Sad news for the sport fisherman
The article pretty much says nothing.............are facts and discussions so meaningless? It's like talking to a preschooler. Recreational fisheries have a priority already when stocks are limited.
You can always fish for bass... in the L48.
"fishing community" as referenced in the Magnuson Stevenson act is a defacto commercial fishing community. Communities which rely on sport fishing dollars as part of a healthy economy do not receive much recognition nor respect in the Act.
That's bad info.
Originally Posted by willphish4food
The Magnuson Stevens Act's definition of "fishing community" does not exclude sport fishing, or exclude communities supported by sport fishing. In fact the definition it is quite indiscriminate. For obvious reasons the Act was established for, and has roots in, commercial fishing (review the history). Commercial fishing impacts in federal waters far outweighs sport fishing impacts in federal waters, and thus the emphasis on it. This is especially true in Alaska where many remote coastal communities completely rely on fishing community programs that are supported by their commercial fishery for economic and social survival.
Magnuson Stevens Act:
(3) FISHING COMMUNITIES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—
(i) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to participate in a limited access privilege program to harvest fish, a fishing community shall—
(I) be located within the management area of the relevant Council;
(II) meet criteria developed by the relevant Council, approved by the Secretary, and published in the Federal Register;
(III) consist of residents who conduct commercial or recreational fishing, processing, or fishery-dependent support businesses within the Council’s management area; and
(IV) develop and submit a community sustainability plan to the Council and the Secretary that demonstrates how the plan will address the social and economic development needs of coastal communities, including those that have not historically had the resources to participate in the fishery, for approval based on criteria developed by the Council that have been approved by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register.
(17) The term "fishing community" means a community which is substantially dependent on
or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and
economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish
processors that are based in such community.
(B) PARTICIPATION CRITERIA.—In developing participation criteria for eligible
communities under this paragraph, a Council shall consider—
(i) traditional fishing or processing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery;
(ii) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery;
(iii) economic barriers to access to fishery;
(iv) the existence and severity of projected economic and social impacts associated with implementation of limited access privilege programs on harvesters, captains, crew, processors, and other businesses substantially dependent upon the fishery in the region or subregion;
(v) the expected effectiveness, operational transparency, and equitability of the community sustainability plan; and
(vi) the potential for improving economic conditions in remote coastal communities lacking resources to participate in harvesting or processing activities in the fishery.
Willphish4food, I'd be interested to know exactly what community in Alaska you think relies on a sport fishery that takes place in federal waters, and if they have submitted an application based on their economic and social needs (not wants) to be included in a federal fishing community program? ......
let me rephrase the final sentence. "...respect in THE IMPLEMENTATION of the act."
Originally Posted by willphish4food
I believe this to be a very true and factual statement based on actions and testimony from various fish n game officials and fish board members.
Rephrase your post all you want, you still didn't answer my question....
Originally Posted by willphish4food
Funstastic, does the fishery have to take place in Federal waters or just be a federally mandated species? In the act it notes salmon through out their whole range which implies to me that Soldotna could apply since salmon are harvested in the river but are federally owned. Just curious on your take.
Unfortunately if we get into that, this thread is going to digress quickly. We would first have to clear up the ambiguity and define what fishery, where, and what programs you are talking about. For example, as you know generally the Feds manage Alaska's salmon fisheries in the EEZ and leave coastal and inland management to the State. But Cook Inlet (among others) and certain freshwaters in Federal land have been exceptions. Also programs under the MSA are many, each with different criteria: CDQ, Disaster Relief, Limited Access Privilege, Research/Study programs, and so on. For example Soldotna would not meet the program requirements for CDQ, may or may not for Limited Access Privilege, and probably would for Disaster Relief. As for MSA authority in the Kenai River; it is possible if the State is unable to manage effectively, which negatively affects the Plan. Not blowing you off, but perhaps your complex question deserves extensive discussion in another thread?
The original post was about recreational saltwater fishing in Federal waters per the MSA. Our resident anti-commercial fishing rep Wilphish4food jumped in with wrong and deceptive comments (as usual), and has yet to provide even one example of his claim. Again, "fishing community" does not exclude sport fishing, in fact eligibility for "fishing community" programs "shall consist of residents who conduct commercial or recreational fishing within the council's management area."
This is a straw man argument. A sustainable fishery can be sport or commercial; if commercial or recreational activity anywhere along the migration path of salmon is causing the fishery to become unsustainable up the line, it must be regulated to maintain sustainability. In other words, upstream impact of fisheries must be considered by management. Just because one fishery is doing great with no apparent issues year after year, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on fisheries upstream of it. And if that is occurring, managers have an obligation under the Act to adjust management to mitigate the impact. Fish and Game has a history of failing to do this; at the 2011 board meeting the board made changes to management to address this issue. I believe the Board and department are now paying more attention to all the intricacies of the act than they did in the past.
Originally Posted by Funstastic
Willphish4food, you digress. If you can't back up your biased statements by answering a simple question, then please don't post them.
You stated that the "fishing community" as referenced in the Magnuson Stevenson act is a defacto commercial fishing community, and that a fishing community which relies on sport fishing dollars as part of a healthy economy does not receive much recognition nor respect in the Act. That is untrue, and you were unable to give an example. All you did was pander deliberate misinformation and anti-commercial fishing sentiment.
Not sure what you are eluding to with your last comment...it seems to be biased one way. If recreational activity upstream is causing the fishery to become "unsustainable", it too must be regulated to maintain sustainability of the fishery downstream.
If you read and understood the MSA, you would clearly understand that it considers and regards every aspect of the stock, including "upstream" and downstream impacts. This is true even as the MSA gives authority to the State to manage non-EEZ anadromous areas and exceptions (like Cook Inlet). In fact it specifically mandates a cooperative partner management program with States, including charter and recreational entities, and it appoints State representatives to our Regional Fishery Management Councils. Obviously, as the record shows, the MSA works in conjunction with States to monitor those impacts you mention, and adjusts the harvests of related fisheries accordingly. Under the MSA, the Fed will step in if the State can't manage to the Plan, where the primary goal is to protect the stock.
Fun, I amended my original post. The state was not implementing the Act properly, and since they were called on it, are now working harder to manage runs throughout their range instead of just at the end of it. See coho management in Upper Cook Inlet for an example. In the past the state was content to restrict and close recreational fisheries while ignoring impacts of other fisheries earlier in the migration route. This is always a struggle for fisheries at the end of the chain; its easy to quantify the fish when they are at their destination, and easy to regulate fishing there, much tougher to quantify and regulate fisheries affecting them at the beginning and end of the run. The state has historically done very little to ensure stability in communities dependant on sport fishing. Ask the residents of Alexander Creek.
Originally Posted by Funstastic
More misinformation from Willphish4food. First, if he supports the idea that the State has done a poor job under MSA then he must support UCIDA lawsuit that claims the same thing. Different reasons but in both situation the claim is not following MSA. UCIDA may have a point Willphish4food does not.
Next, he implies no actions have been taken in the commercial fisheries for coho salmon which is totally false. Does he not remember in the 90's a total closure of the commercial fishery during the season for coho conservation (1996 I believe). Does he have selective memory on all the actions the Board and Department have done relative to ND management - starting in the early 80's with restrictions on where the drift fleet fishes. In 1980 when I got here the drift fleet fished the whole inlet on every period. We created various lines in season to try and move ND fish north. The Board of Fish actually made the first attempt in 1977 for coho protection by restricting the drift fishery on some regular period to the eastside. That failed as management for other species was not successful.
Next, the management plans in 1978 give a recreational priority for coho to sport fisherman. The season dates were adjusted for this. Maybe he forgot that the season use to go for set netters past August 15th on the eastside and ND. Also, there have been e.o closures and restriction for coho through out the last three decades.
Time to do a little homework Willphish4food before you post.
Willphish4food, the State exercised the Act just fine when it restricted and/or closed the out-of-control recreational fisheries in the Upper Cook Inlet, including those taking place at Alexander Creek. In fact Alexander Creek is a perfect example of the recreational sport fishery over-exploiting and nearly wiping out the coho run, affecting the commercial fishery and shifting the burden of protection to it. Perhaps you forgot what a crowded, bumper-to-bumper circus the coho sport fishery was on Alexander Creek? I used to sport fish up there, and I quit because almost every single spawner was getting caught. Forget about Alexander Creek's own unique production and predator problems, which the State has recognized and implemented.
More importantly, the MSA clearly establishes what qualifies a "fishing community." Current Alexander Creek residents would fail in almost every regard, primarily because the history of that fishery was one of subsistence. In fact the MSA uses the term "fishing community" almost exclusively for special programs...programs Alexader Creek residents would not qualify for. See, the MSA is not necessarily required to "respect" and "recognize" communities that jump into a fishery and create their own economic implosion because they ruined it. The MSA is in the business of protecting the stock, which is exactly what the State did by "implementing" restrictions and/or closures for Alexander Creek. The MSA is not in the business of supporting a community's economic growth at he expense of other fisheries, just so that community can ruin the fishery.
I am such a pot stirrr