Halibut Concerns - Sportfish Retention.

[Mr. Dean]

I was b-bopping around and found this letter posted on the BCWF's website. Please read:





June L4,2007
Hon. Loyola Hearn,
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa. K1A 0A6
E-mail : Heaml @ p arl. gc.ca
Dear Minister Heam.
We understand that you are currently being pressured by the Pacific Halibut Management
Association (PHMA) to impose further restrictions on the recreational harvest of Halibut
in Pacific Region this year to stay within Canada's allocation from the Intemational
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).
In our opinion, Minister, such action would be premature and may not even be necessary.
Preliminary analysis of a study by J.O. Thomas and.Associates commissioned last year
by your Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) with the approval of your Department of
Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) and the PHMA indicates that the average weight of sportcaught
Halibut currently employed by the IPHC (using weights recorded in Washington
and Southeast Alaska as a proxy) is not appropriate for B.C. waters. More in-depth
analysis of this data has been delayed and is not available because of a refusal by the
PHMA to pay the contractor in a timely fashion from a fund which was established by the
PHMA in cooperation with DFO and the SFAB.
Reducing recreational bag limits in mid-season is not a reasonable option for several
reasons, not the least of which is the potential for adverse economic impacts on business
interests associated with the recreational fishery. We would direct your attention to the
fact that the recreational fishery provides greater benefit to the economy than the
commercial fishing sector.
I must make it very clear that the members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation did not and do
not support giving private ownership of 887o of the harvest of Halibut through
"Individual Transferable Quotas" or any other means to the commercial fishing sector.
The only viable option at present, in our opinion, is for you to reallocate Halibut quota
from the commercial to the recreational sector. This would satisfy the IPHC requirement
to stay within Canada's allocated total allowable catch and provide the time required to
further analyse the J.O. Thomas data and improve the existing creel survey to determine a
more accurate recreational Halibut catch on Canada's Pacific coast.
Yours in conservation.
President. B.C. Wildlife Federation
Cc Lany Murray, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
@
David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
@
Paul Sprout, Regional Director General, Pacific Regions
@
BCWF Members

[Mr. Dean]

It's getting scary; I've heard rumours that they want to reduce the 2/day, 3 fish possession, down to ONE. And for us sport-fishers to buy quota from the commercial sector... In a nutshell, the fishery is alive and well. It's just that the sport fishery has really taken off over the recent years. The idea is that in order to sustain it, there needs to be changes made to the quotas and that it should be ours (sporties) that take the hit because WE are the one’s deemed to be the problem (over harvesting).

The way I 'spin' it... In order for a person over-sea's/out of country to dine on OUR dinner, it is EXPECTED that we fore-go having dinner for ourselves.

This is NUTS! Halibut are an EXTREMELY hard species to access. It makes Salmon fishing look CHEAP in comparison. In turn, the economic drive is incredible to the local based business's.

I scrimp and save all year long so that the wife and I can go out and get our 6 fish (Halibut) for the freezer. I know as sure as I'm sitting here, that if this gets reduced to 2,,, the act of a fishing 'holiday' will no longer be viable and in turn, we'll be needing to take a long hard look at making BIG changes in the way we spend AND where we spend our hard earned $$$ for our hard earned holidays.

I find it ironic that our government would rather have me sell our (Canadian built I might add) boat, then flip the cash for a condo on the Baja, instead of addressing the amount of 'take-out' dinners that leave our country.

A$$-HAT’S

[loki]

Couldn't agree more with Mr. Dean.

Fact is Halibut is one of the most expensive fisheries in BC, and to limit it further forces people that have to think of the economics of the situation to either sell their gear, or not buy any in the first place.

I know for me the reason to buy a boat is Halibut fishing, if this passes I have no more reason. Too bad because I believe in buying Canadian made boats as well.

Well, I hear Tarpin are one hell of a fight, looks like the people in the Caribbean want my money more than my local government anyways. A little more thought (if any was used in the first place) before setting unreasonable quotas like this might be in order when it comes to economic value.

[Steeleco]

We all know the dollar per pound spent on sport's caught fish is far and away more than commercial fishing. What don't these clowns get.
Another poke at the little guy.

[Mr. Dean]

Well, I hear Tarpin are one hell of a fight...

I've wondered what people found so interesting about fishing for Blue Marlin and Dorado, when we have SO much to offer HERE.

If the powers insist on continueing down this path; I'll be finding out 1st hand just what it's like not fishing in the rain.

As for the 'sport' act of fishing... Been there DONE that - I've been a fisherman ALL my life. The local trophy thing is done - The only reason why I keep at it is for food that I know to be safe for the family. Push this off to the side and I'm outta here!

In a heartbeat.

[Chuck]

I wonder why dragging a big net along the bottom and killing everything it scoops up is permitted, when using an automatic gun on an elk herd is not? I guess I'm just ignorant, because I can't understand this logic at all!

[steel_ram]

There's certainly a few sports pigs who can and do take more Halibut and Salmon than they'll ever need. Bragging about getting 30+ halibut a spring doesn't impress me. Usually the same guy's that will shoot a moose, an elk for themselves and on their wife's tags every year.

Where does it all go? Feeding the neighbourhood doesn't cut it. Pin down these guy's when you here them bragging, they screw it for us all.

[MichelD]

It is not the ma and pa in the tin boat that takes the bulk of the "recreational-caught" halibut.

If you've got a beef it's with Bob Wright and the other commercial fishing interests in the lodge business.

And the actual value of the commercial longline (not trawl) halibut fishery in 2005 was a landed value of $52 million with a wholesale value of $97 mililon.

