DFO 2020 Halibut Fishery Announcement & Regs

[UkeeDreamin]

when? Because I know guided guests can catch a lot more than that

Serengeti, that’s because in Alaska charter fishing is considered a commercial class of fishing and gets its own quota ... I.e. Alaska’s quotas are split three ways: Commercial; Charter Commercial; and Recreational. As such, the Charter quota holders work with the ADFW in setting quotas and size/slot limits that fit best for each sub-area.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Serengeti, that’s because in Alaska charter fishing is considered a commercial class of fishing and gets its own quota ... I.e. Alaska’s quotas are split three ways: Commercial; Charter Commercial; and Recreational. As such, the Charter quota holders work with the ADFW in setting quotas and size/slot limits that fit best for each sub-area.

Cheers!

Ukee

Well aware buddy. Well aware.

 

[Jencourt]

Maybe Foreign fishers should have to buy quota? I don’t think guys going to a luxury lodge would be deterred much by the cost of hiring a guide. If they bought quota they would not even impact Canadian public fishers, because they’d be using commercial quota.

Agree 100%. Except lease not buy. I have brought this up a few times over the last few years. I believe the last time I was told to give my head a shake. Wen I said it at my local SFAC I was quickly met with the usual response of " That would hurt the guide and lodge businesses that depend on non resident business.". Why not< I will say it again. If there is a use for the XRQ it is for it to be a requirement for non resident anglers, and non resident anglers only. Both do it yourselfers and guided. All fish retained By non resident anglers via the XRQ are subject to the same regulations as resident recreational fishers.

The XRQ should not provide opportunity beyond what is in place for the public fishery.

 

[wolf]

Agree 100%. Except lease not buy. I have brought this up a few times over the last few years. I believe the last time I was told to give my head a shake. Wen I said it at my local SFAC I was quickly met with the usual response of " That would hurt the guide and lodge businesses that depend on non resident business.". Why not< I will say it again. If there is a use for the XRQ it is for it to be a requirement for non resident anglers, and non resident anglers only. Both do it yourselfers and guided. All fish retained By non resident anglers via the XRQ are subject to the same regulations as resident recreational fishers.

Only problem with that is Patterson wins again its really a non issue what we need is more TAC especially since the commie sector carry over more then we get every year .. simple take away more from the commercial and put it where it makes the most money " SPORT FISHING" I bet you we could have no size restrictions and still 1 per day possession of 2 if we got another 5 % or 8 % more TAC ...problem solved see how is that is..... LOL LOL
in the perfect world we would have it but not with the current Gov and the backer of the higher ups talking into the ministers ears ,,, not once in the last term have they used common sense with ANY of our fishery even with all the data and science the SFAB has brought forward and pushed by them those guys derby,searun,cut plug etc have worked hard only to be lied to and stonewalled.
my rant for the day...

 

[ziggy]

I can see where it would offend some if Pattinson made money leasing quota,but let’s look at the big picture. The government is reluctant to reassign quota from Commercial to Public fishers. They don’t want to admit they sold out when they granted quota in perpetuity to a small, special interest group in the first place. So that consistently leaves Canadian Public fishers Pitted against Canadian Commercial fishers , fighting for scraps. Been happening for years and no one is happy. Pretty much a no win, because no one will volunteer to give up their share of the pie

If however foreign fishers were required to lease from the Commercial guys, as opposed to using up our public quota, the commercial guys get their money and are happy and the public would have access to way more Canadian fish. Looking at the current numbers it appears this would free up a hell of a lot more quota than will ever be wrested from the Commercial guys.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

As of October 1 only caught just over 300,000lbs. So will be 550-580,000 lbs left in the water...if dfo doesn’t let us carry some over there should be anarchy as the sector needs all the help it can get.
Also looks like for coast of North America will be leaving about 6-7,000,000 lbs in the water. Mainly due to lack of market. Sure there will be a big push to carry that over to 2021 by both USA and Canada or at least bump up the TAC for 2021 regardless of what the reduced survey says.

IF We do get a bump up I know 1/1 any size models out to 960,000 including a 10% buffer for safety. Using hybrid could bump the one to that and the two to a larger size too. Here’s to hoping

 

[wildmanyeah]

As of October 1 only caught just over 300,000lbs. So will be 550-580,000 lbs left in the water...if dfo doesn’t let us carry some over there should be anarchy as the sector needs all the help it can get.
Also looks like for coast of North America will be leaving about 6-7,000,000 lbs in the water. Mainly due to lack of market. Sure there will be a big push to carry that over to 2021 by both USA and Canada or at least bump up the TAC for 2021 regardless of what the reduced survey says.

IF We do get a bump up I know 1/1 any size models out to 960,000 including a 10% buffer for safety. Using hybrid could bump the one to that and the two to a larger size too. Here’s to hoping

they don’t need to carry it over because if they caught less then that should show up in the set line surveys and there will be more allocation for 2021. Problem is remember in 2020 the IPHC was already robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Any fishery yield not harvested in 2020 will be included in 2021 stock assessment projections regardless of a carryover. Changes to recreational management measures in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B are a Contracting Party concern, with the IPHC Regulations currently providing a responsive vehicle for application and adherence to domestic catch sharing arrangements. Mortality limits would remain unchanged and still apply. Any changes to domestic catch sharing arrangements may be considered including carryover options recognizing mortality limits and the resulting level of fishing intensity will be set by the IPHC at the 97th Session of the IPHC Annual Meeting (AM097) in January 2021. The IPHC Secretariat is generally not in favour of rolling over unused quota from one fishing period to the next for the reasons detailed above.

