Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: #'s for SE Charter Catch, 2011

  1. #1

    Default #'s for SE Charter Catch, 2011

    http://www.adn.com/2011/11/07/215882...st-within.html

    Estimated 388,000 pounds were caught. The allocation was 790,000.

    Perhaps a 39" limit is in order for 2012, instead of the 37" limit.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    How about one over 37" or two 37" or less.

  3. #3

    Default

    Until this year, the charter sector has overfished its allocation in SE every year since 2004. In 2008 alone, they overfished by nearly 1 million pounds. Their shortage in 2011 (400 thousand) is less than half of the amount they've been overfishing every year.

    Perhaps they have some catching up to do...

  4. #4

    Default

    Until this year, the charter sector has overfished its allocation in SE every year since 2004. In 2008 alone, they overfished by nearly 1 million pounds. Their shortage in 2011 (400 thousand) is less than half of the amount they've been overfishing every year.

    Perhaps they have some catching up to do...

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKJOB View Post
    Until this year, the charter sector has overfished its allocation in SE every year since 2004. In 2008 alone, they overfished by nearly 1 million pounds. Their shortage in 2011 (400 thousand) is less than half of the amount they've been overfishing every year.

    Perhaps they have some catching up to do...
    No catching up to do. No charters broke the law in previous years that led to them going over the GHL. They operated within the law.

    They should get the math figured out so that charters in SE AK can catch close to the GHL.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    How about one over 37" or two 37" or less.
    I'd go for 2 under 37 or 36", depending on how the math works out.

  7. #7

    Default

    I'm all for holding everybody to their allocation, and likewise, allowing each sector to achieve it.

    The problem is the charters could care less about conservation or allocation for the 7 years in a row they overfished, and they fought reasonable management of the fishery the whole way. They tied it up in the courts for years, and have now squashed the catch-sharing plan. Now that there's finally some teeth in the regulations, they can't just advocate for more liberal limits after one single year of catching less. Was it illegal? No. Was it clearly overfishing and unfair to other users of the resource? Yes. If the longliners have done the same, they would be in jail.

    We need to find a way to keep all users within their allocation. Until the charters acknowledge that and support reasonable management of the fishery, I don't have much sympathy for the 400,000 they left in the water after the Millions and Millions of pounds they overfished for 7 years running.

    The catch sharing plan was a good-faith (and certainly imperfect) attempt at that, but after a groundswell of opposition, we're back to ground zero.

    If the charters want more liberal limits, I'm all for it. But it has to come in a package that sets fair management practices for every year moving forward.

  8. #8

    Default

    So now charters are being blamed for the giant public response to catch sharing? You do realize they have those public comments for a reason, right?

    The fact is that they wrongly calculated that a 1 fish limit of 37" or under would put the 2c fleet at 790,000lbs. Instead, they gave the charters a limit that landed them at 388,000lbs. They need to recalculate and give the charters a size limit so they can actually legally catch their allocation of 790,000, or whatever it is in 2012.

    By the way, exactly how many "millions and millions" of pounds exactly did the charters go over in the last 7 years? And then for perspective, toss out how much the comm fish fleet caught, and how much the comm fish fleet wasted too in AK.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    They should get the math figured out so that charters in SE AK can catch close to the GHL.
    Why don't you include the comm fishery??? Their regulations went into effect 17 years ago, and they have been held under quota by about 6.5 million lbs, averaging about 376,000 lbs under every year.

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/ifqreports.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    No charters broke the law in previous years that led to them going over the GHL. They operated within the law.
    There was no "law" to enforce GHL, just like there was no green light to exceed them. Charters fought enforcable quotas for decades so they could exceed them.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    So now charters are being blamed for the giant public response to catch sharing? You do realize they have those public comments for a reason, right?
    So thousands of comments against the CSP by the Alaska Charter Association, Southeast Alaska Guide Organization, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Homer Charter Operators, Fishing lodges, etc. represent the public??? I don't think so. Charters were even soliciting people on this forum against the CSP.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    By the way, exactly how many "millions and millions" of pounds exactly did the charters go over in the last 7 years? And then for perspective, toss out how much the comm fish fleet caught, and how much the comm fish fleet wasted too in AK.
    The data shows charters in 2c were over about 4 million lbs in the last 7 years. The commercial fishery in 2C was about 1.4 million lbs under during same period. The contrast is even bigger when you figure in 3A.

