Int'l Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Meeting - Victoria, Mon thru Fri
- Thread starter UkeeDreamin
- Start date
Thanks from us U.S. users of the resources too! While those nasty Alaskans are taking your halibut, us nice Washingtonians are producing salmon for you all to catch off WCVI so I figure I'm allowed to get an occasional Canadian hali (with the correct license of course). Correct? 
Seadna,
As of yesterday's registration of Conference Board votes there were 64 voting members present. That has a mix of 34 from the USA (Alaska, Washington State and Oregon) and Canada 30. Our 6 votes may not seem too influential in that contexts but believe me we are well respected at the table and are working in Canada's best interest with our commercial and FN colleagues. Canada as a delegation wants us to adopt positions that are unanimously supported, so far we are all on the same page. Which right now doesn't seem to be the case for the various factions within the US delegation. Imagine that Canadian commercial and recreational halibut guys all agreeing, awesome!
Gov
As of yesterday's registration of Conference Board votes there were 64 voting members present. That has a mix of 34 from the USA (Alaska, Washington State and Oregon) and Canada 30. Our 6 votes may not seem too influential in that contexts but believe me we are well respected at the table and are working in Canada's best interest with our commercial and FN colleagues. Canada as a delegation wants us to adopt positions that are unanimously supported, so far we are all on the same page. Which right now doesn't seem to be the case for the various factions within the US delegation. Imagine that Canadian commercial and recreational halibut guys all agreeing, awesome!
Gov
Just passed a motion at the Conference Board for all areas to get more than the science panel very restrictive recommendation, where 2B (Canada) and 2A (Washington & Oregon) gets the same TAC as last year. Seadna we're looking out for you boys down there too! Vote went 59 for, 3 against and 2 abstentions. That's powerful to have such a strong yes vote and clear message to the Commissioners, now we have to pray they accept it.
Don't be celebrating anything yet folks, this is only one step.
Gov
Don't be celebrating anything yet folks, this is only one step.
Gov
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Yes-- there is a lot more to come before we get out numbers
how we divvy up what we get as Canada's TAC won't be decided here, that discussion will happen after we have got our firm 2013 TAC number from the Commissioners.
how we divvy up what we get as Canada's TAC won't be decided here, that discussion will happen after we have got our firm 2013 TAC number from the Commissioners.
searun
Well-Known Member
Completely agree, there is a lot yet to be determined but this is promising! Nice to hear the new science and modelling is being challenged as untested. If left unchallenged the Commission would be left to making a decision based on what IHPC science was pitching...not a good outcome for us.
Ukee you may have missed the point of my post, which Gov was trying to help clarify. I'll leave it to Gov to lay out the numbers fresh from the IHPC meetings.
As for the slot. The purpose of the slot was to reduce our harvest in pounds caught and spread it out over a longer period. We would have accomplished that but for an increase in the average size of fish harvested in 2012 compared to what happened in 2011. That in part is likely due to a change in the biomas average size (I refer you to the IHPC science presentations for that data) as well as behavioral changes in the rec fleet in terms of fish targeted and retained which changed up the daily pounds of fish harvested.
Its simple math actually. The larger fish that are harvested from one season to the next, the faster we burn up our TAC. The theory behind the slot limit was to give anglers more choice than a 1 and 1 option or shorter season with higher limits, accomplishing that by slowing down the pounds caught to stretch our season. What no one counted on was a change in the average size caught and type of angler effort which affected harvest rates over the predictions made using 2011 data. As for defending the slot, it was simply a choice and one that I personally feel was the best overall for everyone from the perspective of balancing choices in how we fished and one that provided the longest season Regardless, any time we face reduced TAC it will drive us to making decisions to find the best option of what amounts to a bunch of crummy choices any way you slice it. Everyone, including me, would love to have full limits and a full season. That unfortunately is not realistic when we are limited to fishing a fixed TAC.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Wow, Searun, facts and logic just don't seem to hold sway with you. Your response spells it out for you: the theory behind a slot is to reduce the average size harvested, agreed. The slot, however, did not have the desired effect as you also state the the average size harvested was not reduced in 2012, in fact the very opposite occurred. That by definition means the regulation did not work - it's intended effect on harvest was not realized thus it FAILED. Despite these facts, somehow you still defend the slot??!! I've also stated here many times that the predictions made using the 2011 data and the slot model were extremely faulty as they exaggerated the number of slot fish that would be harvested on a given day and indeed did not take into account changed angler behaviour caused by the regulation change, as you reference above.
Any statement about a choice for the longest season possible also has to recognize the fact that the slot regulation had no influence on season length, again because it failed to effect a reduction in average size fish harvested. Such a result was not hard to predict when you consider that the slot would only apply to a very small proportion of fish on any given day and the maximum size possible for all other fish harvested was unlimited - i.e. it wouldn't take many large fish over the historical average size to wipe out any gains made by the few slot fish harvested each day.
I'm also quite aware that a fixed TAC means choices of how to regulate a season. As such, I am a firm believer in using sound data and sound fish management models that that have a good chance of achieving the outcomes intended. The slot approach last year wasn't properly thought out, modelled or implemented so i don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that it failed. I'm am very hopeful that sounder fish management approaches will be explored for whatever TAC we end up with this year.
Ukee
Any statement about a choice for the longest season possible also has to recognize the fact that the slot regulation had no influence on season length, again because it failed to effect a reduction in average size fish harvested. Such a result was not hard to predict when you consider that the slot would only apply to a very small proportion of fish on any given day and the maximum size possible for all other fish harvested was unlimited - i.e. it wouldn't take many large fish over the historical average size to wipe out any gains made by the few slot fish harvested each day.
I'm also quite aware that a fixed TAC means choices of how to regulate a season. As such, I am a firm believer in using sound data and sound fish management models that that have a good chance of achieving the outcomes intended. The slot approach last year wasn't properly thought out, modelled or implemented so i don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that it failed. I'm am very hopeful that sounder fish management approaches will be explored for whatever TAC we end up with this year.
Ukee
searun
Well-Known Member
UKee, sorry but we aren't connecting. I'll try one last time. The slot had nothing to do with "reducing the size harvested" it had everything to do with trying to keep the average size of fish caught down based on the 2011 average while keeping the 1 and 2 option alive. If you look at the data the average size harvested went up because the fish biomas was larger (commercial and sport) and to some extent fishing behavior changed - guys targeted larger fish and the fleet is getting more efficient.
So for example if we had stuck with the 1 and 2 regulation (no slot) with the average size of fish larger (based on 2012 ave size) the TAC would have been exhausted faster than the slot limit regulation. Analysis of the 2012 catch even with the same TAC (if we are lucky enough to get that) might mean we have to look at other alternatives to the slot limit such as a 1 and 1 limit if your goal is to have a full season length. That would be far more restrictive, but would certainly spread the TAC longer....but it might not give anglers the choices they are looking for. That's where the slot was a trade off alternative. So I wouldn't characterize the slot as a failure as it gave us a reasonable season length combined with more choices for anglers. If your only criteria for judging success is length of season, then 1 and 1 is your choice...but I would not advocate that personally as it is too restrictive. Given the choice I would opt for regulations that provide us with the widest variety of benefits.
An analysis was conducted by DFO to assess the slot limit, and projections based on available catch data from 2011 indicated we would likely succeed in reaching objectives of allowing a 1 & 2 options while at the same time extending the season over other choices that were available.
SO, what would you suggest is the solution? Based on your analysis, what are the best options should we be lucky enough to maintain last year's TAC?
So for example if we had stuck with the 1 and 2 regulation (no slot) with the average size of fish larger (based on 2012 ave size) the TAC would have been exhausted faster than the slot limit regulation. Analysis of the 2012 catch even with the same TAC (if we are lucky enough to get that) might mean we have to look at other alternatives to the slot limit such as a 1 and 1 limit if your goal is to have a full season length. That would be far more restrictive, but would certainly spread the TAC longer....but it might not give anglers the choices they are looking for. That's where the slot was a trade off alternative. So I wouldn't characterize the slot as a failure as it gave us a reasonable season length combined with more choices for anglers. If your only criteria for judging success is length of season, then 1 and 1 is your choice...but I would not advocate that personally as it is too restrictive. Given the choice I would opt for regulations that provide us with the widest variety of benefits.
