Halibut Decision For B.C.

[x-hare]

Halibut Decision for B.C.

To all - Please find attached a copy of a letter I sent today to Fisheries
Minister Gail Shea regarding her mismanagement of BE.CO. 'so halibut
fishery.

I am also attaching a copy of her letter of decsion in this regard.

I urge you all to email Minister Shea with copies to your MLA and MP. I also
recommend you cc the people at the addresses I have set out below. I will
also include for your information some pertinent facts that might aid you in
writing to Minister Shea.

You don't have to be too clever, just get across the message that you are
unhappy and we and the people of Canada are being screwed.

Bill Otway

E mail list

Shea Min Fisheries, Hon Gail
E-mail Address(es):
Shea.G@parl.gc.ca (Shea.G@parl.gc.ca)



MacAulayL FishCritic, The Ho...
E-mail Address(es):
MacAulay.L@parl.gc.ca (MacAulay.L@parl.gc.ca)

Mr.MacCaulay is the Liberal Fisheries Critic

Mr. Randy Kamp, M.P.
E-mail Address(es):
Kamp.R@parl.gc.ca (Kamp.R@parl.gc.ca)

Randy Kamp is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and
lives in Maple Ridge

Mr. Peter Arend Stoffer, M.P.
E-mail Address(es):
Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca (Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca)

StofferOfficeHalifax, Peter
E-mail Address(es):
stoffp1@parl.gc.ca (stoffp1@parl.gc.ca)

Peter Stoffer is the NDP Fisheries Critic and a hard worker for our cause

SultanL, Ralph
E-mail Address(es):
ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca (ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca)

Ralph Sultan is an MLA on the Steelhead Committee and also on the Outdoor
Caucus

KruegerL, Hon Kevin
E-mail Address(es):
kevin.krueger.mla@leg.bc.ca (kevin.krueger.mla@leg.bc.ca)

Keven Krueger is also an MLA who has an interest in fisheries issues

GordonPremier, Campbell
E-mail Address(es):
Officeofthepremier@gems9.gov.bc.ca (Officeofthepremier@gems9.gov.bc.ca)

No explanation needed

AustinN, Robin
E-mail Address(es):
robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca (robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca)

Robin is the MLA for the Skeena and well versed in fisheries issues
BennettL, Bill E-mail Address(es):
bill.bennett.mla@leg.bc.ca (bill.bennett.mla@leg.bc.ca)

Bill Bennett is the chair of the B.C. Provincial Outdoor Caucus

StGermainSenator, Hon Gerry
E-mail Address(es):
stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca (stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca)

Gerry is a B.C. Senator with a long history of involvement with fisheries
issues.

Dan Cody
CodyD@dfo-mpo.gc.ca (CodyD@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).

Dan Cody is the Special Assistant for the Minister of Fisheries on the West
Coast, his messages do not get filtered by the Mandarins

Mr. Garry W. Breitkreuz, M.P.
E-mail Address(es):
breitg1@parl.gc.ca (breitg1@parl.gc.ca)


Garry is the chair of the Federal Outdoor Caucus and a strong advocate for
hunters and anglers.


SOME POINTS OF INTEREST AN INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE.

We were forced into a joint agreement with the commercial sector that
proposed the Federal Government would advance $35 million to buy out 8% of
the commercial Halibut TAC and transfer this to the recreational sector. The

recreational sector would repay the Federal Government over the ensuing
years through the imposition of a Halibut stamp on the recreational fishing
licence.


We then moved into the management of the 2008 fishery. In order to keep
within our quota it was necessary for us to lease Halibut quota from the
commercial sector. For various legal reasons the approximately $2 million
dollars was and is being held in trust by the Pacific Halibut Management
Association, (PHMA), the commercial sector. The SFAB gave out instructions
throughout the season to release the money required to lease the needed
quota to keep our fishery within their allocation. The PHMA released an
initial amount but adamantly refused to release any further money causing us

to exceed our quota. DFO, who was supposed to be coordinating these
transactions, took the unprecedented action of closing the recreational
fishery. This closure was put in place in spite of the written commitment
from the Minister that there would be no "in-season" closures of the
recreational fishery. This action was also taken in spite of the fact that
Canada left more Halibut in the water unharvested at the end of the 2008
season than the total overage of the recreational sector.



Simply put, there was no conservation concern, Canada did not harvest its'
Total Allowable Catch for Halibut, DFO simply decided that those fish were
the property of the commercial sector and shut us down.



So we have ourselves entering into an agreement with the commercial sector
as the Minister and DFO demanded of us. We then have the commercial sector,
acting in breach of trust and negating that agreement and one year later on
February 12th of 2009. we finally received a letter from the current
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans rejecting our proposals out of hand.





It is my considered opinion that all bets are now off and all previous
commitments and proposals for financing the buying back of our own fish are
off the table. It is my recommendation that we convey this to both the
Minister and DFO in the strongest possible terms.



We are now in a political and possibly eventually a legal battle to reclaim
our rights as Canadians. We all need to understand that while the current
issue is Halibut, the Minister and DFO are moving quickly to privatize all
Rockfish Stocks, Crabs, Prawns and Salmon. If we lose this one we lose it
all.



Talk to your M.P. and your MLA and let them know our position and your
dissatisfaction with how they are managing your resource. We have the power
and we can win this one if we work together.



There are currently 435 holders of commercial Halibut quota in B.C. In 2008

only 168 of these quota holders fished. The other 267 sat on the beach here
or in Hawaii and leased the quotas that our government gave to them for
nothing, out to the real fishermen.



A simple reallocation of 8% of the commercial quota to the recreational
fishery coupled with the removal of the quota for those that do not fish and

redistributing that quota amongst the actual fishermen would mean a much
greater harvest for those that actually fish and a vibrant recreational
fishery.



It needs to be noted also that for the last several years the recreational
catch of Halibut has been declining steadily. We reached our peak harvest in

2005 when the catch was 1.8 million lbs. Since that time our numbers have
declined to a total of 1.5 million lbs in 2008. So when people try to spread

the propaganda that the recreational catch is growing exponentially and out
of control, you can politely point out to them that they are wrong. In fact
just the opposite is happening.



