Halibut recommendation from SFAB to DFO

[UkeeDreamin]

I stand corrected, sorry GLG - 2010 did indeed close in mid-October, a month later than in 2011, which prompted the delay of the start to the 2011 season to March 1st and the implementation of the much-hated experimental license fishery that year. I thought all three regs came in the same year (2011) - late start, experimental fishery and the possession slot. As GLG correctly states, the latter (possession slot) didn't come in until 2012.

I also agree with Jencourt - it doesn't change much, without known constants of effort between the years, given that 2011 & 2012 had identical season length and rec TAC the numbers are well within the estimation error and are not statistically significant. Two comparable years, one with the reg, one without, in both years DFO's post season estimate is that TAC, which was the same, was used by mid to late August … thus the slot changed nothing. Also, no precedence for the efficacy of such a reg anywhere within the published fishery science. Lots of literature on the efficacy of max size and annual limits … not surprising that when those were employed we get a full season with 25% of TAC untouched, which also equates to 30-40% less poundage harvested over a full season (excepting Feb due to late start) in 2013 vs what was harvested in 2011 or 2012, which had short Mar to early Sep seasons.

It doesn't take a stats whiz or a fisheries scientist to figure out what regs were effective when comparing 2011, 2012 and 2013 catch/harvest data and their respective regulations!

Ukee

 

[GLG]

I stand corrected, sorry GLG -

It doesn't take a stats whiz or a fisheries scientist to figure out what regs were effective when comparing 2011, 2012 and 2013 catch/harvest data and their respective regulations!

Ukee

No problem .... you had me going for a second...LOL
Agreed .. it's not rocket science...LOL
I fear with all the cutbacks and the refocus of DFO money to Kitimat we won't see any effort on DFO's part to work on all this. It's just not in the budget.
How do we fix that? Need a grad student to it take over.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Pretty simple one for a grad student to take on, for sure. But, in my opinion, the "System" needs some honest reflection and self-assessment - in today's "Information Age" the fact that you, GLG, are the only one to my knowledge in the entire SFAB/SFAC hierarchy willing to share information openly with interested rec anglers is more than a little shameful. The fact that the info you are sharing is taken on faith, because even you don't have access to the model, or more importantly data and assumptions the model is based on, is even more shameful as it is all federal and thus is tax payer funded so has a legal obligation to be available publicly.

Washington or Oregon, or perhaps both, have a system of open public consultation as well as web-based surveys to solicit rec sector input into specific annual fishing plans - such as for their halibut regs and openings. This is something all rec anglers who value transparency and inclusiveness should be actively advocating for here in Canada.

Ukee

 

[GLG]

GLG, are the only one to my knowledge in the entire SFAB/SFAC hierarchy willing to share information openly with interested rec anglers

Ukee

Their are a few others (SFAC/SFAB) that are on here that have shared their knowledge. I'm not the first nor the last but perhaps maybe using a bit more math to show what's happening.
The rest of what you said .... 100% agreed... Just not sure how to fix it.

 

[Aces]

Pretty simple one for a grad student to take on, for sure. But, in my opinion, the "System" needs some honest reflection and self-assessment - in today's "Information Age" the fact that you, GLG, are the only one to my knowledge in the entire SFAB/SFAC hierarchy willing to share information openly with interested rec anglers is more than a little shameful. The fact that the info you are sharing is taken on faith, because even you don't have access to the model, or more importantly data and assumptions the model is based on, is even more shameful as it is all federal and thus is tax payer funded so has a legal obligation to be available publicly.

Washington or Oregon, or perhaps both, have a system of open public consultation as well as web-based surveys to solicit rec sector input into specific annual fishing plans - such as for their halibut regs and openings. This is something all rec anglers who value transparency and inclusiveness should be actively advocating for here in Canada.

Ukee

Washington has a 4 day shotgun Halibut season where they go no matter what the weather is BUT they can kill 200 lbers.........

The guys i know down there aren't too happy how that goes

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Numbers don't lie. The numbers showed shoulder season with 2012 regs and primetime regs similar to those we have for 2014 or 2013 would have worked fine. Can you explain to me how these numbers lied Pat, as you said it wouldn't work no matter what?? I'm curious. Just because where you fish you rarely catch anything of large size, doesn't mean those that do should be punished (just like you use that in vica versa).

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Their are a few others (SFAC/SFAB) that are on here that have shared their knowledge. I'm not the first nor the last but perhaps maybe using a bit more math to show what's happening.
The rest of what you said .... 100% agreed... Just not sure how to fix it.

