Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Question for Nerka/commercial halibut expert . . .

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Question for Nerka/commercial halibut expert . . .

    Is the material below, posted over in the Freshwater Fishing forum, accurate:

    What's happening?

    In February of this year, about 35[percent]; of the halibut charter fleet in Alaska was eliminated by a federally mandated moratorium. Now, in addition to that, a Catch Sharing Plan has been submitted that will take away as much as 40% more of the available halibut quota from the sport fleet (a 70% reduction overall). Right now, recreational fishermen (that means you and me) are allowed two fish per day of any size. If the rule passes and you use the services of a guide, your daily limit will drop to one fish per day- and possibly even less, if the maximum size limit is enforced.

    The share taken from sport fishing interests (again, you and me) is reallocated to the commercial share,meaning this proposed ruling does NOT conserve halibut. It would only redistribute fishing rights from individuals and charters to commercial fleets and fisheries. (emphasis added)

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    I am no expert, but my understand is that no, that information is not accurate. The goal here is to get the charter catch to a level within their GHL and that a reduced limit is a tool to do so. Just as the commercial take has been cut by approximately 50%, so too does the charter fleet need to be cut in order to conserve the stocks. The above information seems to indicate that this cut to the charter take would be immediately tacked on to the commercial IFQ limits. That is simply not true (to the best of my understanding - please, somebody correct me if I am wrong with verifiable information).

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    My understanding is that this statement is false. The reduction in charter harvest would bring the harvest back to allocation plan objectives and saved fish would go into the population for reproduction. If it was strictly reallocation then there would be no tiers and step down harvest levels as the stock biomass declined. One would just reallocate a percentage.

    The charter industry wants a two fish bag limit regardless of stock size and they did not want a limited number of days fishing - basically saying our industry should be able to grow and take from the commercial allocation. No conservation burden at all regardless of stock strength.

    With the limit on charters I thought that might help but one thing that happened was some charters increased the number of days fishing. So the number of limited charters assumed one fishing season length and that was expanded - just making up numbers here for example. Say charter fleet operated on average 40 days but since the limit has increased to 50 days. That increases the harvest over the assumed or planned control which limited the number of charters. So one could close days to get back to the 40 but the charter industry said no because people book trips and they did not want that uncertainty in their bookings. So the next option is to reduce fish kept. So the tier system that is proposed starting with 2 fish when stocks are abundant and going down to where we are when they are in decline. The size limit is to keep charter fisherman from high grading the fishery.

    Also, the pan has the option for charter fisherman to lease IFQ's from the commercial pool. Some commercial fisherman do not catch their full quota. Here is an example. Commercial fisherman A goes out and has a quota of 5000 pounds. He catches 4500 pounds and comes home. Five hundred pounds are left but the cost of going to get that is too high so he does not go out. He could put the 500 pounds in the lease pool. Fair market value would be less that what he is paid for a fish since he has no boat, crew, fuel, food costs - maybe 30-40% reduction from the dock price. Lets say 4 dollars a pound. A charter operator could lease these 500 pounds for a season. They could then use it to allow their fisherman to catch 5 100 pound fish which is counted in the commercial harvest. So a charter could sell the idea that if you catch a trophy fish you can keep it as they have the leased IFQ to cover it. So there are options for the industry to keep client interests up.

    From the threads posted some of these details have not been discussed because it is easier to say your user group is getting the shaft while not dealing with the specifics and how the council tried to be fair in the discussions.

    One final point. If the charter industry cannot make it with a one fish less than 37 inch rule at low stock abundance then it is also likely the commercial industry will suffer at these abundances. Price has compensated for this as the markets have grown but the commercial sector should be given credit for doing this in their industry. Maybe the charter industry should start to think about how to survive in low stock abundance without asking for no conservation burden.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    No, it's not accurate. I believe those opinions are from the Fish & Hunt Alaska Magazine, which is supported in part by charter advertisements and sportfishing interests. The article in its entirety includes solicitations supporting the Alaska Charter Association.

    Marcus, the facts of the matter can be found in the Federal Register.

  5. #5
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    No, it's not accurate. I believe those opinions are from the Fish & Hunt Alaska Magazine, which is supported in part by charter advertisements and sportfishing interests




    And this is from a sports fisher?, Grandpe, you show your true colors. Commercial, commercial, Commercial?????
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post

    And this is from a sports fisher?, Grandpe, you show your true colors. Commercial, commercial, Commercial?????
    Which part of his statement is inaccurate?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    It should be Grampyfishes, not Grandpe, and the punctuation is wrong.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    And this is from a sports fisher?, Grandpe, you show your true colors. Commercial, commercial, Commercial?????
    So now sportfishermen are defined by their willingness to accept misinformation, and their support for charter organizations with an anti-commercial fishing sentiment?

    Sorry to disappoint your personal innuendoes whop, but I am not "commercial". I haven't commercial fished for years. However, I did get my limit of silvers this morning on the River.

  9. #9
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    On the silvers this AM, good for you!!!! On the Bias of your posts, bad for you. JMO, sorry!!! Just the way I have interpreted your posts for the last few years. I'm sure you are a nice guy and I'm sure I would appreciate having a brewski with you but as of today, Your slant is towards the comfishers. I might be wrong but that is my take. And... I'm on the side of dippers and some call me a socialist.... Gotta give and gotta take, here on this forum... Good night boys and girls!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  10. #10

    Default Question

    That statement is completely false.

    How is requiring a user group to stay within their Guideline Harvest Level considered "reallocation"?

    Contrary to popular belief, Charters and longliners are both taking cuts, nobody is being reallocated anything. Charters are just being asked to live within the harvest levels established years ago. The charters just haven't felt it until now, while the longliners have been feeling the pain for years.

    Allocation isn't changing, the size of the pie just shrunk.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Fact, If the C S P becomes law there will no longer be a G H L. Fact, A fish tacken as a GAF under IFQ will be done at a set poundage reduction of IFQ at around 20lbs meaning that with a lease of 100lbs IFQ clients could retain 5 fish of any size. IMO none of this should be going on because all anglers should be treated the same no matter where they stand on land privet boat charter boat the bag limit should be the same, and it will gust give it time! All you have to do is look south soon it will be the same here.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    Fact, If the C S P becomes law there will no longer be a G H L. Fact, A fish tacken as a GAF under IFQ will be done at a set poundage reduction of IFQ at around 20lbs meaning that with a lease of 100lbs IFQ clients could retain 5 fish of any size.
    I read that too, and I'm having a hard time believing they left a loophole like that. The average size halibut for SE will be around 9lbs this year, based off of the June data that was released. That's roughly 10 halibut, for 100lbs of IFQ. The Icy Straight guys have the potential to have a 100lb average, if they'd put their minds too it. Crazy! How is that going to be good for the resource? How is that helping anything? Basically it's going to allow the lodges (big lodges) with deep pockets to be able to lease up IFQ, and starve the mom & pop operations.

    And, the "same limit" for all charter boats was the best enforcement tool NOAA could have had. No charter in SE dared bring in a big halibut, (or decent sized) as the hotlines would have been lighting up. Now they want charters that pony up to be able to bring in halibut of any size? How do they enforce that? Crazy! Only .gov could dream up such a ridiculous situation.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    On the silvers this AM, good for you!!!! On the Bias of your posts, bad for you. JMO, sorry!!! Just the way I have interpreted your posts for the last few years. I'm sure you are a nice guy and I'm sure I would appreciate having a brewski with you but as of today, Your slant is towards the comfishers. I might be wrong but that is my take. And... I'm on the side of dippers and some call me a socialist.... Gotta give and gotta take, here on this forum... Good night boys and girls!!!
    Thanks for the personal evaluation whop. You are welcome to your opinion. However, this forum reeks of sportfishermen, guides, and charters constantly bashing commercial fishing. As a sportfishermen myself, I do not wish to be represented that way, nor do I support that approach, espcecially when commercial fishermen are not here posting the other side of the story. If you want to live in a one-sided world, with your head in the sand, gobbling up emotional ideologies, accepting the deceptions and bogus info posted here, then you're at the right place and that is your choice. The fact I don't, does not make me a comfisher, or bias. I prefer to think for myself, do my own homework, and form my own views based on the facts. I present them for what they are. I simply do not believe in the continual blame-game, misinformation, scapegoating, and bias contention as solutions to anything. That is why I point out the flaws, misinformation, misguided ideologies, emotional rhetoric, and hypocrisy of other's posts. I like to post the facts, data, and references, and can almost always back up what I post. I only post when prepared. If you've followed my posts over the years, you will find I have never started a thread...only responded to other's comments, well informed.

    Now if you would like to continue discussing me personally, please PM me. It doesn't belong here.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool

    . . form my own views based on the facts. . .
    Would that it were that easy, but it isn't. One man's facts are another man's fantasy. One man's truth is another man's error.

    We all, without exception, enter into these sorts of discussions with preconceived notions, with certain, fundamental presuppositions that define our world-view and define what, for us, constitutes fact. We all know what we believe but not always why we believe it.

    The bottom line of profitable, civil discussion, as I see it, is some small degree of humility, some willingness to concede that the other guy is as earnest in his facts as we are in ours, some realization that what is fact in our mind isn't necessarily fact to the other guy.


    I often wish that I could rid the world of the tyranny of facts. What are facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point where we have agreed to let investigation cease.

    Author Unknown

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    The slant or bias has been obvious for some years. I can't recall a single time where gramps has sided with the sport fishermen or posted anything negative about the comm guys.

    Gramps is commercial all the way - no question about it!



    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    On the silvers this AM, good for you!!!! On the Bias of your posts, bad for you. JMO, sorry!!! Just the way I have interpreted your posts for the last few years. I'm sure you are a nice guy and I'm sure I would appreciate having a brewski with you but as of today, Your slant is towards the comfishers. I might be wrong but that is my take. And... I'm on the side of dippers and some call me a socialist.... Gotta give and gotta take, here on this forum... Good night boys and girls!!!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Marcus, you are welcome to your intellectual philosophy of what you think a fact is.

    The "facts" I am referring to are not only statutes and laws, but the best data, research, information, and studies available. I frequently post them. Those "facts" are in contrast to the emotional conjecture, baseless speculation, deception, and indefensible justifications that are more commonly posted here. I frequently expose them too.

    For example, your original post contains comments of deception and blatant lies, used to pursuade others. That in contrast to the "facts" which are defined in the Federal Register (I have already directed you there). Some may or may not agree with the Federal Register, but regardless it contains "facts" that drive fishery management. So really, before starting a thread about the accuracy of something in an opinion article, you could've answered your own question by simply reading the proposal.


    tvfinak, I'm not here to take sides or beat up on the commercial guys. It is unfortunate you have an insular understanding and see anything less than that as "commercial all the way". For the record, and as I have stated many times over the years, I am a proponent of both sportfishing and commercial fishing. I don't condone certain actions of either group. And finally, I have absolutely nothing to do with commercial fishing, but I am flattered you want to make this thread all about me.

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Red face Whatever . . let's move on . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Marcus, you are welcome to your intellectual philosophy of what you think a fact is.

    The "facts" I am referring to are not only statutes and laws, but the best data, research, information, and studies available. I frequently post them. Those "facts" are in contrast to the emotional conjecture, baseless speculation, deception, and indefensible justifications that are more commonly posted here. I frequently expose them too.

    For example, your original post contains comments of deception and blatant lies, used to pursuade others. That in contrast to the "facts" which are defined in the Federal Register (I have already directed you there). Some may or may not agree with the Federal Register, but regardless it contains "facts" that drive fishery management. So really, before starting a thread about the accuracy of something in an opinion article, you could've answered your own question by simply reading the proposal.
    Whatever winds your clock, Gramps, let's agree to disagree and move on . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    tvfinak, . . It is unfortunate you have an insular understanding . .
    Well, tvf, we have something in common after all . . according to Gramps, I've got one too . . an "insular understanding," that is . .

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Marcus, if you sincerely wanted to move on, you wouldn't have followed with another provocative jab at me.

    In tv's case, an insular understanding is the best way I can describe his inability to see past taking sides or posting negative comments...His insular understanding was born out in his lie about me being "commercial".

    In your case (which you drag up from another thread), an insular understanding was the best way I could describe your idea that pertinent underlying information was off-topic. Your insular understanding was born out in wanting to continue without that underlying information being posted in that discussion.

    Your "whatever" response is a cowardly way of being unable to accept humility and show a willingness to concede...the exact things you just preached to us about in your last post. Go figure.

    Again Marcus, you have an opportunity to move on.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Marcus, if you sincerely wanted to move on, you wouldn't have followed with another provocative jab at me.

    In tv's case, an insular understanding is the best way I can describe his inability to see past taking sides or posting negative comments...His insular understanding was born out in his lie about me being "commercial".

    In your case (which you drag up from another thread), an insular understanding was the best way I could describe your idea that pertinent underlying information was off-topic. Your insular understanding was born out in wanting to continue without that underlying information being posted in that discussion.

    Your "whatever" response is a cowardly way of being unable to accept humility and show a willingness to concede...the exact things you just preached to us about in your last post. Go figure.

    Again Marcus, you have an opportunity to move on.
    Whatever you say, Gramps, can we put it to rest, agree to disagree, and move on now?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Marcus, I believe your comment about facts is not correct in the context Grampyfishes used it. It is also not true in the context of science. Below is one reference on the word fact.

    The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[1] The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[2]
    Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is red or Matter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
    Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[4][5]
    Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[6] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[7]
    Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[8] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[9]
    Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."[


    In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[11] reported by a true proposition.[12][13]
    Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[14]
    Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,[citation needed] in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."[

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
  •