been up to, not sure why SFAB does not?

I've seen a great job from our Cdn team at the IPHC for the last several years but we've been stuck in a rut when it comes to halibut regs and in particular data collection to support the regs. Given the 4th straight year significantly under quota it sure would be great to see some developments in one or more of those areas.

Finally, as some of us who frequent the IFish forums will know, Oregon DFW has posted their halibut data and management options on their web site and opened their public survey for input by all sport fishers. That will be followed by processing the input, formulating options then holding a round of meetings open to the public and web-supported to allow a second round of open public input. The work by our SFAB/C volunteers is admirable, there is no denying that, however as the SFAC/B process engages less than a fraction of 1% of all recreational license holders, it simply can't accurately represent the sector despite their efforts. Also, with such a limited engagement, there is little to no chance of harnessing the rec sectors $'s and political influence, something many on here often refer to as critical for the rec sector to have a more effective voice. I fully agree with that. Again, just my opinion, but as the SFAB/C participation numbers have been less than a percentage point for a long, long time is it not time to try a new approach? We are in the internet and social media age, past time to start harnessing it. Mr. Trudeau is all about open engagement and public participation. I for one will be using the public engagement on the Fisheries Act changes review to challenge the Trudeau government to modernize their public engagement process as our neighbours to the South have done.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[fogged in]

Finally, as some of us who frequent the IFish forums will know, Oregon DFW has posted their halibut data and management options on their web site and opened their public survey for input by all sport fishers. That will be followed by processing the input, formulating options then holding a round of meetings open to the public and web-supported to allow a second round of open public input.
Ukee

From what I see, Sport Fishing of Halibut in Oregon and Washington state has been closed down since June for Oregon and May for Juan de Fuca after a VERY short season...please correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/finfish/halibut/seasonmaps/2016_hbt_map.pdf
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/halibut/pugetsound.html
They may have a great process, and there are no doubt good reasons for the severe restrictions, but personally I can live with our present restrictions.
And yes...more quota would be a boon to those looking for trophy fish...but again personally I don't want anything over 40 pounds anyway.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

From what I see, Sport Fishing of Halibut in Oregon and Washington state has been closed down since June for Oregon and May for Juan de Fuca after a VERY short season...please correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/finfish/halibut/seasonmaps/2016_hbt_map.pdf
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/halibut/pugetsound.html
They may have a great process, and there are no doubt good reasons for the severe restrictions, but personally I can live with our present restrictions.
And yes...more quota would be a boon to those looking for trophy fish...but again personally I don't want anything over 40 pounds anyway.

Area 2A, which covers all of the Washington, Oregon and California coast, got 460,000 lbs of rec quota in 2016 (vs 650,000 lbs commercial quota in 2A, not a bad split, eh?!!!). If I'm not mistaken both Oregon and Washington each sell more than 10-times the saltwater licenses that BC does, not sure about California. To divvy up the small allocation (halibut abundance is smaller the further south from Alaska you get) they have rotating openings between mgmt areas (3 Wa, 1 Columbia Wa/Or, 2 Or & 1 Ca) as well as all depth and depth restricted fisheries throughout the season, as directed by the input from their public surveys and meetings. Example of less than half our quota for a user group 20+ times the size of ours ensuring a mix of seasonal openings, nearshore and offshore opportunities, etc. Small quota with large user group is less than ideal but not unrealistic for BC in the future. I like that everybody gets a chance to participate in the decision making!

Here's a link to summary info:

http://www.iphc.int/sport/183-2a-sport-glance.html

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[Cuba Libre]

You make some interesting points Ukee. But I have to ask, have you stepped forward to work on behalf of the salt rec sector?

 

[fogged in]

Area 2A, which covers all of the Washington, Oregon and California coast, got 460,000 lbs of rec quota in 2016 (vs 650,000 lbs commercial quota in 2A, not a bad split, eh?!!!). If I'm not mistaken both Oregon and Washington each sell more than 10-times the saltwater licenses that BC does, not sure about California. To divvy up the small allocation (halibut abundance is smaller the further south from Alaska you get) they have rotating openings between mgmt areas (3 Wa, 1 Columbia Wa/Or, 2 Or & 1 Ca) as well as all depth and depth restricted fisheries throughout the season, as directed by the input from their public surveys and meetings. Example of less than half our quota for a user group 20+ times the size of ours ensuring a mix of seasonal openings, nearshore and offshore opportunities, etc. Small quota with large user group is less than ideal but not unrealistic for BC in the future. I like that everybody gets a chance to participate in the decision making!
Here's a link to summary info:
http://www.iphc.int/sport/183-2a-sport-glance.html
Cheers!
Ukee

Could the USA quota split have something to do with the number of Saltwater licenses being sold AND that most of the commercial caught USA halibut are caught in Alaska?
Certainly more quota for the Sport Fishery in BC is the way to go...but what is the best way to get there?

 

[UkeeDreamin]

You make some interesting points Ukee. But I have to ask, have you stepped forward to work on behalf of the salt rec sector?

Hi CL, if you are referring to stepping fwd via the SFAB/C, the answer is no. I have participated via that route in the past but, like many, got frustrated with the lack of open info sharing, lack of advertising of meetings, meetings held mid-week and mid-day, the lack of interest of the local SFAC to engage in coast wide issues - as though anglers don't travel to take advantage of our amazing fisheries resource and, from my personal experience, the old boys fish and game club mentality. Here in the Interior of BC I don't think the SFAC has had more than 8 participants in many years so that route just isn't representative of the rec community.

Outside of that route I am an active letter writer to the various Fisheries Ministers we've had over the last few years with a particular focus on advocating for modernizing the rec sector engagement as well as on one off issues, such as the grossly mismanaged Fraser River salmon fishery this summer. I also keep myself well informed about the issues and fisheries I'm passionate about.

How about you?

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[vic-tory]

Stop leaving hundreds of thousands of pounds in the water is a start fogged in. If it was our plan all along to take ultra ultra conservative approach should of tried to allow carry over. Wouldnt have a size limit with all the carry over. Think this years quota issues along with the past is a separate thread however