Possible halibut changes....lower quota? No electric reels....

[Mark Mc]

....well no electric reels in Alaska....but if that takes hold who knows if it spreads south.

Keep up on this stuff if you care......we'll try to have a discussion on this at the convention.


read some of the submitted proposals (like banning electric reels) here
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...regprop2k8.htm

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...eet/IPHCAM.htm


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/finfi...ment/index.asp


August 2007

• ODFW did not host a meeting to discuss proposed changes to the Catch Sharing Plan for 2008 due to the uncertainty of the 2008 catch allocation, which could be reduced as much as 50% from 2007 levels.

• Background. A new approach to the annual stock assessment is proposed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) to determine an estimate of coastwide biomass. The estimate of coastwide biomass is then divided into areas. The amount designated for Area 2A (Oregon, Washington and California) is a substantial reduction from recent years. IPHC is currently reviewing an external report from a stock assessment workshop.

• The public had an opportunity to submit their own recommendations for the 2008 halibut sport fishery to the Pacific Fishery Management Council for consideration at its September meeting. Recommendations for allocation and fishery structure (seasons, bag limits, etc.) were sought.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Anyone have a towel? Think I am gonna cry. 50% reduction, that's gonna be harsh. The electric reel deal is just plain dumbbunny baloney.

Looks like May is vacation time and to get your fish you are gonna have to go bad seas or not. I hate that kind of fishing.

[namu mac]

Maybe the will let us use our old outlawed spinning wing duck decoys for halibut fishing and our electric reels for duck hunting. Go figure. Maybe we can pay our license fees with outlawed equipment?:frown:

[CATCH AND EAT]

I wonder if I could build a poaching locker to fit under the boat between the hulls?..............Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

[fyshndad]

Uhhh Bernie..... Big Brother is watching you besides those OSP game cops are pretty smart

Next time we meet ask me about the poacher I fished with once and the tricks he tried that failed
He got a $5000.00 fine

[fish_on]

Originally Posted by CATCH AND EAT

I wonder if I could build a poaching locker to fit under the boat between the hulls?..............Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Sure, we just take that cat and make it look like a mono hull, bet you could fit 50-100 nice halibut in there

[Bucolic buffalo]

Let me see, we are looking at reduced fish quota and restricted use of electric reels. What is next? Draw tags for halibut like we have for big game? This after we already have restricted days to fish, a season that starts when ocean conditions usually require a large boat to get out and areas that are off limits for fishing. I used an electric reel for the first time this year and found that you still need to reel in the fish by hand. What fun is it to reel in the fish with the electric drive? Baits checks are great though. We routinely fish at depths that are considered deep by AK standards, 200+ m, from what I read. It sounds like this is an issue from commercial butt fishers wanting to protect "their" turf in the north land. I do not fully understand why the limit has to be re-allocated to the north even after reading everything.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

Uhhh Bernie..... Big Brother is watching you besides those OSP game cops are pretty smart

Next time we meet ask me about the poacher I fished with once and the tricks he tried that failed
He got a $5000.00 fine

Now Hank, you know I was joshing here right?

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by CATCH AND EAT

Now Hank, you know I was joshing here right?

Sure do bro
I know you are too smart to even think about breaking the law

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

Sure do bro
I know you are too smart to even think about breaking the law

Well, I did stay at a holiday inn express last night..............


Oh, and I do break the speed limit pretty regularly. Note (Blue pig please pay no attention to this post.):tongue:

[namu mac]

Originally Posted by CATCH AND EAT

I wonder if I could build a poaching locker to fit under the boat between the hulls?..............Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Maybe not, but a deep fryer on board would be nice!

[Seansquatch]

Electric reels are kinda unsportsman like if you cant reel it up your self go catch some trout. And if reduced quotas are what they need to keep the fish populations healthy then its a great idea.

