IPHC 2015 Annual Meeting

[SerengetiGuide]

Started yesterday but discussed 2014 fisheries in area 2B (BC) today as well as area 2A. Not sure if anyone was listening to the webinar or not but you can listen in via a the link on the IPHC website. Below is a link to the report presented to the IPHC from DFO on the recreational fishery in BC this past season. Breaks down numbers by area as well as pieces taken by area. Enjoy, it is very informative and in my opinion shows some interesting tidbits of information that will definitely have to be taken into account when deciding on 2015 regs etc.

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2015am/bb/1202_Area2B_2014SportHalibutCatchReport.pdf

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Thanks for posting that Serengetti! Lower Mainland folks should also know that the majority of sessions are open to the public and free to attend. From the rec data provided two things really jump out at me. The first, and most surprising and disturbing is the fact that about 1/3rd of the sample areas are reporting max fish size well above the 80lb maximum size limit. My assumption is that those fish were harvested at lodges with the taboo purchased commercial quota, however … any fish harvested under that program is a commercial fish, not a rec fish, and as such shouldn't be included in the rec data. Only fish harvested under recreational license by a recreational fisher should be included in the data. Inclusion of those fish artificially increase the avg weight of rec harvested fish and thus impact our calculated harvest!!! For example, are 24/124 reports just 75 fish sampled for July, including one fish over 150lbs - given that sample size, that single fish, which is a commercial fish, raises the avg harvest weight for the month by 2lbs!! Hopefully those representing our sector pick up on this and challenge DFO on this error.

Second is that the data continues to show that the median size fish harvested, and the bulk of the total numbers harvested, is well below the "slot size" that's been adopted (supposedly experimentally, though yet to hear or read any results on said experiment …). Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of stats will tell you that it is impossible for such a slot to have any impact on average harvest size, and thus total harvest, particularly when it's known that only a fraction of effort is forced to target such a "slot" fish on any given day. As such, this is an unnecessary restriction that our representatives should also be ensuring is removed.

The 2014 data aside, the interesting part of these meetings is about to begin - discussions on biomass and stock data that will set the
TAC numbers for each harvest area. Commission staff are yet again forwarding a model that would see a drastic reduction in TAC across the board. I'm assuming Canada's united position will again be that stocks appear to be stable or growing despite a steady harvest rate the last couple of years and, if anything, it's Alaskan by catch mortality that needs to be curtailed.

Ukee

 

[Whole in the Water]

Just to let people know that SVIAC has a seat at the IPHC and will representing us there.

 

[Aces]

Thanks for posting that Serengetti! Lower Mainland folks should also know that the majority of sessions are open to the public and free to attend. From the rec data provided two things really jump out at me. The first, and most surprising and disturbing is the fact that about 1/3rd of the sample areas are reporting max fish size well above the 80lb maximum size limit. My assumption is that those fish were harvested at lodges with the taboo purchased commercial quota, however … any fish harvested under that program is a commercial fish, not a rec fish, and as such shouldn't be included in the rec data. Only fish harvested under recreational license by a recreational fisher should be included in the data. Inclusion of those fish artificially increase the avg weight of rec harvested fish and thus impact our calculated harvest!!! For example, are 24/124 reports just 75 fish sampled for July, including one fish over 150lbs - given that sample size, that single fish, which is a commercial fish, raises the avg harvest weight for the month by 2lbs!! Hopefully those representing our sector pick up on this and challenge DFO on this error.

Second is that the data continues to show that the median size fish harvested, and the bulk of the total numbers harvested, is well below the "slot size" that's been adopted (supposedly experimentally, though yet to hear or read any results on said experiment …). Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of stats will tell you that it is impossible for such a slot to have any impact on average harvest size, and thus total harvest, particularly when it's known that only a fraction of effort is forced to target such a "slot" fish on any given day. As such, this is an unnecessary restriction that our representatives should also be ensuring is removed.

