Halibut quota ideas?

[SerengetiGuide]

Don't think anyone would win that in court Holmes. But could be wrong. And to clarify not promoting the illegal actions said in this thread, but just pointing out I don't think fellow fishers would be judging that hard

 

[GLG]

with all due respect GLG, they had 18 halibut and were also harassing stellar sealions.....i highly doubt that same scenario is something someone from here is going to let play out....18?.....cmon now, and look at the fine they got, pretty inconsequential.....the BS surrounding the halibut issue is ridiculous, and what the govt and DFO have done and are doing is illegal and criminal, so how exactly is a person breaking the law if in fact they do not recognize that law in the first place?.........it's BS.......and i really dont want to hear any comparisons from anybody about if you want to murder someone or do something else that is against the law.....fact of the matter is that we should not even be in the position to have to make a decision to "break the law" as it were.......people can do whatever they want, i already know what i will be doing....holmes*

My point was yes they broke the rules and were fined $500 for each count. The court did not say yup it's ok to break the rules as the "best minds in the bar" have found the rules can be ignored. I'm saying have a plan B if your going to say your going to break the rules in a public forum and then go out and do it. Be prepared to go to court, argue your case and pay the fine. You can then appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if you have the money. Holmes you have been saying you want to challenge this for the last few years. I have no problem with that, if you want to. If others want to challenge the rule... fill your boots. Here is the point I'm trying to make. There is a big difference between challenging the rule and just poaching. When you challenge the rule you invite a CO to give you a ticket so you can go to court. If you just ignore the rule when fishing, then get caught you are a poacher. Careful where you draw the line and how you advise members in a public forum.
GLG

 

[scott craven]

Breaking the law individually will get us no where.
an organized protest on the other hand might draw some attention
to a (potentially) ridiculous regulation.

 

[the fog ducker]

Exactly my point , on a badly hooked bleeder , its goin down , few lbs up , few lbs down , take me ta jail lol , i will go ta court need be , love ta here a judges perspective on this crap ...
Not really askin for advice , thx though , see ya on the water..

fd

70lb instead of 60lb halibut in the boat...arrested for it...believe it when I see it. I doubt it. With that being said, I'd expect a give or take of a few cm considering how hard it is to measure over the side of the boat.

 

[AlGee]

Huh, 11 pages of this and what..about 48 pages in the other thread? and there has been NO MENTION at all about the Just for the Halibut derby hosted by Island Outfitters. Apparently its still scheduled for sometime in May....???

 

[trophywife]

Or heres an even better scenario! You have paying guests on your boat at $1000 a pop, they hook 70 lbers and have to release them and they go home empty handed!

have to gift some pieces off a 59 i guess? both senarios are a possibility, we are not going without our family food , why should other canadians??, and dont give me the bs that i can afford to buy it. why should i/we have to?

TAC NEEDS FIXED.

 

[fish4all]

I was under the impression that it is the SFAB that is putting forward the idea of releasing fish over 60lb to DFO as a possible management measure to extend the season. Did I miss something?

 

[Sculpin]

I was under the impression that it is the SFAB that is putting forward the idea of releasing fish over 60lb to DFO as a possible management measure to extend the season. Did I miss something?

Do we really have to tolerate undercover commercial fisherman like yourself on this site? Again how much does your lobby group pay you to post on here? Do you just do it for fun? Are you laughing at us as you type? Inquiring minds want to know.

Keep trying to drive that wedge fish4all. The recreational sector will stay united. We are one voice.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Stop trolling. I am the last person to defend the SFAB, but the DFO gave them a group of ****** options. 1 of which was this .They worked with Bad DFO models and came up with this. So the answer is yes, the did recommend it. But there were much worse options but thier were defeintely better ones. Not everyone in the SFAB agreed with this recommendation, some were DEAD against it, unfortunately there were not enough of them.

In the end the SFAB process is set up to fail, and a perfect scape goat for the DFO. They want to make everyone feel good, like thier opinion matters, but they are much smarter then that. And they proved that once again here.

THey really took the cake with this one though. Pitting user group vs user group (guides vs rec) area vs area ( scvi vs wcvi vs everyone else) AND have even found a way in the process to make the idea of buying quota even more tempting. All in one swoop.

Now is the time for the infighting to stop. Enough ragging on the SFAB, the process sucks, they made a ****** decision. Time to move on. We must stick together, and put all the rest of this **** behind us and stand up for whats right. This is not about guides, this is not about residents of BC this is not about Victoria. This is about CANADIANS and our RIGHT to a EQUAL ACESS TO a resource. I dont want to see anymore infighting. I want to hear solutions of have to move forward. Protesting the BS regulation ( take that for whatever you want it to mean) and figuring out how not to let this happen again should be a start. But if we continue to fight and continue to let the SFAB shape our fisheries we are doomed.

On a final note, i dont blame anyone on the SFAB, actually thats a lie, i blame a few, but really its the process as a whole. Its broken. Hopefully this is a wake up call to some of those guys whos heart is in the right place, but efforts and knowledge could be so much better used in different venues than in the dead end that the SFAB is. There is no doubt in my mind that MOST of these guys really want to make a difference for all of our benefits, but are restricted to the read tape, bureaucracy and most of all the BS that the process is.

Extremely good post!!!!!!!!! Well said!!

 

[bcboy]

70lb instead of 60lb halibut in the boat...arrested for it...believe it when I see it. I doubt it. With that being said, I'd expect a give or take of a few cm considering how hard it is to measure over the side of the boat.

Depending on the fisheries officer I guess, if they want to push it and you have a fish over size even by 2cm it is an easy win for the prosecution, the fish is illegal plain and simple, no halibut is worth the pain in the butt of a charge or fine.

 

[Sculpin]

no halibut is worth the pain in the butt of a charge or fine.

X2.............

 

[Rockfish]

I was under the impression that it is the SFAB that is putting forward the idea of releasing fish over 60lb to DFO as a possible management measure to extend the season. Did I miss something?

I seemed to recall a number of month’s back you slithered off this site to go check when you were called out on the information you were spreading here and in the comments section of some newspapers about anglers catching 500,000 Chinook a year. Even my contacts at DFO were laughing at that one. Not to mention your usual spin to defend the commercial big money interests, especially the halibut fish lords. We have been waiting for your correction and apology; come to think of it we are still waiting.

What credibility do you think you could possibly have left or did you think we would all forget about it if you stayed low key for a while.

Everyone knows why you post here and in the papers and it is not to advance the interest, of anglers, sport fishing, the economic interests of BC or the conservation of fish.

 

[ziggy]

I was under the impression that it is the SFAB that is putting forward the idea of releasing fish over 60lb to DFO as a possible management measure to extend the season. Did I miss something?

I don't think it could be a management or conservation measure do you? I mean if it was a good idea wouldn't the guys who are given 85% of the resource have to do the same thing? I guess though a lot of commercial fishers have a different method of conservation. You know sit at home and be paid not to fish.

 

[fish4all]

Do we really have to tolerate undercover commercial fisherman like yourself on this site? Again how much does your lobby group pay you to post on here? Do you just do it for fun? Are you laughing at us as you type? Inquiring minds want to know.

Keep trying to drive that wedge fish4all. The recreational sector will stay united. We are one voice.

Man some of you are defensive.

Actually I'm pretty sure I have stated that I commercial fish among other jobs. I was simply asking a question on how the process works for my own clarification. I thought that the SFAB presents a list of options to DFO and DFO then picks the options for 2013. I guessing from the replys that it does not work that way.

Joey other than the first paragraph excellent post. It is not just the recreational sector that is having to deal with a dysfunctional department.

 

[fish4all]

I don't think it could be a management or conservation measure do you? I mean if it was a good idea wouldn't the guys who are given 85% of the resource have to do the same thing? I guess though a lot of commercial fishers have a different method of conservation. You know sit at home and be paid not to fish.

The idea to not harvest large fish is to slow the fishery down, extend the season, and stay within an allocation. It is no being designed to protect spawners. And yes the commercial sector does have a different view on conservation. It's called proper accounting and staying within an allocation.

 

[profisher]

Fish4all, I give you credit as you are a commercial fisherman who is willing to listen and then voice your opinion. Common ground doesn't happen that often but at least you are here debating. Most commercial guys couldn't even have a dialogue with us sporties.

 

[trendsetter]

The idea to not harvest large fish is to slow the fishery down, extend the season, and stay within an allocation. It is no being designed to protect spawners. And yes the commercial sector does have a different view on conservation. It's called proper accounting and staying within an allocation.

It doesn't matter what commercial fisherman think of conservation in the case of halibut. Conservation is accounted for prior to the TAC by IPHC. This is an issue of allocation; the current 85/15 allocation does not serve the best interests (social or economic) of Canadians.

 

[profisher]

Trend he is right on the accountability issue...they do keep better records on their catch. You still have to count to stay within the limits set by the IPHC. I do agree with you that the allocation isn't fair for us and that the quota system benefits the already deep pockets of JP at the expense of the licensed guys trying to earn a living.

 

[trendsetter]

Yeah, I agree there is better record keeping and enforcement on the commercial side, which there should be. A single long liner can harvest the same as a hundred rec boats in a weekend. But the conservation aspect is taken care of by IPHC is all I meant.

I believe the TAC should be allocated first to the rec sector, however much is needed to provide for a March - November 2/3 retention. Then the remainder allocated to commercial. It's been proven by several studies that a sport caught fish if far more economically productive than a commercial caught fish. I'm not saying that there should be no commercial fishing just that the TAC should be allocated where it is most beneficial to Canada and BC. That is to support a healthy rec sector and a commercial sector second.

That's my .05 cents

 

[Sculpin]

Trend he is right on the accountability issue...they do keep better records on their catch. You still have to count to stay within the limits set by the IPHC. I do agree with you that the allocation isn't fair for us and that the quota system benefits the already deep pockets of JP at the expense of the licensed guys trying to earn a living.

Yeah, I agree there is better record keeping and enforcement on the commercial side, which there should be. A single long liner can harvest the same as a hundred rec boats in a weekend. But the conservation aspect is taken care of by IPHC is all I meant.

I believe the TAC should be allocated first to the rec sector, however much is needed to provide for a March - November 2/3 retention. Then the remainder allocated to commercial. It's been proven by several studies that a sport caught fish if far more economically productive than a commercial caught fish. I'm not saying that there should be no commercial fishing just that the TAC should be allocated where it is most beneficial to Canada and BC. That is to support a healthy rec sector and a commercial sector second.

That's my .05 cents

You guy's are being way to soft on the commercial guy's. Accountability with only something like 20% of the film in their so called "full" monitoring camera's being looked at. You think DFO has the time to look at them just like they have the time to look at us. Give your head's a shake. The commercial sector pay's off DFO period. It's all about who has the biggest brown envelope. Don't give in to Fish4all or any of the undercover commies on here. Educate yourselves. It's all bull *****.