Moreover, unlike the commercial sector, in those years when we do not catch
our allotment we are quite happy to let the commercial sector harvest those
fish. Prior to the Federal Government gifting the commercial sector 88% of
the Halibut, they harvested our uncaught catch for years. We asked for no
compensation and expected none. After all these were the publics' fish and
not ours. It seems however neither the commercial sector nor our government
fully understand the ramifications of the Larocque court judgment that
clearly set our that neither the government nor individuals own these fish.
The people of Canada do!



Bill Otway

[Mr. Dean]

That's what I'm saying!

From what I can gather, most, if not all of DFO's decisions on hali-management has been illegal. But if people don't scream FOUL, they'll get away with it.

Gov's ideology is to chip chip, chip away..... A little here, a little there.... Then POOF, it's all gone and we let it.

:mad: :mad:


.

[dryflyguy57]

Mr. Dean the sport sector has never been accountable as there has never been a proper count . Should of got on board years ago when both DFO and the IPHC were asking for some numbers . To come in asking for more fish , yeah , yeah I know $300 dollars a pound to the economy . Do you honestly think that because you exceeded your allocation that you deserve more. Go to Rupert and watch the ping pong paddles coming in , just like the blue back fishery and now look at the coho in the gulf . The big lodges are still under the same allocation as you and I see they have purchased some empty L (comm. halibut licences) to start stacking quota . Why do you think they are doing that? They are the ones hurting the weekend fishery as they have the booking to catch it all . If you want more fish you better go buy some quota, $32.00 a pound plus about $75,000 for an empty L tab . Be accountable and then maybe you will get somewhere .

[Mr. Dean]

Do you honestly think that because you exceeded your allocation that you deserve more.

Indeed, I do.

The fish are common property and the common people have demonstrated need for it.... To suggest that I buy something that I already own, is ludicrous.

And the only reason that *other* sectors get away with; take take take, is because of apathy from ours (sporties), mainly being, because they're uninformed.

[dryflyguy57]

Not too concerned about the science , ie. proper count on a removal of a resource are you . Whats in your freezer is probably the determining your science . Can't believe you think you deserve more because the sport sector( Oak Bay Marine Group etc . ) went over the allocation . I would lump you in with the uninformed group as your last sentence states .

[Mr. Dean]

Count the fish however you like. That point is moot.

My stance is based entirely on PRIORITY of allocation.

[dryflyguy57]

There is size of allocation but no PRIORITY in allocation .

[Mr. Dean]

There is size of allocation but no PRIORITY in allocation .

Exactly.... And there should be.

A "Resource Of The People" should have *some* reflection on the needs of 'the people'.

[NEEHAMA]

sorry, but i'm at work and have not read all the info.

have they said yes or no to a sport season for hali's yet?

or is it still in the works etc..

[Johnnybear]

sorry, but i'm at work and have not read all the info.

have they said yes or no to a sport season for hali's yet?

or is it still in the works etc..

Hey NEEHAMA check out this........

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=31762

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=115450&ID=recreational

:).

[dryflyguy57]

Maybe we should take the loggers jobs away and all go sport logging .

[Edward Teach]

because the sport sector( Oak Bay Marine Group etc . )The Oak Bay Marine Group etc should NEVER have been considered part of the sport sector in the first place! In fact when there were salmon license buy backs, they should have made these guys buy some of those licenses and put them on their boats! They're in the business of selling fishing sites on a party boat? That's a commercial fishing operation in my book!

BTW that halibut quota you are decrying is NOT FREE! If you want quota you have to buy or lease it from someone else who has it! That rule applies to commercial fishermen who want to go halibut fishing and the same principle ought to apply if you want to move quota from the commercial fishery to the sport fishery...get your checkbooks out!

[Johnnybear]

Maybe we should take the loggers jobs away and all go sport logging .

Here we go comparing apples and oranges:roll:.

[dryflyguy57]

Johnnybear you may consider it apples and oranges , not me . You and Mr. Dean have no valid arguements . What about the Oak Bay Group , you think they are a sport sector ? Some pretty good ideas in the post above . Trouble with users like yourself and Mr. Dean is that you never bring anything to the table . You are on the wrong side on this one . If you can't adapt and get out the chequebook you won't be able to play. State your case , like I want more fish because we went over our allocation .

[Johnnybear]

Johnnybear you may consider it apples and oranges , not me . You and Mr. Dean have no valid arguements . What about the Oak Bay Group , you think they are a sport sector ? Some pretty good ideas in the post above . Trouble with users like yourself and Mr. Dean is that you never bring anything to the table . You are on the wrong side on this one . If you can't adapt and get out the chequebook you won't be able to play. State your case , like I want more fish because we went over our allocation .

The idea that some of the larger outfit's should be classified as commercial is a valid idea. I am all for tracking and monitoring the sport catch in some way or another. I think it would be a good thing for everyone to have that data if it was collected properly and was accurate.

I don't know about being on the wrong side cause I didn't know I volunteered for anyone:-).

[Salty]

Sounds like the sportys think the one halibut limit is too low and commercial guys think its too high. They probably made the right decision. :lol:

I don't know what the 'right' answer is for sure. But I think its prolly a good idea to lower the sport limit (I'm a sport fisherman) to one for a while. My ex neighbour on the west coast does some guiding out past Winter Harbour and I used to watch him bring in limits for all 4 of his customers all summer long. So that was 4 fish for each guy or 16 or so fish a day on his boat. This was from the 'chicken coup' where they're all 25 to 40 lbs. He figured he took out a couple tons of halibut a year that are not accounted for by dfo or anywhere else I know that for sure. ..

