Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Unguided Halibut Fishermen

  1. #1

    Default Unguided Halibut Fishermen

    Do you think that 2 halibut a day per angler, all season long is a fair limit for unguided anglers?

    If the unguided catch of halibut surges and needs to be controlled, what would be the best way, (in your opinion) to restrict and cut back the unguided anglers, to keep it under a GHL that will be determined? (size limits, annual limits, tag system, etc)

    What do you think would be a fair GHL for the unguided anglers? And..Do you think they could (or should) have different limits for AK residents and Non Resident anglers?

  2. #2
    Member FishKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    260

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Do you think that 2 halibut a day per angler, all season long is a fair limit for unguided anglers?

    If the unguided catch of halibut surges and needs to be controlled, what would be the best way, (in your opinion) to restrict and cut back the unguided anglers, to keep it under a GHL that will be determined? (size limits, annual limits, tag system, etc)

    What do you think would be a fair GHL for the unguided anglers? And..Do you think they could (or should) have different limits for AK residents and Non Resident anglers?
    NO Taking away fish from unguided anglers is only giving the commerical guy more power. The little man in this country is taking a beating and it needs to stop. you must commerical fish...........

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FishKing View Post
    NO Taking away fish from unguided anglers is only giving the commerical guy more power. The little man in this country is taking a beating and it needs to stop. you must commerical fish...........
    Yes, I do commercial fish, charter fish, and I am a recreational fisherman. (in no particular order)

    I'm sure you are aware that NOAA is currently making plans to institute a recording system, and establish GHLs for the unguided angler in Alaska. Restrictions are on the way for the unguided angler.

  4. #4
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    I say leave the unguided anglers out of all this.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Criminalizing the commies . . .

    The incessant demonization of the "commies" is, well . . comical. Guided/unguided want their "fair share" whatever that means, all the while forgetting or, better said, purposely ignoring all the millions of folks who get their halibut-salmon-whatever from the "commies."

    Give it a rest, and count your blessings that you're able to catch your own fish at all. Keep in mind, meanwhile, that the family in Kansas City likes to eat and has as much right to the halibut as do you.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    how can comfish possibly complain?? They are sitting on gold. Sport fish gets table scraps. Comfish is at or above the levels in 95, they are getting paid WAY more now per pound than then and true fuel is up but not enough to eat up the price difference even factoring in inflation. Sport fish gets less than bycatch and waste. Going to 1 fish is totaly insane. That would cut the charter take by 50%. Lets see comfish do that

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostbitten View Post
    I say leave the unguided anglers out of all this.
    Unfortunately, they won't be. You can either speak up now, or be given a GHL that you won't be able to meet. Just wait until many people who used to go out on charters go out and get boats, as a 1 fish charter limit won't cut it for them any more. NOAA is anticipating it.. Are you?

  8. #8
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Unfortunately, they won't be. You can either speak up now, or be given a GHL that you won't be able to meet. Just wait until many people who used to go out on charters go out and get boats, as a 1 fish charter limit won't cut it for them any more. NOAA is anticipating it.. Are you?
    I really don't think that many people who used to go out on charters will go out and get boats just to catch one more fish. Anyone who owns a boat knows that it's not cost effective in any way, and those that do try it I suspect will realize that very quickly. If it happens that the unguided bag limit is reduced, it's not the end of the world for us. We don't load up on halibut everytime we go out anyways. An extra trip or two and we'll have the same amount in the freezer as we do now. I suppose that would be tougher for those that have to drive a ways to put their boat in the water.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    I smell money for the motivated business person.
    I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

  10. #10
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Comfish is at or above the levels in 95, they are getting paid WAY more now per pound than then and true fuel is up but not enough to eat up the price difference even factoring in inflation.
    As I pointed out in another thread, the charter take is WAY above the '95 levels and they are charging WAY more per client. If you're going to use the '95 numbers as the baseline for the commercial take, wouldn't it make sense to do the same for the charter take?

  11. #11
    Member Hayduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Meadow Lakes
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    The incessant demonization of the "commies" is, well . . comical. Guided/unguided want their "fair share" whatever that means, all the while forgetting or, better said, purposely ignoring all the millions of folks who get their halibut-salmon-whatever from the "commies."

    Give it a rest, and count your blessings that you're able to catch your own fish at all. Keep in mind, meanwhile, that the family in Kansas City likes to eat and has as much right to the halibut as do you.
    Last time I checked the family from Kansas is free to move here and buy a boat. "We owe fish to the whole of the United States/World" is my least favorite pro comm-fish argument. Following that argument leads to all fish being provided for us.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Favorite BS . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
    Last time I checked the family from Kansas is free to move here and buy a boat. "We owe fish to the whole of the United States/World" is my least favorite pro comm-fish argument. Following that argument leads to all fish being provided for us.
    Yes, yes, yes . . . and you're free to move to Kansas to pick your corn . . etc., etc.

    But you grossly misrepresent my point: I did not say "We owe fish to the whole of the United States/World."

    What I did say is that all Americans have an equal right to enjoy eating the fish.

  13. #13
    Member Hayduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Meadow Lakes
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Yes, yes, yes . . . and you're free to move to Kansas to pick your corn . . etc., etc.

    But you grossly misrepresent my point: I did not say "We owe fish to the whole of the United States/World."

    What I did say is that all Americans have an equal right to enjoy eating the fish.
    I know I did. My argument would be that the "right" is poorly defined and really is more of a privilege.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Yes, yes, yes . . . and you're free to move to Kansas to pick your corn . . etc., etc.

    But you grossly misrepresent my point: I did not say "We owe fish to the whole of the United States/World."

    What I did say is that all Americans have an equal right to enjoy eating the fish.
    Marcus
    What is your solution? You poke holes in other peoples suggestions and comments, resite some poem or some silly garp like that but yet i never see your solution. Put a solution out there with numbers to back it up. Lets see what you come up.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile As I see it . .

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Marcus
    What is your solution? You poke holes in other peoples suggestions and comments, resite some poem or some silly garp like that but yet i never see your solution. Put a solution out there with numbers to back it up. Lets see what you come up.
    I would have imagined that my solution has been plain right along, nor do I "poke holes" in other people's arguments. I poke holes in other people's self-serving and foolish opinions that they are somehow, someway special and deserving of what, in their opinion, constitutes some increased "fair share" of the resource at the expense of other user groups.

    The resource itself belongs equally to all Americans. Private anglers use their own boats to harvest their halibut; charter anglers hire a boat in hopes of harvesting their own halibut; non-anglers buy their halibut from markets and restaurants. The commercial fishery thus exists to supply the non-angling public with an opportunity to share the resource.

    To my mind, the harvest potential should be apportioned as the market has historically and demographically defined the demand—some percentage to the angling public, private and charter, and some percentage to the non-angling public. Quotas illustrate that the harvestable biomass is finite. Just because one user group—charters at present—sense economic opportunity at the expense of an already fully-apportioned, fully-allocated resource, grants them no warrant to increase their share of the resource at the expense of other user groups—the non-angling public in this case.

    And should, some day in the future, private angler pressure increase to the point where it exceeds its historical percentage of the harvestable resource, then it too would need to become limited

    Thanks for asking . . hope that helps.

  16. #16
    Member Dan in Alaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    854

    Default

    So, just because cars used to get 10 miles to the gallon, they should continue to get ten miles to the gallon? Does that about sum up your argument, Marcus? Afterall, cars require a finite public resource to operate.

    No, if there is a better use for the finite resource, then I think times need to change. It has been argued by many that more money, on a per pound basis, gets pumped into the economy with sport-caught halibut than commercial caught halibut. Therefore, commercial fishing does not seem to be the best use of our public resource. Instead, let the commercial market have what's left over, since there seem to be better uses for halibut. Why is the commercial market first to the trough, just because they were always first to the trough? Now that a better use of the halibut has come along, I say move over and let the more profitable sector eat first.

    No one has to lose their job, by the way. What's to stop commercial fishermen from changing the way they do business and start chartering instead? Oh, that's right....the commercial interests supported a plan that limited the number of charter boats. Bummer.

    No wonder the commercial sector is fighting so hard to keep what they have. They have virtually guaranteed that they don't have any other options.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Great post Dan. As it sits now sportfish is at the very bottom of the list. even under waste and bycatch. Comfish was GIVEN fish for free and now they complain they have been cut when they are still at or above what they were given free of charge in when it was handed out. It was nice of them to give our fish to a few token indivinduals called comfish. A few differences however. The price of halibut has skyrocketed in the last few years. fuel has went up but price per pound has MORE than made up for it. Now Comfish wants more yet. If sportfish catch went up 50% it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the total take and wastage. Some people bought IFQ's. so what?? I know i invested in my business with NOT ONE guarentee of any marketshare at all. NONE ZERO NADA. If they paid to much well to bad. No one would cry if i made a bad investment. As long as comfish gets 85% of the take they have NOTHING to complain about. They got it for free now they are complaining. A pound of halibut is worth more to sportfish to the economy than comfish by a wide margin. So who is the proposed plan good for?? Comfish and Comfish alone. It would have been great to leave it derby style. If you want to fish then fish. If you dont want to then dont. No one was owed anything. That would have been more like the real world of business

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Money Uber Alles* . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan in Alaska View Post
    So, just because cars used to get 10 miles to the gallon, they should continue to get ten miles to the gallon? Does that about sum up your argument, Marcus? Afterall, cars require a finite public resource to operate.

    No, if there is a better use for the finite resource, then I think times need to change. It has been argued by many that more money, on a per pound basis, gets pumped into the economy with sport-caught halibut than commercial caught halibut. Therefore, commercial fishing does not seem to be the best use of our public resource. Instead, let the commercial market have what's left over, since there seem to be better uses for halibut. Why is the commercial market first to the trough, just because they were always first to the trough? Now that a better use of the halibut has come along, I say move over and let the more profitable sector eat first.

    No one has to lose their job, by the way. What's to stop commercial fishermen from changing the way they do business and start chartering instead? Oh, that's right....the commercial interests supported a plan that limited the number of charter boats. Bummer.

    No wonder the commercial sector is fighting so hard to keep what they have. They have virtually guaranteed that they don't have any other options.
    That dog won't hunt, Dan. Money can't buy fairness and money can't buy justice.

    Piss on your fellow Americans for a few bucks?

    Heck, do you have any idea what you'd be paying for the Post Office and other government services up here if the cost wasn't distributed among all Americans?

    *
    Money Uber Alles: Money Over All . .

  19. #19
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,765

    Default

    To answer the man's question,

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Do you think that 2 halibut a day per angler, all season long is a fair limit for unguided anglers?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    If the unguided catch of halibut surges and needs to be controlled, what would be the best way, (in your opinion) to restrict and cut back the unguided anglers, to keep it under a GHL that will be determined? (size limits, annual limits, tag system, etc)
    Assuming the unguided catch needs to be controlled (obviously a highly debatable question), I would be happy with an annual limit / punchcard system for sport anglers. I would not favor a size limit unless the same restriction applied to the commercial fishery. But given current commercial methods I don't see how that is possible without killing a lot of illegal halibut and tossing them over the side as by catch.

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    What do you think would be a fair GHL for the unguided anglers?
    I don't have the facts to make this determination, nor do I know how it could be fairly determined. Do we simply add up the number of people in the world that eat Alaska halibut and divide by "x"? I don't know the answer to this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    And..Do you think they could (or should) have different limits for AK residents and Non Resident anglers?
    Not unless the resource is so depleted that there is not enough to go around. I like the way ADF&G allocates hunting opportunity in such cases; perhaps this is the direction to go?

    And a freebie: I sure wish we could get past the diatribes and endless non-productive and inflammatory debates on this. It's really self-defeating for both sides. Truly. Can we take the emotions out of it and just look at the bare facts, or are the facts so hidden from the common man as to render their appropriation impossible? I for one would really like to understand this issue, but with all the brawling going on, the water is so muddy I can't see. And how come we have not resolved this absolutely unconscionable bycatch situation we've talked about for years? Is there anyone out there who thinks we should all just accept this as a cost of doing business? We've got some pretty smart folks out there, surely someone can come up with a solution to it?

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  20. #20

    Default

    Could there be a way for the trawl fishery to sell there bycatch and compensate the long liners and keep the GHL for the charters.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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