95TH IPHC Meeting in Victoria

[SerengetiGuide]

Carry over option does not mean you take away from the next years TAC. It means if we are under our TAC in year 1, you can carry over x% into year 2. Yes if you go over it gets reduced but that’s only if you go over, not under.

I’ll ask again. Why wouldn’t a 5% buffer be used instead of 10 when history has shown that is all that is needed and many on sfab have said we need to do a better job of using up our TAC.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

And yes I'd take 112/83cm if it came with the option of a 1/1, 130 cm.

 

[Jencourt]

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.

I fail to see how the SFAB could not support something with so many upsides to Canadian anglers. Both those who do it themselves and those who book charters would benefit. That covers every Canadian salt water angler there is. I would hope to have the boards support. If they where to advise against a proposal that would put more access into the hands of Canadians . As well as MAYBE provide oportunity to improve methods of tracking. Would that not be a little shocking ?
Guides and do it yourselfers alike could benefit. Remember lots of guides have a big part of business coming from Canadian customers as well. If we could offer those Canadians a much better situation, would that business not likely grow ?

Again: If the trend is going to be that it is in use why not try to make it beneficial to all Canadian anglers, by not requiring them to use it in order to have a fair and equitable access to the already unfair and inequitable amount of access we have been afforded?
If DFO where to keep the playing field level, in that XRQ would give foreign anglers the ability to keep Halibut up to but not in excess of recreational limits and rules . Freeing up rec TAC that could remove the restrictive measures that hurt all of us.
It may just make All of this a little more bearable.

Again this is stuff I think should be looked at. As asked at beginning of my first post how much TAC are we talking about?

 

[terrin]

Is your job all about the moneys?

I thought this was about Sport Fishers as a whole access to a public resource.

 

[searun]

And yes I'd take 112/83cm if it came with the option of a 1/1, 130 cm.

You can't suck and blow at the same time. Not enough TAC for that. Do the math, it won't work unless you are prepared to truncate the season. Truncate meaning delayed start, early finish....no one I know is asking for that option. Its a NON-starter for me.

 

[Stizzla]

March through September seems good. October-December is usually tougher weather and tides

 

[searun]

Serengeti a memory refresh - you attended the Area 17 SFAC - it was a pleasure to meet you there. Given you attended, that would mean you had input and a vote on preferences that will be taken forward this week at the Main Board Meeting. Also note that the "choice" option was brought up in this same meeting, and per that request you made, a choice option has been modelled for the Main Board meeting. I am somewhat perplexed by your concern over the "choice" option. Equally perplexed that you suggest there has been no opportunity for input into making your preferences known within the SFAB process. I guess the SFAB is guilty of acting on the input from the SFAC meeting you attended and provided input. Interestingly, the North also asked for a "choice" option to be modelled. Pretty clear which preferences the Area 17 group (that you participated in) felt strongest about - and yes, all the SFAB Executive in attendance did abstain from voting so as to not influence the vote outcome.

Every other organization I have participated in operates in a similar fashion to the SFAB. The BC Chamber for example develops policy resolutions at the local Chamber level, then advances those to the BC Chamber level, and if supported, those advance to the Canadian Chamber level and if ratified become policy decisions supported by the entire Canadian Chamber. The SFAB operates precisely the same way. Motions start at local SFAC level, advance to either the North or South Coast, and if ratified there, advance to the Main Board SFAB. If passed at the MB, those motions then become the advice from the SFAB to the Fisheries Minister. That's how the process functions, and clearly there was opportunity for input. Its a public process, all are welcome to get involved. Not a perfect process by any stretch, but for the most part things work for providing advice to the Minister of Fisheries - not advocacy...advice.

If you want advocacy, the proper place is to join an advocacy group and follow their internal process to advance your advocacy ideas.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

When did I say I've had "no opportunity for input"?? And equally I'm all for the choice option, I was the first one to bring it up at any SFAC meeting or even on here. I think that should be what we do this year and think its insane not to. My concern is with the continued risk adverse attitude of SFAB which continues to result in excessive size restrictions that handcuff fishermen more than is needed as we leave fish in the water EVERY year (minus ONE). A 126cm 1/1, 90/90cm (for example, as apparently 112/83cm or not the same number doesn't work?!?!) is the silliest thing ever. We only caught 750,000 lbs with a 1/2, 126cm/83cm in 2013!!!! Yet 1/1 126cm is going to catch 900,000 lbs (even with 40,000 lbs mortality not even close). You keep saying "that won't work, can't suck n blow" etc yet you have given zero evidence of that yet I'm posting all these numbers to the contrary. If I see numbers that show we will more likely than not go over with what I've put forward I'll backtrack.

