Good afternoon, all

John Beath and I were representing Puget Sound Anglers and the Coastal Conservation Association, respectively, as recreational halibut anglers for Washington State at the IPHC meeting this week in Victoria, BC. California recreational halibut anglers, Tom and Mary Marking, were representing the Humboldt Fishing Club and the Recreational Fishing Alliance - California. Jonathan Sawin was here on behalf of the Westport Charter Association.

As has been the case in previous years, there was lots of discussion about concerns over the Pacific Halibut biomass and how the annual quota should be set to protect the spawning biomass while allowing for reasonable harvest numbers. The Conference Board (CB) on which John and I sit met for about 12 hours to discuss the various harvest proposals submitted for consideration for 2019.

The one proposal that was most critical for the 2A sport fishery was presented by the Makah Tribe and supported by the other 12 halibut fishing tribes. There were a number of support letters from various groups, cities, and anglers that were submitted prior to the January 27 deadline. Unfortunately, neither John nor I had received any information on the proposal prior to the meeting. In short, the Makah proposal was to set a TCEY of 1.65 Mlbs for 2A resulting in a 1.5 Mlb FCEY for 2A. When we arrived in Victoria and learned of the Makah proposal, we submitted our support statement for the Makah proposal (below). We also both testified publicly in favor of the proposal on three different occaisions.

*******
Our sincere apologies for the late response concerning the Makah proposal to create a baseline halibut quota in 2A. We learned of the proposal upon our arrival yesterday, in Victoria. On behalf of the North Olympic Peninsula Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers, the Coast Conservation Association - WA membership, and communities around the North Olympic Peninsula that we have been working with over the past few years for a more stable halibut fishery, we would like to add our support for the proposal and the establishment of a base FCEY no lower than 1.5 Mlb for the 2A halibut fishery.

The halibut fishery is a critical component of the coastal economies of not only Washington but Oregon and California. Having a base amount to work with and to build upon in future years will be a benefit to all the halibut fishery components.

Looking down the road, with the establishment of a stand-alone halibut catch record card in WA that will give WDFW a better count on the actual number of sport halibut anglers along with the Oregon halibut punch card process, we're hopeful that at some point in the near future the IPHC can consider a different format for the sport fishery in 2A. This would allow the 2A states to have an established recreational season structure coast wide. We would suggest that an annual limit of one fish per day and two in possession in the field with a maximum size of 50 inches would also help the resource by reducing the impact on the larger sized females and spreading out the fishery. Additionally, anglers can pick the days they want to be on the water rather than specified dates that lead to a derby mentality which has resulted in anglers fishing in poor weather/sea conditions that has resulted in loss of life and/or property in recent years.

Sports anglers in Area 2A are dedicated to maintaining the halibut resource and strongly believe this approach will lead to better conservation and sustainable management in Area 2A. We look forward to further conversations with IPHC staff about the recreational halibut fishery.

Thank you.

Dave Croonquist
John Beath
***********

There was considerable discussion at the CB meeting about the proposal and that it was going to be a potential long-term (actually only up to five years) base. It was eventually voted down by the CB. Tom Marking provided a strong minority report on the CB action to the Commission regarding the voted down Makah proposal. I provided the following oral testimony in support of the proposal Thursday morning.

*************
RE: IPHC-2019-AM095-Prop C1 Rev_1
Makah 2A Proposal

On behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association, Puget Sound Anglers and affiliated sport fishing groups we would like to extend our continued support of the Makah proposal for halibut management in CSP 2A.

We were disappointed that the proposal was voted down by the Conference Board. From our perspective, the proposal has great potential for the long-term management of halibut in 2A.

The 2A fishery has a level of complexity that creates management issues for the various fishing communities. In Washington State, a Catch Sharing Plan with 13 Treaty Tribes is unique to this area and court-mandated. In Area 2A, fisheries are prosecuted by tribal needs – commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial; non-tribal commercial by both directed take and incidental take by salmon trollers and the sablefish/black cod fishery; and sport fisheries in three states.

The Makah proposal, developed in close cooperation with IPHC staff, would and still could provide an opportunity for a long-term look at halibut management in 2A that can create a safer and more consistent fishery for all parties and in particular the small boat sport fishery. This new approach would strengthen the 2A Catch Share Plan and provide stability throughout Area 2A without affecting the biomass.

We would encourage the IPHC to move forward with the concept proposal and we look forward to being able to work with the MSAB and the IPHC, as appropriate. We believe that the adoption of this proposal would provide stability within area 2A fisheries as well as be beneficial to the current Management Strategy Evaluation and MSAB analysis of multi year catch policies.