The 2014 data aside, the interesting part of these meetings is about to begin - discussions on biomass and stock data that will set the
TAC numbers for each harvest area. Commission staff are yet again forwarding a model that would see a drastic reduction in TAC across the board. I'm assuming Canada's united position will again be that stocks appear to be stable or growing despite a steady harvest rate the last couple of years and, if anything, it's Alaskan by catch mortality that needs to be curtailed.

Ukee

I'm not sure what's up with that area 24 report regarding the 150 lber but none of the core guides in Tofino use that commercial license program. In fact we are solidarily against it.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

No problem Ukee. It definitely shows there is a decent amount of leeway in terms of increasing the max size (heard some on board were saying no change at all on limits after leaving 144,000lbs in the water, I know commissioner Lane from AK couldn't believe 144k was left in, thought it was just as bad as going over 144k LOLLL). But it also shows a bit of weird math like you were pointing out. Avg size would not go up a full 2lbs due to an increase in those size limits alone. Especially the 60 to 70lbs as the number of fish in the 60-70 range caught was relatively tiny. And many don't target the 2nd fish under 20lbs as well (Coastal residents don't at all). WPUE for commies went way up, seems like area 2B has good trends for the most part in both rec and commie side on avg size of fish increasing, and that will hopefully be considered when a final decision on TAC is announced.

 

[Clint r]

This has little to do with Halibut and the TAC other than to show public pressure can change it. Read this article copied from Castanets news service and then phone your MLA. Yours is the call that might make the difference.

Wildlife allocation reconsidered
Photo: Contributed - Corey Legault
A hunter from Penticton with a mule deer harvested in bow season. Mule deer are not part of the allocation controversy,
Bill Everitt - Jan 28 11:59 am
Following outrage from resident hunters, the B.C. government is reconsidering new wildlife allocation rules that came into force in December.
On Dec. 10, changes partially reversed a 2007 plan and shifted a portion of big-game tags away from resident hunters to foreign hunters through guide outfitters. The 2007 allocation rules significantly reduced the number of animals outfitters were allowed to harvest and, according to the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., significantly contributed to the decline of the guided hunting industry in the province.
The Kelowna and District Fish and Game Club, Oceola Fish and Game Club and Peachland Sportsman's Association have organized a rally this Saturday at Premier Christy Clark's office to protest the latest changes, which they say are taking hunting opportunities from resident hunters.
Kelowna-Mission MLA Steve Thomson, minister of forests, lands and natural resource operations, says he is "evaluating feedback" and a new wildlife allocation discussion may be opened.
"Resident hunters are given a higher priority than non-residents. However, this does not imply that resident demand must be fully satisfied before non-residents can be granted harvest opportunities," Thomson said in a statement. "In fact, allocation only affects about eight per cent of all the animals resident hunters currently hunt."
The December decision transfers about 110 animals from resident hunters to guide-outfitters, Thomson said.
The president of Oceola Fish and Game Club, Sean Richardson, said he won't call it a victory until he actually sees a new policy come out. He is anticipating some movement after a recent rally in Prince George.
"The rally in Prince George, they did a really good job," he said. "It was a very peaceful rally, and that was reiterated by Mr. Thomson, that because of the tack that they took, because they were respectful and not in peoples' faces, that kind of opened the door."
Scott Ellis, executive director at the Guide Outfitters Association, says the changes have been blown out of proportion and hardly help the ailing industry.
"Since 2006, we're down 30 per cent in people coming to the province (to hunt)," he said. "For that to be used against us, to say we should get less? It's a little bit frustrating."
Ellis says the Dec. 10 decision gave guide outfitters only 3.5 per cent more animals than they've had since the 2007 policy.
"What the minister did on Dec. 10 was make minor changes to what the splits were. The impact to our side is still $3 million per year," he said. "There's no party here. We got 3.5 per cent relief, that doesn't move the needle for us."
"We are still going to have significant hardship in our industry, so I am beyond disappointed that the (B.C. Wildlife Federation) is lighting their hair on fire. We were pushing for significantly more change."
Despite being fewer in number when compared to resident hunters, guide outfitters have higher value to the economy. Hunting generates approximately $350 million each year. More than 100,000 resident hunters bring in about $230 million of that, while 230 guide-outfitters brought in about 4,500 hunters last year, for approximately $120 million in revenue.
"The average client to the province pays $27,000," Ellis said. "They use airlines, buy food, buy supplies, bullets, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels. Outfitters employ staff, buy quads, pay taxes - these are local guys, and the money stays in the community."
Ellis said the guide-outfitters will not be at Clark's office this weekend.
"It's kind of an interesting time. The hunting community has always been pretty quiet. We go about our business, we help wildlife and harvest wildlife because we like to eat it, but it's the first time I've ever seen that everybody has gotten fired up and so involved. It's a big issue," Richardson said.
Thomson said the December decision resulted from an 18-month review in which both resident hunters and non-resident hunters participated.
It's important to note the allocation decision does not include General Open Season opportunities, such as mule deer, whitetail deer and black bear.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Serengetti, this quote is taken directly from the report: "Average net weights were calculated for each Area on a monthly basis to generate estimates of total net weight by month and area caught in the fishery". So, while very different than the intensive stock assessment data collected by the Commission to generate their avg size trends and total stock abundance, DFO is using very small data sets, including anomalous samples like a 150lber caught via commercial transferred quota, to generate a monthly average by area to extrapolate the harvest in that area for the month. In case of 24/124 in July, since only 75 fish were sampled, that one 150 lb fish, which shouldn't even be included in the rec catch data, did bring the July average harvested fish in that area up by 2 lbs (150/75 = 2). Extrapolated across the peak effort in July and that month's estimate of CPUE, such data mistakes will grossly increase the estimate of poundage harvested by our sector. Particularly when this is happening in about 1/3rd of the area conglomerates.

FishTofino, yeah it's a head scratcher for area 24/124 and my apologies for my inference of use of commie quota by Tofino guides. I was referring to the lodges in the north and central coast where the recording of fish over the max limit appears more prevalent. When I looked for an easy example to show the impact on DFOs calculated avg harvest, Area 24/124 offered the simplest math. I should note that July is the only month where a fish over the 80lb max limit was recorded for 24/124 and no fish were sampled over the limit in 23/123 in any month … pretty strong evidence that the Tofino and Ukee guides are NOT endorsing the quota purchase. That one anomaly is perplexing, perhaps an out of towner who purchased their own quota and targeted a trophy?

In any case, I'd offer that given the obvious inclusion of numerous commercial quota fish in the calculation of rec harvest averages, and thus extrapolation of inflated avg harvested weight into total harvest, that the rec harvest in 2014 has been significantly over-estimated and we left significantly more than 144,000 lbs unharvested last year. Depending on the TAC allocated, it definitely appears that the various restrictions can and should be revisited.

Ukee

 

[calmsea]

Sounds like 2b (Canada) walked away with 7M lbs. That's great news considering Alaska does not look pretty again. Looking like same season as 2014 with maybe a little more size when taking the 144k under into account.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Calmsea, are they that far ahead of schedule? Agenda shows catch proposals and allocations for discussion on Thursday's agenda and final Commission decision on allocation by Area not until Friday. Surprised to hear it's a done deal already? Can you confirm?

Ukee

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Is pretty early But if that is the case then that's great. But Ukee...heard that if it is the same they're looking at SAME regs or 135cm instead of 133cm COME ONNNN lol. It's crazy talk but that's the talk....

 

[calmsea]

I guess it's not official yet but I hear that both conference board and processors voted overwhelmingly in favor of 7M lbs for 2b. With such agreement it's hard to see a reason why the commission would not accept. But you're right, it's only over when it's over.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Thanks for the confirm, Calmsea, very promising news nonetheless.

Serengetti, as disappointing as that is to hear, sadly I can't say I'm surprised - we've been saddled with "experimental" regs that the data has shown have no effect for years now with no change. When both the managers and advisors don't appear to have a very good handle on the very basics of stats or estimation, as evidenced by the posted 2014 rec halibut report and the inclusion of non-rec commie quota inflating our rec harvest numbers, can't expect much innovation in the management regime.

Ukee

 

[searun]

Thanks for the confirm, Calmsea, very promising news nonetheless.

Serengetti, as disappointing as that is to hear, sadly I can't say I'm surprised - we've been saddled with "experimental" regs that the data has shown have no effect for years now with no change. When both the managers and advisors don't appear to have a very good handle on the very basics of stats or estimation, as evidenced by the posted 2014 rec halibut report and the inclusion of non-rec commie quota inflating our rec harvest numbers, can't expect much innovation in the management regime.

Ukee

Why are you not sitting at the table assisting with the decision process contributing your wealth of expertise? I realize it is safer being a monday morning quarterback from the sidelines than taking accountability and contributing to making what are difficult decisions. That does not contribute to making things better for all concerned IMO.

We would like to see you at our meetings, then at least you could also have access to all the data, arguments, rationale etc.; and not have to take guesses as to what happened at the IPHC meetings today. Quite frankly the folks sitting in these processes are extremely talented individuals, and we are very fortunate to have them involved and ON our side. Taking silly pot shots at these people is dis-respectful. OUT.

 

[El Capitan]

Thanks for the confirm, Calmsea, very promising news nonetheless.

Serengetti, as disappointing as that is to hear, sadly I can't say I'm surprised - we've been saddled with "experimental" regs that the data has shown have no effect for years now with no change. When both the managers and advisors don't appear to have a very good handle on the very basics of stats or estimation, as evidenced by the posted 2014 rec halibut report and the inclusion of non-rec commie quota inflating our rec harvest numbers, can't expect much innovation in the management regime.
Ukee

Perhaps you should attend a few meeting's, get involved and enlighten those at the table about the errors of their ways. Perhaps give a stats tutorial.
Hey, why bother? After all... most decisions are made based on what is written on anonymous chat forums.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

I'll save that post for the proposed regs thread. But that's a bs post mike as whenever anyone comes in with different opinion everyone in the sfab falls back to angler behaviour. Which again is bs as it has just as much chance as decreasing catch as increasing yet they look at it as a guaranteed increase. Which is statistically not true. Or even close

 

[richmake]

The size limits/slot limits are sort of a done deal in respect to management terms now as it fits right into the DFO management plan of the future.
I'm not going to beat on most of the issues put forth on this thread but the main one for me at this point is our continued support of DFO management and the "experimental licence".
Moving forward in the future this should still be one of our main issues and we need to band together to find away to eliminate this one.
It's clear that this program is a sham and completely unmanageable
It make me sick every time it comes into play....

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Same old, same old refrain - attend meetings, sit at the table … but ignoring the fact I and many others have addressed that refrain numerous times. We all know it's not an open system with open seats with most sub groups and boards having entrenched positions and individuals in the key seats. For my part I have attended my local mtgs numerous times but, being in the interior only upriver fisheries are of interest and halibut gets no traction. Why is it Washington and Oregon share their numbers publicly and have an open system of public meetings and on line input that engages every single rec license holder yet BC is still entrenched in an archaic system of local clubs?

As for taking pot shots at the individuals at the IPHC table - we all know that DFO does not talk about allocation between sectors or how those sectors are managed to quota at the IPHC table, they simply report their harvest numbers from all sectors and retain their unfettered right to manage as they see fit as long as they meet the TAC number. I'm on record on this forum on numerous occasions supporting and commending the work our Canadian contingent has done and continues to do at the IPHC table.

In making my commentary I was talking about the management within the rec sector's quota, the collection and analysis of rec fishery data and the resulting regs. Fact is, numbers don't lie and the individuals who continue to defend the process and it's results consistently avoid addressing the facts but instead resort to the lowest form of debate - ridicule. The absolute saddest part of this is that we live in a so-called democracy and yet not only won't our government share the numbers and data openly with the public, specifically those rec anglers being regulated, but the folks who are representing the interests of all won't share the numbers either.

One last point, as history tends to get forgotten, but lets not forget that the slot reg came about in a behind closed doors, private guides only meeting NOT part of the formal meetings and process that is the fall back defence in these discussions. That concept was put forward by one of the guides with no fisheries mgmt experience and no full understanding of how slot restrictions may or may not influence harvest. It was adopted as an experiment but, no subsequent data was collected to test its effectiveness. That notwithstanding, there were still two years of data that clearly showed that reg had no effect, whatsoever on rate of harvest or total harvest by our sector. We then had a third and fourth year with annual limits and a max size regs adopted which dramatically reduced harvest rate and total harvest - confirming the slots null effect wasn't somehow lost in the nuances of the fishery. Despite, or perhaps in spite, of these facts this reg has become entrenched. Someone please tell me how this is consistent with a functional system the average rec angler should have faith in?

I know I'm gonna get flamed, but hopefully some open dialogue also occurs so this type of history doesn't get repeated.

Ukee

 

[SerengetiGuide]

calmsea was correct. 7.038 mill pounds. But has to be officially accepted by iphc tomorrow. Good job cdn delegates, derby included

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Great news and well done by all the Canadian delegates:

Ahousaht Fishing Corporation, Annieville Halibut Association, Area F Troll Association, A'Tlegay Fisheries Society, BC Halibut Longline Fisherman’s Assoc., BC Longline Fisherman’s Association, BC Tuna Fisherman's Association, BC Wildlife Federation, Canadian Sablefish Association, Ditidaht First Nation, F.A.S., Gulf Crab Fishermen's Assn., Gulf Trollers Assn., Council of Haida Nation, Halibut Advisory Board, Hook and Line Groundfish Association, North Pacific Halibut Fisherman’s Assn, Northern Halibut Producer’s Assoc., Northern Trollers Association, Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, Pacific Cst. Fishing Vessel Owners Guild, Pacific Trollers Association, PHMA, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - Main, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - South, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - North, Steveston Halibut Association, Sport Fishing Institute of BC, South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition Society, Ucluelet First Nation, UFAWU, Vancouver Island Longline Assoc

Works out to close to a 10% increase in the rec TAC, up to 844,560 lbs for the upcoming year. With the 10% increase and over 15% unharvested last year, that's over 25% of the TAC to play with for this year's regs to hopefully make all portion's of our segment happy. Best news is that the survey and commercial harvest indicators for halibut biomass within Canadian waters are steady or rising, so good news into the future as well!!

Ukee

 

[Derby]

Great news and well done by all the Canadian delegates:

Ahousaht Fishing Corporation, Annieville Halibut Association, Area F Troll Association, A'Tlegay Fisheries Society, BC Halibut Longline Fisherman’s Assoc., BC Longline Fisherman’s Association, BC Tuna Fisherman's Association, BC Wildlife Federation, Canadian Sablefish Association, Ditidaht First Nation, F.A.S., Gulf Crab Fishermen's Assn., Gulf Trollers Assn., Council of Haida Nation, Halibut Advisory Board, Hook and Line Groundfish Association, North Pacific Halibut Fisherman’s Assn, Northern Halibut Producer’s Assoc., Northern Trollers Association, Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, Pacific Cst. Fishing Vessel Owners Guild, Pacific Trollers Association, PHMA, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - Main, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - South, Sport Fishing Advisory Board - North, Steveston Halibut Association, Sport Fishing Institute of BC, South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition Society, Ucluelet First Nation, UFAWU, Vancouver Island Longline Assoc

Works out to close to a 10% increase in the rec TAC, up to 844,560 lbs for the upcoming year. With the 10% increase and over 15% unharvested last year, that's over 25% of the TAC to play with for this year's regs to hopefully make all portion's of our segment happy. Best news is that the survey and commercial harvest indicators for halibut biomass within Canadian waters are steady or rising, so good news into the future as well!!

Ukee

add the WCGA voted in this year