Official halibut regs for 2013

[Tofinofish]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

But I get sick of the "entitlement" attitude. Sportfishing $700.00 per fish/$5.00 commercial thing.

I would never say there should be no sportfishing. But 15% sounds pretty darn good. 25% is/should be unjustifiable!

Not a dangerous road - a realistic one.

Huntsfurfish - Are you saying then that you truly think an unharvested resource should be owned by a very select few individuals as a commodity instead of fair access by Canadian citizens who are supposed to have rights/access to "common property" resources?

Not into creating further debate with you, but your comment is Not a Realistic one, but a dangerous one.....IMO

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Tofinofish

Huntsfurfish - Are you saying then that you truly think an unharvested resource should be owned by a very select few individuals as a commodity instead of fair access by Canadian citizens who are supposed to have rights/access to "common property" resources?

Not into creating further debate with you, but your comment is Not a Realistic one, but a dangerous one.....IMO

I disagree with you, it is realistic. That unharvested resource is owned by all. Not just a few sport fishers. You seemed to have missed my point. All Canadians are owners not just the sportfishermen. Those that buy and dont come out to the coast to catch and keep should be grouped with the commercial fishermen. Which makes the sportfishermen the very select few.

But the point is as I said in a previous post, "we" do not consider that the vast majority of "users" are non sport fishermen!

Who "owns" the halibut? We all do! Argue all you want, cant change the facts.

85(commercial)/15(sport) sounds fair enough when that 15 percent is higher than the actual ratio of eaters to halibut anglers!

Think about it!

[Scott h]

The 85/15 split is where the problem is . Right or wrong the commercial sector takes a huge amount of fish . We can can bitch about it until we're green in the face but why would they give up part of their catch if they don't have to .
I would love to see a surcharge on every license ( say $10 ) and that money used to buy - not lease - commercial licenses . The quota would then be rolled into the sport caught percentage . It would take time but I can't see how it wouldn't work , with both side being the winners .

[wellpastcold]

I think that once again we see that our government can not be trusted to manage a resource. Sadly for all there is no other "authority" that could. To grant a quota for free to the commercial fishing industry in order to buy their acceptance of a protective limit is foolhardy in the extreme. To then pander to those who were given this quota is ridiculous. It is unfair to paint this issue as fishing lodges against commercial fishermen. Sport fishermen also include locals, tourists with their own boats etc. Remember that the commercially caught fish does not all end up sold in Canada. If it were than this would be a much more difficult issue. Simply put, if the fish is not being entirely consumed by Canadians then why would Canadian sport fishermen be limited so as to fill the needs of people elsewhere in the world? Does this resource belong to Canadians or not?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wellpastcold

I think that once again we see that our government can not be trusted to manage a resource. Sadly for all there is no other "authority" that could. To grant a quota for free to the commercial fishing industry in order to buy their acceptance of a protective limit is foolhardy in the extreme. To then pander to those who were given this quota is ridiculous. It is unfair to paint this issue as fishing lodges against commercial fishermen. Sport fishermen also include locals, tourists with their own boats etc. Remember that the commercially caught fish does not all end up sold in Canada. If it were than this would be a much more difficult issue. Simply put, if the fish is not being entirely consumed by Canadians then why would Canadian sport fishermen be limited so as to fill the needs of people elsewhere in the world? Does this resource belong to Canadians or not?

And remember it is not "all" sportfishermen keeping halibut either

2 More posts of entitlement.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Scott h

The 85/15 split is where the problem is . Right or wrong the commercial sector takes a huge amount of fish . We can can bitch about it until we're green in the face but why would they give up part of their catch if they don't have to .
I would love to see a surcharge on every license ( say $10 ) and that money used to buy - not lease - commercial licenses . The quota would then be rolled into the sport caught percentage . It would take time but I can't see how it wouldn't work , with both side being the winners .

Wow!

