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

[Cuba Libre]

Just got a PM from Gov who states the south island did NOT support the proposal.....If this is correct WHO DID? Gov, can you enlighten us please.

 

[profisher]

That is what I was told as well. It was the north guides/lodges.

 

[Optimist]

Oak Bay Marine GROUP supported this as well as SFI and Marlynn MUrphy

 

[Optimist]

The North Coast guides and Lodges also wanted the season to start April 1 and was fought hard by the Southern boys to get the 15th ,one is starting to see a division in the ranks!!!

 

[Babyblew]

[VpFITa9eYoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFITa9eYoQ

 

[searun]

The North Coast guides and Lodges also wanted the season to start April 1 and was fought hard by the Southern boys to get the 15th ,one is starting to see a division in the ranks!!!

Pretty disgusting. Now lets start a witch hunt and burn everyone who voted on the cross...please stop this garbage. Listen to what you are posting. This is absolute rubbish. Everyone who was involved in the process at those meetings deserves better treatment than this. Now let's see, why would anyone involved in the process want to be bothered to post up details on their analysis of the options and eventual decision....FEAR! You guys are supposedly adults - this is nothing short of childish bully tactics.

Also pretty shameful that those who were at the meeting are putting it out there as to who voted which way...is that to bolster support?

Please go back and read Ray's post...and re-read it again....the only way forward is for us to work together, and especially not to lose sight of the real battle which is to secure a proper TAC. Better too that we await the outcome of the Malcolm case, not much point protesting just yet...better to keep your powder dry until we actually have something to shoot at.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

I think this is one situation where it is fairly obvious SFAB did not make the decision in which the majority of anglers supported, and I'm not ragging on them anymore or anything as I'm positive they had our best intentions in mind, but this is one where they made a mistake, and did not represent the majority of anglers. I highly doubt from them you will hear it was a mistake, but its something that may need to be addressed...can it be looked at again? I have no idea. Like I said, I know they had the best intentions, but this is one where from what I'm seeing on here and talking to others they missed the mark.

 

[Optimist]

Nothing disgusting about just stating facts that i beleive everyone has the right to know who was involved in the process,if you voted a certain way you should explain why and support it with info that seems to be lacking here,people are looking for reasons for the decisions so give it to them ,hiding doesn't help there case ,give reasons and explain why and perhaps this so called witch hunt will stop.i fish on the south coast you dont think that i wouldn't be upset with a group of people that are up north telling me and the other hundreds of local anglers that we cant fish because they dont think its right,check out how much quota is taken from victoria area for the month of march,,exactly,,now tell me how much revenue would be generated from this march 1st opening,,exactly

 

[Fish Assassin]

I think it's a repeat of last year when it was said the slot limit was pushed down their throats and it wouldn't happen again..

Not only again but worse... What's next year?

 

[Babyblew]

Pretty disgusting. Now lets start a witch hunt and burn everyone who voted on the cross...please stop this garbage. Listen to what you are posting. This is absolute rubbish. Everyone who was involved in the process at those meetings deserves better treatment than this. Now let's see, why would anyone involved in the process want to be bothered to post up details on their analysis of the options and eventual decision....FEAR! You guys are supposedly adults - this is nothing short of childish bully tactics.

Also pretty shameful that those who were at the meeting are putting it out there as to who voted which way...is that to bolster support?

Please go back and read Ray's post...and re-read it again....the only way forward is for us to work together, and especially not to lose sight of the real battle which is to secure a proper TAC. Better too that we await the outcome of the Malcolm case, not much point protesting just yet...better to keep your powder dry until we actually have something to shoot at.

Why is the truth garbage?

Shameful to put it out there how it all went down? why? do we not deserve to know? I guess the whole community of guides lodges and fisherman should just be left in the dark completely, until the fisheries notice?

 

[GLG]

I have been asked to summarize what happened from some PM's received this is directed to those that wanted info from me.

Last year at SFAB there was a mad dash to come up with a recommendation for halibut.
DFO did not give SFAB enough time to consult with the local SFAC.
After the fact SFAC passed a motion that next year they need to consult with us first.
So in October a PDF was sent out with options for this year and request that we give them guidance.
The document was posted here and we had a lively conversation.
Most SFAC then had open house meetings to get input from the community.
Those options where rehashed again then and a vote was taken.
In Area 14 we accepted 1/2 slot, restrict gifting and we had previously passed a motion for some annual limit. It was also important for us to have a full season.
We were against... Max size, Time and Area Closure, Area Allocation
So that's what was on the table from our SFAC-14 to South Coast SFAB
It went to South Coast (SC) SFAB and after much discussion from other area SFAC's a broad set of recommendations were passed to Halibut Working Group and SFAB Main Board.
Off the table from SC SFAB :Time and Area Closure, Area Allocation
On the table: daily possession limits, season length, size limits, etc.
Support :implementation of a 5 halibut annual limit for the 2013 season and that the Halibut Committee develop a proposal for linking an annual limit to abundance. Halibut opening date of March 1 at the earliest for the 2013 season. Highest priority should be given in the modelling process to extending the halibut season if at all possible to the end of September.