Fair enough, GLG - though there is a world of difference between sharing knowledge and an open, inclusive and transparent process. As you know, I've tried my damnedest to get answers to some pretty critical and fundamental questions from those you refer to with no success. I appreciate your on going candour.

Ukee

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Washington has a 4 day shotgun Halibut season where they go no matter what the weather is BUT they can kill 200 lbers.........

The guys i know down there aren't too happy how that goes

Not really sure if that's a comment on Washington's transparent and inclusive rec sector consultation process or not??

Regardless, your info is more than a bit misleading as it pertains only to a single marine area, within one of the four Washington State management groupings. Being in an area of very low Pacific Halibut abundance, Washington state gets a rec TAC of only 200,000lbs to allocate amongst more than 10X as many anglers as BC has. That notwithstanding, between the 4 management groupings (North Coast, South Coast, Columia River and Juan de Fuca) and many Marine Areas within those, Washington State had a diversity of halibut openings starting in early May. Some in areas with very limited portion of the statewide TAC had an extremely short shotgun season as you relay, while many others were open on a set schedule of 2-4 days per week until TAC was estimated to be used.

In any case, a dismally low allocation for a ton of resource users and yet an inclusive and transparent system allocates it in about as fair and reasonable a way as could be expected.

Ukee

 

[searun]

Numbers don't lie. The numbers showed shoulder season with 2012 regs and primetime regs similar to those we have for 2014 or 2013 would have worked fine. Can you explain to me how these numbers lied Pat, as you said it wouldn't work no matter what?? I'm curious. Just because where you fish you rarely catch anything of large size, doesn't mean those that do should be punished (just like you use that in vica versa).

Like I have said many times in the past, this modeling stuff is aimed at assessing risk. You guys are trying to make this model a precise calculation. I think we all know it is not. That is only good if the model actually could figure out what happens to human behavior when certain regulations are in effect. It's not rocket surgery. All we need to see happen is a small shift in how anglers are fishing and those modeled numbers will swing wildly. So while the numbers work, the SFAB has to also assess risk and that is what you guys are missing.

From what I saw the vast majority of SFAC's wanted 1/2 with slight tweaking to the slot sizes. Very few were willing to take a risk with open ended (no upper slot) options. Once bitten, twice shy!

David you can be curious all you want, but the facts are the SFAC's did not support your views, period, end of story. And, like I said before all you seem interested in doing is creating an argument, instead of trying to understand what the majority wants and why. If you so desperately want to lobby your position, then join in the conversation around the SFAB table.

So I don't know of any other way to explain this, other than to say use the model to see and anticipate the risks associated with each of he choices, then step back and think big picture for what option works for the widest majority of anglers on the coast. That's a simplified version of the decision process.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

I have to say Searun, you are a model of consistency in avoiding the valid discussion items that are raised and attempting to distract from them by commenting around the edges.

The model's aim is not to assess risk, the aim is to forecast harvest based on varying any number of factors the model is built to accommodate. Some of those factors allow for varying degrees of risk, such as factoring in a "bio risk". I couldn't agree more that it doest allow for precise calculations, in fact the model's high degree of imprecision is one of the major points many have tried to raise. However, I don't think it's up to a model to figure out human behaviour, as you suggest, - it's up to the rec sector fishing experts to call BS on the assumptions the model makes when our collective experience, as well as historic performance, clearly shows there's a major issue.

It isn't rocket surgery to know that the model's assumption that half of fish harvested are subject to the possession slot limitation is way out of whack. It's also not rocket surgery to ask a couple extra questions on the creel surveys to collect some data as part of this "experiment" to support a more accurate guesstimation for that piece of the model. It's also not rocket surgery for any average Joe Fishermen, let alone the SFAC/SFAB experts, to see the difference between the Mar 1 to early Sep seasons of 2011 & 2012 where we went over TAC regardless of a possession slot and then in 2013 have a Mar 1 - Dec 31 season while harvesting 25% less than our TAC (which equates to about 40% less harvest than in 2011 or 2012 with four more months of fishing/harvest!!!) and figure out what regs are effective (hint - max size and annual limit) and which one could be scrapped with no risk. I also would add that it's not rocket surgery to ask for case studies of where a regulation such as the possession slot has ever been effectively deployed but, as some of us know, this possession slot wasn't a DFO management measure, it was a measure developed by the guides during the Guide Association meetings prior to the 2012 season and fast tracked through the SFAB/SFAC process.

Anyway, i don't expect the closed, secretive process to change anytime soon. Would be nice to see some admission that the "stepping back and thinking about the big process" part of the equation should be focussed on the validity of the tool being used to base any decisions on whatsoever.

Interesting to contrast regulating the rec sectors TAC in BC to the IPHC process that sets the TAC: the IPHC publishes all of their data and makes their model publicly available. While there are voting seats in the process, their meetings are open to the public, you can even follow along on the web in real time. All presentations and submissions are posted on their website available for public consumption. They also have an open comment period, on line, prior to the annual meeting for any interested party as an individual or formal body to submit comments and suggestions. Also, their forecast tool is constantly being tested, data is constantly being collected to test it and it's debated, challenged and discussed vigorously at every meeting.

Ukee

 

[searun]

We'll UD then we should expect to see you attending some meetings and sharing your expertise then? The process is open to all. Again, you might want to consider not how the model is functionally designed, but rather how it is employed. You missed my point, but then again I should expect that. Seems you guys are more about the argument than considering how to join in the decision process.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

LOL - same old refrain to avoid the valid arguments made. None of your points were missed, Searun, I commented on how the model is used and designed. I would also add anyone who doesn't appreciate that both are equally critical to understanding the results certainly shouldn't be making decisions based on it's outcomes. This has been the basis of all of my critiques - the model is flawed in both it's design and the reliance folks are putting into it so it shouldn't be used as a basis for discussions amongst our sector and certainly not for any decision making.

It'd be nice to see you not be defensive for the sake of being defensive and consider the very real issues that have been raised. A 40% harvest discrepancy between two six month seasons versus the harvest over last year's 10-month season shouldn't be ignored. Nor should the fact the model predicted a TAC overage using last year's regs even though we were 25% under last year. The IPHC biomass model gets ferociously attacked and it's orders of magnitude more accurate and defensible. In that context, how can anyone representing our sector defend continue reliance on it?

Ukee

 

[searun]

Like I said, we need you sitting at the table helping instead of spear chucking from the sidelines. However, the DFO model is just a tool, that is my point. I haven't tried defending it as accurate, it's a predictive model that is only as good as the assumptions and data built into it. You and I both know that. You probably figured out that there is a conservative slush factor built into those assumptions, which is fairly obvious. There is nothing in that model to defend, it's simply instructive. Sitting here debating how to pluck the fly crap out of pepper won't solve anything when the process uses the model differently than the strict precision you seek. Join the conversation around the table, we can use good people in there helping enhance the analysis.

 

[GLG]

I would sure like to see a model that could forecast based on the TAC.
Can it be done? I don't know as that's not my expertise.
The tables that DFO gave us were all we had to make a decision.
It's hard make the correct one with the tools we were given.
We need better tools.... It's like asking us to fish with a stick, some string and a hook.
Sure we can get it done but what the heck it's 2014 we should have better tools.
DFO needs to get their act together or give us the data and we will do it.
After all if we are being tasked to do it then we should take it on and do it right.

I see this as something we should be doing for 2015 Halibut season.
2014 is now on the books and we will see how it goes.
I suspect that if DFO listened and did not put all the rules "a condition of license" we may see some change.
If they did not then we will see a surplus at the end of the season.
The question is how much?
I have my own guess but will wait till I find out what the conditions are.
It's tricky to do the math when the options we have are not on the table DFO gave us.
I did the first pass but I'm not 100% confident that it's right.
I'll just say that I'm confident we won't have a short season.

 

[GLG]

I would like to add that I don't see this as a argument.
More like finding ways to increase the value of all of us who care about or sector.


On a side note Searun ... thanks for your effort, it's much appreciated.

 

[Jencourt]

Like I have said many times in the past, this modeling stuff is aimed at assessing risk. You guys are trying to make this model a precise calculation. I think we all know it is not. That is only good if the model actually could figure out what happens to human behavior when certain regulations are in effect. It's not rocket surgery. All we need to see happen is a small shift in how anglers are fishing and those modeled numbers will swing wildly. So while the numbers work, the SFAB has to also assess risk and that is what you guys are missing.

From what I saw the vast majority of SFAC's wanted 1/2 with slight tweaking to the slot sizes. Very few were willing to take a risk with open ended (no upper slot) options. Once bitten, twice shy!

.

Come on Pat be fair here . You know who we are and you know very well that we have more common sense to not realize and consider risk associated with any option being considered.We are not missing anything here. We are not stupid. That is why some of us were apposed last year . we could see the very obvious risk that we had over regulated things.

More honest would be to say the idea as presented with the mixing of options never even got the time of day it deserved. You said yourself the first night,without even taking the time to understand what was being presented and all the tools that come with it, that it would not work. I would bet most never took the time to really look at it's validity and instead wrote it off as you did as soon as they seen where there was an open top end involved. If you would be honest for one minute you would admit that all the tools were there to make it work and risk could have easily been handled with the use of the suggestions made.

At the end of the day you are correct the SFAB did not accept the idea and chose to remain steadfast to restricting anglers all season with the double ended slot. Yes some of us think they could have provided a little more opportunity and choice while still accomplishing all there goals. At this juncture they were not willing to do so and we now have a slight improvement over last year.
Hopefully it will turn out well for us all, and next year if we do not get too banged up by the IPHC they will take a closer and more open minded look at the value this option provides. For this season the only choice anglers have now is to fish or not.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

LOL - same old refrain to avoid the valid arguments made.

Ukee

Welcome to my life lollll.

 

[searun]

Ray to be fair, I did review your suggested option and gave consideration to it. There are two issues there. First was timing. Most of the SFAC groups had already met and agreed upon their recommendations in advance of when you brought this suggestion forward. You participate in the SFAB so you would understand the tight timeframe for feedback. I do think your idea should be investigated further next season, but did not think it had much chance to be more fulsomely considered by all the SFAC groups because it didn't get to them in time.

Secondly, and a big one in my mind, is an open ended slot increases risk of anglers changing the style of the fishery causing higher exploitation rates. We learned that lesson the hard way already. We had the same debate in our group, and came to the conclusion that any option that encouraged anglers to shift up how and where they fished represents a risk not worth taking if the main goal is a full season. I'm not going to get into tackle box issues, but I do think you are thoughtful and savvy enough to get the logic behind that point without posting it.

I know now it's not a popular view for some, but these options have to be assessed against their potential risks, many of which IMO are not something any model can hope to fully calculate.

We we should avoid the same mistakes the ministry of environment has repeatedly made over the past few decades by getting into analysis paralysis and in the process does nothing to address opportunities lost for doing something positive that actually leads to the possibility of more fish. Instead they study the crap out of steelhead for example and none of those studies leads to any action other than regulating anglers. Pointless.

So for Hali, let's not get too caught up in that mistake. Improved models would be helpful, but are not critical to reaching decent decisions.

 

[Jencourt]

I absolutely agree it was very short timed and did not allow all sfac's to meet and consider it. For what it is worth the 2014 regs did not either . They where not on the options sheet handed out for consideration. I am not sure if last years regs were on last years hand out either..I say not sure about 2013 handout as I do not have it with me. I only say this as we have already seen where an 11th hour decision can and has been made.

As far as risk is concerned, I think it is fair to say we have different views as to how much risk there was and how that risk could have been managed.

"Secondly, and a big one in my mind, is an open ended slot increases risk of anglers changing the style of the fishery causing higher exploitation rates. We learned that lesson the hard way already. We had the same debate in our group, and came to the conclusion that any option that encouraged anglers to shift up how and where they fished represents a risk not worth taking if the main goal is a full season. "

I am not familiar with an example of this ever taking place. We went from no size at either end to having the 83cm second fish. Seasons finished up very similar and without having the data in front of me I do not recall much if anything changing in our average WPUE .

That is ok. I suppose we could debate details right down to the point of splitting hairs and still not agree.I do understand the points you are making I just do not agree with them nor do I feel they have been validated yet. We have only been collecting data outside of the wide open 1/2 regs for 2 years now. Both of which had very different regs. One good thing about the direction the SFAB took this year is we will have a second year of double ended slot with only a slight adjustment to compare to the first.

As I said the season is here now. The SFAB collectively made what they feel was the best decision they could. I do not condemn them just because I do not agree with it. Nor do I respect or appreciate any less,the hours of dedicated volunteer effort that goes into making sure we have a voice as a sector. I also feel that if there is new ideas,information, or well thought out questions, the decision making and process should not go unchallenged as long as it is done so respectfully and with the intent to make it better. I do not agree with defending or trying to change it for the purpose of continuing a path toward any one persons or groups own agenda. I am pretty sure I have made it clear that I am not on that path with my continued defense of the option.

Anyway If we are in a similar situation next year with TAC and still facing the challenge of having to be restrictive beyond a strait 1/2. I will do everything I can to make sure any options that give anglers more choice and put a little more fun back into fishing gets the consideration they need.

 

[Jencourt]

As I said the season is here now. The SFAB collectively made what they feel was the best decision they could. I do not condemn them just because I do not agree with it..

I do not mean to be repetitive but after re reading my post I see it may not read the way it was intended.
I want to make something clear. Wen I said "I do not agree with it." I did not mean for that to imply I think it was a bad choice. I do see that it is a small step forward from last year. what I want the message to convey is that I think there was better options that would have represented a larger step forward.

Again sorry for the repetition of my post here.