 

[searun]

Yes, this was and is an issue brought before the IPHC. The IPHC staff had some difficulty responding to Canada's request and others from the US side. DFO and the Minister supported the request for a Recreational carry-over of 10%. The IPHC opted to study the problem further and deal with it later after not being able to answer questions Canada raised regarding carry-over provisions already in place in both countries for the commercial sectors. It appeared that the IPHC staff had difficulty resolving how they were both sucking and blowing at the same time. This is by no means a closed discussion, even though the IPHC staff would like for that to be the case.

https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/sps/ss08/iphc-2020-ss08-propa2.pdf

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Yes, this was and is an issue brought before the IPHC. The IPHC staff had some difficulty responding to Canada's request and others from the US side. DFO and the Minister supported the request for a Recreational carry-over of 10%. The IPHC opted to study the problem further and deal with it later after not being able to answer questions Canada raised regarding carry-over provisions already in place in both countries for the commercial sectors. It appeared that the IPHC staff had difficulty resolving how they were both sucking and blowing at the same time. This is by no means a closed discussion, even though the IPHC staff would like for that to be the case.

https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/sps/ss08/iphc-2020-ss08-propa2.pdf

isn’t dfo the one who makes last call on it? If they supported then great sign ?

and if reading right thr 7,000,000 lbs would be added to 2021 Coastwide tac?

 

[wolf]

isn’t dfo the one who makes last call on it? If they supported then great sign ?

Your asking the federal gov to use common sense ... are you mad??? LOL LOL

As searun said it has been brought up I brought it up over 12 years ago and I got "we will look into it"
unless there is some head bureaucrat's let go at the top (which it wont) as they are in bed with certain user groups us sport fishermen are always gonna get shafted as we are low hanging fruit and easy to pick off...

 

[trophywife]

Maybe they buy quota.

i think the lodges pre bought quota, then offer it to guests and mark it up.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

they don’t need to carry it over because if they caught less then that should show up in the set line surveys and there will be more allocation for 2021. Problem is remember in 2020 the IPHC was already robbing Peter to pay Paul.

my understanding is the set line surveys were drastically reduced this year due to covid. So tough to paint a good picture with them

 

[wildmanyeah]

my understanding is the set line surveys were drastically reduced this year due to covid. So tough to paint a good picture with them

I think what's more import is the year class abundance out there and they will probably get enough data on that. AS you recall from IPHC meetings held this year is there are hoping/betting that some of the younger year classes coming up are more abundant. So the setline surveys probably won't impact that. No improvements were expected till 2022. I don't expect our TAC to be much different next year but IMO i think its possible we can still be dealing with covid next summer so perhaps we should be more Liberal with the size we can keep.

.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Wildman, you do realize that BC’s rec surplus is a fraction (albeit a large fraction this year) of the rec allocation, which is a fraction (15%) of BC’s harvest allocation, which is set by the IPHC in the 16-20% of biomass range .... so it’s equivalent to about a percentage point. Given the inherent inaccuracies of harvest and stock assessments, a percentage point or two is far less than the estimation error and thus is HIGHLY unlikely to have any impact on the next abundance estimate, or resulting TAC.

In other words, far more likely to see future Rec TAC benefits by fighting for carry over provisions than hoping abundance estimates will dramatically rise due to sport fishing harvest reduction in a single year.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[wildmanyeah]

Wildman, you do realize that BC’s rec surplus is a fraction (albeit a large fraction this year) of the rec allocation, which is a fraction (15%) of BC’s harvest allocation, which is set by the IPHC in the 16-20% of biomass range .... so it’s equivalent to about a percentage point. Given the inherent inaccuracies of harvest and stock assessments, a percentage point or two is far less than the estimation error and thus is HIGHLY unlikely to have any impact on the next abundance estimate, or resulting TAC.

In other words, far more likely to see future Rec TAC benefits by fighting for carry over provisions than hoping abundance estimates will dramatically rise due to sport fishing harvest reduction in a single year.

Cheers!

Ukee

Yes that’s not what I was implying, your kinda mixing a few different topics/ my responses together

going to the IPHC for carry over when dfo could simply increase rec limits is really the issue.

carry over would be the best option for us because dfo can’t get their **** togeather.

going to the IPHC and asking for carry over vet is really a symptom of dfo not being to get it’s shot togeather and not giving a crap about the rec fishery.

my comments about set line survey showing abundance is echoing a response gave by IPHC about this being a contracting party issue not an IPHC one. You are right this would screw us over because we get a fraction of a fraction.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Wildman, you do realize that BC’s rec surplus is a fraction (albeit a large fraction this year) of the rec allocation, which is a fraction (15%) of BC’s harvest allocation, which is set by the IPHC in the 16-20% of biomass range .... so it’s equivalent to about a percentage point. Given the inherent inaccuracies of harvest and stock assessments, a percentage point or two is far less than the estimation error and thus is HIGHLY unlikely to have any impact on the next abundance estimate, or resulting TAC.

In other words, far more likely to see future Rec TAC benefits by fighting for carry over provisions than hoping abundance estimates will dramatically rise due to sport fishing harvest reduction in a single year.

Cheers!

Ukee

I think the thing that would help us most is on the coast as a whole ( 2A 2B 2 C 3A 3 B etc) we are on pace to leave 6-7,000,000 lbs of halibut in the water. Which could help for increasing overall TAC for 2021 for each area .... which in turn helps Rec sector on top of hopefully carrying over.

and if dealing with covid in 2021 pretty apparent we can go 1/2 any size on both !

 

[SerengetiGuide]

So minister was or wasn’t inclined for carry over

 

[searun]

So minister was or wasn’t inclined for carry over

I think I stated in my post that both the Minister and DFO supported and advanced the request for Canada's recreational TAC carry-over. Canada is regrouping - time will tell how this is resolved at the IPHC.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

That's good....as far as I know it is the Minister's decision not IPHC's no? I Might be wrong on that one.