[Johnnybear]

I agree with the bad apples being there to ruin it. If you see something or hear something report it period. The honest sportsman is the eyes and ears on the water as we desperately need more C.O.'s out there. I'd like to find the unbias truth about the condition of our Halibut not just the same old tug a war between the commercial sector and the sport sector.
I talk to the crew on the W.E. Ricker (Fisheries research vessel)from time to time and they indicate that the Halibut stocks are in good shape.

[BlacktailStalker]

Changing the retention numbers will affect the species population very little. If anything I think they need to look at changing the retention size. This would have a better outcome, for both fisherman and the species. Too many people keep the mass producing females. There's no reason to retain any hali over 80lbs in my opinion. 90% of the fish over 75lbs are female. Realistically the steaks are too thick and the taste is nowhere near the quality of the smaller chickens. Furthermore, hali fishing isnt something you just go out and do. It usually takes a newcomer repetitive outings to become what I would call successful. Like most game harvesting sports, a small percentage of fisherman catch the majority of the fish.

[Mr. Dean]

Anything that has come across my desk indicates that the fishery is at a sustainable harvest. This isn't about protecting a declining species. It's about govt imposed allocations.

I could understand a yearly limit imposed on the sport fishers IF the possesion limits were increased to 5. What would be a fair # per year is beyond my scope of thinking. Right now, a person that can access the fish all season long is permited to take home 2 fish each and every day, if he/she wanted to AND it's perfectly legal to so. Once the fish are at home (regular dwelling), you're good to go back on the ocean for another two. They don't need to be consumed in order of cancelling out the possesion.

The fishery is only closed for the month of January. That leaves 234 days of Halibut fishing with a possible (NOT pratical though) harvest of 468 LEGAL fish... Thats a LOT of Hali steak.

I have no problem with a guy taking a hog/trophy. The fishery is a sustainable one. I do turn back way more triple digit fish than I have retained. I find no differnce in the flavour but them big ones don't chew as nice and they are all females that can potentialy release a million eggs a year. I look at it as being my part of coservation. WTS, if I get a chance to 'poon a fish that'll go over 150 - She's goin on the wall and I'll be done hitting them for the rest of the year - Regardless of how many more I'm allowed.

In a nutshell; right now there is nothing illegal about the guy grabbing 30 fish in the spring. Unless he's using the fish to barter for something else, he/she is breaking no laws.

[steel_ram]

What is the survival of deep water halibut being released?

[Mr. Dean]

What is the survival of deep water halibut being released?

Excellent. They are an extremely hardy fish - No concerns such as Rockfish.

[Mr. Dean]

I find the text in bold interesting.

The people that want change are supposed to be basing there reasons on scientific data that they have contracted out the work for but haven't aquired it (data) from the contractor because they aren't paying their bills; YET have been paid themselves (via OUR tax dollars) for aguiring these services.

- Another entity driving for this change?
- Why not base it on the science and pay for the information???

Just a thought; maybe the science doesn't back their desires (?).

Talk about 'fishy'. Can't you smell the dead tuna in the air?


In our opinion, Minister, such action would be premature and may not even be necessary.
Preliminary analysis of a study by J.O. Thomas and.Associates commissioned last year
by your Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) with the approval of your Department of
Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) and the PHMA indicates that the average weight of sportcaught
Halibut currently employed by the IPHC (using weights recorded in Washington
and Southeast Alaska as a proxy) is not appropriate for B.C. waters. More in-depth
analysis of this data has been delayed and is not available because of a refusal by the
PHMA to pay the contractor in a timely fashion from a fund which was established by the
PHMA in cooperation with DFO and the SFAB.

[Browningmirage]

I agree with the bad apples being there to ruin it. If you see something or hear something report it period. The honest sportsman is the eyes and ears on the water as we desperately need more C.O.'s out there. I'd like to find the unbias truth about the condition of our Halibut not just the same old tug a war between the commercial sector and the sport sector.
I talk to the crew on the W.E. Ricker (Fisheries research vessel)from time to time and they indicate that the Halibut stocks are in good shape.


In actuality, research vessels and their crews are not allowed to disclose that information until the results have been published. I work for fisheries biologists, and there are a couple of things that will cost me my job...Disclosing results of studies before they are publsihed is right up there on the list. This is because of several reasons, I am sure they are fairly apparent. The best that they can do is give you indications of previously published results or just something like good or decent, which in reality means that they are getting numbers, whether the numbers are good or bad cannot be said until a biologist has sifted through the info and published his findings.

I think a major problem in the sport fishing industry is the lack of commmercial quotas for guide operations, they catch immense numbers of fish, and they do it every day of the spring-summer-early fall; each boat can easily bring in a decent commercial harvest every year, and there is no regulation on that...It would honestly be better to have a quota for them.

[Mr. Dean]

I think a major problem in the sport fishing industry is the lack of commmercial quotas for guide operations, they catch immense numbers of fish, and they do it every day of the spring-summer-early fall; each boat can easily bring in a decent commercial harvest every year, and there is no regulation on that...It would honestly be better to have a quota for them.

Hmmmmm. But the giuding industry is sportsman based/driven. We still have a person (client) that is buying a recreational license to access the fishing and the possesion limits that go with it. It's not the operator thats taking the fish, it's his many clients that are 'sportfishing' enthusiests.

At the end of the day, it's a recreational activity for the guy that's paying the bill. I don't see the correlation of it being a commercial fishery.

[loki]

I've wondered what people found so interesting about fishing for Blue Marlin and Dorado, when we have SO much to offer HERE.

Actually I'm not interested in leaving BC waters in the slightest under normal conditions. We have all we need here, either trophy or just to fill the freezer.

Basically what I was saying is if they limit the fishery to locals I do have the option of going elsewhere and giving that country my hard earned money for my long needed vacation.

