The other side of the coin is what is the landed value of the sablefish? I don't know. If they give up incidental harvest of halibut they give up directed harvest of sablefish.

That is certainly a factor for consideration as is the "value" of the recreational experience which would be generated by those additional days of fishing opportunity - be they successful or not.

The most recent value I have for sablefish landing is from 2013. The NT catch was valued at $2,963,671.31

Per statements provided by the sablefish fleet, halibut are always encountered in their fishery. If they were to be required to discard the catch, it would be counted as wastage and would, as I understand it, count against the 2A CSP for halibut which would impact all of the 2A fisheries.

I don't have a problem with an allowable amount of halibut to be taken by the sablefish fleet. I just think their catch should come out of the commercial quota and not be taken out of the sport quota. We gave up 70,000 lbs of halibut this year to the sablefish fleet. Because of the 2A CSP and the way the catch is split, we ended up with about 23,000 lbs added to the sport share. If we had had our full share, as specified in the 2A CSP, we would have had over 93,000 lbs added to the sport share.

Some additional information on the sablefish incidental take allowance and substantiation for our request to get our share back.

Incidental Catch in the Sablefish Fishery N. of Point Chehalis
In June, the Council began scoping potential changes to Pacific halibut allocations and requested information from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) on the spatial distribution of the Pacific halibut exploitable biomass to assist their consideration of potential allocation changes. In preparation for future allocation discussions, WDFW would like to briefly recap the history of the incidental halibut allowance in the primary sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, and our thoughts relative to allocation changes to this sector in the future.

When the CSP was first developed in 1988, WDFW prioritized the Washington allocation to the recreational fishery north of Point Chehalis and the commercial directed was restricted to the area south of Point Chehalis. This was in part due to the fact that the CSP was developed during
a period of very low Area 2A TACs (~500,000 lbs) when it was unlikely that both a commercial and recreational fishery could be accommodated. At the time, many commercial fishermen who had traditionally fished for halibut along Washington’s northern coast felt this decision was unfair and, over the subsequent ten years, some of those vessels stopped fishing altogether and a
couple of processing companies in Seattle and Bellingham closed their businesses.

In response, WDFW proposed shifting a portion of the Washington recreational allocation to provide for incidental retention in the primary sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis in years when the Area 2A TAC is higher, which was approved by the Council and in 2001. Specifically, when the 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 pounds, the primary directed sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis would be allocated the Washington sport allocation that is in excess of 214,110 pounds, provided a minimum of 10,000 pounds is available. This allocation structure was modified in 2002 to cap the amount for the sablefish fishery at 70,000 pounds.

The Area 2A TAC has accommodated incidental catch of halibut in the primary sablefish fishery in all years except 2010 and 2011 since changes to the CSP were implemented in 2001. During this same period, there has been a significant increase in effort in the Washington recreational fishery, resulting in early quota attainment and shortened seasons.

Therefore, as discussions on potential allocation changes move forward, WDFW would be interested in considering whether revisions to the sablefish incidental allocation were warranted. Further, given that the sablefish incidental allocation came from the Washington sport allocation, WDFW would expect that any changes to the sablefish incidental allocation would shift back to the Washington recreational fishery.

Here's a link to the PFMC briefing book for the Spokane meeting that starts the end of this week. See Section G for the halibut agenda.

http://www.pcouncil.org/resources/archives/briefing-books/june-2017-briefing-book/#openJun2017

Within the halibut agenda, item G.1. Attachment 3 shows a breakdown of halibut landings by fishery - tribal; non-tribal long-line, troll, and sablefish; and sport.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/G1_Att3_Historical_Catch_Alloc_Jun2017BB.pdf

An aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the sharing with Tribal halibut fishermen. There is some level of sharing, I am sure, and they would likely not allow their share to be reduced to allow for the sablefish by catch.

Perhaps, WDFW is looking for ways to keep the non-Indian fisheries going.

Here's the link to the 2A CSP and the first two paragraphs from the CSP.


http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/halibut/csp-2017.pdf

2017 PACIFIC HALIBUT CATCH SHARING PLAN FOR AREA 2A
(a) FRAMEWORK
This Plan constitutes a framework that shall be applied to the annual Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) approved by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) each January. The framework shall be implemented in both IPHC regulations and domestic regulations (implemented by NMFS) as published in the Federal Register.
(b) ALLOCATIONS
This Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to U.S. treaty Indian tribes in the State of Washington in subarea 2A-1, and 65 percent to non-Indian fisheries in Area 2A. The allocation to non-Indian fisheries is divided into four shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 35.6 percent, the Oregon sport fishery receiving 29.7 percent, the California sport fishery receiving 4.0 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 30.7 percent. Allocations within the non-Indian commercial and
sport fisheries are described in sections (e) and (f) of this Plan. These allocations may be changed if new information becomes available that indicates a change is necessary and/or the Pacific Fishery Management Council takes action to reconsider its allocation recommendations. Such changes will be made after appropriate rulemaking is completed and published in the Federal Register. All allocations and subquotas are described in net weight, consistent with the IPHC’s description of the TAC.

At some point, though, as human demand increases the tribal share will bump into the others. Or, they will push for more, up to 50, as their capacity improves. As we have seen with salmon, there are not enough fish to meet everybody's "needs" (wants).

I agree that the sporties should not be giving away fish, but with not enough to go around somebody gets shorted.

It is a public resource. I think the commercial side needs to be separated from the recreational side.

The recreational fleet brings a lot of money into the local economies benefiting a lot more businesses. A season with daily and field possession limits and an annual limit would spread the pressure out and let folks fish when it is safe - not when PFMC/WDFW say we have to fish.

Today is "must fish" day and the winds at the Dungeness Lighthouse have been averaging 20 mph since 5 a.m. Not the kind of sea conditions I would want to be fishing in, but I'm sure some folks are out there. I hope they don't have any problems.

I agree about the "must fish" days needing a change. As the resource gets more limited some very hard decisions need to be made. We gave over most of what are called game animals to recreation but it did cut out an industry.

We have given many fish to the recreational too and that may be the way the process is headed.

I sure hope not.

Carcassman

Not sure the context of you statement about giving over game animals to recreation and what industry was cut out and of your comment about "We have given many fish to the recreational too.."

The rec fleet for halibut in the US and Canada gets about 24% of the total harvest. If we can get some kind of consistent season structure, I think the overall benefits for the communities and the anglers would be great.

There was once a huge market harvest of deer, elk, ducks, pigeons, grouse, etc. There used to be commercial trout fisheries and probably walleye, perch, and bass. Large Striped Bass commercial fisheries cut way back. Probably used to be big Atlantic Salmon fisheries. The history has been to replace commercial with recreational harvest once the rec side gains fiscal power.

I am looking further down the road than the next couple of seasons. If we are going to have meaningful recreational fisheries on fish then there is going to have to be a significant reduction in commercial harvest. Not just harvest of the target species but harvest of the forage fish that feed those species.

Commercialization has screwed up a lot of fish and wildlife species. Somewhere in the middle there's a balance point. The wastage in the commercial fisheries of non-target species is a lot harder on the resource than the recreational user. I think an annual limit can help management.

But you still fish, or hunt, to a rather fixed sustainable harvest level. As human population grows, so does demand. The pie, though, either stays the same size or shrinks. Time is running out when the resources can be shared by commercial and recreational users.

Recent halibut harvest throughout the various areas.

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/05...7d5a73-92422149