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?!?
I am confused I thought an increase in wpue supports the IPHC findings of a lack of juvenile age fish. That lack of age class is feared to be a hole in the biomass and will soon represent a lack of recruitment and and a reduction in exploitable biomass. Did I misunderstand this? (Would not be first time) Or is one thing separate from the other? I know my lack of knowledge in that stuff makes me
Look at things simplistically some times but that is what I took from February discussion s
Good luck with that. Yes, everyone in the SFAB would support such a motion - its motherhood and apple pie. DFO and the Minister (including the new one) will stick to the party line. Stalemate. Political solution is your ticket...got cash and time?
I am confused I thought an increase in wpue supports the IPHC findings of a lack of juvenile age fish. That lack of age class is feared to be a hole in the biomass and will soon represent a lack of recruitment and and a reduction in exploitable biomass. Did I misunderstand this? (Would not be first time) Or is one thing separate from the other? I know my lack of knowledge in that stuff makes me
Look at things simplistically some times but that is what I took from February discussion s
Yes, that is correct. We need the U32 (under 32 inch) new recruits to go up. WPUE is possibly a bad thing for us as you have correctly suggested....although, if the average weight across all the Area 2B fish went up that does also show a healthy population getting lots of food. I certainly saw that this year, and talking to others up and down the island they experienced the same thing. So WPUE might also be a sign of healthy fish, lets hope we have a large increase in NPUE in those U32 fish.
Yes, that is correct. We need the U32 (under 32 inch) new recruits to go up. WPUE is possibly a bad thing for us as you have correctly suggested....although, if the average weight across all the Area 2B fish went up that does also show a healthy population getting lots of food. I certainly saw that this year, and talking to others up and down the island they experienced the same thing. So WPUE might also be a sign of healthy fish, lets hope we have a large increase in NPUE in those U32 fish.
I also agree that 110 cm would be a not good choice on so many levels. Quality of the fishery for one, and it doesn't closely match the increasing size and age of the halibut population so we will be releasing a lot of fish for another. The size of halibut in Area 2B is going up not down, so it would make sense that our slot limit decision should follow or we will be releasing a lot of fish. This last season was a gong show with the number of big fish I released as compared to the prior year when we were at 133cm.
I also agree that 110 cm would be a not good choice on so many levels. Quality of the fishery for one, and it doesn't closely match the increasing size and age of the halibut population so we will be releasing a lot of fish for another. The size of halibut in Area 2B is going up not down, so it would make sense that our slot limit decision should follow or we will be releasing a lot of fish. This last season was a gong show with the number of big fish I released as compared to the prior year when we were at 133cm.
Agree! In fact I felt the same about the 115 decision. I suspect I am not alone. That said wen looking at the models what is the answer. Do we need to look at a 3 or 4 month season. And
Get the max size we can.
From a personal (selfish) standpoint I could do without July and August but for obvious reasons that will not happen. Nor would I expect it to at this point.
The model did not seem to give up much even at a June start? Maybe you where on to something a while ago wen you questioned a separate regulation for non residents? As said They make up a bunch of the take. Yet all of us who live and pay here all year are handcuffed. Hmmmmmm? I donoknow. That’s why I keep tossing ideas out. There is just no room left to keep shrinking max size. There is no value to us or the fish in doing that.
Yes, limiting non-residents to say 2 fish in a season would have a small impact on reducing the numbers caught by those who come up here and fish all summer...and there are quite a few. Not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze, but this last season I saw a large number of US boats up here that were clearly guiding multiple weeks, with different crews every few days.
Yes, limiting non-residents to say 2 fish in a season would have a small impact on reducing the numbers caught by those who come up here and fish all summer...and there are quite a few. Not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze, but this last season I saw a large number of US boats up here that were clearly guiding multiple weeks, with different crews every few days.
See it is so difficult.I was not talking a two fish annual . If we suggest non residents take the biggest hit on size restrictions to stretch tack and give the people (who actually make up the population that pays taxes to access the public resource) a better fishery. Then we are at risk of loosing tourists revenue and instantly support disappears. Not trying to pic a fight with the industry side of things but this is a true statement. From my experience.
