60lb/15lb Halibut Limit - Let's Discuss

[Last Chance]

Has anyone been in contact with the SFAB? I am just wondering if this was the only option on the table.
I like the idea of limiting size. I don't like the idea of buying Quota. I think we need to educate people on the
pros and cons of keeping large halibut. I like to catch big fish, we can release them without too much harm. (my opinion)
This size limitation is not about protecting big fish though, it is just a suggested way to keep us within our 15 percent.
Getting a bigger share within the TAC will be tough but worth the fight. Till then we will have to protect what we have left.

Problem Wtih that:

Rec Fishermen only catch %15 of the Canadian Quota, which is agreed on by the IPHC Biologists. It is their mandate to conserve halibut. If they thought for a minute that letting the big ones go was a practical conservation measure, they would have mandated that as a recommendation. Fact is, it is not. The sport fleet catches such an insignifigant number of these animals, it would be akin to putting out a forest fire with a one gallon bucket.

If the government is going to cause hardship, it had better have a real, tangible effect. That's why we no longer have Air Care in most of the province, great idea, but was not making a difference. Same with the Gun Registry, looked good on paper, did not prevent a single gun crime. Same with several other "feel good" mandated programs in the past. Why bother if they don't work? And to spend all the money printing halibut packaging instructions, training officers, and having the officers swarm the docks like they id last year, just lease the extra 80,000 pounds of quota and leave the fish cops to patrol the water where the real problem lies. 80,000 pounds can be leased for 480 grand. Probably a little less if done in bulk. Fish cops, by the time you pay them, the milage, the hotel stays, I bet you can't get 4 of them for that price. With all the time they spent on the docks, who was filling the gaps patrolling the water? So why not put the resources to work ensuring the resource is being used to it's full potential, rather then having the recreational regulations match the tax code in terms of complexity. Besides, they (the federal government) wre the ones who gave it away, so why not have them pay for the common property resource?

If the commercial fleet had to throw back the big ones, at the reccommendation of the IPHC who in my opinion do a great job of managing the fishery, then I would have a better time dealing with this.

Why not have the commercial fisherman release the big ones? They are the ones with the training to deal with big fish, they have video monitoring so they can release the big fish safely and be accountable for the safety of the fish, last, but not least, a commercial boat more then likeley is a safer platform to discard a 200 pound angry animal from.

What everyone forgets is that the spotlight is on the smallest harvester of the resource, not the largest. Logic dictates where to point size restrictions. And are smaller halibut not considered btter table fare? How about a MINIMUM size limit for the rec sector of 30 inches? I bet that would lerave a lot more animals in water. Except that most lodges on the coast are in places where small halibut are the norm, but one has to ask, what is worse? Killing one 100 pound animal, or 20 10 pounders?

 

[GDW]

I don't think so if you buy quota you don't have to follow any regulations as far as I know you can exceed your daily limit and your possession limit. You can fish when it's closed. Not sure why a size limit would apply.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...ut-fletan/docs/2012/presentation-eng.htm#mgmt

Check out that link it confirms what I said above no daily or possession limit under the experimental license. Doubt there will be a size limit basically it's pay us off to fish without rules.

 

[Hindsight]

I may be an idiot, but one that will be fishing.. If I can put a C licence on the boat and buy quota Ill look at that also..SFAB no I am not knocking, but when important matters like this come up we the general fishing puplic MUST BE INFORMED.. I am still waiting on ? to be answered . Has this Proposal being put forward to DFO ..

You can not fish when halibut is closed, you can continue fishing if rec is closed and commercial is still open. There is a difference between what you posted and the law. Buying quota intended to use as a rec angler, is not the solution, any rec angler who does is an idiot.

 

[Fish Assassin]

The SFAB reps and anyone that really knows anything concrete seem to be missing from this discussion.

They are just lurking in the back ground. I have been watching them log on and off regularly thru out the past two days. Just click on Forum and see which SFAB members you see logging in and failing to share with us the sport fishermen what is happening. Is it private information?

 

[GDW]

The size limit will be length not weight. They say 15/60 pounds because that is easy for a fishermen to understand. The regulation will be length.

Look up a halibut length vs weight chart you'll see 60 pounds is 5 feet (60 inches). If 60 pounds is the max weight the regulation will read nothing over 60 inches long.

 

[Hindsight]

SFAB did I miss a meeting in which this topic of 15/ 60 came Up ??? I did not hear anything about this till our TAC was released Some info please

 

[GDW]

I think you say " Halibut please be still and open wide I must measure you to the nearest cm then remove the hooks from your throat - or put a gaff through your stomach - depending how the measurement goes."

That is the official wording SFBC reps are working with halibut populations all over the coast as we speak to make sure they all understand.

I suggested having halibut wear name tags if you will displaying their length and weight but so far they won't bite on that proposal.

 

[Foxsea]

I think you say " Halibut please be still and open wide I must measure you to the nearest cm then remove the hooks from your throat - or put a gaff through your stomach - depending how the measurement goes."

That is the official wording SFBC reps are working with halibut populations all over the coast as we speak to make sure they all understand.

I suggested having halibut wear name tags if you will displaying their length and weight but so far they won't bite on that proposal.

HA HA! That's what was missing, here. Thanks for the good humor.

