yes i understand that is a possibility but it is still up to the INDIVIDUAL to make choices. i made mine, my crew was happy and i will continue with that mindset. i willingly participated in the rape of the near shore reefs out of Depoe Bay, we didn't know any better. i have taken far more than my share of over 50# chinook out of the Kenai effectively eliminating the gene pool. as an old dog, i don't need nor do i want to keep doing these sorts of things. your mindset may be different, i won't arge with you, but as an individual, i can and do make choices. the over 132cm, no matter what your political issues may be, was a great idea.
Can't Keep quiet any more
- Thread starter Jencourt
- Start date
yes i understand that is a possibility but it is still up to the INDIVIDUAL to make choices. i made mine, my crew was happy and i will continue with that mindset. i willingly participated in the rape of the near shore reefs out of Depoe Bay, we didn't know any better. i have taken far more than my share of over 50# chinook out of the Kenai effectively eliminating the gene pool. as an old dog, i don't need nor do i want to keep doing these sorts of things. your mindset may be different, i won't arge with you, but as an individual, i can and do make choices. the over 132cm, no matter what your political issues may be, was a great idea.
The target harvest rate of the exploitable biomass for IPHC is 20 percent (except Area 4 whose target harvest rate is only 15%). Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C are the most heavily fished, and the ones with more restrictions.
That means that 80% of the biomass is unfished (i.e. unlanded), and mostly uncaught as there are daily hail-ins. If the TAC biomass for that area is caught - the fleet is shut down - whenever that happens. Since that is a individual quota - it is on a boat-by-boat basis.
I doubt if the commercial long-line halibut fleet throws back many halibut - as once they meet their quota - they stop fishing. They will throw back other bycatch if they exceed their by-catch quota. If there are any "overages" - they come off next years TAC.
The lingcod and other jig fishing boats (e.g. Zn - rockcod) will (however) throw back quite a few halis as they typically have quite a small halibut by-catch quota, unless they are able to buy or lease extra hali quota which has been in short supply...
Another thing to consider is that the IPHC is NOT DFO - it is international - and the Pacific halibut stocks are generally in good shape (prob. because of that), although certain areas do have large annual fluctuations in the total biomass estimates and subsequently the subareas TAC fluctuates.
Another thing to consider is that slot limits have been used (particularly in lake fishing) world-wide - as the idea is to allow the smaller new entries time to grow - while protecting the large, experienced breeders.
Slot limits make particularly good sense for halibut as the largest are mostly females, the older one gets (as a fish or a human) one also gets more experienced wrt when/where to release eggs and spawn; and the number of eggs produced are related to the size of the female (a 50-pound (23 kg) fish will produce around 500,000 eggs while a 250 lb (113 kg) female may produce over 4 million). Females are not sexually mature until they are 11+ yrs old (~+100-120 cm length).
AND one last thing nobody really talks about - but is apparent in the so-called rebounding cod fishery on the East Coast:
older spawners not only give more vitagellin (or nutrients) to their eggs, but novice spawners take their lead on when and where to release eggs from the older, larger fish. I bet that's why the cod fishery is taking so long to "rebound" - too many teenagers left to spawn.
Letting the older female spawners go free (esp. again for halibut who lack a swim bladder and won't suffer the bends that rockcod do) - is a very good conservation tool.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbruce
Crew Member
And those big old breeders simply don't taste all that good. Frankly, I'd rather have three 30 lb'rs in my freezer than a 90. A hell of a lot easier to deal with at the side of the boat and a hell of a lot better to eat. Of course nobody wants many pictures of a 30 lb'r on the scale.
Anyway, I do my bit for conservation by virtue of the fact that while I make a significant contribution to the GDP side of the equation (boat, fuel, fishing tackle etc) I don't seem to be able to catch that many fish.
Anyway, I do my bit for conservation by virtue of the fact that while I make a significant contribution to the GDP side of the equation (boat, fuel, fishing tackle etc) I don't seem to be able to catch that many fish.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
If the big ones don't taste all that great then Commies should be first ones to throw them back for the consumer
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I agree I would prefer to catch 30-40 lb halibut without exception.
Not being considered here is the fact that we also released an 86cm fish because we kept 1 that was 87 the day before.The result is that we came home with half our allowable fish.This would not be so bad if it where not this was the only opportunity for my Nephew to fish for halibut and only 1 of 2 maybe 3 opportunities I will have. The fact is it is expensive and in most cases requires travel ect. I am sure my limited opportunity falls in the category of the vast majority of the 300,000 rec licenses sold each year.
And again: This is not directed directly to you Bruice but directed to everyone trying to turn this into something it is not. This has nothing to do with conservation.
I Have no problem with restrictions imposed for the affective purpose of conservation. I have fished my entire life and I can say with pride I have released far more legal fish than I have killed. So no it is not the fact that I had to release a fish or two. It is the fact that I had to do so for no other reason than the fact that our government despite overwhelming evidence of our positive impact on the economy vrs our overwhelmingly small affect on the resource insists on removing my access and handing it over to those with the most money.
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
The commies aren't personally eating their catch, they couldn't give 2 sh*ts about how it tastes as long as they get the same price. Big halibut don't taste bad but they certainly don't taste as good as chicken sized fish. Its mostly the texture, look at the size of the muscle fibers on a 100lber versus a 20lb. Its the same reason we like to eat lamb but not sheep, youner animals taste better.
Of course its much more exciting to land a 100lb fish then a 20lb fish and we aren't doing this just for the food, excitment is at least as important to many fishermen. For me I'm not sure I'd bonk another big halibut but I'd like to have it as my own personal choice to make.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
I started it this time and I do not blame you. Even if you agree or not with the thoughts I have posted. It is my understanding that you are a member of the SVIAC?? in hindsight i think that would be a better place to discuss how to get people convinced what actually need to happen. Seems everyone is quite content to spin the same wheel of BS every time some one tries to bring some honest input to the situation.
Someone please PM me how to sign up to SVIAC
I thought your posts on the subject were well reasoned. No reason to be intimidated or self sensor. If ever a sport fishing issue needs rational discussion, this one is it, given the profound impact an unexpected consequences the Halibut restrictions appear to be having.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Definitely stay and talk high five. I know a few forum members who share your sentiment as well as jencourts but do not comment on it which is a shame. A lot more respect for those who voice their opinion
bigbruce
Crew Member
"And again: This is not directed directly to you Bruice but directed to everyone trying to turn this into something it is not. This has nothing to do with conservation."
Not sure I agree, Jencourt. It has something to do with conservation to the extent that there is a total allowable catch that is allocated between the commercials and sports fishermen. When the commies reach their catch limit, they stop fishing. The SFABC in it's infinite wisdom made the recommendation to implement size and catch limits so that the season would presumably be longer - ie the Sporties would take longer to reach their catch limit and would therefore fish for a longer period of time. Regardless of what is done with respect to keeping big fish - once the catch limit is reached, the fishing stops. That's all about conservation IMHO.
I'd be interested in hearing what your solution to the issue would be given you're not happy with the current SFABC compromise. (and please don't misunderstand me here - I'm not arguing one way or the other for the current scheme.)
Not sure I agree, Jencourt. It has something to do with conservation to the extent that there is a total allowable catch that is allocated between the commercials and sports fishermen. When the commies reach their catch limit, they stop fishing. The SFABC in it's infinite wisdom made the recommendation to implement size and catch limits so that the season would presumably be longer - ie the Sporties would take longer to reach their catch limit and would therefore fish for a longer period of time. Regardless of what is done with respect to keeping big fish - once the catch limit is reached, the fishing stops. That's all about conservation IMHO.
I'd be interested in hearing what your solution to the issue would be given you're not happy with the current SFABC compromise. (and please don't misunderstand me here - I'm not arguing one way or the other for the current scheme.)
agree 100%.
like most REC fishers i totally disagreed with what sfab did here going on recommendation from a guiding/lodge association, its as i said sfab is nothing more than a lobby group for guides and lodges when the best of bad situation involves screwing over all the rec fishers
West Coast guides Association anyone who hasn't seen the letter this is the group that made these recommendations to sfab. so while your angry letters should be sent to sfab dfo be sure to include this group.if you want the letter i will pm it to you as every time its posted the thread quickly get shut down....wierd.
like most REC fishers i totally disagreed with what sfab did here going on recommendation from a guiding/lodge association, its as i said sfab is nothing more than a lobby group for guides and lodges when the best of bad situation involves screwing over all the rec fishers
West Coast guides Association anyone who hasn't seen the letter this is the group that made these recommendations to sfab. so while your angry letters should be sent to sfab dfo be sure to include this group.if you want the letter i will pm it to you as every time its posted the thread quickly get shut down....wierd.
bigbruce
Crew Member
No to both questions.
If you don't agree that the overall quota system (Commercial and Sports Fishing combined) is about conservation, I'd sure like to know what you think it is.
And, if you don't agree that the current size and catch limits for the Sports Fishery was recommended and accepted as a compromise in an attempt to have a longer season for the Sports Fishery, again, I'd like to know what you think it is.
I'm also curious as to why you would think I might have quota or be closely tied to someone who does simply because I think that the quota system is directly related to conservation and the size and catch limits are related to a potentially longer season. That was/is my understanding of the whole thing and if I'm off base - I'd like to know.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Beats the hell out of me, Seafeaver. Guess so, unless the DFO or whoever the hell counts this stuff held some quota in reserve.
Gang - I don't pretend to understand the detail around this stuff, and for the most part am quite content to catch my few (hopefully) <30lb halibut and be done with it. End of story.
Combover...at least the West Coast Guides Assoc were interested enough before the decision process took place to query their members and put forth their wants. So many others find all kinds of reasons not to attend these meetings...a waste of time etc etc....well guess what...no voice no bitching later. It appears the SFAB listens to those who make recommendations. What a novel concept and they get cut down for it!!!
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Agree with most of this. Wcga did screw over rec guys. I definitely will not be joining this group anytime soon. And profits her didn't it say in letter they did not have time to poll their members what they preferred?
Derby
Crew Member
Were you at the meeting.... then you don't know what you speak of ?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
It's in the email Deryk that was sent from the President of WCGA to SFAB.
Similar threads
