Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: What's up with the CSP?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default What's up with the CSP?

    Whats up with the CSP? Was it to big of a grab to get a free pass? Did someone get caught with thier hand in the cookie jar? Or is it going to be worked out in a fair manner at last?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    Whats up with the CSP? Was it to big of a grab to get a free pass? Did someone get caught with thier hand in the cookie jar? Or is it going to be worked out in a fair manner at last?
    What are you trolling for?

    I thought the CSP was an honest attempt to control the "free pass" charters have now. Are you saying charters should be allowed to keep overharvesting while the comm fishery continues to get cut? Or maybe that the comm fishery should be allowed to overharvest like charters are?

    Are you saying the CSP should not address charter impacts on the stock decline, only comm fishery should bare the burden? What charter restrictions/limits/reductions do you propose to help the stock decline?

    Doesn't the CSP shift allocation by leasing quota to charters? Or are you saying charters should just steal comm allocation? Redistribution by just taking from one and giving it to another. Or that comm fishermen should lose their businesses but charters continue to grow theirs?

    I thought the CSP would finally limit and even reduce the number of charters. Or are you saying it's fair that charters should not be limited and only the comm fishery should - like they already are?

    Maybe when you compare allocations in terms of fairness you are saying charters should catch the majority of their allocation in the big waters of the Bearing Sea and Gulf, and the comm fishery should concentrate on easy coastal areas? Or maybe you have the weird idea that 99.9% of the demand for the public's halibut comes from charter clients rather than supermarket/restaurant clients?

    Are you saying only the comm fishery should have quotas but charters be free from quotas? Or that those comm fishermen who vested into their quotas should just give it to charters?

    Seems to me the CSP addresses the "free pass" and "unfairness" issues that charters have taken advantage of very well.

    From what I read the CSP was a joint effort with the charter industry help craft it. No plan is perfect or pleases everyone. Postponing the CSP for further review and work after public comment indicate to me the process is working and no hands are in the cookie jar. Bad thing I see is that charters are delaying action that is needed immediately to keep the stock healthy. I think charters are shooting themselves in the foot since the council and NOAA can take any of several other measures besides a CSP to address the issue of charter overharvests. They may get something they like even less. At best charters will get status quo and more temporary restrictions until they meet their GHL.

    We should know more what is up with the CSP after the mid-December meeting.

  3. #3

    Default

    Has anybody seen the numbers from the 2011 season, for charters? I'm curious how 3a and 2c did with the GHL.

  4. #4

    Default

    It will probably be a couple of more weeks before the numbers are public

  5. #5

    Default

    This is what the NPFMC newsletter had to say about Halibut Issues

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdo...s/news1011.pdfHalibut Issues

    Catch Sharing Plan

    At this meeting, NMFS informed the Council that it would need to revisit its proposed Area 2C/3A halibut catch sharing plan (CSP),
    citing policy and technical issues which compromise their ability to proceed to a final rule. Specifically, NMFS requested additional
    Council input on the following three concerns, along with other technical issues that may be identified by NMFS after further review:
    (1) Evaluation of the management implications at lower levels ofabundance;
    (2) Economic impacts of the CSP under all potential combined catch levels; and,
    (3) Methods for calculating the average weight for guided angler fish (GAF) that may be leased from commercial IFQ operators, and the
    specific means for tracking and reporting GAF.

    NMFS also strongly encouraged the Council to schedule time at the December 2011 Council meeting to provide guidance to the
    International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) for actions on the specific allocation and management measures appropriate for the
    charter halibut fisheries in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska for 2012. The IPHC meets in Anchorage in January 2012 to set fishing
    levels and management measures for halibut along the Pacific Coast. The Council also requested that NMFS provide additional
    detail in December regarding perceived deficiencies in the CSP, so that the Council can discuss an appropriate course of action,
    including the process and timing to address the concerns identified by NMFS.

    For December 2011, the Council also had previously scheduled 1) a review of the ADF&G estimates of sport halibut data for 2010;
    2) review committee recommendations to consider alternative management measures under Tier 1 of the charter halibut CSP.
    Contact Jane DiCosimo for more information.

    Gulf of Alaska Bycatch Limit
    The Council reviewed an initial draft of an analysis that examined proposed changes, which were adopted for consideration by the
    Council in June 2011, to the management of commercial groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) through the 2012/2013 harvest
    specifications process. In addition to the No Action Alternative, the Council had analyzed a range of proposed reductions of (a) 5
    percent, (b) 10 percent, and (c) 15 percent for the trawl halibut PSC limits and fixed gear halibut PSC limits. Additional suboptions
    addressed effects on trawl halibut PSC limit apportionments.