[Browningmirage]

Hmmmmm. But the giuding industry is sportsman based/driven. We still have a person (client) that is buying a recreational license to access the fishing and the possesion limits that go with it. It's not the operator thats taking the fish, it's his many clients that are 'sportfishing' enthusiests.

At the end of the day, it's a recreational activity for the guy that's paying the bill. I don't see the correlation of it being a commercial fishery.


Just in the volumes of fish taken. One boat should not be allowed to take that many fish, thats where a quota would work, if your pissed about limits being reduced; charter boats are a definite cause of any decline, and as a result are a cause of decreased limits.

[Mr. Dean]

Actually I'm not interested in leaving BC waters in the slightest under normal conditions. We have all we need here, either trophy or just to fill the freezer.

Basically what I was saying is if they limit the fishery to locals I do have the option of going elsewhere and giving that country my hard earned money for my long needed vacation.


I was only agreeing WITH you. :wink: Thats all.

[Mr. Dean]

Just in the volumes of fish taken. One boat should not be allowed to take that many fish, thats where a quota would work, if your pissed about limits being reduced; charter boats are a definite cause of any decline, and as a result are a cause of decreased limits.

Still, it's one guy goin home w/ 3 fish. He may live in BC... Canada or ???? As long as there's a licence available to him, he's entitled to go fishing in any lawful manner that he chooses. A guided boat is only a vehicle that enables him to do so. I'm not quite sure how the model would look, under your idea. I think that we would still have rec fishers missing out, only because they choose to be guided instead of owning a boat.

My piss is; I look at the resource as belonging to the peoples of Canada. Not off-shore or out of country interests. If the people of Canada are in need, then this is where the quotas should come from.

Is my thinking stupid/off the rails?

It's ok to be honest, I won't be offended. This is why I started the thread.

[Browningmirage]

Still, it's one guy goin home w/ 3 fish. He may live in BC... Canada or ???? As long as there's a licence available to him, he's entitled to go fishing in any lawful manner that he chooses. A guided boat is only a vehicle that enables him to do so. I'm not quite sure how the model would look, under your idea. I think that we would still have rec fishers missing out, only because they choose to be guided instead of owning a boat.

My piss is; I look at the resource as belonging to the peoples of Canada. Not off-shore or out of country interests. If the people of Canada are in need, then this is where the quotas should come from.

Is my thinking stupid/off the rails?

It's ok to be honest, I won't be offended. This is why I started the thread.

actually here is where we can possibly begin to agree. Why not have the same limit system in place for Canadian Clients, but for those from out of country there should be a quota as to how many fish can be taken...like you say give the people of Canada their fish first.

everyone else should be second.

pardon this post and the last several, just got back from several field days, and reading over my posts now makes very little sense to me, give me a day or so to become fully coherent again

[Mr. Dean]

I think I know how you're feeling. Try bangin' back 3 whiskey's followed by a tequila.

Things should be on an even keel then. :wink:

[Mr. Dean]

Here's a little history lesson on this fishery. It comes from (again) the BCWF from this notice posted on their website.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=231/bcw1178857145569/



Halibut allocation.
To be frank, the situation is one big mess. Here’s why: Many years ago, the commercial halibut fishery was a “gold rush” fishery with participants charging out to sea on opening day, regardless of weather, to catch as large a share of halibut as they could before the overall quota was caught and the fishery closed. Needless to say, ships and lives were lost. To eliminate this senseless loss, a system of individual vessel quotas (IVQ) based on a share of the total allowable catch (TAC) was established in 1991 which gave harvesters all year to catch their assigned share of TAC. No longer did they have to fish during inclement weather. Moreover, because there was no longer a glut of halibut on the market due to everyone landing their catch at the same time, prices stabilized. There was no consultation with the recreational sector about this decision but, from all appearances, it seemed to be a rational move.

But here is where Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) really screwed up. Instead of issuing the quota shares on an annual basis and thus retaining ownership of the resource for the people of Canada, the then Minister, without having the “competent legislation” to do so, gifted the IVQ’s to the fleet permanently to be sold or leased among harvesters. The IVQ’s became ITQ’s (individual transferable quotas) and DFO lost control of the resource. Today, many of the original quota holders no longer fish and are leasing their quota in perpetuity to other fishermen while enjoying their condos in Hawaii at the public’s expense.

In 2000, the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) and the Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA) began discussions on halibut allocations between the recreational and commercial sectors with a facilitator (Edwin Blewitt) appointed by DFO, anxious to set an allocation for each sector. Pressure also came from the PHMA largely because, according to PHMA representatives, their financial backers wanted certainty with respect to allocation.

The SFAB took the position that Halibut were a common property resource owned by the people of Canada (and still holds that position) but did suggest that, should the recreational sector catch exceed 20% of the total allowable catch (TAC) assigned to Canada by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), commercial halibut fishermen were entitled to some form of compensation, which would probably involve purchase of quota from the commercial sector by government for reallocation to recreational anglers. How, or if, government was to recover these costs was unclear but, given that the recreational catch at the time was about 5% of TAC, the SFAB did not believe that the 20% level would be reached for the foreseeable future.

The commercial sector wanted immediate compensation for any “reallocation” above 5%. Considering that they did not own the resource and thus were entitled to no compensation whatever, the discussions reached an impasse. An arbitrator (Stephen Kelleher) was retained by DFO in late 2002 to provide “independent advice on initial allocations and adjustments over time”. He recommended to the Fisheries Minister that the commercial sector be compensated at the 7% level. In October, 2003, the Minister arbitrarily decreed and announced that the recreational sector would get 12% of the combined commercial/recreational TAC and that, should the recreational sector want additional quota, it must be “acquired” from the commercial sector under a “market-based mechanism”.

