Future Halibut Possession Regs

e-zee

Active Member
My past 3 halibut trips we've brought 6 oversize (ranging from 125cm-170cm) to the boat. We had great success removing the circle hooks with the exception of the 90lb+ fish. It wasn't hooked through the lip but deeper in the mouth so we decided to cut the leader and abandon the hook. Sure hope the new piercing doesn't bother her and she continues to eat. I fully support releasing these large breeding females however 4 of our fish were under 133cm and would have been legal last year. What proposals are on the table for next Halibut seasons possession regulations? Is there a chance we could give up the second small fish and go to 1 per day up to 133cm? I would accept an annual 4 halibut per license. Fishing is a lifestyle for me. I enjoy getting out on the water and feel good about releasing large fish (salmon and halibut). One halibut under 133cm/day is a fantastic day on the water. If that fish comes to the boat at the beginning of the day I'm happy to turn over the gear and go salmon fishing.
 
The current regulatory approach is designed to slow down the catch engine - which is measured in pounds caught not the numbers of fish retained. The larger the fish retained, the faster we use up the available pounds in TAC. Lowering the size limit, at a time when the average age of halibut is increasing (currently 13 year olds) has the effect of ensuring that there are fewer fish of legal size available to catch.

At present it would appear we are sitting on a potential underage - meaning there may be un-used rec TAC. We have to await the August catch data to see if that is in fact the case. Should we end up with more than enough TAC to take us to the end of the season with some left over, that would mean we achieved our objective of running a fishery within the TAC available to us. In other words, the regulations we chose performed exactly as modelled and we remained within our available TAC.

Next question is could we or should we look at a single fish option as opposed to a 2 fish option? I'm personally very much in favour of 1 fish 133 cm (or as large as we can) option. For many fishers we are looking for quality over quantity. The main reason for me is the biology and age demographics of the halibut population are shifting and we are seeing much older fish dominate the population. That means that there will be far fewer small fish available to catch, and if we rolled over the present regs next season you would be releasing even more fish. Thus I would like to see a single fish option as opposed to a 2 fish option.

Those options need to be discussed and assuming the majority of attendees agree, demand a single large fish option for 2019 within your local SFAC's. Find out where and when your local SFAC meetings are being held this fall and make your views known if you want to see a shift from 2 to 1. Ask to see a single fish option modelled.
 
That is a good question.
All I know is that as I recall, the IPHC told us to expect further cuts in overall TAC for the 2019 season. It is my understanding that the numbers of another 15-30% reduction could be seen.

This is a topic that needs to be brought to the foreground as I fear it will be lost in all the SRKW issues. Fall meetings are approaching. I for one feel that we need to again examine the Guiding principals and take a long look at the practicality of sticking with making a full season and second fish the priority.

ANYONE AND EVERYONE who has thoughts on the guiding principles and or suggestions as to how to regulate the season SHOULD AND NEEDS to at the very least forward those thoughts to their local SfAC chair. Better yet come to the fall meetings, be heard and ensure that your local SFAC is making recommendations that accurately represent the area anglers beliefs. This is hard to do wen no one says anything until after it is too late.

Personally, I would like to see less restrictive size limits in the spring shoulder season and if need be reduced size limits in July and Aug. The majority of tac is caught in those two months, yet our average WPUE recreationally sat at what, around 16lbs for 2017. That alone suggests an overwhelming percentage of fish caught during those, months are very small anyway. 68k fish caught at a total of 1.1m lbs rough numbers equals 16lb average size. Again rough numbers.
So how many under 16 lbs did we kill to get the average down. Also more anglers do not get the second Fish than do. Although not as simplistic as made sound, in it’s simplest terms that is how it is.

I for one do not support the notion that 11month seasons and 2 fish limits for the sake of being able to promise full coolers, should be prioritized over preserving the very unique and separate aspect of sport fishing that is Halibut fishing. In many places this priority of being able to “top up coolers” has all but ended the unique sport of Halibut fishing and has turned it into nothing more than a meat fishery and an extension of salmon fishing.

Halibut fishing is a separate aspect of our sport, therefore a somewhat separate season for less restrictive/ more traditional Halibut fishing is not that unrealistic to ask for. Also a decent spring season would not only provide an opportunity of less restrictive fishing for those who wish to actually Halibut fish, it may also generate added slower season revenue.

Before anyone jumps on the tired old “that’s not fair to those who can only get out here in the summer” excuse. Please consider this. Hunting has separate species specific seasons based on many factors. Non of them being that those who can only take holidays in July and August should be able to hunt on their holidays. To be honest I do not care if Halibut remains open in August if it comes at the same cost we have been forced to accept lately. Again a decent spring shoulder season may very well provide better opportunity as well as added revenue for those who count on it. At worst it gives back a little that has been lost by those who place high importance on the enjoyment of this unique part of fishing. While still giving all fishers the same opportunity to take part in it.

