ACCOUNTABILITY in the Sport Fishing Sector

[Fish-Hunter]

This issue has been eating at me for a while now. It keeps being brought up that we are not accountable so therefore we are the weak link in the chain.

THIS IS IN NO MEANS WHATSOEVER INTENDED TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE OF THE 88/12 TAC SPLIT. (Which I will state for the record, that this really needs to be changed).

The 88/12 needs to be adjusted for sure, at the very least so that the DFO has a mechanism of flexibility to dole out additional percentages to the sectors that need it from year to year as the dynamics of the fishery changes. But....

What percentage does the Sport Sector really need?

DFO will not change the current percentages without a change to the current accountability of the Sport Sector.

The ACTIVE Commercial Sector will not likely even talk to the issue without good accountability in the Sport Sector. (There is NO guarantee that they will talk to the issue even with good accountability). As where else are the additional percentages that we want awarded to the Sport Sector going to come from? The Commercial Sector of course, and they will not like that indeed. (Although I would argue that the additional percentages should come from the Non-Active Commercial Quota holders, plain and simple).

How do we really know what the percentage needs to be adjusted to?
- DFO sets and adjusts our season lengths based on ESTIMATED CATCHES.
- DFO bases the number of anglers on ESTIMATES.
- DFO bases the Sport Sector daily and season catches on ESTIMATES.
It has been said before, and also recently that we don't need to know the real numbers of fish that we are catching. Estimates are accurate enough to extrapolate our success from. THIS IS TOTALY WRONG! We are going to be perpetually stuck with the status quo without changes to get some real numbers on the table.

HOW DO WE ACHEIVE ADEQUATE ACCOUNTABILITY??

- We need a system that accounts for a total number of anglers that are targeting halibut.
- We need a system that has checks and balance mechanisims in it that accounts for the toal number and pounds of fish caught.
- We need a system of accountability that is accepted by the Sport Sector, Active Commercial Sector, FN, and DFO. (This is the hard part, we need to get to a round table with the aforementioned groups and come up with a system of accountability that all can agree on. This would not be a discussion of allocation at all! Only a discussion of improving accountability of the Sport Sector.)

And for the Million Dollar Question... HOW DO WE GET DFO TO LOOK AT OR ACCEPT A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM FOR THE SPORT SECTOR???

- We need a Board/Panel that can get and maintain the attention and respect of DFO in order to get them on board with a change.
- Our current efforts of persuasion on the 88/12 have been heard for sure, but very little for reults as we all know.
- Legal action may be a course of last resort?

THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE ASAP!

- In order to re-establish credibility for the Sport Fishing Sector.
- To stop the finger pointing at the Sport Fishing Sector, and the accusations stating that we are not responsible and not accountable.
- So that we can start basing allocation, catch limits, and season duration on REAL numbers, not IMAGINARY ONES!!!
- So that we all know where we are with respect to our % of TAC. (If there are really 100,000 anglers targeting Halibut, and we all only catch ONE halibut EACH for the year, and the fish were of the average size found in the 2010 IPHC Survey catch, 15 pounds each, then we would be pulling 1.5 million pounds of halibut out of the water). We need to know how many of us are really fishing for halibut and how succesful we are.
- To stop speculation around how much we take out of the water, so that we are able to demand necessary changes based on facts.
- We can't wait for DFO to do it for us. That will NEVER HAPPEN! We have already gotten everything that DFO will give to us. (If DFO will not get on side, then the Courts may in fact be the solution, as has been suggested many times before by many people. If court is the only way to in the end of the day, force DFO to make changes, then we had better have a workable solution at hand before the judge asks us what we suggest as a solution, and the only answer that we have is; "well, uhmm,,, your honor, we were actually waiting for DFO to come up with the solution for us".

This is an important topic within the Halibut issue, I believe that it is a fundamental building block to the solution to the whole issue, one that we all need to start thinking of a solution for, in order to start us down the road to fixing this whole debacle.

SO LET'S START SOME THINKING!

 

[Lipripper]

The IPHC does accept our accountability now..... That has been said.

I think it would have to be an honor system to start.... At least there would be some kind of documentation.
I think the guides/lodges would/should get on board..... as well as average Joe tinboat


I agree

 

[cuttlefish]

I agree too. I don't have the time right now to contribute ideas but will do so soon when I return. I want to thank you for starting this thread and I hope it doesn't get hijacked and other posts focus on the issue of improving accountability. Fairness of allocation is another issue that should remain a separate thread.

Later, gotta run.

 

[GLG]

Perhaps read this report on the last audit (march 2010) performed on the system that produces the numbers and there recommendations.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/09-10/6B205-eng.htm

The idea that the recreation sector is not accountable is a myth told by the commercial sector to deflect the true problem of the 88/12 split. A little research and you will see that yes there were problem and these problems were identified back in 2000. Since then we have come along way. Ask yourself this. Just because you don’t understand how the numbers are created or don’t like the numbers doesn’t mean the numbers are not valid.

The commercial sector would like to see every halibut that was caught by the recreational sector measured, video taped and dockside monitored. Heck if we wasted our time and money and actually did this they would come back and insist on an observer on board.

Don’t you see that this is a smoke screen to hide the real issue?

Watch TV? There is a commercial on right now that shows a teenage daughter sneaking out her bedroom window. She is caught by her father, in the act. A sign pops out and says “Going to the library” The commercial sector is the teenage daughter and the sign is the recreational needs better accountability.

What to research the subject more to be informed? Search this website for more reports.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/index-eng.htm

Still don’t believe me contact DFO yourself and ask them.
CatchStats@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Or

Recreational Catch Data Contact:
Robyn Pearce
Regional Data Services Unit
200-401 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC
V56 3S4
catchstats@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

GLG

 

[GLG]

Here is the audit before from 5 years ago. Interesting focus there on the commercial sector and their Unreported Catch (URC)

Audit of Management Control Framework Supporting Statistical Information on Fisheries December 19, 2006

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/06-07/6b012-eng.htm


GLG

 

[fish4all]

1-206-634-1838 IPHC... call and ask how much faith they have in the numbers received from dfo.

 

[GLG]

1-206-634-1838 IPHC... call and ask how much faith they have in the numbers received from dfo.

Show me the document
GLG

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Perhaps read this report on the last audit (march 2010) performed on the system that produces the numbers and there recommendations.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/09-10/6B205-eng.htm

The idea that the recreation sector is not accountable is a myth told by the commercial sector to deflect the true problem of the 88/12 split. A little research and you will see that yes there were problem and these problems were identified back in 2000. Since then we have come along way. Ask yourself this. Just because you don’t understand how the numbers are created or don’t like the numbers doesn’t mean the numbers are not valid.

The commercial sector would like to see every halibut that was caught by the recreational sector measured, video taped and dockside monitored. Heck if we wasted our time and money and actually did this they would come back and insist on an observer on board.

Don’t you see that this is a smoke screen to hide the real issue?

Watch TV? There is a commercial on right now that shows a teenage daughter sneaking out her bedroom window. She is caught by her father, in the act. A sign pops out and says “Going to the library” The commercial sector is the teenage daughter and the sign is the recreational needs better accountability.

What to research the subject more to be informed? Search this website for more reports.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/index-eng.htm

Still don’t believe me contact DFO yourself and ask them.
CatchStats@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Or

Recreational Catch Data Contact:
Robyn Pearce
Regional Data Services Unit
200-401 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC
V56 3S4
catchstats@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

GLG

My problem is that there is no way that the numbers that they are using how ever they are arriving at them, are accurate.

We can do way more, for I belive very little effort on our behalf to become a lot more accountable to everyone in Canada for what we catch. I would never suggest that we go to cameras and official catch monitors on board every recreational sport fishing and row boat that hits the water, never in a milliion years. But we could do our part to keep some sort of log that we HAVE to turn in, so that DFO can start to use more realistic numbers instead of averages and estimates.

I went out on the water between 18 and 20 times last year (2010) fishing. DFO has absolutely no way of knowing at all if I was out there fishing for Halibut. (Yes I was 4 times). They have NO IDEA how many fish I caught for the year, NONE AT ALL! (I was not asked once by anyone - besides my fmaily and freinds, how many fish and what did you catch today and where did you catch it, NOT ONCE! This I have a real problem with, because this means that the numbers that they used for last years total catches were invalid. Now no I didn't catch very many fish last year 2 Hali (18# and 13# aprox) 15 to 20 Sockeye, NO SPRINGS, NO COHO, various rock fish, some prawns. Not a very productive year for 18 to 20 trips right, but I am not out there just for the Harvest, I am out there for the down time and enjoyment. But none of my fish were counted at ALL!!! I know many others that also fished all last year and were never once asked what they caught!

I think that we can DO BETTER!! I want to DO BETTER! Is there anything wrong with wanting to do better?

I do not want this to be misunderstood here at all!
This thread is not about the REAL issue of 88/12 for halibut, it is about how we can increase our accountability so that we have two feet firmly planted under ourselves when we are fighting the fight against those who will inevetably fight the 88/12 ISSUE.

It is about finding a way to improve the broken sytem, (that is just my opinion) we are now using and being forced to live under.

Yes DFO has convinced themseves that the system we use now is accurate, they have even paid for audits of the sytem to PROVE that the system works. But they have also suggested that when they turn off our season this year, that we go and buy quota from the Fish Lords (non-active quota holders) in order to continue fishing for the year. (when exactly is that going to be?? July? August? September? October - Again? I believe that we wil see a closure come at the height of the season to force the purchase of quota). This whole system is not right, and needs to fixed. I am no longer just willing to keep my mouth shut and keep bending over every time they get an itch to screw someone - I have had it! As have many others also, now we need to come up with a fix for this broken system.

Let's see what kinds of ideas that we can come up with here ladies and gentlemen. Not just on what we can do to improve accountability, but also to find a way to get DFO to take us seriously and respect our position.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Both of these Audit reports have some rather informative information in them for sure, although they are obviously heavily weighted towards the commercial fishery, as are almost all of the DFO policies and mandates. They are definately worth the read.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/06-07/6b012-eng.htm#n13

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/09-10/6B205-eng.htm#ch1

In the 2006 audit there were some concerns brought up in the key findings about the Compliance Related Processes. Although, again these topics are heavily weighted to the Commercial Sector, we (Sport Sector) still do fit in there somewhere. (we just weren't mentioned).

Audit of Management Control Framework Supporting Statistical Information on Fisheries

Project # 2006-6B012
Advisory Report
December 19, 2006

1.3 Key Findings




Compliance Related Processes

• Two key sources of catch and effort data are the Dockside Monitoring Program and At-Sea Observer Program. Apart from a few minor exceptions, the control and coordination of these programs is adequate to mitigate risks of incomplete or inaccurate SIF. (Statistical Information on the Fisheries - SIF).
• The Conservation and Protection organization is moving forward with plans to increase the emphasis on forensic investigative capacity to mitigate the risk of illegal fishing activities and the potential for URC.
• The application of new compliance technologies in the Canadian fisheries has the potential to reduce the risk of unauthorized fishing activities and the associated risk of URC.
• The Department does not have an adequate model to estimate the amount of catch that is not reported.
• There is a lack of departmentally accepted standards and principles to provide guidance and consistency of approach in the determination of controls for catch monitoring and reporting.

Regional Administrative Statistical Processes

• The roles, responsibilities and accountability for the administrative processes supporting SIF are adequately clear in all regions except the Pacific. The consolidation of accountability for the statistics function in the Licensing and Statistics Unit of the FAM organization in the Quebec Region provides optimum clarity of accountability for the function.

Control weaknesses, however, pertaining to accountability for the SIF function, SIF stakeholder forums, post verification programs, logbook effort data, pricing data and data security were identified. We observed that:

• Accountability for the SIF function is unclear in the Pacific Region.

Now I read the 2010 Audit report twice and was not able to find in there anywhere that they directly addresed these shortcomings found by the 2006 audit. (Considering that the 2010 Audit was suposed to be a follow-up Audit to the 2006 Audit). The only thing that I could find to answer for these orriginal shortcomings was in this section of the 2010 Audit;




Audit of Supporting Statistical Information on Fisheries

Project Number 6B205
Preliminary Survey Report
March 18, 2010

Preliminary Survey Findings
The audit team referred to the Treasury Board Information Management Framework which provided a set of quality attributes associated with information quality. The Framework defines information quality as “characteristics or attributes of information that lead readers/users to trust it, including accurate, complete, reliable, understandable, relevant, current, accessible and timely”. This Framework was used by the audit team as a reference for the assessment of controls as it provided guidelines on how to achieve each of the eight components of information quality.
Based on preliminary audit work, Resource Management, Science, and Policy have adequate controls in place to ensure quality of information used in decision memoranda pertaining to the fish harvest decisions. The audit team is referring here to the existence of controls only, as testing of control effectiveness was not conducted as part of the audit work.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the risk assessment of its preliminary findings, the audit team found no major risks in the context of information quality associated with the fisheries management decision memoranda. Though minor risks were identified, the audit team considered that they were addressed by sufficient mitigation strategies. The audit team is satisfied with the relevant control framework in place for Resource Management, Science and Policy and Economics.
Given that adequate controls are in place to ensure the quality of information for decision-making pertaining to fisheries management decision memoranda, the audit team considered that pursuing a detailed examination in the conduct phase would not add value at this time. As the Internal Audit Directorate needs to conduct audit work only on areas of high risk and materiality to optimize the use of its resources, the Directorate recommends concluding the internal audit engagement at this stage.

The Mitigation Strategies I believe were the improved catch monitoring systems implemented to the Commercial Fishery. But what have they done to improve the catch monitoring (ACCOUNTABILITY) of the Sport Fishery and more pointedly the Sport Halibut Fishery?? Have they increased the number of flyovers and moderately increased the number of creel surveys? What real percentages of the Sport catch are being accurately accounted for? 10% or less??

The reason that it is not a big issue for the DFO is that we have only been alloted 12% of the fishery so that we would not have a large impact on the overall fishery and therefore with very good accountability in the Commercial Fishery, they can feed information back to the IPHC that our overall Halibut Fishery is staying within our CANADIAN TAC.

Now in recent years the Sport Halibut Sector has been increasing pressure on the Sport Sector 12% of the TAC due to more guys having access to larger, safer, better equiped boats that will get them to the Halibut banks. Also more guides (some of which are retired commercial fishermen, or displaced commercial fishermen from when their fisheries underwent major fleet size changes. Some of these ex-commercial guys went through economic development programs to start new businesses such as Sport Fishing Guiding Companies). There will only be more pressure in the future as more of the Baby-Boomers retire and start to do more of the activities that they could only do part time while they were working for a living, Fishing being one of those activities.

We need to get DFO to take our viewpoints into consideration and start listening the Sport Sector so that we also have FAIR representaion in all fisheries.

Audit of Supporting Statistical Information on Fisheries

Project Number 6B205
Preliminary Survey Report
March 18, 2010
3.0 Background on the activity

3.1 Mandate of Resource Management

Resource Management delivers policies, programs and plans in partnership with Aboriginal groups and industry, in order to manage, protect and conserve fisheries resources. Resource Management ensures sustainability and provides for the allocation and distribution of harvestable surpluses among those dependent on the resource. Resource Management integrates input from other related the DFO program areas, other government departments and stakeholders to develop and implement fishing plans (i.e. Integrated Fisheries Management Plans) for fisheries. These plans integrate conservation, management and scientific objectives, and spell out the required measures to conserve and manage fisheries resources. Allocations between user groups and fleet sectors are also an important aspect of resource management. Fisheries are managed by allocating quotas to entire fleet sectors that fish either competitively or through enterprise or individual allocations, and by controlling effort, escapement or by-catch.

Stated above:

"In partnership with Aboriginal groups and industry"

Where do we the Sport Sector fit into the equation? Perhaps it is time they call for another audit to find out why the DFO is predjudice against the Sport Fishing Sector.

Hope you all are still awake after that!
Cheers.

 

[Last Chance]

It is the job of the Federal Government to monitor recreational catch. And this is done quite well with all forms of game hunting across the cost. Look what Commercial management did to the Atlantic Cod stocks, in an area with practically no sport fishing for the last 40 years.

Seems to us that we have a vibrant sport fishery on the West Coast with a sport fishing fleet.

 

[Mi Chica]

Let's be clear. DFO repeatedly states that their system/formula is accurate, accepted by IPHC, and used by other countries. They do not make any effort to defend their policy, allowing politicians and lobbyists to challenge recreational accountability. Further they have previously not supported proposals to introduce more accountability for the recreational sector. The Minister in charge of privatization of fisheries...oops, Fisheries and Oceans ignores the damage being caused by failed policies. Federal and Provincial sitting members, as well as candidates in upcoming elections must be forced to clearly state their position on this issue prior to any election. Further, they must understand that failure to be proactive on this issue ( in Ottawa or provincial Capitals) will have consequences.

 

[GLG]

Fish-hunter I don’t know where to start but you need to reread the report and you will see there is nothing in there about the accountability of the recreational sector. They are talking about the commercial sector period. Let’s just take some of the lines in the report and match them up with facts.

Two key sources of catch and effort data are the Dockside Monitoring Program and At-Sea Observer Program. Apart from a few minor exceptions, the control and coordination of these programs is adequate to mitigate risks of incomplete or inaccurate SIF. (Statistical Information on the Fisheries - SIF).

Have a look at this link and see what that is about.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/charges-inculpations/2010/g04-eng.htm

The Conservation and Protection organization is moving forward with plans to increase the emphasis on forensic investigative capacity to mitigate the risk of illegal fishing activities and the potential for URC.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/charges-inculpations-eng.htm
You have to ask your self how come there are so many convictions on the east coast and not here?
East Coast has two special investigators and we need some here to clean up our coast.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2010/nl-tnl11-eng.htm

The application of new compliance technologies in the Canadian fisheries has the potential to reduce the risk of unauthorized fishing activities and the associated risk of URC.

Yup video cameras are working and they need to expand that into all high value commercial fishing. Ever hear of “Game Theory”

The Department does not have an adequate model to estimate the amount of catch that is not reported.

Yup they are talking about the commercial sector. The terms slippery skipper, hi-grading, dumping at sea, off loading at sea, and a host of illegal activities. They want a formula to account for these destructive practices as they are affecting the fish stocks.

There is a lack of departmentally accepted standards and principles to provide guidance and consistency of approach in the determination of controls for catch monitoring and reporting.

Yup the DFO in Ottawa needs to get off their butts and do something to address the problems that are listed above.

GLG

 

[GLG]

Let's be clear. DFO repeatedly states that their system/formula is accurate, accepted by IPHC, and used by other countries. They do not make any effort to defend their policy, allowing politicians and lobbyists to challenge recreational accountability. Further they have previously not supported proposals to introduce more accountability for the recreational sector. The Minister in charge of privatization of fisheries...oops, Fisheries and Oceans ignores the damage being caused by failed policies. Federal and Provincial sitting members, as well as candidates in upcoming elections must be forced to clearly state their position on this issue prior to any election. Further, they must understand that failure to be proactive on this issue ( in Ottawa or provincial Capitals) will have consequences.

Good post. I agree with you. So here is the real problem. It’s the perception of accountability or the lack of it. Yes SFAB has asked DFO many times to clear this up. The commercial sector plays this card and we pay the price. So what do we do? Challenge the commercial sector every time they play that card. So far I, and others, have done this and so far no credible answer. Check post # 6 & #7 on this thread.

I will once again challenge anyone to show me a current IHPC document that says area 2b recreational halibut numbers are not acceptable. If shown I will gladly apologize and work to make DFO accountable for our numbers.

GLG

 

[Charlie]

I will once again challenge anyone to show me a current IHPC document that says area 2b recreational halibut numbers are not acceptable. If shown I will gladly apologize and work to make DFO accountable for our numbers.

GLG

I might to have to disagree a tad bit there on how accurate DFO halibut numbers are?

I would suggest you start working with DFO on their accountability issues for the sports sector, immediately – that is, if you want Area 2B “sports” to continue fishing for halibut!

Right out of the shoot – how many creel surveys and overflights does DFO do when the halibut season opens in March? How many do you see in April and May? Might want to really think about checking those creel surveys for the months of March, April, and May when thinking accurate halibut accountability? Oh, forgot… according to DFO the prime month for halibut pressure is in – JUNE, JULY, or AUGUST! Give me a break on that one! J

DFO recreational halibut numbers were NEVER acceptable to IHPC, until the year 2008! Why is that? Accountability has been very subtly addressed in every past report, just start looking for it! How about some of these thoughts? This information is taken directly from the IPHC 2007 Annual report:

The second concerned the Commission’s response to the inability of the two contracting parties to manage sport fisheries to the limits agreed upon in their internal allocation processes.

Management of sport fisheries has proved problematic for both the United States and Canada. In Alaskan waters, GHLs for charter halibut fisheries in IPHC Area 2C (southeast Alaska) had been regularly exceeded by 20-40% during the 2004-2006 period. In Canada, the share of halibut yield for the recreational fishery also exceeded the allocated share by 30-40% in 2005 and 2006. In consequence, the Commission’s management targets were exceeded during these years resulting in harvests greater than those approved. The Commission initiated discussions with management agencies in the two countries prior to the Commission’s annual meeting in January 2007, to determine if regulations to curtail these sport fisheries were to be enacted for 2007. Both countries indicated that, while appropriate regulations were being developed, they would not be

in place for the 2007 fishing season. Accordingly, the Commission approved regulations to limit sport fisheries for halibut in the two countries for 2007. This action, while within the Commission’s authority and mandate, proved highly controversial to say the least. Neither country accepted the sport fish regulations passed by the Commission but the United States did specify that it would implement domestic regulations that would achieve catch reductions for Area 2C fisheries similar to those contemplated in the IPHC regulations. Canada also pledged to meet the targets specified in its allocation agreement between
commercial and recreational sectors.

The Commission staff acted on the basis of conservation concerning both of these issues. The IPHC Commissioners exercised judicious oversight in both instances, to ensure that the sustainable yield from the halibut stock would be protected and that users had opportunity to explore the topics. These were not simple issues to resolve and they could not have been addressed adequately without the participation and assistance of industry and agency staffs.

The halibut stock is undergoing a decline from very high biomass levels that were fuelled by strong year classes of the late 1980s. In addition, recent research has prompted us to alter our approach to determining catch limits. These changes were substantial and required time for all of us to fully understand both the need for the changes and their impacts. While we anticipate that incoming recruitment will have some positive impacts over the mid-term future, these impacts are several years away. It will also be important to reduce the high levels of exploitation experienced in Area 2 in recent years, if we are to realize the benefits
of this recruitment in that Area.

Might I note a few things in those comments that might be of concern to the sport sector? “The Commission staff acted on the basis of conservation concerning both of these issues.” Would that be “conservation” concerning the halibut, or conservation of their commercial harvest? “…to ensure that the sustainable yield from the halibut stock would be protected”? That clearly states to ensure (meaning their commercial) sustainable yield would be protected, doesn’t it! “These were not simple issues to resolve and they could not have been addressed adequately without the participation and assistance of industry and agency staffs.” I am sure glad, the IPHC staff adequately worked with the commercial industry to resolve the sport sector issues!

Want more? Where do you want me to start?

In Area 2B, the sport halibut share of the combined sport and commercial catch limit is capped at 12 percent. In 2006, the Sport Fishery Advisory Board (SFAB) commissioned a sampling program of the British Columbia sport halibut fishery to collect information on the size of the halibut taken by the sport fishery. These data were reanalyzed by DFO and, in consultation with IPHC staff, resulted in a set of average weights for DFO statistical areas in British Columbia. A similar set of average weight data was used to estimate the 2007 catch.

Well, I am sure glad the SFAB took the steps to do a sampling program of the sport halibut fishery, as that clearly indicates and appears DFO surely didn’t have any knowledge of weight or any accurate information for accountability of halibut for Area 2B… as in NOT A CLUE, doesn’t it!

The Area 2B

The catch in numbers of halibut for 2007 was provided by the Pacific Region of DFO. Average weight information provided by DFO is used in lieu of our past practice of using average weights from adjacent Alaska and Washington sport fishery areas as proxies. The final catch estimate for 2007 was 1.556 million pounds and exceeded the sport allocation by less than 200,000 pounds.

In 2007, WDFW reported that Washington anglers caught 9,977 halibut in Canadian waters and landed them in Neah Bay, almost 25 percent lower than the 13,045 halibut landed in 2006. The estimated harvest was 140,676 pounds..

Well, well, well lookie what we have here. That clearly states, “The catch in numbers of halibut for 2007 was provided by the Pacific Region of DFO. Average weight information provided by DFO is used in lieu of our past practice of using average weights from adjacent Alaska and Washington sport fishery areas as proxies. Not only does that clearly state IPHC is provided estimates from DFO, you have one of those subtle little remarks I was speaking of. So, for the very first time… IPHC is using information provided by DFO in lieu of their past practice of using average weights from, where as proxies? Thank you SFAB for providing DFO with some sort of accurate information! J
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/annual/ar2007.pdf

Want more? J
Why IPHC really now accepts DFO estimates? You don’t have to look any farther than DFO’s WCVI halibut catch estimates. Based on two overflights a week and 19 creel reporting stations. Might want to look at those creels a little closer! Than may I ask, how DFO suddenly decided the WCVI has had an increase in halibut catch that has more than TREBLED just in the last three years?

You don’t think IPHC question DFO’s numbers over the years? Might want to look closer at the IPHC estimates published in their reports? IPHC has revised DFO numbers several times between 1992 through as recently as 2006.

 

[Charlie]

Concerning IPHC accepting DFO numbers, why wouldn’t they? After all, DFO directly appointed three of them to their jobs! Has anyone ever looked at WHO has actually been appointed as commissioners, making the decisions concerning our sport sector?

How about a brief look at the backgrounds and qualification, and this really should be an "eye opener" included in thoughts? Here something I am still putting together and is a rough history of them... It is interesting who has a history of, and who still currently have ties with not only with the commercial industry, but can you say “AQUACULTURE”?

Current Commissioners
James Balsiger United States
Ralph G. Hoard United States
Larry Johnson Canada
Phillip Lestenkof United States
Laura Richards Canada
Gary Robinson Canada

Larry Johnson, Aniitsachist Adventures, Bamfield
Beginning his charters in 1988, Larry first worked for Bamfield-area fishing lodges while also fishing commercially. In 2003, he bought his own boat and founded his tour company, which now services a steady stream of repeat clientele. As a lover of history, Larry offers fishing charters combined with stories of Barkley Sound. As his client, you can expect to draw on Larry’s rich knowledge of the area and come home with your choice of salmon, halibut, rockfish, prawns, crabs, and more. And because Barkley Sound is home to whales, eagles, bears, and other marine wildlife, Larry encourages you to bring your camera. Larry is fully certified in Marine Emergency Duties and small vessel operation.


Larry Johnson, Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation, BC
We've been involved with shellfish aquaculture for four years now, almost five years, growing oysters and clams and we would like to be able to see abalone grown on our tenures and have the Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation selling abalone and be able to eat the food our ancestors ate.

Groundfish research will be conducted primarily through the Stock Assessment Division. Within the Stock Assessment Division, two sections divide up groundfish responsibilities;
Fish Population Dynamics: Dr. Laura Richards

Gary Robinson
Title: Aquaculture Professional
Demographic info: British Columbia, Canada | Food Production
Past Employment: Marine Production Manager at Stolt Sea Farm, Marine Harvest, Instructor & Consultant - Fisheries & Aquaculture at Gary Robinson
Education:University of Victoria, Malaspina University-College

Feasibility Study of Closed-Containment Options for the British Columbia Aquaculture Industry
Prepared by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Gary Robinson, Independent Consultant

James W. Balsiger Ph.D.
Regional Administrator, Alaska Region
Dr. Balsiger is the Regional Administrator for the Alaska Region in Juneau, Alaska. He began his career with NOAA in 1977 and has held other leadership roles in the National Marine Fisheries Service during his tenure. From February 2008-2010, he served as the Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and oversaw the management and conservation of marine fisheries and the protection of marine mammals, sea turtles and coastal fisheries habitat within the United States exclusive economic zone for the entire agency.

Since May 2000, he has served as the Alaska Regional Administrator. He was the Regional Science and Research Director at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, WA, where he also served as Deputy Science Director from 1991 through 1995. Prior to that, he was the Program Leader for the Status of Stocks Task within the Center's Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management Division from 1977 to 1991. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry from Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan; a Master of Science degree in Forest Silviculture from Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana; and a Ph.D. in Quantitative Ecology and Natural Resource Management from the University of Washington in Seattle. In 2002, President Bush awarded him a Meritorious Award for sustained superior



Phillip Lestenkof
President, Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association
St. Paul, AK



Ralph G Hoard
Executive Vice President
Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
My name is Ralph Hoard and I am the Executive Vice President of Icicle Seafoods, Inc., an Alaska corporation, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Individual Fishing Quota moratorium and Magnuson Act Re-authorization. Icicle Seafoods is an Alaska corporation founded in 1965. We started with a single salmon cannery in Petersburg, Alaska and have expanded over the years with multiple locations throughout Alaska that process salmon, crab, herring, halibut, sablefish, cod and pollock. We have processing operations throughout Alaska, including Petersburg, Seward, Beaver Inlet, Bristol Bay, Dutch Harbor, St. Paul and Adak. In addition to Alaska, we have two processing plants in the State of Washington and jointly own a canned salmon labeling warehouse in Astoria, Oregon. Although we do own a small number of catcher vessels, of the 230,000,000 pounds plus of fish we purchased and processed in 2001, over 87% of the ex-vessel value was purchased from independent fishermen throughout Alaska.

It is too late and not practical to change the existing halibut/sablefish program; however, we need to learn from it and make sure that any future programs allow all the stakeholders (fishermen, processors and dependent communities) to enjoy the benefits of a rationalized fishery. The benefits should be enjoyed by all and not come at the expense of some. [The State of Alaska has just released a study that examines, "The North Pacific Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Policy Impacts on Processors", that this Committee may find relevant to these deliberations.]

You should really read this:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Ralph_Hoard_testimony_2.13.02.pdf

BTW… Welcome to American Gold Seafoods, a subsidiary of Icicle Seafoods which raises Atlantic salmon in fish farms here. A U.S. Operated Salmon Aquaculture Company American Gold Seafoods operates two hatcheries near Rochester Washington and has 120 pens off Bainbridge Island, Port Angeles, Cypress Island and Hope Island all within the waters of Washington state Puget Sound.
http://americangoldseafoods.com/locations/ags/