2010 halibut season in peril

[Silver Streak]

It is the sportfishery itself which projects a July or August halibut closure given the same
parameters we were facing in 2010. Should the IPHC Total Allowable Catch (TAC) be
reduced in 2011 and considering a 71,000 lb pay back from this past year's catch and
with no reserve funds remaining to lease quota from the commercial sector, there is a
good likelihood we could be shut down in late July or August 2011.

You are correct Holmes. This could very well happen and actually result in an earlier
closure to our season than would normally occur. So YES, our coastwide recreational
halibut season could be shut down that early in the year.

 

[wolf]

Bang on holmes !!!! people will go out to catch there halibut because they will be scared if they dont today it will be closed tommorow as we have seen in the past they will decide in about 2 or 3 days and post "CLOSED"
So you will get guys going on very questionable days to get there 1 halibut its just plain DUMB!!!!

Wolf

 

[wolf]

Here is a part of a leter one of my clents wrote to respond to the minister and this is coming from a non biasnon guide who enjoys coming to BC to fish..

On microscale this can be illustrated below by the particular example of my own case. In a
typical 2 day summer trip to the BC coast (usually 2-3 per year) with my 12 year old son, we
may catch and retain a maximum of 2 Chinook salmon per day each (total 4 per person).
However, in terms of economic impact and expenditure, we invest as a minimum the following
for this:
1. roundtrip airfare Edmonton-Victoria for 2 persons: $1015.
2. hiring of boat and guide for 2 days w tip $1800.
3. rental car for Victoria-Sooke trip $ 130. + gas
4. rental of accommodation for 2 nights $ 300. + tax
5. food (restaurants and purchase) for 2 days $ 200.
TOTAL $3445.
As significant numbers of people travel to the BC coast for sports fishing to catch a relatively
small proportion of the total fish stock, I would argue that on a per fish basis the positive
economic impact of sports fishing on the local economy far exceeds the corresponding
impact of other types of fishing.

And this is only one person .... do you not think this will impact the economy of b.c and its little communities start adding more days and longer trips.
And yes ill get some on here saying I am being greedy and want it all BUT I dont this effects ALL of us the local guide is a small spectrum in the whole scheme really it has a huge trickle down effect.
if we dont stand up now this could hurt ALL of us in the end..

Wolf

 

[fisher69]

iphc has proposed a 3% increase over last years numbers. It isnt much but it all helps.

Also with Wolfs math. Whats wrong with having the high paying clients cough up an extra $200 for another 45 lbs of fish on top of the one they get on their personal license already?

It is the sportfishery itself which projects a July or August halibut closure given the same
parameters we were facing in 2010. Should the IPHC Total Allowable Catch (TAC) be
reduced in 2011 and considering a 71,000 lb pay back from this past year's catch and
with no reserve funds remaining to lease quota from the commercial sector, there is a
good likelihood we could be shut down in late July or August 2011.

You are correct Holmes. This could very well happen and actually result in an earlier
closure to our season than would normally occur. So YES, our coastwide recreational
halibut season could be shut down that early in the year.

 

[wolf]

Beacuse with the user fee act you cant.

have you not been reading all the info??

 

[Little Hawk]

F69: ( Whats wrong with having the high paying clients cough up an extra $200 for another 45 lbs of fish on top of the one they get on their personal license already? )

The 'User Fee Act' notwithstanding, if you feel people with some money could/should easily bend-over and pay more to fish, do you also agree that average Joe's like me who lay out a huge investment in a boat, trailer, tackle, licences, etc. should also pay more to fish more?

FRANKLY, ANY SUGGESTION, EVEN THE SLIGHTEST HINT FROM ANYONE THAT I OR ANY OTHER REC-FISHERMAN SHOULD 'BUCK-UP' MORE THAN I ALREADY DO FOR THE GREAT 'PRIVILEGE' OF SPENDING THE HIGHEST DOLLAR-PER-POUND OF ALL FISH TAKEN BY ANY USER GROUP ON OUR COAST - WILL BE MET WITH WAR-LIKE RESISTANCE!

 

[fisher69]

there is no need for any tin boat angler to purchase quota, nor should they have to. for the $22 license you can take one a day till you have enough for the season(this should have a limit of 5-10 per angler). If the lodge and charter group want to exceed the 1 per day for the clients then they should have the right to lease fish or purchase quota to let them exceed the 1 per day. From what I understand that is one of the options that was put forward in the Stanier process that the SFAB just took part in. If you want to take it further I think the 12% should be split between guides and tin boaters so the established guides(using history to determine) would start off with some FREE quota to build there business on.

The user fee act only applies if you are trying to raise the fees or implement new ones.

F69: ( Whats wrong with having the high paying clients cough up an extra $200 for another 45 lbs of fish on top of the one they get on their personal license already? )

The 'User Fee Act' notwithstanding, if you feel people with some money could/should easily bend-over and pay more to fish, do you also agree that average Joe's like me who lay out a huge investment in a boat, trailer, tackle, licences, etc. should also pay more to fish more?

