Aces
Well-Known Member
Ray...... you don't agree that the fact that the TAC for the whole coast going down the last 3 years isn't a conservation issue?
Local SFAC's need your input on Halibut
- Thread starter searun
- Start date
Ray...... you don't agree that the fact that the TAC for the whole coast going down the last 3 years isn't a conservation issue?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
It was c + r genius. Length gives weight.
That's about the equivalent of me saying I heard you caught a fish over 60lbs...therefore the fact you caught it means its dead. Every single fish over 60lbs caught is killed ever. Are we to assume Tofino lodge caught these under the experimental then?
Nice deflection though. You aren't willing to answer my questions either? One on last page and also how with same as last year how shoulder season isn't a compromise?
Last edited by a moderator:
trophywife
Crew Member
I think most sport fishers would rather have 1/1 any size and they choose wether or not to let a really big one go vs having to release until they have two flounders. As far as my relatives Saskatchewan residents go they should go east and catch a crate full of lobsters and send a few our way.
the fog ducker
Well-Known Member
I think the word conservation in its true definition could be applied here...the biomas is in a period of low abundance and the TAC has to be reduced accordingly....that is conservation. The word doesn't always have to imply that the stocks are in trouble which they are not. Both sides can use or not use the word and both are correct.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Totally get that the biomass we can pool from is reduced. I also get that the IPHC takes care of the necessary conservation by managing the overall TAC.
What I am trying to convey here is that Nothing we are doing after our TAC has been allocated provides any positive influence on fixing that. We are still forming a season around taking as much of our TAC as we can.
Sport caught average WPU is way below that of almost any size on that options sheet. At the end of the day it is a small percentage of our all ready small 15 percent that is in the BIG ( over 80lbs lets say)range anyway. Hardly measurable in amongst 4-7million lb TAC
All we are doing is manipulating numbers here. At the end of the day the numbers come out to be the same anyway (If the right choices are made). None of this dose any measurable good toward rebuilding the biomass beyond the IPHC restricting the TAC in the first place. It dose however kick the crap out of rec fishers and rec businesses by making it so heavily restricted that the enjoyment for many is being taken out of it.
All I can say is. I have spoken to as many casual sport fishers as I can. When I ask them what they think of all this ,the overwhelming majority has told me the same thing.
" You guys are making it way too complicated. If there is less fish available then lets take less fish. Just open it up, tell me how many fish I can keep and close it wen it runs out. Quit making it so complicated that it makes me not even want to go through the hassle anymore."
This is what I get almost every time I ask . And these are folks who love to fish.These are the folks we need to keep introducing fishing to the next generation as a wholesome and good form of recreation. Oh and these ever more less interested folks are the same ones we will be trying to recruit to help fight for more of the TAC when we finally get back to the actual cause of all of this.
Anyway that' s what the average Joe tells me.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbruce
Crew Member
Bang on, Ray. It strikes me that all of the permutations and gyrations around catch and size limits within the TAC relate to length of season - and frankly, as one of Ray's "average Joe" fishermen, I'm not sure I care if the season is open in the winter - I don't fish then. Crunch the numbers to give me an 8 month season ending in early October and I'll be happy. I'm really only interested in catching a few (3 - 5) moderate sized Hali (15 - 35 lb) because that's about what my family can eat in a year and what I prefer to deal with at the side of my boat.
So - guys with influence in all this - rig the numbers to accomplish the above, and this "average Joe" will be quite happy.
So - guys with influence in all this - rig the numbers to accomplish the above, and this "average Joe" will be quite happy.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Don't get so defensive! I was just reading your advertising and it never said the fish was released. Nice fish btw. Was just curious if you guys did in fact buy quota. I will never ever buy any myself.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Very true. Choice.
wolf
Well-Known Member
I for one would like to see the the first fish at 148cm.... then you dont have to worry about a 65,70,85 lber etc when you bring up that monster 120 lbs plus you know ok got to let it go you will have less mortality from "TRYING" to let a fish go I dont care if its gill hooked or not but will tell you most of them will die Especially if its gill hooked and bleeding all the way up what good is that to let a fish go thats going to die??
If it shuts done in mid sept so be it if you cannot catch 6 halibut in that time frame (march to sept) you better take up a different line of sport, as well put it simply you suck at it. That's more than enough time to get them and thats in "prime months" it only gets harder as the season goes on.
Wolf
If it shuts done in mid sept so be it if you cannot catch 6 halibut in that time frame (march to sept) you better take up a different line of sport, as well put it simply you suck at it. That's more than enough time to get them and thats in "prime months" it only gets harder as the season goes on.
Wolf
GLG
Well-Known Member
Something to think about from IPHC 2014 bluebook
Estimates of recreational removals have historically not included any estimates of mortality associated with captured and subsequently discarded halibut (Williams 2014). During 2013, estimates of recreational discards were produced for the fishery in Areas 2C and 3A (S. Meyer, ADFG; letter to the IPHC, 13 November, 2013). That analysis indicated that additional mortality on the order of 2-3% of the retained catch might be reasonable given the regulations currently in place. With no direct estimates for other regulatory areas, and little comparability among regulations currently and historically in place, it is difficult to hypothesize what magnitude of total coast wide recreational wastage might be plausible. Therefore, a simple sensitivity of adding 5% to all recreational removals in all years was conducted. This revealed that for the coast wide stock assessment there was no appreciable change in the estimated spawning biomass time-series (Fig. 13). Further evaluation into proxy estimates for each regulatory area, as well as sensitivity of harvest policy application to recreational wastage will be explored in future analyses.
And this....
Discards. Currently, very little is known about the size/age of discards for some directed fisheries. In addition, the increasing use of size restrictions in sport fishery management to more fully achieve harvest goals increases discards, but data collection programs are lacking, and implications to the IPHC harvest policy are unclear
Estimates of recreational removals have historically not included any estimates of mortality associated with captured and subsequently discarded halibut (Williams 2014). During 2013, estimates of recreational discards were produced for the fishery in Areas 2C and 3A (S. Meyer, ADFG; letter to the IPHC, 13 November, 2013). That analysis indicated that additional mortality on the order of 2-3% of the retained catch might be reasonable given the regulations currently in place. With no direct estimates for other regulatory areas, and little comparability among regulations currently and historically in place, it is difficult to hypothesize what magnitude of total coast wide recreational wastage might be plausible. Therefore, a simple sensitivity of adding 5% to all recreational removals in all years was conducted. This revealed that for the coast wide stock assessment there was no appreciable change in the estimated spawning biomass time-series (Fig. 13). Further evaluation into proxy estimates for each regulatory area, as well as sensitivity of harvest policy application to recreational wastage will be explored in future analyses.
And this....
Discards. Currently, very little is known about the size/age of discards for some directed fisheries. In addition, the increasing use of size restrictions in sport fishery management to more fully achieve harvest goals increases discards, but data collection programs are lacking, and implications to the IPHC harvest policy are unclear
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Listening to the IPHC annual meeting webinar now, just caught last bit of area 2B but they usually put it on youtube later today. A few commercial fishermen from bc (port hardy actually) were there and said it was the best fishing they have ever seen this year, so much so they put less gear down as the captain and deckhand couldn't keep up.
searun
Well-Known Member
I could live with that too, as long as we got to end of October. I don't think guys from our area are in favor of 1/1. They want as much opportunity to catch 2 fish on a trip as they can and like Bigbruce can settle for decent season length and some moderate sized fish.
Personally I do not think anyone should be able to retain a fish over that 148 cm size. They should be left alone to spawn. I have kept fish over 100 pounds before but the more I learn, the more I seriously question my past practices. As recreational fishermen we should be looking to try to conserve for the future. Buffalo hunting nearly wiped out the species, why repeat that here.
trophywife
Crew Member
agreed as long as fn and commies are forced to follow that also.. i used to keep only one over 100lb each season as my contribution to conservation. now those others get to harvest them?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
When 85% of the catch doesn't keep larger fish, that's definitely fair. IF commies had to release them Pat, I'd be 100% ok with it too, level playing field. Our drop in pot of large fish is so small, it's not fair to say conservation issue releasing large fish. To have that choice is what every angler should have and DESERVES. TBH, 50-67% of my guests would release anyway...but they still deserve the choice as does the average joe angler. If you look at the other thread it looks like 1/1 is the choice of most rec anglers who do not run charters or lodges...so far anyway.
Also, not everyone can make it out to the meetings, so to say whole area is not in favor of 1/1 may be a bit premature. For example I've talked to 9 north island resident anglers who did not attend meeting, all 9 said would prefer 1/1.
Also, not everyone can make it out to the meetings, so to say whole area is not in favor of 1/1 may be a bit premature. For example I've talked to 9 north island resident anglers who did not attend meeting, all 9 said would prefer 1/1.
Last edited by a moderator:
searun
Well-Known Member
Yes like I said I reviewed my past practices and now have serious reservations about what I used to do. Having an upper limit makes the conversation not about my preferences as a guide, rather about the rules. Easy. I think as anglers we should take the lead rather than wait for someone else to take that first step. We don't need to be pounding on those large spawners to satisfy our egos. They should be left to help rebuild our future fishery. If we continue to take on the attitude of a buffalo hunter, we seal our fate to repeat that same history IMO. Like u say Dave it is about the responsibility of choices made. Make the right one.
Similar threads
