Int'l Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Meeting - Victoria, Mon thru Fri
- Thread starter UkeeDreamin
- Start date
Fisher Down
Active Member
Really??? Tell us how you found out
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Idiotic post.
The slot didn't work, folks are just going to have to deal with that. My posts to that end have not been attacks against individuals but simply to show the reality behind a management measure that not only didn't work, but had no chance of ever working - wrong tool for the intended job. Whether or not you believed in it originally should no longer matter, it makes absolutely no sense for folks to continue supporting an ineffective tool and we should all be in the same camp endorsing a process that identifies tools and approaches that benefit all rec anglers.
Ukee
I agree, 1 and 2, no slot. The slot limit makes me question the number of mortalities with the increased number of catch and release. How many fish "just over" the slot limit are released with hopes of making your "over" fish a biggie? How many fish over the slot limit are released in hopes of getting your second one under the limit? I'm pretty sure this slot limit increases the number hali reeled up and increases the number of dead hali sinking back to the bottom.
searun
Well-Known Member
x2. Anyone who thinks a 1 and 2 with no slot is the answer is doomed to a shorter season for exactly the reasons stated above. THERE IS NO DOUBT of that. One thing no one anticipated when looking at options and deciding on the slot, was a lower TAC and catch limits changes angling behaviors, again as exactly noted above. Anyone who thinks we can return to 1 and 2 with the TAC we now have is dreaming they can eek out a season that lasts as long as it did last season. One advantage or consideration of the slot was to give anglers who were out on multiple day trips an option. That was a trade off for sure, but choices around the fishery should not just be about those of us who are lucky enough to live here on the Island and can go out any time we wish to whack a large one and go home, only to go out the next day and do it again. I think we learned something last season, and that can be fixed.
Going forward we do have a chance to learn from what took place last season, how anglers shifted fishing patterns, better anticipate changes in the biomas etc.
One huge mistake made was not introducing a punch card limiting the number of fish a person could take...that hopefully can be addressed this season. This would certainly stop the gold rush mentality that took place - guys ran out early in the season to get as many big ones as they could before the season slammed closed. Whatever choice we land on this season has to address this problem, and it IS a problem.
Another was that it focused people on catching large fish. I'm not sure how to deal with that one other than examining a reverse slot (max size)...but that has lots of problems associated with it also.
Every choice results in trade offs, no choice is perfect or suits everyone. What we all have to bear in mind (if we are not being selfish) is whatever choice is made needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of anglers along the ENTIRE coast, not just one area of it.
I'm hearing all kinds of railing on about the slot, but very little on what options would be best taking into account a number of critical criteria such as:
1. Options that potentially gave most choice for anglers on both single and multiple day trips
2. Options that allowed for longest season
3. Options that did least to impede other fishing areas (ie. Victoria fishery needs earliest opening date)
4. Options that generally worked across the entire coast - in other words we needed to consider not just what was best for the Island, but for the entire coast.
5. Options that used up all our TAC by seasons end - we are in a use it or lose it world.
Maybe because Ukee and Jerry are so in tune with what we all need and want, they could suggest what we should be doing...because apparently its pretty easy.
Over to you......
El Capitan
Member
I don't like any mgmt tool that restricts my fishing activity, and I certainly was opposed to the slot when it was first introduced. Having said that, I do believe that it served to slow our sectors consumption of our allocation. Last season there was indeed an increase in the average size of the fish on the grounds which was shown in the IPHC setline survey, and this had an effect on the end numbers. There are several other variables that can change from year to year (weather, effort, tourist traffic etc) that will affect the end numbers. Without the slot limit in place last season, i'm convinced we would have been finished in august for sure.
For 2013, we must think about the season we need, not the season we want. As a sector, we were over our allocation in 2012, and you can bet your favorite jig that the department will try to manage us to our share citing "conservation" all the way. Although 1:2 with a slot limit was not exactly what we wanted, I would rather have that than a maximum size limit which is one of several options DFO has tabled for next season (the notion of this really chafes my hide). At this stage of the game, status quo from last year is probably our best case scenario, but I would take a long season at 1:1 with no size restrictions over 1:2 with a maximum size limit (both are options that DFO has put forth for 2013). I'm not interested in releasing the very few larger fish that we catch just so the commercial sector can go out and target them (they get paid more for the large ones).
Finally, let us not loose sight of the real reason we are dealing with all this BS: that the recreational allocation of 15% is still insufficient to execute a recreational fishery of historical duration during times of low abundance. We got the shaft in the begining, and the measly 3% we recieved before last season was just not enough. Rather than argue amongst ourselves, we should each take the time to give every politician at every level an earful, and let them know how unfair our current allocation really is.
For 2013, we must think about the season we need, not the season we want. As a sector, we were over our allocation in 2012, and you can bet your favorite jig that the department will try to manage us to our share citing "conservation" all the way. Although 1:2 with a slot limit was not exactly what we wanted, I would rather have that than a maximum size limit which is one of several options DFO has tabled for next season (the notion of this really chafes my hide). At this stage of the game, status quo from last year is probably our best case scenario, but I would take a long season at 1:1 with no size restrictions over 1:2 with a maximum size limit (both are options that DFO has put forth for 2013). I'm not interested in releasing the very few larger fish that we catch just so the commercial sector can go out and target them (they get paid more for the large ones).
Finally, let us not loose sight of the real reason we are dealing with all this BS: that the recreational allocation of 15% is still insufficient to execute a recreational fishery of historical duration during times of low abundance. We got the shaft in the begining, and the measly 3% we recieved before last season was just not enough. Rather than argue amongst ourselves, we should each take the time to give every politician at every level an earful, and let them know how unfair our current allocation really is.
searun
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more El Capitan. This is a complex problem, with way too many unpredictable variables to consider. Only caution about 1:1 is we could leave hali in the water and finish under TAC. We do not get to carry over into the next season.
From my posts it might sound as if I'm set on the status quo, but actually I think we have to improve on that so we do need to make changes. I'm not sure the slot is "the" answer, just one that deserves further consideration. A lot of discussion and investigation of various options now has to happen in the next 30 or so days. The SFAB process needs to work through them and land on a recommendation to DFO. No easy task.
From my posts it might sound as if I'm set on the status quo, but actually I think we have to improve on that so we do need to make changes. I'm not sure the slot is "the" answer, just one that deserves further consideration. A lot of discussion and investigation of various options now has to happen in the next 30 or so days. The SFAB process needs to work through them and land on a recommendation to DFO. No easy task.
searun
Well-Known Member
Nice, exactly...slot restricted you to taking a smaller fish on day 2 therefore limiting how quickly we caught the TAC. If we went with 1 and 2 no other restriction that would be a gong show. I do think your idea of limiting to 5 fish per year would help control local residents ( or more correctly, I could be convinced it is a good idea), but not the visitors here on multi day trips...how do we deal with that? There are a lot of folks who fit into that...so its not as easy as you suggest. This is especially a problem in the QCI where those trips are 4 to 5 days...I would bet my boat on the fact that there would be very few small halis going out on those helicopters....they would all be hogs. Let's be real.
El Capitan
Member
The slot may have caused some high grading, but from the data I have seen, there was an increase in the average size of the fish on the grounds. Lets hope this continues because it means the stocks are improving. However, the department will try to keep us within our allocation, and they have tabled several mgmt options that will be discussed for next year by the SFAB at all levels. These are not searuns ideas, they are DFO's, taking pot shots at the messenger won't increase our TAC. We have the same amount of fish as last year, how do we get a long season that provides the most benefit to all users without giving anything else away or going over the #? If 1:2 with an annual limit is shown in the models to give us what we need, than maybe it will become reality. But if it doesn't, than be prepared for more cuts somewhere else. The whole situation is truly "diaper delight" and again the problem is the inadequate 15% allocation.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Sorry Jerry but I'm sure the total TAC went down last year but the rec sector got a 3% increase in its share.
searun
Well-Known Member
Sorry, yes I missed your point on allocation problem. Agreed, but not a fight we can win today, that is for another day unfortunately. Yes, I am repeating the DFO data and discussions around Mgmt Options, not because I'm a supporter of them, but because they are the world we must play in for now.
As for QCI, been up there once at one of the big lodges and saw very few small fish taken home when we had the 1 and 2 regulation...not that there were not small one's about, but more because guests high graded as was suggested. That is part of the problem with living within our TAC using 1 and 2 unless somehow other restrictions such as annual limit of 5 would work to reduce our use of the TAC. Open to lots of ideas, so don't take my posts wrong, just trying to put out why the slot was a choice made and what the anticipated benefits were, and also that it was not entirely unsuccessful as some would suggest...it did work, not just entirely the way we anticipated. Nothing is perfect, learn from your mistakes adjust, and move forward.
Very interested in seeing other's suggestions and/or analysis of the numbers of various options.
As for QCI, been up there once at one of the big lodges and saw very few small fish taken home when we had the 1 and 2 regulation...not that there were not small one's about, but more because guests high graded as was suggested. That is part of the problem with living within our TAC using 1 and 2 unless somehow other restrictions such as annual limit of 5 would work to reduce our use of the TAC. Open to lots of ideas, so don't take my posts wrong, just trying to put out why the slot was a choice made and what the anticipated benefits were, and also that it was not entirely unsuccessful as some would suggest...it did work, not just entirely the way we anticipated. Nothing is perfect, learn from your mistakes adjust, and move forward.
Very interested in seeing other's suggestions and/or analysis of the numbers of various options.
El Capitan
Member
Fish Tofino is bang on, all things considered, I think we had a bit less last year than in 2011.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
For the purpose of this debate I will offer my personal experience from the last couple years.
2011- 1 per day 2 possession no slot. My halibut trip was like this. Day 1 we fished our favorite way,same as past year , witch gives the potential for larger fish. We finished day 1 with 3 halibut amongst the three of us. Fish all were 35,42, 37lb. Day two we changed locations fished the same way on a similar spot and got three more. 27,44,53lb. day two had a total of 124lbs. If the slot was in place the max potential for day two would have been 45 lbs. Day 1 would be the same as that is how we fish halibut.
2012- 1 per day 2 possession with slot. Trip was like this. Day 1 we fished our usual way again and ended up with 1 just over slot and 1 35lbs. Day two we fished salmon and drug one line deep for the hope of getting our two chickens. ended up with 1 about 12 lbs or within the slot as we had our two over from day 1.
You guys can crunch those numbers and tell me if.
A- The slot affected the way I fished in 2012?
B - held my take to less pounds than it's potential if there was no slot.
All the number crunching and IPHC quoting in that has been going on is one thing. Good science is crucial to good management and I support that.
At some point one needs to factor in some good old common sense and on the water facts. My choice in the way I fish gives me by design a potential to catch bigger fish than the slot. Based on my catch records this has been true to almost 100% of the fish I have landed in my boat.
I realize I am but one boat representing only 2-3 people but I wanted to offer this for consideration as it is actual real data.
Cheers: Ray
2011- 1 per day 2 possession no slot. My halibut trip was like this. Day 1 we fished our favorite way,same as past year , witch gives the potential for larger fish. We finished day 1 with 3 halibut amongst the three of us. Fish all were 35,42, 37lb. Day two we changed locations fished the same way on a similar spot and got three more. 27,44,53lb. day two had a total of 124lbs. If the slot was in place the max potential for day two would have been 45 lbs. Day 1 would be the same as that is how we fish halibut.
2012- 1 per day 2 possession with slot. Trip was like this. Day 1 we fished our usual way again and ended up with 1 just over slot and 1 35lbs. Day two we fished salmon and drug one line deep for the hope of getting our two chickens. ended up with 1 about 12 lbs or within the slot as we had our two over from day 1.
You guys can crunch those numbers and tell me if.
A- The slot affected the way I fished in 2012?
B - held my take to less pounds than it's potential if there was no slot.
All the number crunching and IPHC quoting in that has been going on is one thing. Good science is crucial to good management and I support that.
At some point one needs to factor in some good old common sense and on the water facts. My choice in the way I fish gives me by design a potential to catch bigger fish than the slot. Based on my catch records this has been true to almost 100% of the fish I have landed in my boat.
I realize I am but one boat representing only 2-3 people but I wanted to offer this for consideration as it is actual real data.
Cheers: Ray
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the largest varaibles last year was the poor return of chinook on the coast ,expecially in the Charlottes, this forced lodges and guides to apply more pressure on the next best thing Halibut,there are historic area's on our beautiful coast that lend thenselves to very big hali's (ie West charlottes ,Port hardy ,winter harbour ,and Kyuquot) and very much the last one,i know of several lodges that made the ajustment to target larger fish because of the poor salmon fishing ,the tofino offshore fishery was one of th slowest in yrs again forcing guides to spend more time targeting larger hali. Will the problem be the same for 2013 with slower chinook salmon who knows but as a guide on this coast for 28yrs i can tell you with out that slot last yr there would have been a lot more bigger halis taken peroid,thus eating our tac that much faster.Do i agree with it is there a better plan,you can bet that our local reps will pursue every option ,and forums like this will help in the decision process.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Also had a question I forgot to ask in my post.
How much did we go over in 2011? and how much did we go over in 2012?
Could be relevant to this discussion if the season was about the same days long. Also how was weather wen comparing the two years. Ect Ect. Searun is correct it is all more complicated than just the numbers.
How much did we go over in 2011? and how much did we go over in 2012?
Could be relevant to this discussion if the season was about the same days long. Also how was weather wen comparing the two years. Ect Ect. Searun is correct it is all more complicated than just the numbers.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Not sure who asked it but 2011 Rec TAC was 950,000lbs, based on 12% of 2B's allocation and the 2012 Rec TAC was 1,050,000lbs, based on 15% of 2B's allocation. Season length was the same both years and yes we went over on the 2011 TAC by a few % and over the 2012 TAC by 6.5%.
Next week I'll post a link to DFO's report summarizing the 2012 Rec fishery from the IPHC site that show's the sampling numbers. Just like the slot had no effect on harvest rate, the average size harvested are pretty much identical to the average size harvested in the historical numbers Charlie provided last year. As you'll see 65-70% of halibut harvested in 2012 in the Rec fishery were 15lbs or less. That's, consistent with the historical fishery and the reason why the slot was doomed to be ineffective, which it was.
No matter how much folks with a vested interest in the slot want to deny it's ineffectiveness, ineffective it was. Completely. Wrong tool for what folks wanted to achieve. Many better tools available.
Oh, and to whomever posted the comment that no one could have predicted the change to targeting bigger fish, do a search of this forum for the discussion on this issue when this slot reg was released. There were a ton of unhappy campers and myself, Lorne Parker and whole lot of other folks predicted exactly that happening. As I've said, it's the responsibility of those delivering a management model to make such forecasts and it's not that hard to do as anyone on here with experience with the fishery could have told them!
Next week I'll post a link to DFO's report summarizing the 2012 Rec fishery from the IPHC site that show's the sampling numbers. Just like the slot had no effect on harvest rate, the average size harvested are pretty much identical to the average size harvested in the historical numbers Charlie provided last year. As you'll see 65-70% of halibut harvested in 2012 in the Rec fishery were 15lbs or less. That's, consistent with the historical fishery and the reason why the slot was doomed to be ineffective, which it was.
No matter how much folks with a vested interest in the slot want to deny it's ineffectiveness, ineffective it was. Completely. Wrong tool for what folks wanted to achieve. Many better tools available.
Oh, and to whomever posted the comment that no one could have predicted the change to targeting bigger fish, do a search of this forum for the discussion on this issue when this slot reg was released. There were a ton of unhappy campers and myself, Lorne Parker and whole lot of other folks predicted exactly that happening. As I've said, it's the responsibility of those delivering a management model to make such forecasts and it's not that hard to do as anyone on here with experience with the fishery could have told them!
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Ray, I've covered this earlier but will summarize again for you - the reason the slot was doomed to fail, despite your personal experience with catching bigger fish, is that the coast wide average harvested, historically, is surprising small. In fact, the historical rec harvest numbers show that only 3 areas had an average size larger than the slot size. For halibut, the average size is larger than the most frequently caught size, as the few truly big fish harvested bring up the average. With a one under, one over slot regualtion that applies to possession fish, not your daily limit, it means folks can target their over or under sized fish on either day. Given the historical averages, it would be less than half the time, on average, that folks would have the chance to harvest one over fish, let alone two. You then factor in that the slot issue would only apply to a small fraction of anglers targetting halibut on any given day, as most would be day trippers, single day charters or still working on fish #1. Would a few people encounter two fish over the slot and be affected? Absolutely. Would it happen enough to change the average size fish harvested and overall harvest rate? No. And, in fact, it didn't just as should have been predicted. Same season length, pretty much the same TAC (actually more, but for arguments sake) and same result as not having the slot.
If you have any clarification questions, fire away.
Ukee
GLG
Well-Known Member
2013 Halibut management options have been addressed at the local SFAC meeting this past November. I wont speak for other local SFAC but I can speak for area 14. It was decided, by majority vote, that we would be in favor of a slot for the 2013 season. We would also be in favor of an annual limit. Many voices had there say and I can tell you that as a group we are concerend that we do not want to go over our TAC and we want a season that is as long as possible. It was felt by our local anglers, who have experience on the water, that the slot was our best option. Now for others to say that there is no difference between 1/2 no slot and 1/2 slot goes against what our learned anglers wisdom tell us. We all know that the slot is a pain but it did change the amount of fish that we took this year. Our yearly pounds were down for most of the people I have spoken to in our area. Why did we still have the same closing date? There may be more factors that are different last year. Weather, Angler effort, Angler efficiency or just plain luck. How do you model all of that? Think it's easy to model what regulations we put in place? How about you predicting what the weather is going to be like in July and August? How about how many anglers there will be on the water for Halibut next year? Will there be such great salmon fishing that most wont go hali fishing? What if salmon fishing suck and we all target halibut because of it. One thing I can say for sure is that the guy's that are tasked with coming up with the recommended regulations are doing the best that they can do for the good of every recreational fisher in Canada. That includes the tin boat gang, guides, lodges, hotels, boat dealers, tackle shops, restaurants, small town business and every one else I missed.
Not happy with the way it's working? Get involved with you local SFAC and add your voice. That's what many of us did here in area 14.
GLG
Not happy with the way it's working? Get involved with you local SFAC and add your voice. That's what many of us did here in area 14.
GLG
Similar threads
