uclueletcharters
Well-Known Member
Well said bigdogeh.
2015 Halibut Regulations
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Great post!!! Agree for sure
dougthefisher
Member
...But the money you spend as a visitor getting to Vancouver Island to hire a guide and fish for your possession limit of 2 halibut and 4 springs plus your coho, pinks or maybe sockeye is a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to us locals who have 20 to 80,000 bucks and more in some cases tied up in a boat that depreciates every year, PLUS the cost of moorage and or a vehicle to pull the rig, ramp fees, maintenance, gas and equipment....that's big bucks.
You should be thrilled to come to our waters, hire a guide for a couple of days and enjoy the experience within the rules that hopefully will ensure the fishery exists for our children!*......
What a pile of crap! Just because you CHOSE to over spend on your toys has nothing to do with fishing. You could go catch the same fish with a $1000 boat and a 20hp motor on a trailer and $25 worth of fuel. Get over yourself!
You should be thrilled to come to our waters, hire a guide for a couple of days and enjoy the experience within the rules that hopefully will ensure the fishery exists for our children!*......
What a pile of crap! Just because you CHOSE to over spend on your toys has nothing to do with fishing. You could go catch the same fish with a $1000 boat and a 20hp motor on a trailer and $25 worth of fuel. Get over yourself!
Last edited by a moderator:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Actually those fish you claim are yours are common public property available to anyone with a license and comments and attitudes like yours are a large part of the problem. Get off it buddy.
dougthefisher
Member
But I do agree with you
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
S'cuse me while I get a little controversial here... 
The Recreational Sector has done a Damn Fine job of adhering to that principle. So "good" in fact we left fish in the water once again last year. And while I well understand the importance of staying within our "allowance", and the necessity of showing The World (read IPHC) just how well we can and do comply, I can't help this nagging little feeling that perhaps... just perhaps... we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so...
In terms of meeting "management" goals, we have literally bent over backwards, coming up with and debating scenario after scenario to keep our catch within the constraints applied. I'm certain management couldn't be much happier with the results of these efforts to date.
And it is quite obvious that doing what we have (and continue to) played a significant difference when it comes time for the IPHC to set overall regional quotas. IMHO, that played a rather large role in Canada realizing a slight increase when IPHC biologists were recommending a roll back.
But... then there is this consideration:
For the reasons noted above (amongst others) it is not difficult to agree with the drive to stay within our given "allowance".
However... Doing so, and doing so So Well rather indicates to "management" (National rather than International in this case) that we, at this point, have sufficient "access" as to keep the recreational halibut fishery going for "Full Seasons". Not much of a leap then for them to consider us "satisfied" with the 15% level we "enjoy" today.
Besides the background grumbling, there is very little to indicate to "management" that we require anything further. In fact, the case exists for them to now carry the mindset that they have Fully & Adequately met the wants and needs of the recreational sector in this regard.
Perhaps it might actually serve us better in the long run to run up right tight to the "allowance" we are afforded, even to the point of shutting down a little early. Painful? Certainly. But what better way to indicate to "management" that we are NOT satisfied with the current split, and that we actually require MORE to keep our fishery viable?
It seems to me that although we made an Enormous Effort to point out publicly our disdain of the Lion's Share of this public resource residing in the commercial sector's pockets, that most have now "accepted" the pittance we were given in response. In fact, we have now undergone great lengths to ensure we comply with that pittance on an ongoing and annual basis. Does this not overtly imply "acceptance"?
Does this now suggest we are "happy" with the current model and our "allowance rate" within that? Seeing as we have done our job so well in meeting the constraints placed upon us, how can "management" view the situation otherwise?
Not at all knocking those who have worked so hard to ensure we keep within our force fed harvest rate. That was a HUGE undertaking, requiring a LOT of time, commitment and drive to achieve. And achieve it we have, In Spades.
It's just I can't seem to shake off that annoying little feeling that any opportunity for making the case that we need a little more has swum by the wayside in doing so...
Thoughts?
Wondering...
Nog
The Recreational Sector has done a Damn Fine job of adhering to that principle. So "good" in fact we left fish in the water once again last year. And while I well understand the importance of staying within our "allowance", and the necessity of showing The World (read IPHC) just how well we can and do comply, I can't help this nagging little feeling that perhaps... just perhaps... we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so...
In terms of meeting "management" goals, we have literally bent over backwards, coming up with and debating scenario after scenario to keep our catch within the constraints applied. I'm certain management couldn't be much happier with the results of these efforts to date.
And it is quite obvious that doing what we have (and continue to) played a significant difference when it comes time for the IPHC to set overall regional quotas. IMHO, that played a rather large role in Canada realizing a slight increase when IPHC biologists were recommending a roll back.
But... then there is this consideration:
For the reasons noted above (amongst others) it is not difficult to agree with the drive to stay within our given "allowance".
However... Doing so, and doing so So Well rather indicates to "management" (National rather than International in this case) that we, at this point, have sufficient "access" as to keep the recreational halibut fishery going for "Full Seasons". Not much of a leap then for them to consider us "satisfied" with the 15% level we "enjoy" today.
Besides the background grumbling, there is very little to indicate to "management" that we require anything further. In fact, the case exists for them to now carry the mindset that they have Fully & Adequately met the wants and needs of the recreational sector in this regard.
Perhaps it might actually serve us better in the long run to run up right tight to the "allowance" we are afforded, even to the point of shutting down a little early. Painful? Certainly. But what better way to indicate to "management" that we are NOT satisfied with the current split, and that we actually require MORE to keep our fishery viable?
It seems to me that although we made an Enormous Effort to point out publicly our disdain of the Lion's Share of this public resource residing in the commercial sector's pockets, that most have now "accepted" the pittance we were given in response. In fact, we have now undergone great lengths to ensure we comply with that pittance on an ongoing and annual basis. Does this not overtly imply "acceptance"?
Does this now suggest we are "happy" with the current model and our "allowance rate" within that? Seeing as we have done our job so well in meeting the constraints placed upon us, how can "management" view the situation otherwise?
Not at all knocking those who have worked so hard to ensure we keep within our force fed harvest rate. That was a HUGE undertaking, requiring a LOT of time, commitment and drive to achieve. And achieve it we have, In Spades.
It's just I can't seem to shake off that annoying little feeling that any opportunity for making the case that we need a little more has swum by the wayside in doing so...
Thoughts?
Wondering...
Nog
V
vic-tory
Guest
Smoked it. Great point and one that will most certainly bite us in the butt going forward. I'm sure we will hear "we tell them all the time it's not ok and we aren't happy with it" but actions speak louder than words and leaving hundreds of thousands in the water will most certainly bite us in the butt in that exact way Iron...well said. Plus over restricting on top of it showing we are ok with the 15%. Short term gain for long term pain is what is going on with leaving so much in the water.
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
excellent points Ironnoggin.
I've always felt that things were fine 10, 20 years ago, and those regulations (in respect to the recreational sector) we had back then would also be fine for today. to keep screwing with us and cutting us back year after year really isn't necessary. were not the problem. there is alot of ocean out there and our impact is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the commercial guys. sure, there are area's that get more pressure but there are areas that get less pressure also. if you don't like crowds, don't fish where the crowds are... it irks me to no end realizing we have size limits on hali's and the commercial sector does not. we're doing our part to try to protect broodstock while they do everything in their power to try to cream the biggest, largest fish if given the chance. where is the logic in that? I don't mind having a size limit, but it better damn well be the same for everyone. native and commercial included.
they're out there taking a large percentage of the biomass of herring and shipping it off to japan. and we wonder why salmon stocks seem like they may be down or the average sizes of salmon seem to be getting a bit smaller year after year. then we have the herring roe fishery on top of that.
it's not the recreational fishery that needs more regulation. it's certain sectors of the commercial fisheries that have raped and pillaged for decades. I don't necessarily fault them (the commercial fisherman) personally but i do fault the government sectors in charge that are making the rules, the regulations, and allowing for the rape and pillage to continue. when you use drag nets to scoop up everything in the ocean and often the bycatch is huge and just thrown overboard there is a problem. and that's one of the areas that should be focused on. and why are we doing this (purse seining) at the head of rivers? it seems we pressure the fish when they are at there most vulnerable. myself i'd rather see the price of fish go up and the commercial overharvesting of them go down... then we have gillnetters in the ocean also setting there nets along the shores in the salmons most likely migration routes a couple miles from there spawning river. and nets in rivers also targetting the spawning salmon on the most likely paths/corridors they'll use to get up a river.
i'll probably rattle a few feathers with my comments but everyones entitled to his/her opinion and this is just mine at the moment. we, the recreational fisherman are not the problem.... and (over)regulating us is going to have the least effect and least bang for the buck... but through dialogue on sites like this it's great that people share there opinions and thoughts. it's good to hear differing opinions as well...
rape and pillage may be a bit strong term but no other terms really come to mind. I'm sorry if i've offended anyone with that term... but i bet the salmon and herring aren't offended with it.
I've always felt that things were fine 10, 20 years ago, and those regulations (in respect to the recreational sector) we had back then would also be fine for today. to keep screwing with us and cutting us back year after year really isn't necessary. were not the problem. there is alot of ocean out there and our impact is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the commercial guys. sure, there are area's that get more pressure but there are areas that get less pressure also. if you don't like crowds, don't fish where the crowds are... it irks me to no end realizing we have size limits on hali's and the commercial sector does not. we're doing our part to try to protect broodstock while they do everything in their power to try to cream the biggest, largest fish if given the chance. where is the logic in that? I don't mind having a size limit, but it better damn well be the same for everyone. native and commercial included.
they're out there taking a large percentage of the biomass of herring and shipping it off to japan. and we wonder why salmon stocks seem like they may be down or the average sizes of salmon seem to be getting a bit smaller year after year. then we have the herring roe fishery on top of that.
it's not the recreational fishery that needs more regulation. it's certain sectors of the commercial fisheries that have raped and pillaged for decades. I don't necessarily fault them (the commercial fisherman) personally but i do fault the government sectors in charge that are making the rules, the regulations, and allowing for the rape and pillage to continue. when you use drag nets to scoop up everything in the ocean and often the bycatch is huge and just thrown overboard there is a problem. and that's one of the areas that should be focused on. and why are we doing this (purse seining) at the head of rivers? it seems we pressure the fish when they are at there most vulnerable. myself i'd rather see the price of fish go up and the commercial overharvesting of them go down... then we have gillnetters in the ocean also setting there nets along the shores in the salmons most likely migration routes a couple miles from there spawning river. and nets in rivers also targetting the spawning salmon on the most likely paths/corridors they'll use to get up a river.
i'll probably rattle a few feathers with my comments but everyones entitled to his/her opinion and this is just mine at the moment. we, the recreational fisherman are not the problem.... and (over)regulating us is going to have the least effect and least bang for the buck... but through dialogue on sites like this it's great that people share there opinions and thoughts. it's good to hear differing opinions as well...
rape and pillage may be a bit strong term but no other terms really come to mind. I'm sorry if i've offended anyone with that term... but i bet the salmon and herring aren't offended with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
My apologies to Doug. I read that and all I saw was red.
Aces
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that the size regulation has nothing to do with spawners and more about spreading out the quota with is measured in pounds over a longer period of time. Washington State burns thru their quota in a matter of weeks!
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
i never realized that and thxs for that fishtofino....
if that is the case I'd be suprised if the quota reg we abide by would have a significant effect at all really. the huge majority of halibut taken recreationally are going to be under the size limit. i'd be suprised if 10% of the recreational catch would be over the size limit but don't have any data and am just estimating what i see personally. I just went down to seattle last weekend and can understand why washington state might burn through there quota. and i'll bet there commercial fleet is somewhat bigger than ours also....
I can say i'm glad to live in BC. But I know it can be better here, but sadly i only see it deteriorating slowly. and generally it's due to the decisionmakers who've decided to put $$'ers ahead of ethics...
and if that is the case, then yes, as ironnoggin mentioned... we should be getting (demanding) more quota and the commercial guys less.
if that is the case I'd be suprised if the quota reg we abide by would have a significant effect at all really. the huge majority of halibut taken recreationally are going to be under the size limit. i'd be suprised if 10% of the recreational catch would be over the size limit but don't have any data and am just estimating what i see personally. I just went down to seattle last weekend and can understand why washington state might burn through there quota. and i'll bet there commercial fleet is somewhat bigger than ours also....
I can say i'm glad to live in BC. But I know it can be better here, but sadly i only see it deteriorating slowly. and generally it's due to the decisionmakers who've decided to put $$'ers ahead of ethics...
and if that is the case, then yes, as ironnoggin mentioned... we should be getting (demanding) more quota and the commercial guys less.
Last edited by a moderator:
Humpbubble
Active Member
The bycatch of thousands of metric tons of juvenile hali in the gulf for pollock beats our take
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
that doesn't suprise me.
and that's why i feel we're (the recreational sector) unfairly and unnecessarily targetted.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Official rules come out April 1 but we should know just before.
Until then it is open and we are under the 2014 rules as per our fishing licence.
Correction - in a matter of days! Now admittedly those 3-5 days are spread out over a couple of weeks but a typical hali season in WA state is a Thurs/Sat in one week followed by another Thurs/Sat and it's over.
runamuk
Active Member
So true. these fish should be brought to market as a part of the commercial allotment .
V
vic-tory
Guest
Any news on how big the increase in max will be for this season?
Similar threads