    The 1 fish limit at 37" was not wrongly calculated to get the GHL, anymore than you say charters were given a limit that landed them at 388,000 lbs. The FR says the GHL was estimated based on historical catch, which charters typically exceeded. Nothing stopped you from catching 790,000 lbs. GHL's are maximums, not absolutes. If you ask me, for once the restrictions did exactly what they were intended to do.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Sockeye2em, Why did you change your sign in name? 270ti if management would get the migrations figured out the correlation between bycatch and over harvest by comms in the other areas has hurt 2C more than the charter harvest ever has. And before any one states that comms have not gone over thier limits, I say yes that is true! If I got to set my own limit I would never go over it too. The fox can only watch the hen house so long before no more hens!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    Sockeye2em, Why did you change your sign in name? 270ti if management would get the migrations figured out the correlation between bycatch and over harvest by comms in the other areas has hurt 2C more than the charter harvest ever has. And before any one states that comms have not gone over thier limits, I say yes that is true! If I got to set my own limit I would never go over it too. The fox can only watch the hen house so long before no more hens!
    Are you implying the longliners set their own quota? "the fox guarding the henhouse"?

    The commercial sector in 2c is down 80% from a few years ago. Commercial fishing families are literally going bankrupt over it, meanwhile the charters overfished their GHL for 7 consecutive years.

    Who exactly is the fox in this story?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    When only one seat on the north counsel represents sport and charter fisherman and recomends harvest levels. Commercial fishing families are going bankrupt because they bought in high when poundage was up, and charter are going bankrupt because they started to late and did not get a HCP. I feel sorry for both groups that made bad business decisions. The Commercial harvest and bycatch were set to high, and being able to target fish of a given size for 11 months has taken its toll over time. When it was the old derby days you had to take what you got, not look for a age or I sould I say a size that paid better per pound. It was fun to put on your Big Boy pants and go fishing in not so nice weather and earn your money, no handout, no guaranteed poundage just a chance to go fishing. You ask who is the fox in this story it must be the sportfishermen taking less then 15% of the halibut taken in Alaska! Sportfishermen are Sportfishermen no matter where they stand when they fish.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    When only one seat on the north counsel represents sport and charter fisherman and recomends harvest levels. Commercial fishing families are going bankrupt because they bought in high when poundage was up, and charter are going bankrupt because they started to late and did not get a HCP. I feel sorry for both groups that made bad business decisions. The Commercial harvest and bycatch were set to high, and being able to target fish of a given size for 11 months has taken its toll over time. When it was the old derby days you had to take what you got, not look for a age or I sould I say a size that paid better per pound. It was fun to put on your Big Boy pants and go fishing in not so nice weather and earn your money, no handout, no guaranteed poundage just a chance to go fishing. You ask who is the fox in this story it must be the sportfishermen taking less then 15% of the halibut taken in Alaska! Sportfishermen are Sportfishermen no matter where they stand when they fish.
    And commercial operators are commercial, whether their clients pay for the fish they take by the pound or in half day increments. All commercial operators need reasonable management, not to mention the rest of us personal use fishermen. It just seems unfair to me that the charters want to fine tune their harvest upward after so many years of blatantly overfishing their GHL and tying up regulations in the courts for so many years while everybody else suffered in 2C. They made their bed, nobody else did.

    Remember that what has happened in 3A is very different than in 2c. We're not talking about charters out of homer here.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    270ti if management would get the migrations figured out the correlation between bycatch and over harvest by comms in the other areas has hurt 2C more than the charter harvest ever has.
    Me thinks bad information like that just plays on people. The catch data shows almost 32 million lbs of quota was not harvested by the comm fishery since IFQ started almost 2 decades ago. It shows overharvest in other areas has not happened. Bycatch has always been calculated into the allowable catch and exploitable biomass before IFQ were issued. In 2C charters overharvested about 4 million lbs in just 7 years, while the comm fishery has been cut 80% with an underharvest of about 1.4 million lbs. Would a better understanding of migrations help manage the fishery? Sure - almost as much as stopping the spread of bad info.

