Has anyone been in contact with the SFAB? I am just wondering if this was the only option on the table.
I like the idea of limiting size. I don't like the idea of buying Quota. I think we need to educate people on the
pros and cons of keeping large halibut. I like to catch big fish, we can release them without too much harm. (my opinion)
This size limitation is not about protecting big fish though, it is just a suggested way to keep us within our 15 percent.
Getting a bigger share within the TAC will be tough but worth the fight. Till then we will have to protect what we have left.
Problem Wtih that:
Rec Fishermen only catch %15 of the Canadian Quota, which is agreed on by the IPHC Biologists. It is their mandate to conserve halibut. If they thought for a minute that letting the big ones go was a practical conservation measure, they would have mandated that as a recommendation. Fact is, it is not. The sport fleet catches such an insignifigant number of these animals, it would be akin to putting out a forest fire with a one gallon bucket.
If the government is going to cause hardship, it had better have a real, tangible effect. That's why we no longer have Air Care in most of the province, great idea, but was not making a difference. Same with the Gun Registry, looked good on paper, did not prevent a single gun crime. Same with several other "feel good" mandated programs in the past. Why bother if they don't work? And to spend all the money printing halibut packaging instructions, training officers, and having the officers swarm the docks like they id last year, just lease the extra 80,000 pounds of quota and leave the fish cops to patrol the water where the real problem lies. 80,000 pounds can be leased for 480 grand. Probably a little less if done in bulk. Fish cops, by the time you pay them, the milage, the hotel stays, I bet you can't get 4 of them for that price. With all the time they spent on the docks, who was filling the gaps patrolling the water? So why not put the resources to work ensuring the resource is being used to it's full potential, rather then having the recreational regulations match the tax code in terms of complexity. Besides, they (the federal government) wre the ones who gave it away, so why not have them pay for the common property resource?
If the commercial fleet had to throw back the big ones, at the reccommendation of the IPHC who in my opinion do a great job of managing the fishery, then I would have a better time dealing with this.
Why not have the commercial fisherman release the big ones? They are the ones with the training to deal with big fish, they have video monitoring so they can release the big fish safely and be accountable for the safety of the fish, last, but not least, a commercial boat more then likeley is a safer platform to discard a 200 pound angry animal from.
What everyone forgets is that the spotlight is on the smallest harvester of the resource, not the largest. Logic dictates where to point size restrictions. And are smaller halibut not considered btter table fare? How about a MINIMUM size limit for the rec sector of 30 inches? I bet that would lerave a lot more animals in water. Except that most lodges on the coast are in places where small halibut are the norm, but one has to ask, what is worse? Killing one 100 pound animal, or 20 10 pounders?