Hali Season Update

[Sitkaspruce]

Well Mr Dean, it looks like we have to wait another month before we can chase hali's:icon_frow

Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Fin Fish (Other than Salmon)

Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Subject: FN0044-Halibut: All Tidal Waters - Delayed Opening of Recreational Fishery

Fishing for halibut will remain closed effective 00:01 February 1 to 29, 2008.
The fishery will open March 1, 2008.

The assessment for Pacific halibut is conducted annually by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) which is provided at the January 2008 IPHC annual general meeting. Results from this meeting indicated that the biomass of older halibut or the exploitable biomass was continuing to decline. They concluded that a reduction in harvest rate was necessary to provide the optimal combination of harvest and to ensure viable spawning biomass for the future.

Therefore, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Canada will be reduced from 11.4 million lbs in 2007 to 9 million lbs for 2008.

This situation will require changes to the recreational fishery in order to stay within domestic allocations.

DFO has been working in consultation with the SFAB to develop management options for 2008. Consultations and decisions are still underway. In order to complete the necessary consultation requirements and avoid in season changes to the recreational fishery, the opening date will be delayed.

[Mr. Dean]

This Hali thing is ALL WHACK'd up....

I just came off SFBC. What gets me is the lack of people wanting to be informed. People are acually BEGGING for more restrictions, not looking at the problem(s) at hand.. Most concerns are directed in the COMPLETE wrong direction.

Makes me sick. Cries like that will be heard and measures will continue to be one-sided.
Excuse me while I go puke. http://forums.naturalparenting.com.au/images/smilie/puke.gif


There's an excellent, multi page article in the recent Outdoor Edge, by the Pres. of the BCWF, discussing OUR rights to the fishery WITH government examles of this AND examples of them ignoring these RITES.


Sorry, I just feel forceably BENT OVER. :icon_frow
You'd think that enthusiests woulda learned with the Salmon...
.

[115 or bust]

Potential
2008 Management Actions
for the Recreational Halibut Fishery
For consultations with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board

2008 Objectives
•Recreational halibut TAC for 2008 at 12% of the commercial/recreational TACis 1,084,200 lbs.
•In order to stay within the 2008 recreational TAC the fishery must reduce the 2008 projected catch by 471,000 lbs.
•Provide reasonable opportunity and expectation to the recreational angling community.
•Avoid unplanned restrictive in-season changes.
•Improve catch accounting and monitoring.
PURPOSES ONLY
3

Catch Accounting and Sampling for 2008
Objectives:
–Improve timely catch submission,
–Improve existing creel program,
–Implement the pilot e-log lodge/guide program,
–Contract a coastwidecatch accounting study design, and
–Expand the length frequency sampling.

Important Considerations
•Minimize impacts to the recreational community
•Fair and balanced approach
•Maximize opportunities
•Manageable
•Understandable
•Enforceable
•Minimize cost to DFO and the Recreational Sector
Management Actions
There are 2 components to consider:

1.Allocation transfer mechanism

2.Regulatory actions:
–Time and Area
–Daily Limit
–Size limit considerations
Regulatory actions are considered below.
Time and Area (TA)
•Implement no fishing for halibut, rockfish and lingcod for 2008 in Area 121 outside of 12 nmonly (>12 nm) in effect all year
•Expand the e-licencingrestriction for non residents to include both Areas 121, 23 and 123.
•Rationale:
–To address the impacts of increasing effort by US charter operators fishing in CDN waters. This is exacerbated by the decreasing Canadian allocation.
Daily Limit (DL)
•Coastwideapplication.
•Reduce the daily limit from 2 to 1 halibut/day with a possession limit of 3.
•The reductions can be varied for different time periods, eg:
–Full year,
–July and August (peak season),
–May, June and September (shoulder months).

Size Limit (SL)
•Coastwideapplication.
•Implement a maximum size limit.
–In-effect all year as a condition of licencewhich can not be varied.
–Examples of possible maximum size limits:
•85 cm (12 lbs net wt, 16 lbs rd wt)
•90 cm (15 lbs net wt, 20 lbs rd wt)
•95 cm (18 lbs net wt, 24 lbs rd wt)

Analysis of Actions
•Regulatory actions can be implemented individually or as combinations.
•The following scenarios are explored:
–No allocation transfer,
–Two allocation transfer mechanisms looking at 100K and 200K lbs.
•Actions provided below fall within the target of achieving required savings (280K to 480K lbs).
Data Sources
•NeahBay –WDFW data from charter and non charter ( 4 years)
•L/F data from 2007 and from the 2006 JOT study
•Catch data from 2007
•Assumptions from 2007 catch data

Scenario 1 Savings of 480K lbs
(No fish through transfer mechanism)
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121(>12nm); and a coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for full season(480K lbs), or
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm); and a coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for July and August;
and a coastwide annual maximum size limit of 90cm (493K lbs), or
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm); and a coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for July and August;
and a coastwide annual maximum size limit of 95cm (460K lbs).

Scenario 2 Savings of 380K lbs
(100K lbs through a transfer mechanism )
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm); and a coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for July and August(360K lbs), or
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm);; and a daily limit of 1/day for May, June and September; and a coastwideannual maximum size limit of 85cm (366K lbs), or
•Coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for July and August; and a coastwideannual maximum size limit of 95cm (400K lbs).

Scenario 3 Savings of 280K lbs
(200K lbs through a transfer mechanism )
•Coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for July and August(300K lbs), or
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm); and a coastwideannual maximum size limit of 85cm (272K lbs), or
•Time and Area annual closure for Area 121 (>12nm); and a coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for May, June and September; and a coastwideannual maximum size limit of 90cm (287K lbs), or
•Coastwidedaily limit of 1/day for May, June and September; and a coastwideannual maximum size limit of 85cm (306K lbs).
Next Steps
•Delay opening date of recreational fishery to March 1
•Consultations
–Local SFAB committees with feedback to DFO by Jan 30,
–Groundfish/shellfish Working Group on Feb 1,
–MainboardSFAB on Feb 2-3
•Decision by senior managers
•Communication packages
•Future management options
–Coastal fish protection act
–Annual limit
–Over-under size limit
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY

[115 or bust]

Food for thought there! Doesn't really seem fair that there is a fleet of charterboats based in the US that comes up here every day fishing for big mature hali's and all they have to do is buy a fishing liscence. Don't know of any other business where you can go to another country and take resources for virtually nothing and put nothing into the community. These are all the current possible regulation changes that are being discussed right now. This is the dark side of having a carefully managed fishery I guess. Too bad they don't actually monitor the catch or have any clue how many fish we actually do or don't catch eh?

[Mr. Dean]

NONE of them proposals take into the account of the problems. All they are is a band-aid attempt of ensuring a commercal fishery/catch.

The sportie catch is squat, especialy the bigguns... Where is this fishery gonna be in 10 years if we don't call a horse,,, A HORSE and focus on the REAL issue's

Sorry,,, puke round 2

[Mr. Dean]

BTW,
I'm NOT completely sold on the idea that there is a problem. The study this is based on IS skewed and the #'s need to be re-worked.

[Browningmirage]

Mr Dean

What is the problem? I am for a sport closure (or limitation) as long as the same restrictions are placed on commercial. Do you have the study (and if so can you let me know where it is)

[Mr. Dean]

It's the matter of the non-residents take (non-Canadian Charter...), while fishing our waters. There catch is being lumped into ours.