I can hear people saying that would
Drive the XRQ purchases up if the busiest months had more size restrictions. I disagree, especially if the lodges get on board with promoting spring Halibut fishing instead of using Halibut as a way to sell trips on the promise of full coolers with summer salmon guests.

If I am wrong aboutXRQ, are regions of Alaska on the right track in their understanding that most tac is taken by guided sport fishers.? Therefore putting slot restrictions on guided fish and no slot for do it yourself sport fishers ? If XRQ is going to go up anyway why not do this then. At least then wen XRQ is used it will NOT provide the wealthier fishers with the payed for privilege of being able to keep bigger fish than the blue collar family guy. Personally , I am not sure how I feel about the Alaska model as it seems divisive, and a very short jump from having rec fishers with two separate Quota’s and then fighting over the biggest piece.

If further reductions in TAC are coming, what will be asked of us next.
I have heard all kinds of ideas from different people from various levels of involvement to no involvement. Things like no anchors, no scent, even no bait have been tossed around in conversations. Nothing official, just conversations.

I will be putting forward a more detailed request to my chair that this Halibut thing gets a new look and an honest assessment of what has been driving the decisions made to date. More importantly an honest look at how it may look if we go a different route than we have been spiralling down for the last decade.

My two bits.
 
Last edited:
Edited post a little. Took a long time. Did not seem to want to save my changes from my phone.
 
That is a good question.
All I know is that as I recall, the IPHC told us to expect further cuts in overall TAC for the 2019 season. It is my understanding that the numbers of another 15-30% reduction could be seen.

This is a topic that needs to be brought to the foreground as I fear it will be lost in all the SRKW issues. Fall meetings are approaching. I for one feel that we need to again examine the Guiding principals and take a long look at the practicality of sticking with making a full season and second fish the priority.

ANYONE AND EVERYONE who has thoughts on the guiding principles and or suggestions as to how to regulate the season SHOULD AND NEEDS to at the very least forward those thoughts to their local SfAC chair. Better yet come to the fall meetings, be heard and ensure that your local SFAC is making recommendations that accurately represent the area anglers beliefs. This is hard to do wen no one says anything until after it is too late.

Personally, I would like to see less restrictive size limits in the spring shoulder season and if need be reduced size limits in July and Aug. The majority of tac is caught in those two months, yet our average WPUE recreationally sat at what, around 16lbs for 2017. That alone suggests an overwhelming percentage of fish caught during those, months are very small anyway. 68k fish caught at a total of 1.1m lbs rough numbers equals 16lb average size. Again rough numbers.
So how many under 16 lbs did we kill to get the average down. Also more anglers do not get the second Fish than do. Although not as simplistic as made sound, in it’s simplest terms that is how it is.

I for one do not support the notion that 11month seasons and 2 fish limits for the sake of being able to promise full coolers, should be prioritized over preserving the very unique and separate aspect of sport fishing that is Halibut fishing. In many places this priority of being able to “top up coolers” has all but ended the unique sport of Halibut fishing and has turned it into nothing more than a meat fishery and an extension of salmon fishing.

Halibut fishing is a separate aspect of our sport, therefore a somewhat separate season for less restrictive/ more traditional Halibut fishing is not
that unrealistic to ask for. Also a decent spring season would not only provide an oportunity of less restrictive fishing for those who wish to actually Halibut fish, it may also generate added slower season revenue.

Before anyone jumps on the tired old “that’s not fair to those who can only get out here in the summer” excuse. Please consider this. Hunting has separate species specific seasons based on many factors. Non of them being that those who can only take holidays in July and August should be able to hunt on their holidays. To be honest I do not care if Halibut remains open in August if it comes at the same cost we have been forced to accept lately. Again a decent spring shoulder season may very well provide better oportunity as well as added revenue for those who count on it. At worst it gives back a little that has been lost by those who place
High importance on the enjoyment of this unique part of fishing. While still giving all fishers the same oportunity to take part in it.

I can hear people saying that would
Drive the XRQ purchases up if the busiest months had more size restrictions. I disagree, especially if the lodges get on board with promoting spring Halibut fishing instead of using Halibut as a way to sell trips on the promise of full coolers with summer salmon guests.

If I am wrong aboutXRQ, are regions of Alaska on the right track in their understanding that most tac is taken by guided sport fishers.? Therefore putting slot restrictions on guided fish and no slot for do it yourself sport fishers ? If XRQ is going to go up anyway why not do this then. At least then wen XRQ is used it will not provide the wealthier fishers with the payed for privilege of being able to keep bigger fish than the blue collar family guy. Personally , I am not sure how I feel about the alaska model as it seems divisive, and a very short jump from having rec fishers with two separate Quota’s and then fighting over the biggest piece.