    The Council decided instead to consider an amendment to the GOA Groundfish FMP in order to set GOA halibut PSC limits in federal
    regulations, as is the case under the BSAI Groundfish FMP. The Council modified its problem statement and suite of alternatives for
    action and included it under this new management action. One change to the proposed alternatives for analysis was breaking out
    the hook-and-line catcher-processor sector from the catcher-vessel sector for proposed reductions to halibut PSC limits. The Council
    noted that the CP sector has achieved significant savings in halibut PSC reductions and halibut discard mortality rates and that severe
    reductions may be needed to see benefits to the halibut stock. The Council requested discussion of the benefits and impacts of
    modifying both seasonal and fishery apportionments of halibut PSC limits for the deep water and shallow water complexes. The Council
    requested a number of other additions to the analysis, to the extent practicable, and identified a timeline so that the proposed action
    could be implemented in 2013. Initial review will be scheduled for February 2012 and final action will be scheduled for April 2012. Jane
    DiCosimo is the Council contact for this action.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    It will probably be a couple of more weeks before the numbers are public
    Thanks. It'll be interesting to see what the chp did, as well as the 37" limit in SE.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye2em View Post
    Bad thing I see is that charters are delaying action that is needed immediately to keep the stock healthy. I think charters are shooting themselves in the foot since the council and NOAA can take any of several other measures besides a CSP to address the issue of charter overharvests. They may get something they like even less. At best charters will get status quo and more temporary restrictions until they meet their GHL.
    Take a deep breath. The sky isn't falling. It wasn't the charters that delayed the CSP. Lets see the actual numbers for 2011 before we start talking about charter overharvests. Rumor has it that 2c was 40 percent below their GHL. Not sure where 3a is going to land, but it was the first year of the moratorium, so a fleet reduction might actually have made a difference.

    The fact is that the CSP looked very complicated to implement and had a ton of public comments. 1 more year isn't going to crash any halibut stocks, so give them time to get it right.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Take a deep breath. The sky isn't falling. It wasn't the charters that delayed the CSP.
    I thought thousands of comments against the CSP came from the Alaska Charter Association, Southeast Alaska Guide Organization, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Homer Charter Operators, Fishing Lodges, and more? I see where charters here were using this site to gathering support against it too.

    I hope the moratorium stopped charter overharvests especially in 2c. It would be the first time. If it did then maybe we don't need CSP at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    1 more year isn't going to crash any halibut stocks, so give them time to get it right.
    I like getting it right. But in terms of "fairness" and "free pass" in the original post, that should mean no further reductions to the comm fishery this year either (reduced quotas, trawler bycatch plan, etc).

  9. #9
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    It wasn't the charters that delayed the CSP.
    Yeah, I'm kind of puzzled by this statement, too. Did I miss something?

  10. #10

    Default

    Covered most of what was wrong with CSP in prior posts, here's 2010 Harvest and projections.

    2010 Final Fish and Game Halibut Harvest Data In
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game just released it's final data for the 2010 season halibut sport harvest.

    2C guided final was 1.086. Last year's projection was 1.279, 17% high. Non-guided final was 0.885, projection was 43.4% high. Total recreational projection error was 29.3%.


    3A guided final was 2.696m, projection was 2.992, 10.9% high. Non-guided final was 1.587, projection was 2.077, 30.9% high. Total recreational projection error was 18.3%


    This report should underscore the problems with using projections to manage recreational harvest.

    http://library.constantcontact.com/d...10ADFGdata.pdf
    Frank
    Alaska Wildrose Charters and Cabins
    www.wildroselodge.com

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Yeah, I'm kind of puzzled by this statement, too. Did I miss something?
    I don't think you did. Public comments exist for a reason. This is a huge issue for sport fishermen. I'm glad everybody took it so seriously.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by profishguide View Post
    Covered most of what was wrong with CSP in prior posts, here's 2010 Harvest and projections.

    2010 Final Fish and Game Halibut Harvest Data In
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game just released it's final data for the 2010 season halibut sport harvest.

    2C guided final was 1.086. Last year's projection was 1.279, 17% high. Non-guided final was 0.885, projection was 43.4% high. Total recreational projection error was 29.3%.


    3A guided final was 2.696m, projection was 2.992, 10.9% high. Non-guided final was 1.587, projection was 2.077, 30.9% high. Total recreational projection error was 18.3%


    This report should underscore the problems with using projections to manage recreational harvest.

    http://library.constantcontact.com/d...10ADFGdata.pdf
    Interesting data on 2010. Non guided is going to exceed guided in 2c by a good margin in 2011. Not to mention that subsistence halibut aren't included in that non guided data either, which is how most of the small town locals harvest their halibut.

  13. #13

    Default

    This is because of the 1 fish limit, it pushes the public away from charters and into a friends boat or bare boat rental. Probably would have had the same harvest with a 2 fish limit and charters taking them fishing.
    Frank
    Alaska Wildrose Charters and Cabins
    www.wildroselodge.com

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Coffman Cove, POW, Alaska
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by profishguide View Post
    This is because of the 1 fish limit, it pushes the public away from charters and into a friends boat or bare boat rental. Probably would have had the same harvest with a 2 fish limit and charters taking them fishing.
    Sorry Mr. Guide, not accurate for us - here in SE locals do not use charters to the degree that they do up north. Period. The reason the unguided will exceed the guided catch total is due to the 37" fish rule not a 1 fish rule.

    As a boat rental operation, I can attest to the fact that I have seen no increase in business due to folks coming to me rather than a guided operation due to the # of fish able to get caught. Guides catch more fish period. They should! I tell folks all the time if you went guided for a week and could only keep 1 37" fish per day, you'll STILL end up with a nice batch of halibut. I still have folks who go guided at my place. We are a bit luckier than the northern folks in that we get silvers and kings in addition to butts the whole season pretty much from midjune through September.

    I am interested to see the catch #'s myself though, I do feel bad for the guides who day charter.
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    I do think that the CSP was to be of a grab without seeing what the results of the Charter Halibut Permit cutting down the size of the charter fleet. I also feel that one of the reasons the CSP is getting a closer look is to try to go after the unguided angler harvest! Because of the lodges letting clients use lodge boats to catch unguided halibut.
    As for charters having input in the CSP every time the committee tried to change any part of the CSP they were told that what they perposed was not within the guidelines they were to work with. Sounds more like having to pick what size and color of rope you get to be hung with to me, not a joint effort!

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Coffman Cove, POW, Alaska
    Posts
    753

    Default

    MGH, so I may be a little slow so any help with this would be appreciated. How do you tie the CSP (which I oppose as written), with the unguided angler harvest? Have the unguided anglers ever exceeded their harvest quota? And caused action to be taken? I have my own plans to fix the halibut dilema but folks are too hard headed and self serving to try to think about alternatives.

    I let my clients use my boats without a guide. Works well here but it wouldn't in open ocean areas. Though I am sure there has been an uptick in this method it is probably not a ton. When a person goes unguided rest assured they aren't out crushing them like the charters. I am a big proponent of charters don't get me wrong but it is apples and oranges. If they go after the unguided angler I am sure they will have a reason I just hope it isn't because the charter folks cry foul about unguided anglers.

    Show me the logic ;-) I am not hard headed enough to not be swayed by a good logical discussion.
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
    Have the unguided anglers ever exceeded their harvest quota?
    They don't have a quota, yet. They probably will shortly. There is also concerned about charter businesses renting about boats to clients for the 2 fish limit in SE.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Gooch it is not the charters crying foul, its the long liners saying the boat rentals are commercial like charters, and lodges letting clients use thier boats with out a guide because the owner is compensated. We are starting to see rentals in Homer now!

    I would like to see the GHL attached to the average of the comm harvest over the last 5 years then float up and down at the same percentage. Then let the charters set restrictions to manage the season whith restrictions as needed, no crew fish, one trip per day, size limit and so on. When the GHL is met close the charter season. Charters sould have a per person fee to fund management cost, or landing tax could work.

    I know that some things need to change, but I strongly feel that all recerational anglers should be treated the same no matter where they stand, shore, private boat, or charter boat. And when the IFQ's started all recerational halibut were to come off the top! It all started to go down hill when a few charters wanted to get charter IFQ's to lock out new charters and line thier own pockets. One person stated when I get my IFQ's I will sell them and retire.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by profishguide View Post
    Covered most of what was wrong with CSP in prior posts, here's 2010 Harvest and projections.

    2010 Final Fish and Game Halibut Harvest Data In
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game just released it's final data for the 2010 season halibut sport harvest.

    2C guided final was 1.086. Last year's projection was 1.279, 17% high. Non-guided final was 0.885, projection was 43.4% high. Total recreational projection error was 29.3%.


    3A guided final was 2.696m, projection was 2.992, 10.9% high. Non-guided final was 1.587, projection was 2.077, 30.9% high. Total recreational projection error was 18.3%


    This report should underscore the problems with using projections to manage recreational harvest.

    http://library.constantcontact.com/d...10ADFGdata.pdf
    Actual charter log book catch data shows 2C guided final was 1.249. Only 2% under projection, but still 159% of GHL. The log book data for 3A shows guided final was 3.238. Only 8% more than projected, but 90% of GHL. The way I read it, projections for the guided sector were pretty good when considering actual catch data.

    The recreational sector projection error comes from low non-guided harvests. 2C non-guided harvest was 10% lower than the 15-year average, and it dropped 22% from last year's harvest. In 3A non-guided harvest was 15% lower than the 15-year average, and it dropped 22% from last year too. With no GHL or limit reductions nothing stopped it from increasing. So if 2010 is any indication, the data doesn't agree with speculations here that charter clients are spilling over to the non-guided sector, that they will exceed charter harvest in 2C next year, or that they will get a quota. If anything it shows the non-guided sector has shrunk, 2C charters still overharvest, and 3A charters meet their GHL pretty well.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    I strongly feel that all recerational anglers should be treated the same no matter where they stand, shore, private boat, or charter boat.
    I think there are big differences between charter anglers and privates - one associates their fishing with money, business, easier access, and commercial impacts. So they need to be managed that way. Can't treat them the same when they aren't the same. I like the fact recreational anglers have the option to choose where they want to stand and what regulations they fall under.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •