Halibut! What do you want?

[scott craven]

Yep, draw your opponent out in the open, getting as much information as possible.
Then back him into the corner and use it all against him.
Pretty good tactics !

 

[JuandeOne]

I'd be happy with a fresh little chicken for the deep fryer...that's all.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

I'm surprised that no one has responded to Searun's assertion that we need to make this season work within the allocation given to us by DFO. With all due respect to Searun, he's been consistent in his support of the 3% reallocation as a positive step in a longer continuum of change, but I disagree wholeheartedly. A number of folks on this forum, including myself, have stated that such an insignificant change that upholds the commercial quota ownership approach and gives no short-term or long-term certainty for the rec fishery is not acceptable AT ALL. In fact, the suggestion that the rec sector take what the Harper government has given us and making it work is pretty much saying - OK, we accept that we're being screwed so lets get into position and lube up to make it less painful.

In my opinion, for the rec sector to actively engage in finding a solution that, as Searun states, "ensures there is fishing opportunity all season for all anglers" doesn't send a message to the DFO and the Conservatives that their announced "long-term solution to the halibut allocation issue" was wrong/unfair/illegal, it sends the opposite message - it makes it look like it was a reasonable and workable allocation decision. If the rec sector makes this allocation decision work in that way that Searun describes, what are the chances that the Conservatives and DFO are going to think that further changes are actually required? Consistent with that line of thinking, I'd like someone to explain to me how there is any difference in making the 85/15 allocation decision work such that there is an "acceptable" rec fishing season is any different than making the purchase of quota pilot program work? Both would support what most rec anglers see as an illegal gifting of common property to slipper skippers and unfair, non-conservation based limitations to Canadian citizens access to a common property resource. Why are some apparently in support of making the 85/15 allocation "work" but so opposed to the commercial quota purchase? Is it not in our best interest to show that the 85/15 allocation, and the whole system of quota allocation, doesn't work?!!!

I think both aspects of the current halibut management approach suck and should be treated by the rec fishing community equally. Why has there been no talk of rejecting the 3% pittance of a reallocation outright? I'd like to hear talk of a bold statement by the rec community like dumping a symbolic 3% of the halibut quota in rotting halibut at DFO offices, MP offices or parliament to show them what we think of their "long-term solution" - i.e. we don't want it, we want what we asked for in the first place - a system that doesn't gift a common property resource to commercial individuals and that allows a certainty of access and use by the Canadian public.

I'm not sure if what Searun describes is supported by the SFAB, SFI or other organized rec groups but, if it is, it certainly doesn't represent how I feel about this issue nor what I've read many on this forum state as their feelings on it either. I for one will be very pissed off if such a concession is forwarded as representing the desires of me as a rec fisher. Sorry for the length, much more than my two-cents worth.

 

[chris73]

I am pretty much with you Ukee. I am not in favour of any slot size restrictions, max size limits or further half a$$ attempts to make a XS shirt fit a full grown man. It's too little and unjust and needs to change completely. Only amendment I would agree on is a reasonable annual limit for halibut.

 

[Rum Buddies]

I'm not sure of the solution but one thing the recent 3% increase does show is that quota allocations can change, without a transfer of money. As far as I know no commercials are seeing compensation for the reduction in quota, which means they don't own it. If the government thought the commies owned their quota then they would have had to buy it from them.

So while the number is not what you want, it does prove it is possible to change the numbers. In any negotiation you never get what you're asking for, now is the time to counter and keep the pressure on for the desired percent. This is how the political system works, you need to keep lobbying until you get the result and the keep lobbying to stay put. Its never going to be one big push, get what you want then back to fishing.

To refuse it would be a horrible idea and would tell the government that you're not willing to play within the system. As f*cked up as the system is, there is a well defined game that is played in politics and you either play the game or you don't play at all.

