Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: Proposal Idea

  1. #1

    Default Proposal Idea

    I'm thinking a proposal is needed to further protect halibut in SE AK, and continue the rebound. Probably not an issue in SC yet... but when limits get cut, it will be.

    This is what I'm seeing:

    I'm starting to see an increase in "private" boats out there, fishing almost daily, with different groups of guys. I'm also seeing private "lodges" that one person owns, that aren't registered guides, that basically runs "charters" for friends and business associates all summer long. (tax write off?) I'm not not going to speculate on how legal these boats are. Law enforcement is aware of them, as some of them have been around for awhile.

    As these type of boats increase, where does that leave our halibut? Night/Day difference between non-charter and charter limits here in SE. We have a really good thing going right now in SE. Halibut are coming back.. average size is increasing, breeders are being let go on the charters, it's hard to go yellow eye/ling fishing without hooking a 100lb hali, etc.

    So I'm thinking that a proposal is needed to put non-residents, who are not the registered boat owner, and who are a relative of the registered boat owner, (2nd degree kindred) under the same limits as the charters.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    I'm thinking a proposal is needed to further protect halibut in SE AK, and continue the rebound. Probably not an issue in SC yet... but when limits get cut, it will be.

    This is what I'm seeing:

    I'm starting to see an increase in "private" boats out there, fishing almost daily, with different groups of guys. I'm also seeing private "lodges" that one person owns, that aren't registered guides, that basically runs "charters" for friends and business associates all summer long. (tax write off?) I'm not not going to speculate on how legal these boats are. Law enforcement is aware of them, as some of them have been around for awhile.

    As these type of boats increase, where does that leave our halibut? Night/Day difference between non-charter and charter limits here in SE. We have a really good thing going right now in SE. Halibut are coming back.. average size is increasing, breeders are being let go on the charters, it's hard to go yellow eye/ling fishing without hooking a 100lb hali, etc.

    So I'm thinking that a proposal is needed to put non-residents, who are not the registered boat owner, and who are a relative of the registered boat owner, (2nd degree kindred) under the same limits as the charters.

    Thoughts?
    I don't live in southeast so keep that in mind. That being said I would support such a measure 100%.
    Basically the self guided trips you describe are a guided trip. They provide everything but a person to bait the hook.
    I would assume they give them GPS coordinates or tell them where to go and explain the techniques etc. etc. All gear is provided I assume.
    So yes lets treat them the same as on a guided trip. They are basically on one.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  3. #3

    Default

    It's kind of a weird deal I'm seeing. (not only me, but lots of rumblings from other guides too)

    It's not really a rental deal at all. The boat owner or property owner is out fishing with them and "guiding" them (without any type of compensation apparantly).. to basically the same experience they'd get on a charter... except they get different limits. And, they hammer the heck out of the breeders, all summer long. In my area, we do have "monster" patches, where a private boat owner can go catch 70 lb + hali a day (4 anglers on board), for many days out of the season... and I know that several of these boats are doing exactly this. They aren't really secret spots either. Hang around awhile and you'll hear about them. They are longer runs, but they do exist, and most charters avoid them.

    Add that up over the course of the season by 5-10 of these "private charters" in one area, and you have some serious #'s being removed that aren't being logged in any type of logbook.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Is it part of the costs of renting the property? or an "wink and nod" arrangement where it is implied as part of rental? then yes, it would be a great proposal.

    or do you mean a resident who has lots of visitors and takes them fishing? I mean in the SE what else is there to do? I think lots of residents fish most weekends during the summer down there. So I would not agree that a resident who takes people fishing with no expectation of income should be considered "guided".

  5. #5

    Default

    Several yachts, that run boats off them all summer. (Trident seafoods boat the Annandale and the Hilton Yacht) All run "guests" off of fishing boats, but have no adfg sticker, despite having an employee run the boat and "guide" the "guest". One hell of a grey area use there.

    5 or 6 individuals who have an inordinate amount of "buddies" come up, and they fish all summer out there with different groups of guys.

