95TH IPHC Meeting in Victoria

[searun]

Correct above. I think the only way we don’t have the anglers choice option is if it isn’t completely modelled. But thing is if you have the two options you’re giving anglers you can get a pretty damn close approximation to what will be taken. In theory it wouldn’t go above the highest poundage of the two options. And more likely falls between them.

I ran the numbers and a "choice" option would work. All comes down to what the SFAB meeting determines to be the best option after debating. The Irec data indicates that there is a fairly large number of anglers who choose to retain 2 small fish. Some areas have a high proportion of their catch coming in as small ping pong paddles. That being the case, the choice option would produce a lower use of poundage retained than just a 1 under, 1 over slot. The choice option IMO gives us a way to keep different fisheries (Areas) that have different fish composition opportunity to select what best suits the fish available to them.

How a choice option would work is you can only keep 2 fish if all your fish are under a set size...but if you take 1 fish over that minimum size you can only keep that 1 fish up to a max slot size. So (example only) if the max small fish size is 87cm, then you can only keep 2 if they are both under that length. A choice at a set min keeps people who are looking for 2 fish below a set min size limit if they want 2 fish, thus the savings in pounds.

Given our TAC was only reduced by 3.8% we have enough IMO to run a full season using a few options at 1/1 up to 126cm, and a 1/2 with the "choice" , or 1/2 with lower large fish similar to the 115cm last year. So a lot to debate in terms of finding the best regulation to meet the varied needs of all areas along the coast.

I heard a few very badly informed rumours that we have to shorten the season. Some even saying a June 1 start. That is total BS, as we have more than enough TAC to run a full season that could start March 1. Given some areas depend on early fishery start up, and the fact that the numbers basically allow a fishery we have enough TAC to do it - why not?

If people want really large fish (for example 133 or bigger), then the only possible way with the TAC we have now is we would need to truncate the season. So far I'm not hearing a lot of support for truncation given our 2019 TAC - thinking that would be very unlikely to get much discussion let alone any supporters. Most people I have talked with will be happy if we can get a single fish option at 124 - 126cm, and if we could figure out a way to have a choice to keep 2 small fish or 1 large fish I'm sensing that would have a lot of support too.

Time will tell, and make for a great debate on the options.

 

[Jencourt]

I ran the numbers and a "choice" option would work. All comes down to what the SFAB meeting determines to be the best option after debating. The Irec data indicates that there is a fairly large number of anglers who choose to retain 2 small fish. Some areas have a high proportion of their catch coming in as small ping pong paddles. That being the case, the choice option would produce a lower use of poundage retained than just a 1 under, 1 over slot. The choice option IMO gives us a way to keep different fisheries (Areas) that have different fish composition opportunity to select what best suits the fish available to them.

How a choice option would work is you can only keep 2 fish if all your fish are under a set size...but if you take 1 fish over that minimum size you can only keep that 1 fish up to a max slot size. So (example only) if the max small fish size is 87cm, then you can only keep 2 if they are both under that length. A choice at a set min keeps people who are looking for 2 fish below a set min size limit if they want 2 fish, thus the savings in pounds.

Given our TAC was only reduced by 3.8% we have enough IMO to run a full season using a few options at 1/1 up to 126cm, and a 1/2 with the "choice" , or 1/2 with lower large fish similar to the 115cm last year. So a lot to debate in terms of finding the best regulation to meet the varied needs of all areas along the coast.

I heard a few very badly informed rumours that we have to shorten the season. Some even saying a June 1 start. That is total BS, as we have more than enough TAC to run a full season that could start March 1. Given some areas depend on early fishery start up, and the fact that the numbers basically allow a fishery we have enough TAC to do it - why not?

If people want really large fish (for example 133 or bigger), then the only possible way with the TAC we have now is we would need to truncate the season. So far I'm not hearing a lot of support for truncation given our 2019 TAC - thinking that would be very unlikely to get much discussion let alone any supporters. Most people I have talked with will be happy if we can get a single fish option at 124 - 126cm, and if we could figure out a way to have a choice to keep 2 small fish or 1 large fish I'm sensing that would have a lot of support too.

Time will tell, and make for a great debate on the options.

With a creative option like the choice on the table . Why would there be any debate. This option by far provides more options than anything put out there yet. If it models ok , then I can not believe it could be anything but a slam dunk. Having said that I do not hold my breath!!

