Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 72

Thread: Time of comment on Trawler by catch of Halibut

  1. #1
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Time of comment on Trawler by catch of Halibut

    "THEY" moved this to the wrong forum, it should be here. one way or the other its time to say your piece....


    Take Action to Reduce Waste of Our Halibut Resource!


    Comments to Fishery Managers on Halibut Bycatch Needed By Tuesday, September 20th
    Halibut populations in the Gulf of Alaska have varied dramatically in recent years, with concerning trends impacting halibut fishermen and communities that depend upon this vital resource. The portion of the halibut population that is available for commercial harvest has declined by 50% over the past decade. Commercial and sport fishermen have been severely impacted by these cuts. The same halibut on which our fisheries and communities depend are caught as bycatch in the trawl and hook and line fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. Designated prohibited species catch (PSC) these halibut cannot be retained and must be returned to the water, many of them dead, to prevent any vessel from profiting from wasteful fishing practices.

    While commercial and recreational fishermen have experienced dramatic cuts in their harvests, the limit on halibut PSC bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska has not been changed since 1986. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is finally considering reductions in the bycatch (or PSC – prohibited species catch) in the Gulf of Alaska. Currently there is a halibut PSC bycatch limit of 2,300 metric tons (mt) in the GOA—or just over 5 million pounds!

    Fishery managers can—and should— ensure more equitable conservation measures across sectors by requiring the fisheries responsible for halibut bycatch to face reductions just as the directed halibut fisheries have.
    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council will take up the issue of halibut bycatch this fall. At their upcoming meeting in Dutch Harbor September 26-Oct 4, fishery managers will conduct an initial review of halibut bycatch reduction options. In December at their meeting in Anchorage, the Council is scheduled to take final action on halibut PSC bycatch. The Council is currently considering a range of reductions from 5-15% for the trawl and fixed gear fleets in the Gulf of Alaska.
    Fishery managers need to hear from all halibut stakeholders in order to stimulate action to reduce this waste of our precious halibut resource.

    Make Your Voice Heard: Send a Letter to Fishery Managers
    Letters must be received by Tuesday, September 20 to be included in Council member packets. Letters should be addressed to:


    North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306
    Anchorage, AK 99501-2252
    Fax907) 271-2817

    Talking Points
    Letters do not have to be long or complex. Making the point known that you strongly support action to reduce halibut bycatch now is the most important. Discussing how halibut is vital to you and your community and how continued waste of the halibut resource could affect your business, livelihood and/or community is also helpful.
    Other points to consider making:
    • As a stakeholder of the halibut resource (describe your stake), you strongly support reductions in halibut bycatch (halibut PSC) in the Gulf of Alaska.
    • The Council should reduce bycatch by the maximum amount being considered—15%. This reduction is still insufficient and further reductions to halibut bycatch levels should be made in the future.
    • It is time for the Council to take action and reduce the halibut bycatch limit for the Gulf of Alaska. Action should not be delayed for any reason.
    • Fishermen who participate in directed halibut fisheries have been facing reductions in their harvest for years—yet the fisheries that cause mortality to halibut as a waste have continued to operate under the same limits since 1989.
    • The exploitable biomass—the portion of the halibut population that is available for harvest—has declined by 50% over the past decade.
    • The catch limit for the commercial halibut fishery in 2C, 3A and 3B has been reduced by over 50% from 2002-2011, and the daily catch limits for the charter sector in 2C has been reduced from 2 fish of any size to 1 fish less than 37”. New proposals for the charter sector in 3A could also reduce bag limits and impose size limitations.

    • This inequity needs to be addressed immediately and halibut bycatch must be reduced NOW.

    Take Further Action: Contact Fishery Managers, the Governor’s Office, or Send a Letter to the Editor!

    If you wish to make your voice directly heard, visit the NPFMC website for a list of NPFMC members and contact information. Also call Governor Sean Parnell and let the State of Alaska know how you feel about wasting our precious and valuable fish as bycatch. The State has a seat on the NPFMC and should be a leader in reducing bycatch. To reach the Governor’s office dial (907) 465-3500 or email governor@alaska.gov.It’s also important to get the issue of the waste of halibut as bycatch out there in the media. Send in a letter to the editor or longer opinion piece to local, regional papers or fishing trade publications. A list of sources can be found here.

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

    Default

    Thanks AKCAPT. It's important to continue to reduce the bycatch/waste.

    Below is the stock assessment so folks can better understand what condition the stock is in, why, and how the exploitable biomass is affected. For your comments to receive attention I would recommend studying and comprehending the stock assessment before making comments to the NPMFC.

    http://www.iphc.int/papers/sa10.pdf

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up The issue is waste . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    "THEY" moved this to the wrong forum, it should be here. one way or the other its time to say your piece....

    Take Action to Reduce Waste of Our Halibut Resource!

    Comments to Fishery Managers on Halibut Bycatch Needed By Tuesday, September 20th
    Halibut populations in the Gulf of Alaska have varied dramatically in recent years, with concerning trends impacting halibut fishermen and communities that depend upon this vital resource. The portion of the halibut population that is available for commercial harvest has declined by 50% over the past decade. Commercial and sport fishermen have been severely impacted by these cuts. The same halibut on which our fisheries and communities depend are caught as bycatch in the trawl and hook and line fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. Designated prohibited species catch (PSC) these halibut cannot be retained and must be returned to the water, many of them dead, to prevent any vessel from profiting from wasteful fishing practices.

    While commercial and recreational fishermen have experienced dramatic cuts in their harvests, the limit on halibut PSC bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska has not been changed since 1986. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is finally considering reductions in the bycatch (or PSC – prohibited species catch) in the Gulf of Alaska. Currently there is a halibut PSC bycatch limit of 2,300 metric tons (mt) in the GOA—or just over 5 million pounds!

    Fishery managers can—and should— ensure more equitable conservation measures across sectors by requiring the fisheries responsible for halibut bycatch to face reductions just as the directed halibut fisheries have.
    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council will take up the issue of halibut bycatch this fall. At their upcoming meeting in Dutch Harbor September 26-Oct 4, fishery managers will conduct an initial review of halibut bycatch reduction options. In December at their meeting in Anchorage, the Council is scheduled to take final action on halibut PSC bycatch. The Council is currently considering a range of reductions from 5-15% for the trawl and fixed gear fleets in the Gulf of Alaska.
    Fishery managers need to hear from all halibut stakeholders in order to stimulate action to reduce this waste of our precious halibut resource.

    Make Your Voice Heard: Send a Letter to Fishery Managers
    Letters must be received by Tuesday, September 20 to be included in Council member packets. Letters should be addressed to:


    North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306
    Anchorage, AK 99501-2252
    Fax907) 271-2817

    Talking Points
    Letters do not have to be long or complex. Making the point known that you strongly support action to reduce halibut bycatch now is the most important. Discussing how halibut is vital to you and your community and how continued waste of the halibut resource could affect your business, livelihood and/or community is also helpful.
    Other points to consider making:
    • As a stakeholder of the halibut resource (describe your stake), you strongly support reductions in halibut bycatch (halibut PSC) in the Gulf of Alaska.
    • The Council should reduce bycatch by the maximum amount being considered—15%. This reduction is still insufficient and further reductions to halibut bycatch levels should be made in the future.
    • It is time for the Council to take action and reduce the halibut bycatch limit for the Gulf of Alaska. Action should not be delayed for any reason.
    • Fishermen who participate in directed halibut fisheries have been facing reductions in their harvest for years—yet the fisheries that cause mortality to halibut as a waste have continued to operate under the same limits since 1989.
    • The exploitable biomass—the portion of the halibut population that is available for harvest—has declined by 50% over the past decade.
    • The catch limit for the commercial halibut fishery in 2C, 3A and 3B has been reduced by over 50% from 2002-2011, and the daily catch limits for the charter sector in 2C has been reduced from 2 fish of any size to 1 fish less than 37”. New proposals for the charter sector in 3A could also reduce bag limits and impose size limitations.

    • This inequity needs to be addressed immediately and halibut bycatch must be reduced NOW.

    Take Further Action: Contact Fishery Managers, the Governor’s Office, or Send a Letter to the Editor!

    If you wish to make your voice directly heard, visit the NPFMC website for a list of NPFMC members and contact information. Also call Governor Sean Parnell and let the State of Alaska know how you feel about wasting our precious and valuable fish as bycatch. The State has a seat on the NPFMC and should be a leader in reducing bycatch. To reach the Governor’s office dial (907) 465-3500 or email governor@alaska.gov.It’s also important to get the issue of the waste of halibut as bycatch out there in the media. Send in a letter to the editor or longer opinion piece to local, regional papers or fishing trade publications. A list of sources can be found here.


    Good post, Captain . . democracy in action, and all that. However, if the issue being promoted is a reduction of commercial halibut by-catch, then interjecting perceived inequity of halibut conservation efforts is a "Red Herring" as is the relative "health" of the stock to be conserved.

    I think it's important to note such distinctions lest one's comments be dismissed as nothing more than thinly-veiled, partisan politics. If by-catch needs to be or should be reduced in the interests of decreasing waste, then that issue stands on its own merits—either it should be or it shouldn't be. The issue is waste.

    Introducing Red Herrings such as "inequities of harvest opportunities" or "the stock is healthy enough to absorb current waste" only muddies the water by introducing the politics of vested interests into a question of ethics.

    All by-catch is regrettable whether it's the animals chewed up by combines, sea turtles caught in shrimp nets, muddied streams and rivers caused by clear-cutting, or dead halibut returned to the water. Any time we are capable of reducing by-catch, we should do so as good stewards of the earth's resources. Keep the issue clean, don't bury an ethical question in a grave of partisan politics.

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

    Default

    (edited)

    The inequity of conservation that the trawler's waste presents is not a perceived notion nor a "Red Herring" as you introduce. Trawler bycatch is at the forefront of the conservation issue since its limits have not taken equal cuts to those of the charter or commercial halibut fishery during the trending decline -exactly why management is taking action and requesting comment.

    If there is something in the original post you feel is in error, then just show how. If you have comments about the inequity of trawler bycatch, then present them. (edited)
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 09-23-2011 at 00:17. Reason: personal comments

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

    Thumbs up Getting involved . . .

    Here is the Web address for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/

    Lots of good information on the site including a whole section devoted to the issue of bycatch—check the menu on the left of the page.


    How do I Get Involved?

    One of the keys to successful fishery management is incorporating diverse views into decision making through a transparent public process. The Council system was designed so that fisheries management decisions were made at the regional level to allow input from affected stakeholders.


    Council meetings are open, and public testimony - both written and oral - is taken on each and every issue prior to deliberations and final decisions. Public comments are also taken at all Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committee meetings.

    If you have an issue you want discussed at a Council meeting, it would be best to familarize yourself with the members of the process; both the Council staff and the Council members. There is historic information throughout this site which would be beneficial, and a great resource are the newsletters which are a summary of each meeting and can get you up to speed on what actions have already been taken. While there is not a formal "call for proposals," you are welcome to draft a letter to the Council which will be put in the Council notebooks. Most likely, if it's a new issue, it will be addressed at the end of the meeting under an agenda item called "Staff Tasking." Public will be given a chance to comment, and this would be a good time to address the issue during the meeting.

    Each Council decision is made by recorded vote in public forum after public comment. Final decisions then go to NMFS for a second review, public comment, and final approval. Decisions must conform with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other applicable law including several executive orders.


    Regulatory changes may take up to a year or longer to implement, particularly if complex or contentious, but the Council makes every attempt in being open and transparent throughout the process.
    If you have questions, or want for information on how to get started, call the office.

  6. #6
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default red herrings and the like

    I'll come to Marcus' defense here a...but only a little bit. I have to agree that often, in fact way too often, fishery regulators (BOF and NPFMC) hear allocative arguments couched as a conservation measures.

    And now for the "but". Grampy does have it right.

    You can have issues that cover both and AKCAPT's original post clearly covered that in this sentence,
    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    Fishery managers can—and should— ensure more equitable conservation measures across sectors by requiring the fisheries responsible for halibut bycatch to face reductions just as the directed halibut fisheries have.
    I was surprised to see that the range of options for bycatch reduction in this measure was only from zero to 15%...but I heard that this is intended to be a "fast-track" measure, and that the Council intends to follow up later with more comprehensive halibut bycatch reduction measures? AKCAPT, AKBROWNSFAN, anyone...is this the case?

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Reading comprehension . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    . . often, in fact way too often, fishery regulators (BOF and NPFMC) hear allocative arguments couched as a conservation measures. . .
    Thanks, MRFISH, that and that alone was my point. Nice to know somebody got it.

    Sent you a star . . .

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Harvesting the Commons . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    You can have issues that cover both [allocation and conservation] . . ,

    Fishery managers can—and should— ensure more equitable conservation measures across sectors by requiring the fisheries responsible for halibut bycatch to face reductions just as the directed halibut fisheries have.
    Well noted, and in fact isn't such always the case where competition exists for resource extraction?

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question In your experience?


    Originally Posted by MRFISH
    You can have issues that cover both [allocation and conservation] . . ,
    Well noted, and in fact isn't such always the case where competition exists for resource extraction?
    ************

    To be more clear, MrFish, and if the above is true—that conservation equity is always a factor in cases of competition for exploitation of the commons—shouldn't the inextricability of the two factors be made plain, up front, before consideration of either separately?

    You note that too often regulators are confronted with arguments for one factor under the guise of arguments for the other. How often, if ever, is it acknowledged in such deliberations that both must be considered simultaneously?

    Tragedy of the commons

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by ecologist Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.

    Hardin's Commons Theory is frequently cited to support the notion of sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, and has had an effect on numerous current issues, including the debate over global warming. An asserted impending "tragedy of the commons" is frequently warned of as a consequence for adopting policies which restrict private property.

    Central to Hardin's article is an example of a hypothetical and simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all. . .

    As Hardin acknowledged there was a fundamental mistake in the use of the term “commons." This was already noted in 1975 by Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop (1975: 714) who wrote that we "are not free to use the concept 'common property resources' or 'commons' under conditions where no institutional arrangements exist. Common property is not 'everybody's property' (...). To describe unowned resource (res nullius) as common property (res communis), as many economists have done for years (...) is a selfcontradiction." Neglecting the difference between common property and open access resources is a major reason of confusion in the debate that followed the 1968 Hardin's article.



  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    I was surprised to see that the range of options for bycatch reduction in this measure was only from zero to 15%...but I heard that this is intended to be a "fast-track" measure, and that the Council intends to follow up later with more comprehensive halibut bycatch reduction measures? AKCAPT, AKBROWNSFAN, anyone...is this the case?
    I believe you are correct MRFISH. It appears the Council wants to get something implemented for 2012, which is a tough goal considering their late meeting schedule, the lapse in receiving trawl bycatch data, and the red tape of getting approval for the Federal Register. We'll see if they can do it. The good news is that they intend to actually make reductions - now, and the alternative option of status quo is not talked about much, nor is the 5-year plan option. I'm guessing the alternatives of 5%, 10% or 15% reductions will be determined based on how this year's bycatch data pans out. Then there will be a closer evaluation and more comprehensive reductions on down the road, if necessary. Keep in mind that data, like size composition of the bycatch as a function of the spawning female biomass, will play just as important of a role as pure pounds wasted, since size at age has an affect on sustainability of the entire biomass rather than the exploitable biomass where the other sector's reductions are taking place. One also has to look at the historical bycatch data, and break it down per area. Just because there has been a bycatch limit, does not mean it has or will be reached each year. Or that each area is affected the same. In other words, reduction in the limit when the limit is not being reached in the first place, or has no impact to the area, is very ineffective. Now that we've submitted our comments to NPFMC, we'll have to wait and see what transpires.

  11. #11
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default breaking the golden rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Just because there has been a bycatch limit, does not mean it has or will be reached each year. Or that each area is affected the same.
    Thanks, Grampy. I'm violating one of my favorite rules (posting without reading the actual document that is sitting on my dining room table)...but I think that (at least in the GOA) the halibut bycatch limit is pretty much always taken. If I'm not mistaken, they apportion the total bycatch limit out to the various target fisheries, and their respective seasons, that "need" or use halibut bycatch and if, inseason, it looks like one target fishery isn't going to use it's allotment, they (NMFS) will reapportion projected leftovers to other target fisheries that still "need" some. I think some fisheries might regularly leave fish in the water because they've capped out on halibut bycatch before harvesting the target TAC. Where's AKBROWNSFAN? He might be able to help. Hopefully, AKBF won't scold me too badly for posting sans reading.

  12. #12
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    To be more clear, MrFish, and if the above is true—that conservation equity is always a factor in cases of competition for exploitation of the commons—shouldn't the inextricability of the two factors be made plain, up front, before consideration of either separately?

    You note that too often regulators are confronted with arguments for one factor under the guise of arguments for the other. How often, if ever, is it acknowledged in such deliberations that both must be considered simultaneously?
    Geez, Marcus...I don't know how often. How about 14.566% of the time? Don't ask me to cite my source. ;-)

    Ultimately, I guess if you really want to stretch it, you could say that whether something is "conservation" or not is always in the eye of the beholder...but allocations among sectors of a fully allocated fishery on a declining/depressed stock would fit the bill in my eyes.

    Now, can we get back to the substance of the issue?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Are we talking about allocation of the harvest or allocation of the conservation burden = they are not the same. In fact the premise that conservation and allocation (harvest) are linked only takes place in fisheries in decline. Other fisheries, most in the State salmon fisheries, are just allocating the surplus among users and figuring out a way to catch it.

    In UCI for example the Kenai and Kasilof have exceeded goals in most years so there really is no conservation burden.

    Finally, when did we ever get to the idea that conservation burden should be shared equally or in proportion to harvest - I know that the BOF stated that but it is in conflict of a basic premise - in the public good. It may be worth it to allow by-catch to remain untouched if the targeted fishery is better for the public. As long as there is a harvest then the by-catch may be the best option to be touched second to last (subsistence has the priority and points out the premise I am making). I am not saying with the halibut issue that by-catch is the best public good but I just do not see any discussion of this topic.

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

    Default Thanks anyway . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Geez, Marcus . . Now, can we get back to the substance of the issue?
    Golly, I thought the "substance" of the issue was trawler by-catch as it affects the halibut fishery. Citing the original post:

    Fishermen who participate in directed halibut fisheries have been facing reductions in their harvest for years—yet the fisheries that cause mortality to halibut as a waste have continued to operate under the same limits since 1989. . .

    This inequity needs to be addressed immediately and halibut bycatch must be reduced NOW.
    Or did I miss something? I thought my questions quite reasonable:

    To be more clear, MrFish, and if the above is true—that conservation equity is always a factor in cases of competition for exploitation of the commons—shouldn't the inextricability of the two factors be made plain, up front, before consideration of either separately?

    You note that too often regulators are confronted with arguments for one factor under the guise of arguments for the other. How often, if ever, is it acknowledged in such deliberations that both must be considered simultaneously?
    Thanks anyway . . I'll look for answers elsewhere.

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

    Default No simple answers . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Are we talking about allocation of the harvest or allocation of the conservation burden = they are not the same. In fact the premise that conservation and allocation (harvest) are linked only takes place in fisheries in decline. Other fisheries, most in the State salmon fisheries, are just allocating the surplus among users and figuring out a way to catch it.

    In UCI for example the Kenai and Kasilof have exceeded goals in most years so there really is no conservation burden.

    Finally, when did we ever get to the idea that conservation burden should be shared equally or in proportion to harvest - I know that the BOF stated that but it is in conflict of a basic premise - in the public good. It may be worth it to allow by-catch to remain untouched if the targeted fishery is better for the public. As long as there is a harvest then the by-catch may be the best option to be touched second to last (subsistence has the priority and points out the premise I am making). I am not saying with the halibut issue that by-catch is the best public good but I just do not see any discussion of this topic.
    Good post, Nerka, good points . . .

  16. #16
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    I guess I posted this becasue I think the burden should be shared equally among those making money from natural resources and the trawlers have not been linked to abundance in regards to their halibut by catch. I am still curious why they reduction is at 15% maximum? It seems like it should mirror other stakeholders.

    I think we can all agree that banner advertisment for Sperry top siders has about the ugliest pair of boat shoes I have ever seen.

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

    Thumbs up Good subject . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    I guess I posted this becasue I think the burden should be shared equally among those making money from natural resources and the trawlers have not been linked to abundance in regards to their halibut by catch. I am still curious why they reduction is at 15 [percent]; maximum? It seems like it should mirror other stakeholders. . .
    To my mind, it is a good post, and the issue it raises is valid. Conservation and opportunity are inextricably linked in any harvest or use of the Commons. Nerka's post touches on some of the subtleties involved as regulators attempt to balance the two.

    Thank you . . .

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    This is an interesting thread. MRFISH I believe Grampyfishes and Nerka are closer to the truth than many others. I think AKCAPT is doing what he believes best as well. I don't agree with him, but find his attempt laudable. I think Nerka hit it on the head with his comment, and Grampyfishes was correct is his points near the end of the first page. Mrfish in my experienced yes, the PSCs for various allocations are moved around. However not always is all the PSC caught in any one year. I personally think the new cap is in response to the Charter Halibut issue, and in following the MSFMCA. (bycatch must be reduced) I think in general the council is always trying to improve things. I don’t see any issue with any new Halibut bycatch cap, and think the fleet will learn to deal with it. So much is going on with the council right now. It’s one of those things that I think is tied into the GOA Chinook Bycatch Cap, and also the observer restructuring plan. What good are imaginary caps if you can’t trust the numbers? So we’ll see more observer coverage across all fleets. I expect we will see massive amounts of data on Halibut then, and the Council can reconsider all the options available. That is the main reason IMO that this went through so fast, and that it likely will be dealt with again soon. ….for all sectors. This issue might cause a power shift on the council as well (I really doubt it), and from what Deckboss says it’s not in the way most of this forum would think. As always things are almost always more complicated than many of us would think.

    Here is the link to this year’s Halibut bycatch, and as you can see it’s currently below limits. It’s for all sectors for this year in the GOA.
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car150.pdf

    Another link to the fisheries outlook page regarding upcoming and current GOA Halibut mortality is below.

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainable...ts/outlook.txt
    Deckboss link to the council actions…….causing council actions. I doubt anything will come of this, but what I’m trying to show is how actions ripple across all users. That all user groups impact all others. People wanted Chinook bycatch caps, and wanted more Halibut mortality caps, and both were seen as needed. The council moved ahead on both of these. However it impacts places far from our shores, and could cause far reaching effects.
    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2011/09...happening.html
    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2011/09...ders-view.html

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    I think the burden should be shared equally...it seems like it should mirror other stakeholders.
    Are you saying charters should be held to a 15% reduction with their bycatch? Or that the trawlers should mirror the charters with no bycatch limits at all? There is a difference between equity and equality. I think Nerka's last post explains that. I support better equity, but not equality (the fisheries are not equal).

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    the trawlers have not been linked to abundance in regards to their halibut by catch.
    Until recently it was not thought that trawler bycatch affected the health of the stock. Trawler bycatch limits were established on a basis only impacting the exploitable portion of the biomass, simply considered lost yield to other sectors. But recent studies showing a west to east migration, and a major decline in size at age, indicate bycatch could be affecting more than just the exploitable biomass. As mature spawners become smaller, more of them make up the bycatch limit, since it is in pounds, not numbers. This means higher spawning biomass losses to bycatch, or in other words reduced egg production. Biologists are becoming highly concerned over this function of size composition to bycatch.


    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    I am still curious why they reduction is at 15% maximum?
    If you do some serious reading of the NPFMC's report (linked below), deep inside you will find a rather complex but justifiable rationale behind the 5%, 10%, and 15% reductions.

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdo...SCLimit911.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    I think we can all agree that banner advertisment for Sperry top siders has about the ugliest pair of boat shoes I have ever seen.
    Yep. "Real men" don't wear top siders, they wear Xtratuf's!

  20. #20
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    I am saying that if the charter fleet is going to be linked to abundance like grown ups than so should the factory trawlers. This would be a nice time to get everyone on the same page. I am willing to take my lumps along with the rest.

    More intersting though is the last paragraph of from Bruce Leaman, Executive Director, International Pacific Halibut Commission & his comments on proposed Halibut Catch Share Plan. look at the last paragraph in the letter,

    5. Harvest control of the unguided fishery.
    Lastly, as we have stressed in testimony to the Council on previous occasions, an absence of control of harvest by the unguided sector has strong potential to dissipate any benefits that are intended to accrue from the CSP. Leakage of fish from the guided sector by virtue of 'directed' fishing by bare-boat charters will destabilize halibut management. In no other area where there is management of recreational halibut harvest, is there a situation where unguided recreational harvest is uncontrolled. The Commission staff recommends that NMFS and the Council initiate a regulatory process for the unguided recreational halibut fishery in Alaskan waters.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •