2010 Halibut Catch Recommendations
- Thread starter Cuba Libre
- Start date
good job commissioners. It's clearly more positive to start the 2010 season with an approved poundage of only 16,500 lbs less than last year as opposed to potentially 128,000 lbs less, which was the case after the first announcement of the IPHC about 2010. The Canadian delegation and commissioners between them have obviously done well.
But ... rumour has it that the Canadian delegation's position was weakened by the commercial commissioner who apparently supports the IPHC unwaiveringly even above the interests of Canada. Plus we went in with one vote less than usual due to the ill health of the DFO commissioner.
Is this correct? Don't believe there is any official confirmation that a) the uncaught halibut from 2009 (approx 27k lbs) can be transfered to 2010 and b) to my knowledge there has been no confirmation publicly from the halibut escrow funds manager of exactly what the balance available for 2010 is.
I'd be interested to know where you get your numbers from?
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
I haven't been watching this topic for awhile so this goes back a few pages. To fish4all; My clients enjoy catching fish and taking them home just as anyone else does. The difference is raping the ocean in my definition is filling the boat and barely making it back to dock with gunnels awash...like the old days...not 2 springs or 1 halibut each per day. I have to stop when we have out daily limit, a commercial boat fishes until the boat won't handle any more...not telling anything new. I do have a few clients who tell me before we leave the dock..unless you need a fish for yourself we aren't keeping anything.
i get my numbers from reverse math. I would be more interested to know more on this and where it came from.
You might be needing new batteries for the back of your cigarette package. And I don't kiss and tell.
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
You might be needing new batteries for the back of your cigarette package. And I don't kiss and tell.
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
fish4all
Well-Known Member
I had to sleep on this a bit Gov. I find it dissappointing that in less than 12hrs you need to try and bash the commercial representation at the IPHC. Can't we just be happy as a country that we didn't get slashed, and leave the infighting alone for a bit. Sad start to the season. Also my numbers are very accurate and the report I got from IPHC is far different than yours.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
And my definition or raping the ocean is going over a sectors TAC year after year with no respect for the resource, and not controlling removals to the point of areas being decimated.
Again my position is that I would prefer the stocks to rebound so there is enough fish out there for all to enjoy. That being said I also firmly belive that effort has now grown to the point where conservation is a problem. In my opinion the increased effort over the last 5 years + no reduction in limits is having a very negative affect on our spring salmon, inshore rockfish, and now that those are in rough shape and effort has shifted to bottem fish, halibut.
searun
Well-Known Member
My advice to you is to drink heavily. Sorry, couldn't resist. Regardless, its the new math being used to make the calculation, but who really knows. In the end, the science is just an educated WAG[)] So, if the fishery can sustain a level of extraction it really makes no difference just as long as we don't over extract.
Searun
Sorry, couldn't resist. Regardless, its the new math being used to make the calculation, but who really knows. In the end, the science is just an educated WAG[)] So, if the fishery can sustain a level of extraction it really makes no difference just as long as we don't over extract.Searun
Sort of a summary of comments on this page:
The team who went off to represent Canada did a superb job on many fronts, and also represented all of the harvest groups, First Nations, Recreational and Commercial. They had to have pulled together because we received a million pounds more than the IPHC science staff wanted to see area 2 B receive. You know politics plays a role in this, as there were a number of questions we had as a team about the staff apportionment sysytem.
The fact was we had representation on the Processors Board, the Conference Board, and of course at the Comissioners table. Everything must have come together, which is a first in the process up to now, and is truly a victory for putting sector concerns to one side and working as a team for Canada.....come to think of it, all of us are well served by an increased TAC over IPHC staff recommendations.
The issue of what we are calling " small fish" is an imoprtant one. Between 50 and 60 % of all of our Coastwide catch is below the legal commercial size of 81.5 cm in length, or aboput 12 lbs. round weight. It is quite possible many of these are so called " senile males" who do not contribute to the spawning process any more, are part of the over all biomass, but not part of the exploitable biomass.( only scientists could get this obtuse) Of course if we are catching a number of juveniles, they would be subject to natural mortality and not contribute to the exploitable biomass either. Commercial fishermen are not charged for all of their small fish released either, but have a mortality rate assigned to them.
Part of the negotiations with the IPHC were going to be equal treatment for the US and Canada over small fish, so this is one part of the process we still need to hear about when the team returns.
The executive summary is that we are not hurting the sustainability of the fishery by keeping small fish, and it could well be if they are treated as we believe they shoud be, it may be that some are not counted, which reduces our demand of the TAC.
Our Team Canada did well for us, and the cooperation should be noticed and well received.
Traveller
The team who went off to represent Canada did a superb job on many fronts, and also represented all of the harvest groups, First Nations, Recreational and Commercial. They had to have pulled together because we received a million pounds more than the IPHC science staff wanted to see area 2 B receive. You know politics plays a role in this, as there were a number of questions we had as a team about the staff apportionment sysytem.
The fact was we had representation on the Processors Board, the Conference Board, and of course at the Comissioners table. Everything must have come together, which is a first in the process up to now, and is truly a victory for putting sector concerns to one side and working as a team for Canada.....come to think of it, all of us are well served by an increased TAC over IPHC staff recommendations.
The issue of what we are calling " small fish" is an imoprtant one. Between 50 and 60 % of all of our Coastwide catch is below the legal commercial size of 81.5 cm in length, or aboput 12 lbs. round weight. It is quite possible many of these are so called " senile males" who do not contribute to the spawning process any more, are part of the over all biomass, but not part of the exploitable biomass.( only scientists could get this obtuse) Of course if we are catching a number of juveniles, they would be subject to natural mortality and not contribute to the exploitable biomass either. Commercial fishermen are not charged for all of their small fish released either, but have a mortality rate assigned to them.
Part of the negotiations with the IPHC were going to be equal treatment for the US and Canada over small fish, so this is one part of the process we still need to hear about when the team returns.
The executive summary is that we are not hurting the sustainability of the fishery by keeping small fish, and it could well be if they are treated as we believe they shoud be, it may be that some are not counted, which reduces our demand of the TAC.
Our Team Canada did well for us, and the cooperation should be noticed and well received.
Traveller
searun
Well-Known Member
Tx Traveler, a great post with explanation of the role small fish played in the extraction capacity. I agree with this approach. AND, more importantly the team effort that went into this agreement. Amazing what we can accomplish when we work together on the same side.
Searun
Searun
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
aYup! [^]
From the SFAB Chair:
"Colleagues: While we got slightly fewer fish for Canada than last year, things could have ended up a lot worse.
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) staff wanted to reduce Canada’s TAC from 7.63 million pounds in 2009 to 6.59 million this year. This was based on an apportionment scheme that nobody trusts, except when it happens to work to their advantage as in the case of the US areas to the North and West where halibut fisheries are not monitored as strictly as in Canada and where the trawl by catch of juvenile halibut is enormous and probably robs Canada of more than a million pounds of catch a year..
But this year Canada was well organized. Both the larger delegation and its smaller strategic advisory group had met numerous times beforehand and developed a clear set of principles and objectives. It was obvious we were on the right track when a US representative went to the Conference Board microphone to complain that it wasn’t fair of Canada to vote as a disciplined bloc. The Americans like to view Canada as just one of ten harvest regions rather than as one of two parties to the treaty and he apparently wanted us to be as fractured as his side between both regions and sectors.
In order to show that we were in Seattle to make certain that Canada gets its appropriate share of the halibut resource in this bilateral treaty with the United States, and that each party has to be responsible for all of its extractions, we set the tone at the beginning with an excellent presentation by Tamee Mawanee, DFO’s regional manager of groundfish, pointing out the extent to which Canada has reduced its trawl bycatch and accounts for all of its halibut mortalities. Our delegation to the Conference Board then went on to work as a team in putting forward a united and principled Canadian position. To make the point that the resource should be considered in terms of national shares, we abstained from voting on proposals as to how the US should divide up its TAC.
In every important part of the proceedings, the entire Canadian delegation, DFO, First Nations, commercial harvesters, processors and the recreational sector maintained a united front in defense of Canada’s interests. Our commissioners sought our views and advice during meetings with both the full delegation and the strategic working group. With the able assistance of Chuck Ashcroft as Canadian co-chair of the harvesters’ Conference Board, our paper spelling out Canada’s position and the principles behind it, especially with regard to the issue of bycatch in US fisheries, was included in the Board’s report to the Commissioners, along with our opening catch limit proposal of 8 million pounds. We succeeded in having the Canadian position was put forward as a recommendation of the board, not as a “minority report” which would have had much less impact. Throughout the Conference Board process, the SFAB team of Daugert, Alcock and Kristianson played an active role .
The other component of the IHPC meeting, the PAG or Processors Advisory Group, was co-chaired by Canada’s Blake Tipton, who included SFAB members John McCulloch and Martin Paish as part of the Canadian group in recognition of the fact that fishing lodges are significant processors of sport-caught halibut. While John and Martin didn’t have a vote, their presence was an important first step in ensuring that recreational interests are understood by this influential part of the IPHC process. While the Canadian delegation had agreed on 8 million pounds as the Canadian opening objective, our processors, based on their long experience with the IPHC, decided that this was not achievable and that it would be better to try and get PAG support for a lower number, but one that was still an improvement over the staff recommendation. They got support of their US colleagues for 7.5 million pounds. While this initially seemed like an undermining of the Canadian position, it proved beneficial in the long run since it provided a fractured US delegation with what could be termed a compromise.
It wasn’t easy to get to this point. The US tried to play hardball. But our commissioners Gary Robinson and Larry Johnson, with great leadership from Sue Farlinger who had to step into the role when both Laura Richards and Dick Beamish were sidelined with health problems, didn’t blink. They called the US bluff and got a deal which isn’t everything we wanted, but does cushion us from the reduction the IPHC staff was trying to impose. They also delivered a loud and clear message that the US has to start dealing with its bycatch problems. There is no doubt the US was listening and has asked Canada to send people to the next meeting of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to testify on how we have reduced our trawl bycatch and implemented full reporting of all halibut mortalities.
Of course, for the recreational sector the next step is the difficult task of working out how to deal with the new allocation number of 901,440 pounds and what might be added to it using the $482,000 left in the trust fund and any additional measures that might be acceptable to the department. Unfortunately, we are still in the position of facing the social and economic impact of a much reduced recreational fishery because of the 88/12 allocation policy. This job will start in earnest at the SFAB Halibut Committee Meeting on February 17.
Gerry Kristianson
SFAB Chair"
Emphasis Mine.
Major KUDOS to our Team! Literally pulling a rabbit out of the hat! SINCERELY</u> Appreciated!! [^]
And of course, BEST OF LUCK with the upcoming efforts towards realizing a more desirable quota sharing program!!
Cheers,
Nog
fish4all
Well-Known Member
quote:Originally posted by Governor
i get my numbers from reverse math. I would be more interested to know more on this and where it came from.
You might be needing new batteries for the back of your cigarette package. And I don't kiss and tell.
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
How are my batteries looking Gov?? Sorry I was out by 12g I must have pushed a wrong button
Excellent report Gerry.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Right on Gerry and the rest of Canada's Reps!
Amazing how a well articulated letter can make things more easy to understand.
It begs the question: How serious is the USA's juvenile by-catch issue, from both an allocation standpoint and a conservation perspective?
While we're at it, is Canada's "...full reporting of all halibut mortality's " actually reliable as an accurate conservation tool?
"Some could care less if there's any fish left for our kids!"
Amazing how a well articulated letter can make things more easy to understand.
It begs the question: How serious is the USA's juvenile by-catch issue, from both an allocation standpoint and a conservation perspective?
While we're at it, is Canada's "...full reporting of all halibut mortality's " actually reliable as an accurate conservation tool?
"Some could care less if there's any fish left for our kids!"
fish4all
Well-Known Member
It is very reliable...for the commercial sector. They have 100% at sea monitoring of all retention and releases of all bottem fish. The only slight crack and it is being filled is on the drag fleet where they estimate some of the mortality. From what I understand that crack is to be filled by 2012. That being said the canadaian drag fleet has reduced it's mortality of halibut from 2mill to 200,000lbs While our neighbours to the north have actually increased.
ok, now that you have your TAC, just how does DFO go about establishing the season??? they now know the total allowable number of pounds, how do they translate that into a season?
we have this screwed up methodology down on the other side of the strait so i am simply trying to understand how DFO does this vs how WDFW goes about dealing with the same issue.
thanks.
we have this screwed up methodology down on the other side of the strait so i am simply trying to understand how DFO does this vs how WDFW goes about dealing with the same issue.
thanks.
Similar threads