 

[SerengetiGuide]

The "choice option" you speak of searun is completely crazy IMO, where BOTH fish have to be under 87cm, that would model to like 500,000 lbs I bet, as the 115/83cm gave us just over 850,000 lbs!! Oh and 102cm/83cm models out to 730,000lbs. IF you go to that option the 1/1 size limit better be even larger than 133cm to absorb that savings otherwise we are leaving SO MUCH FISH in the water AGAIN!!!!! And honestly if that extra huge savings means a much higher size limit I'm all for it, but that's not what you said! Imagine the amount of people signing up for experimental then...people have to a living to make (EX. SE Alaska no possession limit, Central Alaska 6 possession no size limit).

You've said before have to get closer to using all our TAC, so I'd assume that would mean using a 5% buffer not the 10% as CONSISTENTLY that has been the too much. SFAB CAN NOT continue to be so insanely risk adverse, it's only hurting anglers. We will be right around 900,000 lbs this season (assuming we don't get to carry forward but if we do then we will be 950,000lbs). Looking at the numbers we were given at the SFAC meetings, 1/1 133cm gives 881,000 lbs (according to a 22% assumed reduction Brad said from going to 1/1 instead of 1/2). 1/1 126cm would give 820,000 lbs. Yet you're leaning towards 124cm?!?! Even with a 45,000 lbs (5%) cushion that is just...irresponsible.

 

[Jencourt]

With a creative option like the choice on the table . Why would there be any debate. This option by far provides more options than anything put out there yet. If it models ok , then I can not believe it could be anything but a slam dunk. Having said that I do not hold my breath!!

I will add 1 more thing. If they are going to run with the choice option and end up giving us little more than more options to keep small fish only,then give me the 1/1 biggest possible.

Again I will not hold my breath on anything.

 

[searun]

I will add 1 more thing. If they are going to run with the choice option and end up giving us little more than more options to keep small fish only,then give me the 1/1 biggest possible.

Again I will not hold my breath on anything.

You get the picture, it will be a lot of difficult discussions/choices. Its also not a precise science as there are far too many variables in play than some are prepared to admit.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Numbers are numbers. Why would you not be able to do a 115/81cm or 1/1 130cm? You have the write your length down on your license!& why would SFAB not use a 5% buffer instead of 10% when literally every single year minus one the remaining amount in the water was OVER that 5%?

 

[searun]

The "choice option" you speak of searun is completely crazy IMO, where BOTH fish have to be under 87cm, that would model to like 500,000 lbs I bet, as the 115/83cm gave us just over 850,000 lbs!! Oh and 102cm/83cm models out to 730,000lbs. IF you go to that option the 1/1 size limit better be even larger than 133cm to absorb that savings otherwise we are leaving SO MUCH FISH in the water AGAIN!!!!! And honestly if that extra huge savings means a much higher size limit I'm all for it, but that's not what you said! Imagine the amount of people signing up for experimental then...people have to a living to make (EX. SE Alaska no possession limit, Central Alaska 6 possession no size limit).

You've said before have to get closer to using all our TAC, so I'd assume that would mean using a 5% buffer not the 10% as CONSISTENTLY that has been the too much. SFAB CAN NOT continue to be so insanely risk adverse, it's only hurting anglers. We will be right around 900,000 lbs this season (assuming we don't get to carry forward but if we do then we will be 950,000lbs). Looking at the numbers we were given at the SFAC meetings, 1/1 133cm gives 881,000 lbs (according to a 22% assumed reduction Brad said from going to 1/1 instead of 1/2). 1/1 126cm would give 820,000 lbs. Yet you're leaning towards 124cm?!?! Even with a 45,000 lbs (5%) cushion that is just...irresponsible.

Gosh, a lot of mis-quotes there. I specifically used 87cm as a fictitious (example)....its meaningless....just a way to illustrate how the "choice" option might work....guessing you figured that out though. The 22% was not Brad's math to justify your desire for a +133cm fish either...another mis-quote. As is 124cm as "my choice"...another mis-quote. My math suggests all single fish (1/1) options up to 126cm work for a full season, but 133cm does not achieve a full season. I'm not leaning towards anything other than; 1) the longest possible season; 2) largest fish we can model that works; and 3) the greatest opportunity for the most areas/anglers.

