Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: A sensible solution to the charter comm fish divide?

  1. #1
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default A sensible solution to the charter comm fish divide?

    http://www.adn.com/2011/07/23/198231...ut-quotas.html

    "Baker said under the new plan the commercial IFQ program itself will not change, other than authorizing temporary transfers of catch shares from commercial to sport -- dubbed Guided Angler Fish (GAF) -- for a fishing season."


    I like it, let the market take care of allocation!
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  2. #2
    Member Hayduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Meadow Lakes
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Sounds good to me. It seems to me that if money is changing hands it should be considered "commercial".

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    One has to ask how that plan would best benefit "the people"....

    Would the vast majority of US citizens, who own the halibut, now have more opportunity to obtain their halibut? Or would the very small minority of US citizens who can afford to travel to Alaska and hire a charter, now have more opportunity to obtain their halibut?

    Is transferring a food source to a recreational sportfishery the best way to utilize the resource?

    Will landing tax and other direct revenues (that charters currently do not pay) be recouped in the transfer?

    Should market prices of quota shares between commercial and charters dictate fair and equitable allocation among users?

    Just a few things to ponder....

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    One has to ask how that plan would best benefit "the people"....

    Would the vast majority of US citizens, who own the halibut, now have more opportunity to obtain their halibut? Or would the very small minority of US citizens who can afford to travel to Alaska and hire a charter, now have more opportunity to obtain their halibut?
    Sounds like a political speech ... a halibut on every table.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and ensure equal access to Halibut Fillets, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"


  5. #5

    Default

    A little bit of class warfare mixed in too. Well done Grampy.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Not until you brought it up. You really need to read the Magnason Stevens Fisheries Act. That is the basis for what Grampy was talking about. I'm sure it doesn't fit your agenda though.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    That's nice LeakyBucket and 270ti. But neither of you answered the question....

  8. #8
    Member Hayduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Meadow Lakes
    Posts
    504

    Default

    I think the model of looking at some fish species as purely a resource is dead. There is a reason why you can't buy wild ducks, deer or elk at Carrs. Yes, the argument can be made that halibut or any other natural resource belongs to all citizens. I'm just not sure it means everyone had an equal "right" to access it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
    I think the model of looking at some fish species as purely a resource is dead. There is a reason why you can't buy wild ducks, deer or elk at Carrs. Yes, the argument can be made that halibut or any other natural resource belongs to all citizens. I'm just not sure it means everyone had an equal "right" to access it.
    But the reality is that, unlike ducks and deer, halibut is a wild resource that the public does use almost exclusively as a food resource. You can buy it at Carrs.

    In my opinion GAF's won't change the people's access to the halibut, it will just make it harder for the vast majority of citizens to obtain it, since most can't or won't travel to alaska and hire a charter for it. Again, do GAF's best benefit the majority of the people, or do they serve the interests of a very small minority of recreational fishermen and Alaska's niche charter industry. If the people of the US who expect it on the menu and at the store could vote on it, what would they say when the meat try is empty and they find out it's been transferred to a recreational charter fishery in Alaska?

  10. #10
    Member Hayduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Meadow Lakes
    Posts
    504

    Default

    If you were to step into the "Carrs" of 1900 you would most certainly find wild game for sale. As the resources began to be abused the Feds stepped in and shut it down. I'm sure the market hunters and those who were accustomed to purchasing it weren't thrilled at the time.

    I don't have any problem with commercial fishing. I do think that it would be a good idea to require charters to purchase quotas. I think that will drive the price of charter fishing up. This will limit the amount of charters as well as the "near port" catch rates.

  11. #11
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I'd love to see sustainable market hunts for whitetailed deer personally
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Will landing tax and other direct revenues (that charters currently do not pay) be recouped in the transfer?

    Just a few things to ponder....
    The NMFS cost recovery fee that is paid on halibut and sablefish will be paid by the actual owner of the quota shares for all transfered fish but the raw fish tax and landing taxes will not be recouped and so the communities themselves will be the loser on that end.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thanks JtF...Something to seriously consider.

  14. #14

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
  •