By this time, the recreational catch was about 7-8% but the Minister would not give our sector credit for transfer of the uncaught portion of our allocation. However, the subsequent draft Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) stated that 409,000 pounds of quota (the difference between the sport catch and the 12% allocation cap) would be held in reserve. Several subsequent meetings between DFO and the two sectors (at which the SFAB representatives stated repeatedly that the SFAB did not own the resource and had no right to lease any portion of it) led to an agreement to lease the reserve to commercial license holders with the proceeds to be credited to the recreational sector. Since the SFAB was only an advisory body to DFO with no authority to enter into private agreements, the money was held in trust (but, apparently, not in a trust account) for the SFAB by the PHMA when the Department refused to assume this responsibility. In two years, the fund accumulated about $2 million.

In 2005, The Canadian IPHC Commissioner (Dr. Dick Beamish) questioned IPHC inconsistency of excluding sub-legal commercial by-catch from the commercial TAC but not from the recreational percentage and recommended that Canada undertake a study on the average lengths and weights of sport-caught halibut in B.C. In April, 2006, the Groundfish IFMP projected that the recreational halibut catch would reach 12% of TAC but no confirmation has ever been received from DFO.

Because the average catch of sport-caught halibut in B.C. waters is based on halibut caught in S.E. Alaska (for the B.C. north coast) and at Neah Bay in Washington (for the B.C. south coast) and because there is widespread opinion that these average weights were greater than the average weight of sport-caught halibut in B.C. waters, the SFAB proposed to conduct a survey of landings in key B.C. coastal communities to determine whether or not the average weights used by the IPHC to calculate the B.C. sport catch of halibut were valid. A contractor (J.O.Thomas and Associates) was retained to design and conduct a sampling program to be paid for with some of the funds held in trust by the PFMA for the SFAB.

A statement of work was prepared, approved by DFO, sent to the IPHC for comment, agreed to by the SFAB and the survey was conducted from May 15 to September 15 at sixteen major sport-caught halibut landing sites extending from Langara I. to Neah Bay. At some point during the summer, the IPHC sent a response listing at least 6 major concerns about the survey, few of which related to the survey design. The contractor responded on November 3 (adequately in the opinion of your TWFC) but the IPHC re-submitted their concerns, apparently ignoring the contractor’s response. In his December 1 report to the SFAB, Bill Otway deals with the IPHC letter and subsequent events in detail. The IPHC contends that their concerns and questions were not answered but it is apparent to your TWFC that the IPHC has no interest in verifying the average sport-caught halibut weights in B.C. waters. They have established a number based on landings at Neah Bay and in S.E. Alaska and, biased as those numbers might be, they are not about to entertain any potential changes.

Meanwhile, the PHMA have refused to release any of the money held in trust to pay for the study pending endorsement of the survey design by the IPHC. Consequently, the contractor has yet to receive a dime for his work and is, in turn, not unreasonably refusing to release the results of the survey until receiving some guarantee of payment. Complicating the situation even further, a member of the PHMA, subsequent to the Laroque decision that now prohibits DFO from using the public’s fish resources to pay for fisheries management, initiated legal action against his own organization to recover, on behalf of PHMA members, $1.4 million the PHMA has accumulated as a result of DFO withholding 10% of the commercial Halibut TAC and providing it to the PHMA to maintain the association. At the same time, this member is also expressing concern about the $2 million held in trust for the SFAB.

To compound the situation even further, DFO is saying that, based on the IPHC average weight estimate, the recreational sector is now at 18% of TAC, well above the 12% allocated to the sport fishery. The data collected by J.O. Thomas is therefore critical in influencing decisions DFO must make to manage the halibut fishery in 2007 and beyond. A delegation from the SFAB met recently with several directors of the PHMA to try and resolve the impasse with both sides realizing that obtaining the J. O. Thomas data was in everyone’s best interest. However, the PHMA directors still have to get approval from their entire Board and, as of this writing, we are awaiting their decision.

Like I said at the beginning of this section, the situation is a mess.



The last line sums it up. :(


.

[dawn2dusk]

I agree with MichelD (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?u=1126). There are no restrictions on fish guides in BC right now. You dont need any special licence just special insurance for liability. I have watched the number of guides sky rocket. THese guys do not mark up as sporties in my book cause there doing it to make a dollar not to enjoy the experience and maybe get some token meat. They go out every day and catch limits for 4 guests. That is 12 halibut! How long do you expect a fishery to last with these guys slamming the bank every day.

I have watched the steady decline of the halibut stocks on Swiftsure Bank. The guides are now so desperate to get there fish that they sneak into the closed area to get it. Total BS! They even bragg about it on the VHF.

They could impose a minimum legal size and also maximum size as many of the 70lb plus fish are females thay can lay millions of eggs. I think there is alot of room for improvement with how true sporties, guides, and commercial operations are managed.

Tragedy of the commons.

[MichelD]

They have been struggling with an exploding charter fleet in Alaska too.

This was in the Alaska papers yesterday:



"Alaska's steadily growing charter fishing fleet has been operating under a largely unenforced guideline harvest level for several years. Last year the Southeast quota of 1.4 million pounds was surpassed by 42 percent, or 620,000 pounds, while the Southcentral take was 328,500 pounds, or 9 percent over its GHL of 3.65 million pounds. Because the total U.S. take of Pacific halibut is controlled by a treaty with Canada, the charter overage forces a reduction in the commercial fleet's harvest, and charter operators knew the bottom line of the Sitka session would be fewer fish for their clients to catch.

For the current season, the council confirmed federal regulations that took effect June 1, limiting the statewide charter bag limit to two halibut per day, including one no longer than 32 inches. For Southeast, charter anglers were placed under a season limit of four fish, expected to reduce their total catch by approximately 518,000 pounds. The rules replace a one fish per day limit for charter anglers that was proposed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and reviled by charter operators as a season killer."

[Mr. Dean]

THese guys do not mark up as sporties in my book cause there doing it to make a dollar not to enjoy the experience and maybe get some token meat. That is 12 halibut!

Maybe on an extremely good day... A decent day would equate landing a 1/2 fish limit of multiple species for the boat - Hali, Salmon, Rockfish, and Lingcod, IMO. Seldom are 4 people goin home loaded up. What that group is doing is (usually) sharing the expense for a shared experience. I should also state that I don’t fish the bank that you speak of.

Ecologically we are better off w/ the guides than we are having these guys bringing in there own boats. 1/4th of the boats = 3/4's less pollution, fuel consumption, etc. Typically, guides keep their equipment in top-notch shape.



I have watched the steady decline of the halibut stocks on Swiftsure Bank

You're aware that Halibut are a migrating species, right? From my experience, they don't sit in one spot for very long. They seem to come and go in waves.

I still have a hard time with penalizing a persons right to recreationally fish just because he doesn't own a boat. It's the same, as saying so and so must be held back off of the riverbank because his rod is longer OR he’s using a higher test line than the others, so therefore he’s going to catch more fish.


More importantly, the talk of the table doesn’t seem to be this debate. It appears to be around who is pulling the wool over the others eyes and our government turning a blind eye to that VERY apparent fact. All the stakeholders want is the truth - Truth that is contained in research data that for some reason, the 'other side' doesn't (apparantly) want to fess up any longer.

And people are bent about a guy from Flin-Flon goin fishing. :confused:

Please read the letters that I posted carefully. If the slope keeps sliding, Recreational Hali fishing could very well become a rich mans game ONLY.

I for one, am eager to see what the DFO's response is on this one. Any of you guy's that like to fish Hali,,, should be also. :wink:

[Mr. Dean]

They have been struggling with an exploding charter fleet in Alaska too.

This was in the Alaska papers yesterday:



"Alaska's steadily growing charter fishing fleet has been operating under a largely unenforced guideline harvest level for several years. Last year the Southeast quota of 1.4 million pounds was surpassed by 42 percent, or 620,000 pounds, while the Southcentral take was 328,500 pounds, or 9 percent over its GHL of 3.65 million pounds. Because the total U.S. take of Pacific halibut is controlled by a treaty with Canada, the charter overage forces a reduction in the commercial fleet's harvest, and charter operators knew the bottom line of the Sitka session would be fewer fish for their clients to catch.

For the current season, the council confirmed federal regulations that took effect June 1, limiting the statewide charter bag limit to two halibut per day, including one no longer than 32 inches. For Southeast, charter anglers were placed under a season limit of four fish, expected to reduce their total catch by approximately 518,000 pounds. The rules replace a one fish per day limit for charter anglers that was proposed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and reviled by charter operators as a season killer."

I'm a believer in that if ya want it, it should be YOU who goes out and kills it.

[Tuffcity]

Well, IMO the guide industry is a commercial operation. These people make their living (or a part of it) by being paid for a service. They provide expertise, equipment and other services for pay... sounds pretty business like to me.

Their catch and take percentage is usually a lot higher than "a guy from Flin Flon". Factor in that with a stroke of a pen in the form of a short letter they can "gift" a bunch more fish to any client. I think their catch numbers should come out of the commercial TAC.

Any one who has fished the "bank" in recent years can tell you that the size of hali's has dropped off. It's not uncommon to see a limit of 'buts that do not exceed the 15# range, some as small as 5-6 #'s... even in the guided boats. It seems to be a "whack and stack" mentality with a lot of people not being happy unless they have their limit of salmon, lings and 'buts. Usually with the justification of how much it cost them to be out there and they were going to get "their share".

But that being said the IPHC uses a weight formula that is too high for the size of the 'buts being landed, and that skews the magic formula that determines the TAC and that needs to be changed. The creel survey people, I believe, are going to try and get better info on hali lengths this year in a bid to present the IPHC with data that will support a change.

RC

[Mr. Dean]

Well, IMO the guide industry is a commercial operation. These people make their living (or a part of it) by being paid for a service. They provide expertise, equipment and other services for pay... sounds pretty business like to me.

Not saying that it isn't a business, it is. Its primary resource is tourism... Tourists comprised of recreational anglers. Clearly, this is not a meat market. :???:



Their catch and take percentage is usually a lot higher than "a guy from Flin Flon". Factor in that with a stroke of a pen in the form of a short letter they can "gift" a bunch more fish to any client. I think their catch numbers should come out of the commercial TAC.

But still, the guy from Flin-Flon is going to go home w/ only one limit of fish. Whereas 'Bob' that resides on the beach can potentially take 468 flatties through the course of the season. This is why I can't justify discriminating against the guy that is pretty much 'forced' into paying for a guide service. Remember, this is a Federal fishery and it belongs to all Canadians equally. We MUST provide equal access to it.

The new regs now state that an operator of a guided boat is no longer permitted to engage in the act of fishing while a paying customer is on board. - That should take care of the latter part of your paragraph.



Any one who has fished the "bank" in recent years can tell you that the size of hali's has dropped off. It's not uncommon to see a limit of 'buts that do not exceed the 15# range, some as small as 5-6 #'s... even in the guided boats. It seems to be a "whack and stack" mentality with a lot of people not being happy unless they have their limit of salmon, lings and 'buts. Usually with the justification of how much it cost them to be out there and they were going to get "their share".