An analysis was conducted by DFO to assess the slot limit, and projections based on available catch data from 2011 indicated we would likely succeed in reaching objectives of allowing a 1 & 2 options while at the same time extending the season over other choices that were available.
SO, what would you suggest is the solution? Based on your analysis, what are the best options should we be lucky enough to maintain last year's TAC?
Well, if that is not a confusing argument?
Solution suggestions? To achieve the longest season possible, close July and August and keep the rest of the year open at 2/3. That way everybody has plenty of time to plan one or two worthwhile trips and is not only restricted to maybe two months in the summer when everything is already crammed full and expensive. I am sure guides and resorts would appreciate the effort to push some of the business to the shoulder or off season when it is usually slow for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Sounds reasonable for the average guy with a boat and a rod but
I doubt the offshore guides would like that as they combine their day trips to include both
bottom fish and salmon. This is the peak time for people to vacation.
Not too many folks willing to pay $1000 to run offshore for a shot at springs only.
ratherbefishing
Well-Known Member
Here is how I have understood the rationale for the "one over, one under" regulation.
I do not have the 'real' number off the top of my head so will use these as an EXAMPLE.
1) If the TAC is 1,000,000lbs for the recreational catch and the average size used is 20lbs then we have a total allocation of 50,000 pieces (this would be the way it was before the slot limit)
2) If the TAC is 1,000,000 lbs and we split that into two categories (under and over slot) then we have 500,000lbs to each category. If we assume 'over slot' fish are 25lbs and 'under slot' are 15lbs then allocating to each we end up with 20,000 pieces of 'over slot' fish (500,000/25) and 33,333 pieces of 'under slot' fish (500,000/15).
Original allocation method = 50,000
'New' allocation method = 53,333 or >3000 pieces more than the 'traditional' method of accounting
RBF
I do not have the 'real' number off the top of my head so will use these as an EXAMPLE.
1) If the TAC is 1,000,000lbs for the recreational catch and the average size used is 20lbs then we have a total allocation of 50,000 pieces (this would be the way it was before the slot limit)
2) If the TAC is 1,000,000 lbs and we split that into two categories (under and over slot) then we have 500,000lbs to each category. If we assume 'over slot' fish are 25lbs and 'under slot' are 15lbs then allocating to each we end up with 20,000 pieces of 'over slot' fish (500,000/25) and 33,333 pieces of 'under slot' fish (500,000/15).
Original allocation method = 50,000
'New' allocation method = 53,333 or >3000 pieces more than the 'traditional' method of accounting
RBF
hambone
Well-Known Member
Sure that may create the longest season..... But it will never go through....
If there's only 2 months where it simply has to be open its July and August. This is the most common time frame for the average joe to go out and try for one. I also think that we often only think of the South Island and WCVI guides and sporties when making these SFBC Hali decisions. Closing those two months kills the season for just about every lodge and/or sport interest north of Vancouver Island. Just my 2 cents
Aces
Well-Known Member
That option also doesn't work well with any average Joe with a boat that doesn't live near the Halibut grounds, such as the Interior or Mainland especially if he can only get his vacation off work during July and August. They are entitled to access to Halibut just as much as anyone.
But RBF your logic is thinking everyone takes home 2 fish (1 over 1 under) what actually happened is most people just took the 1 over - dropped it at home then went for more biggies.
My rec boat landed 13 halibut last year only 3 were 15 pounds or less not sure if thats even under the slot? Most were 20-30 lbs with one 60 and one 70. I'm lucky I live 5 minutes from the dock so every trip out I can keep whatever size I catch. And the 13 includes fish friends caught with me my freezer was full but not that full!
My rec boat landed 13 halibut last year only 3 were 15 pounds or less not sure if thats even under the slot? Most were 20-30 lbs with one 60 and one 70. I'm lucky I live 5 minutes from the dock so every trip out I can keep whatever size I catch. And the 13 includes fish friends caught with me my freezer was full but not that full!
And again, the majority of the CANADIAN owners of the resource are excluded!
It isn't just for the enjoyment of the B.C. rec fisherman!
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Searun, with your nonsensical statement - "The slot had nothing to do with "reducing the size harvested" it had everything to do with trying to keep the average size of fish caught down", no kidding we're not connecting! I'm sure even you now realize that the two are exactly the same thing and that if a slot regulation does not affect the average size of fish being harvested, specifically reducing it, than it was not an effective management action.
Ratherbefishing - your simple model for how an over-under slot would work - assuming that half of fish harvested would be slot fish, is exactly why the slot didn't work, because that assumption is way off of reality. Reality is that on any given day the majority of anglers targeting halibut will not be harvesting a slot fish. The majority will be local day trippers who never target a slot fish, one time charters again who never target a slot fish, unsuccessful anglers who even on 2+ day trips only manage a single hali, those high grading and thus only target one big fish and don't bother with a ping pong paddle 10lber and those who only get hali as incidental bycatch while targetting salmon or other fish. As such, I'd be very surprised if more than 20% of harvested halibut in 2012 were "slot" fish and wouldn't be surprised at all if it were closer to 10%. Once you get down to those low numbers of theoretical lbs saved, you get inside of the very large error in the way the Rec harvest is estimated. The very inconsistent creel surveys and overflight methodology DFO has been using, if released to the larger science community for scrutiny would likely have an error range of 50-100% or even higher - it's that inaccurate and unreliable.
If you look at how slot limits are applied across other jurisdictions they typically apply to all fish harvested - that way there is certainty and control over your harvest management. Whether it be a slot like Alaskan lingcod where all fish under a certain length and over a certain length must be released or slots like walleye in some Alberta lakes where all fish within the slot must be released, with a set number of undersized fish allowed for harvest and an allowance for one "trophy" fish. Managing in this way does two things. 1) It provides certainty with regards to the expected size harvested based on the designated slot and thus managers can forecast total harvest based on length of season and anticipated effort. 2) It allows managers to assess the available biomass within each of the size class categories and protect certain aspects of it, whether that means protecting small recruiting fish, fish at and in their first years of maturity or large spawning fish.
The one over, one under approach achieves neither of those two key management objectives - as we saw in 2012 there is no certainty of average harvest size and thus no way to forecast expected total harvest based on a set season and expected effort level. It also doesn't protect any part of the population as all size classes are available for harvest.
What I'd like to see is for all the interest groups to come together and pool their resources and contract a couple of reputable fish management consultants to do two things: 1) assess all the available management regulations that could be used to manage Rec TAC and 2) For them to propose a couple of graduated management models that have varying regulations and seasons depending on the available TAC. Regardless of the 85:15 split, even if it were 50:50 we'll have a TAC that needs to be managed and I get the feeling that the IPHC will be moving to a more conservative biomass forecasting model. It may not have been accepted this year but it may be inevitable eventually. Such a graded model would have a red line - a TAC so small that a season that gives fair access is impossible and a green line above which we'd have a full season with 2/day and 3 possession. In between, there'd be various management actions depending on the TAC that season - shortened seasons, max size limits, true slots, etc, etc, basically whatever the consultants come up with and can be accepted by the Rec community.
Second aspect would be to get reliable accounting for harvest so we have some certainty and don't have to rely on the creel survey/overflight approach. That should be a no-brainer but not sure if it does have the support of the larger Rec community or how it would be implemented.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you Searun, if you haven't figured this out by now I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ukee
Ratherbefishing - your simple model for how an over-under slot would work - assuming that half of fish harvested would be slot fish, is exactly why the slot didn't work, because that assumption is way off of reality. Reality is that on any given day the majority of anglers targeting halibut will not be harvesting a slot fish. The majority will be local day trippers who never target a slot fish, one time charters again who never target a slot fish, unsuccessful anglers who even on 2+ day trips only manage a single hali, those high grading and thus only target one big fish and don't bother with a ping pong paddle 10lber and those who only get hali as incidental bycatch while targetting salmon or other fish. As such, I'd be very surprised if more than 20% of harvested halibut in 2012 were "slot" fish and wouldn't be surprised at all if it were closer to 10%. Once you get down to those low numbers of theoretical lbs saved, you get inside of the very large error in the way the Rec harvest is estimated. The very inconsistent creel surveys and overflight methodology DFO has been using, if released to the larger science community for scrutiny would likely have an error range of 50-100% or even higher - it's that inaccurate and unreliable.
If you look at how slot limits are applied across other jurisdictions they typically apply to all fish harvested - that way there is certainty and control over your harvest management. Whether it be a slot like Alaskan lingcod where all fish under a certain length and over a certain length must be released or slots like walleye in some Alberta lakes where all fish within the slot must be released, with a set number of undersized fish allowed for harvest and an allowance for one "trophy" fish. Managing in this way does two things. 1) It provides certainty with regards to the expected size harvested based on the designated slot and thus managers can forecast total harvest based on length of season and anticipated effort. 2) It allows managers to assess the available biomass within each of the size class categories and protect certain aspects of it, whether that means protecting small recruiting fish, fish at and in their first years of maturity or large spawning fish.
The one over, one under approach achieves neither of those two key management objectives - as we saw in 2012 there is no certainty of average harvest size and thus no way to forecast expected total harvest based on a set season and expected effort level. It also doesn't protect any part of the population as all size classes are available for harvest.
What I'd like to see is for all the interest groups to come together and pool their resources and contract a couple of reputable fish management consultants to do two things: 1) assess all the available management regulations that could be used to manage Rec TAC and 2) For them to propose a couple of graduated management models that have varying regulations and seasons depending on the available TAC. Regardless of the 85:15 split, even if it were 50:50 we'll have a TAC that needs to be managed and I get the feeling that the IPHC will be moving to a more conservative biomass forecasting model. It may not have been accepted this year but it may be inevitable eventually. Such a graded model would have a red line - a TAC so small that a season that gives fair access is impossible and a green line above which we'd have a full season with 2/day and 3 possession. In between, there'd be various management actions depending on the TAC that season - shortened seasons, max size limits, true slots, etc, etc, basically whatever the consultants come up with and can be accepted by the Rec community.
Second aspect would be to get reliable accounting for harvest so we have some certainty and don't have to rely on the creel survey/overflight approach. That should be a no-brainer but not sure if it does have the support of the larger Rec community or how it would be implemented.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you Searun, if you haven't figured this out by now I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ukee
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many people can only get time off in July or August nowadays (certainly no hunters). I always found them to be the primo months and therefore the hardest vacation months. Also with the ferry rates are many people hauling boats from the interior or mainland to the halibut grounds? I don't support a summer closure, but I do have a bit of a problem with the average Joe argument. I think the tourist market is more relevant, but then again I haven't done any research on interior salt water license holders who target halibut, or how many people haul their boats over on the ferry. I know I wouldn't haul a boat unless I was staying a long time, it just isn't worth it.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
I haul mine over June, July or August and September, at least 3-trips per year from the Interior. If coming back in July I leave my boat in Ukee at a friends place as the Interior lakes are flooded and full of debris in late June and early July. Still at least two ferry hauls and trips over the Coq and no it isn't cheap or fun. But nothing is cheap when it comes to saltwater fishing, is it?
Having said that, I'm not sure if there are a lot of us who do that. I have a buddy in Salmon Arm who does, made 4 trips last year but stored his boat in Ukee from June to end of August. Definitely would be in the minority, no matter how you slice it. Hopefully that doesn't discount us, though.
Having said that, I'm not sure if there are a lot of us who do that. I have a buddy in Salmon Arm who does, made 4 trips last year but stored his boat in Ukee from June to end of August. Definitely would be in the minority, no matter how you slice it. Hopefully that doesn't discount us, though.
Similar threads
