Commercials stealing your halibut rights
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has decided to lower the limit for guided anglers in South East Alaska to one fish. If guided anglers want a second fish they have have to lease the right from a commercial fishermen.
This is what they plan for the future in South Central as well. Commercials think they own the resource. They blame sport fishermen for not caring about conservation. Meanwhile they are the ones killing 90% of the fish and devestating the near shore resource. Commercials are destroying the future of halibut fishing in Alaska. People should be angry. Many of them are getting rich. When the halibut is gone they wont care because they will be retired in a big house in Hawaii.
This is very serious. Check out these websites:
Write letters and get involved. Call your congress person and write to Palin. Call state senators. Tell all your friends about the nationwide boycott of commercially caught halibut.
Commercial fishermen are trying to shut down sport fishing. Fight back!
The tonnage dudes have to shut down the growth of the COMMERCIAL SPORT FISH INDUSTRY.
Understand; there is a BIG difference between a sport fisherman AND a COMMERCIAL sport fisherman.
Before there was a commercial sport fish industry there were people who fished for food and recreation and people who fished for profit. The tonnage dudes.
The commercial sport fish industry forced themselves into the equation. They do not pay for the resources they take. They profit from taking the public resources. As an industry; the commercial sport fishing guides are responsible for the resource wars and deficiencies.
People who fish for food and for recreation and the tonnage dudes are allies and should bring the full force of that alliance to affect reductions in opportunity and allocation on the COMMERCIAL SPORT FISHING INDUSTRY....and demand the Commercial Sport fish industry that profits from taking a public resource PAY FOR WHAT THEY TAKE.
Kill 'em all! The scumbags did the exact same thing in Florida (except it wasn't halibut). They destroy the fishery and the fishing communities that have been built to accommodate sport fishermen, then move on to suck up the last drop of the next promising resource. They are just like democrats, screwing you over while pointing their finger at someone else. I've heard that for every king caught on the Kenai river, it brings in over $7,000 in revenue. Personally, they can forget me going halibut fishing if it goes down to one fish and I sure as hell won't be buying it to support the greedy long liners. This MUST be stopped!!
I'll be sending a couple letters. Anyone have a standard letter that we can just attach our name to, to send to congresspeople?
Who's gonna pay 250-300$ to catch one halibut? Not me! Of course, maybe that's exactly what they want!
Name me ONE of these so-called "Fishing Communities". Every coastal town in AK has its roots in commercial fishing.
Originally Posted by trapperrick
Good Idea. The current Alaska contingent is one of the most pro-commercial fishing groups you will find. Palin, too. Call 'em and see what they tell you about COMMERCIAL SPORT FISHING.
Originally Posted by halibuthead
Your argument is based on free money. You don't pay for the management and research of halibut stocks; The longliners do. You benefit by having fish to harvest commercially...someone pays you to take them fishing for halibut...yet you rail against an industry that has seen their own quotas in 2C and 3A fluctuate by as much as 40% in the past 8 years, with most of the percentage as a loss. Prices up for longliners, you say? Sure, until 2007, when for the first time in history a stock reduction was met with lower ex-vessel prices. 2008 trended the same, with 16% reduction in quota for 2C (to take in the effects of COMMERCIAL SPORT FISHING), as well as a 20% drop in ex-vessel value.
No free lunch, my man. If you are going to exploit a stock for money, you are going to have to belly up to the bar and pay for your voice.
can we get a group discount?
Originally Posted by G_Smolt
A sport fisherman is what we are talking about. A recreational angler. Not a commercial enterprise. This is where commies like G Smolt get it wrong. Charters dont get federal aid, they were not handed a resource for nothing, they have no ownership or stake, they dont get federal tax right offs afforded to commercial fishermen, the NPFMC voted against including them as commercial fishermen when they threw out the Charterboat IFQ. Get it stright dude.
Charters are just an avenue by which average joe Alaskan and average joe American access their GET IT "THEIR". Resource. You have obviously been brain washed by the halibut coalition and their warped entitlement way of thinking.