Ummm, QUILTY! When we're out for our 'Whack-Fest', we go to fill the boat. Two limits of fish in the freezer takes us from July - July. It's an annual event and this is the only time that I can access it (holidays). I just simply like the notion of consuming something that I know the way it was handled (trust and control issues... I know) - This makes me a BAD person? Hell, it's what keeps me in.

Also. Do you have an idea of what the % is of the commercial catch that spoils, before it hits a market? Over a 10 year spread, I know personally of at least one semi trailer/year that went sour. Thats approximately 50,000 lbs of fish/trailer. I also know that my scope is limited. I'm sure that there were many more that I knew nothing about.

Piont? ALL of our fish comes home safely AND it all gets consumed.

Yet, you perceive that The Missus and me ARE part of the problem; just because we each kill and eat one possession limit of fish annually???

I make no apologies for this. Nor should the guy from Flin-Flon.

Once again, I know little of that bank (Swiftsure). What I do know is that it's basically a GONG show out there each year. Lotta boats hit it, and the trend seems to be that more of them show up with each new season (I blame it on the weather belt). It's not my cup of tea. I prefer to hit the spots that people tend not to go and find new ones the year after. For us, it’s also about the adventure.


But that being said the IPHC uses a weight formula that is too high for the size of the 'buts being landed, and that skews the magic formula that determines the TAC and that needs to be changed. The creel survey people, I believe, are going to try and get better info on hali lengths this year in a bid to present the IPHC with data that will support a change.

Me thinks that the work has already been done!!! Last year, each and every Hali that we produced was weighed, measured, sampled and sexed. I think that it is this data that is not being released by PHMA that the other stakeholders ALL want to see, except DFO (apparently).

Thanks for your post. 8)

[Tuffcity]

How you misconstrued my generalist remarks to be aimed at you is beyond me, but .... :confused:


I am curious about a couple of your statements though.


Not saying that it isn't a business, it is. Its primary resource is tourism... Tourists comprised of recreational anglers.

So does that mean that the big game guide industry is only tourism made of recreational hunters? I would have to argue that the primary resource is fish, particlularly for the big lodges. I can't see a lot of guide services surviving on the slogan of "drop a grand and we'll have a nice day on the water as we incidentally try to hook a fish". If tourists want to look at the scenery and primarily take pictures of eagles and seals then they go on an "eco tour", if they want to kill fish they hire a guide.


Clearly, this is not a meat market.

If guiding wasn't about catching fish then why are their brochures filled with pictures of docks full of fish? Because dead fish fill charter slots. Lots of dead fish equal repeat customers and referrals. So by extention I would submit that catching and killing fish makes ones livelyhood... sounds like a commercial fishery to me.

So why would you be opposed to tacking on the guides yearly catch (especially the lodges) on to the commercial allocation? It would certainly free up a big piece of quota for the real recreational guy. Like it or not, the resource will be managed to an explotation number of the calculated bio mass, whether it's pounds or pieces.


you perceive that The Missus and me ARE part of the problem; just because we each kill and eat one possession limit of fish annually???


As far as I can see (from my post) the only problem I perceive is that the IPHC uses the wrong size to determine Canadian catch and that the guide catch should come out of the commercial TAC. My "whack and Stack" comment was an observation, not an accusation. I have no problem with people taking their limits... was long it doesn't end up in the land fill at the start of the next season. Something I have seen happen. (and please don't read into it that I'm accusing you of this :))


But still, the guy from Flin-Flon is going to go home w/ only one limit of fish. Whereas 'Bob' that resides on the beach can potentially take 468 flatties through the course of the season. This is why I can't justify discriminating against the guy that is pretty much 'forced' into paying for a guide service. Remember, this is a Federal fishery and it belongs to all Canadians equally. We MUST provide equal access to it.


I don't see where you are trying to go with this one. If Mr. Flin Flon wants to ship his fish home he can catch nearly as much as "Bob", Flin Flon's only restriction (if he's really law abiding)is that he might be delayed a few days until his fish hits his doorstep. So where's the discrimination?

And ya, if buddy doesn't drag his boat out with him he is "forced" to hire a guide or find some one to take him out- just like me because I don't own a boat either. So as far as we
MUST provide equal access to this resource does that mean we, as taxpayers, have to supply some Manitoban with a boat, gear and gas when he comes out? Last time I checked they pay the same for a licence and have the same bag limits as the rest of us. So where's the discrimination... other than us slagging Manitoba. :)


The new regs now state that an operator of a guided boat is no longer permitted to engage in the act of fishing while a paying customer is on board.

What new reg's are those?

RC

and now my disclaimer: I have nothing against guides, rec fishers who take their limits or commercial fishermen and I have good friends in all the categories. But it's time to call a spade a spade and guided fishing is a commercial venture and should be counted as such.

[Johnnybear]

In actuality, research vessels and their crews are not allowed to disclose that information until the results have been published. I work for fisheries biologists, and there are a couple of things that will cost me my job...Disclosing results of studies before they are publsihed is right up there on the list. This is because of several reasons, I am sure they are fairly apparent. The best that they can do is give you indications of previously published results or just something like good or decent, which in reality means that they are getting numbers, whether the numbers are good or bad cannot be said until a biologist has sifted through the info and published his findings.

I think a major problem in the sport fishing industry is the lack of commmercial quotas for guide operations, they catch immense numbers of fish, and they do it every day of the spring-summer-early fall; each boat can easily bring in a decent commercial harvest every year, and there is no regulation on that...It would honestly be better to have a quota for them.

The information given to me is just plain old B.S.ing on the bridge and is very general indeed. Our company has been doing welding repairs and projects for Fisheries for over 26 years and I talk to the scientists and the crew members on the research boats quite often and in real actuality nobody is very uptight or worried about losing their jobs over talking about the condition of any species of marine life etc.. I was not given numbers, data, survey reports etc. so I think their jobs are pretty safe:).

[Mr. Dean]

How you misconstrued my generalist remarks to be aimed at you is beyond me, but


Because of this statement;


It seems to be a "whack and stack" mentality with a lot of people not being happy unless they have their limit of salmon, lings and 'buts.

It wasn't aimed at me (I know that). You'd wouldn't have had a clue that this was my mentality... I fessed it up volluntarily.

In no way did I perceive it to be a 'personal' attack. I was merely aknowleging your thoughts with mine, along with the reasons of my thinking - Nothing more, nothing less (hand-shake).

The TV screen made my reply seem harsh, All I'm trying to convey is that, I am a meat fisher and have no qualms about being so... Cheers. :mrgreen:


So does that mean that the big game guide industry is only tourism made of recreational hunters?

My thinking is that a tourist is a person that visits another land for the purpose of taking in it's (whatever?) - I'd have to answer (primarily) yes to your question.



If guiding wasn't about catching fish then why are their brochures filled with pictures of docks full of fish?

Because it's fishing (?)... Your same logic could be applied to the sportfishery of today. Therefore (using your logic) WE should be bound to buy guota from the commercial fishery to sustain ours because we sporty's like to catch fish also. :-?



I don't see where you are trying to go with this one. If Mr. Flin Flon wants to ship his fish home he can catch nearly as much as "Bob", Flin Flon's only restriction (if he's really law abiding)is that he might be delayed a few days until his fish hits his doorstep. So where's the discrimination?

TOUCHE'. I forgot about the mail order fishery. You're correct; Bob can walk back and forth from the beach too his freezer and Flin Flon can fly them home. After all, he lives in Manitoba by choice. That's about as equal as it's goin to get because of the geography involved. Thanks for setting me straight.

You're above quote leads me to the next;



this resource does that mean we, as taxpayers, have to supply some Manitoban with a boat, gear and gas when he comes out? Last time I checked they pay the same for a licence and have the same bag limits as the rest of us. So where's the discrimination... other than us slagging Manitoba.

From your reasoning, Flin-Flon and Bob are equal. Therefore they should have equal access to the stock. Hence, to keep the water flowing at the same rate... Flin-Flon's quota would need to be large enough to sustain this new fishery as should Bob's 'old' fishery have the same privilage.

The 'new' quota would be pointless, unless it was to restrict/reduce the harvest of the guided tourists to enhance our catches (SF). This is where the discrimination would be. Flin-Flon no longer shares the same privilage as Bob when it comes to accessing the fishery thet they both own equally. His fishery wouldn't have enough fish to go around his group (tourists).


This is a bit of a repeat:


...does that mean we, as taxpayers, have to supply some Manitoban with a boat, gear and gas when he comes out?...

Clearly NO. Flin-Flon needs to save his $$$ so that when he gets here, he can hire a guide and then go fishing. Either that, or buy a boat!

But that's HIS choice. :wink:



What new reg's are those?

2007 tidal waters Sportfishing Regulations. They've been revamped a little/a lot,,, you should grab a copy. LOTS of new RCA's...


It's been fun. I hope I gave you something to think about.









. :tongue:

[Tuffcity]

I gotta ask... :smile:

What new quota are you referring to? The only thing I suggested was lump the guide catch into the existing commercial quota (I guess I should clarify that I'm talking halibut), not establish a seperate "commercial-recreational" quota as well. If that happened we, as rec anglers, would really get a royal screwing. The big lodge owners and big commercial licence holders have a ton more money than we do to lobby for TAC.




WE should be bound to buy guota from the commercial fishery to sustain ours because we sporty's like to catch fish also.
"We" already operate under a quota for halibut, it's currently 12% of the total TAC. And "We", in the past, have sold under utilized rec quota to the commercial halibut guys. That might be the $ the SFAB wanted to use for the study- I'm not up on how the money was held from that sale.



2007 tidal waters Sportfishing Regulations... you should grab a copy.
There you go making assumptions again. :grin: Maybe you can direct me to the page that mentions the "no fishing for guides with paying customers onboard" because I seem to have a blind spot to that item.

cheers,
RC

[Mr. Dean]

I gotta ask...

Oops, :oops: I was assuming that you were proposing that the guides had thier own quota, seperate and apart from the other interest groups.

For clarification, what would happen to the rec-fishers on guided boats when the guota got utilized (max'd), if things were to become this? I'll forecast that there will be a lot bookings being cancelled (rec- fishers STILL not getting access) and many an independant small biz owner going under. It wouldn't really matter how the pie was sliced... Somebody is gonna miss out on catching Hali's under the current TAC.

Remember, I did ask what the model would look like... :wink::wink:



"We" already operate under a quota for halibut, it's currently 12% of the total TAC. And "We", in the past, have sold under utilized rec quota to the commercial halibut guys. That might be the $ the SFAB wanted to use for the study- I'm not up on how the money was held from that sale.

I understand that - My thinking on the matter of "us" selling unused quota was a form of benelovence (good will). The fishery was able to sustain additional harvest, so why not (?) let the commercials gain from what we weren't clearly going to use. This act of generosity should in no way set precidence though, now that the tables are turned and Canadians only want what should be rightfully theirs.



Maybe you can direct me to the page that mentions the "no fishing for guides with paying customers onboard"

I seen this one coming... Sadly, I DON'T have them in front of me right now. I promise to locate them ASAP and get this info to you. I picked mine up @ the fisheries office and read them cover to cover. I was glad to see this included.

Hang tight, I'll get them to ya.

[Mr. Dean]

Hang tight, I'll get them to ya.

