As many of you are aware, halibut fishing opportunities in WA waters have been severely curtailed over the past few years. The economic impact on the Olympic Peninsula businesses has been large. The Olympic Peninsula Salmon and Halibut Coalition was formed this winter to pursue changes in how the halibut fishery is managed.

The proposal below is a result of our work. It has been presented to the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The proposal is supposed to come up for discussion at the PFMC meeting in Spokane, WA, in June.

Resolutions in support of the season/annual bag limit have been passed by the City of Port Angeles, the Port of Port Angeles, the Clallam County Commissioners, and the Port of Port Townsend. There is wide-spread support for change in how the sport fishery is managed.

If you're so inclined, an email in support of the proposal to the PFMC, IPHC, and WDFW would be appreciated.



A CHANGE IS NEEDED IN THE SPORT HALIBUT FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

The Pacific Halibut Convention was developed to administer the commercial fisheries for halibut between the United States and Canada. We believe the sport fleet halibut fishery can be managed separately from the commercial, Alaska subsistence, and tribal/First Nation fisheries. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) currently sets harvest poundage quotas for the various halibut fisheries in the waters off the US and Canadian coasts. These quotas are then applied through appropriate US and Canadian federal agencies to the states and British Columbia. We believe that it is time to re-structure the sport halibut fishery to be managed on numbers of fish landed, not estimated pounds landed.

Recreational halibut anglers are a critical component in the coastal economies of the US and British Columbia. They spend tens of millions of dollars which support many businesses from motels and gas stations to restaurants, grocery stores, bait dealers, and tackle shops. The continuing decline in halibut fishing opportunities is causing severe economic impacts to coastal communities particularly in Catch Share Plan Area 2A (Washington, Oregon, N. California).

Assigned fishing dates have created a derby mentality, forcing anglers to go fishing when they shouldn’t be on the water. Lives and property have been lost, and first responders including the US Coast Guard are put at risk when called out for search and rescue activities. Having an extended season would allow the sport angler to pick the days and sea/weather conditions for a safer fishery.

We believe the sport fishery can be better managed by limiting the number of fish that can be taken and possessed in the field and establishing an annual limit within a season structure. With more timely surveys and requiring a halibut specific catch record process, the Federal and state agencies can get a better handle on total harvest and provide more accurate harvest data to the IPHC.

We feel that that the IPHC can best address our concerns within the scope of the Convention under Article III, Section 2 (a), (b), and (c) below.

2. The Contracting Parties agree that for the purpose of developing the stocks of halibut of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea to levels which will permit the maximum sustained yield from that fishery and for maintaining the stocks at those levels, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, with the approval of the President of the United States of America and of the Governor General in Council of Canada, may, after investigation has indicated such action to be necessary, in respect of the nationals and inhabitants and fishing vessels and boats of the United States of America and of Canada, and in respect of halibut:

(a) divide the Convention waters into areas;

(b) establish one or more open or closed seasons, as to each area;

(c) limit the size of the fish and the quantity of the catch to be taken from each area within any season during which fishing is allowed;

We would like to have the IPHC designate the Pacific Coast of both countries as one sport fishing area; establish one season – February 1 to December 31; and set an annual bag limit of six fish. With the same season and annual limit applied to both US and Canadian sport halibut anglers the concern about the IPHC being involved in domestic regulation development shouldn’t be a problem. We would recommend that the daily limit be one fish and the field possession limit be two fish.

The Olympic Peninsula Salmon and Halibut Coalition and affiliated individuals and groups request that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife support our proposal to the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council for implementation in the 2018 sport halibut season. The coastal communities would realize significant economic benefits from a longer season, and anglers could plan their vacations within the season structure and know that the sea and weather conditions could be safer. We look forward to the upcoming meetings and are hopeful that 2018 will see the sport fleet halibut fishery greatly expanded.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council which oversees ocean fisheries for Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California will be discussing new regulation proposals at their June, 2017 meeting in Spokane, Washington. This proposal has already been submitted by the Coalition.

Any comments on this proposal should be sent to pfmc.comments@noaa.gov and it is suggested that your comments also be cc’d to the following agencies:

1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Assistant Director (Fisheries) Ron.Warren@dfw.wa.gov and the WDFW Commission commission@dfw.wa.gov

2. International Pacific Halibut Commission regproposal@iphc.int

3. Pacific Fisheries Management Council – Halibut Manager Ms. Kelly Ames kelly.ames@noaa.gov

Public comments on the proposal received BY 5:00 pm (Pacific), Thursday, May 11, 2017, will be mailed to Council members and appropriate advisory bodies prior to the June meeting. This is known as the Advance Briefing Book Deadline.

Public comment materials received at the Council office after the May 11, 5:00 pm deadline, but BY 5:00 pm (Pacific), Wednesday, May 31, 2017 will be included in the supplemental materials distributed to the Council on the first day of the June meeting. This is known as the Supplemental Public Comment Deadline.

We thank you for your support.

For the Olympic Peninsula Salmon and Halibut Coalition, Port Angeles Salmon Club, Puget Sound Anglers, Coastal Conservation Association, City of Port Angeles, Port of Port Angeles, Clallam County Commissioners, Port of Port Townsend, halibut anglers, and coastal businesses with direct and indirect links to the sport fishing community.

Dave Croonquist
Sequim, WA
dcroonquist@gmail.com

We'll have to wait and see what happens. Support emails are appreciated. The reference to a halibut CRC on the other thread is still being considered. Might not happen this year, but it would be nice if the legislature could figure out a way to pass the halibut CRC so we'd know how many folks are fishing for halibut. There would be a more timely reporting system, too, rather than waiting for a year after the season closes as currently exists.

The problem that will arise with a blanket open season and blanket catch limit is the IPHC annual need to set quotas. There is X available for harvest.

The proposal puts no limits on the number of licenses/cards sold. To implement will require daily maonitoring coastwide over the season to track catch. Even if recs succeed in getting a fixed season it will the require that commercials be managed day to day and their fishery closed to accommodate rec catch. Not posing this as a reason not to do this, just bring up the elephant in the manager's room.

While this is a good place to start, the IPHC apparently only controls the hook and line fisheries that take halibut. There are trawl fisheries that cumulatively kill more than all the hook and line. Without consequence. And all the Hook and liners are then managed to account for this. Plus, the 'but killed in the nets is tossed back. Dead.

Looking at Alaskan halibut by-catch wastes in recent years, the grand total of the last year I could find was 5815 MT=12,819,880 pounds of halibut by-catch wasted in Alaskan waters compared to Washington state’s direct sport halibut fishery gets app. 110.3 metric tons= 243,167 lbs allocation for the year 2017.

Something is wrong with that picture.

The trawl bycatch of UNRETAINABLE halibut is sickening.



That's just ONE drag by ONE vessel.

In another words, Alaska halibut by-catch from other targeted fisheries wastes more than 98% more halibut than all of Washington State sport allocation in year 2017. But still IPHC has the nerve to pat themselves on the back about recent by-catch improvements.

“The longest halibut migration on record was that of a fish tagged near Atka Island in the Aleutian Islands, which was recaptured at Coos Bay, Oregon, a distance of 2,500 mi (4,023 km). Once halibut become mature, they seasonally migrate in the fall from the shallower (100 to 600 foot!) waters of the continental shelf to the bottom edge of the continental slope - as deep as 2,000 feet.”

CORRECTION....

Alaska wasted bycatch represents 5272% of the totality of the WA State rec halibut fishery.

We are literally a drop in the bucket in terms of extracted halibut biomass.

IPHC has no control over the by catch in the trawls. They are stuck with managing only the hook and line.

NPFMC?

Thank you, I did phrase that incorrectly. The comparison reflects the difference is over 98% going to Alaskan by-catch--- compared to fewer than 2% going to Washington 2017 sport halibut catch.

http://www.iphc.int/publications/annual/ar2015.pdf

“The IPHC and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) held a joint February meeting (2015), in an attempt to find common ground on by-catch reduction and control.

While the Commission subdivides the coast wide stock by regulatory area, the domestic governments allocate the catch further in some areas and require Commission approval to implement these allocation plans. The Commission approved the PFMC catch-sharing plan that allocates the Area 2A catch among the non-treaty directed commercial fishery, non-treaty incidental fisheries, treaty Indian fisheries, and sport fisheries. The DFO commercial/sport allocation plan was also approved. The NPFMC catch-sharing plan allocating the catch for Areas 2C and 3A between commercial and charter sport sectors was approved with specific charter management measures. The NPFMC catch-sharing plan for Areas 4CDE again allocates catch among the subareas. More in-depth information on all of these subjects can be found in the following sections of this report.”

Comments sent

In terms of allocation, this makes the salmon screwing we get look like a day at the spa. I wonder if the horrible mismanagement of groundfish has been allowed to continue for so long because there is no way for the general public to see the results of over-exploitation the way we do when salmon show up in the rivers in low numbers. We never see halibut until they're flopping on someone's deck (most often, to be dumped back dead), and until we stop seeing them hitting decks, we won't have to deal with the reality of what we've done.

Knowing how the majority of these delicious fish are being wantonly wasted, and realizing that fisheries politics will not change until they're all gone, I kind of wish they'd just let the trawlers sell those halibut to the market. Imagine how much cheaper and more plentiful it would become at the store? Wasting these fish is an even bigger travesty than intentionally overharvesting them for profit, in my opinion. That's some pretty dark $hit right there, I know....

There is a program called SeaShare where in 2014 app. 59,000 lbs. of halibut is delivered to BSAI and GOA ports from a portion of halibut by-catch. This is a similar amount of poundage to the 2017 Puget Sound sport angler allocation of 64,962 pound of halibut.

Both of these poundage’s represents a drop in a bucket and both could use major increases in coming years.

Perspectives really change when the critter in question just becomes another $100 bill with fins...





[video:youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLPPychrCYw[/video]

Bottom line, the primary thing the mgt agencies are interested in conserving is the ability to continue fishing.... REGARDLESS of what's happening to the health of the resource.

People suck...

Gee Doc, think there's more to (mis)management than what is best for the fish? It's all dollars and cents.

Look at NOF. We manage to the last fish or fraction thereof. One fish over the escapement "goal" is wasteage. Temporarily lowering the goal so we can fish is fine.

Time to Drain the swamp!

Do our native American brothers us barbless hooks on their long lines in the straights?

http://www.bighalibut.com/alaskan-halibut-facts

Compared to sport release;
Halibut do not have a swim bladder and do not suffer severely from changes in water pressure. The survival rate of halibut caught on sport gear and released in excellent condition (not gaffed!) is believed to be at least 95 percent.

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.

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