Once again, if you have better command of the math than the current SFAB team (many who are experts in their own right) then saddle up to the bar and sit in the meetings like all the other volunteers. What you would discover if you did sit there is all the areas have entirely different fisheries, different sized fish, and therefore different interests or needs for regulations in terms of season length, size etc. You would also learn that achieving a balance that satisfies those interests is a challenge, you will not satisfy them all, and you will attract a bunch of ignorant personal attacks that leave you wondering why you even bother.

Oh, I forgot to ask about how you are progressing in your promise to lead the charge to organize a political effort to address the 85/15? Its an election year, no better time for you to make hay on that important issue.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Gosh, a lot of mis-quotes there. I specifically used 87cm as a fictitious (example)....its meaningless....just a way to illustrate how the "choice" option might work....guessing you figured that out though. The 22% was not Brad's math to justify your desire for a +133cm fish either...another mis-quote. As is 124cm as "my choice"...another mis-quote. My math suggests all single fish (1/1) options up to 126cm work for a full season, but 133cm does not achieve a full season. I'm not leaning towards anything other than; 1) the longest possible season; 2) largest fish we can model that works; and 3) the greatest opportunity for the most areas/anglers.

Once again, if you have better command of the math than the current SFAB team (many who are experts in their own right) then saddle up to the bar and sit in the meetings like all the other volunteers. What you would discover if you did sit there is all the areas have entirely different fisheries, different sized fish, and therefore different interests or needs for regulations in terms of season length, size etc. You would also learn that achieving a balance that satisfies those interests is a challenge, you will not satisfy them all, and you will attract a bunch of ignorant personal attacks that leave you wondering why you even bother.

Oh, I forgot to ask about how you are progressing in your promise to lead the charge to organize a political effort to address the 85/15? Its an election year, no better time for you to make hay on that important issue.

When did I say it was Brad's desire to justify anything I said, talk about misquotes. He said 1/1 would result in a 22% reduction (not the 15% that is on the fliers handed out at sfab meetings). As well you've said multiple times the goal should not be to waste and leave fish in the water anymore, need to get closer to using 100%, yet what you say in your post does the exact opposite of that. As for 87cm example, true, you said example, my mistake, but why would you use something so absurdly low as an example if you weren't thinking it would be in that range.

133cm 1/1 results in 870,883 lbs according to sfab fliers (March 1 start, adjusted to 22% reduction not 15%). We have 900,000 (potentially up to 950,000 lbs if we get carryover)... ?? 130cm would be even less... your math is off. Add the 5% "buffer" (again, only needed this 1 out of 6 years) just to satisfy and it's only -10,000 lbs. 130cm would be even more room.

Add into the fact take a 1/2 position of say 115/83cm like last year, and have a proven model where we caught 860,000lbs or so (that includes outlandish mortality DFO put on us which I would assume SFAB being such a great advisory board would show them makes no sense ), and then add 5% buffer and right on the money. There's your option. Or, if you wanted to be safer to allow for that larger fish on the 1/1 side (as sfac's mandated through democratic vote), do 112/83cm, that will reduce poundage from the two fish option and save overall poundage (as I am guessing it will be close to a 50/50 split or not far off for how many anglers take each option).

Another misquote I have never promised anything, but don't worry, it's all going on behind the scenes searun!

Oh, and was at 2 very different area's SFAC meetings in the fall. When is the SFAB meeting on 2019 halibut regs?

 

[The Jackel]

So how much tac have we left in the water the last 5 years?? It seems that we lose this tac, can't be carried over to the next year, so we lose. As for fishing all season, how many guys made it out in December with the wind we had, probably not many. I say fish it till we hit our tac leave nothing in the water unless we can carry it over. First time in 16 years i didn't fish for halibut last year as the spots i fish hold fish over 40 lbs so wasn't going to waste the time and gas to play catch and release and figure into the mort calculation

 

[searun]

Your mis-quoting Brad - he was talking about how the Irec data shows that there is a percentage of anglers who actually caught their 2 fish. The 22% was not a "reduction" - that's how you are mis-understanding the calculations behind various modelling that we asked DFO to conduct. One of those being what would a "choice" option model like to give anglers a choice between keeping only 1 single or 2 fish. One of the big issues we face sitting down with both North and South Coast reps is the N Coast fishery is largely driven by smaller fish, and their SFAC's really want only 2 small fish. Whereas many areas on the S Coast have larger fish, and their SFAC's want 1 larger fish. You can't have both unless we have a smaller large fish (ie. 115cm range). What we strongly heard was the 115cm option was not working for a lot of S Coast people, and there isn't really enough TAC to move it up by much. If we want to get into the 124 to 126cm ranges with 2 fish, there needs to be other options that meet the modelling.