    And that's just in my area. I'm sure similar situations exist all over SE.


    All non-charters, filled with non-residents, and being "guided" by a non-registered guide. Thus following the 2 halibut, any size limit. Time to reign them in, IMO, and have them follow the same rules as charters. It would also help combat the illegal charters that happen, as they'd lose some incentive if they had to follow the same rules.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    "So I'm thinking that a proposal is needed to put non-residents, who are not the registered boat owner, and who are a relative of the registered boat owner, (2nd degree kindred) under the same limits as the charters. "

    This must make sense to you, but as written it makes very little sense to me. If a non-resident is the registered boat owner, your proposal would not apply? Anyway, looks like the proposal needs some work so that it says clearly what you are proposing. Just my thoughts.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,920

    Default

    270i I think I understand your proposal idea and 100percent agree with you. I am very fortunate now a days to be on the outside looking in and grow ohh so tired of one user group feeling the pinch while others prosper.. If there is a need for a pinch it should be shared by all.. And these loopholes are rediculous.. good idea you have going there...

  8. #8

    Default

    Aren't these federally and not state managed? Why should residents get a bigger allocation than non residents on a federally managed resource? If a lodge owner is on the boat or a lodge employee that should be considered guided whether this is specific compensation or not. However, if a non res is out there in a boat by themselves, I don't see why they shouldn't have the same limit as anyone else. Having a gps coordinate is not all it takes to catch a fish.


    Also, if a resident or non resident takes someone fishing putting a limit on that as pseudo guided is ridiculous. However, if someone is out there day after day in a six pack charter type boat with different people daily, I would guess they are running a charter operation. My suggestion would be enforce the law that exists and catch them and punish them. Under cover, etc. I don't think a new law is necessary.

    As far as corporations using mega yachts as a way to take customers fishing, meh I dunno. I doubt they catch all that much in terms of total catch. Regulatory effort would probably be better spent elsewhere.

    Also, how do you propose people on the boat prove kinship with the owner. Carry a family tree? What if you are an in-law? You won't have the same last name as anyone on the boat? What if you are a girl that is married so you don't have the same name as your dad? I don't see how this is workable or practical to enforce.

  9. #9
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Superdave I can't see how a 6 pack boat going out every fishable day would NOT have an impact! And if it is as 270ti says that there are 6 or more of these boats in his area that is the same impact as 6 charter boats.
    I know the man is an accomplished charter captain so if he says he is seing these same boats out every day with different clients I do believe him.
    As far as proving relationships Alaska already has such laws in our hunting regs for bears etc. and it seems to be working there. I am sure there is a way to enforce the law if written as they already enforce such a law for hunting.
    Yes Halibut are a federal resource. But look at it this way the vast majority of clients (I forget the percentage but it is very high) on charter boats in southeast Alaska are non residents and they are restricted solely because they decided to use a charter boat.
    If they can be restricted because of the boat they are on I suppose they can be restricted for other reasons.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tee Jay View Post
    "So I'm thinking that a proposal is needed to put non-residents, who are not the registered boat owner, and who are a relative of the registered boat owner, (2nd degree kindred) under the same limits as the charters. "

    This must make sense to you, but as written it makes very little sense to me. If a non-resident is the registered boat owner, your proposal would not apply? Anyway, looks like the proposal needs some work so that it says clearly what you are proposing. Just my thoughts.
    sorry, my wording sucked.

    what I was trying to say is that I'd like the registered boat owner, and his family, (2nd degree kindred) to still be able to fish under sportfish regs, not charter regs.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Aren't these federally and not state managed? Why should residents get a bigger allocation than non residents on a federally managed resource? If a lodge owner is on the boat or a lodge employee that should be considered guided whether this is specific compensation or not. However, if a non res is out there in a boat by themselves, I don't see why they shouldn't have the same limit as anyone else. Having a gps coordinate is not all it takes to catch a fish.