[goatdancer]

Sounds like the sportys think the one halibut limit is too low and commercial guys think its too high. They probably made the right decision. :lol:

I don't know what the 'right' answer is for sure. But I think its prolly a good idea to lower the sport limit (I'm a sport fisherman) to one for a while. My ex neighbour on the west coast does some guiding out past Winter Harbour and I used to watch him bring in limits for all 4 of his customers all summer long. So that was 4 fish for each guy or 16 or so fish a day on his boat. This was from the 'chicken coup' where they're all 25 to 40 lbs. He figured he took out a couple tons of halibut a year that are not accounted for by dfo or anywhere else I know that for sure. ..

I thought the limits were 2 halis per day with a 3 fish possesion limit.

[Johnnybear]

Trouble with users like yourself and Mr. Dean is that you never bring anything to the table . If you can't adapt and get out the chequebook you won't be able to play. State your case , like I want more fish because we went over our allocation .

I can't speak for others but I bring fish to the table for my family quite often:-D.

Adapt? So you think the current situation we are heading in is o.k.?

Maybe you should quit fishing and get out your check book and just buy your fish from the store since you seem to be so supportive of that:???:. I'm only suggesting this to you as you have to me:mrgreen:.


I don't have my shirt tied in a knot over the limits and regulation set out for this season for my personal use and does not effect me as much as it does others. The original post of this thread spells it out quite clearly and it is the process of the alocation that ties the knot in folks shirts IMO.

[Salty]

I thought the limits were 2 halis per day with a 3 fish possesion limit.

The notice that I read the other day for my area (12) is one fish a day, two posession commencing March 1. Possibley to open up to 2 fish a day for July and August. ..

[GoatGuy]

Sounds like the sportys think the one halibut limit is too low and commercial guys think its too high. They probably made the right decision. :lol:

I don't know what the 'right' answer is for sure. But I think its prolly a good idea to lower the sport limit (I'm a sport fisherman) to one for a while. My ex neighbour on the west coast does some guiding out past Winter Harbour and I used to watch him bring in limits for all 4 of his customers all summer long. So that was 4 fish for each guy or 16 or so fish a day on his boat. This was from the 'chicken coup' where they're all 25 to 40 lbs. He figured he took out a couple tons of halibut a year that are not accounted for by dfo or anywhere else I know that for sure. ..

Have a look here to start

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/committees/fisheries/tidal/comreports/


Long and the short of it is the residents have been getting the shaft for years. Seems Ottawa is intent on running the west coast fishery the same as the east coast fishery. All for commercial interests and right into the ground.

Bill is definitely the guy to talk to about this stuff.

[Salty]

Thanks for that GG, interesting read. Its interesting that the biggest beaf with this years hali closures is that a 2003 policy said that there would be no closures for sport fishing. What a silly idea that is. If closures are needed, they are needed period. And the commercial fishery was closed this year temporarily as was the sport fishery so I don't quite see how sportys are being shafted.

Having said that I will admitt that this closure came from left field as far as I was concerned. All the reports and stuff that I read (even the greenys stuff) was saying how well managed the halibut fishery is in BC. Numbers were up and everyone thought that the commercial quota system was working and it was a bright future for halibut. Then out of the blue, this closure. :-? I'm the first guy to say shut down or limit a fishery if there's a problem. I just worry though that this is another case of DFO not knowing what the hell is out there for fish. ..

[NEEHAMA]

so it is open then?

[Salty]

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=115514&ID=recreational

The department will implement a coastwide opening of the recreational halibut
fishery:

Coastwide:
---------
Effective 00:01 hours March 1, 2009 fishing for halibut will be opened
coastwide. The daily limit at the start of the season is one (1) per day with a
possession limit of two (2).

The exception to this opening is:

etc. ....

[NEEHAMA]

ok cool it's open..

[x-hare]

I'm told the quota has been reached.
Is this working for YOU!

[SUAFOYT]

ok cool it's open..

No it isn't- it will be closed on Sept 5th. You have to ask the questions:

1- The native fishery gets 17% right off the top- why

2- Of the 83% that's left the commercial sector gets 88% and the sport gets 12%. If there's an issue with stock then why is the commercial fishery still going.

3-Approximately 60% of the commercial quota is owned by the Pattison group. You may buy a portion of his license quota but you will pay him so much a pound for the privilege. The native fishery can do the same. Why is this allowed to happen in the first place.

[Mr. Dean]

Further we slide down the slope....

[winchester284]

I think everyone agrees that the halibut are owned by the people. The people are more than just sports fishermen! How about the rest of the population? How to they get access to this public resource?

How they get access is through the commercial caught fish! I would suggest that sportsfishermen make up much less than 12% of the population, yet they are getting an allocation that far exceeds their representation.

To put it in perspective, sportsfishermen receive 3% of the sockeye allocation. There are far more sportfishermen that participate in the sockeye fishery than the halibut fishery!

I suggest the halibut sportsfishermen have a great deal, and they should stop their whining. Now they have a means to purchase extra quota from the commercial sector if they want it.

[Mr. Dean]

History tells (very clearly) conservation that's based for commercial harvest really doesn't do much benefit for the stock. Thanks for the 3% Soc quota btw - This example is why we're fed up with what is now happening with our halibut.

3% at one time was A LOT of fish when the stocks were healthy and we didn't mind sharing the love. Now, a great # of salmon fisherman don't even participate in that fishery and took to alternatives (hali) as a way of promoting their efforts in conserving the salmon stocks. Sadly though, whatever effort the sportie's do to save that stock is futile, as 3% of f' all amounts to zippy in the bigger picture of things.

Again; thanks for bringing it up.


Many people won't fish hali under this new system of having to buy quota - This worries me too.... will they still be involved or will they feel beat up and sink quietly into the deep, or perhaps they'll go fish for mud sharks???

Everything about this fiasco is all about greed and deceit, and history proves itself once again. :mad:

[winchester284]

Neither the halibut nor the sockeye allocations are affecting conservation of the stocks. Fisheries determines the required amount of stock that is needed to maintain the resource. After that is determined the available catch is allocated to first native, then commercial and recreational. If the resource is at risk, no one is allowed to retain any fish.

I see you chose to avoid my question as to how the balance of the Canadian population can access the halibut if there is no commercial fishery??

[Mr. Dean]

Neither the halibut nor the sockeye allocations are affecting conservation of the stocks. Fisheries determines the required amount of stock that is needed to maintain the resource. After that is determined the available catch is allocated to first native, then commercial and recreational. If the resource is at risk, no one is allowed to retain any fish.

I see you chose to avoid my question as to how the balance of the Canadian population can access the halibut if there is no commercial fishery??

The management theory sounds good but in reality, it aint.... The problem is right at the top; When and why does TAC need/get to be reduced?


I have no problem with feeding Canadians their halibut via super markets, if they so choose. My beef is why should I be restrained, restricted, choked off, going without dinner, not letting my family eat, promote healthy economies in coastal communities,,, so someone else in another country can eat what is rightfully mine.

How much of the commercial catch is exported?
Simple answer is; More than enough to fix what is now broken.

But me being the Good Guy that I am, I don't want all of it, noooo; just enough to let me fish freely and to sustain the historic level of the stocks.... after all, it wouldn't be broken if the 88% players didn't pillage it. I'm not blaming the sector for this, it's DFO that defines what is, is,,, But that sector IS the benefactor and they should be demonstrating good stewardship of the resource.

Or maybe we should do without long-lining and you guys could fish with the restrictions we have????


I purposely dodged the question because I was sure you wouldn't like hearing the answer/truth.

[Mr. Dean]

It's refreshing to see this old thread back up.

Hope you're doing well, Mr. Otway!
RIP. :smile:

[winchester284]

The management theory sounds good but in reality, it aint.... The problem is right at the top; When and why does TAC need/get to be reduced?


I have no problem with feeding Canadians their halibut via super markets, if they so choose. My beef is why should I be restrained, restricted, choked off, going without dinner, not letting my family eat, promote healthy economies in coastal communities,,, so someone else in another country can eat what is rightfully mine.

How much of the commercial catch is exported?
Simple answer is; More than enough to fix what is now broken.

But me being the Good Guy that I am, I don't want all of it, noooo; just enough to let me fish freely and to sustain the historic level of the stocks.... after all, it wouldn't be broken if the 88% players didn't pillage it. I'm not blaming the sector for this, it's DFO that defines what is, is,,, But that sector IS the benefactor and they should be demonstrating good stewardship of the resource.

Or maybe we should do without long-lining and you guys could fish with the restrictions we have????


I purposely dodged the question because I was sure you wouldn't like hearing the answer/truth.

You are all over the place with that comment Mr. Dean.....

Rather than joining you in your confusion let's just say that just like I have the opportunity to fill my freezer during a short sockeye opening on the Fraser, you have had more than ample opportunity to fill your freezer with halibut given the very generous time period you've had, the no annual limit on halibut, and the large average size of each fish you hook.

Whining about the 12% TAC on halibut is just getting tiring. All it does is make the sportsfishermen sound like greedy little buggers. Anyone with any understanding of the industry/sport can see it is just greed playing out it's ugly hand.....

[Mr. Dean]

Here's your question:



I see you chose to avoid my question as to how the balance of the Canadian population can access the halibut if there is no commercial fishery??




You are all over the place with that comment Mr. Dean.....


Well, I think my points were very clear and can't see where/what leads you to believe I'm being greedy. I just want to nip things in the bud before it gets outta hand and salvage attempts become futile. My advocacy is for the fish and sustainable use of the resource. Greed, on the other hand, is synonymous with money.... All I do is SPEND it on the resource; not TAKE from it.

And I couldn't help notice that you never answered my question... No worries, I think everyone knows the answer. :sad:


Good Luck in your quest.

[RJ]

Did anyone get asked how many hali's they pulled in?
I didn't.
Just wondering how they figured the sports guys reached their quota.

[Mr. Dean]

Did anyone get asked how many hali's they pulled in?
I didn't.
Just wondering how they figured the sports guys reached their quota.

Hey, I didn't even get enough time to get the boat wet.
But, according to winchester284, that's my fault because I'm greedy. :confused:

Delusional Episodes can be controlled with Modern Meds - Just saying...

[winchester284]

The management theory sounds good but in reality, it aint.... The problem is right at the top; When and why does TAC need/get to be reduced?

Or maybe we should do without long-lining and you guys could fish with the restrictions we have????





And I couldn't help notice that you never answered my question... No worries, I think everyone knows the answer. :sad:

The TAC hasn't been reduced, it's just that the sportsfishing industry has used up the TAC that was given.

I would have no problem with long lining being eliminated.... Not sure how it would be enforced...

I would still get my sockeye. I'd fish in the ocean or in the Fraser under a float with a short leader...

[Mr. Dean]

The TAC hasn't been reduced, it's just that the sportsfishing industry has used up the TAC that was given.



Several (5ish, 7ish..) years ago, there was concern for a certain year class of hali (the size sought for by the CF). TAC was reduced.... This was the onslaught of the RF meeting/exceeding their 12% quota. Rec Fishers weren't out there increasing their catches, they were restricted in what they coud catch. In fact, we were reducing our catches prior to the reductions, from 1.8 million pounds in 2005 to 1.5 million in 2008. Be it noted that these reductions weren't because of mandated restictions, either.

[longstonec]

Anybody want the catch data for the sport sector halibut catch through the summer? We have not actualy hit the quota mark. DFO is worried we might. Come September everybody knows most of the halibut are heading into freshwater to spawn so the catch numbers will go down drastically anyways.

[Mr. Dean]

We should also talk about all the years where we didn't meet our 12% quota; Guess who's excess was transfered over to whom?
They weren't left behind to swim and therefore *possibly* preserve our heritage for up-n-coming years.... Someone took them.


And after all my kindness, I get slapped with The Greedy Stick.
I think someone is taking my kindness as a sign of weekness.

Jeesh!

[Mr. Dean]

Anybody want the catch data for the sport sector halibut catch through the summer? We have not actualy hit the quota mark. DFO is worried we might. Come September everybody knows most of the halibut are heading into freshwater to spawn so the catch numbers will go down drastically anyways.

Post it up!!!

[RJ]

Commercial guys like to say need that quota to put hali's on the dinner plates of all Canadians, but fail to mention the percentage that is exported to the United States and other Foreign countries. I guess they should have priority as well eh?

[Mr. Dean]

Commercial guys like to say need that quota to put hali's on the dinner plates of all Canadians, but fail to mention the percentage that is exported to the United States and other Foreign countries. I guess they should have priority as well eh?

Careful, I played that logic and was informed that I was both greedy and confused.....

[longstonec]

Still 2.4 million lbs left to go on quota.

[winchester284]

Careful, I played that logic and was informed that I was both greedy and confused.....

Get over it.... there are a lot of folks in your position on this issue. :wink:

[Mr. Dean]

Get over it....

Sorry.
I just don't 'get' how the Greedy Flag gets waved over my head on this issue, never mind being called "confused". :confused::confused:

Go ahead and enlighten me. Feel Free!
If humble pie is on my todays menue, I'll gladly eat 2 slices because it certainly ain't gonna be hali steaks.

[Mr. Dean]

Still 2.4 million lbs left to go on quota.

I read the data - Thanks.

It shows that there is just slightly more than 200,000 pounds of allotment left for the rec fishery, ending July 31st, 2011

More importantly to me, is that I noticed our 12% allotment capped out shy of 1 million pounds.... This info suggests that TAC has been further reduced since me looking into IPHC Harvest Stats, some years ago.

I can't post the doc for some reason in it's pdf form and because of it's layout, doesn't C&P worth a shit....

[Mr. Dean]

I can easily see that 200,000 pounds being caught already....

[x-hare]

Table 2a.
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
Feb 1178 na 1178 na

March

3,531 8,053 5,856 3,531 9,231 5,856

April



9,075 18,093 7,208 12,606 27,324 13,064

May



37,176 55,191 31,592 49,782 82,515 44,656

June



181,925 241,849 259,209 231,707 324,364 303,865

July



379,660 367,398 356,553 611,367 691,762 660,419

Aug



412,740 383,425 - 1,024,107 1,075,187 -

Sept



69,669 56,807 - 1,093,776 1,131,994 -

Oct to Dec



4,000 1,205 - 1,097,776 1,133,199 -

Total



1,097,776 1,133,199 660,419

947,760

660,419
287,341
notes:
Estimate for May 2011 decreased from previous estimate of 43,497 lbs. due to updated harvest data in Areas 1 (from 200 to
100 pieces), Area 2 (from 450 to 400 pieces), Areas 7/8/9 (from 37 to 26 pieces) Area 19 (from 700 to 464 pieces) and Area 20
(200 to
Inseason Monthly Catch Estimate - March 1 to July 31, 2011.
Month Net Weight (lbs) Cumulative Net Weight (lbs)
Recreational Allocation (12% of Canadian TAC)
Estimated Total Catch


Projected Catch Remaining (net wt lbs) DRAFT

[Mr. Dean]

x-hare

I believe that the adjusted data, dated Aug 26, shows a lesser amount. The following is a C&P from the doc I'm reading;


Estimated Total Catch - 746,344
Projected Catch Remaining (net wt lbs) - 201,416
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently there were some entries that were made late.
If you look into the properties of your doc, it's likely dated for the 16th of August.

[SUAFOYT]

Did anyone get asked how many hali's they pulled in?
I didn't.
Just wondering how they figured the sports guys reached their quota.

The method is bogus as hell for the sport sector. The creel survey people show up at the docks same time every day. Why? Because they know when the guides get in. They check the guides and then take that info on halibut taken. Then DFO does a fly over of a given area. How many boats? Lets say 100. They can then average out the number of people on those boats and then assume that those boats are fishing halibut and then they can assume a certain success rate. Not very scientific or reliable at all. For those out there that fish for spring salmon you all buy a salmon stamp. When was the last time when you were checked by either DFO or a creel survey person did they ask or check on how many spring you have on that list. I'd say never. All that money goes into the black hole of general revenue not salmon enhancement specifically. The commercial guys that take their halibut to a processing plant have the halibut tagged. The native fishery that can and does sell their catch to whoever they want don't. It's all bullshit. We're getting screwed and will have less and less to fight over.

[Mr. Dean]

The TAC hasn't been reduced, it's just that the sportsfishing industry has used up the TAC that was given.


Get this:

In 2006, the fishery had combined quota of 13.2 million pounds
Between then and now, it's been on a down hill slide to where the fishery quota was set at this year @ 7.6 million pounds.

This data comes from IPHC and call all be viewed here as the graphs dont cut-n-paste worth crap: http://www.iphc.int/component/content/article/45-statistics/184-comm-limits.html


We (sporties) have been cut nearly 50% of allocation, since 2006, just on quota alone! I'll ask the question again; Why is TAC being reduced?

Is it because the 12% players are having detrimental effects on the biomass?
Or is it more likely that the 88 percenters aren't being as good the Stewards as they think?

Sporties could all stop fishing tomorrow and the allocation not be transfered; the effort wouldn't make a dent in conservation concerns. All it would is add a little time before collapse would happen. Because of this, I therefore maintain the notion that things are out of control on the commercial side of things and that we need to look DEEP into procedures of the way the harvest is conducted. And because of this, we (The Common People of Canada) are slowly being choked of both opportunity AND resource.


Hows that for confusion, for ya. :wink:

[x-hare]

Or is it more likely that the 88 percenters aren't being as good the Stewards as they think?

You don't say.

[Mr. Dean]

You don't say.

You know, It's been a long time since I looked at the stats of the fishery (probably 2006 or 7). Back then, the slight adjustments were to account for a slightly weak size class of fish and allow time for the excess amount of younger ones, to flourish. Back then, it wasn't a concern.

These new-found numbers and the deep, steady cuts over the years, suggest to me that something else is 'up' ... Something is broken and the IPHC is attempting to fix it. Exactly what, I'm not sure and was hoping that either win280 could fill me in, or someone else.

In the meantime, I'll keep reading archived reports at the IPHC's website, as my time permits. Sooner or later, I'll figure it out.

[winchester284]

Get this:

In 2006, the fishery had combined quota of 13.2 million pounds
Between then and now, it's been on a down hill slide to where the fishery quota was set at this year @ 7.6 million pounds.

This data comes from IPHC and call all be viewed here as the graphs dont cut-n-paste worth crap: http://www.iphc.int/component/content/article/45-statistics/184-comm-limits.html


We (sporties) have been cut nearly 50% of allocation, since 2006, just on quota alone! I'll ask the question again; Why is TAC being reduced?

Is it because the 12% players are having detrimental effects on the biomass?
Or is it more likely that the 88 percenters aren't being as good the Stewards as they think?

Sporties could all stop fishing tomorrow and the allocation not be transfered; the effort wouldn't make a dent in conservation concerns. All it would is add a little time before collapse would happen. Because of this, I therefore maintain the notion that things are out of control on the commercial side of things and that we need to look DEEP into procedures of the way the harvest is conducted. And because of this, we (The Common People of Canada) are slowly being choked of both opportunity AND resource.


Hows that for confusion, for ya. :wink:

You are obviously very sensitive to being referred to as confused.....

Contrary to your assertions that there are no conservation concerns with halibut, I would suggest you need to do a little more research. As I understand it over all TAC on halibut has been reduced since 2006 for all sectors. If I remember correctly the sportsfishermen's TAC was originally set at 9% and has since been increased to 12%.

[Walking Buffalo]

how (can) the balance of the Canadian population can access the halibut if there is no commercial fishery??

Canadians could access halibut without a commercial fishery by being allowed to go fishing.

Canadians could also access halibut With a commercial fishery by being allowed to go fishing.

[Mr. Dean]

You are obviously very sensitive to being referred to as confused.....

Contrary to your assertions that there are no conservation concerns with halibut, I would suggest you need to do a little more research. As I understand it over all TAC on halibut has been reduced since 2006 for all sectors. If I remember correctly the sportsfishermen's TAC was originally set at 9% and has since been increased to 12%.

You're a bit confused. Allow me.

TAC is an acronym for TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH.... It's what is deemed by IPHC as the sustainable harvest for ALL users combined. If TAC is reduced, everyone gets less access to fish because the total take is being reduced.

Once TAC is derived for the season, DFO then assigns quota to the user groups, via that groups allocation (88/12 percent). Currently we have 2 users; Sport and Commercial (no native).

I'm not disputing the fact that TAC is reduced and everyone is being allowed less access to fish for fish. In fact, I'm flaming pissed that it has sunk to the levels it has.

Commercial meat markets have historical blemishes (Salmon, cod, buffalo, deer....). Looking at the numbers in my previous post, are we on the right rail? And ask you; WHY is TAC being cut so drastically??

It confuses me that you seem to think I need to do more research. If you have questions on any of my posts, feel free to ask.

[Mr. Dean]

Contrary to your assertions that there are no conservation concerns with halibut, I would suggest you need to do a little more research.


I was saying that back in the mid 2000's, IPHC was asserting that the conservation concern that I outlined earlier, was "in check" and that the concern was mild, and to correct it, a 'slight' adjustment in TAC was required.

If TAC has been slashed nearly 50% since then, I FIRMLY assert that we have a viable concern now. What is it??? TAC doesn't get slashed/cut unless it's felt there is concern.

What is it?

[MichelD]

Monday, 31 January 2011 09:33 The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) completed its Eighty-seventh Annual Meeting in Victoria, B.C., with Dr. Laura J. Richards of Nanaimo B.C. presiding as Chair. The Commission is recommending to the governments of Canada and the United States catch limits for 2011 totaling 41,070,000 pounds, an 18.9% decrease from the 2010 catch limit of 50,670,000 pounds.
The Commission staff reported on the 2010 Pacific halibut stock assessment, comprised of a coastwide estimation of biomass with apportionment to regulatory area biomass based on the data from the annual Commission standardized stock assessment survey. For 2011, the Commission staff recommended a 21.5% harvest rate for use in Areas 2A through 3A and a 16.1% harvest rate for Areas 3B through 4. The Commission staff expressed concern over continued declining catch rates in most areas and recommended aggressive action to reduce harvests. In particular, staff recommended that the Commission shift its harvest control rule to implement the full reductions in catch limits identified by the stock assessment, rather than the partial (50%) reductions used in previous years. The decline of the stock due to both natural declines in recruitment, lower growth rates, and higher than target harvest rates in most areas has motivated this change in the harvest recommendations. Catch limits adopted for 2011 were lower in the central regions of the stock (Areas 2C and 3) but significant recent reductions in catch limits for Areas 2A and 2B appear to have resulted in improvements to stock condition in those areas.
Seasons and Catch Limits
The Commission received regulatory proposals for 2011 from the scientific staff, Canadian and United States harvesters and processors, and other fishery agencies. The Commission faced very difficult decisions on the appropriate harvest from the stock and recognized the economic impact of the reduced catch limits recommended by its scientific staff. However, the Commission believes that conservation of the halibut resource is the most important management objective and will serve the best economic interests of the industry over the long term. Accordingly, the Commission is recommending to the governments the following catch limits for 2011 in Area 2A (California, Oregon, and Washington), Area 2B (British Columbia), Area 2C (southeastern Alaska), Area 3A (central Gulf), Area 3B (western Gulf), Area 4A (eastern Aleutians), Area 4B (western Aleutians), Area 4C (Pribilof Islands), Area 4D (northwestern Bering Sea), and Area 4E (Bering Sea flats):

[MichelD]

2011 Catch Limits
Regulatory Area


Catch Limit (pounds)
Area 2A
Non-treaty directed commercial (south of Pt. Chehalis)
Non-treaty incidental catch in salmon troll fishery
Treaty Indian commercial
Treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence (year-round)
Sport North of Columbia River
Sport South of Columbia River
Area 2A total

Area 2B (includes sport catch allocation)
Area 2C

Area 3A
Area 3B

Area 4A
Area 4B
Area 4C
Area 4D
Area 4E
Area 4 total





159,380


28,126


293,200


25,300


216,489


187,506


910,000





7,650,000


2,330,000





14,360,000


7,510,000





2,410,000


2,180,000


1,690,000


1,690,000


340,000


8,310,000
Total


41,070,000
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (DFO) will allocate the Area 2B catch limit between sport and commercial fisheries.
The IPHC sets biologically-based catch limits for Areas 4A, 4B, and a combined Area 4CDE. The catch limits for Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E reflect the catch-sharing plan implemented by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). The catch-sharing plan allows Area 4D Community Development Quota (CDQ) harvest to be taken in Area 4E and Area 4C Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and CDQ to be fished in Area 4D.
The catch-sharing plan implemented by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for Area 2A was adopted by the Commission and is reflected in the catch limits adopted for the Area 2A fisheries. Due to the mechanisms in the PFMC catch-sharing plan and the adopted total Area 2A catch limit there will not be a non-treaty incidental halibut fishery during the limited entry sablefish longline fishery.
In Area 2A, seven 10-hour fishing periods for the non-treaty directed commercial fishery are recommended: June 29, July 13, July 27, August 10, August 24, September 7, September 21, 2011. All fishing periods will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. local time, and will be further restricted by fishing period limits announced at a later date.
Area 2A fishing dates for an incidental commercial halibut fishery concurrent with salmon troll fishing seasons will be established under United States domestic regulations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The remainder of the Area 2A catch-sharing plan, including sport fishing seasons and depth restrictions, will be determined under regulations promulgated by NMFS. For further information of the depth restrictions in the commercial directed halibut fishery, and the sport fisheries, call the NMFS hotline (1-800-662-9825).
After reviewing staff information and proposals from the harvesting and processing sector, the Commission approved a season opening date of March 12 for the U.S. and Canadian Individual Quota fisheries, and Treaty tribal fisheries in Area 2A. The Saturday opening date is to facilitate marketing. Therefore, seasons will commence at 12 noon local time on March 12 and terminate at 12 noon local time on November 18, 2011 for the following fisheries and areas: the Canadian Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) fishery in Area 2B, and the United States IFQ and CDQ fisheries in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. All Area 2A commercial fishing including the treaty Indian commercial fishery will fall within March 12 – November 18, 2011.
Regulatory Changes and Issues
The Commission approved the staff recommendation eliminating the use of LORAN-C coordinates as a position option in fishing logbooks, as the LORAN system has been decommissioned.
Control of Charter Harvest in Area 2C
The catch of halibut in sport fisheries and the enforcement of domestic allocation limits, particularly for charter vessels, were discussed at length. The Commission recognizes that U.S. agencies wish to adhere to domestic allocation limits but effective controls remain to be implemented through a Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) in 2012. Noting that the CSP for Area 2C fisheries is not yet approved, the Commission recommends regulatory action designed to restrict charter harvest of halibut in Area 2C to the Guideline Harvest Level approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Commission recommends continuation of a one-fish daily bag limit with an additional restriction that the retained fish must be no larger than 37 inches (total length) and a requirement to retain the frame until landing, if halibut are legally filleted at sea.
The Commission received a number of regulatory and catch limit proposals after the deadlines for submission and did not consider these proposals. Participants are reminded that future proposals should be received by Commission deadlines if they are to be considered by the Commission and its advisory bodies
Commission staff was directed to review the potential for the use of tags as an accounting tool, by area and fishery, for all non-commercial removals of halibut. If this measure is considered feasible, staff will develop a regulatory proposal for consideration at the Commission’s 2012 annual meeting.
The Commission also directed its staff to analyze the biological impacts of incrementally reducing or eliminating the current minimum commercial size limit of 32 inches, and provide the analysis for the Commission’s 2012 Annual Meeting.
Other Actions
Halibut Bycatch Project Team
The Commission and its advisory boards discussed halibut bycatch management and received a report from its Halibut Bycatch Work Group. The Commission remains concerned about the yield lost to the halibut fishery as a result of bycatch mortality in other fisheries. Accordingly, the Commission established a Halibut Bycatch Project Team, led by a Commissioner from each country, to gain better understanding of the amounts and potential impacts of halibut bycatch mortality in other fisheries. Further, this Team will explore whether options for reducing this bycatch mortality can be implemented and whether mitigating the impacts of bycatch mortality in one area on the available harvest in other areas is possible.
Performance Review
The United States and Canada share the view of the continued importance of the Convention and seek to build upon the success of this international arrangement, and its continued relevance and effectiveness. In recent years, many such international organizations have undertaken reviews of their performance in relation to the goals of their conventions. The two governments wish to undertake a similar review over the next year. The review will assess the performance of the Commission against the goals set out by the Convention, using a team of external experts in fisheries science and international governance. The team will review stock trends and current stock status in reference to relevant reference points and assess the extent to which the Convention’s central objective is being met. In addition, the team will review the Commission’s governance and advisory processes to determine whether these processes are adequate to advance the objectives of the Commission. The team will also attend the 2012 Annual Meeting, for the purpose of contacting advisory bodies. The team will provide a report to the Commission in the spring of 2012.
IPHC Merit Scholarship
The Commission honoured Ms. Candace Schaack of Cold Bay, AK as the ninth recipient of the IPHC Merit Scholarship. She was unable to attend the meeting due to class requirements but was previously presented with the scholarship of $2,000 (U.S.). The Commissioners expressed their continued support for the scholarship program and commended the Scholarship Committee for their efforts in assessing the candidates.
The recommended regulations for the 2011 halibut fishery will become official as soon as they are approved by the Canadian and United States governments. The Commission will publish and distribute regulation pamphlets.
The next Annual Meeting of the Commission is planned for Anchorage, AK from January 24-27, 2012. The United States Government Commissioner, Dr. James W. Balsiger, of Juneau AK, was elected Chair. The Canadian Government Commissioner, Dr. Laura J. Richards, of Nanaimo B.C., was elected Vice-Chair for the coming year. Other Canadian Commissioners are Gary Robinson and Acting Commissioner Paul MacGillivray (Vancouver, B.C.). The other United States Commissioners are Ralph Hoard (Seattle, WA) and Phillip Lestenkof (St. Paul, AK). Dr. Bruce M. Leaman is the Executive Director of the Commission.

- END -
Bruce M. Leaman, Executive Director
Phone: (206) 634-1838
FAX: (206) 632-2983
Web: www.iphc.int (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/undefined/)

[scott h]

Did anyone get asked how many hali's they pulled in?
I didn't.
Just wondering how they figured the sports guys reached their quota.

I got my catch checked and counted at least 4 times by the fish cops this year.
I don't know if they kept records but they sure seemed to be out there. It does keep
everyone honest .

[Mr. Dean]

Thanks, MichelD.

It would seem that this stock is being over fished too and history is being set up to repeat itself. :sad:
Oh how the story evolves in a span of but only a few years.

I say it's moratorium time for commercial fishing. This is disgusting. :mad:

[Keta1969]

Mr. Dean your last post is just to much .The west coast transboundry halibut fishery is recognised world wide by other govt's. and local enviromental groups as been well managed and sustainable.The test fishing and sampling that takes place is extensive and thorough,I know some of the people that take part in the testing and it is not in anyone's interest to skew the data.Just for the record I am a former commercial fisherman (12 years out of the industry) and an avid sporty.I have faith in the Halibut Commision to manage this fishery.My problem and the problem for resident B.C.anglers is the amount of sport quota taken by commercial sports fishing enterprises.This amounts to approx.60-70% of the 12% allocated to sportsfishermen.They pay nothing for this privledge and make good money from it.Also why do we let American fishermen in unguided boats take any halibut at all,try doing that on their side of the line.The solution is probanly for some buy back of quota through a halibut tag on sports licences,however I am not in favor of this until some of the problems in the sports sector are sorted out.I for one am tired of been used as a statistic for the greed of the commercial sportfishing interests.There are lots of fish for canadian residents sport or commercial if it was left for us alone.

[dryflyguy57]

[QUOTE=Mr. Dean;969070]Thanks, MichelD.

It would seem that this stock is being over fished too and history is being set up to repeat itself. :sad:
Oh how the story evolves in a span of but only a few years.

I say it's moratorium time for commercial fishing. This is disgusting.


Boy aren't we getting carried away . At least you show your true colours .

[dryflyguy57]

Nothing like an unbiased moderator Mr. Dean , had to laugh when I saw you on the list . Now that is disgusting .

[Mr. Dean]

I've been waiting for this.


Nearly a 50% drop in TAC, in 6 years.
Every other year it somehow gets 'rationalized' but for crying out loud, it's nearly 50%.

I find these stats down right disgusting and can't help but wonder if we're doing right bye the fishery and if what we're doing, is sustainable.

It's not a question of "True Colours" but rather, one of wonder and perhaps ethics.... There's many examples of humankind doing the right thing when it comes to preserving fish stocks for commercial trade, that really haven't panned out all that great. Is this an alarm bell that's now ringing?

Unfortunately, none of us have a crystal ball that'll foretell us the future. Time unfolded will be the measure and yeah, I'm nervous to see what it will tell... Right now, I'm NOT liking what I'm HEARING because there have been MANY examples of the requirement in having biomass collapse (both land and water based creatures) before we understood/learnt what sustainability really meant. And in pretty much each and every case, it boiled down to expecting too much in return, from the resource.


About being a Moderator;

- I show this stat in my sigline, it's no secret so it therefore should be 'no surprise'.
- Acting as one, doesn't support the fact that I should be void of opinion.
- My opinions have been rationalized and everyone should feel free to rebut them but please, rationalize those rebuttals as well.

[Mr. Dean]

Nothing like an unbiased moderator Mr. Dean , had to laugh when I saw you on the list . Now that is disgusting .


I feel my opinions are objective and that I've been 'fair' with them.

Sure, Sporties (like me) have certainly contributed to what we're faced with in conservation measures (TAC reductions). But would there be a concern if we didn't have the 88% players, playing in the field?

Mathematically, I think not.

Therefore, why should I be expected to carry their burden (Quota reductions) in an attempt to preserve their interests? Why don't they do it alone and demonstrate to the world, the Stewards that they are?

[Mr. Dean]

But would there be a concern if we didn't have the 88% players, playing in the field?

Mathematically, I think not.


Oh, and to remain objective:


Would there be a Conservation Concern if the 12%'ers weren't playing in the field?

Mathematically, I think yes. It would probably be 12% ish less, but a still grave concern, none-the-less.

[Fishhound]

Therefore, why should I be expected to carry their burden (Quota reductions) in an attempt to preserve their interests? Why don't they do it alone and demonstrate to the world, the Stewards that they are?

Mr. Dean, I could not have said it better, all we need is for the DFO to see it too

[Mr. Dean]

Therefore, why should I be expected to carry their burden (Quota reductions) in an attempt to preserve their interests? Why don't they do it alone and demonstrate to the world, the Stewards that they are?

Mr. Dean, I could not have said it better, all we need is for the DFO to see it too


All we need is fully grown men to own up to their misgivings and say; We F'd it, we'll fix it. Instead of all this other BS.

I'm not saying it was deliberate or cold hearted,,,, I'm just saying that none of what I'm seeing, demonstrates rightful usage of the resource, for Common People of Canada.

[Mr. Dean]

Oh, and to remain objective:


Would there be a Conservation Concern if the 12%'ers weren't playing in the field?

Mathematically, I think yes. It would probably be 12% ish less, but a still grave concern, none-the-less.


Actually, I retract this and say that the concern would remain exactly the same, to what it is now.

Why?
Because that 12% allocation would have been automaticly transfered over to the commercial interests; DFO wants TAC obtained - It is written in their mandate. And the commercial interests would glady recieved them, as they have in the past.