There is NO carry-over option. We have asked DFO for this a number of times. It is still under discussion, but we can't plan on it yet. Thus 133 single fish will not work as the math doesn't add up to the TAC we have, and a carry over option (even if we have it) means you take away from next year's TAC to achieve it. So a very short-sighted way to manage your fishery unless it is used for an emergency or to carry over any savings year to year. We could plan a fishery that is designed to close on short notice sometime in the August to September timeframe, but I have heard a lot of push back about the prospect of a short-notice closure...so not likely people would vote for that.

So would you be happy with a 112/83 cm option? That would work in the modelling, but is that going to work for you?

BTW, the fall SFAC meetings were your opportunity at a SFAC level to provide your input. We heard from the SFAC groups, and have their preferences and predictably its a split between 1 large on S Coast and 2 small fish on N Coast. There will be no SFAC level meetings this week - frankly there is no time. The IPHC decision was Friday, and we are meeting Thursday to Saturday of this week at the Main Board where the final decision will be made regarding the SFAB's recommendation to DFO on regulations choices.

Good to see you aren't promising to do anything, as usual. Pretty easy to sit back and fire flaming arrows at people who actually try to do something...that's what we have come to expect from your white noise. Not constructive...trying to have a conversation with you is kind of like mud wrestling with a pig. After a while you realize the pig really likes to wrestle, you'll never actually catch him to end the game.

 

[wildmanyeah]

The goal should always be to use up the tac and if that means ending to season in September or October so be it. That is of course if DFO allows such maybe they don’t I don’t no.

Everyone here must realize that anything that gives the majority of fishermen what they want will ultimately use up the tac the fastest.

If we do have a full season and have a 10 buffer that will probably mean a size that most are unhappy with or just a replete or last season.

Who is the tie breaker in the north vs south split?

 

[richmake]

Well
This is my opinion for what it’s worth

The past few years have been pretty hard to take from all avenues and collectively we simply aren’t getting the lack of TAC across politically.
The fact is that as long as the transfer mechanism is in place (ie XRQ). We won’t get more TAC....that’s a simple fact.
The continued acceptance of simply allowing DFO to mismanage pretty much all aspects of our combined fisheries is getting harder and harder to take.

With regards to the halibut issues , we accepted the status quo years ago so now we are where we are today,
Struggling to fit into a fictitious number and satisfy a small few of DFO representatives that have a huge amount of power.

The XRQ licence is going to be used and abused more and more over the next coming years simply because it can be.
DFO has no realization on enforcement and quite frankly don’t have the resources to manage it properly and won’t take any advice from the SFAB working group on future management advice with regards to the so called “experimental licence”.

Business wise it’s geinius and a select few company’s /individuals in our area are participating in the program and it’s only a matter of time till more join in.

Like it or not it’s hear to stay and the lack of the recreational sector being able to convince DFO that the system as we know it is broken has and will continue to be our downfall.
We have continued to allow ourselves to be pushed into a corner and work within the system and yes...it’s convoluted and complex but politically is where the change has to start.

I’m just going to wait and see where the SFAB and DFO decide to fit us into the corner this year but what I can tell you is that most everyone won’t be happy.

 

[Aces]

Your mis-quoting Brad - he was talking about how the Irec data shows that there is a percentage of anglers who actually caught their 2 fish. The 22% was not a "reduction" - that's how you are mis-understanding the calculations behind various modelling that we asked DFO to conduct. One of those being what would a "choice" option model like to give anglers a choice between keeping only 1 single or 2 fish. One of the big issues we face sitting down with both North and South Coast reps is the N Coast fishery is largely driven by smaller fish, and their SFAC's really want only 2 small fish. Whereas many areas on the S Coast have larger fish, and their SFAC's want 1 larger fish. You can't have both unless we have a smaller large fish (ie. 115cm range). What we strongly heard was the 115cm option was not working for a lot of S Coast people, and there isn't really enough TAC to move it up by much. If we want to get into the 124 to 126cm ranges with 2 fish, there needs to be other options that meet the modelling.

