2009 - 2010 Halibut Debate + Poll

[Governor]

Fisher69,

When there is deemed enough chinook to harvest by DFO's AABM management calculations all fisheries continue. And for the public fishery based upon the priority access system for chinook. The order is FN get their FSC requirements first, then the public fishery (sportfishing sector) next and then commercial fishermen last. So according to that system, the public fishery will close when DFO as managers of the fisheries consider the stocks are in such low abundance and do not to forget when all commercial fishing has been curtailed too.

So before there is any shutting down of the public fishery, Area G troll closed completely and no more northern troll fleet either, they would have to be closed plus there can be no retention of any chinook bycatch in any other commercial fisheries.

Ergo everyone better start shouting loud and lobbying real hard to get the hatchery system functioning at full tilt once more with an injection of our tax dollars from government. Plus press real hard to have chinook habitat restored and water guarantees for fish in rivers or no ones fishing chinook in ten to fifteen years.

That is the last I will write about chinook here as it is a halibut topic and my apologies to all for veering off course.

Gov

God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton

 

[Governor]

Fisher69,

When there is deemed enough chinook to harvest by DFO's AABM management calculations all fisheries continue. And for the public fishery based upon the priority access system for chinook. The order is FN get their FSC requirements first, then the public fishery (sportfishing sector) next and then commercial fishermen last. So according to that system, the public fishery will close when DFO as managers of the fisheries consider the stocks are in such low abundance and do not to forget when all commercial fishing has been curtailed too.

So before there is any shutting down of the public fishery, Area G troll closed completely and no more northern troll fleet either, they would have to be closed plus there can be no retention of any chinook bycatch in any other commercial fisheries.

Ergo everyone better start shouting loud and lobbying real hard to get the hatchery system functioning at full tilt once more with an injection of our tax dollars from government. Plus press real hard to have chinook habitat restored and water guarantees for fish in rivers or no ones fishing chinook in ten to fifteen years.

That is the last I will write about chinook here as it is a halibut topic and my apologies to all for veering off course.

Gov

God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton

 

[profisher]

Gov, couldn't agree more with SEP needing to ramp up again to at least past levels. Seems we always have to spend all our time fighting for next years challenges and never get to spend time trying to prevent issues coming at us farther out. I to see a steady (further) decline in opportunity in the next decade if things don't change..sad!! We can decide to get a new bridge in Victoria almost overnight but really important things drag on forever.

 

[profisher]

Gov, couldn't agree more with SEP needing to ramp up again to at least past levels. Seems we always have to spend all our time fighting for next years challenges and never get to spend time trying to prevent issues coming at us farther out. I to see a steady (further) decline in opportunity in the next decade if things don't change..sad!! We can decide to get a new bridge in Victoria almost overnight but really important things drag on forever.

 

[searun]

Hey, let's not be so hard on Reelfast. He makes valid points regarding predictive models and actual abundance of fish. A very simple summary of the data points to a declining biomass as larger age class fish exit the fishery to be replaced by smaller fish from different age classes. That means there will be less overall biomass available to catch.

So, the problem is we have an allocation model that splits the available TAC which declines or increases yearly depending on the predicted abundance.......so it is fair to say there is a conservation issue given declining biomass. The sport fishery cannot continue to expand unchecked unless there is either an increase in the actual fish abundance or a transfer of TAC to the sport fishery from the Commercial allocation. Unless we work out some mechanism to allow that transfer then the sport fishery will have to be restricted in some fashion to control the catch to stay within TAC.

I think we need to open our minds to the facts:

1) There is a declining biomass ergo a conservation issue.
2) The current allocation model is not changing - the Gov't is vested and has considerable liability if changes are made unilaterally.
3) There is currently no mechanism available to transfer quota from the TAC between user groups in a rational manner not to mention legal liabilities associated.
4) The only mechanism currently available or in use to control the recreational TAC is seasonal closures, daily catch and possession limits - thus there is a need to explore other alternatives that are fair to most anglers.

Considering the facts, we need to shift our perspective in order to find a set of solutions or be destined to Eisenstein's definition of insanity...continue doing what you are doing and expecting a different result.

Searun

 

[searun]

Hey, let's not be so hard on Reelfast. He makes valid points regarding predictive models and actual abundance of fish. A very simple summary of the data points to a declining biomass as larger age class fish exit the fishery to be replaced by smaller fish from different age classes. That means there will be less overall biomass available to catch.

So, the problem is we have an allocation model that splits the available TAC which declines or increases yearly depending on the predicted abundance.......so it is fair to say there is a conservation issue given declining biomass. The sport fishery cannot continue to expand unchecked unless there is either an increase in the actual fish abundance or a transfer of TAC to the sport fishery from the Commercial allocation. Unless we work out some mechanism to allow that transfer then the sport fishery will have to be restricted in some fashion to control the catch to stay within TAC.

I think we need to open our minds to the facts:

1) There is a declining biomass ergo a conservation issue.
2) The current allocation model is not changing - the Gov't is vested and has considerable liability if changes are made unilaterally.
3) There is currently no mechanism available to transfer quota from the TAC between user groups in a rational manner not to mention legal liabilities associated.
4) The only mechanism currently available or in use to control the recreational TAC is seasonal closures, daily catch and possession limits - thus there is a need to explore other alternatives that are fair to most anglers.

Considering the facts, we need to shift our perspective in order to find a set of solutions or be destined to Eisenstein's definition of insanity...continue doing what you are doing and expecting a different result.

Searun

 

[chris73]

Since we cannot double the biomass let's double our TAC portion to 20%. Simple. Nothing less.

 

[reelfast]

no worries searun, i just think it is critical that the sport community fully understand the bit of 'science' that has been acquired and more from a position of knowledge. unfortunately, the sport community has way too many 'ideas' and therefore remains fractured. the commercial folks have one idea, money, and stay on message pretty easily.

if the sport message is redistribution of the TAC, with some modest proposals that ramp each year, you folks might stand a chance of getting some attention. but it's going to take a single message that the entire sport community can buy into and back.

down this way, no one has succeeded in this level of organization and so the fish continue to decline while the commercial harvest rolls along each and every year.

 

[OldBlackDog]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

no worries searun, i just think it is critical that the sport community fully understand the bit of 'science' that has been acquired and more from a position of knowledge. unfortunately, the sport community has way too many 'ideas' and therefore remains fractured. the commercial folks have one idea, money, and stay on message pretty easily.

if the sport message is redistribution of the TAC, with some modest proposals that ramp each year, you folks might stand a chance of getting some attention. but it's going to take a single message that the entire sport community can buy into and back.

down this way, no one has succeeded in this level of organization and so the fish continue to decline while the commercial harvest rolls along each and every year.

You are so correct as the groups here are fighting over how and who gets the last one.
The commercial sector loves this.

Wait till the other species start to effect all and it will be the same thing.

 

[Gooey Bob]

quote:Originally posted by OldBlackDog

Completely wrong.
This has nothing to do with a conservation problem.
This is an allocation problem.

This has nothing to do with keeping large halibut, however some think it is.

This is about the Government being lobbied by a bunch of rich commercial halibut fishermen who in most cases do not even fish any more. They just sit around and sell quota that they got for free from the Government.

If all the people and groups they are involved in were to actually do something by sending letters to their MP's MLA"s a DFO in Ottawa, they might even begin to change things for the better.

The other sectors lobby every day with these people.
Sports fishermen are unable to do this why?

Thank you OBD, it appears that someone at least is grapsing the issue.

I guess I'm still a little slow but here's some basic facts that leave me a little confused with regards to tis debate:

- In 2009, the IHPC provided Canada with 7 millions lbs of halibut as its TAC. Of this, the recreational sector was allocated 918,000 lbs. If there really is some kind of "conservation issue" or "stock crash" as others suggest, then perhaps we should look at who is provided 6,082,000 lbs of that TAC, not who is provided 918,000 lbs in order to cut back for "conservation" purposes? I'll repeat myself until this message sinks in - The Canadian TAC, as provided by the IPHC is conservation based and accounts for delines in biomass. The issue the recreational sector faces is ONLY sbout a flawed domestic allocation policy that divides this TAC up in an unfair and potentially illegal manner.

- Alaska has enacted regulations that prohibit the "gifting' of fish from charter guides to their guests by prohibiting charter guides from retaining any fish on their licenses while they are engaged in charter activity. I'm not clear as to how this could work given that we don't license charter guides in Canada (another messy debate!) but it does represent a potential solution that will avoid the enactment of an unenforceable and pointless (in terms of measurable impact) annual bag limit.

- The 88\12 allocation policy is not cast in stone, is not something that can't be changed, and the government is only as 'vested' as the direction the winds of political pressure blow. If enough people make enough noise, that policy can and will change, count on it.

- As long as we are willing to accept that an 88\12 allocation policy is cast in stone and unchangeable, then it will not change. Reelfast is correct, unless the recreational sector has one mesage, and sticks to it, then we are not going to affect that change.

Here's what I suggest is a start at a message:

- The 88\12 allocation policy does not work in the interest of the 300,000 licensed anglers that make up the tidal waters recreational fishery in BC as it unduly restricts access to the resource.

- The commercial fishery does not provide the economic and social benefit to Canada in terms of annual GDP that the recreational halibut fishery does. It is a lower value use of the resource both socially and economically.

- Close to 60% of the current commercial halibut quota is owned by individuals who do not actively fish the resource. They have turned a common property resource, owned by all Canadians, in to personal and private property. By doing so, they have fetterd the Minister's discretion in allocation of this resource. This is contrary to the Fisheries act, and is illegal.

- In order to achieve its full potential, and thereby provide the maximum social and economic benefit from Halibut to the people of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries & Oceans needs to ensure that sufficient halibut are provided to the recrational fishery on an annual basis to provide for:

1. A halibut season that starts on Feb 1st each year, and closes on Dec 31st each year.

2. A daily bag limit of 2 halibut per day, and a possession limit of
3 halibut outside of a person's normal place of residence.

Its not rocket science, but some of the trolls and commercial fishermen on this forum (you know who you are, as do most of the rest of us!) would like you to think it is.

A final quote - Winston Churchill once spoke of his US Allies in a way that I hope will eventually capture DFO's management of the halibut fishery:

"The Americans always get it right, but only after thay have exhausted all other options".

Don't give up! 88\12 can, and will change!!!

Gooey









[/quote]

 

[searun]

Gooey Bob your facts (which we all agree upon) are straight out of the rationale that was advanced to the Minister directly by SFI and SFAB interests last year to no avail...here's why perhaps.

These arguments, while being sound from the sport fishing perspective, fail to account for the legal mess that would be created for the Federal Gov't if they simply changed the allocation. Unless we find a way to pilot past this issue we don't have much hope of getting Gov't to give any thought towards shifting allocation.

Gov't's must weigh the risk</u> of incurring legal liability associated with policy decisions. Haven't heard anyone suggesting other ways to deal with the legal liability issue, and in my view we can pound our chests all we want ranting at the machine in perfect unison, but all will be in vein until we deal with the core issue for the Gov't decision makers. Because we have not sought to understand why Government is unwilling to give our position a fair hearing, we are missing the simple key to success going forward.

To be ultimately successful perhaps we need to get into the heads of the decision makers and their advisors, figure out what they fear most, then position our alternative view in a way that effectively mitigates fears in the minds of decision makers.

I'm clearly not insightful enough to see how it makes sense to keep doing what we are doing.[xx(]

My earlier comments were aimed at how to deal with the current allocation and finding ways to stay within TAC yet still allow for a reasonable fishing season. While this is truly a side issue as some suggest, it is nevertheless the immediate issue facing the 2010 season and one that needs to be explored to at least allow some reasonable form of fishery. So, yes it is in the end a conservation issue because we only have a limited TAC as it stands today and we need to find a way to conserve that TAC so there is reasonable opportunity for all. We can continue living in an imaginary future world or we can work now to find ways to deal with the real world today as we know it to be.....88/12 and a declining TAC.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by searun


My earlier comments were aimed at how to deal with the current allocation and finding ways to stay within TAC yet still allow for a reasonable fishing season. While this is truly a side issue as some suggest, it is nevertheless the immediate issue facing the 2010 season and one that needs to be explored to at least allow some reasonable form of fishery. So, yes it is in the end a conservation issue because we only have a limited TAC as it stands today and we need to find a way to conserve that TAC so there is reasonable opportunity for all. We can continue living in an imaginary future world or we can work now to find ways to deal with the real world today as we know it to be.....88/12 and a declining TAC.

right on searun. with the inquirey about to happen the 88/12 is on the back burner. We need to develope ways to stay within the existing tac and lengthen the season. One of the biggest problems i see is that we need some fresh ideas and start to think outside the box. There is no guarantee the 88/12 will ever change without either govt buying some commercials out(yeah right) or we find a way to raise some cash and get it done. Again I would start with the lodges and have them start to cough up for their international clients.

 

[Derby]

A lodge is a hotel where a paying licence fisherman stays at well enjoying an angling experiece -just as a guide takes out licenced fisherman to enjoy a angling experience.A guide or a lodge doesn't catch the fish -the paying individual licenced angler.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by Derby

A lodge is a hotel where a paying licence fisherman stays at well enjoying an angling experiece -just as a guide takes out licenced fisherman to enjoy a angling experience.A guide or a lodge doesn't catch the fish -the paying individual licenced angler.

i disagree. without access to fish the lodge and charter group may as well pack it up. They have built businesses around access to fish that they got for free(sounds a little like commercial)and that has left the independant angler holding the bag while these businesses use (for free) 60% of our tac to earn a darn good living. Time to poney up.

 

[reelfast]

the last post has me confused. the TAC is 88/12, got that. but what is this lodges getting 60%, of what?

how big a lobby is the commerical fishery in B.C.? is this not the nexus of your issue as well? money to your government folks flows from those who have the most to gain/loose. does the sport fishing community have a lobbyist employed to walk the halls and hand out promised support during election times?

just curious and hoping to learn even a bit more about how things operate up your way.

 

[Gooey Bob]

quote:Originally posted by searun

Gooey Bob your facts (which we all agree upon) are straight out of the rationale that was advanced to the Minister directly by SFI and SFAB interests last year to no avail...here's why perhaps.

These arguments, while being sound from the sport fishing perspective, fail to account for the legal mess that would be created for the Federal Gov't if they simply changed the allocation. Unless we find a way to pilot past this issue we don't have much hope of getting Gov't to give any thought towards shifting allocation.


Gov't's must weigh the risk</u> of incurring legal liability associated with policy decisions. Haven't heard anyone suggesting other ways to deal with the legal liability issue, and in my view we can pound our chests all we want ranting at the machine in perfect unison, but all will be in vein until we deal with the core issue for the Gov't decision makers. Because we have not sought to understand why Government is unwilling to give our position a fair hearing, we are missing the simple key to success going forward.

To be ultimately successful perhaps we need to get into the heads of the decision makers and their advisors, figure out what they fear most, then position our alternative view in a way that effectively mitigates fears in the minds of decision makers.

I'm clearly not insightful enough to see how it makes sense to keep doing what we are doing.[xx(]

My earlier comments were aimed at how to deal with the current allocation and finding ways to stay within TAC yet still allow for a reasonable fishing season. While this is truly a side issue as some suggest, it is nevertheless the immediate issue facing the 2010 season and one that needs to be explored to at least allow some reasonable form of fishery. So, yes it is in the end a conservation issue because we only have a limited TAC as it stands today and we need to find a way to conserve that TAC so there is reasonable opportunity for all. We can continue living in an imaginary future world or we can work now to find ways to deal with the real world today as we know it to be.....88/12 and a declining TAC.

Sea Run:

I guess I'm not good at communicating, but here goes again - If there is indeed risk of a legal mess associated with the Minister making an allocation decision, and that is the reason why an allocation decision is not able to be made, then the Minister is fettered in her ability to allocate halibut. That is illegal. The commercial sector can sue DFO sall they want (they'd have to take a number though, as the line is pretty long[B)]) but the law is clear - the Minister must have an unfettered ability to allocate any species of fish in Canada. I'd further suggest that once the reality of what 88\12 is likely to mean for the future of the recreational sector, that some of the businesses associated with, and dependant on halibut in that sector may well have deep enough pockets to consider legal action of their own.

The idea that somehow we can create another layer of commercial fisheries out of lodges and charters is indeed a provocative one, but I doubt the commercial interests who are supporting that view on this forum have thought it all the way through, or have looked North to Alaska for an example of how it is likely to play out.

Consider the simple fact that in 1993, 88% of the halibut TAC for Canada was gifted to about 400 individuals for "commercial" use. 12%was provided for a public access recreational fishery. Given that, it would only make sense that if you are going to expand the commercial component of the halibut fishery with businesses that can clearly prove that they have been dependant on halibut since way before 1993, that this expansion would also need to be gifted, and would need to come from the existing commercial allocation of 88%. In this one area, it appears that fish4all has it right!It is my understanding that something like this has indeed happened in Alaska, and that the matter is before the courts. My guess is, that no matter how DFO tried to play that scenario out here, that it would also end up in the courts as well.

The other snag in this idea is how you'd account for the fish. Its easy to say "just install a camera in every boat and make it the responsibility of the quota holder" but that simply isn't practical, and is akin to telling a commercial fisherman that they'll have to change back to the model of open access derby style fisheries and just deal with it. It would be my guess that DFO hasn't even started to consider how they'd track this new type of quota in terms of catch, let alone transfers amongst quota holders. If I was a lodge owner with deep pockets, under this scenario after I'd received my gifted quota from the commercial sector, I'd be buying or leasing all of the additional quota I could get my hands on, and then screw the bag limit. Catching a halibut at my lodge would be no different than buying it at Thrifty's, so why would a bag limit be imposed on my guests? Surely no one would be suggesting that this new "commercial fishery" would have to play under the same rules as the recreational fishery, are they?

Your presumption that we are simply stuck in the world of 88\12 and therefore need to get on with dealing with it is no less imaginary that assuming that 88\12 can be changed, and frankly is exactly the type of thinkg that Ottawa based DFO types, and the commercial sector want the recreational sector to adopt. It is self defeating, and fails to recognize that unless we continue to vociferously oppose 88\12, that it will be a permanent fixture.

Management options to deal with whatever TAC the rec sector may have are not overly complicated, and no combination of them will allow for a full season IMO, even with a one per day, 2 in possession bag limit. Consider the options for management measures - one per day, two in possession is the smallest limit that can be implemented (short of zero retention)as the possession limit is a regulation that can't be legally changed wihtout going to parliament, then you have size limits which are hard to imagine being overly effective in a fishery where the average size of halibut is actually less than 12 lbs coastwide, then you have time and area closures (a shortened season). Any other suggestions?

Suggestions that we will still be able to operate within an 88\12 allocation policy, yet still retain a 'reasonable" season length are clearly based on only limited personal experience in one area. A season ending in mid August, as it is likely to be under strict appl;ication of 88\12, will be devastating in many areas and operations along the coast. Based on my experience, mid-August is peak season for many operations for both salmon and halibut. The world doesn't revolve around Juan De Fuca Strait.

Once again - 88\12 is the problem, changing that policy is the only way out. Write a letter or have a visit with your MP today. Thats what will make a difference.

Gooey

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

the last post has me confused. the TAC is 88/12, got that. but what is this lodges getting 60%, of what?

how big a lobby is the commerical fishery in B.C.? is this not the nexus of your issue as well? money to your government folks flows from those who have the most to gain/loose. does the sport fishing community have a lobbyist employed to walk the halls and hand out promised support during election times?

just curious and hoping to learn even a bit more about how things operate up your way.

At present the lodge and charter group are catching 60% of the recreational TAC

 

[Derby]

At the preasent 75% of the fishing licensed anglers that enjoy the lodge/guide industry are from BC or Alberta.Regardless of what you think of thoses industries they will jot be lumped into the commercial TAC.We sport fisher need to be lobbing as a organzed group like our commercial friends instead of finger pointing who gets what from the 12%

 

[wolf]

For one a saltwater lic is a canadien lic so if you wanted you could go to the east coast and fish as it covers ALL of CANADA it is not provincial which alot of you seem to think as you are finger pointing at anyone that comes to fish here !!!! you may want it all to yourself but get over it as its not going to happen!!!!!

All what you are saying is the same as last year and so on nothing has really changed just different people thinking they have re invented the wheel.

You wont see a change I have personally written so many letters to DFO to which point they have nicely said F... off and dont write anymore to them.

It is and always will be beyond what we discuss here on this forum they really dont care..
You can argue back and forth and carry on but it will be to no avail fighting between us doesnt help we have to be united and until that is resolved where all of us on here can play together in the sandbox then we may have a chance.


Wolf


Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com

 

[Gooey Bob]

For what its worth, I understand that most of these arguments have already been raised. I'm also not advocating a separate commercial recerational lodge quota but was actually trying to point out why it wouldn't work.

You're right Wolf, we might as well all give up, go cry in our beer, and accecpt a Feb 1st to August 1st 2010 season.

Over & out...

Gooey.