Int'l Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Meeting - Victoria, Mon thru Fri

[UkeeDreamin]

Searun and GLG, since you are both involved in the process and have seen the models, can you answer a question. The model DFO used last year that set the slot size at 12lbs and assumed 50% of fish harvested would be slot fish did not result in the model predicted full season, it resulted in the same season length as 2011. In 2013, we have the same TAC, is the exact same model being used that will presumably result in the same season length or have changes been made and, if so, what changes?

I've heard no one disagree that the assumption of last year's model that 50% of fish harvested being slot fish was way out of touch with reality. Has this been addressed, as reducing the number of slot fish in last year's model would increase the harvest rate and thus decrease the predicted season length? Searun mentions learning from last year's mistakes so am hopeful much more robust models are being used for all options on the table.

One final comment regarding Searun's confidence in the DFO models. It is because the IPHC's new science model was challenged because it is new and untested that we have the TAC we have this year, otherwise we'd be looking at 30% less TAC. All models should be questioned, particularly new models and models that have failed once.

Ukee

 

[searun]

I plan to endorse whatever appears to be the best decision for most anglers coast wide, and that may not be the slot. Those numbers and predictions come from DFO, so all we can do is make or support (if not directly involved in the decision) the best informed decision possible based on their forecast. There will only be a few options DFO is willing to consider. Sorry to ruffle your feathers L, but I still believe the slot was the best available option we were given to consider last season based on the information available at the time to make that call.

I won't be sitting back, not being involved in the process. I also don't plan on taking pot shots at decisions made after the fact and try to sound insightful once new information that was not available at the time becomes known. There is no possible way for anyone to consider and identify all the various potential variations in either the fish stocks or angler behavior to be 100% correct. The guys at DFO can only model these options based on the best available information they have today.

As far as the rec community is concerned, the people involved in these decisions are top quality, well intentioned, and professional in how they represent us. Let's have the grace and wisdom to either support and let them make decisions, or get directly involved to help them.

 

[searun]

What is truly a shame is folks like the anglers collation and fellas like the governor work so hard to get us the same catch as last year and we throw that opportunity down the drain with a useless regulation. I wonder what the anglers colations stance on this is.

You should know that the main thrust behind getting that TAC came from the SFAB members sitting at the IPHC meeting...maybe talk to them to see what they are suggesting too.

 

[Islandgirl]

The decisions made last season were done after considering the modelling DFO presented of various options that would give us a relatively long season given a set TAC that was considerably smaller than we needed to have in order to run a full season fishery. As was stated many, many times before the assumptions those models relied upon to make the forecast on season length were impacted by variables no one had the future vision to see....larger fish, changing rec angler fishing habits. What will happen this year is we get an opportunity to consider what we learned so as not to repeat history.

The slot itself changed rec fishers habits.
Who was going to keep a first hali of a trip at 20lbs since it was over the slot and now you are restricted 15lbs and under for the second fish??

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Searun, if DFO have all the info available to them and are such experts why did they build a model last year that predicted half of fish harvested being slot fish, a scenario that has no grounding in the reality of the fishery? That fact notwithstanding, I agree that second guessing last year's decision after the fact is indeed taking pot shots. However, expecting the use of readily available historical data, last year's results, the abundance of IPHC data readily available the the history of slots in the Alaskan rec fishery in making sound decisions for this season is being prudent and responsible.

I am not in the camp of the majority on this forum that routinely bash DFO and think they use voodoo math and poor science in their decision making. I know that at the field level they have intelligent staff and some really good scientists. At the same time, though, I know for a fact that DFO does not have top notch fishery modellers on staff and that expertise exists outside of government.

 

[calmsea]

Beside the pretty obvious fact that someone on here is doubling his identity it still makes sense what Jerry/Ukie posts. If 1/2 with slot does have no effect versus 1/2 without slot then SFAB should convince (or at least try) DFO to reflect that in their models and if it comes down to this option then SFAB should push for 1/2 without slot. If data indeed backs up this hypothesis then it should be an easy sell. It's all paper theory as we all know as no one knows what we really catch. But if we can prove that the paper math works out like that then I would expect my reps at the SFAC/B to push hard for this and not just happily roll over at everything that DFO tables at their convenience.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Calmsea, I can assure you that I have only one identity/account on SFBC and anyone can check the history of my posts for consistency of messages and writing style. Not sure what benefit having two ID's would give anyway - I'm simply providing the facts and the majority are choosing to ignore them anyway so I'm certainly no threat.

Your theory may explain why I was blocked from posting for the majority of the day, though. Still haven't received an explanation from any of the moderators or administrators as to why I was blocked?

Ukee

 

[searun]

Searun, if DFO have all the info available to them and are such experts why did they build a model last year that predicted half of fish harvested being slot fish, a scenario that has no grounding in the reality of the fishery? That fact notwithstanding, I agree that second guessing last year's decision after the fact is indeed taking pot shots. However, expecting the use of readily available historical data, last year's results, the abundance of IPHC data readily available the the history of slots in the Alaskan rec fishery in making sound decisions for this season is being prudent and responsible.

I am not in the camp of the majority on this forum that routinely bash DFO and think they use voodoo math and poor science in their decision making. I know that at the field level they have intelligent staff and some really good scientists. At the same time, though, I know for a fact that DFO does not have top notch fishery modellers on staff and that expertise exists outside of government.

I agree for most part. The options models last year did not take into account variables that I suppose in light of what we know today probably would have helped, or maybe even influenced us to make different choices as a sector. Can't change the past, only learn from it. That said, I don't want to take aim at DFO staff (and their analysis) who are doing the best they can with the resources and experience they have(much of which was depleted in recent cuts).

One thing that I believe DFO could do better to help the rec community is to get all the information they have out into a public domain quickly and unfiltered. I have to commend the IPHC on how transparent they have become. A vast improvement, and if DFO did the same it would be particularly helpful to those who can't attend SFAC/SFAB meetings.

Tough decisions ahead for the SFAB Main Board this weekend.

 

[GLG]

When and where is this meeting taking place? Is a regular old fella like myself allowed to go?

Halibut meetings was last week and we had links to live feed posed on this site.
SFAC / SFAB South coast meetings were last November and December.
Not sure when SFAB main board is.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Hi Gil, just did a quick search and can't find the thread regarding last week's Hali meetings and live feed links posted. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Ukee

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Oh, are you referring to the International Hali Commissions annual meeting? If so, sorry, thought you were referring to access SFAC/B meetings regarding regulation. My bad if misinterpreted.

Ukee

 

[GLG]

small biomass + no restrictions = extremely short season
small biomass + moderate restrictions = some what shortened season
small biomass + major restrictions = long season

Logic in this statement is hard to beat if all other factors are the same. ie fishing effort.
Some would like us to believe that that we can have no restrictions(1/2) and some restriction(1/2 slot) and get the same result....Based only on the fact that the two seasons (2011/2012) ended on the same day.
Now I don't know about the rest of you folks but I don't buy it.
GLG

Ukee PM incoming..... soon as I gather up some info...
GLG

 

[Last Chance]

Calmsea, I can assure you that I have only one identity/account on SFBC and anyone can check the history of my posts for consistency of messages and writing style. Not sure what benefit having two ID's would give anyway - I'm simply providing the facts and the majority are choosing to ignore them anyway so I'm certainly no threat.

Your theory may explain why I was blocked from posting for the majority of the day, though. Still haven't received an explanation from any of the moderators or administrators as to why I was blocked?

Ukee

I can assure you no one was being blocked. The new SPAM filter software on this site is really playing hell.

 

[GLG]

Hi glg,

Ending on the same day is part of it. It is also based on us harvesting the exact same poundage. Is another reason.

The main goal of the slot was to reduce poundage and extend the season. Neither of which happened. I'm sorry but there is not a lot to this. If it smells, swims and looks like a fish. It usually is.

If fishing effort went up that would be a better explanation.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

GLG, you know the evidence against the slot's effectiveness wasn't as simplistic as your characterization. I've provided detailed analysis of it's actual performance as well as what it's performance could have been forecast based on historical data all best on data readily available to us all and prepared by the regulating bodies DFO and the IPHC. Though perhaps that is the info you are gathering up to PM me. I'll keep an open mind and look forward to receiving it.

Last Chance, I was indeed blocked all day, have not had any reply to my queries to admin about it and none of the posts I attempted to make that needed "moderator approval" have been posted? What gives? I've never used foul language or attacked anyone personally.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

If? Where;s the data from the creel surveys, guide and lodge log books regarding effort GLG? That data should be available from DFO for every year, including last. You wouldn't have us believe your group voted on preferred approaches based on unsupported supposition rather than the facts and data available I hope?

Ukee

 

[GLG]

JS...Here is what I'm talking about and I'll keep this simple.
10 day season with 10 fishers two a day = 200 fish
10 day season with 20 fishers one a day = 200 fish
Possession goes down and effort goes up but you have the same season and the same amount of fish caught.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

GLG, why don't you use real numbers? Every one of my points and arguments have been based on and supported by the actual data on this fishery in BC. People against the slot could say what if .... and make up numbers to support their what if. People for the slot can say what if and make up numbers. None of that is valid. Actual data on this fishery is readily available. If you have data or facts to support your position we can have a meaningful discussion. If you want to avoid discussing the real numbers I've provided and discuss supposition, how does that benefit the fishery and rec anglers?

Here's the DFO sport report for 2012, there'll be similar numbers available for all other years to build a case about effort:

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2013am/documents/5.2DFOSportFL.pdf

 

[seadna]

Logic in this statement is hard to beat if all other factors are the same. ie fishing effort.
<stuff clipped>
GLG

The experience in Washington state is that as the seasons get shorter and shorter, the angler effort per unit time goes way up. E.g. EVERYONE fishes in the short season because that's the only time you CAN fish. My point being that if you tried shortened seasons it won't affect the rec catch proportionately as it simply results in more people fishing during the newly restricted times. IMHO, the best thing one can do is to set annual limits on a per fisherman basis and set them low enough so that everyone gets a shot.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

An early indication of what the answer will be can be found in the fact that last year's slot did not reduce the average size fish harvested. In fact, early indication is avg size harvested may have increased slightly. A slightly larger size, or same size, for the same total lbs harvested means that the same number of fish were harvested (or perhaps even sightly less). Those facts indicate same or lower effort from the previous year. Either that or effort was up but success was done. In either case the fact a slot didn't reduce the average size harvested, rate of harvest or total lbs harvested mean it didn't work and, potentially, could have worked really badly had success/effort been better.

Does that make sense GLG?