I guess we aren’t the only ones ----east coast red snapper.

“NOAA Fisheries continued its continued march to completely shutting down the recreational red snapper fishery in federal waters with its announcement that the recreational season for red snapper will begin on June 1 and last just three days in 2017. While the recreational season is being decreased from 9 days in 2016 to just three this year, it was also announced that the season for the charter/for-hire sector is being lengthened to 49 days while the commercial sector continues to enjoy year-round access to their privately held red snapper shares.
The 2017 season for private recreational anglers is the shortest on record and at least one U.S. Senator wasted no time voicing his displeasure at the never-ending downward spiral of recreational fishing access under NOAA Fisheries.”

Apple's to Orange's.

That was just an example of commercial fisheries extreme waste of halibut resource compared to Washington state sport direct halibut fishery.

Using apples to apples there really is something wrong with that picture as well, when 2A and 2B are the only areas with a survey increase , but we get a poor allocation increase compared to other areas.

Stock assessment survey Allocation (plus or minus from 2010)

Area 2A survey increase 109%------+0.05 allocation increase
Area 2B survey increase 3%---------+0.15 allocation increase

Area 2c-4 decrease -5% to-36% (These areas are all thrown together so we can’t give specific values, but we know they are all (minus) )

Allocation (+/-)

Area 2C -2.07
Area 3A -5.63
Area 3B -2.38
Area 4A +0.08
Area 4B +0.02
Area4CDE +0.14

Does anyone know the approximate age of lets say a # 15 Hali?

See page 9. Probably around 8 years of age. Probably depends, to some extent, on forage availability.



http://www.iphc.int/publications/scirep/SciReport0055.pdf

I heard somewhere that halibut (like salmon) are getting smaller at age but I don't think the reason is known yet. If maturity is age rather than size related them tighter controls may need to be applied.

Here's another link. Size has been decreasing over the past 25+ years. Could be a number of factors - lack of food, competition for food,.....???

http://www.iphc.int/documents/2012bycatch/1dLoher.pdf


Females mature between 8 and 12 years. Males between 7 and 8.

http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2009/papendie_andr/reproduction%20and%20development.htm

The bycatch and waste of halibut by the trawl fleet is beyond sickening. If the trawlers were required to keep and process all halibut bycatch and then GIVE those fish to someone with a halibut IFQ to offset their need to fish there'd be far less waste and I believe that the bycatch rate would decline. Through the use of monitors to keep them honest and the requirement to handle and process the halibut without compensation the disincentive to indiscriminately "catch" halibut increases. The time money and space that the halibut bycatch would have on trawlers would be a significant incentive to not catch them in the first place. Those with a halibut IFQ might not even need to leave the dock to reach their quota and the waste of millions and millions of pounds of a very valuable fish would be significantly curtailed.

I believe that much of the by catch occurs in fisheries directed at other species of flatfish/flounder. As such, to net one catches the other. Longlining would be hook fishing and that would take halibut as bycatch. Might have to forego the flatfish harvest. At the same time, biologically, the halibut can "take" the bycatch if other fisheries are constrained.

Kinda like we can have ocean fisheries for salmon if we keep the bays and rivers closed.

It doesn't matter how the halibut became bycatch, what matters is that it's wasted. If a commercial boat catches a lot of valuable fish while targeting something else (bycatch) it shouldn't be wasted. The boat should be required to properly care for the fish until they get to the dock or processor. At that point it can be used to offset someone else's IFQ. The boat that has that much bycatch doesn't get a dime from the fish but the onerous is on them to clean and ice the fish so as to be marketable. For every 1,000# of halibut that is bycatch 1000# of halibut offsets an unused or opt in IFQ program to buy out those yearly IFQ's without the IFQ owner having to do anything but opt into the program. Essentially meaning that for every 1000# of bycatch we saved 1000# of halibut from being caught.

It would certainly be a disincentive to the offenders instead of, "oh well, that's a shame" since the boat is responsible for delivering marketable bycatch.

Thanks.

Some interesting reading in this publication #59 of the IPHC. RVW brings up a good point and it looks like the Canadians came up with a solution....the comparison between the US and Canada by-catch issues starts on page 36


http://www.iphc.int/publications/techrep/tech0059.pdf

Canada
Incidental catch in groundfish trawl fisheries off Canada’s western province of British Columbia, although lower than in Alaska, was still a problem historically. Canada allowed fishing by foreign vessels until 1979. From then to the present, only Canadian domestic vessels have prosecuted the fishery, with the exception of a joint venture operation using midwater trawls for Pacific whiting. Halibut bycatch mortality in the trawl
fishery had been relatively stable, averaging 1.6 million pounds (968 metric tons) annually during 1990 to 1995.

Until 1995, virtually no regulations were in place to control bycatch. A small voluntary observer program had operated for several years providing information to estimate halibut bycatch in the trawl fishery. Then, in 1995, the DFO initiated a staged reduction of trawl bycatch mortality by first implementing a halibut mortality limit for the trawl fishery, with a goal of reducing bycatch mortality to 1 million pounds (605 metric tons) by 1997.

To provide further incentive to reach the bycatch goal, in 1996 DFO implemented a ground-breaking system of individual vessel bycatch quotas (IVBQ), along with a 100% mandatory observer program, for bottom trawl vessels in all major groundfish fi shing areas. The IVBQ system
made individual fishers responsible for their own bycatch, thus providing incentive to minimize their bycatch. Fishers made dramatic changes to
fishing operations, primarily through reduced towing time, improved handling of discarded fish, and increased area/time/depth selectivity
in their operations. Other measures not directly targeted to halibut also had an effect, such as increased trawl mesh size, delayed openings, time/area closures originally directed at reducing rockfi sh bycatch, and a season-long closure of Pacific cod due to conservation concerns. In the end, the trawl
fishery reduced its halibut bycatch mortality from 1.5 million pounds (907 metric tons) in 1995 to approximately 299,000 pounds (181 metric tons) in 1996, well below the 1997 goal. Since that time, bycatch has remained low, ranging from 150,000 to 350,000 pounds (91 to 212 metric tons) annually.
Previously noted in the Directed Fishery section, in 2006 DFO implemented the Commercial Groundfish Integrated Pilot Program, which covered all groundfish fisheries, including halibut. The program sought to address concerns about adequate monitoring, catch reporting, and full accountability of catches. The program was comprised of ITQs for all species, the ability to retain species which had previously been discarded, a requirement that harvesters acquire quota to cover the mortality of all catch, including discards, and quota transfers between fisheries.
The program was refined in the initial years of the pilot period, and became permanent in 2010. Within the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program, halibut can now be retained in some fisheries where it had been historically discarded, but only if quota was obtained from halibut IVQ holders. This allows for a fuller and more accurate accounting of halibut mortality occurring in all fisheries

Bushbear, Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Really??? Commercials allocated part of the Washington sport halibut allocation???

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2016am/bb/12_04_02_WDFWAnnualHalibutReport_2015.pdf

Incidental Halibut Catch in the 2015 Sablefish Fishery North of Point Chehalis, WA

The 2A Halibut Catch Sharing Plan provides for incidental landings of halibut in the primary longline sablefish fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington, in years when the Area 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 lbs. The primary directed sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis will be allocated the Washington sport allocation that is in excess of 214,110 lb, provided a minimum of 10,000 pounds is available. The amount of halibut allowed in the directed sablefish fishery is capped at 70,000 lbs; any remaining allocation is transferred back to the Washington recreational fishery and divided among the subareas according to the methodology described in the Plan.

We've been giving up sport shares since 2002. In addition to the proposal at the start of this thread, the following request was submitted to NOAA/PFMC/WDFW to get the sport shares back.

Today is the last day for comments to be sent to PFMC for inclusion in the supplemental briefing book. See the first post for email addresses to be used.

If we had had our full share this year, we'd have had another 93,000+ lbs of halibut in the sport quota. We got 23,000 lbs added.



Ms. Kelly Ames

We would like to request that the 2A Catch Share Plan be amended at the June PFMC session on Pacific Halibut Management by removing the wording “…(except as provided in section (e)(3) of this plan)…” in section (f) SPORT FISHERIES (1) (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). This would provide the Washington sport fishing halibut fleet with its full share of halibut as found in section (b) ALLOCATIONS which gives 35.6% of the non-Indian TAC to the Washington sport fishery. At the same time, (e) (3) of the 2A CSP should be removed or amended to permit some percentage of the commercial harvest TAC to be rolled over for “incidental catch” in the sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis.

This request is in-line with supplemental WDFW report E.1.a submitted to the PFMC in November, 2016 concerning the incidental catch of halibut in the sablefish fishery N. of Point Chehalis:

“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.”

The return of the sablefish shares to the recreational fleet allocation as stated in (b) of the 2A CSP would add time on the water to our 2018 fishery and, if the TAC stays up, more fishing time in future years. We understand that the TAC can fluctuate. We can live with the lean times, but would enjoy the good times that a higher share will provide us and have a positive impact on our communities and businesses.

With the 2017 TAC for 2A at 1.33 million pounds, the non-Indian commercial share increased by 37,915 lbs over the 2016 allocation 265,402 lbs. Using the 2A plan for the non-Indian commercial allocations, this would leave 20,314 lbs available for the “incidental catch” by the sablefish fleet while still allowing for increases for the primary halibut fishery and the incidental take during the salmon troll fishery.

Thank you for your consideration.
Dave Croonquist
Sequim, WA
Cc: City of Port Angeles, Port of Port Angeles, Port of Port Townsend, PSA, CCA, WDFW, IPHC

2017 2A Catch Share Plan:
http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploa...FOR_AREA_2A.pdf

Good luck at the June meeting.

They applaud working with the Washington delegation as the delegation continues to roll over while Washington sport halibut declines so it will be interesting to see how they react when asked to give some of the allocation back where it belongs.

Considering only the handful of days Washington State halibut sport fishing is open per year--- what were they thinking and are they going to give it back?

The state broached the subject of returning the sport shares at the Nov. 2016 PFMC meeting. Seems right that we should not be subsidizing a commercial fishery for "incidental" catch.

The sablefish fleet has rec'd the following amounts from the sport share
lbs
2004 70,000
2005 70,000
2006 70,000
2007 70,000
2008 70,000
2009 11,895
2010 0
2011 0
2012 21,183
2013 21,410
2014 14,272
2015 10,348
2016 49,686
2017 70,000

The numbers are driven by the TAC set by the IPHC and PFMC. The 2A CSP sets a ceiling of 70,000 lbs before any overage rolls back to the sport share.

If the average weight of a halibut caught in WA is 20# (http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/other...-be-status-quo/) that 70,000# represents 3,500 successful recreational angler trips.

The now eleven year old economic analysis of WA recreational and commercial fisheries had the "other" saltwater trips valued at $60 per person which would be $73 today.

Even if every halibut angler were successful and using what is clearly an understated daily expenditure for said trip the economic value of that 70,000# would be $255,500.

Just to play with the numbers a bit if angler success were 50% and the trip cost/angler is more reasonably estimated (by me) at $120 the economic value of that 70,000# (if fully utilized) jumps to $840,000.