    Also, if a resident or non resident takes someone fishing putting a limit on that as pseudo guided is ridiculous. However, if someone is out there day after day in a six pack charter type boat with different people daily, I would guess they are running a charter operation. My suggestion would be enforce the law that exists and catch them and punish them. Under cover, etc. I don't think a new law is necessary.

    As far as corporations using mega yachts as a way to take customers fishing, meh I dunno. I doubt they catch all that much in terms of total catch. Regulatory effort would probably be better spent elsewhere.

    Also, how do you propose people on the boat prove kinship with the owner. Carry a family tree? What if you are an in-law? You won't have the same last name as anyone on the boat? What if you are a girl that is married so you don't have the same name as your dad? I don't see how this is workable or practical to enforce.
    Thanks for the reply supedave.

    They are federally managed. Rural residents are already given a big advantage. Federal Subsistence. 20 halibut a day, with the ability to use 30 hook skates. This proposal would simply be to control the impact of non-resident private boats, which seem to be on the increase. As the stock recovers, catching big halibut will become easier and easier.. The boats will increase, and many of these areas which are basically full of breeder halibut will be cleaned out.

    A similar reg is in place for big game hunting in AK. So it's not too "out there" to enforce the 2nd degree of kindred rule. A lot of us will be watching these boats and will be reporting an violations.

    The impact one of the private boats can have is huge. 6-8k pounds of halibut a summer if they fish under the sportfish regs, if you do the math. Pound add up quickly when you target big fish.

    If you haven't noticed, 2 user groups have been cut to recover halibut stocks. The comm fish longliners, and the SE Charter fleet. Very drastic cuts too. Now it's time to reign in the visiting non-residents, who don't own the vessel they are fishing on. Right now the fleet of these boats are relatively small. Why wait until it grows to take action? With cuts looming on the horizon in 3a, it will only be a matter of time before more of these boats show up.

    If you don't like this proposal, the next step is an annual limit for halibut, which isn't that bad of an idea either.

  12. #12

    Default Proposal Idea

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    what I was trying to say is that I'd like the registered boat owner, and his family, (2nd degree kindred) to still be able to fish under sportfish regs, not charter regs.
    I definitely get the sense of what your thinking here 270ti, but it seems like no matter how carefully worded it is, people will find a way around it. I can already see 300 people co-owning a boat, meaning them and their family can still fish and do what they're doing.
    I would be interested in a recording requirement (limited seasonally or not maybe) more than nonresident or familial restriction. What the details of that recording requirement would be, I don't know, but that seems to be the most easy to enforce, and allows fishery managers to know where the fish are going. Maybe just a recording requirement alone initially to see where the fish are going and then manage accordingly.
    Regardless, I can definitely understand your frustration.

  13. #13
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cwm907 View Post
    I definitely get the sense of what your thinking here 270ti, but it seems like no matter how carefully worded it is, people will find a way around it. I can already see 300 people co-owning a boat, meaning them and their family can still fish and do what they're doing.
    I would be interested in a recording requirement (limited seasonally or not maybe) more than nonresident or familial restriction. What the details of that recording requirement would be, I don't know, but that seems to be the most easy to enforce, and allows fishery managers to know where the fish are going. Maybe just a recording requirement alone initially to see where the fish are going and then manage accordingly.
    Regardless, I can definitely understand your frustration.
    I just don't see 300 nonresident people getting on the title for a boat. And then you have to change it every year for the different guests. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle of that. I do not believe the state would allow it to occur either.
    I think really what the intention would be that people fishing with family up here on their own private boats would still be allowed the 2 fish per day. Use the second degre of kindred like you do for bear hunting which apparently works.
    Those visiting a yacht of a friend or business associate would need to have the yacht or its smaller boats become registered as charter boats with licensed charter captains or face the same limits as charter boats.
    So people could still visit Alaska in their own boats and fish but not use it as a way around our charter boat limits on Halibut.
    And around our laws and limits on charter boats.
    Do you know why most megayachts and cruise ships do not carry United states(US)registry? It is because US registered boats must employ US citizens. Foreign flagged boats can hire whomever they choose from whichever country they choose. That is another way around some US laws. Similiar to how some boats in SE AK are using these private yachts as a way around AK charter boat restrictions.
    Let's do whats best for the fish here folks and not let a few people ruin it for the rest of us.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Do you know why most megayachts and cruise ships do not carry United states(US)registry? It is because US registered boats must employ US citizens. Foreign flagged boats can hire whomever they choose from whichever country they choose.
    I think it has a lot more to do with taxes and legal liability than who they can hire.

  15. #15
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I think it has a lot more to do with taxes and legal liability than who they can hire.
    I am sure that is all part of it.
    There was a fancy sailing yacht in Homer a couple of years ago and while looking the boat up online they stated they had a captain they liked who was from south Africa and he could not captain the boat if it had US registry.
    Anyway my point is there are always people trying to get around our laws and regulations. Here in AK we have strict laws and regulations regarding what is and is not a charter boat and what they can and cannot do.
    This is a good example of people getting around our laws regarding charter boats. Something some of us feel needs to stop to protect the resource and comform to the rules others have to live by.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  16. #16

    Default Proposal Idea

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    This is a good example of people getting around our laws regarding charter boats.
    I guess my point in saying that there could be 300 owners of a boat is to point out that people will always get around laws. You can try to legislate them into an oblivion (which will not work) or take some measures that will deter them.
    The other reason I thought of multiple owners is that is what happened when you could no longer sell raw dairy milk. People bought shares of a cow and collected their 'own' milk. As far as I know, they still do it in the Matsu-and that was over raw milk versus homogenized!
    I can't imagine that an entity like a trust could not own a boat. There could easily be 300 members of the trust that pay a relatively small fee to join it. If you come up for a couple weeks a year and this would mean no risk of losing significant fishing privileges, I bet something similar could happen. I do realize it is far fetched, but I mentioned it to make a point.
    The second degree kindred is much harder to get around and does seem to work well on the hunting side of things. Maybe that is the direction it should go. Not trying to be argumentative, just adding my two cents.

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

    Default

    Back to what I have said all along. Treat all anglers the same no matter where they are from, or what they fish from, or who they go with! Just look at the out of state comm fisherman who have won a court settlement about the state overcharging for comm fishing permit and license fees. I would not be shocked for a class action lawsuit to be filed by some lawyer for out state sport anglers. Just think what that lawyer would make! I still don't know how the state has gotten away with the diffrent limits for kings this long!

  18. #18
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cwm907 View Post
    I guess my point in saying that there could be 300 owners of a boat is to point out that people will always get around laws. You can try to legislate them into an oblivion (which will not work) or take some measures that will deter them.
    The other reason I thought of multiple owners is that is what happened when you could no longer sell raw dairy milk. People bought shares of a cow and collected their 'own' milk. As far as I know, they still do it in the Matsu-and that was over raw milk versus homogenized!
    I can't imagine that an entity like a trust could not own a boat. There could easily be 300 members of the trust that pay a relatively small fee to join it. If you come up for a couple weeks a year and this would mean no risk of losing significant fishing privileges, I bet something similar could happen. I do realize it is far fetched, but I mentioned it to make a point.
    The second degree kindred is much harder to get around and does seem to work well on the hunting side of things. Maybe that is the direction it should go. Not trying to be argumentative, just adding my two cents.
    Now I get what you are saying. Do it in the name of a trust and then the trust just has to adjust its members list to presumably make it legal. That could be a loop hole I suppose.
    I was originally thinking you ment 300 names on one title which seems impracticle.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post

    The impact one of the private boats can have is huge. 6-8k pounds of halibut a summer if they fish under the sportfish regs, if you do the math. Pound add up quickly when you target big fish.
    I guess my point was I think if you see a 6 pack boat out there every single day with different people on it, chances are it's an unlicensed guide running a "shadow" charter service.

    You are out there a lot more than I am in SE, so I can only speak to the 4 weeks I'm out there in the summer. In that 4 week period, the only obvious non-guide boat that I saw out there every day with more than a couple of people on it was us, and we have the same 5-6 people on it the entire time. I did see the same boats a few times, but they were either hand trollers or they just had a couple of people on them and I'm pretty sure they were resident boats as they looked too small to be a charter. Granted I'm fishing out of a really small town for 2 of the weeks, but 2 of the weeks were in Wrangell.

    If you say it's happening where you are, I'll believe you, but I struggle with the thinking that there's a significant number of people filling up an unlicensed charter operating daily without doing any open advertising or having a guide service sticker. It just seems like if you are having to fly under the radar it would be difficult to fill your boat up every day with this stream of non-resident anglers paying for your services on the sly.

    If it's an illegal charter operator, what they are doing is illegal. Couldn't an undercover officer bust this ring fairly easily? I mean there are laws in place to enforce this, enforce those laws right? This proposal is aimed at discriminating against a user group (non-residents) of a federal resource for illegal activities of residents (shadow charter operation)?

    I have an extremely hard time believing there are a significant number of residents taking out 4 or 5 different non-residents out fishing every single day of the summer for free. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I LOVE fishing and have a ton of friends and after 2 weeks of that, I would be done. If your basis for wanting to pass a new regulation is the belief this is happening in meaningful numbers, I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone.

    Now it's time to reign in the visiting non-residents, who don't own the vessel they are fishing on.
    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Anyway my point is there are always people trying to get around our laws and regulations.
    Both of these sort of point at the same area, and I pretty much completely disagree with the above.

    People that are running illegal charter operations (they receive payment) are BREAKING the law, they aren't getting around them. The operator is breaking the law, and by keeping 2 fish a day on these, the fisherman are breaking the law as well. In my opinion, this would include boats where a lodge owner, or lodge employee is on the boat for "free" and is acting as a guide. If you charging them rent for a room, feeding them, renting them a boat, operating the boat for them and assisting them, you are a guide. If the laws don't already reflect that, they should be amended. I would think the various undercover stings that the ADF&G runs should catch these. Again, laws in place need to be enforced rather than new ones created.

    People that take their friends or family fishing are not trying to "get around" laws, and neither are the people that fish with them. As proposed, this wouldn't discriminate against people that are family, but it would certainly impact when we have a friend come up and fish and for no reason other than they don't own the boat and aren't related. I have a hard time believing you'd be talking about a significant reduction in halibut catch with this regulation change. You certainly won't see charter business pick up as a result of it if that's the goal.

    What are your thoughts on the operations where you simply rent the boat, or the boat is included in the lodging, and the owner does not go out with you. IE, it's do-it-yourself fishing on a rented boat. Is the thought these guys would also get reduced down to 1 and that's really where this is aimed because that has to be eating into the charter business given the daily limit issue?

  20. #20

    Default

    First off, nothing is really eating into the charter business right now. Business is good.

    This is about protecting the breeders. Plain and simple. Halibut are currently making a big comeback. As they continue to grow, catching big halibut will become easier and easier. We need to protect them, to keep the recovery going, IMO. Commercial has been cut way back, charters are cut way back.. Now it's time to reign in another user group.

    Any visiting, non-boat owning Non-Resident should have the same limit. Whether charter or non-charter. IMO. That is the stance I have. I'm not saying they can't keep halibut, they just need to play by the same rules as the others. All of your visiting friends would have the same limit as the thousands of other visiting non-residents who utilize charters. Fair is fair, and the breeder halibut stay in the ocean. It's all about the recovery.

    As far as rental boats.. do they own the boat? Are they residents? There's your answer.

    Picture this.. In 10-15 years... as the recovery continues... you'll be able to catch quality halibut closer in that you imagined possible. Rod hours will be down, etc. But, you have to be willing to have some short term pain to make that happen. You gotta protect the breeders. You can't have the attitude of "well, you won't save that many halibut anyway". That's a BS attitude. Every halibut counts.

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
  •