It's an IPHC paper. I think you can find it on their site or maybe the SFAB


The size limit thing is bunk IMO.
How can you safely release a 100# Hali at the side of the boat?

The only way that I can think of is to cut it off.
Then you have a fish swiming around with a BIG-A$$'d stainless treble in its mouth (more likely throat).

IMO that fish SHOULD be consumed and not left to starve, only to become crab bait.

[Browningmirage]

It's the matter of the non-residents take (non-Canadian Charter...), while fishing our waters. There catch is being lumped into ours.

It's an IPHC paper. I think you can find it on their site or maybe the SFAB


The size limit thing is bunk IMO.
How can you safely release a 100# Hali at the side of the boat?

The only way that I can think of is to cut it off.
Then you have a fish swiming around with a BIG-A$$'d stainless treble in its mouth (more likely throat).

IMO that fish SHOULD be consumed and not left to starve, only to become crab bait.
I checked it out.

The non resident take sucks, but the key factor here is that they are taking halibut that reside in Canadian waters, so in reality, it doesnt matter who is taking it, all that matters is that it is being taken. Maybe the Canadian govt can put regulations to stop (or slow) this sort of thing, but that is highly unlikely.

As for releasing large halis, likely regulations will be put in place (as with salmon) to facilitate easy release, such as circle hooks, or whatever else, that will improve survival, and not result in a fish having a stainless steel hook stuck in their gut. i agree it sucks, but sometimes things need to be done.

If a size limit is not imposed, there is going to be an issue with people releasing all small halis to get a large one...get their moneys worth when you are only allowed one fish. That could be a negative consequence

[Krico]

WTF?

Admittedly I know very little about the halibut fishery, especially on the commercial side.

Why are the regulations to reduce TAC not focused solely on the US commercial boats?

More importantly, why are they allowed to fish in our waters in the first place?

Excuse me while I join Mr. Dean and puke.

If I am misinterpreting the information (which I hope I am) please inform me. If not, this sucks!

[Mr. Dean]

The non resident take sucks, but the key factor here is that they are taking halibut that reside in Canadian waters, so in reality, it doesnt matter who is taking it, all that matters is that it is being taken. Maybe the Canadian govt can put regulations to stop (or slow) this sort of thing, but that is highly unlikely.

All thats needed is to impose an annual limit on the non-resident license. Problem solved.


As for releasing large halis, likely regulations will be put in place (as with salmon) to facilitate easy release, such as circle hooks, or whatever else, that will improve survival, and not result in a fish having a stainless steel hook stuck in their gut. i agree it sucks, but sometimes things need to be done.

And Pandora's box opens... When will it end?
IMO we shoud be encouraging people to go out and fend for themselves, not hampering them.

If a size limit is not imposed, there is going to be an issue with people releasing all small halis to get a large one...get their moneys worth when you are only allowed one fish. That could be a negative consequence[/quote]

I don't believe for a nanno second that ANY size limits within the sport catch will amount to a meaningfull, conservational result. Remember, were talking about 12% of the TAC. Take a look at what comes off ONE longliner, that should give some perspective. LOTS and LOTS of big fish that fed on little fish while the lines have soaked.
Then look at Joe Average on the dock. He's lucky if he gets a bite, never mind a limit. Fishing the big one's takes serious effort and few are willing to put that out. That's why the charters 'look' good.

Access to this fishery is our right and nothing will budge me off that pedistal. If a shift in allocations is needed, then do it. Let the other countries screw up their fisheries over someone else's dinner.

Leave my dinner alone in the meantime.

[Gunner]

The #1 problem is with the allocation,12% of the TAC goes to recreational anglers?What crap!!:mad:Let the commercial boys take the cut,the recreational fishery brings in more money anyway(boats,tackle,guides,accomodation,fuel etc.) This is all about money,not conservation,and the commercial companies have a lot of pull with DFO.Will there be a size limit on the commercial boats?I don't think so ,they don't throw any back! Gunner

[Islandeer]

I am pulling a Gump on this till I cool down,,,,:twisted:

[115 or bust]

They are reducing both the commercial catch and the recreational catch and dispite the fact that the Neah bay boat issue is disgusting it doesn't cover the amount they want to reduce the fishery by. The thing is they don't ever actually check to see how much the recreational catch is. In 5 years of guiding I have never had a creel survey guy even ask me what I caught let alone the average fork length of my halibut. Also a relatively small group of guides who market large halibut charters take a disporportonately large segment of the catch. I've seen one of the local lodges in our area with 16 over 100lbs on the dock in one day! And it is rare for them not to come in with those kinds of numbers of 60+ lb fish every day all summer. We've all noticed a huge drop in the numbers of big halibut near the docks. The guys are still pulling them in but they are running 4 or 5 times as far to do what they used to do just a little ways out.

[Browningmirage]

Mr. Dean, i agree it is a crappy situation, but i dont think we should be beleiving that the govt will get off their asses to get this done.

[Mr. Dean]

Brownie,
We have non-resident boats being trailered all up and down this province, all summer long. In some marina's, they equal the # of visiting Canadian boats. This 'catch' isn't only limited to Swift Sure Bnk.

And:
Government will do WHATEVER the 'people' permit it to do. At the end of the day, THAT is the fact.


If anything, I'd sooner eat an annual limit than any of these proposals... If there's a true conservation concern.

Believe me; I've been looking HARD for supporting data on this for 2 days. So far, I haven't seen any hard figures that show any conservational issues with Canadian Waters. Mostly I've heard people making comments on what they feel or what they saw, not giving science/biology any credits.

2 years ago the IPHC through contract, had fish counters/measurers at Halibut tables everywhere, collecting data on sport caught fish (I made 9 entries). NONE of this data ever made it to the spreadsheets, because the commision 'broke' their end of the deal by refusing to pay its contractor. So the contractor withheld the info. Or so the story goes. tuh... Go figure.

I dunno if this ever got resolved. I followed the finger pointing up until late fall/early summer of last year. Then I basicly just threw my hands up in the air and said "screw it, time to go fishing... We'll figure this out later"

Later is NOW!

Anyways...... I find myself (again) waiting for responses to e-mails.
What are the rest of you doin?
Waiting for Government to do what they feel is in your best interest via the Guess-by-Golly Gosh Game?


Lipripper,
Rumour has it, you have a book-sized report that I'm looking for. How can I get a copy?

[Browningmirage]

Brownie,
We have non-resident boats being trailered all up and down this province, all summer long. In some marina's, they equal the # of visiting Canadian boats. This 'catch' isn't only limited to Swift Sure Bnk.

And:
Government will do WHATEVER the 'people' permit it to do. At the end of the day, THAT is the fact.


If anything, I'd sooner eat an annual limit than any of these proposals... If there's a true conservation concern.

Believe me; I've been looking HARD for supporting data on this for 2 days. So far, I haven't seen any hard figures that show any conservational issues with Canadian Waters. Mostly I've heard people making comments on what they feel or what they saw, not giving science/biology any credits.

2 years ago the IPHC through contract, had fish counters/measurers at Halibut tables everywhere, collecting data on sport caught fish (I made 9 entries). NONE of this data ever made it to the spreadsheets, because the commision 'broke' their end of the deal by refusing to pay its contractor. So the contractor withheld the info. Or so the story goes. tuh... Go figure.