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wellpastcold

I think that once again we see that our government can not be trusted to manage a resource.They have to manage for all user groups, not just yours. Sadly for all there is no other "authority" that could. To grant a quota for free to the commercial fishing industry in order to buy their acceptance of a protective limit is foolhardy in the extreme. To then pander to those who were given this quota is ridiculousBut they should pander to the sportfishermen?. It is unfair to paint this issue as fishing lodges against commercial fishermen. Sport fishermen also include locals, tourists with their own boats etc. Remember that the commercially caught fish does not all end up sold in CanadaNot all sportfishermen in Canada keep halibut. If it were than this would be a much more difficult issue. Simply put, if the fish is not being entirely consumed by Canadians then why would Canadian sport fishermen be limited so as to fill the needs of people elsewhere in the world?Please see my earlier posts, there is more to commercial fishing than meets the eye Does this resource belong to Canadians or not?Yes, not just sportfishermen!

I wasnt going to, but what the heck. Im in red

[fishmonger]

I'm sure there are smarter people than me arguing many of these exact points right now at the government level.

My original question was not on sport vs comm allocation (85/15 or 75/25...), nor the TAC (total allowable catch that is decided upon each season for ALL groups combined).

If the government mindset feels that "X" million pounds of halibut can be harvested, who am I to argue with no facts on my side. I have to believe they have studies that point to the health of the resource, that ultimately decides the TAC each year.

If the government feels that 15% of the TAC should go to the sporties, and 85% to the commies (no offense implied), that is certainly a discussion for any individual who has skin in the game. But I am not arguing that point...

My main question pertained to the new regs for the sporties.

The regs were changed in an effort to protect the large females that will ultimately maintain the health of the fishery.

Makes sense. I may not like it (as a sportie), I may even argue it. However if studies suggest that is the BEST way to maintain the fishery, then I guess I will have to shut up and abide by it...And wait for the fishery to recover.

Sooooooo....

If the above is logical, if we are taking a reasonable ecologically sound approach to "saving" a fishery for future generations, then WHY are we only imposing it on 15% of the catch?

Would it not make more sense to impose it on EVERYBODY? Sporties and commies alike?

Remember...the TAC is adjusted each year to regulate the amount of fish caught. If that in itself is not enough to regulate the fishery, if they feel they have to impose a size limit on the sporties, it must be for a reason!

Then WHY is that reason not imposed on ALL groups? Logically, it just doesn't make a hoot of sense.

[Scott h]

Sport caught halibut are easy to release . You get a big one , you cut your leader and let it go . A big fish gets to live and spawn again . If the commercial guys get a big fish , it's probably been on their long line for quite a while and is probably dead . If they couldn't keep them they would get tossed over board as by-catch . That is a wasted resource and makes no sense .

[wellpastcold]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

I wasnt going to, but what the heck. Im in red

I must be missing some salient point here that you could enlighten me on. I understand that you feel your ability to purchase halibut may be infringed upon by a reduction in commercial quota.(Huh?) The point I can't get my head around is that you think it is OK for one group of harvesters to have been GIVEN a guarantee of 85% of the TAC every year for free. Who in many cases now lease that quota out and gain a profit for doing nothing. Perhaps you could explain these feelings? I'm not aware of any scenario where that would fly. I would dearly love to hear this one.......

[gevarm guy]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

i'm sure there are smarter people than me arguing many of these exact points right now at the government level.

My original question was not on sport vs comm allocation (85/15 or 75/25...), nor the tac (total allowable catch that is decided upon each season for all groups combined).

If the government mindset feels that "x" million pounds of halibut can be harvested, who am i to argue with no facts on my side. I have to believe they have studies that point to the health of the resource, that ultimately decides the tac each year.

If the government feels that 15% of the tac should go to the sporties, and 85% to the commies (no offense implied), that is certainly a discussion for any individual who has skin in the game. But i am not arguing that point...

My main question pertained to the new regs for the sporties.

The regs were changed in an effort to protect the large females that will ultimately maintain the health of the fishery.

Makes sense. I may not like it (as a sportie), i may even argue it. However if studies suggest that is the best way to maintain the fishery, then i guess i will have to shut up and abide by it...and wait for the fishery to recover.

Sooooooo....

If the above is logical, if we are taking a reasonable ecologically sound approach to "saving" a fishery for future generations, then why are we only imposing it on 15% of the catch?