If further reductions in TAC are coming, what will be asked of us next.
I have heard all kinds of ideas from different people from various levels of involvement to no involvement. Things like no anchors, no scent, even no bait have been tossed around in conversations. Nothing official, just conversations.

I will be putting forward a more detailed request to my chair that this Halibut thing gets a new look and an honest assessment of what has been driving the decisions made to date. More importantly an honest look at how it may look if we go a different route than we have been spiralling down for the last decade.

My two bits.
Great ideas worthy of debate. Being involved in your local SFAC, bringing your ideas forward and especially asking to review and refine the Guiding Principles will be very important. At the moment the Guiding Principles remain unchanged, which in a way ties the hands of the SFAB to focus on certain options (2 fish). Having said that, the debate last year led to a realization that we needed to make a full effort to have a 1 fish option modelled, and in particular also model what reductions to TAC could look like under various options.

As you note, the IPHC did serve notice to Canada that they had grave concerns over our approach to the data - warning there would likely be a large reduction in TAC coming our way in 2019. If that does come to fruition, we may need to look at shorter seasons - and if that was necessary which months are most important? Is there benefit to moving to 1 fish? I can see under certain TAC situations Canada being forced to look at a 3 to 4 month season, or even more restrictive - looking at differential limits for Canadian residents vs non-residents. The options are limited only by our ability to think outside the box.
 
Pretty sure it took more then just the north lodges.

Anyways I will be asking my SFAC chair to ask for a 1 fish limit to be modeled.
 
Pretty sure it took more then just the north lodges.

Anyways I will be asking my SFAC chair to ask for a 1 fish limit to be modeled.

You are 100% bang on to ask for 1 fish to be modelled. Also there was broader support than just the northern lodges for retaining the 2 fish option (I was there).

Going forward, people need to be involved in the SFAB process and also need to clearly make their preferences widely known. That was clearly lacking last year - we really had NO direction for SFAC groups as to their preferences and what type of fishery they actually desired. Quality over quantity? Prepared or not to shorten the season? If we shorten the season, which months are the most important - or do we simply look at the actual catch numbers by month to determine when the majority of people catch hali (that would be June to Sept with July and August being catch leaders).

The SFAB process is significantly enhanced when people show up at meetings and provide their input, and ask great questions. The SFAC Chairs have the thankless task of guessing what their local groups actually want in the absence of good, engaged discussion at a local level.
 
Here we go lets have another halibut fight of what we get when our Chinook fishery could be closed next year.

If you intend on entering this thread and get on everyone’s case that has an opinion or a bit of forward thinking that does not align with your beliefs,like you do an all the others, don’t fricken bother.

This topic is important and needs to get the attention it deserves. It needs awareness brought to it so people have a chance to understand what is at stake and how they can be involved in shaping the way in which the next set of recommendations are arrived at.

If it has no value to you then stay away from it.

It really is that simple.
 
Last edited:
I was told by a guide who goes to the meetings that it is the northern lodges pushing for 2 in possession.

Why not then have Halibut regs by area like ALL OTHER species are regulated?
A few guides in Renfrew that i talked to were all in for the 2 possession limit, their reason when clients called to ask about booking they could tell them they were allowed 2 hally instead of one.
 
If you intend on entering this thread and get on everyone’s case that has an opinion or a bit of forward thinking that does not align with your beliefs,like you do an all the others, don’t fricken bother.

This topic is important and needs to get the attention it deserves. It needs awareness brought to it so people have a chance to understand what is at stake and how they can be involved in shaping the way in which the next set of recommendations are arrived at.

If it has no value to you then stay away from it.

It really is that simple.

It has value that is why I stepped in before we spend pages of effort with little to show for it. Its directed at you and Serengeti and not others on this page. Why should people spend their personal time involving you both when truthfully you guys will complain online like you do every year like its conspiracy to what is chosen etc. People have bigger things to work ( I.E the whale issue) at moment then trying to make you understand something you guys already know. And yet again maybe it would be wise this fall ( I know you won't) to show up to your local SFAB meeting and voice all of this, or phone your rep. You can't do this on a public forum I don't know how it to make it more clear. That is my point. You both know this.

This isn't a laughable joke on the chinook issue. If you look at the entire picture I would say that is where we need to focus right now. There could be a real possibility of areas being closed for what is being proposed, so I see us prematurely talking about halibut as just noise right now. Especially if we intend to start talking like I don't know I am not involved talk. Anyways just my thoughts.

I would really like to hear your thoughts face to face, so I would love to see you at our local SFAB meeting in the fall. We have one in Nanaimo and I would love to see you guys there.
 
Last edited:
It has value that is why I stepped in before we spend pages of effort with little to show for it. Its directed at you and Serengeti and not others on this page. Why should people spend their personal time involving you both when truthfully you guys will complain online like you do every year like its conspiracy to what is chosen etc. People have bigger things to work ( I.E the whale issue) at moment then trying to make you understand something you guys already know. And yet again maybe it would be wise this fall ( I know you won't) to show up to your local SFAB meeting and voice all of this, or phone your rep. You can't do this on a public forum I don't know how it to make it more clear. That is my point. You both know this.

This isn't a laughable joke on the chinook issue. If you look at the entire picture I would say that is where we need to focus right now. There could be a real possibility of areas being closed for what is being proposed, so I see us prematurely talking about halibut as just noise right now. Especially if we intend to start talking like I don't know I am not involved talk. Anyways just my thoughts.

I would really like to hear your thoughts face to face, so I would love to see you at our local SFAB meeting in the fall. We have one in Nanaimo and I would love to see you guys there.

First off , I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you or anyone else.
However, I will correct you on a couple false points you directed at me,about me. As well I will ask that you get your facts in order before calling me out on my actions and involvement.

1- I have not spent pages complaining. Although long winded at times, I have not always bin in agreement with the choices made regarding Halibut regs. I have always made effort to be respectful in expressing that fact .I have also made efforts to back my thoughts with alternative ideas .

2. I have been a member of my Local SFAC for a #of years. Although personal issues have kept my away from the table the last couple, I remain active in email exchanges and am in contact with my local chair often.

That said you have expressed your opinion about the priority of this topic And it’s timing. I will disagree with that and continue to welcome a discussion with anyone who has thoughts on how to address the 2019 Halibut season.
 
First off , I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you or anyone else.
However, I will correct you on a couple false points you directed at me,about me. As well I will ask that you get your facts in order before calling me out on my actions and involvement.

1- I have not spent pages complaining. Although long winded at times, I have not always bin in agreement with the choices made regarding Halibut regs. I have always made effort to be respectful in expressing that fact .I have also made efforts to back my thoughts with alternative ideas .

2. I have been a member of my Local SFAC for a #of years. Although personal issues have kept my away from the table the last couple, I remain active in email exchanges and am in contact with my local chair often.

That said you have expressed your opinion about the priority of this topic And it’s timing. I will disagree with that and continue to welcome a discussion with anyone who has thoughts on how to address the 2019 Halibut season.

I am just making you aware it is coming across as whining ( although you may not see it that way) and when you back up Serengeti every time he posts a comment to further throw rocks at the SFAB process or anyone else that helps our cause. Again just like me you are entitled to your opinion, but I would encourage you to attend the meeting this year. BTW I targeted you because I thought this statement from Serengeti was out of line . You liked it backing it up, so sorry I had to say something.

Was smart to ask for models for fall meetings this year as no time after iPhc annual meeting to get proper input

Statements like these are not helpful and only cause resentment. Also this is someone that had full opportunity to sit at the table and make a difference chose not to do it. People have time to get their comments in if they show up to the meetings.

BTW I am glad you are keeping in contact with your chair. I wish most would.
 
Last edited:
I am just making you aware it is coming across as whining ( although you may not see it that way) and when you back up Serengeti every time he posts a comment to further throw rocks at the SFAB process or anyone else that helps our cause. Again just like me you are entitled to your opinion, but I would encourage you to attend the meeting this year. BTW I targeted you because I thought this statement from Serengeti was out of line . You liked it backing it up, so sorry I had to say something.

Was smart to ask for models for fall meetings this year as no time after iPhc annual meeting to get proper input

Statements like these are not helpful and only cause resentment. Also this is someone that had full opportunity to sit at the table and make a difference chose not to do it. People have time to get their comments in if they show up to the meetings.

BTW I am glad you are keeping in contact with your chair. I wish most would.

So to swing back on to topic. I will ask you if you are aware that a request was made to have modeling available ahead of the IPHC meetings on an effort to provide more time for consultation and
Review?

If so I would think you would see that as being a good (“smart”) thing. So ya
I “like” that it was mentioned.

That said input from anglers on what they think should be included in options and direction the fishery could take is needed. Because despite the urgency of the SRK situation this will still need to be dealt with very soon.

I tossed my thoughts in the hat here. Thank you Searun for your honest input on what you feel needs considering. I hope to see more ideas . As they may provide insight to me and others that we have not yet considered.
 
Back
Top