Future Halibut Possession Regs

[searun]

Have to admit that I don't have much time these days for hali issues given the SRKW stuff going on. That said, we need to start preparing for the fall SFAC meetings and getting various options modelled so people can help guide the SFAB in selecting next seasons regulation from a series of complex choices. I think it comes down to defining core values by reviewing and updating the guiding principles to help guide the SFAB and reflect the kind of fishery values people want protected in the ultimate choice selected. I am concerned that we will have to make some very difficult choices in 2019, as there could be some big TAC reductions that bring about some very hard discussions around which months (not season) we will be fishing. The SFAC's need to request that DFO provide the modelling so that people can see what certain choices look like within low TAC regimes. Ask for those now, or you won't have them modelled in time for your fall SFAC.

 

[trophywife]

personal quotas of 100 lbs per licence, keep what you catch. no upgrading. take it as 4-20lbers, a 50&30... etc. and keep what you catch!! if its a chicken, you get chicken!! max size 70lbs. 1 per day/2 per trip.

 

[SpringVelocity]

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.

No wasn't aware and I think Searun answered some of your questions.

 

[SpringVelocity]

personal quotas of 100 lbs per licence, keep what you catch. no upgrading. take it as 4-20lbers, a 50&30... etc. and keep what you catch!! if its a chicken, you get chicken!! max size 70lbs. 1 per day/2 per trip.

That is interesting proposal but wonder how you would enforce.

 

[Jencourt]

personal quotas of 100 lbs per licence, keep what you catch. no upgrading. take it as 4-20lbers, a 50&30... etc. and keep what you catch!! if its a chicken, you get chicken!! max size 70lbs. 1 per day/2 per trip.

Interesting! Would that make it harder to predict wen TAC would run out? Or would it be no different than now?

At first glance( have not given it much thought) I feel like it would be hard to model. The reason I think that is this.
At this years TAC . Roughly 928k. That only allows for 9280 licensees based on 100lb cap. I know very few would hit the max, but seems it could be a stumbling block. Yes? No?

Am I looking at this right?

 

[trophywife]

cant see it being any different now. total voodoo math.
trying to put the sport back in sport fishing.
instead of lodges trying to sell a 2 halibut limit and killing overs and unders while fitting in the slot.

keep what you catch as a reg!!!, release the beauties...

 

[trophywife]

That is interesting proposal but wonder how you would enforce.

i wonder how enforcement is done now? cheaters cheat. poachers poach.

record length on licence, immediately in ink. no different really... a weight guide on liscence

 

[Jencourt]

cant see it being any different now. total voodoo math.
trying to put the sport back in sport fishing.
instead of lodges trying to sell a 2 halibut limit and killing overs and unders while fitting in the slot.

keep what you catch as a reg!!!, release the beauties...

100 percent with you on putting the sport back into it.

Guess that’s why I can’t let it go like so many would like me to.

The model issue Was just my first thought as I imagined how to get something like that through all the number guys.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, season only is July and August due to allocation?

One per day! Two in possession.
Total weight/size 140 lbs combined.
Total fish allowed 4 per year.

Thoughts?

 

[trophywife]

So, season only is July and August due to allocation?

One per day! Two in possession.
Total weight/size 140 lbs combined.
Total fish allowed 4 per year.

Thoughts?

has to have a max on the single tho, like 54" . so if a fisher bangs a 140, fisher aint killin it. or commies, or fn. until we get more tac.

 

[Last Chance]

We are looking at a 45 day supply of halibut if we are using the main season burn rate with what the IPHC is presenting us.

I do not question their math, as Halibut is about the only managed stock that is not in the toilet, changing 85/15 won't happen as our groups (SFI, SVIAC, BWF, etc) are all getting ready to defend our salmon fishery.

 

[wildmanyeah]

As I recall reading last year Canada and the USA could not agree and it reverted to the pervious years % or something. Their was some controversy


Wonder what will happen this year

Edit found it

15.1 Catch limits 127.The Commission AGREED that due to the lack of agreement on catch limits for 2018, that the status quo catch limits set for the 2017 fishing periods will apply for 2018, until such a time as the Contracting Parties apply more restrictive measures as permitted in the IPHC Convention.

“There was general agreement between Canada and the United States that we needed to reduce harvest levels in 2018 and that we should be targeting a fishing intensity at the IPHC’s reference level of SPR 46% by 2019. Canada and the United States agreed that we should take an initial step in 2018 in moving from the realized 2017 SPR level of 40% to a lower level of fishing intensity. There was not agreement though on how much to reduce fishing intensity, nor was there agreement on how the reductions should occur in each Regulatory Area.

It is clear that not all Regions have responded in the same manner to changes in fishing intensity. Since 2006 total removals in Region 2 (Regulatory Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C) declined by 46% while Region 3 removals (Areas 3A, and 3B) declined by 62%. Despite notable reductions in Region 3 removals, the Secretariat estimates that the coast-wide proportion of biomass in Region 3 has decreased by 18%. In contrast, Region 2’s proportion of biomass has increased by 15% during the same time period (Table 6A, IPHC-2018-AM094-09).

In response to the 2017 stock assessment Canada has agreed to take a significant initial step in reducing the 2018 TCEY in Area 2B from 8.3 million pounds to 7.1 million pounds. Canada is taking this step in reducing its impact on the resource primarily due a lack of recruits entering the population from a number of year classes. This lack of recruits is very concerning to Canada. Canada anticipates that further reductions of the catch limit will be required across all Regulatory Areas in 2019.

Canada is very concerned that the US will only be reducing its 2018 catch limits 7% (2.3 million pounds) from 2017 levels, while Canada intends to reduce catch limits by 15% (1.2 million pounds). Canada represents 19% of the coast-wide harvest; reductions must be more widespread.

Over the years Canada has identified a number of reasons that it has not accepted the coastwide stock distribution modelling methodology as a biologically defensible or acceptable method for defining Regulatory Area allocations. Canada notes that apportionment values have never served as the adopted catch limit in 2B (and several other regulatory areas due in large part to the lack of support from Canada and some US constituents for this methodology.;

Canada recommends that use of the current stock distribution modelling methodology for generating advice on Regulatory Area catch limits be discontinued, and that a more appropriate alternative can be found.

Canada agrees that the MSE Program of Work should deliver recommendations on alternate stock distribution strategies by the 2021 Annual Meeting.

It is proposed that, as an interim measure, reference catch limits generated by staff for Regulatory Areas be based on proportions derived from the FCEY values that the Commission has negotiated and agreed to in recent years. It is proposed to use the 2013 – 2017 period as the basis of determining interim proportions. This period is the most recent reflection of fishery dynamics and is also the point from which catch sharing plans in Alaska were established, meaning that what is included in the FCEYs agreed to during that period is stable.

This is the first year that the each Regulatory Area will be managing to a TCEY limit. As both Area 2C and 3A have substantial recreational fisheries that was not previously included in FCEY limits it may require in-season monitoring of these recreational fisheries to ensure that the total TCEY is not exceeded.

Canada’s Commissioners looks forward to working with their United States colleagues as we have done in the past to resolve this issue. It is very unfortunate that Canada and the United States were not able to agree upon TCEY catch limits for 2018. We view this as a failure in the process and hope that in the future that we will be able to reach a consensus on harvest levels as the Parties have done historically.”

 

[terrin]

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.

I agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph. Just makes common sense.

 

[wildmanyeah]

If you guys want to force the issue then as SV stated show up to your local SFAC meeting. Put the motion on the floor for a vote and force the issue. If your motion does not get seconded or passed at lest then you will know the faces of why things are they way they are.

 

[searun]

Simply another reason to make it a mandatory requirement to submit previous season sport angling license for data tabulation. Then we'll all know without question what our annual effort was on numerous recorded creel for the season.

I asked forever for this(going back 18 years). Never happened, so I quit the meetings.

We have tried to get DFO to move to electronic licensing, with full catch reporting via a phone app (Fisher App) which would provide real time catch data and improve the data we report to the IPHC...but, the main issue is the current regulations require catch to be recorded "in ink". There are hopefully some changes coming via the next update to the Fisheries act which will see removal of the "in ink" catch recording and hopefully leads to us moving into the 19th century on catch reporting. Think about the implications a full data set would provide in the management of our fisheries!

As for modelling being provided to the SFAC groups, the Main Board did pass a motion asking DFO to provide models to the SFAC groups for the fall meetings - one can only hope that it actually happens.

 

[OldBlackDog]

We have tried to get DFO to move to electronic licensing, with full catch reporting via a phone app (Fisher App) which would provide real time catch data and improve the data we report to the IPHC...but, the main issue is the current regulations require catch to be recorded "in ink". There are hopefully some changes coming via the next update to the Fisheries act which will see removal of the "in ink" catch recording and hopefully leads to us moving into the 19th century on catch reporting. Think about the implications a full data set would provide in the management of our fisheries!

As for modelling being provided to the SFAC groups, the Main Board did pass a motion asking DFO to provide models to the SFAC groups for the fall meetings - one can only hope that it actually happens.

So, the question then becomes when will DFO provide a reply to this motion?
I am sure the executive of the main board can ask for this now.

 

[chromatose007]

I will be pushing for a 1 fish possession next season, and a 133cm limit with our guide assoc.
Had to 'return' a couple of oversize and clients were none to pleased with that.
Better to make it one fish than having to 'return' oversize, with unverified results of survival.

 

[searun]

The real issue has nothing to do with electronic reporting...Commercial entities are required to report log book landings which can be reported via electronic input. The suggestion that there is a Law or portion of the Act that is blocking progression is also more bs baffle gab from DFO. In recent years with the progression and cost effective developments in AI document scanning, it is totally obtainable to tabulate pen and paper documents in today's day and age. They didn't have that option when I was asking for it and ignored. The option is real and available to the government of Canada today.

DFO is simply 100% dismayed at the thought of having to work with highly invaluable data. Sad but real.

Actually its not "bafflegab" - the Regulations require catch to be recorded "in ink" and this is what is preventing movement to electronic catch recording. There is some behind the scenes work to have that changed with the upcoming amendments to the Fisheries Act. Hard to grasp that something so trivial can hold up the government's movement away from paper to electronic reporting, but that is a fact.

 

[wildmanyeah]

any regulation that's rooted in the fishers act takes a mountain to move. IE getting parliament to amend it.

Tho i think what Stormtrooper was trying to say is that fishermen can still record it in ink on their licences but their is technology out their that could scan it and enter it into an electronic database.

Or fishermen themselves could enter it online as well as recording it in ink. IT could also be verified at the end of the year by requiring sports fishermen to submit their licences.

You could also require a irec survey to be filled out monthly.

its the government though, a sloth could Circumnavigate the glob faster then they make any changes.

 

[SpringFever552]

We are looking at a 45 day supply of halibut if we are using the main season burn rate with what the IPHC is presenting us.

I do not question their math, as Halibut is about the only managed stock that is not in the toilet, changing 85/15 won't happen as our groups (SFI, SVIAC, BWF, etc) are all getting ready to defend our salmon fishery.

Do you know if these #s being calculated on the total areas that are traditionally open as of today and in the past? with the same fishing pressure?

What I'm asking is, why only 45days? if/when next yr the "proposed KW closures" come into effect.

IMO the total sportfishing pressure on halis will be much lower on the coast as there will be huge areas that produce alot of sport TAC that will be closed..NO?..