Halibut TAC

If you want to use up more take then just market halibut fishing more. A whole bunch of Facebook pics during the season, advertising that you can pay for a charter with halibut meat should do the trick.
 
If you want to use up more take then just market halibut fishing more. A whole bunch of Facebook pics during the season, advertising that you can pay for a charter with halibut meat should do the trick.

Social media marketing is a good way to get the NGO/SJW on our backs, as it has for salmon.

People see "slaughter" on the web a lot more than they used to, a lot of which is through the use of social media as a free marketing campaign for guides/lodges etc. (yes, sporty's also post more than they used to).

We would probably all do better in the long-term if we tried the "fly under the radar" approach. Might lead to a few less customers in the near-term, but would likely preserve the industry as a whole.

My 2 cents anyway.
 
I was being sarcastic, the last time I seen that kind of stuff all over social media was 2017. My point is that tac can be used up very fast if 1. Fishing is good and 2. Everyone wants to go out.

That makes it tuff to predict. I’m fine with an early ending to a season or trying to bump up the max size.
 
Can anyone explain why there can’t be a carryover of untaught TAC? Apologies if this has already been covered. I’m not quite sure why or if it also happens to commercial TAC.
 
I was being sarcastic, the last time I seen that kind of stuff all over social media was 2017. My point is that tac can be used up very fast if 1. Fishing is good and 2. Everyone wants to go out.

That makes it tuff to predict. I’m fine with an early ending to a season or trying to bump up the max size.

Fair enough. Wasn't intending to take a shot at your comment, just wanted to get my point across, as I really do think that the social media presence does us a disservice.
 
Its not supposed to be easy to optimize a resource. I’m not saying make it so it’s 0 left. But do a lot better than 140k, 250k 90k. 70k etc than has been done in the past. Leave the regs the same and see 100+k left over ...who does that really hurt the most?

I don’t get the need for it to be 126 or 133. Nothing in between. Adjust it 3cm then. Optimize it. Jesus Christ.

Also I know many sfac groups this fall voted for a shortened season if it meant larger fish. Know the two I go to did anyway.

No one has time to work on Dave? The focus is shifting on to salmon. Go read the IMFP for salmon that is a way bigger priority IMHO. I say we roll regulations the same as this year, and move on. We don't have the resources right now everyone needs to focus on salmon.

The comments are fair, but I don't think it is priority right now all I am saying. Rather see our resources trying to keep our salmon season open.
 
Can anyone explain why there can’t be a carryover of untaught TAC? Apologies if this has already been covered. I’m not quite sure why or if it also happens to commercial TAC.

I am mystified by this one too. I know a perfect time to use that leftover TAC. It's called February! It still falls within the TAC for a given year (April 1 to March 31) and is a period of time when fishing pressure is low overall. I raised this at an area 19/20 SFAB meeting a couple of years ago and it was poo pooed for whatever reason...
 
He’s the deal from what I have learned, if you want something done then you have to do it yourself. Everyone has their own interests and agendas too look after.

If you don’t think your interests are being heard or being represented you can submit feedback directly to IPHC or you can also phone in and ask questions when they open for feed back to public.

Here’s the deal tho there is a real chance that we may only be looking at an August chinook fishery and that is area dependent. The fat lady is getting very close to bellowing out.

Halibut is good in comparison
 
The GFSFWG meeting is this week the day before the main board meeting.. I can say that it will be look at & we'll see what the modeling looks like.... We should know what the recommendations for what 2020 season looks like on Thursday then it will need to be voted on Friday by the main board for final approval..
 
And as the recommendations have been forwarded to the Main Board by the SFAC’s
Then they will be put into effect by the Main Board.



The GFSFWG meeting is this week the day before the main board meeting.. I can say that it will be look at & we'll see what the modeling looks like.... We should know what the recommendations for what 2020 season looks like on Thursday then it will need to be voted on Friday by the main board for final approval..
 
Can anyone explain why there can’t be a carryover of untaught TAC? Apologies if this has already been covered. I’m not quite sure why or if it also happens to commercial TAC.

Ziggy The SFAB has been working on an over / under for a few years now.
To my understanding there was approval by DFO on some form of this going into the 2019 season. If I remember correctly we would be allowed to save an early closure by going over TAC by up to 5% maybe? That would have to be paid back off the top of the next years TAC. Therefore choosing to use this option is a decision that needs much thought to assess the pro’s and con’s before Doing so.

I believe we could also carryover the same percentage into the next season If we where under by end of previous season. I think it had to be the next season and could not be banked for down the road. This one I am not sure if there was still work to be done to make it happen?

As far butt commercial sector. It is my understanding that they have been able ( for quite a few years now) to carryover up to 10% from one season to the next.

This is all based off of my memory so I may be a little off.

cheers: Ray
 
No one has time to work on Dave? The focus is shifting on to salmon. Go read the IMFP for salmon that is a way bigger priority IMHO. I say we roll regulations the same as this year, and move on. We don't have the resources right now everyone needs to focus on salmon.

The comments are fair, but I don't think it is priority right now all I am saying. Rather see our resources trying to keep our salmon season open.


Come in Jerrod. We both know it doesn’t take much to use some common sense and see a couple cm increase is better to optimize what we are given.

and if anyone thinks the calm weather didn’t affect catch rates this summer, according to those on the gfwg a couple years ago the rough weather was one of the main reasons for so much left in the water. We had the calmest season ever and left 70k in. And two huge lodges shut down as well.
Does anyone think we would catch 1300 MORE fish between 126-130cm in 2020 to make up that 70k plus however much more due to the weather savings? Come on boys. If Sfab just rolls over the regs they are not doing their job. Period. They’re taking the easy way out....

also we have an overage where we get deducted but NO underage carry over. Imagine another 70k...sure would be nice. Or 250k the following season like in 2014...
 
anyone think we would catch 1300 MORE fish between 126-130cm in 2020 to make up that 70k plus however much more due to the weather savings?

I’m sure there is some that would like to see a size increase for the 2 fish option as well. Not just the 1 fish option
 
I’m sure there is some that would like to see a size increase for the 2 fish option as well. Not just the 1 fish option

Yeah, and that is totally able to be done concurrently with the larger fish going up (ie 130/92-92)...as it is one or the other and both options have approx the same tac usage (based on this with the dfo tac tables the smaller one couldn't go up the same amount of cm's but could still go up)
 
Can anyone explain why there can’t be a carryover of untaught TAC? Apologies if this has already been covered. I’m not quite sure why or if it also happens to commercial TAC.

Ziggy The SFAB has been working on an over / under for a few years now.
To my understanding there was approval by DFO on some form of this going into the 2019 season. If I remember correctly we would be allowed to save an early closure by going over TAC by up to 5% maybe? That would have to be paid back off the top of the next years TAC. Therefore choosing to use this option is a decision that needs much thought to assess the pro’s and con’s before doing so.

I believe we could also carryover the same percentage into the next season If we where under by end previous season. I think it had to be the next season and could not be banked for down the road. This one I am not sure if there was still work to be done to make it happen?

As far butt commercial sector. It is my understanding that they have been able ( for quite a few years now) to carryover up to 10% from one season to the next.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top