Would it not make more sense to impose it on everybody? Sporties and commies alike?

Remember...the tac is adjusted each year to regulate the amount of fish caught. If that in itself is not enough to regulate the fishery, if they feel they have to impose a size limit on the sporties, it must be for a reason!

Then why is that reason not imposed on all groups? Logically, it just doesn't make a hoot of sense.

well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

I'm sure there are smarter people than me arguing many of these exact points right now at the government level.

My original question was not on sport vs comm allocation (85/15 or 75/25...), nor the TAC (total allowable catch that is decided upon each season for ALL groups combined).

If the government mindset feels that "X" million pounds of halibut can be harvested, who am I to argue with no facts on my side. I have to believe they have studies that point to the health of the resource, that ultimately decides the TAC each year.

If the government feels that 15% of the TAC should go to the sporties, and 85% to the commies (no offense implied), that is certainly a discussion for any individual who has skin in the game. But I am not arguing that point...
This is the point that should be argued

My main question pertained to the new regs for the sporties.

The regs were changed in an effort to protect the large females that will ultimately maintain the health of the fishery.
Not true, the new regs were put in place to keep the season open for Sportys as long as possible

Makes sense. I may not like it (as a sportie), I may even argue it. However if studies suggest that is the BEST way to maintain the fishery, then I guess I will have to shut up and abide by it...And wait for the fishery to recover.
The halis are not in any sort of big trouble

Sooooooo....

If the above is logical, if we are taking a reasonable ecologically sound approach to "saving" a fishery for future generations, then WHY are we only imposing it on 15% of the catch?
Great point, if the stocks are a issue, but it's not a monster issue

Would it not make more sense to impose it on EVERYBODY? Sporties and commies alike?

Remember...the TAC is adjusted each year to regulate the amount of fish caught. If that in itself is not enough to regulate the fishery, if they feel they have to impose a size limit on the sporties, it must be for a reason!
The only reason this is here is becouse the 15% given to Sportys is not enough to cover what is required by the Canadian sports fisherman

Then WHY is that reason not imposed on ALL groups? Logically, it just doesn't make a hoot of sense.

Logically, none of what is happening makes sense.

Sporties have a extremely minor role in the health of the stocks.

There has to be a better way to divide up this situation and keep this renewable resource for century's to come.

This might help explain it a bit better
Re: Allocation is about conservation, March 14 Prince Rupert Northern View


Mr. Haukness’s assertion that the halibut biomass is currently low is quite true.


No recreational angler would ever argue that they want to put their desire to fish ahead of the conservation and responsible management of the fisheries resource that as Canadians, we all own. Unfortunately, his demand that each user group should “do its part to conserve stocks” would be more meaningful if he first acknowledged that 436 commercial quota holders “owned’ 85 per cent of Canada’s halibut TAC while 100,000 recreational anglers share 15 per cent. Any reasonable person looking at the allocation models would conclude that recreational anglers are being asked to bear a far higher proportion of the burden.


Similarly, Haukness can’t resist playing games with numbers when he mentions the recent reallocation decision. While DFO’s decision to increase the recreational share from 12-15 per cent is a 25 per cent lift, it is most certainly NOT a 25 per cent reduction in the commercial allocation.


Recreational anglers are not looking to wreak havoc on the commercial sector or even to obtain an equal share of the catch. They are simply looking to government to establish a fairer system which allows Canadians to catch one or two of the fish that they own, over the course of a reasonable fishing season.


Owen Bird,


Executive Director


Sport Fishing Institute of B.C.

Once again, this isn't about the health of the stock, it's about the fact 436 people take precedent over 100,000 and that's not fair to Canadians.

Keep the input coming, lots of great conversation here.

Jamie

[fishmonger]

Once again, this isn't about the health of the stock, it's about the fact 436 people take precedent over 100,000 and that's not fair to Canadians.

I agree, interesting conversation/debate.

I do agree with a statement made earlier regarding halibut "belonging to ALL Canadians, not just to sport fishermen" (forgive me if I paraphrased).

I also agree with another point made that a great deal of the commercial catch goes OUT of country.

