Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Size limit for SE Charters. 1 fish at 37" or under

  1. #1

    Default Size limit for SE Charters. 1 fish at 37" or under

    Anybody got a tide book handy to see how "big" a 37" halibut is?

    Looks like they are going to be looking at ways to go after regular sport and subsistence in 2012.

  2. #2
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    Live weight 23 lbs.

    Dressed 17 lbs.

  3. #3

    Default

    Ouch! That's gonna hurt!

  4. #4
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    How about dead weight and not dressed?
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  5. #5

    Default

    That'd be 22lbs, dead weight, bled..(grin)

    Looks like all SE charters are now "Eater Class" charters. It'll be interesting to see how they go about restricting the non-charter anglers.

  6. #6
    Member captaindd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Salcha, AK
    Posts
    762

    Default

    This from an email I received earlier



    IPHC sets 37" size limit on Southeast Alaska Charter Halibut!

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) met this week in Victoria, BC. In a move to keep all sectors to their allocation, the commission suspended their Slow Up Fast Down Policy which in essence gave the commercial longline fleet additional fish to harvest for the past ten years. A size limit of 37" on the one halibut daily bag limit for Southeast guided anglers was approved also. Carcasses must remain on board if filleting at sea.

    The last time an attempt to set a domestic (US) harvest rule was in 2007, when the IPHC announced a one-fish rule for Southeast guided anglers. This was considered an action of domestic allocation and not under the authority of the IPHC. This again will need to be challenged. Dr. Balsiger, US Commissioner, stated that this was not an issue of domestic allocation and that the charter allocation was already set by the North Council and NMFS in the US. According to Dr. Balsiger, the IPHC has the authority to keep the charter sector to their allocation. More on this later.



  7. #7

    Default

    I wonder if they think that these cuts are going to make a difference. They've been cutting for years, and the halibut aren't coming back! I hope they are looking at the root cause for the lack of halibut.

  8. #8
    Member captaindd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Salcha, AK
    Posts
    762

    Default

    The problem is poor management and to much back door politics. In 1995 they raise the total allowable catch and kept it up high for years. The halibat waste and bycatch stayed up and the sport catch kept going up. The population of Alaska has gone up in the last 10 years by 83000. In the long run some will come and put season bag limits on the sport catch. They talked about this back in the early ninetys. Right now the IPHC sets the limit at 2 per day except for SouthEast Charters which was set by the National Fisheries.

  9. #9
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I wish they could make the distinction between resident and non residents rather than charter and non charter as far as restrictions go. Especially in SC
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    I wish they could make the distinction between resident and non residents rather than charter and non charter as far as restrictions go. Especially in SC
    Just an FYI the halibut are owned by the federal govt not the state of Alaska

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Maybe this will interest some. From my limited understanding the sky is not falling and the worst is almost over. It is a growth rate/class recruitment issue. There are a number of halibut that will be entering the fishery. There currently are lot's of halibut but there is concern of overharvest b/c of the overall slow growth rate. Then throw in gaining new knowledge about migrations..........well this is how managment is supposed to work. I sometimes wonder if people even care to understand fishery managment or just want more for themselves. With natural populations there usually is no magic bullet. No magical cure for population swings. Want more halibut? Go kill some arrowtooth.


    Halibut Commission Completes 2011 Annual Meeting 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):
    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

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2010
    Steven R. Hare
    Abstract
    Since 2006, the IPHC stock assessment model has been fitted to a coastwide dataset to
    estimate total exploitable biomass. Coastwide exploitable biomass at the beginning of 2011 is
    estimated to be 318 million pounds. The assessment revises last year’s estimate of 334 million
    pounds at the start of 2010 downwards to 275 million pounds, and projects an increase of 16%
    over that value to arrive at the 2011 value of 318 million pounds. The downward revision is part
    of a still present, but relatively modest, retrospective behavior shown in the model. Female
    spawning biomass is estimated at 350 million pounds at the start of 2011. This is an increase of
    nearly 6% over the beginning of 2010 estimate of 331 million pounds. The female spawning
    biomass shows little evidence of retrospective behavior, lending credence to our belief that
    ongoing declines in size at age, which strongly affect selectivity-at-age, are the root cause of the
    retrospective behavior. Projections based on the currently estimated age compositions suggest
    that both exploitable and spawning biomass will increase over the next several years as several
    strong year classes recruit to the fishable and spawning components of the population. Projected
    increases are tempered both by potential ongoing decreases in size-at-age, as well as realized
    harvest rates which continue to be above target in several regulatory areas. Trawl estimates of
    abundance are similar to assessment estimates in most areas, and also provide evidence of very
    large numbers of small halibut. The coastwide exploitable biomass was apportioned among
    regulatory areas in accordance with survey estimates of relative abundance, modified by
    adjustments for hook competition and survey timing. Weighting of the survey indices follows a
    Kalman filter analysis, resulting in weights of 75:20:5 for the last three years. Options have also
    been provided to allow for direct deduction of bycatch and wastage mortality under 32 inches in
    calculation of fishery constant exploitation yield.
    Introduction
    Each year the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) staff assesses the abundance
    and potential yield of Pacific halibut using all available data from the commercial and sport
    fisheries, other removals, and scientific surveys (Appendix A). A biologically determined level
    for total removals from each regulatory area is calculated by applying a fixed harvest rate to the
    estimate of exploitable biomass in that area. This level is called the “constant exploitation yield”
    or CEY for that area in the coming year. The corresponding level for catches in directed fisheries
    subject to allocation is called the fishery CEY. It comprises the commercial setline catch in all
    areas plus the sport catch in Area 2B, and the sport plus ceremonial and subsistence catches in
    Area 2A. It is calculated by subtracting from the total CEY an estimate of all unallocated
    removals - bycatch of halibut over 32 inches in length (hereafter, "O32"), wastage of O32 fish in
    the halibut fishery, fish taken for personal use, and sport catch except in Areas 2A and 2B. This
    year, in response to directions to staff from IPHC Commissioners, alternative methodologies of
    accounting for U32 bycatch and wastage mortality (BAWM) were developed (Hare 2011). Until
    this year, U32 BAWM was accounted for in the determination of the target harvest rate. In brief,
    the new methodologies allow for direct accounting in determination of fishery CEY. Staff
    recommendations for catch limits in each area are based on the estimates of fishery CEY but may
    2010 Pacific halibut stock assessment Page ‐
    2 -
    be higher or lower depending on a number of statistical, biological, and policy considerations.
    Similarly, the Commission’s final quota decisions form the management targets for the coming
    year and are based on the staff’s recommendations but may be higher or lower.
    For many years, the staff assessed the stock in each regulatory area by fitting a model to the
    data from that area (Appendix B). This procedure relied on the assumption that the stock of fish
    of catchable size in each area was closed, meaning that net migration was negligible. A growing
    body of evidence from both the assessments (Clark and Hare 2007) and a mark-recapture
    experiment (Webster and Clark 2007, Webster 2010) showed that there is a continuing and
    predominantly eastward migration of catchable fish from the western area (Areas 3 and 4) to the
    eastern side (Area 2). The effect of this unaccounted for migration on the closed-area stock
    assessments was to produce underestimates of abundance in the western areas and overestimates
    in the eastern areas. To some extent this has almost certainly been the case for some time,
    meaning that exploitation rates were well above the target level in Area 2 and a disproportionate
    share of the catches have been taken from there.
    In order to obtain an unbiased estimate of the total exploitable biomass (EBio), beginning
    with the 2006 assessment, the staff built a coastwide data set and fitted the standard assessment
    model to it. Exploitable biomass in each regulatory area was estimated by partitioning, or
    apportioning, the total EBio in proportion to an estimate of stock distribution derived from the
    IPHC setline survey catch rates (WPUE). Specifically, an index of abundance in each area was
    calculated by multiplying weighted survey WPUE by total bottom area between 0 and 400 fm
    (Hare et al. 2010). The logic of this apportionment is that survey WPUE can be regarded as an
    index of density, so multiplying it by bottom area gives a quantity proportional to total
    abundance. This year two adjustments to the index for each area, one based on hook competition
    and the other on survey timing, were computed for use in biomass apportionment. The staff’s
    Catch Limit Recommendations are based on use of both adjustments. New this year is a change
    to the weighting which has been used for the last several years of survey WPUE. Based on a
    statistical analysis of relative variability within a year compared to between years (Webster
    2011), the new weighting places far more emphasis on the most recent year than was the case
    previously. The new “Kalman” weights are in the ratio of 75:20:5 for the past three years WPUE
    values (after adjusting for hook competition and survey timing). The estimated proportion in
    each area is then the adjusted and weighted index value for that area divided by the sum of the

    adjusted and weighted index values.

  13. #13
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    So is the 37" slot limit a done deal for the upcoming season or is it still in the debate stage?

    Anybody have supporting documentation beyond the recent ADN article?
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  14. #14
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Go kill some arrowtooth.
    +1 akbf...

    Now that's the truth. This a good case for an exemption from wanton waste regulations (kill and release), if they aren't already. Alexander pike are in the same boat, IMO.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    What is the size limit for Comfish?

  16. #16
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    What is the size limit for Comfish?
    32" is the minimum size.

  17. #17
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    I wonder if they think that these cuts are going to make a difference. They've been cutting for years, and the halibut aren't coming back! I hope they are looking at the root cause for the lack of halibut.
    Watch the video in this link...

    http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/200...but-waste.html

    Is this the reason we are seeing a decline in the Gulf stocks of halibut? Halibut fishermen are reporting a marked decline in halibut catchability, if not in abundance. How could they not be declining if this kind of waste is not taken into account? Everywhere else in the world, trawling has resulted in the marked decline in fisheries. Will we continue to let this happen here? For the short term gains of a few?
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Watch the video in this link...

    http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/200...but-waste.html

    Is this the reason we are seeing a decline in the Gulf stocks of halibut? Halibut fishermen are reporting a marked decline in halibut catchability, if not in abundance. How could they not be declining if this kind of waste is not taken into account? Everywhere else in the world, trawling has resulted in the marked decline in fisheries. Will we continue to let this happen here? For the short term gains of a few?
    I wish I didn't watch the video of the carnage. It's simply awful the waste that is going on out there.

  19. #19
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Watch the video in this link...

    http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/200...but-waste.html

    Is this the reason we are seeing a decline in the Gulf stocks of halibut? Halibut fishermen are reporting a marked decline in halibut catchability, if not in abundance. How could they not be declining if this kind of waste is not taken into account? Everywhere else in the world, trawling has resulted in the marked decline in fisheries. Will we continue to let this happen here? For the short term gains of a few?
    I certainly won't defend the bycatch, but it is accounted for. How accurate that accounting is, is another matter.

    It's easy to bark at the moon over the internets, but the best bet now is to get the State (Cora Campbell) to fight at the Council level. During our discussions about the commissioner selection process, a number of forum users professed faith in Cora's abilities to git 'er done and seemed to hint at some kind of access. After her initial motion on Chinook salmon bycatch (at the last Council meeting), I'm not holding my breath for a strong stance on halibut. If the State (commissioner) ain't gonna push it, then it ain't likely to go anywhere.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    If they had to pay a market value fine for bycatch and keep the fish and donate them to charity you would see bycatch drop like a prom dress at midnight. Money is the ONLY thing that will motivate them to do so.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •