Looks like they're after you SE Charter guys again.
Looks like they're after you SE Charter guys again.
7.48 million pounds harvested over 4 yearstheir guideline harvest level of 1.43 million pounds... The actual sport charter harvest was 1.75 million pounds in 2004, 1.95 million pounds in 2005, 1.86 million pounds in 2006, and 1.92 million pounds in 2007.
1.87 million pounds yearly average
39 million pounds harvested over 4 years...The commission has reduced the commercial halibut catch in southeast Alaska from nearly 11 million pounds annually between 2004 and 2006 to just over 6 million pounds for 2008. The final commercial harvest level for 2009, proposed at 4.5 million pounds, will be set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission in January.
9.75 million pounds yearly average.
I wonder which has hurt the fishery more? At least they have also cut the comercial quota too. I hope this does not pass.
It ain't about the # of pounds of meat we bring back, nor about how much we spent to go do it. Its about seeing what no one else sees.
BOHICA from the Marine Corps Manual meaning Bend Over Here It Comes Again!
Time for the State to take the Feds to Court.
1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
So, how would it be bad if the Obama administration continues in making a move that has clearly already started to further limit fishing to both comercial and recreational fishermen in a halibut stock that is seemingly struggling in an effort to save the very halibut stock that is being overfished? Was it Obama, Clinton, Carter, Lincoln, Jackson, or Reagan that started this decline in the fish stocks in the SE? This isn't about policics, this about conserving and protecting a fish stock that is decline for whatever the reason. Personally, I guess I'd rather be blamed for trying to save it and tightening some belts, then I would for not trying to save it and letting it be decimated. I must be missing something.
Now, if your gripe is about how the fish are allocated, that is entirely different. I don't think it is fair for a small group of people to "own" such a large portion of the available fish. But, it is what it is. I hope the fishery makes a quick recovery and things go back to normal sooner rather than later.
Mr. Bauer hit the nail on the head.......it's about allocation. I think we all agree that we need to protect the resource but some of us have heartburn with a very few people owning the right to harvest millions of pounds of Halibut while the rest of, guided and un-guided sportfishermen, make do with a very small percentage of the total.
Save the fish first - but then lets get the allocation imbalance fixed as well.
By the way - I don't fish Halibut.....its too much like hard work!
This has nothing to do with who is in the White House, although is it always fun to blame who ever is in power for all the problems in the world..... Thanks for messing up the economy, starting wars, making the fuel prices go up, crappy salmon returns, too much snow, too little snow, what ever....
This issue has transcended politics as it as been going on for 15 years or more.
Is anyone ready for round #2? The real question is if the charter industry is ready to pony up another 120 K to stop the inevitiable? Keep in mind, I am a charter operator who has fought this battle for over a decade. I have spent thousands of dollars and hours trying to get the best plan for our industry....look where that has lead us....I will never attend another meeting or spend a dime on any fisheries issue in Alaska again. Total frustration.
Stocks have declined in SE by 43% in the last few years. It is really becoming a conservation issue in SE. Is a one fish bag limit for one sector of the sportfishing fleet the best way to limit the catch while perserving business oppertunity....NO......... but it seems that finding the best way to restrict harvest to meet the needs of the charter fleet has given way to finding the simplest way to restrict the harvest without regard for the economic impact. That is where the bias and make up of the State, Councils, Boards, IPHC all come into play.
Will there be a legal challange? Maybe if some rich people want to make a fight but my feeling is that last one was costly and after a season like 2008, where tourism was down and the fuel prices were so high, I for one, can't throw any money at a lawsuit.
I will go for whatever benefits the majority of hardworking Alaskans. That is where I am at. If that means that I am supporting the protection of the commercial fleet, I am ok with that. If that means protecting entire town's welfare thanks to the Charter Fleet and Tourism; such as Valdez, Seward, Homer, Cordova, and the like over a few pounds of fish that will likely sell at the dock for less than manure sells at Home Depot, so be it.
To date, especially near tourist destination, I am unconvinced that total take is greater from commercial fishermen than it is from charters. Are commercial fishermen important? Well, hell yes they are.
However, are the tourist destinations important? Well, yeah, they are too. The income they generate is huge, I'd even call it collosal in fact.
Clearly, a balance must be met.
Just my two cents....
The real problem I have is that the regulations (and so-called "conservation effort") aren't being applied to all anglers evenly. This year, I'll get to pull my sport fishing boat up next to another sport fishing boat, and I can take 2 while some on the boat next to me (who paid the same fee for the same license as I have) may only harvest one fish. Oh, and the crew on a commercial fishing boat can pull up and join the party and catch 2 fish apiece also! When I was still chartering, I refunded over 50% of my annual gross revenue in a single season to sport fishermen who had booked a trip, then opted to go to Homer where similar limits were not in effect.
If, at any time, someone proposes an allocation plan which fairly and equitably distributes the fishing priveledge, I'll support it fully and whole-heartedly. Until then, I can only see this sort of legislation and regulation as an attack on my right to access our public resources.
M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
I have said this before, and I will say it again. All that it will take is the cruiseship industry, the major hotels, thousands of local citizens, and other major tourist stakeholders to band together with legal representation to change the way the fish are allocated. I'm not saying it is good, bad, or anything else, just doable. They certainly can afford to lobby right up there with commercial interests.
However, this will not happen until they start the feel the pinch too. Right now, they are just taking it and seeing what happens. When push comes to shove, they will fight to survive too just like the commercial guys have been doing for years.
Who will win? I hope the fish do