John Beath provided the following testimony in support of the Makah proposal:

Puget Sound Anglers supports this motion which is conservative on the stock but allows Area 2A a slight increase to 1.65

This motion will allow Area 2A to have a fair, manageable and equitable approach to halibut management among the share holders in the area.
Thank You
John Beath
Puget Sound Anglers
**************

The Makah proposal was approved this morning by Commission action and, additionally, the IPHC put the 2A setting in place for the next four years, through 2022. The sport fishery quota for 2A is going to be set (barring a major collapse of the stocks) at approximately 675,675 lbs for the next four years. For the Washington halibut fishery, we'll be looking at approximately 277,100 lbs as our base quota. The shares for the Washington areas are: Puget Sound - 77,549 lbs. North Coast - 128,187 lbs. South Coast - 62,894 lbs. Columbia River - 8,467 lbs. Oregon will fish on 289,575 lbs. California will get 39,000 lbs.

The 2A sport fishing community has worked with the Makah the past couple of years on the halibut fishery. Without their strong leadership and work putting together the scientific data with the IPHC staff that the supported their proposal, we'd still be in a year to year management process. Now, we have a base quota and four years to see what can be worked on towards a better season structure.

John has been posting information as the meeting progressed on his "Halibut Chronicles" website. See his links below for more information. There is more work to be done for an improved sport halibut fishery. Also, as you'll see in John's post on the issue of by-catch, changes need to be made to reduce the by-catch of sub-legal halibut by the trawl fisheries operating in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. We'll keep everyone advised.

https://halibutchronicles.com/2019/02/01/iphc-commission-sets-4-year-halibut-quota-for-area-2a/

https://halibutchronicles.com/2019/02/01/iphc-announces-pacific-halibut-quota-for-u-s-and-canada/

By catch
https://halibutchronicles.com/2019/01/30...ons-coast-wide/

Dave Croonquist
John Beath

Great work guys and thanks for being there to rep us washington fishers.
I look forward to getting out after Halibut again this year and this is great news...

why was the proposal initially rejected then approved?

Well done, and thanks for all the effort on that.

How's 675K lbs per year compare to last year's quota (or the 10 yr avg, or whatever middlin index available). Just wondering how we did.

How much of an uphill slog do you think it'll be to change the season-setting culture away from select single day openers and big breeder killing, to a long season, and limit on fish size?

Thanks again,

fb

Thank you.

Halibut have been managed on an annual quota allocation for years. Change is hard. The Makah did their homework with their historical data and working with the IPHC Secretariat personnel to evaluate the IPHC data. The halibut population in 2A is on the Southern edge of the range. Any impacts on the biomass are very limited to the regions to the North.

The Conference Board (CB) is comprised of commercial, tribal, charter, and sport anglers. From my perspective, most of the folks probably didn't fully understand the proposal and don't know the history of the halibut fishery in 2A. The big stumbling block, I think, was that the Makah proposal had a statement that the fishery would establish a base limit and didn't have a "sunset" provision. Also in the mix was the on-going issues in Canada over their desire for a larger quota that isn't substantiated by the biomass science. The proposal said the TCEY would be in place for 3 to 5 years while the fishery was evaluated and the FCEY (1.5Mlb) would become a base.

The Commissioners recognized the biological arguments of the Makah proposal and saw an opportunity to initiate a stable fishery base (4 years) to see how the concept plays out without impacting the Canadian and Alaskan fisheries.

While not privy to all of the conversations after the proposal was made, we're sure there was some political discussions between Canada and the US that were done to preclude the problems that came up last year when the US and Canada couldn't agree on a quota and we went back to the 2017 quotas.

Great work! Thank you for that and for keeping us informed.

Last year, we had just over 225,000 lbs for WA waters. We ended up with approximately 52,000 lbs. The new base of 1.5Mlbs will give the sport fleet 675,675 lb for WA, OR, and CA each year for the next four years unless there is a major crash in the biomass.

I would suggest that you read through the 2A catch share plan to see how the quota is disbursed between all the active fisheries.

https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov...halibut-csp.pdf

We've been trying to get a season structure re-established in WA waters for years. When the quota is done on an annual basis, it is hard to run a management program.

We're slowly, we think, making progress on chances for a "season". Last year, we finally had an annual limit established for WA waters of four fish. This year, anyone fishing for halibut will need a halibut CRC ($5) so that the state will finally get some solid numbers on how many halibut anglers are in the state. We know that it isn't the 300,000 +/- that "could/might" fish for halibut based on the current issuance of halibut CRCs. Having good numbers will/should result in better catch estimates. Having a solid catch base will help.

We're going to have to see what the harvest numbers are for 2019 compared to 2018 and previous years. In 2016, because of the number of halibut CRCs issued, the state used an expansion factor of 11.7 to estimate total harvest. For areas 5,6,7, and 9 the raw CRC count of halibut was 591 fish. Using their expansion factor of 11.7, the Puget Sound catch estimate was 6,611 halibut. For the ocean, the CRC showed 863 fish and an expanded estimate of 9908 fish for total halibut landing of 16,519 fish.

Since the IPHC manages on pounds landed, there is a strong argument to be made for a maximum size to protect the spawning females. Canada has a one per day and two fish field possession limit (with one fish under 45" and one fish under 32". You have to take the fish home before you can take two more. They have an annual limit of 6 fish. These size limits effectively protect the spawning female populations.

We will continue to work for a season structure so we can be safe on the water. We would hope we might see something in the next couple of years.

The estimate is 6611 halibut caught in 5, 6, 7 and 9 in eight days (or whatever it was)? That seems awfully high to me. Or am I reading this wrong?

Just a quick glance at the proposal left me wondering something. If the season were to go away with the set dates what is the set amount of fish per year and, how will the numbers absorb the additional fisherman, which could be significant if the charters are allowed to operate for many more days? I am not sure if I am reading it correctly so perhaps someone can explain it better to me.
Thanks

I'm waiting for some updated reports on catch estimates from WDFW. Remember that under the current CRC reporting format, the 2017 CRCs weren't due until April 2018 and the 2018 CRCs won't be due until April 2019. There is then the lag in collating the CRC data.

I can say, though, that in 2016 (last year I have the data on) that WDFW showed a raw creel count of 591 fish in MA 5,6,7, and 9. They used an expansion factor of 11.7 giving them an expanded catch estimate of 6,611 halibut for those areas. MA 1,2,3, and 4 showed raw CRC counts of 863 fish and an expanded estimate of 9,908 halibut taken.

I would agree that the numbers seem high, but remember that approximately 250,000 halibut CRCs were issued. WDFW doesn't know if each person holding a halibut CRC fished for halibut or not, but they might have so ...... the estimates go up.

We're hopeful that the halibut CRC required of annual saltwater or combination license purchaser who intend to fish for halibut will give us a better count on the actual number of halibut anglers and reduce the estimated harvest numbers to a more reasonable level.

It's hard to get a solid number since IPHC manages halibut take based on pounds landed (easy to monitor for the commercial fleets who have to go to a fish buyer with scales to weigh the catch). The sport fleet catch is calculated based on creel checks and formula to estimate the harvest numbers and then converted to pounds landed based on creel check measurements of fish against the IPHC weight/length charts that give an estimated total harvest by pounds. The different areas of WA waters can have different average weights.

If you use a 20 lb average, 277,100 lbs of halibut would make 13,855 fish available for harvest. With an annual limit of four fish and a field possession limit of one fish per day and two in possession it is possible that with the new base FCEY for the next four years, we hope to be able to make an argument for a season structure of some sort rather than the specified days to fish. The halibut CRC card that will be issued starting this year for saltwater and combination license holders who want to fish for halibut should give us some better numbers to work with.

The most recent CRC data I was able to get was for 2016. 43,827 halibut CRCs were returned. 42,972 CRCs (98%) showed 0 halibut. 498 showed 1 halibut (1.1%). 208 showed 2 halibut (.5%). 95 showed 3 halibut (.2%). 28 showed 4 halibut (.1%). 15 showed 5 halibut (0.0%). 8 showed 6 halibut (.0.0%). 2 showed 7 halibut (0.0%). One person showed 10 halibut (0.0%).

From those numbers, the harvest estimate was 34.2% caught 1 fish; 28.5% caught 2 fish; 19.5% caught 3 fish; 7.7% caught 4 fish; 5.1% caught 5 fish; 3.3% caught 6 fish; 1% caught 7 fish; and .7% caught 10 fish for a total harvest of 1,458 fish. Using the 11.7 expansion factor, 17,058 fish were landed. I don't know why this number doesn't coincide with the other number posted earlier of 16,519 but it could just be rounding errors.

Whether roughly 14,000 fish is enough for a season structure is yet to be determined, but we're hopeful that something can be done to make our halibut trip safer.

11.7 seems like a fairly "precise" expansion # - how did they come up with that factor? 9 out of 10 successful halibut anglers DID NOT turn in their catch card? Is there any real data to support that expansion factor of reported catch?

The creel census/dock checks are one way to evaluate expansions.

The following statement was included with the tables showing CRC raw counts and expanded estimates from a 2016 report I received. I hope it might help answer your questoin.

"Halibut CRCs, Puget Sound

Raw totals are the fish recorded on the returned sample cards. Our in-sample group comprises 25% of the issued cards. Typical return rates are in the 40% range, so these numbers come from about 10% of the issued cards. The expanded estimates are calculated by expanding the raw catch out to the total issued cards. We do NOT correct for non-response bias, so these estimates are likely high; however, then can be used to track trends.

For the sake of simplicity, the Puget Sound numbers exclude areas other than 5, 6,7, and 9, and also exclude catch from outside the catch season months. The coastal counts include all months. We do not make review phone calls on halibut reports as we do for salmon or steelhead."