We asked for more quota and they countered with some quote, just not enough. So we let them know its just not enough and keep pushing, hopefully get more next year. You also have to look at it from the reverse angle, they have pressure from the commies to not give us more quota. Its easier to tell the commies we gave away 3% then it is 8%. If they gave us exactly what we wanted, they'd have the commies causing a nightmare for them.


That's my take on it at least, I'll admit there's plenty of guys more informed then I am, so I could be way out to lunch on this.

 

[IronNoggin]

I think both aspects of the current halibut management approach suck and should be treated by the rec fishing community equally. Why has there been no talk of rejecting the 3% pittance of a reallocation outright? I'd like to hear talk of a bold statement by the rec community like dumping a symbolic 3% of the halibut quota in rotting halibut at DFO offices, MP offices or parliament to show them what we think of their "long-term solution" - i.e. we don't want it, we want what we asked for in the first place - a system that doesn't gift a common property resource to commercial individuals and that allows a certainty of access and use by the Canadian public.

Yes, the current halibut "management" model sucks. In all aspects.

But...

Your suggestion is rather akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Let's see if I read this right...

You suggest we reject the 3% in it's entirety. By doing so our season would certainly be extremely short this year. For everyone involved.

On one hand I will admit that particular action would get a Whole LOT of Anglers Mighty Pissed.
And if that is your intent, well... it looks like you've found the recipe for success.

On the other, working towards maximizing the potential of our fishery, while perhaps not exactly making those same Folks overly happy with the situation, would at least allow the opportunity for all of us to realize a more realistic season.

Does that suggest we "buy in" to what has been proffered? Absolutely NOT!
There is NO WAY we will ever settle on the quota purchase scheme (for that is very much what it is)!
There is also NO WAY we will ever give up the efforts towards Fair & Equitable Access. EVER!

But amongst ourselves, we have the opportunity to adapt somewhat to the current less-than-desirable situation we find ourselves in. A short-term, one-off set of conditions that are self-imposed in order to maximize our access over the course of this singular season. With the caveat that if implemented, any such condition(s) reflect our collective response to the overly onerous situation of this one particular season, and are not to be carried forward into future seasons down the road.
Risky? Perhaps. A serious amount of focus would obviously have to be on the caveat to ensure that is completely understood.

We have an opportunity here, even while under duress, to try and work towards a lengthier season. For all of us.
Do we give up the ongoing fight? Hardly!! In fact our efforts might well be enhanced by internally dealing with this problematic situation on our own. It indicates a departure from the All Or Nothing approach, and that we can to some extent, chart our own course when faced with demonstrably harmful "management" approaches. Sacrifices, however small, can and do help garner public support for our cause.

Of course there is always the other route. Intentionally set out to Enrage as many as is possible in the hope that anger can be translated into successful action. Personally, I prefer to at least attempt to keep as many as possible if not happy, at least able to enjoy their outings for as long as is possible...

"Dumping" any fish as you suggest very much gives the wrong signal IMHO. To most of us, this resource is precious. Not something to be simply & wantonly wasted in order to make a political point.

To refuse it would be a horrible idea and would tell the government that you're not willing to play within the system. As f*cked up as the system is, there is a well defined game that is played in politics and you either play the game or you don't play at all.

So we let them know its just not enough and keep pushing, hopefully get more next year.

You certainly aren't "out to lunch" in this regard Poppa. Bang - On is more like it.
Nobody besides the politicians like "The Game". Least of all myself. Never set out to become so damn involved, and gotta admit the headaches and bellyaches often make me wonder just why the hell I even am. But the current approach is an insult to me, as much so to the vast majority of those I know. When faced with injustice, we must do what we are able to counter that. And if that means playing their little game, so be it. The alternatives are very much of nightmarish proportions...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[Derby]

I'm surprised that no one has responded to Searun's assertion that we need to make this season work within the allocation given to us by DFO. With all due respect to Searun, he's been consistent in his support of the 3% reallocation as a positive step in a longer continuum of change, but I disagree wholeheartedly. A number of folks on this forum, including myself, have stated that such an insignificant change that upholds the commercial quota ownership approach and gives no short-term or long-term certainty for the rec fishery is not acceptable AT ALL. In fact, the suggestion that the rec sector take what the Harper government has given us and making it work is pretty much saying - OK, we accept that we're being screwed so lets get into position and lube up to make it less painful.

In my opinion, for the rec sector to actively engage in finding a solution that, as Searun states, "ensures there is fishing opportunity all season for all anglers" doesn't send a message to the DFO and the Conservatives that their announced "long-term solution to the halibut allocation issue" was wrong/unfair/illegal, it sends the opposite message - it makes it look like it was a reasonable and workable allocation decision. If the rec sector makes this allocation decision work in that way that Searun describes, what are the chances that the Conservatives and DFO are going to think that further changes are actually required? Consistent with that line of thinking, I'd like someone to explain to me how there is any difference in making the 85/15 allocation decision work such that there is an "acceptable" rec fishing season is any different than making the purchase of quota pilot program work? Both would support what most rec anglers see as an illegal gifting of common property to slipper skippers and unfair, non-conservation based limitations to Canadian citizens access to a common property resource. Why are some apparently in support of making the 85/15 allocation "work" but so opposed to the commercial quota purchase? Is it not in our best interest to show that the 85/15 allocation, and the whole system of quota allocation, doesn't work?!!!

I think both aspects of the current halibut management approach suck and should be treated by the rec fishing community equally. Why has there been no talk of rejecting the 3% pittance of a reallocation outright? I'd like to hear talk of a bold statement by the rec community like dumping a symbolic 3% of the halibut quota in rotting halibut at DFO offices, MP offices or parliament to show them what we think of their "long-term solution" - i.e. we don't want it, we want what we asked for in the first place - a system that doesn't gift a common property resource to commercial individuals and that allows a certainty of access and use by the Canadian public.

I'm not sure if what Searun describes is supported by the SFAB, SFI or other organized rec groups but, if it is, it certainly doesn't represent how I feel about this issue nor what I've read many on this forum state as their feelings on it either. I for one will be very pissed off if such a concession is forwarded as representing the desires of me as a rec fisher. Sorry for the length, much more than my two-cents worth.

Baby steps....one step at a time and we will get to were we want to be..... at this time we need to happy with the 3%.....and start to working on getting more.... my two bits

 

[GLG]

I think both aspects of the current halibut management approach suck and should be treated by the rec fishing community equally. Why has there been no talk of rejecting the 3% pittance of a reallocation outright? I'd like to hear talk of a bold statement by the rec community like dumping a symbolic 3% of the halibut quota in rotting halibut at DFO offices, MP offices or parliament to show them what we think of their "long-term solution" - i.e. we don't want it, we want what we asked for in the first place - a system that doesn't gift a common property resource to commercial individuals and that allows a certainty of access and use by the Canadian public.

I'm not sure if what Searun describes is supported by the SFAB, SFI or other organized rec groups but, if it is, it certainly doesn't represent how I feel about this issue nor what I've read many on this forum state as their feelings on it either. I for one will be very pissed off if such a concession is forwarded as representing the desires of me as a rec fisher. Sorry for the length, much more than my two-cents worth.

Well said and am 100% behind you.
I can assure you the many of us local guy's feel the same as you do.
3% to my MP's office would be a great gesture.
The admiral might not like it but it's only a small piece.

That said anyone is free to bring a request to their SFAC and let them decide.
Now if guides and lodges that use guide books to track the harvest decide to ask their clients to take less.
And if their clients agreed to take less.
Whole pile of "if's" on that but that might make a difference in the calculations that DFO works from.
Would have to check with SFAB to see if it would make a difference.
GLG

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Definitely some differing perspectives which always makes for interesting debate. I may be overly pessimistic but, unlike many, I don't think the Conservatives conceded anything, which is the basis for a lot of my opinion ... and here's why:

Within any type of fisheries harvest estimations there is a lot of uncertainty. Even putting aside that uncertainty if you look at the Canadian harvest reported to the IPHC over the period of record most readily available you'll see that Canada has harvested to within +/- 6% of the IPHC quota target (that's combined FN, Commercial and Rec). As the rec portion of the IPHC quota was 12%, adding 3%, or taking away 3% for that matter, is within the annual fluctuation (in fact only half of the annual fluctuation) that occurs on an annual basis. Given the pre-stated uncertainty in harvest estimates accepted by the scientific community and fisheries managers, being +/- 6% is accepted as meeting a quota target.