FRANKLY, ANY SUGGESTION, EVEN THE SLIGHTEST HINT FROM ANYONE THAT I OR ANY OTHER REC-FISHERMAN SHOULD 'BUCK-UP' MORE THAN I ALREADY DO FOR THE GREAT 'PRIVILEGE' OF SPENDING THE HIGHEST DOLLAR-PER-POUND OF ALL FISH TAKEN BY ANY USER GROUP ON OUR COAST - WILL BE MET WITH WAR-LIKE RESISTANCE!

 

[fisher69]

sorry wolf but you have been misinformed it is an option on the table as we text.

Beacuse with the user fee act you cant.

have you not been reading all the info??

 

[wolf]

NO its not we have brought this up in MANY meeting with DFO and the sfab it was all a go but was shot down by the government 3 yrs ago because of the user cat I have attended all meeting except for 2 in the last 3 yrs . And pretty sure I have heard it right...

And in the same time I said id like a quota to have, in a meeting and they were shocked.... cause then I said because when you have to pay me out when you close it like the (salmon)commercial troll fleet it would cost them big bucks .... answer well I guess we have to reevaluate that now dont we ....END of discussion....

Wolf

 

[fisher69]

not trying to **** ya off but it is on the table. what was said by dfo is that they cannot get funds from government to buy quota from the commercial sector to give it to the sports sector.To the best of my knowledge from the stanier process there are 4 options going forward and one of them is to allow any independant angler who wants to take more fish than one a day to be able to lease quota IF THEY CHOOSE.

NO its not we have brought this up in MANY meeting with DFO and the sfab it was all a go but was shot down by the government 3 yrs ago because of the user cat I have attended all meeting except for 2 in the last 3 yrs . And pretty sure I have heard it right...

And in the same time I said id like a quota to have, in a meeting and they were shocked.... cause then I said because when you have to pay me out when you close it like the (salmon)commercial troll fleet it would cost them big bucks .... answer well I guess we have to reevaluate that now dont we ....END of discussion....

Wolf

 

[wolf]

I know your not , but thats not the case it was already to go and REJECTED they dont want to do it (gov) dfo whatever you want to call them it doesnt matter its has been DEAD for years now.

 

[Charlie]

Okay, I finally throw my 2 cents in! J
I would probably leave the International Pacific Halibut Commission out of the discussion? This is more about the 88/12 split than anything to do with conservation and that is TOTALLY a Canada/DFO thing! I believe Wolf would be correct there about the “User Fee Act?” Not so sure Canada wants anymore battles concerning that one! Maybe this will help some understand better?

“The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), originally called the International Fisheries Commission, was established in 1923 by a Convention between the governments of Canada and the United States of America. Its mandate is research on and management of the stocks of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) within the Convention waters of both nations. The IPHC consists of three government-appointed commissioners for each country who serve their terms at the pleasure of the President of the United States and the Canadian government respectively.”

That would be an area from California to the Bering Sea! Sorry guys, the IPHC controls the halibut biomass from that California to Bering Sea and the majority (80%) of their recommendations, are based on the ALASKA biomass! The halibut biomass actually DECLINED 35% - and yes again, that is primarily based on Alaska’s biomass! “Please be aware that the IPHC regulates only the catch limits by IPHC Regulatory Area and not by fishery (commercial or sport). Internal allocation issues (catch limit distribution, for example) are handled domestically and should be addressed to the respective governments.” The 88/12 split is totally DFO and in IMHO - totally political!

Some are talking conservation (which you should be), others harvest rates/TAC, then some the 88/12 split? Well, if you really want the truth, you could probably kill every halibut in Area 2B and it wouldn’t have that much effect on the total halibut biomass, under the current management guidelines – start reading. Especially, since approximately 80% of that biomass is Gulf of Alaska! How do I know… try catching a halibut in Puget Sound – ain’t going to happen! So yes, as some are mentioning, you just might need to think conservation, concerning “BC halibut” – and DO NOT rely solely on the IPHC to protect those BC halibut, especially in Area 2B!

Concerning some past comments about turning those big females back (IMHO - that is a personal preference): IPHC biologists see no benefit to preserving the largest females from a conservation standpoint. There are plenty of small halibut available to grow into the large fish we all like to catch and eat. According to the Bluebook handout for the 1999 IPHC Annual Meeting, implementing a maximum commercial size limit of 50 inches (or 150 cm, about 80 lbs) does not appear to add substantial protection to the stock to justify a change in regulations.5 While large females can each spawn many more eggs than medium-sized females, their overall reproductive contribution is nevertheless small as not many females reach those large sizes under the current reduced growth rates.

Now, what I feel is you biggest issue of concern… the 88/12 split? You might find this interesting? And start asking DFO… If the coastwide commercial harvest is about 67% (including the BC 88/12 split), why does DFO allow the 88% commercial in BC, when every other IPHC area is far less? It appears, to be in-line with IPHC coastwide allocations, that should be, AT LEAST a 67/33% split. “Why do the commercial guys get the entire quota? They don't, although they do get the largest share of what's usually available for harvest. Right now, coastwide, the commercial fishers get to harvest about 67% of the available fish, subsistence fishers take about 2%, while sports fishers get to take about 11%. This varies by area, and is the result of allocative decisions made by the US and Canadian governing bodies.”
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/sport/114-sport-faqs.html.

Here are some numbers that might surprise some? 2010 Halibut Landing Report No. 9, Monday, 18 October 2010 11:09: The catch from British Columbian waters represents 91% of the 2010 commercial fishery catch limit. For comparison, 5.6 million pounds, or 86% of the 2009 catch limit, had been landed from Area 2B by this same date in 2009. Comparing by opening lengths, during the first 193 days of the 2009 IVQ fishery, 6.1 million pounds, or 91% of the catch limit, had been landed.

Quota Share Commercial Fisheries Update: The 2010 quota share halibut fisheries opened on March 6. It is estimated that the following catches and numbers of landings were made in the Alaskan IFQ and CDQ fisheries and in the British Columbian IVQ fishery through October 17, 2010. The Alaska total catch was 39,376,000 pounds compared to your Area 2B total catch of 6,014,000. That equates to approximately 13%?
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/news-releases/132-nr20101018.html

Total removals (million pounds, net weight). Removals include commercial catch, IPHC survey catches, sport catch, personal use catch, O32 bycatch and O32 wastage. Removals do not include U32 bycatch or U32 wastage. In 2009 Area 2A, 1.18; Area 2B, 8.30; Area 2C, 8.19; Area 3A, 27.73; Area 3B, 11.39; Area 4, ---; Area 4A, 3.59; Area 4B, 1.99; Area 4CDE 5.55; Total 66.83

“In general, coastwide exploitable biomass is estimated to have declined by about 35% during 2000-2010. The extent of and reasons behind the declines vary by area. Only biomass estimates from the central Gulf of Alaska are shown in the graph. About 37% of the stock is in this area, so it is a good snapshot of the health of the entire stock. Biomass remains in a healthy state in the central Gulf of Alaska and will likely continue to support harvests of the size seen over the past 2 to 3 decades. “
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/pacific_halibut.htm

Prior to adopting an individual quota system in I99I, the British Columbia halibut fishery operated under a limited-entry program (established in 1979) with 435 licensed vessels. Formerly open access, the U.S. halibut fishery began operating under an IFQ program in 1995. As an open access fishery, the U.S. halibut fleet was much larger than the B.C. fleet with three to four thousand vessels participating in the fishery each year. During the 198O's British Columbia's halibut fieet harvested approximately 20 percent of the total annual catch of Pacific halibut and in recent years the percentage has dropped to around 15 percent. While the U.S. fieet lands about four to five times more halibut than British Columbia, it has about eight to nine times more vessels participating in the fishery.

The fishery sector is made up of largely experienced halibut fishermen, and none of the respondents were less than 27 years old. Eighty-seven percent are married, and on average, support a household of 2 additional people. Only 66 percent reported partner income and the mean spouse/ partner income was on average C$17,562.

The majority (70 percent) of respondents reported fishing their entire quota in 1993 and another 17 percent fished their entire quota and leased additional quota shares. A smaller proportion (13 percent) leased out all or half of their quota allocation (Table 5). Eighty-seven percent planned to fish all or part of their quota during 1994 with very few pianning to leave the halibut fishery.

The halibut license owners, like many Pacific coast small vessel owners, participate in several fisheries. Salmon is the primary fishery for many vessels, but some also participate in other inshore fisheries (Table 6).
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/49032/2/18823374.pdf

IPHC recommending a 3% increase??? Don’t know where that is or come from? Nothing of that nature has been officially published or discussed?? Depending on which number you want to use the TAC is going to be between 20-23% of the biomass in Areas 3A and 3B? 2011 Interim Meeting Staff Recommendations. Coastwide Assessment: Hook Competition and Timing AFs, Kalman averaging to Survey Apportionment with no SUFD. Catch limits and Fishery CEY for 2B includes commercial and sport catch. Area 2B Exploitable biomass, 40.89; Target Harvest Rate Total, 20%; Total CEY, 8.18; 2010 Other Removals, 0.53; 2010 Catch Limit 7.50; 2011 Fishery CEY, 7.65; 2011 Catch Limit Recommendation, 7.65
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/documents/2010IM_presentations/im2010catlimv7.pdf

Hope I didn’t bore you too much! J

 

[wolf]

THANK YOU
Charlie finally someone with an open perspective....

 

[Sushihunter]

Well done, Charlie!

 

[Little Hawk]

Charlie... I downed a 6-pack while reading that!
Trouble is, I'll have to read it again for it all to sink in - not.

Thanks for wading in.

 

[Osama Bin Hopper]

Very good info.

God I hope we can win this one.

 

[Lipripper]

Charlie... I downed a 6-pack while reading that!
Trouble is, I'll have to read it again for it all to sink in - not.

Thanks for wading in.

Holy sheet..... I only got down 2............ must be a quick reader

Good read'n Charlie