If you read all of the above, it looks like we're trying to protect a fishery where 85% goes to 436 licence holders, where ultimately a large portion is not even available to Canadians.

Every Canadian is entitled...yes, whether as an end purchaser or a harvester. I guess the question is, are we dialing back Canadian availability to satisfy out-of-country demand?

[huntsfurfish]

Show me the numbers

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Show me the numbers

What numbers would you like to see?

Jamie

[huntsfurfish]

I still disagree.

Those 436 commercial is not the end, the end is the consumer. Each and every one that buys from them is a stakeholder. Sorry guys, we are vastly outnumbered. I dont know what amount is actually exported but what is sold here likely still outnumbers us. And if we are importing, then that is a little bit wrong in it self.

Should all our oil stay in Canada?

As I said all have a share and own the resource.

I know you dont want to here this kind of talk. This is not a clearcut issue! People (us,we sportfishermen) need to see the whole picture(me included).

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wellpastcold

I must be missing some salient point here that you could enlighten me on. I understand that you feel your ability to purchase halibut may be infringed upon by a reduction in commercial quota.(Huh?) The point I can't get my head around is that you think it is OK for one group of harvesters to have been GIVEN a guarantee of 85% of the TAC every year for free. Who in many cases now lease that quota out and gain a profit for doing nothing. Perhaps you could explain these feelings? I'm not aware of any scenario where that would fly. I would dearly love to hear this one.......

Showing a different side of the coin.

Guess I am not getting the point across. Try again, if a million people are eating commercially caught halibut and there are 100000 sportsfishermen keeping halibut. Seems to me that that is only 10 percent, however In fairness you would also have to go with pounds. Who gets what for free to me is not the issue. what they do with their quota is not the issue.

If you cant see the point im trying to make, I cant help that, sorry. I think the others can see what Im getting at, even if they dont agree.

I dont have all the answers either. Just bringing up some points to consider. Maybe that is why the government is doing it the way it is?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Logically, none of what is happening makes sense.

Sporties have a extremely minor role in the health of the stocks.

There has to be a better way to divide up this situation and keep this renewable resource for century's to come.

This might help explain it a bit better
Re: Allocation is about conservation, March 14 Prince Rupert Northern View


Mr. Haukness’s assertion that the halibut biomass is currently low is quite true.


No recreational angler would ever argue that they want to put their desire to fish ahead of the conservation and responsible management of the fisheries resource that as Canadians, we all own. Unfortunately, his demand that each user group should “do its part to conserve stocks” would be more meaningful if he first acknowledged that 436 commercial quota holders “owned’ 85 per cent of Canada’s halibut TAC while 100,000 recreational anglers share 15 per cent. Any reasonable person looking at the allocation models would conclude that recreational anglers are being asked to bear a far higher proportion of the burden.


Similarly, Haukness can’t resist playing games with numbers when he mentions the recent reallocation decision. While DFO’s decision to increase the recreational share from 12-15 per cent is a 25 per cent lift, it is most certainly NOT a 25 per cent reduction in the commercial allocation.


Recreational anglers are not looking to wreak havoc on the commercial sector or even to obtain an equal share of the catch. They are simply looking to government to establish a fairer system which allows Canadians to catch one or two of the fish that they own, over the course of a reasonable fishing season.


Owen Bird,


Executive Director


Sport Fishing Institute of B.C.

Once again, this isn't about the health of the stock, it's about the fact 436 people take precedent over 100,000 and that's not fair to Canadians.

Keep the input coming, lots of great conversation here.

Jamie

Bit onesided, and leaving out the point that I have been trying to make. Those 436 people may have hundreds of thousands of end users.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Once again, this isn't about the health of the stock, it's about the fact 436 people take precedent over 100,000 and that's not fair to Canadians.

I agree, interesting conversation/debate.

I do agree with a statement made earlier regarding halibut "belonging to ALL Canadians, not just to sport fishermen" (forgive me if I paraphrased).

I also agree with another point made that a great deal of the commercial catch goes OUT of country.