OK, here comes my pessimism - you'd be hard pressed to convince me that in working out their "solution" that the DFO/Conservative working group didn't quickly figure out that a 3% quota adjustment could be made that looked great (to some) on paper but would not effectively change the amount the gifted commies would harvest in a given year - i.e. even with recs harvesting 3% more, commies could harvest the same amounts, relative to the annual IPHC quota, and be within the annual +/- 6%. Thus, no hardship to the commies requiring financial concessions.

Further pessimism - I see no precedent in recent fisheries management or in the way this Harper government deals with such issues to suggest that the "continue to negotiate" approach will work. The Harper Government doesn't roll like that, they dictate how things will be. We caught them in a campaigning slip up and they were obligated to look into the issue and they still came back with an entrenched ITQ system. I really hope I'm wrong but I can't think of a single example where Harper has agreed to long term reviews and stepwise negotiations and concessions.

Anyway, Iron Noggin, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I understand and respect where you're coming from, however, I see very little reward - a possible 6-weeks extra fishing this year versus a lot of risk - showing DFO and the Gov't that the 85/15 split can be made to work thus entrenching it. I don't see the cutting off my nose to spite my face analogy by rejecting the proposal to make a point, but I may have missed something in that argument. I also continue to fail to see how accepting the 85/15 in the short term differs from accepting the purchase of quota in the short term. In fact, I think the same arguments of presenting a united front and not establishing a precedent apply equally to both.

Anyway, I'm sure that's more than enough of my opinions for most. Respectfully, UkeeDreamin

 

[Hali killer]

give your head a shake

What im saying is when you see an article in the sun written by a huge lodge owner crying poverty, it doesnt make the average (me and both my sportsfishing neighbours) angler look good.Its one big business fighting another.Thats my feelings.

 

[GLG]

What im saying is when you see an article in the sun written by a huge lodge owner crying poverty, it doesnt make the average (me and both my sportsfishing neighbours) angler look good.Its one big business fighting another.Thats my feelings.

You really need to re-read that letter because I don't see your point of view from what I read.
Sometimes we scan an article and miss the whole point.
Could that be your case on this one?
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/halibut+allocation+will+devastate+coastal+life/6203207/story.html

Thanks holmes for pointing it out...

 

[Hali killer]

"The potential for having a halibut season with bag limits reflecting a 50-per-cent decrease in what anglers can catch compared to three years ago, ending in the middle of the fishing season, has created a cloud of uncertainty that will prove devastating to B.C.'s lodges and charters over the next few months.
Our businesses are now put in the impossible situation of trying to convince tourists to come to B.C. to spend money in our coastal communities with no certainty as to whether or not they'll be able to catch a halibut.
This is already driving those tourist dollars north to Alaska which has full seasons and, in some areas, more generous bag limits."


This is what i was refering to glg.

 

[Hali killer]

It just has a big business vs big business feel to it.

 

[searun]

"The potential for having a halibut season with bag limits reflecting a 50-per-cent decrease in what anglers can catch compared to three years ago, ending in the middle of the fishing season, has created a cloud of uncertainty that will prove devastating to B.C.'s lodges and charters over the next few months.
Our businesses are now put in the impossible situation of trying to convince tourists to come to B.C. to spend money in our coastal communities with no certainty as to whether or not they'll be able to catch a halibut.
This is already driving those tourist dollars north to Alaska which has full seasons and, in some areas, more generous bag limits."


This is what i was refering to glg.

Before you shred my earlier posts, you may want to re-read and think about what I've put out there for consideration. No where did I ever suggest the current situation is fair, or that we should sit there and just take it. What I did suggest is a way for us to work together within the current situation to avoid exactly what you state in your post for this season only. But it would appear most are prepared to cut their noses off to spite themselves...and feed the Commie trolls with ammunition to fire at us to split the recreational fleet between guides and tin boat anglers...and it would appear we are falling for it. A slot limit would allow most of us to fish exactly the way we did last season. You can keep your big one. Guys going out for just one day can catch whatever size fish they want. Guys out for multiple days just have to select a small one for their second fish, which when you examine the catch data is exactly what we do catch. No real hardship there. But, I guess I'm just a commie guide out only for my own interests.

Have fun guys when the fishery closes in August. I'm done playing in a circular discussion that is going no where productive.

 

[reelfast]

while i will not step into the allocation debate, i think it is important to recognize that there is only so much resource out there. when i first moved up here along the strait, the halibut season in WA ran for about 2 months, days on and days off. this season we will get 13 days and it is all over on june 3rd. now i can point out the stupidity of WDFW and their statistical prediction techniques, but the bottom line is the resource is becoming more limited.

reduce the commercial catch? you bet and i would support any efforts on the part of the rec anglers in BC.

some time ago i also pointed out the plan alaska implemented regarding king crab. they went back and reviewed licenses and who was actually fishing. with multiple years of data, they identified the actual crabbers v. those who were selling their quotas but not fishing. they told the fishermen, '...this is your quota based on those 5 years worth of catch records, fish whenever you want within this time window but you can't land more than this...' those who were selling their quotas but not fishing had their licenses removed, no compensation. this spread the resource among those hard working fishermen, eliminated derby fishing, and cleaned up the entire industry all at the same time. it would seem to me a similar approach with regard to BC halibut would have a similar impact, cleaning out the dead wood while providing support to the hard working commercial halibut fishermen and spread the quota a lot further.

 

[GLG]

It just has a big business vs big business feel to it.

Point taken but the article as a whole stressed the impact on the local economy.
Tourism is a very important industry and most places don't have anything close to what we have.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but there was a study taken on the value of each pound of halibut.
Commercials was 6 to 8 bucks a pound
Recreational was 30 or 40 bucks a pound.
(If someone remembers the numbers please post)
You tell me who has a greater impact on the local economy.
GLG

 

[Clipper]

some time ago i also pointed out the plan alaska implemented regarding king crab. they went back and reviewed licenses and who was actually fishing. with multiple years of data, they identified the actual crabbers v. those who were selling their quotas but not fishing. they told the fishermen, '...this is your quota based on those 5 years worth of catch records, fish whenever you want within this time window but you can't land more than this...' those who were selling their quotas but not fishing had their licenses removed, no compensation. this spread the resource among those hard working fishermen, eliminated derby fishing, and cleaned up the entire industry all at the same time. it would seem to me a similar approach with regard to BC halibut would have a similar impact, cleaning out the dead wood while providing support to the hard working commercial halibut fishermen and spread the quota a lot further.

This is EXACTLY what we need to happen! How do we get there?

 

[chris73]

This is EXACTLY what we need to happen! How do we get there?

Vote some competent politicians into office for a change!

 

[Whole in the Water]

I am pretty much with you Ukee. I am not in favour of any slot size restrictions, max size limits or further half a$$ attempts to make a XS shirt fit a full grown man. It's too little and unjust and needs to change completely. Only amendment I would agree on is a reasonable annual limit for halibut.

I agree with both of you on this. We need to send the message that the 3% increase is an insult not a step in the right direction and then try to make it work.

 

[Rum Buddies]

I agree with both of you on this. We need to send the message that the 3% increase is an insult not a step in the right direction and then try to make it work.

Just gotta be careful, if you spit in their face they'll close the door and its game over. If somebody could provide a case study on the Alaska crab fishery reelfast just referenced that would be a good information to present to them.