 

[kronic_fisherguy]

I guess they think Halibut fishing goes something like this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1HmDit2wkA

 

[SerengetiGuide]

To say this year will be interesting is a vast understatement...I use circles and still have the odd one that clearly wouldn't make it...should make a Hali dead thread for the season...

 

[Cuba Libre]

Well-- I have had the opportunity to talk to the two BCWF reps at the Main board of the SFAB. The recommendation to go with the 60 max and one ping pong paddle, 6 a year--- came from the Groundfish/halibut sub committee. When it was voted on by the representatives at the Mainboard (North BC and South BC) the vote was 17 for the motion and 9 against. I understand that the two BC Wildlife Federation reps argued forcefully that this was a poor plan that would just insure that the "experimental fishery" was shoved down our throats. One rep said that he told the meeting that there was no way he could go back and tell the BCWF members (42,000) that he had voted to support releasing halis over 60 lbs for the commercials to catch. Second hand info ( ie- I dont know for sure) is that the South Island , guides and northern lodges voted FOR the plan.
I suggested that the SFAB needs to IMMEDIATELY put out a press release explaining their recommendation. It is now in DFO hands

 

[Derby]

The SFAB reps and anyone that really knows anything concrete seem to be missing from this discussion.

I quess I have a even better question for you... why would I and other even want too be involved in this discussion???

 

[Babyblew]

I quess I have a even better question for you... why would I and other even want too be involved in this discussion???

I dont know, maybe cause everyone is bashing the SFAB, and maybe just maybe its not warrented. If someone would step up to the plate and explain some of this, maybe this specualtion cross burning would stop?

Thank you for the Partial explanation Cuba. GOOD ON THE BCWF! Hopefully more will come out in the near future. The fact that 17 voted for this is pretty brutal though. So if this came from the ground fish guys is it safe to say that they came up with this on thier own as the best of the options presented.?

 

[Derby]

I personal did not attend this weekend and untill I have minutes from the meeting I cannot comment..As for bashing the SFAB there really is no one new here that is..most that are bashing have always bashed...those that understand what the process is, already understand what we( all of us) are up against...there is no win here anyway we go..we need more TAC plain and simple that is where the fight is......

 

[hambone]

GDW I am using this portion of your post as an example of the far too many that are like it,

How about you guys that keep bashing the SFAB folks take a deep breath. It is disgusting to see how so many grown adult human beings are acting like a lynch mob over something most of you do not fully understand.

Agree or disagree thats fine and expected as part of the process. Even share how this affects you if you think it will help.

Let me suggest that everyone take a step back, ask yourselves if what I am about to post has any value toward improving the situation. If not then don't post it. If your not sure ask yourself if I am speaking on emotion alone or am I speaking based on educated fact. If you still do not know then find out how you can get better educated so you can be productive to positive long term change instead slinging mud and getting sucked in by commie trolls and basic **** disturber's.

This forum is filled with very smart people whom have much more knowledge and experience than I. At this time and as we keep moving forward we need to use that knowlage and experience to help preserve this great past time we are all obviously very passionate about.

Thanks: Ray

Great post..... Some people should read this!

 

[profisher]

What I was just told was that the northern groups wanted the 2nd fish under 15 pounds and weren't prepared to give that up. The guide I talked to from the South Island preferred a 1 fish limit and 1 fish possession, with no size restriction. To allow the 2nd fish and still not cause a even further shortened season the size restriction had to be added. So the proposal put forward is one fish under 60 pounds and 1 fish under 15 pounds in possession. With that you have all the packaging BS that others have mentioned. Hopefully DFO sees the enforcement nightmare this will produce and they will turn it down. That is still a strong possibility.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Enforcement with all the cutbacks will be near impossible. Maybe that'll help get it turned down

 

[profisher]

Everyone is entitled to write a letter to DFO and tell them they don't support the motion put forward by the SFAB.

 

[Tailspin]

It could take a really long time to try and find a 15 lb. or under fish, I would say 90% on the South Island are out of reach of that target. I see significant dead loss being a real concern if this is actually implemented.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

My DFO buddy was at the meeting as the BC Interior Fish Management rep and the saddest part about this issue, in my opinion, is the fact that not a single participant at the weekend's meetings questioned or challenged DFO's models or information, it was all accepted at face value as valid.

DFO's model is based on an assumption that 50% of harvested fish will be slot fish which, as I've explained many times with the data to back it up, is way off the mark and the reason the model failed last year and resulted in the 2012 TAC being used up much quicker than the model forecast. Rather than review their model, DFO has speculated that fish size may have increased by 5% or more (this fact also went unchallenged despite the fact the readily available IPHC data shows average size has not increased for most age classes and for those that did increase the increase was at most 2.5%). DFO also stated the angler behaviour and effort MAY have changed in unforeseen and unpredictable ways. These two unsupported hypotheses caused DFO to adopt some very conservative buffers to the TAC consumption rates in their model, rather than simply improve the obvious problems with the model in the first place. These buffers are the reason for the need for both a max size limit AND the annual limit - to give extra assurance the TAC will be spread over a longer period despite it being the same TAC as last year.

So, yes, DFO and their faulty model bear the brunt of the blame. But not having representatives who've done their homework and are prepared to question and challenge the models and information provided is also to blame.

That's my opinion and it's based on an analysis of the model used, the historic and current data being used by both the IPHC and DFO managers and an accurate of account of how the weekend's meeting progressed.

Ukee