There is NO carry-over option. We have asked DFO for this a number of times. It is still under discussion, but we can't plan on it yet. Thus 133 single fish will not work as the math doesn't add up to the TAC we have, and a carry over option (even if we have it) means you take away from next year's TAC to achieve it. So a very short-sighted way to manage your fishery unless it is used for an emergency or to carry over any savings year to year. We could plan a fishery that is designed to close on short notice sometime in the August to September timeframe, but I have heard a lot of push back about the prospect of a short-notice closure...so not likely people would vote for that.

So would you be happy with a 112/83 cm option? That would work in the modelling, but is that going to work for you?

BTW, the fall SFAC meetings were your opportunity at a SFAC level to provide your input. We heard from the SFAC groups, and have their preferences and predictably its a split between 1 large on S Coast and 2 small fish on N Coast. There will be no SFAC level meetings this week - frankly there is no time. The IPHC decision was Friday, and we are meeting Thursday to Saturday of this week at the Main Board where the final decision will be made regarding the SFAB's recommendation to DFO on regulations choices.

Good to see you aren't promising to do anything, as usual. Pretty easy to sit back and fire flaming arrows at people who actually try to do something...that's what we have come to expect from your white noise. Not constructive...trying to have a conversation with you is kind of like mud wrestling with a pig. After a while you realize the pig really likes to wrestle, you'll never actually catch him to end the game.

Thank God for the ignore function.

 

[Jencourt]

Thinking more about all of this and a couple questions keep coming back to me. Once I acknowledge that there will be no re allocation of tac and the fact that the XRQ is not going anywhere that is.

#1 How much TAC is being used by non canadians? ( how can I find this out) ??! Help please?

#2 would DFO entertain revamping the parameters in which the XRQ is ran at present.

#3 would it free up enough sport TAC to give us a full season with no size limits. Or at very least a generous max size ?

Canadians are loosing out on oportunity and access to OUR resource to a point where it is no longer acceptable.

I see no issue with diverting the XRQ to non Canadians to access Canadian TAC. as long as it is set up that In a way that It is a requirement of them retaining Halibut and does not give them the ability to fish beyond recreational limits and rules.

So if ya wanna come utalize our TAC ya gotta get from the commercial sector via the XRQ.

Instead to date we just gradually accept that if Canadians want to have reasonable access they will have
To lease it. While allowing a bunch of it to go to foreign fishers.

Please look beyond the initial thought of lost revenue to some operations that may or may not occur and actually consider for a minute what we are being forced to accept under current situation. Many are already accepting it and taking part on the XRQ and more will join. We all know it!!

 

[wildmanyeah]

#1 How much TAC is being used by non canadians? ( how can I find this out) ??! Help please?

have we not been though this topic before? its a substantial amount but the guides and business on here need them for moneys,

 

[Jencourt]

have we not been though this topic before? its a substantial amount but the guides and business on here need them for moneys,

we have, but not to the extent it deserves.

 

[terrin]

have we not been though this topic before? its a substantial amount but the guides and business on here need them for moneys,

So its all about the "moneys"?

 

[Jencourt]

My point is that the game has changed . We can no longer count on people to not buy into it. The acceptance is happening , like it or not.

So do you want to keep accepting crappy access to your resource and or have to lease it to get better access?

If you accept for a minute as many are now doing that quota lease is the only viable option for their business, why would we not look first at attaching it to ONLY non resident anglers before forcing those who pay taxes in the country the TAC is being taken from to do it.

I see this as an oportunity, in absence of getting rid of it , to maybe see dfo revamp it to not create two tears, and improve on enforcement and tracking issues.

Just saying.

 

[wildmanyeah]

My point is that the game has changed . We can no longer count on people to not buy into it. The acceptance is happening , like it or not.

So do you want to keep accepting crappy access to your resource and or have to lease it to get better access?

If you accept for a minute as many are now doing that quota lease is the only viable option for their business, why would we not look first at attaching it to ONLY non resident anglers before forcing those who pay taxes in the country the TAC is being taken from to do it.

I see this as an oportunity, in absence of getting rid of it , to maybe see dfo revamp it to not create two tears, and improve on enforcement and tracking issues.

Just saying.

yeah I do agree I'm not going to sham anyone any more for buying quota, IF that's what they want to do good for them. No one is fighting to change the system and their is only a few that care to try to but it's not enough. If people want to work whiten the system to buy quota then more power to them.

As for making changes to no residence, That would probably require the SFAB to see brood participation from non industry anglers. Non industry anglers are simply "to busy" to show up.

 

[Aces]

So its all about the "moneys"?

Is your job all about the moneys?