Guides, lodges and halibut

[Sushihunter]

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/Guides+lodges+halibut/4150074/story.html


Guides, lodges and halibut

By David Hardie, Times Colonist January 22, 2011




There is lots of halibut quota for the recreational fisher. The problem comes with the charter boats and lodges in the business of catching fish for their clients.

These commercial services should be grouped with any other fishing business. The charter boats and lodges should provide their customers with commercial halibut quota and leave the recreational quota to the recreational fisherman. The charter boats and lodges catch 69 per cent of the recreational total allowable catch of halibut. This allowable catch has been exceeded for the past six years due to these businesses and this has caused early shutdowns of the recreational fishery and reduced catch limits.
If the charter industry were to hold its own commercial quota, businesses could plan their seasons without fear of any closures or catch limits. This would leave the recreational halibut share for the recreational fishers.

David Hardie
Courtenay

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist







Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/Guides+lodges+halibut/4150074/story.html#ixzz1BnBQYeTs​

 

[IronNoggin]

More Divide & Conquer. BS.

Nog

 

[snapT]

Thats very true.

Its not like a family of 4 wanting to fill their freezer with halli. Whats that, max 6 or 7? We go out and hammer halli everyday nearly. Were not just filling our freezers for the family, but the freezer for many many many families.

This is a good point.

 

[Cuba Libre]

You are right Nog-- but I hope someone from Victoria will counter that BS... We need MORE people responding PUBLICALLY to this spin.

I am launching letters of rebuttal at the papers in Courtenay, but I sure could sure some help from someone else here. The editors do not like just posting letters from one person. Anyone?? PM me if you can take a little time to write a couple of letters to the Record or Echo.
Thanks
Bryan

 

[Charlie]

From 2007 through 2010, Area 2B commercial sector was allocated a total quota of 31,317,600 pounds of halibut. From 2007 through 2010, the commercial sector harvested 30,910,000 pounds of that quota, including the 146,400 overharvested in 2010.


I am thinking someone might ask those commercials why they are complaining so much about allocation when they seemed to have left 407,600 pounds of halibut quota on the table over the last four years. Isn't that close to about $$ million??

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/rara/2010/2010.31.2010commercialfisheryandregulationchanges.pdf

 

[fisher69]

From 2007 through 2010, Area 2B commercial sector was allocated a total quota of 31,317,600 pounds of halibut. From 2007 through 2010, the commercial sector harvested 30,910,000 pounds of that quota, including the 146,400 overharvested in 2010.


I am thinking someone might ask those commercials why they are complaining so much about allocation when they seemed to have left 407,600 pounds of halibut quota on the table over the last four years. Isn't that close to about $$ million??

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/rara/2010/2010.31.2010commercialfisheryandregulationchanges.pdf

get a grip charlie;

there is 34,000lbs left in the water since the inception of quotas and that will be carried over to the start of 2011. The freezers are empty and there is a shortage of halibut this year. Everybody needs to take a step back from this and put the stocks first. According to DFO over the last 5 years the rec sector is over 700,000lbs and the commercial sector under by 34k. Yes i am expecting the same crap from some on here about the validity of DFO numbers but until the SFAB and DFO smarten up it is the best we have.

 

[Ding Dong!]

"fisher69", I wonder if that is even possible considering that the message being delivered by the coalition, is that business is down substantially and it continues to fall. If in fact the business has declined over the past three to four years, then who is taking all of these fish?

As I mentioned to Charlie in another thread; I personally believe that the sport sector has been leaving fish in the water over the past few years, however this is just a theory that I am investigating. I beg someone [entity] to look at sport quota lease purchases, timing and log book data, and historical sector growth for any anomalies or spikes in the past three to four years, especially where there has been connections, observation or complaints regarding decline in business while the effort appears to show growth and ultimately exceeding TAC. There is an obvious conflict between the message being delivered and the actual end result.

Ding Dong!

 

[fisher69]

"fisher69", I wonder if that is even possible considering that the message being delivered by the coalition, is that business is down substantially and it continues to fall. If in fact the business has declined over the past three to four years, then who is taking all of these fish?

As I mentioned to Charlie in another thread; I personally believe that the sport sector has been leaving fish in the water over the past few years, however this is just a theory that I am investigating. I beg someone [entity] to look at sport quota lease purchases, timing and log book data, and historical sector growth for any anomalies or spikes in the past three to four years, especially where there has been connections, observation or complaints regarding decline in business while the effort appears to show growth and ultimately exceeding TAC. There is an obvious conflict between the message being delivered and the actual end result.

