Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Judge rules in favor of charters in SE

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

    Default Judge rules in favor of charters in SE

    Alaska Recreational Anglers Win Battle for Two-Halibut Daily Limit



    Washington, D.C. - June 20, 2008 - Judge Rosemary Collyer granted a preliminary injunction here today on a lawsuit eleven charter halibut fishermen filed June 2 against Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez. The preliminary injunction will remain until Judge Collyer rules on the merits of the case, most likely after the end of the summer fishing season. The judge's ruling means that recreational anglers fishing from charter boats in Southeast Alaska will now be able to fish under last year's bag limits, which permitted one halibut of any size and one halibut 32 inches or less per day.

    "We are thrilled with the judge's decision," said Scott Van Valin, owner of El Capitan Lodge who is a co-founder of the Charter Halibut Task Force and lead plaintiff in the case.
    Last edited by Brian M; 06-20-2008 at 23:02. Reason: posting copyrighted material prohibited

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Can you go ahead and just post a link to the story? Short exerpts are fine, but we are no longer allowing entire copyrighted articles to be posted in accordance with copyright law and fair use principles. Thanks.

  3. #3
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    This was a press release from the Halibut Charter Task Force. I have never heard of any copyright problems with posting their press releases. It had all the contact information on the group at the bottom of the page. It as an email so I do not have the link.
    Just pull the whole thing and I will stop posting in this part of the forum. Too many rules.

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

    Default

    This was a press release from the Halibut Charter Task Force. I have never heard of any copyright problems with posting their press releases. It had all the contact information on the group at the bottom of the page. It is an email so I do not have the link.
    I would say posting any of it would be a copyright violation if anyone cared.

    Just pull the whole thing and I will not post anthing else on this part of the Forum. Too many rules.

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Was it the Feds who began the 1-per-day restriction for sport fishermen?

    Where's ADFG in all of this?

  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    This was a press release from the Halibut Charter Task Force. I have never heard of any copyright problems with posting their press releases. It had all the contact information on the group at the bottom of the page. It as an email so I do not have the link.
    Just pull the whole thing and I will stop posting in this part of the forum. Too many rules.
    I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It looked like an article at first glance, so I deleted it. Please accept my apologies - the intent is not to burden you with too many rules, and sometimes the fact that I'm human comes out.

  7. #7
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Was it the Feds who began the 1-per-day restriction for sport fishermen?

    Where's ADFG in all of this?
    That's a big part of the "unfairness" perceived by many in all of this... Halibut are federally managed, so it's a NOAA/NMFS regulation being discussed. Magnussen-Stephens and the Halibut Act both call for "fair and equitable" distribution of fishing privileges. The problem is, this rule was aimed at one group of anglers in one specific area.

    It's like the liquor tax that was passed back when I was in the bar business. The first round wanted to tax $.05 per drink sold in bars. Bar owners and Alaska CHARR all screamed because their customers would have to pay more to drink in the bar when they can go buy the same drink for less in a restaurant, hotel, liquor store, etc. The tax eventually went through, but it was placed on ALL alcohol sales statewide.

    I see the same thing happening with sport fishing now... The new rule said that if you were fishing in SE from a chartered boat, you could only have one. But the same angler on a private boat can have 2? What about the charter boat that leaves Elfin Cove and goes a mile extra to fish NW of Cape Decision? Or fly into Homer... the new rule doesn't apply to all sport anglers, just the guy who prefers the safety and experience of hiring a professional boat driver.

    In management, what you do for one, you've really got to do for all. Where's ADF&G in all of this? Take a read of one of Denby Lloyd's opinion pieces he published before he was appointed as commissioner of F&G... He advocates a move away from a "Maximum Sustainable Yield" principle, with a shift toward short term "Maximum Financial Benefit".... This is not who I want in charge of managing MY resources, but that's just my opinion.
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CanCanCase View Post
    ... Halibut are federally managed, so it's a NOAA/NMFS regulation being discussed.....
    They are federally managed 100%? Like migratory species?

    Okay. So then why aren't salmon?

    I'm not trying to be a pain here. I just want to understand.

    ....Take a read of one of Denby Lloyd's opinion pieces he published before he was appointed as commissioner of F&G... He advocates a move away from a "Maximum Sustainable Yield" principle, with a shift toward short term "Maximum Financial Benefit".... This is not who I want in charge of managing MY resources, but that's just my opinion.
    I don't like the sound of "maximum financial benefit" at all. I tend to be on the losing side of the "financial" guys.

    I googled "denby lloyd" and "maximum financial benefit". I couldn't find any of his opinion pieces.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Was it the Feds who began the 1-per-day restriction for sport fishermen?

    Where's ADFG in all of this?
    Yes, it was a federal process that developed the one fish per day restriction. In October of 2005, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) was notified that Area 2C (Southeast) had exceeded the GHL of 1.432MLBS in 2004 by 22%. (It takes this long to get final numbers of the sport and charter harvest from the statewide harvest surveys.) NPFMC started a regulatory package to restrain the 2c charter fleet to the GHL. After an initial review and final recommendation in April of 2006 for an annual limit, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) came back to the NPFMC and said in writing up the proposed rule/regulations that there were complications and high implementation costs. The NPFMC rescinded the annual limit and started a new regulatory package. Again after a public process for initial review and final recommendation at the NPFMC a new recommendation with a two prong approach was made. This final recommendation was made in June of 2007 with charter representatives testifying. At that point in time NMFS had notified the NPFMC that the 2005 GHL had been exceeded by 36% and the preliminary 2006 charter harvest was 42-47% over the GHL. In October of 2007, the final charter harvest number for 2006 were published and were 26% over the GHL. The two prong approach the NPFMC approved in June of 2007 was if the GHL stayed at 1.432MLBS the recommendation was for a 4 fish annual limit, no skipper and crew fish and number of lines limited to the number of paying clients or a maximum of 6. If the GHL stair step down provisions were triggered by a lower halibut biomass then the recommendation was for a one fish bag limit, line limits and no crew fish. After the council recommendation, NMFS wrote up proposed regulations, which went out for public comment - (269 comments received) and the final regulations was published in May.

    ADFG's only role in the management of halibut is as a member of the NPFMC.

    The commercial fleet has taken a 43% reduction in the last two years.

    A couple things to think about - the charter fleet did not sue the federal government over the allocation or the GHL numbers - they sued over a technicality that they believe the Federal government can't manage to the lower GHL of .931 MLBS until it has been exceeded.

    The sport harvest when you combine the guided and unguided sectors together of the Area 2C halibut removals is approximately 20% of all removals.

    The commercial fleet believes that simply put, bottom line this is about conservation. In a fully untilized resource, the reason for allocations are to manage the different sectors at a sustainable level. If one sector exceeds their allocation/GHL then the fishery is being overharvested because IPHC had set their management targets for a total removal that maintains a sustainable resource.

  10. #10

    Default

    [quote=Mark;290704]They are federally managed 100%? Like migratory species?

    Okay. So then why aren't salmon? quote]

    The salmon fisheries that occur 100% within the 3 mile limit are considered state fisheries. The troll fishery has a federal management plan (FMP) that delegates management of the troll fishery to the State - this fishery occurs both in state waters and outside of 3 miles.

  11. #11
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    ...
    The sport harvest when you combine the guided and unguided sectors together of the Area 2C halibut removals is approximately 20% of all removals.
    ...
    Hi Kathy!

    Can you show your math on this statistic? Also, please cite the sources for numbers used. This seems very high when compared to what I've read and understood, so maybe it's time for a re-calculation on my part with the new numbers you're using...?

    Thanks,
    -Case
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  12. #12
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks for the info.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    ......The sport harvest when you combine the guided and unguided sectors together of the Area 2C halibut removals is approximately 20% of all removals......
    Do you know if there is any data regarding how much of that 20% is guided/chartered, and how much is unguided/unchartered?

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    They are federally managed 100%? Like migratory species?

    Okay. So then why aren't salmon?
    The salmon fisheries that occur 100% within the 3 mile limit are considered state fisheries. The troll fishery has a federal management plan (FMP) that delegates management of the troll fishery to the State - this fishery occurs both in state waters and outside of 3 miles.
    Thanks for that, too.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post



    Do you know if there is any data regarding how much of that 20% is guided/chartered, and how much is unguided/unchartered?
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/analyses/ha...tearirfrfa.pdf
    Page 15

  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark

    Do you know if there is any data regarding how much of that 20% is guided/chartered, and how much is unguided/unchartered?
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/analyses/ha...tearirfrfa.pdf
    Page 15
    Thanks yet again for the info and link:

    Commercial - 72%
    Guided - 13%
    Non-guided - 7%
    Subsistence - 4%

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default most people do not know about MS

    [quote=Just the Facts;290713]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    They are federally managed 100%? Like migratory species?

    Okay. So then why aren't salmon? quote]

    The salmon fisheries that occur 100% within the 3 mile limit are considered state fisheries. The troll fishery has a federal management plan (FMP) that delegates management of the troll fishery to the State - this fishery occurs both in state waters and outside of 3 miles.
    This is correct and one more fact. Upper Cook Inlet salmon are under federal control. There is a Fishery Management Plan for UCI salmon but it is very old and has not been updated. The federal government via this management plan delegates authority to the State but they retain control.

  17. #17
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    ......Upper Cook Inlet salmon are under federal control. There is a Fishery Management Plan for UCI salmon but it is very old and has not been updated. The federal government via this management plan delegates authority to the State but they retain control.
    Interesting.........

  18. #18

    Default moderators?

    no comment
    Last edited by stevesch; 07-01-2008 at 16:33. Reason: retracted

  19. #19
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Thanks yet again for the info and link:

    Commercial - 72%
    Guided - 13%
    Non-guided - 7%
    Subsistence - 4%

    So if these numbers are true what would be a fair proposal????
    Just curious on how many Charters are in SE compared to private boats?
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  20. #20

    Default

    Can't answer how many recreational boats there are in Southeast Alaska but http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/analyses/ha...rirfa_1107.pdf Table 20 page 18 of the main document or page 42 if looking at the page numbers of the PDF for 1995 to 2004 and the following information was provided to me in an email from ADFG and for 2007 there were 403 active charter businesses with 724 active vessels (active = at least one logbook entry) that serviced 104,099 halibut clients for a harvest of 115,830 (numbers of fish)

    For comparison so you don't have to look up the document if you dodn't want to the numbers for 2004 are: 365 active charter businesses with 624 active vessels that serviced 67,803 halibut clients for a harvest of 84,327 fish

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •