trophywife
Crew Member
Slivo just got one on the EGG!! so nice out right now. ahhh, late season hali.
Future Halibut Possession Regs
- Thread starter e-zee
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
I do not have that data yet. Won't be long, the IPHC is gearing up. Invites to 2019 session are already out.
Here's the link - not updated yet however:
https://www.iphc.int/data/iphc-secretariat-survey-data
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
That isn't good.
searun
Well-Known Member
Barring a big shift in the IPHC set-line survey data results (in other words, if they follow the 2017 survey trend) the US side will continue to push Canada. Canada took exception to the survey methodology, results and trends and decided we would stay basically at the 2017 TAC for the 2018 season. Under the IPHC agreement we could elect to do that for 1 year only. We are now going back to the table and will be in a slightly different situation - thus the significant interest in the set line survey results. The US side clearly warned Canada they would be expecting a significant reduction in 2019 - so not to speculate, but we should be starting some thinking around what we might do in terms of regulations choices etc. should that actually happen.
It would be good for the local SFAC groups to identify their preferences if we had less TAC. That looks like providing input on preference for which regulations choices (slot size, daily possession), and if we did not have enough TAC to run a full season, which months are the most important etc. We should be thinking outside the box to provide the SFAB some notion as to our preferences. We did ask for some early modelling to help provide some sense of what particular slot and possession options might look like to help SFAC groups provide input. My understanding is those options are being developed and hopefully available for SFAC groups.
We need to remember that the average age and therefore size of the halibut population that will be out there in 2019 is going to grow. Ergo, there will be fewer small fish, and more large one's.
It would be good for the local SFAC groups to identify their preferences if we had less TAC. That looks like providing input on preference for which regulations choices (slot size, daily possession), and if we did not have enough TAC to run a full season, which months are the most important etc. We should be thinking outside the box to provide the SFAB some notion as to our preferences. We did ask for some early modelling to help provide some sense of what particular slot and possession options might look like to help SFAC groups provide input. My understanding is those options are being developed and hopefully available for SFAC groups.
We need to remember that the average age and therefore size of the halibut population that will be out there in 2019 is going to grow. Ergo, there will be fewer small fish, and more large one's.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Looking at the new models and it is nice to see some different options to consider. Some of the shoulder options have room for conversation IMO.
I would have liked to see some with size differences combined with the shoulder/summer possession options listed to see how they would model.
example might be. If we took the option listed that reads.
“ shoulder 1/1 max 120cm
Summer 1/2 max 120/83”
Make the shoulder 1/1 max 126cm or even 133
And the summer 1/2 max 115cm/83cm
How would that look. Add a couple more similar with different looking size and possession shoulder options. We Need to model it so we can see. Important to remember that most of the tac is taken in summer and average size is quite small.
something like this would provide for both those who would like to have a little bigger fish and those who prefer the two fish option in the summer. Everyone still has all the same opportunity. I believe this kind of option ( If modeled to work) offers Rec fishers across the board with the most choices while still meeting our obligation to work within the TAC.
I know some will be fearful of angler shift associated with size differences. I would question how much as the majority of tac is taken in July and August. The (what I think would be small) amount of shift that may occur would only serve to add revenue to otherwise slower months.
It is pretty easy to see that if a two fish option is chosen we will not be straying to far from the current rules except maybe down. Also, if at a 1/1 there is not a lot of room to go up as per what has been modeled.
Anyway I am glad we are adding to the model, but think it is still lacking out of the box options. As it is now, wen one really looks at the options there is not much difference between any of them despite having added some new ones.
Again this is not about whining, greed or desire to kill huge fish. It is about trying to add to the toolbox so as to provide as much opportunity and choice as we can while working through some pretty tough times.
Cheee: Ray
I would have liked to see some with size differences combined with the shoulder/summer possession options listed to see how they would model.
example might be. If we took the option listed that reads.
“ shoulder 1/1 max 120cm
Summer 1/2 max 120/83”
Make the shoulder 1/1 max 126cm or even 133
And the summer 1/2 max 115cm/83cm
How would that look. Add a couple more similar with different looking size and possession shoulder options. We Need to model it so we can see. Important to remember that most of the tac is taken in summer and average size is quite small.
something like this would provide for both those who would like to have a little bigger fish and those who prefer the two fish option in the summer. Everyone still has all the same opportunity. I believe this kind of option ( If modeled to work) offers Rec fishers across the board with the most choices while still meeting our obligation to work within the TAC.
I know some will be fearful of angler shift associated with size differences. I would question how much as the majority of tac is taken in July and August. The (what I think would be small) amount of shift that may occur would only serve to add revenue to otherwise slower months.
It is pretty easy to see that if a two fish option is chosen we will not be straying to far from the current rules except maybe down. Also, if at a 1/1 there is not a lot of room to go up as per what has been modeled.
Anyway I am glad we are adding to the model, but think it is still lacking out of the box options. As it is now, wen one really looks at the options there is not much difference between any of them despite having added some new ones.
Again this is not about whining, greed or desire to kill huge fish. It is about trying to add to the toolbox so as to provide as much opportunity and choice as we can while working through some pretty tough times.
Cheee: Ray
Last edited:
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Put my idea of giving anglers an option of 1/1 or 1/2 (with size limits on both options) last night at Nanaimo meeting.
Ie say 1/1 130cm or 1/2 120cm/78cm have similar TAC’s of 900,000 (in theory) Angler chooses which they rather do. Either way even f behaviour changes wouldn’t go over 900,000 lbs. enforced by what is written on license just like now anyway.
Ie say 1/1 130cm or 1/2 120cm/78cm have similar TAC’s of 900,000 (in theory) Angler chooses which they rather do. Either way even f behaviour changes wouldn’t go over 900,000 lbs. enforced by what is written on license just like now anyway.
Stizzla
Crew Member
It would be great if tidal licenses came with an optional halibut stamp at a value of $20-$30 l, so we can buy a little larger slot limit? I’m one who would rather have a larger 1/1 than a smaller 1/2
It’s tragic to have to release a fish that would feed your family for a 6 months and it would’ve been easily legal a year ago, plus we aren’t even using up nearly all of the TAC we are alloted.
I feel like the further the size limits shrink, the more poaching will be going on too.
Anyways, I hope somebody is going to bat for us.
It’s tragic to have to release a fish that would feed your family for a 6 months and it would’ve been easily legal a year ago, plus we aren’t even using up nearly all of the TAC we are alloted.
I feel like the further the size limits shrink, the more poaching will be going on too.
Anyways, I hope somebody is going to bat for us.
searun
Well-Known Member
Few considerations, and best of luck at your SFAC meeting.
TAC:
Think less TAC than 2018 - every indication from the IPHC is we are looking at less, the question is how much less. 900,000 pounds is not a likely outcome at the IPHC, but sure would be nice. 10% less than 2018 is 836K and 20% is 742K.
The tables presented give you those options because we asked DFO to model a realistic reduction in TAC so that SFAC groups can provide input on their preferences to help guide the Halibut Working Group decision. The big challenge being we learn what the IPHC TAC announcement is Feb 1, and must have a recommendation for DFO by the beginning of week 2 of February so that DFO can get the new licenses printed with the conditions of license on them for halibut. With that compressed time schedule there simply isn't time to have SFAC groups hold meetings once we know the actual TAC, and provide preferences to the SFAB Main Board meeting which will be held the first weekend of Feb (8-10). With the current IHPC meeting timing and TAC announcement Feb 1, I'm not sure how we could have a Feb 1 opening.
Values:
Its helpful to think about what you truly value - is it biggest fish possible? is it multiple possession (2) with one being a small (around 83cm)? If there isn't enough TAC available would you shorten the season, and if so what months? The decision tables are designed to give you some ideas as to how a number of different options would model.
What are the high months for Halibut Catch (historic):
June to September are the highest catch (in pounds) months
Modelled Fit to TAC:
Unlikely we would be able to get a whole bunch more options modelled as its a lot of work effort to get them done - should dial our expectations accordingly. Picking options that will not result in achieving the TAC won't be helpful either as the Halibut Working Group won't be able to recommend options that do not have a realistic chance of staying within the available TAC. So in most cases the options are helpful in showing how quickly certain choices would use up TAC, thus giving an indication of which combo's might best achieve the target TAC.
IARC Data for 1:1 Option:
Also the 1:1 option has a 15% reduction assumption; in reality we know from the IARC data that 30% of people who fish hali get their 2 fish possession on a multi-day trip etc. That will model down to something less than 30% because there will be a shift in angler behaviour and effort once you move to a 1 fish option. What does that mean.... the decision table you have will change once the IARC assumption is changed to a higher number (increase from 15% to something in low 20% range is most likely) ....that will result in less pounds in the model that would be used up than is currently modelled.
Average Size:
There are small numbers of junior recruits coming into the biomass, and the average age of the fish will be 13 years old. The net effect of this is there will not be as many small fish under 115 cm range. So each year we will see the average size of the fish caught get larger. Finding options that fit the average size of fish out there will give you the ability to retain most of the fish hooked. One strategy to get smaller fish is to find locations where there are more chickens, however those will be in fairly short supply compared to the average fish out there.
Buying TAC:
Yes many have looked into how we can create a halibut stamp for this purpose, and no one has yet succeeded in getting anywhere with government - its a nice idea, but we haven't found any way to navigate the Federal Gov't maze. We have heard everyone say we have to fight for more TAC, 15% isn't enough, etc...well we have an election year coming up, but do we have the band-width to mount that fight with everything else going on?? Would the first volunteer with a lot of cash please stand up.
I know this stuff is often quite confusing and at times frustrating. Hope this description helps you formulate your preferences - please attend your local SFAC and make them known. Best of luck.
TAC:
Think less TAC than 2018 - every indication from the IPHC is we are looking at less, the question is how much less. 900,000 pounds is not a likely outcome at the IPHC, but sure would be nice. 10% less than 2018 is 836K and 20% is 742K.
The tables presented give you those options because we asked DFO to model a realistic reduction in TAC so that SFAC groups can provide input on their preferences to help guide the Halibut Working Group decision. The big challenge being we learn what the IPHC TAC announcement is Feb 1, and must have a recommendation for DFO by the beginning of week 2 of February so that DFO can get the new licenses printed with the conditions of license on them for halibut. With that compressed time schedule there simply isn't time to have SFAC groups hold meetings once we know the actual TAC, and provide preferences to the SFAB Main Board meeting which will be held the first weekend of Feb (8-10). With the current IHPC meeting timing and TAC announcement Feb 1, I'm not sure how we could have a Feb 1 opening.
Values:
Its helpful to think about what you truly value - is it biggest fish possible? is it multiple possession (2) with one being a small (around 83cm)? If there isn't enough TAC available would you shorten the season, and if so what months? The decision tables are designed to give you some ideas as to how a number of different options would model.
What are the high months for Halibut Catch (historic):
June to September are the highest catch (in pounds) months
Modelled Fit to TAC:
Unlikely we would be able to get a whole bunch more options modelled as its a lot of work effort to get them done - should dial our expectations accordingly. Picking options that will not result in achieving the TAC won't be helpful either as the Halibut Working Group won't be able to recommend options that do not have a realistic chance of staying within the available TAC. So in most cases the options are helpful in showing how quickly certain choices would use up TAC, thus giving an indication of which combo's might best achieve the target TAC.
IARC Data for 1:1 Option:
Also the 1:1 option has a 15% reduction assumption; in reality we know from the IARC data that 30% of people who fish hali get their 2 fish possession on a multi-day trip etc. That will model down to something less than 30% because there will be a shift in angler behaviour and effort once you move to a 1 fish option. What does that mean.... the decision table you have will change once the IARC assumption is changed to a higher number (increase from 15% to something in low 20% range is most likely) ....that will result in less pounds in the model that would be used up than is currently modelled.
Average Size:
There are small numbers of junior recruits coming into the biomass, and the average age of the fish will be 13 years old. The net effect of this is there will not be as many small fish under 115 cm range. So each year we will see the average size of the fish caught get larger. Finding options that fit the average size of fish out there will give you the ability to retain most of the fish hooked. One strategy to get smaller fish is to find locations where there are more chickens, however those will be in fairly short supply compared to the average fish out there.
Buying TAC:
Yes many have looked into how we can create a halibut stamp for this purpose, and no one has yet succeeded in getting anywhere with government - its a nice idea, but we haven't found any way to navigate the Federal Gov't maze. We have heard everyone say we have to fight for more TAC, 15% isn't enough, etc...well we have an election year coming up, but do we have the band-width to mount that fight with everything else going on?? Would the first volunteer with a lot of cash please stand up.
I know this stuff is often quite confusing and at times frustrating. Hope this description helps you formulate your preferences - please attend your local SFAC and make them known. Best of luck.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
PS - The numbers/sizes I was using were just for example, not suggesting that exact size (although that'd be ideal).
I know how to model it was brought up...wouldn't need to, regardless of what percentage of anglers caught 1 possession or 2, it wouldn't change TAC maximum (For example say 1/1 had 10,000lbs more estimated catch, that would be max possible assuming 100% of anglers only kept 1; if 60% caught 2 mathematically it would be less than 1/1 100%). May of been confusing but let me know if you follow what I'm saying. In other words, Regardless of split the max possible to catch using chart would be whichever option had highest TAC, regardless of angler behaviour due to the change in possession. Even fact resident anglers could keep 6 to the max size using 1/1, that is already assumed in 1/1 catch estimate, so still has that as max TAC possible to catch using the option method I'm putting forward.
Going to make slide show to explain better for north island meeting assuming have computer to show, can post it online somewhere to to better explain it than that butcher job I just did on this stupid ****ing phone that's broken.
Also how enforcement would work was brought up: like I said above is fairly straight forward. FOR EXAMPLE, if limits were 1/1 max 128cm, OR 1/2 max of 118cm/78cm, if someone has a 122cm on license, that's there one and only fish. If someone has a 75cm on license, then they are only allowed the second fish wrote down to be up to 118cm. Final scenario, first fish is 115cm, well allowed a second but can only be up to 78cm. It's enforced exactly how this year's and previous years are, but in these lean hard times it at least gives us options.
At NISFAC, I will also be putting forward a motion (would have at Nanaimo but didn't know the drill) to get DFO to change their allocation policy and give recreational anglers more than 15%, while yes, that little motion is probably futile, they still have to look at it and not bringing it up at all is letting them off the hook! Like to see that motion at all SFAC's just to let them know we haven't forgot about that battle.
I know how to model it was brought up...wouldn't need to, regardless of what percentage of anglers caught 1 possession or 2, it wouldn't change TAC maximum (For example say 1/1 had 10,000lbs more estimated catch, that would be max possible assuming 100% of anglers only kept 1; if 60% caught 2 mathematically it would be less than 1/1 100%). May of been confusing but let me know if you follow what I'm saying. In other words, Regardless of split the max possible to catch using chart would be whichever option had highest TAC, regardless of angler behaviour due to the change in possession. Even fact resident anglers could keep 6 to the max size using 1/1, that is already assumed in 1/1 catch estimate, so still has that as max TAC possible to catch using the option method I'm putting forward.
Going to make slide show to explain better for north island meeting assuming have computer to show, can post it online somewhere to to better explain it than that butcher job I just did on this stupid ****ing phone that's broken.
Also how enforcement would work was brought up: like I said above is fairly straight forward. FOR EXAMPLE, if limits were 1/1 max 128cm, OR 1/2 max of 118cm/78cm, if someone has a 122cm on license, that's there one and only fish. If someone has a 75cm on license, then they are only allowed the second fish wrote down to be up to 118cm. Final scenario, first fish is 115cm, well allowed a second but can only be up to 78cm. It's enforced exactly how this year's and previous years are, but in these lean hard times it at least gives us options.
At NISFAC, I will also be putting forward a motion (would have at Nanaimo but didn't know the drill) to get DFO to change their allocation policy and give recreational anglers more than 15%, while yes, that little motion is probably futile, they still have to look at it and not bringing it up at all is letting them off the hook! Like to see that motion at all SFAC's just to let them know we haven't forgot about that battle.
searun
Well-Known Member
https://iphc.int/library/documents/...ependent-setline-survey-interactive-data-2018
Here's the 2018 set line data - looks like WPUE and NPUE increased in Area 2B - still getting used to their new format but my early playing with it looks like we are trending up on both. Not overly surprised because there were so many black cod around, the hali were gorging and growing. So when we are looking at options, good to keep in mind that the WPUE is up again, and will follow that same pattern going forward into 2019. My personal opinion is the set line data supports getting the largest possible slot size option that we can fit into our available TAC fits that trend.
Have to dig into the NPUE data and what that might indicate for Area 2B at the IPHC table, and in particular the length and age composition. The conservation concern being are we seeing any shift in the number of juvenile halibut in the fishery?? If our age composition is showing continued poor recruitment (new juveniles) and an increasing average age (same dominant age class simply getting larger/older), then we will have some interesting times. The increasing WPUE would suggest older age composition, although from my experience the fish were much fatter for their length this season compared to prior years. Other guys are saying the same - fatter fish this year. I believe that is related to the high abundance of black cod, but its just a theory...no evidence yet to support it.
Yes, "futile" is a good way to describe making a motion to change the allocation policy. The SFAB is on record with the Minister on that topic already, so that would be singing to the choir - the SFAB would be in full agreement. DFO will however, simply respond telling us the allocation policy is what it is. Its a political fight, and if someone has a lot of cash and time please jump in there.
I understand your belief that enforcement on the split option would be simple. Simple to us, but if you have ever dealt with C&P they will strongly resist anything that is not black and white. Introduce any grey and they oppose it vigourously. The transportation of catch issue is a good example...even when we have the Minister agreeing with us, C&P still fights back. I'm not trying to be a negative nellie, just hoping to explain what we will run up against. That's why in the meeting you heard guys saying interesting concept, not sure how to model that but its worth a try, and the show stopper might be what C&P's reaction to it will be. Certainly worth a try though, and a good concept.
Here's the 2018 set line data - looks like WPUE and NPUE increased in Area 2B - still getting used to their new format but my early playing with it looks like we are trending up on both. Not overly surprised because there were so many black cod around, the hali were gorging and growing. So when we are looking at options, good to keep in mind that the WPUE is up again, and will follow that same pattern going forward into 2019. My personal opinion is the set line data supports getting the largest possible slot size option that we can fit into our available TAC fits that trend.
Have to dig into the NPUE data and what that might indicate for Area 2B at the IPHC table, and in particular the length and age composition. The conservation concern being are we seeing any shift in the number of juvenile halibut in the fishery?? If our age composition is showing continued poor recruitment (new juveniles) and an increasing average age (same dominant age class simply getting larger/older), then we will have some interesting times. The increasing WPUE would suggest older age composition, although from my experience the fish were much fatter for their length this season compared to prior years. Other guys are saying the same - fatter fish this year. I believe that is related to the high abundance of black cod, but its just a theory...no evidence yet to support it.
Yes, "futile" is a good way to describe making a motion to change the allocation policy. The SFAB is on record with the Minister on that topic already, so that would be singing to the choir - the SFAB would be in full agreement. DFO will however, simply respond telling us the allocation policy is what it is. Its a political fight, and if someone has a lot of cash and time please jump in there.
I understand your belief that enforcement on the split option would be simple. Simple to us, but if you have ever dealt with C&P they will strongly resist anything that is not black and white. Introduce any grey and they oppose it vigourously. The transportation of catch issue is a good example...even when we have the Minister agreeing with us, C&P still fights back. I'm not trying to be a negative nellie, just hoping to explain what we will run up against. That's why in the meeting you heard guys saying interesting concept, not sure how to model that but its worth a try, and the show stopper might be what C&P's reaction to it will be. Certainly worth a try though, and a good concept.
GLG
Well-Known Member
There is enough information to calculate that in the spreadsheet. You need to go to the monthly tab and add up the amounts for what combo you are thinking about. I calculated this combo to see if we are in the ballpark.
combo 3 - Shoulder 1/1 max 126 cm.
comb0 4 - Summer 1/2 max 110/83 cm.
Delayed opening of April 1 plus 10% risk = 947,950 lbs.
Since Searun is advising that the TAC maybe 10% less than 2018 (836,000 lb) or 20% less than 2018 (742,000 lb) clearly we need to lower our expectation. I know that not many of us are good at excel but I'm confident that if you give me other ideas I could calculate them for you.
searun
Well-Known Member
Nicely done GLG - yes, I would suggest we look at lowering our expectations and finding options that best fit that TAC. The US side and IPHC sent Canada a pretty clear shot across our bow last year at the IPHC. We were and still are looking at the set line data - the issue being Canada is seeing some trends that run counter to other areas. I would like to get the stock age composition data and spend some more time looking into that.
GLG, any thoughts on how to model the option presented by Serengeti?
GLG, any thoughts on how to model the option presented by Serengeti?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
For sure put in a NEW motion to the Minister to increase the quota.
First, this is a new Minister who absolutely has no ideal about this as he was not the Minister when this was proposed.
Second, he is a West Coast Minister who is coming up for re election.
This motion should pass through to the Main Board and on to the Minister as I really cannot see anyone in the SFAB process voting against it.
First, this is a new Minister who absolutely has no ideal about this as he was not the Minister when this was proposed.
Second, he is a West Coast Minister who is coming up for re election.
This motion should pass through to the Main Board and on to the Minister as I really cannot see anyone in the SFAB process voting against it.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
It's not really a math problem, it's a logic problem. Let me explain. What Serengeti is suggesting is using two options at once so as long as either option is under TAC it will work. I'll use an example from the table.
new6 - 1/2 @ 115 / 81 cm for a total of 948,413 lbs.
d.3 - 1/1 @ 120 cm for a total of 946,797 lbs.
So the most that could happen is that everyone used option new6 for a total of 948,413 lbs.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for doing that Gil. You are not wrong wen suggesting some are not good with excel. In my case that would be an understatement.
I have no allusion that if we see a 10-20% cut we will see anything but more restrictions.
The numbers I put out where just an example. I chose what I suspected would fall close to what this years TAC was. Did that to help myself gain perspective Looking against this years TAC and what we actually used.
After seeing what you ran in the model, although not far off, it clearly would not have modeled to make it to end of season as it is today. I can now use this with the catch data to get a picture of what months would sustain something like that.
I may take you up on offer to run some others down the road.
Thanks
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Yes correct, what I was saying. I think the only hurdle is enforcement giving it the go ahead. Like I said we have to write down our fish now so to me (not a DFO officer or CMP) it seems like it works fairly easy.
From page I have from meeting 1/1 120cm is 870,000 lbs not 947k and with a delayed opening it is 835k. (if you automatically apply 10% catch risk that is a faulty assumption IMO as it can go UP OR DOWN, so you don't automatically add)
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Finally figured out how to use that link, and our WPUE went WAY up, by over 25%. One must think this will help us greatly no? We were assuming it was going to go down so thinkit's a fair assumption we won't actually go down 10-20% now? and it was a one year anomaly?!?
searun
Well-Known Member
Its NPUE of U32 fish that we need to see go up. WPUE could also be an indication of age composition shifting to older (larger) fish...a problem for us. I haven't seen the raw data on NPUE yet and checked with one of my buddies and its not out yet. Fingers crossed we get a break on NPUE on the U32 fish. Looks like the NPUE overall trend is up - possibly a good thing.
Reducing to 3 won't make much difference, we looked at going to 4 last year and the main problem is most of the halibut catch is visitors who would only take 1 or 2 on their license, and the incidence of even resident fishers of catching lots of halibut on their license is low also. Good thought, but in reality it didn't pan out.
the 10% is an add on risk factor that has been applied consistently y/y
Reducing to 3 won't make much difference, we looked at going to 4 last year and the main problem is most of the halibut catch is visitors who would only take 1 or 2 on their license, and the incidence of even resident fishers of catching lots of halibut on their license is low also. Good thought, but in reality it didn't pan out.
Similar threads