Do you hear that???
It's the sound of Mr. Dean eating crow.

You are correct; there seems to be no reference to my claims in the 'regs'. The only thing in there that comes close is a statement of no sport fish being allowd on a commercial boat (boat that contains fish for market).

I am certain (99.999%) that I have come across this new regulation. If not in the fishing regs, then it must have been in the TON of new regulatory measures that the guide industry is now under. However, I retain little of this info on paper as I only have an interest as of curiosity only (No financial stakes).

I know that I came across this info while on my bear hunt on the island, while making a side stop @ the fisheries office and the wording was clear... I will contact them (fisheries) and inquire further.

Sorry for pointing you in the wrong direction.

[Tuffcity]

Oh I'm sure we've all eaten a bit of the black bird over the years... :)

The only reg's that I'm aware of for charter boats came from Transport Canada and I think they had more to do with adequate safety training and mandatory safety gear on board- above what the rec boater required.


I'll forecast that there will be a lot bookings being cancelled (rec- fishers STILL not getting access) and many an independant small biz owner going under.

I don't really see it having much of an impact on the guide business. Salmon is still the mainstay of most of the operations. The total TAC for sport and commercial is about 13 million pounds. Commercial get over 11 million of it and the rec guys get about 1.6 million pounds.

If you took (and I'll just randomly pull a number out as I have no idea what the actual number is) 4 % of the rec catch for the guided boats and made it part of the commercial quota you now add over half a million pounds back into the rec fleet (16%) while reducing the commercial fleet to 84%. 500,000 pound loss absorbed through out the commercial licence holders is pretty small. Even if the guides were assigned an individual vessel (or lodge) quota they will have the catch data to lobby for their "fair" share and adjust their catch ratio accordingly, and like the current commercial hali fishers they would have the opportunity to buy additional quota from guides/lodges that haven't fully utilized their quota.

My thinking on the matter of "us" selling unused quota was a form of benelovence (good will).

Me thinks it was an open act of commerce and the pretense was so there was money available to buy back quota from the commercial industry if the rec fleet hit their quota level. I think it was dollars, not benevolence, that brought that about. :)


Sorry for pointing you in the wrong direction.

Just trying to keep you honest. ;) :)

RC

[Mr. Dean]

I don't really see it having much of an impact on the guide business. Salmon is still the mainstay of most of the operations. The total TAC for sport and commercial is about 13 million pounds. Commercial get over 11 million of it and the rec guys get about 1.6 million pounds.

If you took (and I'll just randomly pull a number out as I have no idea what the actual number is) 4 % of the rec catch for the guided boats and made it part of the commercial quota you now add over half a million pounds back into the rec fleet (16%) while reducing the commercial fleet to 84%. 500,000 pound loss absorbed through out the commercial licence holders is pretty small. Even if the guides were assigned an individual vessel (or lodge) quota they will have the catch data to lobby for their "fair" share and adjust their catch ratio accordingly, and like the current commercial hali fishers they would have the opportunity to buy additional quota from guides/lodges that haven't fully utilized their quota.

I don't see this as much more than a Band-Aid.

One of the key reasons that the Hali's have been hit harder of recent years is because of the percieved or not-so percieved decline of Salmon stocks. Salmon became harder to catch so baits started sinking too the ocean's bottom. Guide boats and non guide boats alike. It's just a matter of time before the guides would be taking the hit for buying back quota... If the trends keep up (increasing pressure on Halibut). Sooner or later, Mr. Flin-Flon is going to have to take it up the a$$ through increased charter fee's.

All the guides I know (I'd need FAR more digits than I have to count them all) fish for mult-species, except for the fella's local to me (for obvious reasons). For me, it's nothing to see a party of 2 coming home with up to a half dozen Salmon and 2 or 3 flatties, with some Rockfish and/or a Ling or two in the boat from a days event. Granted; fishing IS fishing. Some day's there will be a kettle of fish, others just one or two but once you toss in some Whale and Dolphin shows, people seldom have a frown on there face when they know that while they didn't limit out, they STILL (usually) have a mess of meat on there hands and a lifetime of memories to back it. I have yet to know a skipper that doesn't get skunked on the occasion... And I know some that I'd deem as being damned good ones. Borderline, 'Artistic'.

Maybe things are different from your parts, but this is the 'Guided Experience' that I know of. Sure, the goal IS to load-up on anything and everything that the client rightfully can; but if he/she expects this from the service, they should consider a mult-day excursion in hope of increasing the odd's OR just make a visit to the local fish store.

It's WAAAAAAY cheaper in the end.




Hang tight, I'll get them to ya.

I am inclinded to say YES. This may be a Trasport Canada regulation. Possibly from the Definitions section (when IS a vessel for hire) OR possibly a safety reg (not paying due diligence for the safety of the occupants).

Again, I know that I read this but for the time being, I'll agree that it doesn't exsit. In the meantime, I'll set forth an honest endevour in locating the paper that it was printed on... Maybe a Guide that has taken on the burdon of TC can chime in on this (?).

But, just to be fair and equal. There is NO reg that says I can't have my sister/cousin/friend, be 'gifted' all of my possesion limit either. As long as she/he has a valid tidal licence (that can be 'gifted' also), It's ALL GOOD... In the eyes of the law.

I know these rulings are absurd (IMO). But I cant help but not to think that our govt of the inception of the fisheries act, DIDN'T deem the fish stocks of the ocean as belonging to Average Joe Canuck. Clearly this regulation sets a priority of the harvest for the recreational guy.

Why else would it exist?

Be nice - Don't through pots and pans at me! I'm NOT saying that I agree w/ it. Just mearly pointing out that Laws and Regulations are made for reason(s).


















:mrgreen: