searun
Well-Known Member
A few observations and personal thoughts after watching this thread.
First, I agree LC and if that is the case, this over under slot won't really impact most anglers regular catch? On the whole not many rec fish are over 60 pounds, but those that are really start to fill up the bucket (use TAC) fast. No one likes the prospects of letting go a trophy fish, but in most cases with halibut its the right thing to do, and besides who wants to eat are really big one anyway...you might start to glow.
The purpose of this regulation choice, was as I understand it, to slow down exploitation rate so we could spread out the TAC as fairly as possible. It was also I think to help give guys on multi day trips an opportunity for more than 1 fish. Those would be the good folks from all over BC and other parts of Canada who would like an opportunity to take their 2 halibut home. The other consideration I believe was to avoid some options that had high risk of ending the season early. When you sit down and assess each option for it's ability to deliver on the core values the SFAC's put forward to guide the SFAB decision, it starts to become a little clearer which options present least risk of impeding those core values (I won't repeat as they have been posted too many times already).
I've also heard here that the large lodges and guides stand to benefit from this over under choice. I just don't get the logic of that argument either...it would seem to me that they are making a sacrifice as they won't be able to market those really large hogs. Yet they were prepared to make that sacrifice in the interest of ensuring there was opportunity for anglers to catch fish over the length of the regular fishing season, because I think in part, they recognized the importance of maintaining opportunity. Without opportunity and an expectation of catching fish, there really is nothing for anyone.
No matter the choice, there has to be sacrifices made to make this TAC work and get a full season. So in my view, the choice made was one of the better ones....but not the only one that could have worked for certain. I still stick by my own personal choice which was 6 fish/year of which 3 can be over 83cm (no upper limit)...but that just wasn't an option to choose from, so water under the bridge. Regardless of how anyone of us personally thinks we have a recommendation only...DFO still has to decide, and we will find a way to work with that decision.
Lots of feeling this was a closed door secret process. I'm not sure how that can be stated in fairness. This was an open process, lots of opportunity for input from various SFAC's, individuals and organized groups. The Halibut Options Paper was widely circulated, debated, even at one point surveyed on this very forum. The SFAB Main Board meeting isn't closed door - no one was banned from being there (I took time to confirm before posting this). Even guests & observers who were in the room were afforded opportunity to express their input. I don't know how more open it could be. I've heard guys in Vancouver stating they are blocked from participating, but the sad thing is there are SFAC's on the Lower Mainland and these meeting appear to be very poorly attended (not to mention the SFAB Main Board Meeting was in Richmond).
If we actually think that a web forum, where no one is accountable for what they post, is where these sorts of fisheries management decisions can be made then we are kidding ourselves. This forum is a good place to exchange views and ideas - some of which eventually do make their way into the SFAC/SFAB discussions...but that's as far as it goes. Maybe we can sit down around the SFAC tables and work through these issues to find positive solutions in the future rather than rant at each other through computer screens.