If you read all of the above, it looks like we're trying to protect a fishery where 85% goes to 436 licence holders, where ultimately a large portion is not even available to Canadians.

Every Canadian is entitled...yes, whether as an end purchaser or a harvester. I guess the question is, are we dialing back Canadian availability to satisfy out-of-country demand?

Hi fishmonger I also think this is a good debate/conversation.

My point I guess is that those 436 represent far more people than just themselves. All those that ultimately use their product. That is the main point. And that was what I am referring to in show me the numbers. What is shipped out? What if any is imported? Those are questions that need to be answered. Fairness isnt cut and dried or easy. No different than here in Alberta. Or the dreaded no simple answer.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Jamie

What numbers would you like to see?

Jamie

Hi Jamie!

What amount is exported?

What amount is imported (if any)?

How much halibut is consumed in Canada?

How much is retained per angler?

Might be more numbers we need.


I admit I have limited knowledge on the halibut fishery. But think I have some points to make.

Once we have some numbers, than we can solve this problem/issue.LOL

[Jamie]

Hunts.. I cant get exact numbers.. But I know this, We export SO MUCH Hali, that we have to bring it in from the States.

Take a read here
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/report...stry-1990s.pdf
(Starts on Page 22)

The vast vast majority of Halibut is exported.

Jamie

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Bit onesided, and leaving out the point that I have been trying to make. Those 436 people may have hundreds of thousands of end users.

Mostly USA end users.

(And I was replying to a thread)

Jamie

[huntsfurfish]

Thanks Jamie

I am not sure what to make of that now.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Thanks Jamie

I am not sure what to make of that now.

Your welcome. I know its a confusing sittuation.

But to put it in Alberta terms. Imagine if the Guides and outfitters here in Alberta controlled 85% of the tags available.

Imagine the war we would see.

I do know there is room for all users, just a matter of figguring it all out.

Jamie

[huntsfurfish]

Guess more complicated with importing/exporting. One question is: should there be no exporting? What impact would that have? What is actually consumed by Canadians? Hmmm.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Your welcome. I know its a confusing sittuation.

But to put it in Alberta terms. Imagine if the Guides and outfitters here in Alberta controlled 85% of the tags available.

Imagine the war we would see.

I do know there is room for all users, just a matter of figguring it all out.

Agree

Jamie

Not even close to the same but I see your point.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Guess more complicated with importing/exporting. One question is: should there be no exporting? What impact would that have? What is actually consumed by Canadians? Hmmm.

I cant find that number.

We dont allow exports, you instantly kill the comericial sector, and thats not fair either.

I found it interesting that back in 1990 15% of Hali licenses were leased out, then it turned into 105% (Leased and re leased)

Who owns these now? Is it Americans or do we have laws in place that only Canadians can own?

Jamie

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I cant find that number.

We dont allow exports, you instantly kill the comericial sector, and thats not fair either.

I found it interesting that back in 1990 15% of Hali licenses were leased out, then it turned into 105% (Leased and re leased)

Who owns these now? Is it Americans or do we have laws in place that only Canadians can own?

Jamie

Good point Jamie (nice to see you are concerned about the commercials).
And a very good question as well.
It will not be an easy fix after all.

[browning375]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I cant find that number.

We dont allow exports, you instantly kill the comericial sector, and thats not fair either.

I found it interesting that back in 1990 15% of Hali licenses were leased out, then it turned into 105% (Leased and re leased)

Who owns these now? Is it Americans or do we have laws in place that only Canadians can own?

Jamie

That's what i was trying to say earlier! Who do you think owns some of these commercial boats and packing plants? I believe Americans and other countries are exploiting our fish, and our Government does not care because it all ends up in their pocket one way or another.

We only have to look at the east coast cod fishery to see how well our DFO manages commercial fishing, they wait till its past saving it till they do something to correct it.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by Jamie

It's not a easy fix at all. Fact is the gov has to decide what is more important. Commercial guys
Or
Sporty guys?

Follow the $$$$ and its a easy choice
Sport fishing puts in approx the same amount of $$ into the economy
Yet doesn't take near the toll on the resources.

Jamie

But how do you get that message through to the government?