So that's what the SFAB Halibut Working Group (HWG) had to work with. From there they waited for IPHC and DFO to get all the numbers together and build the models. I'm sure that the HWG went back and forth with DFO to try to make the TAC fit. It was presented to SFAB Main Board for discussion and a vote. That's where we are today.... 1/2 - Slot 15/60 lb, 6 annual limit, full season. So you see Area 14 got some of what we wanted but we did not get the no max size.
We got two halibut - yea I know we got a max size and that's why there is people upset
We got Annual Limit - helps keeps the gifting down and hopefully spreads the TAC to others
We got Full Season - I know we were sick of having our season shut down.
So you can look at it like this : Win, Win, Lose or Lose, Win, Win
One thing to note is this is a recommended experiment and only good for this year.
DFO has the final say as to what our season will look like. If you contact them that's up to you.
We will be back at this next year when the Halibut numbers are in from IPHC and DFO.
I will put forth what Area 14 anglers decide next year and will defend those decisions.
GLG

Here are somethings I won't do.....
Take disrespectful comments or questions that are meant to start a fight here on this forum. I will not stir the pot as that's not what anglers do. I will not answer question from members with there agendas. I'm not here so you can make a batch of popcorn and start a shyt fight for your own entertainment.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Wasn't the slot "only an experiment for one year too"? Now look where we are this year...with even a more restricted slot...this "one year" stuff is just not true...and I'm not going to be disrespectful here, but after last years "one year" why should we believe this is going to be for "one year"?? Even after talking to a few sfab members today, and hearing their side, I still don't believe this was the best option for this season.

 

[Sculpin]

Very good post GLG. Kudos to you to explain how it all works and how it all went down. There is a number (TAC for the rec sector) that has to be worked with. There are government officials that have to be worked with. The process I think is there to work. The governments model could be flawed and that is where in lays one of the many problems regarding this matter.

I fully agree that some posters should re-read Jencourt's post as it was excellent.

Again this year, all the hard working VOLUNTEERS went to the meetings and did their best with what they had to work with for the benefit of ALL recreational anglers. They choose the lesser of all the evils IMHO. Just like last year.

 

[GLG]

DFO also stated the angler behaviour and effort MAY have changed in unforeseen and unpredictable ways

Ukee

Ukee can you add 6000 more fish caught this year into you model and see if you balance your equation?
I would really like to see what you come up with and I'm not trying to start a fight.
GLG

 

[Babyblew]

So i guess in closing,

Its not really the SFAB fault, same as last year,. They arent accountable for anything i guess. They blame the DFO, the DFO blames them, no one takes ownership and all us suffer. When we question what happens, we are being dickheads, and are ungrateful. Sounds like a great system.

 

[searun]

Why is the truth garbage?

Shameful to put it out there how it all went down? why? do we not deserve to know? I guess the whole community of guides lodges and fisherman should just be left in the dark completely, until the fisheries notice?

Speaking of transparency.......Babyblew isn't that the name on Lorne's boat?

I'm not hiding anything, I wasn't in the room. I haven't yet seen the final recommendation because the minutes have not been published and sent out to the SFAC's. I do know that it should matter not how each person voted, it only matters that the majority of informed anglers in the room made a decision, and perhaps it might be instructive to wait to see what their analysis was before we get all worked up. The SFAB or DFO will put something out when they are ready to do so, perhaps via the SFAC Chairs. Bully tactics are disgusting. Those posts should be pulled as they disrespect the process and those who work on our behalf and can only be meant to intimidate or perhaps build support for something.

One thing I do know is this was a difficult decision, and really comes down to picking your poison based on hitting some main objectives identified by the SFAC's, which if memory serves correctly was something like...1) a season that went until at least September; 2) an option that did the least to risk early closure; 3) a decision that gave us 2 fish possession - very few wanted to give that up.

If you want to be at the table making those decisions, get yourself involved in the SFAB where you too can be accountable for more than just being a key board hero like the rest of us.