[Highmark]

If you have ever fished at 800 ft. and it takes 10 min of reeling to just check your bate. an electric reel would be great. You go catch a trout.
That leaves more Butts for us real fisherman.

HM

Originally Posted by Seansquatch

Electric reels are kinda unsportsman like if you cant reel it up your self go catch some trout. And if reduced quotas are what they need to keep the fish populations healthy then its a great idea.

[Seansquatch]

That's still lazy so real fisherman don't respect the fish enough to use fair methods of catching them is that what your saying. Halis are amazing fish and if you have to work hard to catch a big ones then good fishing's not as fun when its overly easy. I bet not allowing electric reels would separate the people who really love fishing from the ones just looking for something to fry.

[lor]

Originally Posted by Seansquatch

That's still lazy so real fisherman don't respect the fish enough to use fair methods of catching them is that what your saying. Halis are amazing fish and if you have to work hard to catch a big ones then good fishing's not as fun when its overly easy. I bet not allowing electric reels would separate the people who really love fishing from the ones just looking for something to fry.

Hello Sean, as others have pointed out, even when you use an electric reel you still have to reel the fish up. The most prevalent use of them is the bait check, which from 800 feet takes alot of energy.

Just because your using an electric reel doesn't mean your lazy, not a real fisherman, or just looking for something to fry. Looking at your first post, your 15 years old, full of ideals, and have your whole life ahead of you. Its a blessing your able to get out and enjoy this great fishery at such a young age. I was 28 when I caught my first halibut.

In the invincible prime of your youth, you might not believe it or want to accept it, but trust me on this. There will come a day when your not as strong as you are now, and you will still want to get out and enjoy fishing the big water. I hope there is something around in your day, which allows you to still enjoy the sport when your much older and your muscle fatigue much faster than they do today. I hope for your sake, your ideals don't bring an early end to your ability to enjoy fishing well into your golden years.

[spudderman]

I can't speak for Oregon and Washington halibut fishing, however, I have fished in Alaska for over 25 years for halibut. What I have seen is a steady decline of what used to be an incredible halibut fishery up there.

I don't understand why any fishery has to get to the point where it is decimated for there to be reasonable restrictions instituted... I know the Sitka area has a two fish daily limit. You can keep one under 32 " and one over. I personally can't understand why someone would want to keep a halibut under 32 ". I would like to see the minimum size limit raised. And I'm a strong proponent of not killing the large barn door sized females either, but that is a personal choice.

Again, don't let your greed exceed your need.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!:lurk:

[Bucolic buffalo]

Not using electrics would certainly take me out of the picture because of arthritis in my shoulders, deep or not. As for working for them, I don't catch anymore than you young he men. I don't think they increase the catch anymore than allowing you to use scents and other attractants for fish. May be we should go back to row boats and cane poles. No two speed reels, no high tech line, no depth finders or GPS. As for catching fish the depth/fish finder and the GPS have resulted in more fish being caught than electric reels will ever account for. To each his own. As for the reduction of the quota, my understanding is that the quota is being reallocated from our area to other areas, not to reduce the total catch.

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by Seansquatch

That's still lazy so real fisherman don't respect the fish enough to use fair methods of catching them is that what your saying. Halis are amazing fish and if you have to work hard to catch a big ones then good fishing's not as fun when its overly easy. I bet not allowing electric reels would separate the people who really love fishing from the ones just looking for something to fry.

Seansquatch,

Ever halibut fish?

Ever fish with an electric reel off Garibaldi in 800' with 4# lead? As mentioned above, you still have to use the manual crank to get the fish up. The electric is only used for bait checks. Suggesting we disallow the use of electric reels is akin to not allowing folks the use of wheel chairs. Hard to believe, but there are folks with physical disabilities that still enjoy fishing.

Did you look up who is proposing the regulation change?

Pasternak v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (09/07/2007) sp-6159

Two proposals by Walter in 2006

Headlines on legal case

Signatory on Alaska petition to remove Snake River Dams

and I could go on...

So, here we have a very politically active commerical fisherman proposing regulations to limit fishing and methods by sport fisherman. And we as Ifishers are once again arguing with one another - some agreeing that what is needed is further reductions in sport fishing efforts, gear, etc., while the real issue is that the quota was transferred away from the recreational fisherman to the commercial fishing fleet in Alaska.

I have to tell you - the guys that introduce this stuff aren't dumb. They know that we are a bunch of disorganized patsies that can't agree on anything other than arguing with one another.

Yep - I totally agree with every regulation suggested that limits sport catch while does nothing to limit commercal catch - NOT.

Remember earlier this year - the drive to limit sport tuna catch to (initially) 3, then to 10. A number of folks on here support that in the name of conservation. At the same time there is NO talk of commerical catch restrictions.

Same thing, and we seem to be having the same response - lets argue amongst ourselves and not do anything unified to protect our diminishing slice of the natural resource pie.

[fishbait]

Seansquatch,

Please do not take offense, but I am curious.

How many Halibut trips did you personally make last year, how deep did you fish and what did you catch and retain.

How about the year before?

Have you ever fished with an electric reel?

[iwanttofish]

So maybe the commercial guys a gals should not use an electric winch to bring up the long lines, that is also an electric reel. The limits if reduced should go all around sport and commercial. I have only fished them once this last year and it was great but yes it is a lot of work just to check the bait.

[havnfun2]

just look a little north and see how screwed up the butt fishing is here in WA. one fish a day and we were able to fish what 6 days last year total. so if you had to work or your baot was not quiet big enought no fish for you.

[jacksalmon]

Would someone please explain why the Oregon quota might be reduced. I remember when I first read this a couple months ago, I could not understand why it would be enacted. Notice I said "would be enacted", not "would be necessary". In reading the reports, it seemed they were saying that the halibut had migrated to Oregon coastal waters in greater numbers than had been anticipated, so as a result, they were going to cut the Oregon quota. I didn't quite understand the logic. I mean if there are more halibut off the Oregon coast, why cut the quota? It doesn't mean they should increase the quota, but more fish out there doesn't seem to be a good reason to cut the quota. However, since my logic seems to be all screwed up, I thought it just might be that I didn't get it in the first place. Unless, it had something to do with the Alaskans figuring that if Oregonians take fewer fish, there would be more fish left to migrate back to Alaska. I just don't get it. Would somebody explain it all. Thanks.

[Chum Bucket]

Just because I get to use an electric reel, doesn't mean I get to keep any more fish than you do, plain and simple. It just means my hands won't hurt as bad as yours the next morning, but my back still hurts...

I have access to some VHS video of an Alaskan ****** boat pulling in halibut. I will see if I can get it converted to post online. If I have to quit using my electrics, then I think the AK ****** boats should have to stop using the 10-ton Marco blocks and 10-ton winch to reel the 300-500# halibut in as well!

Seems fair to me?

I agree with Havnfun2 which is why I do most of my butt fishing out of Depoe.

[Seansquatch]

Sorry i didnt know you still had to reel the fish up manually on a electric reel.

[hot wire]

Originally Posted by spudderman

I don't understand why an fishery has to get to the point where it is decimated for there to be reasonable restrictions instituted... I know the Sitka area has a two fish daily limit. You can keep one under 32 " and one over. Me personally can't understand why someone would want to keep a halibut under 32 ". I would like to see the minimum size limit raised. And I am a strong proponent of not killing the large barn door sized females either, but that is a personal choice.

Again, don't let your greed exceed your need.

Spudderman- You are right on buddy! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Chum Bucket]

Originally Posted by Seansquatch

Sorry i didnt know you still had to reel the fish up manually on a electric reel.

My Electramates (red ones mated to Penns) do not have manual crank handle just a button while most others do. Some have their own battery packs or plug into the boat's 12V system. Never had a serious issue and planning on buying 2 more to make 4 onboard.

[Pilar]

How quickly we forget the increasing annual share for area 2A over the last few years. For most of those years we left quota on the table. There are only so many people who can and will fish for Halibut far offshore and only so many slots on tags. And in the last few years measures were implemented to try to take the quota. The two fish a day and endless halibut summer for example.

I can remember summers with only 8 or 10 fishing days not so long ago.

Now the pendulum swings the other way.

Electric reels are nice on the 800 ft bait check. I won't own one because they fail the simple test. Not simple enough for me. The plugs corrode and they fail. We do pretty good with two speeds and even penn 4/0.

[Highmark]

I only have 2 penn 340's and 1, 330 and 1 shamano 2 speed to fish with, on My boat. No Electric's for me. they would be great for bait checks out at the hill. But I think they would be a pain to install and take care of.

HM

Originally Posted by Pilar

Electric reels are nice on the 800 ft bait check. I won't own one because they fail the simple test. Not simple enough for me. The plugs corrode and they fail. We do pretty good with two speeds and even penn 4/0.

[Nalu]

I used electrics this year for bait checks for all my customers. They were an overwhelming success, and they do change the way you fish. Not quite on the right drift? Pick up and move.

I cut off the alligator clips on the battery side of the power cable and wired in Scotty downrigger plugs. Very simple to plug in as well as remove. Since the Daiwa reels are about the same size, and light weight they function just like a regular reel.

[SecondSeason]

havent' logged in sometime as i have been chasing birds with my new dog. so i log in and see that change is in the air. i have 2 thought with regards to the Ereel bit and the reduction of quota. first i won't HAVE to buy a Ereel and can now spend the money on GAS. second if the quota is reduced by 50% does that mean that i can now only catch half a fish? one fish per day now 50%, whats next after that?

[Threemuch]

Maybe they will have a buyback plan for all you electric reel owners. Yeah, right.

[Mark Mc]

Originally Posted by Threemuch

Maybe they will have a buyback plan for all you electric reel owners. Yeah, right.

Now that, is funny! Good one Kurt.

On a serious note, I personally would not use an electric reel, at this time in my life. But why on earth begrudge someone else from using one? Suppose a person has a state of health such that....the electric reel is the only way they can fish?

[skein]

Back to the original topic of reduced quotas, I'm a little perplexed. We've got a healthy fishery, and then the next day we've got one that's almost endangered. I don't get it.

I also still disagree with no size limit at the lower end. I predicted - and saw -- lots of itty-bitty flounder-sized carcasses in the dumpsters, and feel that the nurseries are being raided. We can't afford to do that. Period.

Now, having said that, I also feel that Don Bodenmiller and the crew at ODFW have done a splendid job managing the fishery, so I will support them during this transition. I just hope science is fueling this and not politics (or some other behind-the-scenes shell game).

Skein

[Pilar]

No Ping pong paddles in the dumpster. Not on my boat. Removing the size limit was a dumb idea IMHO.

Skein I think it's IPHC that is changing the abundance math. ODFW just divides up what they get for area 2A quota.

[Reelentless]

Originally Posted by Threemuch

Maybe they will have a buyback plan for all you electric reel owners. Yeah, right.

Maybe I can file a Measure 49 claim! :tongue:

[cosmo]

ODFW put a proposal in front of the Regulation Review Committee to increase the halibut tag slots from 6 to 10 to provide increased availability to anglers. It passed the citizen panel for review by the Commission, with the caveat that it not be enacted, or that it be withdrawn, in the event of a reduced quota.

Just FYI.

[skein]

I think it's IPHC that is changing the abundance math...

Yeah, I think so too, but wouldn't it be cool if they would listen to the local, successful scientific community? Nah. I swear it's why we tend to question everything that comes down the pike.

Oh well, I'll just keep fishing the way they tell me until they won't let me fish anymore, then I'll recycle the aluminum in my boat. :tongue:

Skein

[Nalu]

I have to say that the IPHC seems to have a better handle on fish populations than most other groups out there. You might agree or disagree with their findings (depending on what area you are from and whether you are sport or commercial) but they certainly have a method, and stalwartly publish their findings.

Walter can probably correct me, or at least fill in the details better, but my understanding is that the quota shift has little to do with perceived current abundance in our area. Rather, it has to do with the realization that a larger portion of our fish are immigrants that have migrated from areas 3B and 4 (Gulf of Alaska). The shift of quota back to those areas *I believe* is to allow them to have a greater take of the available biomasss since it is generated in their area. With a greater take of the quota in areas 3B and 4 we would in turn see less migrant fish which would lead to a smaller population off of our coast.

It certainly is true that our halibut take is not based on how abundant the halibut are off our coast, but as a percentage of the *estimated* total biomass for the entire area. Going back to basics, but historical fishing pressure and commercial fishing interests seem to be driving the shift back to areas 3B and 4 in my opinion.

There's a lot of data that the IPHC presents. Again, the data is only as good as how and when it is collected, and you may find that debatable.

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...apers/sa06.pdf

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Nalu

Walter can probably correct me, or at least fill in the details better, but my understanding is that the quota shift has little to do with abundance in our area. Rather, it has to do with the realization that a larger portion of our fish are immigrants that have migrated from areas 3B and 4 (Gulf of Alaska). The shift of quota back to those areas *I believe* is to allow them to have a greater take of the available biomasss since it is generated in their area. With a greater take of the quota in areas 3B and 4 we would in turn see less migrant fish which would lead to a smaller population off of our coast.

There's a lot of data that the IPHC presents. Again, the data is only as good as how and when it is collected, and you may find that debatable.

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...apers/sa06.pdf

Interesting, they want the fish that are "produced" in their area for themselves. Don't the salmon from OR migrate north and often get caught on their return to OR? If that's correct, seems we have them wanting it both ways. They get the fish in both cases. Anyone know if they have a size limit on halibut in areas 3B and 4?

One possible problem with a 10 fish season limit is that more folks may(I bet many, not all, would too!) decide to keep smalller fish since they can keep more fish during the season. If so, that probably would not be good for the long term health of the fishery. I say probably because I read somewhere that taking some of the smaller fish out of the population can sometimes have a positive effect on the overall fishery. I think it was 'cause the food supply remains the same, so each remaining fish is likely to get a larger amount of food and hence be healthier. Something like that anyway, it may have application only to fish populations with a limited food supply and the ocean off our coast is very productive.

Another possible problem with the 10 fish limit is that folks with larger and/or more seaworthy boats may be able to get a larger share of the quota and folks with smaller boats may end up with a smaller share. Seems like we've met the quota for the past several years with just a 6 (or is it 5?) fish limit. Personally I don't see a compelling reason to up the season limit unless quota is left uncaught. Yeah, I'd like the chance to catch more halibut, but I'm trying to look at this from a larger perspective than just what I want for myself.

ron m

[fyshndad]

[quote=spudderman;1755257]I can't speak for Oregon and Washington halibut fishing, however, I have fished in Alaska for over 25 years for halibut. What I have seen is a steady decline of what used to be an incredible halibut fishery up there.

I don't understand why an fishery has to get to the point where it is decimated for there to be reasonable restrictions instituted...


greed

GREED = Over harvest by commercial interests
The sport fishers barely make a dent in the populations compaired to commercials

[spudderman]

[quote=fyshndad;1759091]

Originally Posted by spudderman

I can't speak for Oregon and Washington halibut fishing, however, I have fished in Alaska for over 25 years for halibut. What I have seen is a steady decline of what used to be an incredible halibut fishery up there.

I don't understand why an fishery has to get to the point where it is decimated for there to be reasonable restrictions instituted...


greed

GREED = Over harvest by commercial interests
The sport fishers barely make a dent in the populations compaired to commercials

Hank, I agree that commercial harvest without a doubt contributes a majority of the harvest ( that goes without question). However, I still don't feel that justifies me or any other sport fisherman to harvest these undersized halibut.

That is just my humble opinion.

As for electric reels, I personally don't use one, however, if it allows some people that would perhaps not be able to effectively fish for halibut to do so, then I think that's OK...

[Pilar]

I'm not a fisheries biologist but I have heard those folks state in meetings that the average size of halibut caught is not significantly changed by the no lower size limit rule.

Feel free to correct me if I don't have that right.

[Mark Mc]

So, with about 40 hits and 1200 views, is it safe to say that this would be a topic of interest at the salty dogs convention? Meaning.... a seminar / presentation by ODFW on the regulatory changes for halibut, the reasons why, etc.?

[Metal Manipulator]

[quote=Mark Mc;1759242]So, with about 40 hits and 1200 views, is it safe to say that this would be a topic of interest at the salty dogs convention? Meaning.... a seminar / presentation by ODFW on the regulatory changes for halibut, the reasons why, etc.?[/q


We could give them a protective barrier so they can explain why or how they came up with this plan.

I always find presentations by fisheries biologist enteresting, Good idea Mark.

[Mark Mc]

Hehe...Robin.....all joking aside....

We have a much higher likelihood of getting an ODFW rep to come & speak on this, vs an IPHC rep. It is the IPHC proposing / making these changes, NOT ODFW. So we should not need a barrier to protect our ODFW friend explaining someone else's decision, since salty dogs are such reasonable folks, right?

OK pass me some more koolaid.

[Pilar]

Watch Blues Brothers perform 'Rawhide' again. That chicken wire barrier aught to work.

[Metal Manipulator]

Then I would like to see the decision makers from IPHC in the protected barrier with our ODFW friends asking the questions. We can even hire a band while they sing.

[Mark Mc]

Okay.....we can certainly invite someone from the IPHC. How would you suggest we word the invitation?

BTW, the IPHC annual meeting is in Portland, Jan 15 - 18, '08.

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...nr20070720.htm

2008 IPHC ANNUAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT

The Eighty-fourth Annual Meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission will be held in Portland, OR from Tuesday, January 15 through Friday, January 18, 2008. Please note that these dates are a change from the announcement at the 2007 Annual Meeting. The sessions will be held at the Hilton Portland & Executive Tower.......


The Commission will distribute a brief summary of stock assessment information and staff recommendations to the public in December. This information will also be available on the Commission's web page at http://www.iphc.washington.edu. Requests for 2008 catch limit changes should be submitted to the Commission by December 31, 2007. Current information regarding the 2008 Annual Meeting, including regulation and catch limit proposal forms, can be located by following the Annual Meeting hyperlink on the Commission's web site or by calling the IPHC office at (206) 634-1838. The Commission's web site will be updated regularly with new information as the meeting date approaches.
The Commission invites the public to submit requests for 2008 regulatory changes (season length, clearances in Area 4, logbook reporting measures, etc) or management actions for review at the Annual Meeting. The deadline date for submission is November 15, 2007. The Commission will not guarantee consideration of proposals received after this date. The submission form can be downloaded from the IPHC web site or can be requested by calling the Commission offices at (206) 634-1838. A summary of all proposals will be distributed to industry and will also be posted on the IPHC web site when available.
The 2008 IPHC Annual Meeting Schedule and meeting rooms will be released in November, 2007.

- END -

Bruce M. Leaman
Executive Director
Phone: (206) 634-1838
Fax: (206) 632-2983
Web: www.iphc.washington.edu

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by Pilar

I'm not a fisheries biologist but I have heard those folks state in meetings that the average size of halibut caught is not significantly changed by the no lower size limit rule.

Feel free to correct me if I don't have that right.

John,

I was part of the North Coast contingent that presented to Don Bodenmiler and company (OK - I did the presenting). The size limit thing came up. The sport fishers up here did not support the no size limit thing, but we were trying to build a consensus with the charter guys who were pushing this. If we supported thier position, they would support ours - you know the deal. Also, Don presented evidence that the size limit thing has no impact on the average size of fish retained, or on the population size. So, based upon the data he presented, and the desire of the charter guys - we supported the proposal in order to gain consensus. The worst thing we can do is approach the state as a group of disorganized individuals.

So, a bit of history....

[StickFish]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Watch Blues Brothers perform 'Rawhide' again. That chicken wire barrier aught to work.

Um, Mark, Steve can proctor that session - I get enough stuff thrown at me

Removing the size limit was a dumb idea IMHO.

I'll second that one, watched many a dink go over the side of the charter boats. However, there are occasions when a fish comes up hooked so will die after being released and it sure is a shame to waste even a small fish - so I guess I sit on both sides of the fence on that one.

[Nalu]

Size limit- Like many of you, I pride myself on the fact that we don't bring ping-pong paddles back to port. Of course that decision is always left up to the angler. I generally can influence a decision one way or another, but it's their call.

But consider this...... It is most often the young that is better for a species to have harvested. Would you prefer a group on a boat to harvest ten 28"-30" fish or a single 58" fish? Those ten fish represent 10 spots on anglers tags. Of course I know what I want on my boat.....the bigger one, but is that better for the fishery?

I'm glad I don't run a boat in Alaska any more as I know that killing big hens again would be a sorrowing experience. Cutting the gills of a fish that may produce 4 million eggs a year is just not worth it to me.

[fyshndad]

[quote=spudderman;1759136]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

Hank, I agree that commercial harvest without a doubt contributes a majority of the harvest ( that goes without question). However, I still don't feel that justifies me or any other sport fisherman to harvest these undersized halibut.

That is just my humble opinion.

As for electric reels, I personally don't use one, however, if it allows some people that would perhaps not be able to effectively fish for halibut to do so, then I think that's OK...

I try not to keep dinks on my boat but as is stated below : sometimes the fish is hooked to where it would die if tossed back so those I do keep those fish
I prefer halibut in the 38 to 50 inch size anything over 50 is not as good of table fare IMHO and from my experience

As for eletric reels I would use them if I could afford to buy them
I am getting old & bait checks bite

[FrozenFish]

Originally Posted by Nalu

I'm glad I don't run a boat in Alaska any more as I know that killing big hens again would be a sorrowing experience. Cutting the gills of a fish that may produce 4 million eggs a year is just not worth it to me.

Interesting to me that almost universally charter captains tend to share your opinion on the harvest of the big girls but......... why is this topic never breached in talking about slot limits?? Maybe I'm way off on this, but I dont know of any sport fisheries in Alaska that have upper ends on their slots.

And before someone admonishes me for not understanding that the #300 halibut is what drives the economy of the chater industry in places such as Homer/ Seward I would like to respectfully point out that drawing a spike only tag for an elk hunt doesnt seem to keep hunters out of the field. Would a top end on size ever be politicaly possible? -FF

[lor]

Originally Posted by FrozenFish

Interesting to me that almost universally charter captains tend to share your opinion on the harvest of the big girls but......... why is this topic never breached in talking about slot limits?? Maybe I'm way off on this, but I dont know of any sport fisheries in Alaska that have upper ends on their slots.

I'm not sure I would want to bring in a large halibut and need to measure it. If its too big for me, I can always cut the line and send it back down. Uness the slot was extremely small, maybe a 20-25 inch spread or less between smallest to largest, wouldn't anglers risk more injury to themselves and the fish if a upper limit was imposed and strictly enforced.

People would try and get as close to the limit as possible, and thats when things can get ugly, especially on the limited deck space of a sport boat.

[Nalu]

I would think anything on the large end of the spectrum would need to be measured in the water. I'm not aware of a way to bring in a 60"+ fish to the boat without injuring the fish.

[Metal Manipulator]

Do the commercial fish throw back the bigger fish, I think not. The number of fish that the sports catch pales in comparison. Personaly I like to keep 40 to 60 Lb. fish.

[jacksalmon]

Originally Posted by Nalu

I have to say that the IPHC seems to have a better handle on fish populations than most other groups out there. You might agree or disagree with their findings (depending on what area you are from and whether you are sport or commercial) but they certainly have a method, and stalwartly publish their findings.

Walter can probably correct me, or at least fill in the details better, but my understanding is that the quota shift has little to do with perceived current abundance in our area. Rather, it has to do with the realization that a larger portion of our fish are immigrants that have migrated from areas 3B and 4 (Gulf of Alaska). The shift of quota back to those areas *I believe* is to allow them to have a greater take of the available biomasss since it is generated in their area. With a greater take of the quota in areas 3B and 4 we would in turn see less migrant fish which would lead to a smaller population off of our coast.

It certainly is true that our halibut take is not based on how abundant the halibut are off our coast, but as a percentage of the *estimated* total biomass for the entire area. Going back to basics, but historical fishing pressure and commercial fishing interests seem to be driving the shift back to areas 3B and 4 in my opinion.

There's a lot of data that the IPHC presents. Again, the data is only as good as how and when it is collected, and you may find that debatable.

http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...apers/sa06.pdf

I sure don't get the logic here, so if someone can explain it, I would like to learn. Given what Nalu has said here, there are fish from Alaska migrating to the Oregon coast and so, to give the 3B and 4 area fishers a greater share of the entire biomass than they have had before. First, doesn't that mean that they will be taking more fish out of a smaller population, if a lot of fish from that area are migrating to Oregon. Why would IPHC allow them to take more fish out of a dwindling population? If the fish are migrating to Oregon, then isn't that happening because of some advantage that the fish perceive in doing so. It is not as though they are being duped by mortgage brokers with interest only loans to take up residence on the Oregon coast. They are coming here for natural reasons. If that is the case, then why reduce the number of fish allowed in Oregon. Is it because then with more fish not caught, there will be more to migrate back to Alaska, if they are continuously moving back and forth, rather than taking up permanent residency in Oregon. Also, it would be interesting to see what kind of quotas have been allowed Alaskan fishers in 3B and 4 in the past few years. If they have been allowed 10 fish per year or so, then what is the problem? On the other hand, if there quota has only allowed them to take say 4 fish per year, then maybe it makes some sense to allow them more, if the fish are indeed migrating back there. I would also like to see what is the commercial take. If the sporties have had dwindling numbers in Alaska because of the commercial take up there, then it is pure bs to attempt to allow for more fish in Alaska by cutting the Oregon quota without first cutting the Alaskan commercial quota for those areas. I am just rambling on here without specific facts or knowledge. So, if someone can explain this so it makes sense, please do so, because, right now, this makes no sense to me.

[Mark Mc]

Jack, you put into words what many of us feel....right down to the last sentence. Thanks for expressing it so well.

Is there a precedent in any other fishery, where the migration pattern influences a quota or catch-sharing?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

Do the commercial fish throw back the bigger fish, I think not. The number of fish that the sports catch pales in comparison. Personaly I like to keep 40 to 60 Lb. fish.

Just to clarify, by "bigger" fish, I am talking fish over 100 lbs., and more so, really over 150 lbs. All of these big fish are hens.

[Goldrush]

I also think it's a reality, since sports get a % of the commercial take, that it's possible to have the commercial fleet lobby for less poundage to preserve their price, cutting us back even more.

The "new science" has the potential to cut back the central WA coastal harvest to 3 days or so.

Holy cow.

Kevin