Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 2013 Halibut

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

    Default 2013 Halibut

    Interesting read......
    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2013/01...tch-break.html

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission today approved a coastwide catch limit of 31.03 million pounds for this year. That's a reduction of over 7 percent from last year. But the cut could have been much deeper, with commissioners considering a suggested 33 percent reduction coming into the IPHC annual meeting this week in Victoria, British Columbia.

    The commission set season dates of March 23 to Nov. 7.

    The IPHC manages U.S. and Canadian halibut stocks. The bulk of the commercial catch comes from Alaska.


    So a cut of 7 percent on top of past years reductions. I personally would have thought, and expected, a lower catch limit. I know the IPHC has gone through some staff scientist lately, but saw the report on suggested take levels. They split it out this year into catagories of risk to the biomass with various levels of take.......this high of a catch limit was suggested to have high risk. I will see if I can find the table.

  2. #2

    Default

    politics at work

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    I I know the IPHC has gone through some staff scientist lately, but saw the report on suggested take levels. They split it out this year into catagories of risk to the biomass with various levels of take.......this high of a catch limit was suggested to have high risk. I will see if I can find the table.
    I'm assuming Hare is out at the IPHC? He's not listed as staff anymore. He was doing some good work, particularly with the mass slaughter of the juvenile halibut by the trawl fleet. I'm sure his models and predictions weren't too popular with Big Seafood.

  4. #4
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    It is going to be interesting next year when the charter fleet is linked to abundance if they will be asking for the reductions called for by the scientists or want to go back to the Fast up Slow down program, like they did this year. I am happy the IPHC commissioners decided to slow the reductions over a longer time. It is going to have dire financial consequences for either sector to take a 30% cut in one year. Especially after years of deep cuts already.

    This illustrates the disconnect the charter fleet has had from the resource over the years. Next year I would imagine all the charter guys are going to call for moderation when it comes to reducing the FCEY.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    270ti, sorry to not reply. I wasn't ignoring your question, I was trying to find the information. I'm not totally sure of who was let go, but I know some senior scientists were replaced recently. I'm not seeing any public data, and don't want to say something incorrect. So my apologies for not being able to provide any more information.

    AkCapt, I'll be interested to see myself. I expected a bigger cut myself, and am a little distressed. I worry that possibly it's to high of a overall take. However, I'm not privy to all the paper/discussions/work and time they put into this to make the decision. However I'm thinking/hoping that the stock will stay at the current level or get bigger in the coming years, and it won't matter that the cuts are spread over years.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Aha, I found some links to the blue line. I could't find the graph I saw floating around the intertubes, but both links have good descriptions of what I was referring to in the first post. I think both of these articles are pretty factual, and show a lot of sides to it. I thought the journal piece was really good. imo.

    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/201...-see-catch-cut


    http://www.adn.com/2012/12/01/271056...considers.html

  7. #7

    Default

    Hare is out, it's saying he stepped down. http://www.alaskajournal.com/Blog-Fi...re-steps-down/

    That's a shame. The new "guy" apparantly isn't as conservative as Hare wanted to be, which I'm sure sits just fine with most of the charter/comm fleet.



    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    270ti, sorry to not reply. I wasn't ignoring your question, I was trying to find the information. I'm not totally sure of who was let go, but I know some senior scientists were replaced recently. I'm not seeing any public data, and don't want to say something incorrect. So my apologies for not being able to provide any more information.

    AkCapt, I'll be interested to see myself. I expected a bigger cut myself, and am a little distressed. I worry that possibly it's to high of a overall take. However, I'm not privy to all the paper/discussions/work and time they put into this to make the decision. However I'm thinking/hoping that the stock will stay at the current level or get bigger in the coming years, and it won't matter that the cuts are spread over years.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    It is going to be interesting next year when the charter fleet is linked to abundance if they will be asking for the reductions called for by the scientists or want to go back to the Fast up Slow down program, like they did this year. I am happy the IPHC commissioners decided to slow the reductions over a longer time. It is going to have dire financial consequences for either sector to take a 30% cut in one year. Especially after years of deep cuts already.

    This illustrates the disconnect the charter fleet has had from the resource over the years. Next year I would imagine all the charter guys are going to call for moderation when it comes to reducing the FCEY.
    3a charter fleet is the only fleet that hasn't had any cuts despite all the deep cuts others have had to take.

    Now that the scientists have been replaced, I'm sure that we'll have a very slow down for some fleets, and a extremely slow up for all the fleets who have already taken years and years worth of huge cuts.

  9. #9

    Default

    Here is a link to all the documents and presentations given during the meeting - plus the administrative sessions were open and links to recordings of each session.
    http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-eve...documents.html

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    That is an amazing link, thanks! Also kudos to IPHC as that is an amazingly open sharing of information.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    It is going to be interesting next year when the charter fleet is linked to abundance if they will be asking for the reductions called for by the scientists or want to go back to the Fast up Slow down program, like they did this year. I am happy the IPHC commissioners decided to slow the reductions over a longer time. It is going to have dire financial consequences for either sector to take a 30% cut in one year. Especially after years of deep cuts already.

    This illustrates the disconnect the charter fleet has had from the resource over the years. Next year I would imagine all the charter guys are going to call for moderation when it comes to reducing the FCEY.
    We Charters have always been linked to abundance, the GHL is stairstepped with abundance, now their going to call it CSP and take away some of our fish (depending on where we fall in the matrix) and sell it back to us as a GAF fish. If they getaway with it? we'll see...
    Frank
    Alaska Wildrose Charters and Cabins
    www.wildroselodge.com

  12. #12
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    You are correct Frank in the GHL was related to abundance but to not enough so to curtail the charter industry's harvest in times of low abundance. It allowed for the charter fleet to continue to exceed the guideline without penalty. That in my opinion was the largest problem with the GHL and it is what created the necessity to create a different way to manage the charter industry.
    I think most in the charter industry would agree that the "2012 model" of management, where members of our own industry can work with Fish and Game to choose the least damaging reductions is an improvement.

    The rub as I hear it is the allocation was less than anyone would have liked and the concept of GAF was not well received. Crazy thing was at the meeting where allocation was being discussed there was like 7 charter guys that showed up and 50 commercial guys. Same with the written testimony. I think a lot of the charter guys gave up.

    I would say there is little chance it gets sent back again but anything is possible.

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
  •