    Fox in the henhouse is more bad info used to play on people. Federal laws (not comm fishermen) establish the makeup of the NPFMC. The Secretary of US Commerce approves all action (not comm fishermen). Voting representation includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Alaska Dept of F&G, Oregon Dept of F&W, Washington Dept. of F&W, and Alaska Regional Director of Marine Fisheries. Non-voting representation includes Executive Director of States Marine Fisheries Commission, Area Director of U.S. F&W, Commander of the Coast Guard, and a representative from the U.S. State Department. With so much water to cover and dozens upon dozens of different types of fisheries to represent, there is no reason charters should have more than one seat on the Council.

    Your idea why charters are going bankrupt is more bad info. Charters are going under because they overharvested, had no control or limit, outgrew the fishery, and triggered regulations - not because they started late and didn't get a HCP. They were warned in the FR decades ago that restrictions were coming, long before the stock was in decline. So please read the FR - charter restrictions are a result of their own overharvest, growth, and allocation grabs, not a declining stock. The commercial fishery has not been able to grow since 1995. They have never overharvested.

    To say comm overharvest and bycatch is the reason for stock decline, and that things would be better off derby style, is just more bad info. If you read the stock assessment and other studies you would see there are more significant reasons for the stock decline. Blaming the comm fishery does play on people though. Derby days mean overharvests due to fishing redundant gear, catching halibut faster than can be counted, increased waste and bycatch, and other problems making managment impossible.

    Another way to play on people is to compare the sportfish catch (virtually all from 2C and 3A) to the entire comm fishery catch in all Alaska waters. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It's called intentional deceiving. Sportfishermen hardly fish the big waters of the Bearing Sea and Gulf where most of the comm catch happens. In 2C the sportfish catch in recent years has been 30-50% of the comm catch, not 15%.

    To say sportfishermen are sportfishermen no matter where they stand, is to say private anglers and charter anglers get their halibut the same way, and have the same impact. We know that is not true. Charter anglers pay for professional guide services, potentially jeopordizing the resource through commercialization and profits. Charter anglers catch more halibut, bigger halibut, are more efficient, generally have bigger boats, better equipment, and yet have less vested into the fishery. That is why laws classify them differently. They are different. They are commercial.

    Why is it everytime a discussion about charters comes up, it ends up being about everything except charters?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Sockeye2em, You never let me down you hit your same old points same, but why did you change your name? You must like apples and oranges! Like I said I would never overharvest if I got to set my catch! Who are you to say who has less vested into a fishery, if someone has every thing they have vested it still is everything they have so shame on you for saying it's less. Grampy we just don't agree and most likely never will about what is right or wrong with "Halibut Management" but if managers keep changing the way data is collected and use to make decisions who knows they might get it right or be out of a job because there won't be any halibut left to manage. I have said charters need to be managed in a fair way and what has happened has not been fair the CSP was not fair. I hope the new CSP when it is out for the public to see is more along the lines that everyone was expecting to see last time before the North Counsel threw charters under the bus!

  16. #16

    Default

    I know. I just don't have much interest in accusations, speculation, and bad information. You don't back up anything you claim. I guess all I can do is present the data and facts, and watch you avoid them like the plague. It says a lot.

    Comm fishermen don't set their own catch limits like you'd have us believe. Statements like that only play on people. Laws require that catch limits be science-based, and can only be approved by your U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Those limits are not exceeded by comm fish because it is against the law. It is charters who have set their own catch limits (limitless), and it is charters who have exceeded their harvest levels. It's all in the FR, Magnuson Stevens Act, and the ADFG/NOAA data.

    If you would like to show how the average charter angler has more vested into the fishery than the average private angler, I'm all ears??? My point was to show the obvious contrast between a charter angler and a private angler.

    I hope managers keep improving the way they collect and use data. I see that as a good thing. Not sure why you don't??? It's certainly better than managing based on opinions and accusations, which is what you are doing.

    As for getting thrown under the bus, wasn't it charters who threw themselves under the bus??? Wasn't it their own overharvests and uncontrolled growth that triggered restrictions??? The NPFMC was simply required by law to implement regulations. The CSP may not have been perfect (neither was the original comm fish IFQ program), but considering NPFMC did not have to present any sharing plan at all, and considering how charters abused the fishery for so long, your comment about "fair" seems out of place.