So here we are again. Trying to find a set of recommendations that will have the least likelihood to cause a large loss in revenue. Then we assume that same recommendation will equate to the best we can make out of a bad situation for all who wish to fish for Halibut. I suspect that the fact this has been done so well so far is why we can look back at 8 or so years of virtual inactivity to do anything about the allocation issue.
As I have said before we need groups like SFI wcfga and bcwf to bring us and donations togeather to have any chance. Sadly we lost those years and now with all the Chinook and whale issues, Halibut allocation is just more to add to the pile.
Good points, and yes there are certainly risks when taking a look at non-residents.
There are way too many issues going on - halibut allocation unfortunately is a distant third behind SRKW and Chinook - my grey hair is getting greyer if that is even possible. 2018 was a crap-show and I'm seeing more storm clouds just over the horizon for 2019.
Good luck with that. Yes, everyone in the SFAB would support such a motion - its motherhood and apple pie. DFO and the Minister (including the new one) will stick to the party line. Stalemate. Political solution is your ticket...got cash and time?
The Minister gets that reminder frequently, including the new Minister. The SFAB Chair gets several opportunities to meet directly with the Minister - just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean we aren't discussing it. The 85/15 issue comes up in several direct and indirect ways.
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)
Yes my numbers are from the second table and it was a delayed open (April 1) and includes 10% risk. I was using that table to do combo options for Ray as that one splits out the months. Something that the first table is not suitable for.
Yours are from the first table and I have yet to check all the math on that one.
Will dig deeper and see if I can reformat to make it easier to view.
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.
I personally think it is great idea Serengeti brought up at our meeting, but understand the challenges with implementing with enforcement etc. It's very flexible option if we could get it too work.
Yes my numbers are from the second table and it was a delayed open (April 1) and includes 10% risk. I was using that table to do combo options for Ray as that one splits out the months. Something that the first table is not suitable for.
Yours are from the first table and I have yet to check all the math on that on.
Will dig deeper and see if I can reformat to make it easier to view.
#SerengetiGuide
I checked the math and it seems to be correct. Your delayed open 835k number is incorrect. Perhaps you transposed the number from delayed May opening that was 853k. Regardless it's alway good to have another set of eyes on the numbers, thanks.
So I thought I would flesh out the delayed opening and add the 10% risk to the final numbers to see what it would look like. Not looking so great..... IMHO we need to somehow get to that 900k+ TAC.
I also agree that 110 cm would be a not good choice on so many levels. Quality of the fishery for one, and it doesn't closely match the increasing size and age of the halibut population so we will be releasing a lot of fish for another. The size of halibut in Area 2B is going up not down, so it would make sense that our slot limit decision should follow or we will be releasing a lot of fish. This last season was a gong show with the number of big fish I released as compared to the prior year when we were at 133cm.
More I think about this post the more I am reminded that any combination and or 1/1 that is on the model does not make it wen one starts looking to increase size. If you all prefer on having July Aug then from what I see that’s all your going to get if TAC goes down.
Don't forget that there is an error in the table for the 1:1 option. It assumes 15% reduction. We recently learned (after the table was produced) that from the IARC data 30% is the actual percentage of all folks who fished halibut, who caught their full 2 fish limit. That 30% isn't a solid number to use as an adjustment, we need to account for shifting fishing behaviour etc. Maybe something in the low 20% range is more appropriate. That said, when re-worked some of the 1:1 options might work.
We had a good discussion at the WCFGA meeting last night, and the group landed on 1:1 with 124 to 126cm, and the longest possible season as their preferences. Everyone was united in no 115cm - feeling being that with the increasing age and fact there aren't a lot of small fish around we wanted to avoid situations where people were releasing lots of halibut.
One of the reasons people also liked the 1:1 option is that would result in fewer long distance trips chasing the second small fish, which contributes to reducing physical and acoustic disturbance to SRKW and lowering carbon footprint/fuel.
Having said that, there is a realization that if we get a bad TAC decision from the IPHC, then that will force some very difficult decisions around how to create a quality fishery (larger fish). Who knows, maybe we have to look at what they did in Alaska and Washington State where certain days are closed (AK) and/or only a few days are open (WA). There isn't much room in those TAC numbers for a full season and 2 fish of any size from what I see of the options tables unfortunately.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