Ding Dong!

dd there are no real numbers to go back and look at. The logbook is vulentary so those that fill one out are probably above board but it is still limited data. The creo survey is a joke. IPHC has no confidence in the numbers that are presented from DFO as they are well aware of the lack of accountability in all sports fisheries. What I would like to see is where the fish are being caught in the sports fishery.

 

[Charlie]

fisher69

Now why or would I want or need to “Get a grip”? J

Those numbers posted are correct; however question why you might want post those misleading numbers and information? While what you stated isn’t wrong, it is misleading and doesn’t paint the correct picture!

Since “inception of quotas is ambiguous. Are you referring all the way back to 1923, or do you just want to pick and choose dates to make that verifiable? I can do either, but those numbers and statements tend to tell me, you do not have a clue what is really going on in YOUR own country? Maybe you should “get a grip”? J

If you want to go back five years, that would include a LARGE OVERHARVEST of the commercial sector in 2006? Why weren’t they shut down oh, they are allowed to overfish! Now with that 2006 overharvest commercial is (33,600) pounds under their quota limit. That is probably the five year 34,000 figure referred! Therefore, if you do and can actually read… you can start with that over/under carry over program for the commercial sector. Throughout the years you will find, within reason – COMMERCIAL SECTOR CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT.

Ah, but, that’s okay… what’s a couple of million pounds of halibut over 15 years? And, if they couldn’t overfish or lease their quota - how else could those PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS make any money? You think that couple of million pounds is overstated – get out your spreadsheet and plug the catch and catch limit numbers in! The numbers over the last 15 years really aren’t that favorable to the commercial sector concerning harvest, conservation, waste and do indicate just plain GREED!

Since 1995 the commercial sector in Area 2B is “OVER” their allocated catch limit quota by 1,837,400 pounds (yes- that is millions of pounds). Spreadsheets work wonders! Now those PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, that get to overharvest and over THEIR quota are still in the position and have the ability to “LEASE” the sport sector (an ordinary citizen) the RIGHT, for them to fish their own common public resource? What are you guys thinking? Furthermore, it has already been to your Supreme Court!

IPHC website under those things called “RARA’s” are a great resource: RARA 2010

“Put the stocks first.” Well I believe the information on the above website, pretty much spells why it is IPHC’s job to protect those stocks. History has proven the commercial sector (in general-not meaning any individuals) is in NO WAY either historically concerned about anything to do with those stocks or conservation! Why in the world, do you think there was an IPHC established? The governments of Canada and United States have given the IPHC authority protect and “put the stocks first”. I sure hope you are not indicating IPHC can’t or isn’t capable of performing that task. If so just read the RARA 2006 and 2007! All I can say there is Hahaha DFO, IPHC called BULLSH!T !

Of course based on that comment, you must also know the decline in biomass is indeed down, has been declining for decades – that is also discussed quite abet in the IPHC reports . However, do you know how much or why? How about I help you out there, too? The “ENTIRE” biomass declined approximately 35%; however, as noted - that would be biomass to determine harvestable weight, NOT population! And should be directed more towards commercial harvest than sport, especially since about 70% of the harvest comes from commercial! It does sound good, but that is as mentioned only a scare tactic. How about this bit of information… The entire biomass has declined, but Area 2B overall biomass (weight) has increased over the last couple of years! Surprise – Surprise!

Might want to check on whose freezers are going to be empty? Unless, issues are fixed for both halibut and salmon, it will be sport freezers empty.

Might also want to check on that shortage of halibut comment? There is no population shortage – that gets back to biomass, basically same amount of fish are cuaght - they just weight less = less poundage, due to smaller average fish!

Referring to DFO? Hmmm… is that the same organization that believes, any fish in the open ocean is not sustainable – and is hell bent on managing them all into extinction and/or putting them in “fish farms”? All I can say there - Look out “wild” halibut commercial industry – you are next to be managed into extinction, right after they finish off with the salmon! Aren’t they the ones that came up with the great the IVQ system allowing 435 “gifted” license holders to annually transfer about 50% of British Columbia’s common halibut quota to other private individuals - for a very nice profit. Who just about everyone that has studied the model, advised them it won’t work and the ones that sees NO VALUE in British Columbia Pacific salmon. I am sure as a British Columbian you are aware that they are strategically managing you right out of those “unsustainable” fisheries, into their “aquaculture” programs for you own good! You might want to look up and do some research on the term “strategic management”! Then read their Cohen briefing!

Now how can one post throwing DFO numbers at me, then make the statement “there are no real number to go back look at”?

But I do agree, DFO has NO real numbers concerning the sport sector… And there lays your problem! DFO doesn't have a clue what the sport catch is. Starting with that 700,000 over quota number posted. Five years, that might be optimistic concerning IPHC estimated Area 2B sport was 500,000 over quota just in 2006? IPHC’s estimate in 2006, just might be what is bringing this whole issue to a head? Also, assuming you know sport hasn't been over quota in any given year since 2006 - as they have been leasing additional quota and/or as last year got shut down. What is worse DFO can’t/didn't/doesn’t have a clue what the sport catch numbers really were/are, nor do they know what the First Nation numbers are! How about we just use 300,000 there for decades… oops maybe that isn't enough, let’s change that 402,000 sounds good to me? Oh I am sorry British Columbia’s area is to vast to monitor! Well, to that I have to ask, how about the total area size of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska? Somehow, that seems to be managed and fairly accurately!

Did you know until 2007, IPHC would only get an estimated number of catch and used "proxy weight" from Washington and Alaska to determine British Columbia sport catch?

Sport is and has been “leasing” extra quota from “PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS” – this is not about one industry just transferring quota back and forth to the other - there is no commercial industry to it! This money is going to your next-door neighbor, if you live in Hawaii or Palm Springs – as that is probably were the individuals now live?

“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 J. O. Thomas & Associates, Ltd. to conduct 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 the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (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 is being examined to estimate the 2007 catch. The 2006 catch projection (Table 3) represents a catch estimate developed by average weight data collected from British Columbia waters and not proxy weights from the adjacent sport fisheries in southeast Alaska and Washington.”

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/rara/2007rara/2k7rara01.pdf

BTW… the reported catch from WDF&W, Neah Bay, in 2006, was 13,045 halibut average weight of 14.1 pounds, totaling 183,935 pounds that also is part of the sport catch! In 2007, anglers reported a catch of 9,977 halibut, averaging 11.0 pounds, for a total of 109,747 pounds.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Charlie, I would say that you don't need to get a grip, it appears that you already have good grip on the situation! Given fisher69's previous posts throughout this website, one could imagine this individual sitting in front of their monitor with their fingers in their ears chanting LAlalalalalalalalalalalala.... I don't want to hear it.

Thank you Charlie, for your post, you do indeed have a wealth of information and knowledge at your disposal it appears.

Regards,
Jay.

 

[fishingbc]

dd there are no real numbers to go back and look at. The logbook is vulentary so those that fill one out are probably above board but it is still limited data. The creo survey is a joke. IPHC has no confidence in the numbers that are presented from DFO as they are well aware of the lack of accountability in all sports fisheries. What I would like to see is where the fish are being caught in the sports fishery.

you know what why don't you pick up the damm phone and call Bill Shaw, Wilf Luedky or any other of the dozens of bozos at DFO Pacific branch and ask them yourself to add halibut to our licenses.....or give us an annual limit of say 10 per angler per year or whatever number you commercial guys would like us to have....... we have been asking for this at the highest levels for F#@*^KING years.....you will get the same F*#@&KING stupid answers we have been getting, so stop your BS posts and pick up the phone, call them then post their responses here......its not rocket science.......DFO has been ignoring our sector for years and now the sleeping giant has woken up.....things will change.....

 

[Derby]

"Catch Monitoring"
Funny how the commercial sector is now coming out with that as their only line of Defense? How that has anything to do with 436 guys getting 88%?
We have fully supported catch monitoring pilots and e-log projects with DFO.
For 87 years the reporting has been acceptable to the IPHC.It's is time tested and has been used to provide what appears to be solid science.The commercial sector was quite happy to lease us quota when were over 12%,they trusted the monitoring system when they were leasing us quota.As a sport fisher I have a hard time taking it as a legitmate excuse.

 

[juandesooka]

Someone else said the difference is that commercial bring fish to the people, guides bring people to the fish. Guides do not sell fish, they provide a platform for recreational anglers to be able to catch their lawful share.

But regarding this quote: "If the charter industry were to hold its own commercial quota, businesses could plan their seasons without fear of any closures or catch limits. This would leave the recreational halibut share for the recreational fishers." If indeed the guides are considered another branch of commercial, then this is not an unreasonable suggestion .... IF the charter quota comes out of the 88%! So if it were true that charters caught 60% of the recreational allocation, then this is roughly 7% of the total. Increase the recreational/charter allocation 20%, and problem solved.

But the big problem is $$ ... the gifted quota that now has to be bought back. Where does that revenue come from? Halibut stamps? More licensing fees for charters? Pretty sure it isn't coming out of general revenues!

 

[Derby]

No one should own quota! All of the active fishermen and the public should be getting their quota for free. The ones who are not fishing it, should loose it. Re-allocate it to the active commercial fishermen, their profits would soar. An annual allocation that is non proprietary.


The problem is that quota which is a great tool for managing commercial fisheries has turned into a market commodity which has compromised the active fisherman's ability to make a living. The major quota owners would love to see more people in "their" market place to drive up the price of quota, so their lease profits would go up even more. More people in the market would further reduce the viability of the active commercial fisherman who is already leasing.


Get rid of the Slipper Skipper quota, have DFO manage that quota and spread it around.


The last thing we need in this country is more privatization of the public resource!


I am opposed to anyone lodges, guides, commercial fishermen being private owners of Canada's resources...


The ironic thing is that the halibut stamp was a discussion at the beginning of this whole mess in 2003, but treasury board rejected the proposal because there was no way the government could funnel a public "tax" revenue to private businesses. The word back was they would not be able to pass the red face test proposing via the user fee act a proposal to pay someone for something Canada already owns.

 

[Ding Dong!]

Great point "juandesooka",

Taxi drivers pick customers up and then ask where to go, they don't pick up people and move them to the taxi drivers favorite hotdog stand for an almost guaranteed bite to eat. Although they might if you ask them nicely. If a large proportion of the quota is being used within the area of facilitation and within the realm of it being attached to commerce or business, then perhaps this is an area that should be reviewed. If the rest of the sport sector is loosing out to smaller creel and shortened seasons due to a small number of businesses bringing anglers to the productive spots. This said however, it is best not to divide our sector because that is the same focus as fighting "Slipper Skippers". Two sectors managed by the same entity, that have similar circumstance, an access issue that was developed by industry and approved by DFO and has been managed, facilitated, policed ever since by this single entity that is not working in the public interest, but for commerce.

The Evolution of Management Institutions for the British Columbia - Really the beginning of DFO

Ding Dong!

 

[Derby]

I am opposed to anyone lodges, guides, commercial fishermen being private owners of Canada's resources...

 

[Ding Dong!]

I am opposed to anyone lodges, guides, commercial fishermen being private owners of Canada's resources...

As am I. There should however be a mechanism in place that will show a fairer distribution of the access for all Canadians and not simply a fairer focus and redistribution to accommodate business although business plays a key role for all sectors.

 

[Derby]

The TAC is given to all Canadians to share.

 

[Clipper]

No one should own quota! All of the active fishermen and the public should be getting their quota for free. The ones who are not fishing it, should loose it. Re-allocate it to the active commercial fishermen, their profits would soar. An annual allocation that is non proprietary.


The problem is that quota which is a great tool for managing commercial fisheries has turned into a market commodity which has compromised the active fisherman's ability to make a living. The major quota owners would love to see more people in "their" market place to drive up the price of quota, so their lease profits would go up even more. More people in the market would further reduce the viability of the active commercial fisherman who is already leasing.


Get rid of the Slipper Skipper quota, have DFO manage that quota and spread it around.


The last thing we need in this country is more privatization of the public resource!


I am opposed to anyone lodges, guides, commercial fishermen being private owners of Canada's resources...

Derby, you have cut right to the heart of the issue and I absolutely agree with you! Fish it or lose it.

 

[Ding Dong!]

The TAC is given to all Canadians to share.

Fifteen years after the disruptive 1898 ruling of the Privy Council another judgement of the Privy Council was rendered in 1913. The ruling emphasized and confirmed the public right to fish in tidal waters, since Magna Carta no exclusive fishery could be granted in tidal waters. Fishing in tidal waters was under the exclusive legislative control of the federal government. This says to me that the focus must be on the federal government.