Also, you can see majority voted for shortened season, same with north island sfac's. Obviously Victoria wouldn't have, how do we find out how the rest of the sfac's voted? Because if most did vote for shortened season sfab's (and your) #1 priority of full season is not valid.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Just reading though the IHPC notes it seems the the canadian recreational fishery has been under scrutiny for our lack of tracking and accountability. Perhaps our accounting practices have changed since 2013.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Why wouldn’t a 5% buffer be used instead of 10% when history has shown that is all that is needed and many on sfab have said we need to do a better job of using up our TAC? That alone would increase max size by 3cm or so, when we are this restricted 3cm makes a difference.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Why wouldn’t a 5% buffer be used instead of 10% when history has shown that is all that is needed and many on sfab have said we need to do a better job of using up our TAC? That alone would increase max size by 3cm or so, when we are this restricted 3cm makes a difference.

seems like a pretty simple motion to write that probably would be widely accepted, get drafting and force the issue.

 

[ziggy]

When we talk Primary and Secondary in the table 1 above, is it safe to assume that this refers to Board Membership? If so, is this criteria still required and met for who is Primary/ Secondary? For example none of the nine Primary members who voted earn income through fishing?

Membership
The majority of members of the SFAB will be Primary Level User Group Members.

Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non- industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.

The remaining members of the SFAB will be Secondary Level User Group Members.

 

[searun]

When we talk Primary and Secondary in the table 1 above, is it safe to assume that this refers to Board Membership? If so, is this criteria still required and met for who is Primary/ Secondary? For example none of the nine Primary members who voted earn income through fishing?

Membership
The majority of members of the SFAB will be Primary Level User Group Members.

Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non- industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.

The remaining members of the SFAB will be Secondary Level User Group Members.

Please come up and take my "volunteer" job...its all yours if you want it.

 

[Bod]

Please come up and take my "volunteer" job...its all yours if you want it.

Pat. You put in countless hours and do a fantastic job for the recreational fishery. I don't think there are many that could do it. Thank you.

I really wish all the keyboard warriors that think things can or should just be changed over night would show up for a few meetings.

 

[ziggy]

Please come up and take my "volunteer" job...its all yours if you want it.

It was a pretty simple question? If you don’t know the answer, no need to take exception. If the SFAB is going held up by DFO as an organization to represent Sport Fishers and facilitate information flow then its operation and mandate need to be clear.
The composition of a board that is proclaimed a representative organization for a much larger group of people is important. In this case there is a mandated balance of two specific interest groups. I see nothing wrong with asking if DFO is following its own rule.
I live on the Saanich Peninsula, I’d be happy to be a board member, although we might have to change meeting dates , locations and times in order to facilitate my work schedule. Other than that, I have nothing holding me back.

 

[The Jackel]

You can't suck and blow at the same time. Not enough TAC for that. Do the math, it won't work unless you are prepared to truncate the season. Truncate meaning delayed start, early finish....no one I know is asking for that option. Its a NON-starter for me.

That there is one of the best one liners yet on SFBC, especially for who it is referring to

 

[wildmanyeah]

I’d be happy to be a board member, although we might have to change meeting dates , locations and times in order to facilitate my work schedule.

Lol, sports fishing must be pretty far down the list of things important to you eh

 

[ziggy]

Lol, sports fishing must be pretty far down the list of things important to you eh

Yeah, call me crazy,paying a mortgage, feeding the family etc. all have priority over my hobbies. I call it being a responsible parent. I’d be surprised if anyone else on here considers kids shoes less important than a new reel, but to each his own I guess. Now if I earned my wages on Sport Fishing, I’d obviously see things differently.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Yeah, call me crazy,paying a mortgage, feeding the family etc. all have priority over my hobbies. I call it being a responsible parent. I’d be surprised if anyone else on here considers kids shoes less important than a new reel, but to each his own I guess. Now if I earned my wages on Sport Fishing, I’d obviously see things differently.

I have a job, 2 kids, soccer practice, swimming lessons ect and make the two meetings a year. I find it hard to believe that things can’t be organized for you to make them.

Seems kinda silly then to make the people that own their living from sports fishing secondary users then don’t it

 

[ziggy]

I have a job, 2 kids, soccer practice, swimming lessons ect and make the two meetings a year. I find it hard to believe that things can’t be organized for you to make them.

I guess maybe that’s because you have no idea of what hours I work,what I do,where I work etc. Good that you can make the meetings, but that doesn’t mean it works for everyone.
At any rate this fixation with attending the “meetings” really has nothing to do with my original question regarding Board composition or whether it’s in compliance with DFO’s stated mandate? That is unless you feel that unless a person attends the meeting they have no need to know? Which by the way violates DFO’s guiding principles regarding transparency.