Recreational anglers deserve 2 fish period. Already thousands of people have agreed to quit buying halibut. The commercials underestimate the power of the sport anglers to negatively impact the interest of mainstream USA's interest in their fish. The promotion of ALaskan Halibut done by Charters has made the commercials a ton of money. Charter Clients are the people who when they are not here order it in restraunts, on the internet, or in the grocery store. Well no longer. Charters have the existing power to reach a million people in the first year of this campaign.
Do charters want to hurt Alaskans? Heck no. Have Commercial Fishermen forced them into this position? Heck Yeah. The Commies love to see charter businesses suffer and go out of business. Therefore turn around is fair play. Already thousands of people know about this and swear to never buy halibut again. There is going to be national publicity soon.
The commies need to get their head straight and make sure Charters are treated in a fair and equitable manner. The Charter Goal in Federal Court will be a 50-50 split. And guess what. Commercials can bite the damage done by draggers as part of their half.
This is going to snow ball.
Originally Posted by halibuthead
Interesting. I've been raised in a family that has been commercially fishing halibut since the early 1970's. My dad started pulling longlines by hand out of a flat bottom 16' Smokercraft in front of Deep Creek in 1971. He and my mother then bought a dilapidated wooden boat and moved to Whittier, where they still pulled their longlines by hand through the 70's. Eventually they had 3 children and bought a bit larger boat (36') so that the family could work together in the summer. They never got rich off of halibut, and most years were lucky just to be able to make payments on the boat, fuel, and moorage. All of this was done (and still is) so that the family could work together on the water and learn lessons about hard work, the importance of family, and an appreciation for nature. Retired in a big house in Hawaii? Hardly. In fact, 95% of the commercial fishermen I know are middle class at best, and then only if they work other jobs the rest of the year so that they can afford to fish in the summer.
As for wanting to shut down sportfishing, that is another lie. I am a sportfisherman as well, and enjoy going out with a rod and reel to catch halibut, salmon, and other fish. I would never do anything to harm the health of the resource, nor would I ever desire to shut down the sport fishery.
What outright lies. Completely dishonest portrayal of commercial fishermen.
Thank you, Rick. I appreciate that. Glad to know you want me killed.
Originally Posted by trapperrick
Incidentally, don't trappers use a public resource (fur bearers) to make a personal profit?
Since you're from Georgia, you may not be aware that all Alaska ports were built for the commercial fishing industry (and some for military and shipping purposes), and not to "accommodate sport fishermen". That's not really an issue, but your premise above does not apply to Alaska.
Originally Posted by trapperrick
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a greedy ******* who wants to destroy sport fishing while raping the sea and leaving it completely barren. Yes indeed, kill all of us. We're the scum of the earth. At least...it sure makes it easy to ignore issues when you paint the other side as such.
90% to 10%
The comment said many of them.... not all of them. And this is an acurate portrayal... Many of the original recipients of IFQ have retired rich after playing their roll. Many others are making it huge at 5 bucks a pound. We all realize their are small players who live a work hard lifestyle involved. Just like in the charter industry.
Bottom line is the Commies take 90% and Average Joe is allowed 10 % and he is getting shut down. This is not fair and equitable as the Magnuson Stevens Act requires.
If you love to sport fish then you should be for moving the commercials way off shore. Shortening their seasons to allow more fish to migrate to near coastal waters. Cleaning up bycatch or shutting draggers down. Those are the areas you should be focused on not placing blame on sport fishermen who take but a pittance of the whole. Give me a brake.
All sport anglers should be treated equally. PERIOD! They derserve their share. PERIOD. If you think sport fishing has grown too much then talk to the State about the money they spend attracting tourists. Talk to the North Pacific Fishery Mangagement Council about why they have drug charters around with no management plan for 16 years.
This is the publics resource. If we didnt have a commercially dominated system charters wouldnt be in this position. It is pure greed. This is undeniable.
NATIONWIDE BOYCOTT OF HALIBUT!
How many longliners do you know personally? How many of them fit your description? I know over 40, and your descriptions of retiring rich or "making it huge" don't match a single one of them. The only thing it matches are the completely misleading and intentionally dishonest portrayals that I've seen from folks such as yourself.
Originally Posted by halibuthead
I know or have met hundreds
I know what you are saying about the normal average joe commercial fisherman. That doesnt repute that many have retired rich of this system without further care for what has happened.
Now many of the people who have bought IFQs bought in high making those they bought from rich. Now IFQ values are going down. They blame the charters. There was a Biomass shift in 2C. The IPHC set the commercial CEY lower. Not the charters it had nothing to do with charters.
There are two sides of the issue:
One believes in the constitutional right to fair and equal access.
The other believes in a socialistic communisit empire of a few owning a rescource at the expense of many all in the name of a way of life.
The NPFMC failed everyone by going to IFQs and making big hogs rich. Did you know that 17 of the top 20 IFQ holders are not even in Alaska? Did you know that most commercially caught halibut is processed in Canada? Did you know the nationwide set standard for a fishery split is 50-50 between commercial and sport? Do I think you are ethically on the wrong side of this issue?
I'm don't want to get into the commercial vs sport fish debate. Mostly becase I don't know enough about either side to get into it.
But, a one halibut limit for sportfishing is rediculous. Personally, i wouldn't care if they limited charters to one fish per person, as long as i could, as an AK resident, still go out and catch two.
Could the charter fleet, band together and buy up commercial quotas?
That is one potential solution, but many (most?) charter operators do not believe they should have to buy into the fishery. Meanwhile I as a commercial fisherman do have to buy into the fishery at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars if I ever want to be more than a deckhand.
Originally Posted by jeffin AK
The NPFMC decided that charters couldnt be IFQ holders and ruined that concept. That would have been fair. This was the councils fault not charters. This could have been solved years ago. Remember it is a commercially dominated council with just one Charter Rep. Commercials need to accept responsibility for their actions. The long time charters didnt like seeing uncontrolled growth of the fleet and tried to work the the council to thwart it. But the council threw it back in their face. Longterm charters are the victims here not the problem.
And as for keeping 2 fish as a recreational fisherman? Not on a charter? Why should one person with a fishing license get two fish because he owns his own boat(resident or non resident) while another who can only afford a charter once a year be forced to keep only one? Oh but wait he can lease one from the commercial guys so he can have two while they sit back and let the charters fish their IFQ for them. IDIOTIC!~
Dont think it is that easy to maintain a charter business. And at the end what does a charter have? A beat up boat. What does an IFQ holder have? IFQ. Your idea of having to spend hundreds of thousands is right but then you can sell it for that when you are done.
take it somewhere else
For those who post about commercial fisherman being communist and wanting to kill them and that democrats are evil - take it somewhere else - maybe to the General forum as that group seems to be in your style. Rationale discussion has no place for this type of discourse.
Relative to the halibut limits the issue is very complex and the Council and State realized that commercial charter operators need to be regulated relative to harvest. They cannot continue to grow and harvest the resource to the level they are doing in Southeast. The stock is not healthy in this area and yet the charter fleet wants unlimited participation. They reject any form of limits and went so far as to even have the private angler be limited rather than them. The Council rejected this idea and said they are a commercial group that needs regulation. The private angler in his private boat still has a more liberal fishery.
I would suggest that people stop reacting and get the information on why certain things are done. It appears that people want the other guy to suffer but do not want to share any conservation burden. The Council actually came up with a reasonable plan. It allows two fish when stocks are healthy and reduces fishing when they are not. The one fish bag limit in Southeast is because the stocks are not doing well. Every group is taking a hit.
So inform yourself and give credit to those sitting on the Council for listening, working over two years in a public process, and making a tough call.
You fail to recognize a few things!
The council has created the numbers in favor of commercial fishermen. PERIOD! Average Joe Alaskan Gets screwed.
If there is a conservation issue then all sports fishermen should be on one fish and draggers and long liners should be shut down.
The fact there is a conservation issue is purely because of over fishing of the long liners. Look at the numbers.
You are part of the 90% blaming the problem on the 10 percent. Accept responsibility. How about 1 fish per recreational angler and a complete commercial shut down? That will bring stocks back in a hurry.
Recreational anglers are not the problem. They are not the ones corking all the entrances to the inner passage. They are not the ones who have done the damage. Your rational is flawed and your are ethically on the wrong side of this issue.
I agree saying people should die is wrong. Did you stand up and correct commercial fishermen when they put the bumper stickers shown on www.dontbuyhalibut.com on their cars? Talk about out of line. Charter businesses moved out of Sitka because of that crap. Obviously an upstanding community.
The commercials whether longliners or draggers are destroying the fishery and blame charters and the recreational fishermen they carry.
Pretty sad situation.
Wrong on so many levels.
Glad to see that I am a "Commie" now.
Free money is your argument, nothing but. You try to hide behind the rationale of allocation, but your illogical ranting just shines the light on your fraudulent interests in "average Joe alaskans" rights as a masquerade for your own self-interests.
Regardless of level, for access one must pay. When the world was still flat and you could still live in libertarian fantasy-world, access was free, but we all know how that story ends...If you don't you have no business even discussing this matter, as you are doomed to repeat the tragedies visited upon fisheries management by ignorant "well-meaning" citezens with their own agendas.
As for boycotting halibut...get real. How is that going to sound to Kansas? To L.A.?
"Don't buy halibut, 'cause these commercial fishermen that made our port infrastructure and pay for the management of our target species are trying to be bullies and make us a place at the table instead of just letting us take 20% of the fishery and ***** like little girls..."
Also halibuthead since you mentioned it TWICE, draggers have no impact on the southeast as Trawling is not allowed in the southeast. I think you are referring to the BSAI or the Gulf of Alaska near kodiak and sandpoint.........but both areas are still at 2 fish per commercially guided angler and the stocks are in good shape.
So try not to make yourself look......um........uniformed? Read up on it. I am sure you are a good guide, and the new changes will be very tough on guides but times have been tough on commercial longliners as well in the southeast in perticular. There are a LOT of great guides out there and they work hard and deserve to have a protected resource that if successfully managed will allow all of us to continue catching halibut.
I actually know alot of people in KS and LA who agree to never buy halibut again. They are telling all their friends. They agree nobody but the people own this resource. They agree that longlining the heck out of the near shore resource then blaming charters for near shore depletion is wrong. It is a pretty easy concept to understand.
As far as my opinion and knowledge being fraudulent that is the pot calling the kettle black.
It is fundamentally easy to understand. You have one industry entitled by regulation and another destroyed.
You can argue your halibut coalition mentality all you want. Doesnt make it right.
You fail to see that a recreational angler is just that. Charters are not commercial fishermen the council decided that long ago. It is ethically wrong to break recreational anglers into groups and show prejudice against them one of the groups. Residents need the use of charters as well. You want some rich non resident to be allowed two but some low income Alaskan who can afford a charter once a year gets one. Like I said this is Idiotic.
Your arguements demonstrate a "we own the resource mentality". Sport fishermen as a whole are very conservation oriented. If there is a conservation issue then treat them all the same. Dont segregate them. Dont create an environment where one group is allowed more because of the method they choose or can afford is different.
I understand commercial long liners in SE are feeling the pain. The problem charter operators have is regulation that seperates their fishing license holding anglers from other fishing license anglers.
Also dont confuse this with a conservation issue. It is an allocation issue. Commies want their entitlement without regard for other groups period.
This will all be tried in the court of public opinion. Dont underestimate the power of the sport fishing community. Remember Charters reach a million people a year with their advertising.
Maybe we should give Individual Sunning Quotas away. That way the people who own the sun shine can decide who they lease it too. The people who just sun for fun and dont own a commercial permit to use it would be screwed. Just as the people who transport the people to where the sun is. They would suddenly be commercial sun users and run out of business. What the heck is the difference? It is a natural resource.
This concept of commercials owning the resource stinks. Once again you are on the ethically wrong side of this issue.
On with my day. Wish you well. Signing off.