Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: Support the Halibut Coalition

  1. #1

    Default Support the Halibut Coalition

    Sport anglers and commercial fishermen, make sure YOUR voice is heard!

    Please go to http://halibutcoalition.org/ to show your support for sustainable wild halibut stocks! I just donated $20.00 to the cause through paypal.

    You can also joint their Facebook page at

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wild-Sustainable-Alaska-Halibut/102348109853762

    P
    lease read below for information on this issue:


    The Halibut Coalition urges NMFS to implement the CSP without further delay. The CSP marks 18 years of public discourse on halibut charter management that engaged hundreds of people from all sectors of the halibut fishery: subsistence, sport, and commercial fishermen; consumers; processors and distributors; and coastal communities. The CSP will allow halibut fishery managers to achieve important conservation and management goals. It will provide a measure of stability to the halibut fishery. Finally, the CSP will establish a market-based mechanism to resolve the allocation conflict that has consumed the Council and torn apart coastal fishing communities.

    The almost two decades of testimony and analysis surrounding the development of the CSP have resulted in an extensive and complete factual and legal record supporting the CSP – a record that fully demonstrates the CSP is fair and equitable, takes into account present participation in the fishery, and promotes conservation. Among those facts are the following.

    The GHL and CSP were developed by committees dominated by the charter industry.

    When the charter industry decided at the last minute to oppose the CSP to which it had previously agreed, the industry did so based on the assertion the CSP was neither fair nor equitable. The charter industry’s “fair and equitable” alternative proposed raising the then-existing Area 2C charter catch from 913,000 pounds to 4.9-5.7 million pounds, between 70%-80% of the total harvest, effectively putting the commercial fleet out of business.

    The status quo GHL management program has resulted in the Area 2C charter industry exceeding its quota by 22%-115% and by lesser amounts in Area 3A. The commercial sector has never exceeded its quota since the IFQ program was established.

    The IPHC has stated that charter overfishing is a threat to resource conservation.

    In Area 2C since 2005, the halibut resource has declined 62% and the commercial quota has been cut 76%. The charter industry’s quota was reduced by only 55% but the charter industry offset those reductions by overfishing its quota by an average of 52%. While the resource has been declining, the charter industry in Area 2C increased its harvest by 93% between 1997 and 2008.

    Charter overfishing has resulted in direct reductions to the Area 2C commercial fleet to offset the charter overharvest. These reductions have an ex-vessel value to commercial fishermen of $15 million which translates to a $46.5 million economic loss using standard multipliers.

    Charter overfishing causes localized depletion because it is concentrated in nearshore areas. The charter industry admitted the existence of localized depletion in testimony on the charter limited entry program.

    Localized depletion means the least fortunate among us, those who live near, at, or below the poverty level, and who depend on subsistence fishing, cannot find the resources to feed their families.

    The commercial processing sector has seen significant declines in the amount of halibut available for processing, caused in part by charter overfishing, with a corresponding impact on jobs and community wages.

    Alaska’s coastal communities which depend on halibut and other commercial fish landing taxes to support essential government services have suffered a dramatic loss of income as commercial quotas have been cut to compensate for charter overfishing.

    The CSP awards the charter industry a percentage of the allowable harvest that is equal to, or greater than, the GHL percentage in both Areas 2C and 3A.

    Had the CSP been in place in lieu of the GHL since 2004, the charter industry would have received more fish in both Areas 2C and 3A.

    The CSP allows the charter industry to increase its allocation by providing a mechanism for the industry to acquire more fish from the commercial fleet.

    The CSP makes substantial concessions requested by the charter industry, mostly at the expense of the resource or the commercial fleet. Among those concessions are:
    -percentage allocations equal to or greater than the GHL allocations;
    -a program that allows the charter industry to increase its harvest by leasing commercial quota;
    -no in-season harvest management changes;
    -allowing the charter industry to exceed its annual harvest limit by approximately 20% with no new regulations to limit harvest;
    -management measures limited to bag and size limits with season limits and fishery closures taken off the table as possible management measures;
    -an increase in the charter industry’s allocation percentage when halibut abundance is low so that the commercial fleet bears the conservation burden; and
    -a more flexible management system so that charter allocations can rise more quickly when halibut abundance increases.

    Despite these facts, the charter industry protests. Ignoring the fact that if the CSP had been in place since 2004 instead of the GHL, the charter industry would have received more fish, the industry asserts that their 2011 allocations, had the CSP been in place, would have been less than their GHL allocations. This argument captures the essence of the charter industry’s attitude and the exact nature of the problem confronting fishery managers. The facts are that:
    -the difference between the 2010 CSP and the GHL Area 2C allocation to the charter industry would have been only 8,000 pounds;
    -while the commercial fleet has seen its quota cut by 73% between 2007 and 2011, the charter industry quota was cut by only 45%, and none at all in the last three years even though the resource has continued to decline and commercial quotas have been slashed to conserve the resource;
    -in Area 3A, the commercial quota was cut 45% between 2007 and 2011 for conservation reasons, but the charter quota was never reduced; and
    -in 2011, the commercial quota in Areas 2C and 3A was reduced from 2010 levels by 47% and 38%, respectively, while the charter quota under the GHL was not cut by one pound.

    A fair and equitable allocation would have reduced the quota for each sector by equal amounts. But the charter industry does not want fair and equitable. It wants what is unfair and inequitable – that the charter industry not bear its share of the responsibility for conserving the resource – a conservation need caused in part by years of overfishing by the charter industry – overfishing that has inflicted enormous harm on the resource, commercial fishermen, subsistence fishermen, processors, and coastal communities.

    There are clearly net national benefits to implementing our national policy of preventing overfishing. There are national benefits to not inflicting economic loss on the commercial fleet (and dependent processors and coastal communities) when the IPHC is forced to reduce the commercial quota to offset charter overfishing and to conserve the resource. There is clearly a net national benefit to ensuring that the least fortunate among us, subsistence fishermen, do not lose access to the resource due to localized depletion caused by charter overfishing. And in considering net national benefits, one cannot forget that the charter industry would have received more fish if the CSP had been in place since 2004 instead of the GHL. This means the benefit to that industry would have been, and will be, greater under the CSP.

    The facts and the law are clear. The CSP can and must be implemented for the 2012 season.
    Last edited by beluga; 09-26-2011 at 20:02. Reason: Grammar

  2. #2

    Default

    I'll pass.

  3. #3
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Me too, they want to regulate unguided sport fishers next. Supporting that organization is supporting a 1 fish limit for private boaters too...

  4. #4

    Default

    I'm sure that beluga is aware that this organization is supported by 13 commercial fishing and processing organizations. They'll toss private sport fishermen under the bus in a heartbeat.

    At the rate we are going, the only fishermen with a 2 fish limit is going to be the charter fishermen fishing on a charter vessel where the owner leased IFQ from a commercial fisherman, under the CSP.

    Remember how just a few years ago we were arguing about charter limits in SE? My how quickly things have changed. The debate now is all about the private sportfisherman.

  5. #5

    Default

    I'll pass also. I don't usually post in this section but do like to see some of the threads.
    I don't know which side of the question I am on or what solution I would support.
    I do know that I will not fall victim to impassioned pleas that state "facts" with no referenced support.
    Acronyms are usually spelled out the first time they are used in polite conversation.
    I am sure the other people who were at the same meeting of one of those alphabet groups just love your post.
    Effective - no.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

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

    Default

    Why would we want to donate to a place that wants to throw us under the bus???

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    590

    Default

    I'll pass as well. I guess the only way to be fair is to reduce the charter limit to one fish and reduce the commercial take to half. Perhaps the stock can replenish itself.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    If I were a unguided sportfisher in 2C I would volunteer to only catch one halibut per day. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Since I'm an unguided angler in 3A I don't feel as if I have to do that yet as the biomass doesn't warrent it imo. I have absolutely no problem with the original post, but think it should have some better links to support it. I think the OP was just jerking your chains anyway. I don't feel like fact checking the entire post, but from what I can tell there is very little untruth in it. It seems very factual to me.


    My McAfee site advisor didn't like those links in the original post, lol. I'd be careful clicking on those for research. I will find a better link......all of that was basically outlined in the catch sharing plan document.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    two good links.......and this thread should be moved to the fisheries managment forum.

    Catch sharing plan link
    http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/03/16/2011-6133/pacific-halibut-fisheries-catch-sharing-plan

    tons of actual, real information on this issue in this link, enjoy!
    http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/halibut/charter-management.html

  10. #10
    Member Col. F Rodder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    295

    Default

    I'll pass. Coming from the lower 48 and going out 2-3X while I'm there, I haven't seen catch rates go down. Avg 25-30 fish each time I went out in Seward & Homer. Maybe the size has reduced somewhat but that might be blamed more on some charters that feel it is necessary to run 2 trips a day and fill their clients with chickens rather than quality fish. The fish need to grow
    I would support a minimum size limit, like there is for Ling. You could even put a 1 max limit size fish as well. From what I see there is not much of a shortage out there.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    When reading this thread I have tried to separate out the request for money decision vs. the halibut conservation burden issue. However, it is hard to do the way people post. So far on these threads I have not seen the charter representatives state exactly what they are willing to do to share in the conservation burden other than take from other user groups. They want, according to their ads, the GHL which would take from the other user groups. So of the following options what is preferred given the GHL is not acceptable.

    1. Shorter season length but with a two fish limit 2. Closed days during the week with a two fish limit 3. Full season with one fish under 37 inches 4. A poundage quota and the season closes when reached 5. IF Q's for each charter operator and the poundage varies just like the commercial fleet. 6. A trophy halibut tag for each charter operator so if a client catches a 100 pound fish they can keep it but with a one fish under 37 inch limit otherwise. Just what will the charter industry accept to help conserve this resource if the option to take from other users is not there?

    Frankly when I read the posts on this thread and other posts on halibut everyone is protecting their turf. I cannot believe some sport fisherman - both those who use charters and those who do not - are making comments about not being included or at least not offering options to be included. As I read the posts I am going back in history and seeing the exact same pattern of how marine fisheries are over harvested. User groups that are over-capitalized for the fishery fight to the last fish because of short term gain and when the fishery goes to no harvest because of significant over harvest they yell for government support and want to know why the fishey failed. I think everyone needs to look in a mirror and see the past.

    Frankly, at the levels in 2C I wonder if they should even have a fishery. The uncertainty in the data makes me very concerned when the harvest is down 80% and still declining.

    Yesterday the politics of this has made the State rethink its position in Area 3 and maybe propose not implementing a catch sharing plan for this next year. If the State takes that position then the pattern of over harvest is being accepted in the interest of short term political gain. The sure way to costs us all in the long run.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    When reading this thread I have tried to separate out the request for money decision vs. the halibut conservation burden issue. However, it is hard to do the way people post. So far on these threads I have not seen the charter representatives state exactly what they are willing to do to share in the conservation burden other than take from other user groups. They want, according to their ads, the GHL which would take from the other user groups. So of the following options what is preferred given the GHL is not acceptable.

    1. Shorter season length but with a two fish limit 2. Closed days during the week with a two fish limit 3. Full season with one fish under 37 inches 4. A poundage quota and the season closes when reached 5. IF Q's for each charter operator and the poundage varies just like the commercial fleet. 6. A trophy halibut tag for each charter operator so if a client catches a 100 pound fish they can keep it but with a one fish under 37 inch limit otherwise. Just what will the charter industry accept to help conserve this resource if the option to take from other users is not there?

    Frankly when I read the posts on this thread and other posts on halibut everyone is protecting their turf. I cannot believe some sport fisherman - both those who use charters and those who do not - are making comments about not being included or at least not offering options to be included. As I read the posts I am going back in history and seeing the exact same pattern of how marine fisheries are over harvested. User groups that are over-capitalized for the fishery fight to the last fish because of short term gain and when the fishery goes to no harvest because of significant over harvest they yell for government support and want to know why the fishey failed. I think everyone needs to look in a mirror and see the past.

    Frankly, at the levels in 2C I wonder if they should even have a fishery. The uncertainty in the data makes me very concerned when the harvest is down 80% and still declining.

    Yesterday the politics of this has made the State rethink its position in Area 3 and maybe propose not implementing a catch sharing plan for this next year. If the State takes that position then the pattern of over harvest is being accepted in the interest of short term political gain. The sure way to costs us all in the long run.
    I think Nerka has summed it up the best. "What is the charter fleet going to do to share the conservation burden"?

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy A naive notion . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . As I read the posts I am going back in history and seeing the exact same pattern of how marine fisheries are over harvested. User groups that are over-capitalized for the fishery fight to the last fish because of short term gain . . I think everyone needs to look in a mirror and see the past. . .
    What you are witnessing is the limitless capacity of human nature to rationalize self-interest, the ultimate American example of which might be the ante-bellum South's rationalization of its self-interest in chattel slavery. In that case, the issue was decided by a contest of arms. This issue will be decided by more civilized means. Whether the commons are preserved in the process remains to be seen.

    As for everyone looking in the mirror, don't hold your breath . . .

  14. #14
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Look, conservation is one thing but supporting an organization that's sole purpose is to fight for the rights of one sector over another is something completely different. This organization is a lobby group for longliners, plain and simple. Not sportfishermen of any kind, period. I believe in sector accountiblity and conservation when necessary. I agree with AKBF, if you want to support something, get the facts from the Council page, and write some letters. To Support this organization or even suggesting it on the sportfishing forum is a childish way to get attention and doing nothing. you might as well post a support Peta post on the hunting forum

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

    Exclamation Allocation, allocation, allocation . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    . . This organization is a lobby group for longliners, plain and simple. Not sportfishermen of any kind, period. . you might as well post a support Peta post on the hunting forum
    Dunno . . there are times when this forum itself comes across as a lobby for commercial fishing interests.
    ***********

    It seems to me that what everyone—commercial, sport, & charter—is missing here is that the issue is being argued nonsensically: defending this or that current guideline, vilifying the other guy, name-calling, and worse.

    What needs to be argued is current allocation, plain and simple. It's a zero-sum pie no matter how the pie is sliced. If the charters and private-sport want more, commercial will have to get less.

    If charters (and ultimately private-sport) want a bigger piece of the pie, then they must present a compelling case for an overhaul of current allocations, and the only rational case I've heard yet from the charter/private sector is that their contributions to the economy are worth more socially than are contributions from the commercial fishery because the charter/private contributions are made into and help support local communities.

    Now whether that case can be made and sustained is for others to decide, but that is the case, make no mistake. Anything less is just another cat-fight, another example of the limitless ability of human nature to rationalize self-interest.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    Look, conservation is one thing but supporting an organization that's sole purpose is to fight for the rights of one sector over another is something completely different. This organization is a lobby group for longliners, plain and simple. Not sportfishermen of any kind, period. I believe in sector accountiblity and conservation when necessary. I agree with AKBF, if you want to support something, get the facts from the Council page, and write some letters. To Support this organization or even suggesting it on the sportfishing forum is a childish way to get attention and doing nothing. you might as well post a support Peta post on the hunting forum
    Ak, this is not a sport fishing forum. It is Alaska Fisheries Management. I also believe that a number of people have posted to write letters of support for their position on various allocations issues over time and to different agencies. So the post was not out of line by Gramps. He also provided their rationale for their position which was good. Others have done the same for a different viewpoint.

    However, I asked a simple question of what option is the preferred option given the GHL being raised and two fish harvest regardless of stock size is rejected. I would like to hear what you will accept if the one fish under 37 inches is so harmful. Obviously the other options I outlined will accomplish the conservation objectives. So which one would you prefer?

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

    Question What cards are on the table?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . I asked a simple question of what option is the preferred option given the GHL being raised and two fish harvest regardless of stock size is rejected. I would like to hear what you will accept if the one fish under 37 inches is so harmful. Obviously the other options I outlined will accomplish the conservation objectives. So which one would you prefer?
    Help me out here, guys . . is total reallocation of the halibut fishery on the table as an option, or are the only solutions in play options in terms of current allocation?

    I wonder whether I'm hearing another version of the loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

    A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    Look, conservation is one thing but supporting an organization that's sole purpose is to fight for the rights of one sector over another is something completely different. This organization is a lobby group for longliners, plain and simple. Not sportfishermen of any kind, period. I believe in sector accountiblity and conservation when necessary. I agree with AKBF, if you want to support something, get the facts from the Council page, and write some letters. To Support this organization or even suggesting it on the sportfishing forum is a childish way to get attention and doing nothing. you might as well post a support Peta post on the hunting forum
    Well I'm miffed. AKCAPT started the last thread asking for support and comment to limit commercial bycatch. Yet when someone else asks for support and comment to implement the CSP, he says it's childish.

    It seems to me that not supporting something is just as partisan as supporting it. The original post clearly calls out to all sportfishing anglers (very first words of the post), and spells out very clearly why it would be beneficial for them to support the CSP. The CSP is a far cry from fighting for the rights of one sector over another. In fact it is quite the opposite. It actually unites the two sectors in many ways, including sharing quota from one sector to another, sharing the burden of conservation, and sharing in management efforts to stabilize overall harvest. So to imply that the Halibut Coalition is only interested in commercial fishing interests does not hold water. Supporting the CSP through the Halibut Coalition, or any other method or organization, does not prohibt anyone from getting facts from the Council page or writting letters.

    It doesn't matter to me if you support the Halibut Coalition or not. That's not the issue. I want to see legitimate rationalization from the naysayers here for not supporting the CSP. So far I have seen none.

  19. #19
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    It was posted in the sportfishing forum for a week first and got moved here.

    I did not say whether to support the CSP or not, that is not the only issue that Halibut Coalition deals with.

    What I said is get the facts from the NPFMC website, then think about it, and make your own decision.

    For Sportsman to support the halibut coalition, an organization that clearly wants halibut for their members - longliners and processors- Is not a very good idea.

    I can't believe that you would say the halibut coalition is not a commercail fishing group..I am happy to have a lively discussion but lets not try to distort the actual fact......Lets look at their members:

    MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
    Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association -- Cordova District Fishermen United -- Deep Sea Fishermen's Union -- Fishing Vessel Owners Association -- Halibut Association of North America -- Kachemak Bay Fisheries Association -- North Pacific Fisheries Association -- Petersburg Vessel Owners Association -- Seafood Producers Cooperative -- Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance -- United Cook Inlet Drift Association -- United Fishermen's Marketing Association -- United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association


    Weird.... I don't see any sportfishing groups at all.......

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

    Default

    ...And I like Marcus....he is the smartest one......

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •