Halibut Quota Taboo Subject on SFBC?

[vic-tory]

This year also showed again that changes in the smaller halibut size make zero difference to catch.

Can anyone provide us data that shows otherwise and therefore support continuing with the reg?

 

[terrin]

This year also showed again that changes in the smaller halibut size make zero difference to catch.

Can anyone provide us data that shows otherwise and therefore support continuing with the reg?

Thats the part where it gets tricky. Some people want to change halibut size but others like myself who do not live right out front of the Halibut fishing grounds would like to see a two fish possesion as we probably will only go out once or maybe twice per year and not even come close to our current personal annual limit. Like Ukee points out and I agree with if the DFO used the internet as the form of doing consultations we could get a more diverse source of input from the Sport fishining community not just a few who have a vested interest in steering things in a certain way while claiming to represent all sportfishers.

 

[GLG]

Like Ukee points out and I agree with if the DFO used the internet as the form of doing consultations we could get a more diverse source of input from the Sport fishining community not just a few who have a vested interest in steering things in a certain way while claiming to represent all sportfishers.

While I agree that we need more input and the internet would be a great tool for that, it has been suggested that a special SFAC Area - Internet could work. However we would need someone that could lead that and commit to making it work. If someone is willing to take this on I would be happy to discuses that further. As for your other comment...... don't go there as that is just nonsense. The folks that work on this have integrity that we can trust. I personally know some of them and if they are reading this would be insulted that you said that.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

GLG - while I can't speak for Terrin, there is a significant difference between integrity and the inherent biases that we all have. If you make a living guiding or running a lodge vs a local right beside a certain fishing location vs someone travelling within the province vs Canadians and Int'l travellers coming from abroad all will have different values and interests in the resource and different levels of investment, both monetarily and personally/emotionally. I absolutely have my biases and I assume everyone else does as well, that is why inclusive engagement and participation is so important - all perspectives and ideas should be considered equal.

While an Internet SFAC "Area" is intriguing the devil would be in the details. As such an "Area" should represent the vast majority of participation would it have influence proportional to its participation/representation or would it just be a single feeder SFAC to the current SFAB process? The latter runs the risk of marginalizing the majority rather than empowering them, which is exactly what any new system should be trying to overcome. The voice of the majority, whether or not it conforms with your and/or my biases and interests, should direct rec fishing engagement and priorities.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[GLG]

This year also showed again that changes in the smaller halibut size make zero difference to catch.

Can anyone provide us data that shows otherwise and therefore support continuing with the reg?

Can you provide data that shows that this years changes in the 2nd smaller halibut size made zero difference? I'll be happy to look at it and give you an honest opinion as best I can.

 

[vic-tory]

Yes. The poundage used is within 3-4% from last year. And up (by about 10,000 lbs) from two years ago with same limits but larger second fish. Look at difference from 2011 to 2012.

How can one say it makes a difference looking at these numbers? So again. Can you show me it works? As the data certainly doesn't show that.

 

[GLG]

Perhaps it was just a bad choose of words that Terrin used, maybe was trying to get across bias. I'll give him that. The process is biased and the SFAC/SFAB TOR (Terms of Reference) spells it out.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/reg-tor-man-eng.htm

My experience tells me that the bias is for the average rec angler. That's a personal opinion and have no way to back that up.

 

[Jencourt]

[QUOTE="terrin, post: 807459, member: 4116 "not just a few who have a vested interest in steering things in a certain way while claiming to represent all sportfishers."[/QUOTE]

And this is why I stayed away from this thread and most others this year. Also why I should have went to bed after the game instead of climbing on this wagon again.

These folks work tirelessly on all our behalf's. I have had the opportunity to sit with some of them and they deserve better than this kind of comment. I have personally seen time and time again where they have put their own bias aside to put the big picture first. I agree Gil, full respect and trust. Whether or not we always agree with choices,one thing never changes those folks put more time and effort into preserving our rights to access than most will ever be willing to do. For that I am grateful. As a local member of our SFAC i barely can make the commitment to stay up on all the emails and make the meetings. Wen I do I am always humbled by the knowledge and passion that is displayed by them. I have no problem with people disagreeing on points as long as it is done with respect, an effort to be well informed has been made, and in the lack of knowledge a little humility does not hurt. We all at times forget that there is a difference between being heard and having our suggestions implemented. Not always or even often does one come after the other. It is my experience that the first is always accepted and welcome.

This will be my last post on this topic. In my opinion there have been some good points made here.Once again I have learned a little and have bin given things to think about. If we do indeed end up at 100+ by year end I am confident that they will measure all possibilities against that fact and do the best job possible to give us the most fishing opportunity possible next season. I do support the idea of better format for sharing info and thoughts and inclusion of a larger portion of our sector. As Gil points out who and how will make this work?? For now, I will use the process available to forward any concerns and or ideas and trust that they will get consideration.

Ray

 

[007]

Thanks everyone for the information on why no individual management areas.

Have a good weekend

 

[ziggy]

While I agree that we need more input and the internet would be a great tool for that, it has been suggested that a special SFAC Area - Internet could work. However we would need someone that could lead that and commit to making it work. If someone is willing to take this on I would be happy to discuses that further. As for your other comment...... don't go there as that is just nonsense. The folks that work on this have integrity that we can trust. I personally know some of them and if they are reading this would be insulted that you said that.

Shouldn't DFO be running the internet site? Seems to me it's in their mandate to keep the public informed? They seem to delegate a lot of their responsibilities to volunteers. I questioned why minutes aren't published and got some excuse about translation services. Sorry but that doesn't cut it, the government has had a bilingual policy for how long?

Not ragging on the volunteers, just the paid civil servants that are taking the easy way out

 

[Aces]

Shouldn't DFO be running the internet site? Seems to me it's in their mandate to keep the public informed? They seem to delegate a lot of their responsibilities to volunteers. I questioned why minutes aren't published and got some excuse about translation services. Sorry but that doesn't cut it, the government has had a bilingual policy for how long?

Not ragging on the volunteers, just the paid civil servants that are taking the easy way out

DFO is in charge of the commercial and first nations fisheries as well. We are a drop in the bucket as far as they are concerned.

 

[fogged in]

why no individual management areas.

Careful what you wish for!
Me thinks management by area would not work well for some and how you would assign quota by area is beyond me!
Best solution is more quota province wide and keep it simple

 

[bigdogeh]

Let me start by confessing, my ignorance on the halibut fishery. I have never caught a halibut, however, l do not understand how the dfo knows how much have been caught or how much we have left. Any halibut that are caught are required to be entered onto your licence, not size, just quantity. How does dfo know what is going on? Not every boat or fisherpersons licence is checked, and when you are stopped, ( at least in my case) it is just a cursory inspection, with no data recorded.
It would seem to me that it is just guess work, and as such any data could easily be "fudged" in whatever direction the analyst (dfo) choses.
There has to be a more accurate analysis, unless I am missing something. I am old enough to remember the zip lock ties for Chinook, that you were required to purchase and use back then. Was it the 80's? Would a system like that work?. Buy a tag for a dollar, with the requirement, that you have to inform dfo when it is used with size of catch, by email?,
From what I understand, commrrcial fishers actually have cameras on board and are required to record every fish retained.

I think this report below might answer a few questions. this is for 2015. I don't think 2016 has been issued yet.
I do think a simpler, more accurate estimate could be made by simply having a mandatory online survey asking questions on a licenced recreational fishers take of halibut. area, etc. I don't think using guides and lodges logbook info gives an accurate look at the whole sector. how many here have been asked how many halibut they caught in a creel survey? I don't remember being asked. well, maybe once or twice up north. I'm sure people have but I'd bet there are more times you've left the launch and not had to submit to a creel survey. make it mandatory and a requirement in order to receive your next years licence. people would submit.
I would think it would be alot cheaper than having creel surveys also as dfo is usually crying poverty when it comes to them looking after the recreational sector.. (they don't seem to mind spending it on the aquaculture industry though)
If they would like to continue to have creel surveys, fine. but use the other information to enhance and compare the results. more accurate info is better than less info that is more or less an estimate..

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/13_02_Area2B_2015SportHalibutCatchReport_IPHC.pdf

 

[bigdogeh]

DFO is in charge of the commercial and first nations fisheries as well. We are a drop in the bucket as far as they are concerned.

a drop in the bucket but the one sector that creates more revenue for the government than the other 2 combined. seems to me they don't have their priorities or concerns in the right order...

 

[GLG]

Yes. The poundage used is within 3-4% from last year. And up (by about 10,000 lbs) from two years ago with same limits but larger second fish. Look at difference from 2011 to 2012.

How can one say it makes a difference looking at these numbers? So again. Can you show me it works? As the data certainly doesn't show that.

Hi vic-tory
I'll use the data that you provided back a few posts and just use the peak months. After all this is where most of the halibut in our sector is caught.

These two years had the same rules and the trend is that under the same rules we would expect that 2016 would follow that trend and we would see an increase. If I recall correctly it was because the average weight of a caught halibut was going up. I don't recall if angler effort went up as well. The evidence indicated that we would go over if the trend continued under the same rules.

Rule---133/90----133/90
Year----2014-------2015
June--195,083----211,587
July---315,075----337,436
Aug---297,439----302,395

So what happened..... the trend continued even under a change to the rules but it did slow down and reversed in Aug 2016. Now was it because the average caught halibut was smaller? Was it because angler effort was less or was it because of the rule change?

Rule---133/90----133/90----133/83
Year---2014------2015-------2016
June--195,083---211,587---236,011
July---315,075---337,436---353,566
Aug---297,439---302,395---249,762

My point is that until all the data is in and the folks that crunch the numbers tell us why, we can not say that the rule change had no effect. Clearly something in Aug 2016 effected that number.

I'll crunch the numbers some more to see if we can spot something else.
(dang formatting... I'll try to clean it up...)

 

[Aces]

a drop in the bucket but the one sector that creates more revenue than the other 2 combined. seems to me they don't have their priorities or concerns in the right order...

Well those 2 other sectors have actual lobbyists in Ottawa fighting on their behalf, we don't other than the SFAB.

The First Nations in my area are on full out commercial Halibut fishing now with some 25 ft sporty boats bringing in $200K a year now. Won't be many left for us soon as there are more boats rigging up for next year.....just the tip of the ice burg, boys!

A few sport fishermen writing letter to DFO has been proven to doing F all. I don't see things changing without a ton of money spent by the Sport Fishing sector on our own to increase our share of the TAC.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

GLG - if your are crunching numbers to analyze the effectiveness of a slot size I strongly suggest you look at the two years previous to the possession slot being implemented and the two years after it was first brought in - which was before the annual limit and max size so the slot stands alone. I've posted it here many times before - there was zero effect on actual harvest numbers. I stress actual harvest numbers because the model being used to forecast harvest does show that a slot reg has an effect. That is the function of a bad model that assumes half of fish harvested will be subject to the slot, which we all know is ridiculous. There is a big difference between modelling and real numbers.

Another area you should look at is the historical harvest data. Look at the size of the median fish harvested. The average size will be skewed high due to some very large fish being harvested. Median number shows the size at which half of fish caught are larger and half smaller. Median size harvested by the rec fishery has been surprisingly consistent and shows that the vast majority are actually quite small. I believe the historical data shows the median fish harvested in all but a couple of the PFMAs is in the 10-12 lb range, whereas an 83 cm fish is about 14lbs and a 90 cm fish is approx 19lbs. So, with the slot, as the majority of fish harvested are already below 12lbs, how is a reg that restricts one of two fish to being less than 14 or 19lbs supposed to make any change? It simply won't.

What is interesting is that in the vast majority of cases where slot sizes are used it is about focussing harvest away from certain age-classes of fish - such as allowing immature fish to reach spawning age and spawn at least a couple of times prior to to being subject to harvest. When trying to reduce harvest, slots almost universally protect the numerous small fish, thus limiting the number of fish in a population that would be subject to harvest. In the BC halibut case, as the slot is above what is already the size class of fish that is most often harvested there isn't any actual reduction in numbers taken.

The other thing the model and those applying it don't factor in is the fact that the vast majority of effort is on the first fish, not subject to the slot restriction. Every local is never subject to the slot, every day charter isn't subject to it, every 2-3 day lodge visitor who only targets bottom fish one day, which is the norm, isn't subject to it. Every travelling angler on their first day fishing halibut isn't subject to it, every travelling angler not successful or who doesn't catch a fish larger than the slot isn't subject to it, etc, etc, etc. Data shows that the vast majority of time this slot reg doesn't apply and when it does the vast majority of halibut reeled up are under 12lbs so not over the slot limit anyway. Historical data can be googled by anyone willing to put in the time.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[ziggy]

Well those 2 other sectors have actual lobbyists in Ottawa fighting on their behalf, we don't other than the SFAB.

The First Nations in my area are on full out commercial Halibut fishing now with some 25 ft sporty boats bringing in $200K a year now. Won't be many left for us soon as there are more boats rigging up for next year.....just the tip of the ice burg, boys!

A few sport fishermen writing letter to DFO has been proven to doing F all. I don't see things changing without a ton of money spent by the Sport Fishing sector on our own to increase our share of the TAC.

Don't write to DFO! Write to the Minister, your local MP,even your local MLA. DFO bureaucrats don't care, they don't need your vote to keep their jobs.

 

[Aces]

Don't write to DFO! Write to the Minister, your local MP,even your local MLA. DFO bureaucrats don't care, they don't need your vote to keep their jobs.

As per Cuba Libre....they don't even hardly read them.

DFO jobs aren't dependent on just our sector. It's time people realized that.

 

[ziggy]

As per Cuba Libre....they don't even hardly read them.

DFO jobs aren't dependent on just our sector. It's time people realized that.

I think we just agreed? Politicians on the other hand, do read letters (emails, not so much) and usually reply to a formal letter. Their jobs do depend on our votes, and our lowly votes carry the same weight as Jimmy Pattison's.