Bent-Tip
Well-Known Member
He owns and runs this http://www.vancouverislandlodge.ca/Could someone please tell me who this Ryan guy is??
He owns and runs this http://www.vancouverislandlodge.ca/Could someone please tell me who this Ryan guy is??
I would encourage the people on here and you know how you are to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt. I realize most of you hate change, and this is a lot to take in.
One of the reasons and we on SFAB have been called out in is to be more transparent and open in our processes. The old guys club has been used over and over. I am not saying I agree with people leaving, but a lot has to do with miscommunication. For example we up in Area 17 have begun broadcasting across Facebook and now looking into Instagram and other avenues. These are places most people spend their time. They don't really hang out on forum. I know I didn't get any emails for meetings.
My guess with people leaving early is that it is that people don't go to the meeting regularly that showed up. This area took a nosedive in participation about 4 years ago, and I would like to see that number return. As for halibut meeting it make no sense to discuss in afternoon on weekday when most are working in my opinion. Not to criticize but we are often challenged to our halibut decisions so its best to get maximum participation if possible.
Area 19/20 actually should have two meetings on this if possible I believe it is that important, and I would show up too one since I mainly fish halibut in that area.
Lastly. There were several people on here that took to on the candidates Facebook just ahead of this meetings making false allegations that industry control to SFAB. I found it disrespectful in my opinion, and paints a negative shadow on other area reps. If you think that way you either are stuck in that 100 ft Victoria view looking at your own area, or you really don't know the process. I am looking forward to seeing more of a 1000 ft view from our SFAB Victoria team.
Lets see what happens, and I strongly hope that you guys that supported Chris will support Ryan as well. This isn't a paid position, and it took real guts to step forward.
Darn, I think we were hoping (asking) for the SFAC groups to gather in structured input from SFAC participants in all the meetings as to their preferences. We provided the decision options tables, and even went to point of modelling several new options choices plus also modelling what it would look like if we are forced at IPHC to go down in our TAC by 10% and 20%...we even modelled shorter seasons. The big ask was let us know your preferences so that when we are given our TAC decision Feb 1 that the SFAB Main Board can make a choice and provide DFO with a regulations recommendation at the Main Board meeting Feb 7 - 9.
Little disappointing that could not have been covered early in a 3 hour meeting so everyone could weigh in. We need to know people's preferences.
I would sure like to see you guys organize another meeting to gather in feedback on preferences. We face an even tougher set of decisions this coming year. Less TAC will limit our options further. At some point we will arrive at a place where there won't be enough TAC to run a full season as we have currently enjoyed - then what? All I can tell you is what I have heard so far from other areas - they are talking 1 fish, largest size possible (115 is not it - 124 to 126 is better) and longest season we can muster. Is there going to be enough TAC for that...probably not. We will do our best to fight for Canada at the IPHC though.The atmosphere of this meeting was not about discussing fishing, it was 33 people out for blood against our former chair. No less than every 15 minutes, the person whom I would consider the leader of this group piped up and growled for elections. We were given the paperwork on the Halibut model, if said person was even remotely interested in this, would it not have been wiser to wait for the election after old business had been concluded? To anyone who was there, the only goal of this meeting was to toss the current chair.
People were leaving as it was getting late no?
And did you ever think because your area is under attack is why someone ran now? Maybe they didn’t like how it was being handled...certainly is due to actual care about the area...not whatever you’re implying
At the meetings I’ve been at every single one wanted 1 fish as large as possible and voted for a shorter season in order to largen the fish.
I would sure like to see you guys organize another meeting to gather in feedback on preferences. We face an even tougher set of decisions this coming year. Less TAC will limit our options further. At some point we will arrive at a place where there won't be enough TAC to run a full season as we have currently enjoyed - then what? All I can tell you is what I have heard so far from other areas - they are talking 1 fish, largest size possible (115 is not it - 124 to 126 is better) and longest season we can muster. Is there going to be enough TAC for that...probably not. We will do our best to fight for Canada at the IPHC though.
Yes, it will be a significant battle at IPHC. Our Commissioners are first class people. Let's do our best to support them.
Looking at the 2016 data (last year we had a full season), the south VI (area 19/20/21) used 172,475 pounds. Areas 19/20 alone used 97,820. That is 8.9% of the total provincial TAC for 19/20, and 15.7% of the provincial TAC for the entire South Island. March to May for Area 19 was 42,771 pounds, and 2,150 for area 20.
Interestingly Area 19 catches 44% of their catch between March and May.
So using the line of thought that we should somehow proportionally divide up the available TAC, the reason we don't go there is Areas such as 19 would quickly use up their TAC resulting in a spring closure. That would shift angler effort elsewhere into other Areas putting pressure on their TAC. Ultimately that would lead to Area to Area competition or in-fighting for those areas that are in close geographical proximity.
Perhaps that approach might work for a North v South where we have QCI and VI in geographically distinct areas. I'm still not sold on a divide up the TAC approach - this is Canada's TAC and it doesn't belong to a specific geographic area IMO.
Yes, it will be a significant battle at IPHC. Our Commissioners are first class people. Let's do our best to support them.
Looking at the 2016 data (last year we had a full season), the south VI (area 19/20/21) used 172,475 pounds. Areas 19/20 alone used 97,820. That is 8.9% of the total provincial TAC for 19/20, and 15.7% of the provincial TAC for the entire South Island. March to May for Area 19 was 42,771 pounds, and 2,150 for area 20.
Interestingly Area 19 catches 44% of their catch between March and May.
So using the line of thought that we should somehow proportionally divide up the available TAC, the reason we don't go there is Areas such as 19 would quickly use up their TAC resulting in a spring closure. That would shift angler effort elsewhere into other Areas putting pressure on their TAC. Ultimately that would lead to Area to Area competition or in-fighting for those areas that are in close geographical proximity.
Perhaps that approach might work for a North v South where we have QCI and VI in geographically distinct areas. I'm still not sold on a divide up the TAC approach - this is Canada's TAC and it doesn't belong to a specific geographic area IMO.
Areas 19/20 alone used 97,820. That is 8.9% of the total provincial TAC for 19/20
Do not know a guide that hit more then 30 this spring off Victoria