And, for the record - the main reason we have the same TAC as last season, and did not suffer a 30% reduction recommended by IPHC science was the SFAB was there leading the charge.

 

[Sculpin]

cmon sculpin, govt blah blah blah...THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED AND REWORKED, THE PPL CALLING THE SHOTS, the whole system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, the govt is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY FLAWED, there is no question about it, too many weaksauce posts about wait for this and wait for that and we'll see what happens...BS, look where we are now, waiting and waffling has done a great deal of good hasnt it....sure keep your powder dry until we have something to shoot at......but we better be locked and loaded while we wait, and wait, and wait...there is lots to shoot at already, just nobody willing to actually take aim and shoot....pretty sad.......holmes*

What have you done holmes except shoot your mouth off on a fishing forum? Who the hell are you to call volunteer people "weaksauce". Really we would all like to know what you have done to help with the halibut situation we are in now. Rebel yell from behind a keyboard doesn't cut it in the real world.

Your ready to take aim and shoot like you just posted. What are you aiming for shooter?

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Searun, while I respect how much work you and others put into this process, I disagree with not mattering who voted how etc. Let's draw a comparison, if your MP in the house of commons voted on a bill, you would expect that MP to be accountable for his/her vote and explain why it was cast the way it was, I think the same should be said for this. If a vote in the house of commons was anonymous and an MP refused to tell you how he or she voted, there would be uproar...now I realize they are paid by the taxpayer but lack of funds does not rid one of responsibility. I'll probably make some enemies or foes if you will because of my stance on this issue, but so be it, to try and rid oneself of accountability is not something that's right. Glad you guys are now posting however, as that is more in the right direction on accountability.

 

[Babyblew]

Speaking of transparency.......Babyblew isn't that the name on Lorne's boat?

I'm not hiding anything, I wasn't in the room. I haven't yet seen the final recommendation because the minutes have not been published and sent out to the SFAC's. I do know that it should matter not how each person voted, it only matters that the majority of informed anglers in the room made a decision, and perhaps it might be instructive to wait to see what their analysis was before we get all worked up. The SFAB or DFO will put something out when they are ready to do so, perhaps via the SFAC Chairs. Bully tactics are disgusting. Those posts should be pulled as they disrespect the process and those who work on our behalf and can only be meant to intimidate or perhaps build support for something.

One thing I do know is this was a difficult decision, and really comes down to picking your poison based on hitting some main objectives identified by the SFAC's, which if memory serves correctly was something like...1) a season that went until at least September; 2) an option that did the least to risk early closure; 3) a decision that gave us 2 fish possession - very few wanted to give that up.

If you want to be at the table making those decisions, get yourself involved in the SFAB where you too can be accountable for more than just being a key board hero like the rest of us.

And, for the record - the main reason we have the same TAC as last season, and did not suffer a 30% reduction recommended by IPHC science was the SFAB was there leading the charge.

What are you talking about man? whos bullying who? Take a look in the mirror. People are asking very valid questions an told to shut up and face the corner, its none of your business. People are upset. And they have every right to be. And yes it does fing matter what and how people voted. For god sakes, these are the people representing our ENTIRE fishery. They need to be held accountable. If they dont want to be, step the F down. Why should those posts be pulled? The days of people just sitting on thier hands and excepting things is coming to an end.

There is no doubt this was a difficult desicion I think all people are asking is why. Why of every possible option is this where we ended up? What outside sources are playing a role in this?

Nobody wants to be at that table. Its a crap process that produces crap results. Think about how the process is supposed to work, and hows it working. These guys work there fricking butt off, spend countless hours in some of the most boring meetings known to man, with the thought that this will all be worth it. Then after all that, the DFO comes up with some ridiculous BS data and says "well im glad you guys would like this, but based on our BS these are now your options" The guys are forced what they know is an awful best of the worse decision, and are then hated for it.

Something is really wrong man.

 

[searun]

I'm not posting anything until the decision and recommendations are put out there through the minutes. It's not my place to speak for the SFAB Main Board on why the decision was made. The SFAB can put it out there. Glad to see you are considering getting involved and taking accountability. Sorry, I should be more clear, my point is it serves no good purpose to be posting the names of people and which way they voted - that only stymies open discussion in a meeting and I believe it is also not in keeping with the Terms of Reference for the SFAB.

All this said, no one including me likes having to figure out how to spread out our TAC. None of the options under consideration were good. One had to be picked. I'm going to take the high road and find ways to make whatever regulations decision DFO makes work even if it wasn't my personal choice of options (1:2 possession; 6 fish yearly limit, of which 3 can be over 83 cm).