I dunno if this ever got resolved. I followed the finger pointing up until late fall/early summer of last year. Then I basicly just threw my hands up in the air and said "screw it, time to go fishing... We'll figure this out later"

Later is NOW!

Anyways...... I find myself (again) waiting for responses to e-mails.
What are the rest of you doin?
Waiting for Government to do what they feel is in your best interest via the Guess-by-Golly Gosh Game?


Lipripper,
Rumour has it, you have a book-sized report that I'm looking for. How can I get a copy?

Deano
I live in Hardy, do you think i dont notice the influx of people in the summer? Do you really think i am that ignorant that i would fail to notice the full parking lot (with south of the border liscence plates), the clogged boat launches, the tonnes of fish offal that ends up by the fish cleaning tables at the QD? Really i am not

And hey noone has mentioned this yet, all these Americans, they bring in tourism money, if there is a cap on NR liscences, almost all that money would be gone. Do you think the govt is willing to do this? It is true that the people decide what the govt will do (in a perfect world), but we live in a non-perfect world where people are too lazy to get off their asses and do something about it. The people who do get up and say something are often too small a minority to do anything. I will personally support anything that can be done to make sure that halibut fishing is ecologically sustainable, but i doubt that very many people are going to get up and complain.

And on top of this, if people do complain, and it turns out that hey,they were wrong, there is a problem with halibut stocks, well then arent we just screwed right there. It happened on the North Coast last year that there was public outcry that a season wasnt long enough (that there was enough fish to support a longer opening), the pressure was hard enough that DFO gave in, and opened the season, and lo and behold, there was not enough fish to support the extended opening, and the run was smashed.

Give me population estimates (tell me where to find them) for the past 30 or so years. If i see that it is all just bogus, then sure, Ill hop on board the "open em up train", if not, then i am staying on the protect them train. Also, annual limit will be somewhere around 10 per person per year, thats great, lots of people dont catch that many in a year (no conservation effect there), but if the limit is one per person per day (3 possession), then the guide companies will be much limited in the amount of fish they can bring home in a trip (conservation effect there). A perosn on a guided trip will hardly ever catch his 10 a year quota, but guided charters bring in daily limits in flatties every single time they come in. By lowering the daily, i bet you are protecting much more than would be initially thought.

[Mr. Dean]

Brownie,
You're missing much of my point because of the Flat Screen Syndrome.

Ist: I'd like to see ALL that we have NOW, preserved. Charters, Tourists Resi's, Daily limits, possesion limits.... Everything - I know 1st hand what the consequences will be on local economies, dependant on the fishery.


BUT (pun intended) If I'm forced to only see my limit of three fish, reduced to being 3 foot maximum lenght... I will call the QD and cancel my slip the very next day after hearing the news. I traditionaly go up there for 2 weeks in the summer on holidays. Costs of this venture runs me around 5 grand total. No kidding... The bar bill alone is well over 2k, we dine out daily, marina and fuel is another duece granda (minimum), camping fee's... PLUS I spend ANOTHER 2,500 + on wages to cover me being away from here.

What can I say?
When I work, I works HARD.
When I play...... WATCH OUT! I have a lot of frustrations that need 'ironing'. :cool:

How many others out there like me?

The Hali attraction just would no longer be appealing, I can catch Salmon just fine at home and still enjoy "The Pleasures" of fishing, without leaving my house. Why bother making the trip if I don't have a hope of replacing that damn Marky Mark poster of the wife's, on the bedroom ceiling? :evil:

Your mention of a new 10 fish annual limit is interesting. This is the first I've heard of it and don't recall it being mentioned in any of the proposals that I've read. The only reading I have on annual limits, leaves it open for discussion, at a future date. Grey at best I think. And yes, I do believe that the charter boyz are goin to take it up the hoop BIG TIME as well as local economy's, if ANY of these proposals get passed.

Recent info that I have is that their "may" be a concern for a specific age group of Halibut.

Leaning on the Spotfishing sector expecting it to pick up the pieces, is futile at best, IMO. Just on the plain fact of the 12% 'we' take and the littler take, we take,,, when it comes to bigger fish. This is the pertinent info that was 'lost' within the commissions harvest stat's (what sporties DO take - see previous post).

Let's assume that 100% of our catch IS the age group of fish that they're hoping to conserve. Base this info on a reduced TAC (reduction is the only conservation measure for CF btw) and a 12% quota minus the age class.

How long will it take for that age class to recover, even if the optimum goal is a slight percentage (say the group in question is down 10%) with no further 'help' from CF STILL harvesting this group/class of fish?

IMO, it won't. the numbers wouldn't support it. Even if 100% of our 12% share was in fact, the fish they hope to conserve.

This is what leads me to believe that the propasals are bunk. We have a sustainable user group CRYING for more quota and another user group over harvesting, saying; "screw you. Not are we only living with a reduction of TAC, we want your fish as well in order to allow us to catch'em for a few more seasons" Where is the conservation then, what'll be the next step,,, ban sporties altogether???

Look at the IPHC web-site and scrounge. good luck if you're on dial-up, the PDF's are massive. A friend of mine say's that the section on lost longline data is more than intersting and that the wasted part of the fishery is HUGE.

Then start crunching the #'s
See ya in 5 or so days! :lol:

Also check out SFBC. A lot of the newer info I get is comming from there, from sources I trust.

[Mr. Dean]

Here's a little history and pretty much where I left the hali politics, last year:


SEP 4 2007

Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans
Ministre des
P6ches et-des Oc6ans
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0E6

Mr. Wilf Pfleiderer
President
BC Wildlife Federation
1 01 -3060 Norland Avenue
Burnaby, British Columbia
VsB 3A6

Dear Mr. Pfleiderer:

Thank for your letter concerning sharing arrangements between the recreational and commercial fisheries for Pacific halibut. I regret the delay in responding.

This past spring, commercial sector representatives raised concerns regarding the department's commitment to the 88:12 halibut allocation framework, the accuracy of recreational halibut statistics, and how overages in the recreational harvest will be addressed.

Recreational sector representatives have expressed concerns that the reported
Canadian recreational halibut harvest is overestimated, that a large portion of the Canadian recreational harvest of halibut is taken by US charter boats operating out of Neah Bay, Washington, and that implementing the halibut transfer mechanism is affected by the lack of a legal entity to hold recreational halibut quota.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to implementing the halibut allocation framework fully, including the 88:12 allocation and a market-based mechanism to enable the transfer of halibut quota between the sectors, This framework provides stability for the commercial sector and allows for future growth of the recreational sector. That said, we are working closely with recreational and commercial sector representatives to improve the accuracy of the recreational catch statistics, to define what will happen if an overage occurs, and to establish a mechanism to transfer halibut from one sector to another.

It is essential that the Sport Fishing Advisory Board and the Pacific Halibut
Management Association representatives collaborate on developing plans for the 2008 season and beyond. The department is currently working with representatives of both groups to facilitate the full implementation of the Pacific halibut allocation policy.

A more structured process will be established in September 2007 to foster collaboration on issues associated with the full implementation of the halibut allocation policy that directly involves both sectors and the department. This will include the appointment of an external, independent chair.

I acknowledge that this is a difficult issue and that the two sectors have strongly held and widely divergent views. Otherwise, it would have been resolved some time ago.

However, I believe that any lasting solution must be one that is achieved through mutual agreement, with the clear understanding that our objective to respecthe policy decision of this department is firm.

I appreciate your views on this matter, and would like to assure you that the
department will be working collaboratively with both recreational and commercial interests to move forward in developing a lasting and effective solution that can be supported by all.



Sincerely,
Loyola Hearn, P.C, M.P.
c.c.: Mr, Randy Kamp, M.P.
Its basiclty a "Blow it up your arse" letter from gov - the BCWF...

I walked away with this piece of the letter;


This framework provides stability for the commercial sector and allows for future growth of the recreational sector.
... figuring that all was well and nothing would be comming down the pipe.
I fail to see where the growth IS for the Sport Fishery, in these above outlined propasals.

[Mr. Dean]

I learned another neat little tid-bit of the comercial fishery...The minimum size limit is 81cm.

They're wanting us to fish only thier left-overs???


The more I read, the more I believe,,, its ALL about choking the competition.

[Browningmirage]

Hey Deano

No time really for all that much research, i am in the middle of midterm season and hey, just when they end they start again...stupid.

Anyways, the annual limit that i posted (10) was theoretical, i was in a hurry, i was just trying to illustrate a point that there would be no real conservation effect from an annual limit.

Also, after crunching just the alotment, from last year sits us at 1.5 million total catch of 12 million total pounds. That means that hey, conservation effect will be small (miniscule), we would have to be completely closed, and even then, it wouldnt fully make our quota. i agree that we should be thinking more about commercial closures, and now to bring something else in that is rarely talked about, what about Native food fisheries? Are they going to take a hit as well?

As for minimum size limit for Halis, thats utter bullsh**, why should they be allowed only the larger fish, and leave all the little ones (maybe it has something to do with volume). Even so, 81cm is pretty small, most halis will come in over that.

I think we are on the same side, jus different ways of looking at it. Heres a final question, was the IPHC quota actually achievable in previous years (in NFLD, they set quotas that were unachievable, futhering the decline of cod)

[Mr. Dean]

Brownie,
THANK YOU for taking the time in reading my long winded posts!
By all means, please don't quit, I have another for ya.



No time really for all that much research,To bad... I have been, and was hoping you could also, just so that you understood that I wasn't blowing farts into the wind.

The site is VAST and it's a bitch of a site for a guy on dial-up. Half or better of the data is in PDF form. Some of the smaller doc's I can get into and some of the other stuff is available in HTML AND its an extremely DRY read. Also, I can't seem to cut-n-paste from the site (???)



Anyways, the annual limit that i posted (10) was theoretical, i was in a hurry, i was just trying to illustrate a point that there would be no real conservation effect from an annual limit.Understood.
The point I was trying to convey back, was the fact that if DFO decided that as a conservational measure, closed the Sport Fishery 100%,,, it would have little effect on this supposed concern. And that if they were wanting to 'look good', an annual limit would be a better place to start. People would still be able to make a living, local business's could remain open.... And the fish would still go down the toilet - IF there was a TRUE conservation concern, we wouldn't be able to turn it around, just by ourselves.



Also, after crunching just the alotment, from last year sits us at 1.5 million total catch of 12 million total pounds. That means that hey, conservation effect will be small (miniscule), we would have to be completely closedNow yur gettin it!



what about Native food fisheries? Are they going to take a hit as well?The TAC reduction was across the board. I'm not sure where their quota lies or what rules they follow. IIRC, the 'food' fishery is shared within the Sport Fishery allocations. AT the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. 1st Nations have privileged rights. DFO see's "us" as an easier target.



As for minimum size limit for Halis, thats utter bullsh**, why should they be allowed only the larger fish, and leave all the little ones (maybe it has something to do with volume). Even so, 81cm is pretty small, most halis will come in over that.My point exactly!
Just exactly who is responsible for this age class of fish being over-utilized/harvested?
The rationale is that these smaller fish haven't spawned yet, therefore haven't contributed to the biomas.


Hey, I learned another f'n good one:

- DFO wants the TAC achieved!
If the sporties don't take it, guess what?

It'll go to the comercials!
Doesn't matter about being a sustainable fisherman any longer(taking 1 fish when/if allowed 3). What you electively decided NOT to harvest, won't live to see another day!


And with that;
Where in the HELL are these proposals about conservation then???


That question brings me back to this:


That means that hey, conservation effect will be small (miniscule), we would have to be completely closed,I believe that's what the DFO is trying to do with these rediculous/absurd changes. Regulate/restrict us to death in efforts of reducing participants, therefore not achiving quota, so fish-boats that arent catching Salmon any longer, can go fish 'something', then pave the road for more Salmon farms.


Or did I see too many episodes of The X Files......?



I think we are on the same side, jus different ways of looking at it. Heres a final question, was the IPHC quota actually achievable in previous yearsYes, TAC has been historicly achived. All data shows a sustainable fishery. For several years, the comercial sector has been wanting increased allotments (notice the price of hali meat lately?). I do believe that DFO is doing a fine job at keeping things in check, when it comes to the fish stocks in general.

This age group of fish that is slightly low, has a couple of age groups behind it that are overly abundant. If were careful (note reduction of TAC) things should be fine. This current dilema were faced with is; who's flexing the biggest muscle, and market demands around the globe.

And I believe that the data I've posted of (albeit burried and hard to find), reflects this. If there's ANY doubt, just ask a comercial opperator to live/fish by the same proposed rules, and see where that conversation goes!


Again, I sincerely thank you for the time spent.
It would be nice to go fish'n sometime. :smile:

[Mr. Dean]

For the record:

I have nothing but empathy for a comercial fisherman.
The feelings I harbour for my fishery, surely IS miniscule when compared with theirs.

That I know for certain.


My gripe is 100% DFO.

[Islandeer]

MD,go to bed!!:lol::lol:

[Islandeer]

MD,go to bed!!:lol::lol: The Fed's would like to get rid of us sportfishers all together.:roll::roll:

[Browningmirage]

For the record:

I have nothing but empathy for a comercial fisherman.
The feelings I harbour for my fishery, surely IS miniscule when compared with theirs.

That I know for certain.


My gripe is 100% DFO.


Even so, DFO goes to the loudest complainer, this at least has been seen in past (an unsustainable fishery in Prince Rupert because of complaints from both commercial and sport a couple of years ago).

As for commercial, really, the fraction of 2 million pounds that they are going to be required to cut, over the entire B.C. fleet, it might sting a bit, but in reality, I cant see it being that brutal, they will still make pretty decent money.

I had an experience with Roe on Kelp fisheries where fishermen were pissed off because the prices had been cut, but they were still going to be hauling in enough money to live for a year (in a matter of days to a couple of weeks).

Its a matter of how much do you actually need to make, and how badly do you want to keep having that source of income. I agree that it could hurt, but if our quota is cut again next year, then things will really start hurting for everyone involved.

[Mr. Dean]

Good Evening Devona and Chuck,



Please consider my personal response and comments regarding the Halibut options provided, as well as approx. 10 separate responses from members of our local Tofino-Ucluelet SFAC committee. These will be forwarded to you separately following this e-mail.



First and foremost, I have deliberated in length to which proposed scenario would best serve the broad interests of the recreational fishing community, as well as citizens of Canada.

I consider the fact that the conundrum we face is not based on conservation concerns, but is due to a sectoral allocation which we have adamantly disputed as a Canadian common property resource, turned beneficial commodity. I don't need to remind you that the benefits are currently not pointing to the Recreational Sector in this allocation based mechanism.



I can not find a suitable solution to the issues at hand, based on the provided options alone. My recommended approach to DFO for Short and Long term solutions are;



Neah Bay Fishery;

To be forced into the allocation process and growth cap to our popular and economically beneficial Canadian Halibut fishery is one step that our sector has had to adapt. To witness an illegal, non-resident fishery extract a percentage of our allocation, it seems logical that this issue should receive priority focus by DFO. I try to understand the political challenges, but the fact is we are witnessing Canadian Halibut being "stolen" while we watch.

Consider if you were a Car Dealership, and your neighbouring Car Dealership came over and took about 20% of your vehicles to sell on their own lot, while you watched-with no compensation. Unfortunately those were the only cars made for that year, and the local law enforcement were already too busy with people stealing hubcaps...........I'm sure you understand.



On-Line License sales are a start, and potentially a way to decrease a fair portion. Adding area 1-23 to the existing area 1-21 exclusion is important.

Area 1-21 closure outside 12nm may be necessary as a pilot to assess the decrease of Neah Bay Fleet. Understanding that this fleet also fishes 1-23, temporary closure of the main accessible area of 1-21 should provide a message to this fleet, along with changes to the on-line licenses, that Canada is not welcoming this illegal activity. To date, it has been far too easy for them, but this will not work alone. Increased enforcement will have to be juxtaposed with these new measures to get the message across.



I am not an advocate for requesting decreased access for Canadians that fish area 1-21, but this is not unlike what we have lived with in Clayoquot for some time. We have had to face measures in a terminal area that are unlike other areas. Ideally this would not be a long term closure if DFO/IHPC/WSFG deal with this accordingly.



Transfer Mechanism

Aside from focus on stopping the Neah Bay fishery, the potential transfer of allocation should be exercised if at all possible, and that DFO should utilize existing funds held in trust by the PHMA to acquire quota for the recreational sector in 2008.





Size Limits

I do not agree or support any of the options regarding the listed maximum size limits, as I question the legitimacy of these size limits being beneficial to the health of the overall biomass. Understandable that these were factored in the absence of quota transfer and unknowns of decrease in the Neah Bay fleet, but a maximum size limit of such small proportion is not the answer. Numerous scenarios, that include increased release mortality, and degradation in the global sportfishing market are probable.

Consider that you are planning a fishing trip somewhere in North America prior to attending the 2010 Olympics. You peruse the Web, and collect copies of various Sport Fishing magazines like "B.C. Outdoors", "Island Fisherman" and "Fishing Alaska" It doesn't take long to consider which destination might fulfill the fish of your dreams.....The British Columbia angler is proudly displaying his maximum size Chicken Halibut of a whopping 18lbs. The front cover of "Fishing Alaska" shows Halibut in the 70 lb. range. Though this is not an outrageously large Halibut, it easily helps the travelling angler with his choice.............



Possession/Daily Limits

I am adamant that the only option to consider at this time, is the temporary reduction in possession from 3 to 2 Halibut, with a daily limit remaining at 2 per day. Keeping the size limit the same will still achieve the desired temporary decrease in catch, combined with decrease of Neah Bay fishery and/or Transfer of Quota.

We have been told that a change in the possession limit would require 2-3 years. I have confidence that there is a way to make it happen if there is a will within the department and Ottawa to facilitate the change.

The Tofino area is an example of challenges to the Size limit and daily limit combined. We are currently fortunate to have a consistent mixed size Halibut fishery, within a very safe and fuel efficient distance of our coastline. Often this happens within 1-3 miles of Lennard Island Lighthouse, with very few Halibut in the proposed max size of 85-90cm. If anglers are not fortunate to find a legal Halibut in this area, they can then choose to travel approx. 12-16 miles further offshore to known Chicken Halibut areas to fish for their 1 (18-20 lb) Halibut per person. The Juice isn't worth the squeeze!!!







In Conclusion; Facilitate Allocation Transfer, Neah Bay Decrease, Change on-line Lic. sales, No Max. Size Limit, Temporary 2 possession Limit



Thank You for your time and efforts in helping with this process, and the favourable outcome.







Jason Mohl



Chairman Tofino-Ucluelet SFAC

Chairman Tofino Harbour Authority

Director SFI of B.C.

Clayoquot Ventures Guide Service ltd.
Clayoquot Vista Guesthouse
Jay's Fly & Tackle

[Mr. Dean]

30th January 2008


Response to DFO on proposed Halibut Management Measures:



Communication with Victoria SFAB Constituents:

In the past five days I have fielded a large number of telephone calls from angry and upset anglers, concerned about the potential of restrictive halibut management regulations being implemented this season. I have also met in person with several key local committee members. It should also be noted that I have received and forwarded over seventeen email responses to DFO from concerned constituents in my community. The majority of all of these responses do not look favourably on ANY of DFO’s proposed scenarios.

Also I find the last minute eleventh-hour rush attempt to seek advice from the recreational angling community on halibut most egregious.


Our Intolerable Position is Not Related to Conservation:

I, as do many of my constituents, hold a very negative opinion about the recreational sector being placed under any additional halibut angling management restrictions by DFO when there is NO conservation concern.

This whole halibut allocation situation forced upon us by the DFO and the government has been a farce from the start in 2003, when then Minister Thibault implemented a 12% recreational allocation ceiling and suggested the recreational sector would have to secure additional halibut quota on an open market.

At the spring 2007 Main Board SFAB meeting the RDG explained to the delegates that no in-season measures during 2007 would be taken and the department would work with the recreational sector to resolve the allocation issue. Yet another full year has passed and our sector is again placed in an intolerable position at the eleventh hour. Why has the Department spent yet another whole year and has still not secured the necessary quota for the recreational sector?

Witnessing how the events and circumstances have changed for the recreational sector since 2003 and hearing from the Minister and the department how positive the 12% allocation ceiling was for our sector, makes me now seriously question why in only FOUR SHORT YEARS our sector has arrived at the point where restrictive measures will be placed on our fishery. I personally believe that this serves to prove what the SFAB has always maintained that percentages of TAC, forced allocation quotas and market-based transfers do not work for our sector.


Why the DFO Presented Scenarios DO not Work:

While each scenario presented by DFO may provide a “savings” of halibut poundage caught over the course of a year, each measure has significant pitfalls or harms specific groups within the halibut fishing community.

SIZE LIMIT - Implementing a halibut size limit will result in significant halibut mortality and will also be a safety concern. This is not an acceptable regulation change.

LOCAL AREA CLOSURES – closing one specific area over another area only serves to harms the local angling community in the area where the closure is established and makes this a very unfair method of reducing catch where no conservation concern has been identified.

MEASURES THAT USE TIMING – the fishing for halibut in Area 19, 20 and off Swiftsure Bank (accessed by many by Victoria area anglers and guides in the summer) have completely different timing focuses. Choosing to utilize regulatory management measures bounded by time will again only serve to penalize and hurt one group that fishes over another.

DAILY BAG LIMIT CHANGES – reducing the daily catch limit to (1) halibut per day will serious harm the healthy guided fishing business off Swiftsure Bank and reduce business revenue in Port Renfrew as fewer anglers will venture there. The halibut from Swiftsure are generally small (chickens) and the cost involved to access the offshore bank are high.


Response to DFO on the presented Halibut Management Scenarios:

As a chair of the local SFAB committee with many constituents (both primary and secondary) and a local angling community of 7.000 anglers in the greater Victoria area (CRD), I am not willing to suggest or choose any of the department’s scenarios as presented. There is very simple reason for this. I cannot with a clean conscience recommend any scenario that favours one group within the recreational halibut community that I represent over another. The Department’s request places me, as chair, in a very intolerable and awkward position. By providing any preference to a single scenario will only serve to divide the sub-groups within my diverse angling community. I cannot and will not be party to dividing my constituents amongst themselves. They deserve better of me.

Please also be clear I would be, as I am sure my many constituents agree, most angry if the department touted any new restrictive regulations as having received the approval or acceptance of the Victoria SFAB Committee.

American Halibut Charters in Canadian Waters:

Allowing American fishing charters to enter Canadian waters with non-resident alien anglers on Canadian Halibut when Canadians will now face restriction is totally unacceptable.


What the Victoria SFAB Committee Can And Do Recommend:

The long-term successful management of coast-wide recreational halibut fishery has to include the ability for the fishery to be vibrant and provide opportunity for reasonable future growth when there is no conservation concern.

The department must:

Immediately stop American fishing charter operators catching Canadian halibut in Canadian waters.

Immediately introduce a change of regulations to amend the possession limit of halibut from the current (3) three total possession to a reduced (2) two total possession

This will (or in combination with a small halibut quota transfer) provide the immediate reduction in total recreational halibut catch to meet the 2008 poundage targets of the 12% forced allocation.

The department can in future also:

Institute a license where the annual number of halibut a license holder can catch be capped at 20 fish

If the department seeks to rebuild confidence and trust with its client groups, there must be a commitment to consult effectively on any proposed regulatory changes with the client groups. I received a firestorm of complaints about the unexpected “delayed season opening” for halibut, because many local Victoria anglers are negatively and /or financially damaged by this department action that received no consultation.

Finally, the department has to address and resolve the halibut allocation transfer issue in a timely manner. This matter has been in the department’s hands for four years since November 2003. Many anglers in area 19 and 20 rely on certainty of opportunity when planning their holidays, booking their clients trips or budgeting for their business. Our local recreational fishery puts millions of dollars into the regional economy and provides hundreds and hundreds of better paying jobs. It is really not acceptable when the national economy is poised to slow down, the US/Cdn dollar value has changed significantly and there is no halibut conservation concern, to further harm the many individuals who rely on recreational fishing for a living.


Respectfully Submitted,


Christopher Bos
Victoria Committee Chair
Sport Fishing Advisory Board

[Tuffcity]

Two good letters.


To witness an illegal, non-resident fishery

I know Jay but the fishery is not illegal. All a nonresident has to do is cross into Canada and buy a licence and they're good to go- same as if a Canadian bought a Washington state licence. They can't fish hali's on an e-licence though.

I don't think the chartering issue outside the 12 mile falls under the DFO ability to do anything about as that would be an employment related thing looked after by Customs & Immigration (?). The only impact DFO could have on that is a total closure outside 12 miles- that would kick the crap out of the Bamfield/Ukee fishery.

RC

[Mr. Dean]

WTF?

Admittedly I know very little about the halibut fishery, especially on the commercial side.

Why are the regulations to reduce TAC not focused solely on the US commercial boats?

More importantly, why are they allowed to fish in our waters in the first place?

Excuse me while I join Mr. Dean and puke.

If I am misinterpreting the information (which I hope I am) please inform me. If not, this sucks!

Sorry Krico, I missed your post.

How the TAC reduction came about, I'm not sure at this point. My thinking is is that Hali's migrate. Fish that have been tagged in Ore, CA., have been caught in Alaska. Maybe Canada took the 'hit' simply because we're in the middle(?).

I'm also not sure if US comercials fish our waters... Their charter boats do, and so far seem encouraged to do so for the simple fact that DFO seemingly doesn't care. Which to me is weird, to say the least.


http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom/Default.htm

... Just in case you want to try and look it up.

[Mr. Dean]

To: Chuck Ashcroft
Chair SFAB Groundfish Shellfish Committee
chuckashcroft@telus.net

Re: Recreational Halibut Proposals 2008



Dear Sir;

Please read this bearing in mind that my family and I are Recreational Halibut fishing enthusiasts. Among us, we annually buy 2 sport-fishing (tidal) licenses. Halibut fishing is one of our dearest pastimes. This fishery is second to none other, in our opinion. My experience fishing for halibut is approximately that of 10 years.


I have recently received/viewed the three proposals concerning this fishery and immediately went on an information quest, seeking the need for these “necessary” changes. At a glance, these proposals would have it appear that this fishery is in dire straights of some serious conservation. Not withstanding the opinions of others, I also dove into the IPHC website for the better of the past three days. WOW! Is an appropriate term, in regards to what I have learned.

From the research that I’ve undertaken, it is crystal clear too me that there is absolutely no concern with fish stocks, especially when the reduced TAC is factored in. The only reason that I can surmise the need of such a drastic change within ‘my’ fishery is, it would appear that DFO would like to see the Halibut Sport Fishery either extremely reduced, or possibly shut down all together, in attempt of permitting the commercial fishery to prosper.

It is of my judgment, that if any of these proposals make it to regulation, it’ll surely be not only the demise of my beloved pastime, but some local economies as well.

Reason being is fairly simple. These proposals are extremely harsh in regards of both fish limits and size restrictions. Any one of the three proposals will undoubtedly cause a large decline of participants. As participation slumps, the remaining allocation will then transfer to the commercial fishery. DFO’s mandate is to achieve TAC. If the sport-fisher doesn’t demonstrate the need via catching, then it’ll go where it is needed.

One of, if not the reason we Halibut fish, is the fact that one day we could go out and hook into the Mother of all halibut’s. I further believe that the Sport Fishery is mainly comprised of similar individuals. If the allure of this happening is taken away, I just can’t come up with reason to stay actively involved.

While Halibut flesh is one of the finest dining options available, it can be had for much cheaper than it is to “rig-up” for access too this fishery; via a trip to the local supermarket.

Aside from the hard fixed costs (boat, gear, tow vehicle…), our family put out the additional costs of approximately five thousand dollars, in order to access halibut on the northern portions of Vancouver Island, for a period of about 2 weeks, last summer. These costs would include; meals and accommodation, marina fees, boat gas, ferry fee’s, fuel for tow vehicle, bait, repairs, etc. Yes! Fishing for Halibut is very expensive.

Other than a couple tanks of diesel for the pick-up and ferry costs, the remaining balance of monies was directly injected into the economy of Port Hardy, with several business types that cater to the fishery, benefiting. It wouldn’t just be the angler that got hurt, there’s a huge ‘trickle effect’ that also needs to be accounted for.


One also needs to look at the ethics and safety of releasing mature fish.

It has been my experience that these larger fish have a tendency to ‘gulp’ the baits. This results with fish being hooked deep within their throat, or even in their stomachs. I am of the opinion that the only safe way of releasing any halibut of ‘size’ (over 35 pounds), would be to cut it off. Bearing this information to mind; what kind of mortality rate would DFO find acceptable?

In closing, I would also like to add that as a Canadian, it is of my belief that I do have inherent rights to fish. For DFO to unjustifiably make propositions of restricting my rights (with regards to the Recreational Halibut Fishery), which carry no conservational merit in the least, both perplexes and offends me. Not to mention it being an infringement.


How rude!


Bets of wishes and good luck!



PS.
Please feel free to use this letter as may be deemed necessary.

[Mr. Dean]

The board is meeting on the 3rd of Feb. THIS COMMING MONDAY!

It would be nice to have a few standing in your corner, when its time to drop the gloves.

Write a letter!

[Browningmirage]

If i could get down there i would

Deano, like the letter. Well have to get in touch when you come up...

[srupp]

HMMM my twin brother is a professional guide for salmon and halibut and we have fished recreationally for 30 years...some ideas

1) a 30 # salmon is worth $1 to the economy when caught by a native fisherman..this same salmon is worth $30 when caught by comercial fisherman.. and $300 when caught by a recreational sportsfisherman...the same sort of #'s are appropriate when considering halibut .

2) a person only needs to look south at the restrictive regulations concerning CANADIAN sportsfishing individuals wanting to fish south of the border..we are GIVING away our resources and penalizing our residents..

3) take the difference from the comercial fleet and retain the sportsfishing opportunities..with ONE EXCEPTION..impose maximum size limits on keeper halibut..30#s or so..no 200 #ers need be taken for "food"

steven

[Mr. Dean]

HMMM my twin brother is a professional guide for salmon and halibut and we have fished recreationally for 30 years...some ideas

1) a 30 # salmon is worth $1 to the economy when caught by a native fisherman..this same salmon is worth $30 when caught by comercial fisherman.. and $300 when caught by a recreational sportsfisherman...the same sort of #'s are appropriate when considering halibut .

2) a person only needs to look south at the restrictive regulations concerning CANADIAN sportsfishing individuals wanting to fish south of the border..we are GIVING away our resources and penalizing our residents..

3) take the difference from the comercial fleet and retain the sportsfishing opportunities..with ONE EXCEPTION..impose maximum size limits on keeper halibut..30#s or so..no 200 #ers need be taken for "food"

steven

Not understanding your rationale on point 3 Steven (200 pound fish),
It kinda reminds me of people saying no hunting for animals x,y,z.

Of my limited Hali-fishing, I can honestly say that I've had the pleasure of hooking into 2 fish of aproximately this size. One broke off and the other slipped the hook, just a few feet below the surface.

That sucked. :roll:

Both fish were caught in spots that the average angler wouldn't dare venture, on patches/structure that most couldn't be bothered with, ie; touch it just once, and you'll soon find that you're no longer fishing. :sad: :lol:

[Browningmirage]

Srupp

Instead of an absolute no no on the size limit, what about a limit on the number of fish you can take over a certain size...like 1 out of the possession limit of 3 can be above say 60 or 70lbs. I like hali fishing because of the chance of a big one (and alot of people i have talked to has said that big hali tastes like little hali). And yes, the biggest ones seem to be on the rocks...so many people dont fish the rocks because they hate the snags, if they did, im sure the big halibut numbers taken would be a tonne higher.

[tomahawk]

HMMM my twin brother is a professional guide for salmon and halibut and we have fished recreationally for 30 years...some ideas

1) a 30 # salmon is worth $1 to the economy when caught by a native fisherman..this same salmon is worth $30 when caught by comercial fisherman.. and $300 when caught by a recreational sportsfisherman...the same sort of #'s are appropriate when considering halibut .

2) a person only needs to look south at the restrictive regulations concerning CANADIAN sportsfishing individuals wanting to fish south of the border..we are GIVING away our resources and penalizing our residents..

3) take the difference from the comercial fleet and retain the sportsfishing opportunities..with ONE EXCEPTION..impose maximum size limits on keeper halibut..30#s or so..no 200 #ers need be taken for "food"

steven

Couldn't agree more, although a 40 lber would be more in line with my thinking. We definitely don't need to keep any of the large females, cull the good eating little ones and let the breed stock do its thing.
I have had some hali from a 110 lber that I helped a guy with out at Weigh West and the flakes are 1/2 inch thick and are not as good eating IMO as the chickens. Take a picture beside the boat with a net or something for size reference and let her go.

[Browningmirage]

You know, you cull all the good eating little ones, and sure, the large females will do their part...until the up and coming breeding stock (the ones you are culling) dont show up...because you culled them off. It has been done previously, many fisheries have collapsed because of this.

On top of that, it takes five twenty point fish to get the 100lb equivelant, so your taking more halis out of the picture by doing this, not to mention, after one 100lber, many people are content to call it a season, or target other species. After five 20lbers, most people still have to keep going.

[Mr. Dean]

If there was a conservation issue, I'd be the 1st on board.

I electively choose not to fish for Steelhead or Sturgeon. Others do, and thats fine. I'm not one for closing down either fishery. I just don't get enjoyment out of 'sport' fishing (catch & release). Unless I can chomp it down, there's no point of pulling out a rod.



On top of that, it takes five twenty point fish to get the 100lb equivelant, so your taking more halis out of the picture by doing this, not to mention, after one 100lber, many people are content to call it a season

Exactly how we go about it.
There is merit to the number of lives that is lost. Again, this is a personal choice and the fishery is capable of supporting the recreational anglers decisions on this. Stocks are healthy.

Much of this debate is reminicent of the public plea's to shut down the Grizzly hunt...



Take a picture beside the boat with a net or something for size reference and let her go.

You have done this?


The only wierd tasting hali I had was a chicken that was chalked. Other than the bigger ones 'chewing' differently, they all have tasted the same.
About the only thing one can do to ruin ANY hali, is to over cook it imo.

[tomahawk]

I actually missed this. Have you been Hali fishing? If so, then you know that a 30lb hali pretty much fills up (and trashes) any sportie net on the market, now lets try putting a 100+ hali in a net...i cant see it being pretty.

Best read the quote again so you know what it says, obviously the hali ain't goin in the net, but like many pictures if there is nothing in it for a reference to determine size, it mostly looks smaller. So what I was saying is that you need to have something in the picture, next to the hali to show how large it is.



You know, you cull all the good eating little ones, and sure, the large females will do their part...until the up and coming breeding stock (the ones you are culling) dont show up...because you culled them off. It has been done previously, many fisheries have collapsed because of this.


Recreational fiheries for small hali's will not be culled to the point of disaster when there is a limit of possession in place.

I don't fish or hunt for the trophy, if I get a good big one, so be it and I will be proud of it but like my signature says, their all steaks, roasts and burger to me. And fish are canning, smoking, pickling and fillets to me.

[Browningmirage]

Deano

Just heard some news through the commercial grapevine (they arent very happy). Sounds like a 22% reduction in the total quota for commercial fishermen, and a minor decrease in sport limits. 22% should more than cover for the IPHC decreased quota, and from what i have seen of the Sport fishing changes, they dont look too horrid...

[Mr. Dean]

TAC reduction was/is applied across the board. Everyone absorbed the 'hit' equally. IIRC it was 21.5% reduction, new for this season.

What your hearing is a misconception of the truth, from someone that hasn't taken the time in researching the facts, me thinks. ;)

From what I have been able to sort out, the TAC reduction was a conservation measure that addresses the stock of certain age classes of fish AND information on Hali migrations. (BRAVO!)

Where most seem stumble to though; sporties are recently over catching their quota. By doing so, the recreational sector has demonstrated a need for more. Several years ago, unused quoata was reallocated from the RF to the CF.

We just want it back.


While the proposals DO model the transfer of fish, they do so in such a twisted fashion that would only benefit the user group that its being taken away from, in a very short time (DFO brain-fart).

Remember, if guotas arent achieved, they'll transfer back. these proposals/restrictions will only ensure the demise of the sport fishery as we see it today... There is no question in my mind on that. We're already seeing its effects with cancellations of booked trips, due to the surprised 1 month closure of the fishery to permit time for 'talks'.

Again Brownie, this issue is seperate and apart from any conservational concern. It's about entitlement and the erosion of Canadian Birth Rights.

[sub urban bow hunter]

I would suggest a halibut stamp system similar to the salmon stamp.

If you want to fish halibut you buy the stamp(~$5?), all proceeds from hali stamp sales go toward buying public rec quota back from Jimi Patterson and the other commercial fleet owners.

I also think the 2 posession and 2 limit is the way to go.

What do you guys think about the stamp idea? would you support it?

[Mr. Dean]

Well sub urban.... there's this thing of why should a Canadian taxpayer need to buy what he/she already owns? The fish are public property.

Some would say that to settle for less, would be an erosion of the publics rights.

[Browningmirage]

Stamp would be great, but i agree with Deano, why should we need to buy it back when it is already ours. Salmon stamps go to habitat restoration

Maybe if it wasnt so hard to do habitat enhancement in the deep blue sea, the money could go towards that, but it has proven to be extremely difficult to do so.

[Mr. Dean]

Well, here it is;


Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Fin Fish (Other than Salmon)

Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Subject: FN0077-Halibut: All Tidal Waters - Further to FN0044 - Changes to the Recreational Fishery

Further to Fishery Notice FN0044:

In order to manage within domestic halibut allocations, the following changes
will be implemented in the 2008 recreational fishery:

Coastwide
---------

March 1 to 31: Daily limit of one. Possession limit of 3.
April 1 to May 31: Daily limit of one. Possession limit of 2.
June 1 to Dec 31: Daily limit of two. Possession limit of 2.

Areas 121, 23 and 123
---------------------

April 1 to Dec 31:

• No person shall fish for or retain halibut, rockfish and lingcod in that
portion of Area 121 seaward of a line that begins at 48 degrees 34.000 minutes
north latitude and 125 degrees 17.386 minutes west longitude and continues
southeasterly at a bearing of 116 degrees true to a point at 48 degrees 28.327
minutes north latitude and 125 degrees 01.687 minutes west longitude. [12
nautical mile limit]

April 1/08 to March 31/09:

• Electronic licence conditions will be expanded as follows:
"no person who is not a Canadian resident may fish for or retain halibut under
this licence in Areas 121, 23 and 123."


Variation Order Nos 2008-80 (close time) and 2008-81 (quota).


FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Bill Shaw 250-756-7152 and Gary Logan 604-666-9033

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Operations Center - FN0077
Sent February 21, 2008 at 14:01
Visit us on the Web at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca


Some GOOD... Some NOT so good.
Sell out/hush up decision IMO.

I get to go fishing this year, but it a slippery slope me thinks.

[tomahawk]

Thanks for keeping us up to date Mr Dean.

Like you say that does have some good and not so good but overall its better than what I had thought it was going to be. I like the ruling on Canadian.

[Mr. Dean]

The spin-offs of this decision will only benifit a commercial interest of one shape or form, and tighten the noose around our necks.

[Johnnybear]

Maybe if it wasnt so hard to do habitat enhancement in the deep blue sea, the money could go towards that, but it has proven to be extremely difficult to do so.[/quote]

It's not hard to promote habitat enhancement in the deep blue sea. Stop dragging the bottom!!!! I don't see a problem with a stamp for halibut for the sporties if the money goes towards habitat enhancement. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

[Browningmirage]

It's not hard to promote habitat enhancement in the deep blue sea. Stop dragging the bottom!!!! I don't see a problem with a stamp for halibut for the sporties if the money goes towards habitat enhancement. Why would anyone have a problem with this?


thats not habitat enhancement...thats habitat protection. Oh hey people have been trying to stop this rape of the oceans for decades now, and look nothing has been happening about it.

The suggestion was for the stamp money to buying quota back from the commercial sector, which is bogus as Mr.Dean said, as it is a Canadian resource, why should we have to buy it back?

Habitat enhancement is in actuality very hard to perform in the deep blue, read the DFO habitat management framework. Conservation is the answer, its just a matter that, like i said before, the rape of the oceans will not stop. Look at salmon stocks for a second and tell me that things are being done in a sustainable manner. Fraser river stocks are all at risk, Broughton Archipelago is down the crapper, lingcod and rockfish are still having a hell of a time, and what are we doing? Absolutely jack all to ensure their viability. Why not? Because Jo Blo citizen guy is going to raise a hellstorm if we try to cut back on fishing, put in a predator cull etc etc.

If i were to suggest that a means of saving the pacific fisheries stocks was to put in place an almost complete ban on fishing, until we saw stocks rebound, i would be laughed at. If i were to suggest limiting the number of springs, coho, and sockeye to 5 of each per person per year, i would be laughed at. I honestly wouldnt doubt that we will be seeing the end of steelhead, most salmon, and many other fish in our (im 20) lifetime...because people arent willing to even consider dong what is required to save them.

[Johnnybear]

thats not habitat enhancement...thats habitat protection. Oh hey people have been trying to stop this rape of the oceans for decades now, and look nothing has been happening about it.

The suggestion was for the stamp money to buying quota back from the commercial sector, which is bogus as Mr.Dean said, as it is a Canadian resource, why should we have to buy it back?

Habitat enhancement is in actuality very hard to perform in the deep blue, read the DFO habitat management framework. Conservation is the answer, its just a matter that, like i said before, the rape of the oceans will not stop. Look at salmon stocks for a second and tell me that things are being done in a sustainable manner. Fraser river stocks are all at risk, Broughton Archipelago is down the crapper, lingcod and rockfish are still having a hell of a time, and what are we doing? Absolutely jack all to ensure their viability. Why not? Because Jo Blo citizen guy is going to raise a hellstorm if we try to cut back on fishing, put in a predator cull etc etc.

If i were to suggest that a means of saving the pacific fisheries stocks was to put in place an almost complete ban on fishing, until we saw stocks rebound, i would be laughed at. If i were to suggest limiting the number of springs, coho, and sockeye to 5 of each per person per year, i would be laughed at. I honestly wouldnt doubt that we will be seeing the end of steelhead, most salmon, and many other fish in our (im 20) lifetime...because people arent willing to even consider dong what is required to save them.

I wouldn't laugh at you BM. If it took years of cutting back I would do it and I do it to this day. I don't take anywhere near what I am "entitled" to each year. I am very aware of the state of our oceans and I like your thinking.

[seardna]

Here is a little inspiration boys. Caught July 11 th.
I figure 65 plus. It bottomed out the scale which is rated for 50 lbs.
Fun stuff! (my avatar pic)