    I think we know how you feel, MGH55. But without anything backing up your feelings, the discussion is stale. I look forward to the CSP revisions coming out in December, and working for all sectors.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    No the charters did not! The NPCFMC threw the charters under the bus with what they called a final action before putting the agreed joint processed CSP forward, with no representation for the sport and charter fishermen the North Pacific Commercial Fishing Management Counsel can push just about any thing they think they can get away with! Untill the recreational catch reaches 50% there is nor has there ever been any abuse by any recreational fishermen no matter what platform they fish from! And why did you change your sign in name, is it the same reason managers keep changing thier management stratagies to hide bias?

  18. #18

    Default

    Because of sport and charter efforts the CSP was kicked back, and will be modified. So your claim that sport and charters have no representation is not supported. Also, due to charter efforts, the NPFMC has been unable to pass necessary charter regulations for years. So your claim the NPFMC can do whatever they want is not supported.

    It is charters that have done whatever they wanted, throwing themselves under the bus by overharvesting, outgrowing the fishery, and triggering the need for NPFMC regulations in the first place. Keep in mind the NPFMC does not need to offer charters a CSP. It is only one alternative to managing charter growth. They could simply choose to implement status quo restrictions.

    The recreational catch has reached more than 50% in 2C before, so I donít understand your point. The ďabuseĒ I was talking about was charters everharvesting while the fishery is in decline and other users are cut.

    If you read stock assessments and other studies and reports you would understand exactly why management strategies change. Sorry, itís not due to bias.

    Your opinions and feelings are appreciated MGH55. Lets see what happens to the CSP after the Dec meeting.

  19. #19

    Default

    Sockeye2em
    The data shows charters in 2c were over about 4 million lbs in the last 7 years. The commercial fishery in 2C was about 1.4 million lbs under during same period. The contrast is even bigger when you figure in 3A.
    Lets be real! 4 million lbs in a year. Wow that's huge! NOT! Comfish may have been under, but what's important is what they were allowed to take in the first place. They were let loose to catch thousand's of pounds more then they should have. All total they were given 320 million pounds extra industry wide if they would have just stayed at 1995 catch levels. In perspective that's more then DOUBLE what the entire sport catch has been since 1995, guided and unguided. They would have also still seen an average ex-vessel growth of $10Million a year instead of the $53 million/year with all of the extra fish harvested. And while your claiming how the comfish were dilligent in their harvesting and staying under during the same period, you have brother Fuglvog raping the water's of 2C when his permit was for 3A.....hmmm I wander how many other in 2C have done the same to "save fuel". I'm sure the poster child of the comfish world or should I say "Highliner of the Year" isn't/wasn't the only one. I'll bet 4 million has been illegally harvested out of 2C alone since 1995. At least the charters were legally harvesting what the citizens were allowed to catch.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    If only any of that had to do with why charters are getting restrictions.

    Charters were warned that restrictions were coming...long before 1995, or any increase in the price of halibut, or Fuglovg. Charters are getting restrictions simply because their industry outgrew the fishery, imploding itself. Scapegoating the commercial fishery won't change that.

    That post amounts to nothing more than baseless lies, false accusations, and sour grapes. It compares a state-wide commercial fishery, that occurs primarily in the big waters of the Bearing Sea and Gulf, to coastal area-specific sport fishing. It uses terms like "rape", "let loose", and "given extra" to strike emotional feelings, not the truth. It openly accusses others of illegal activity, without proof or any consequence for making false accusations. It treats better halibut markets, higher ex-vessel values, and increased revenues, as a bad thing, when really getting more money out of an industry that can't grow is a good thing. It goes on and on and on.

    "boycott commercial caught halibut" - Halibutgrove

    What scares me is not that some charter owner spews this reckless, bias and contempt, but that we allow that selfishness to sit on our ADF&G Advisory Committee, hold office of VP for our Alaska Outdoor Council, hold office of President for our Prince William Sound Charter Boat Association, and lobby our politicians. That is most detrimental to our fisheries, and exactly why they are failing.

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
  •