Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: Halibut Long-Liners Complaining

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default Halibut Long-Liners Complaining

    I've talked to some Halibut long-liners in the last couple of days and their whining about their IFQ getting cut by 10% this year in area 3A. I reminded them that their IFQ had doubled for free since they got it in 1995, so even with a 10% cut their still up at the least 40%, thats if they were one of the few who purchased their original IFQ. If they were grandfathered in their not losing a thing.

    Here's how it works, in 1995 long-liner X gets 50,000 pounds of IFQ for free, based on his past record of fishing. Over the next 7 or 8 years the biomass increases according to the IPHC, so they double the amount of IFQ, so now long-liner X has 100,000 pounds of IFQ for free. which he grosses around $400,000 a year on. Now according to the IPHC the biomass is shrinking so they have cut the IFQ by 10% this year in area 3A, so now long-liner X has 90,000 pounds of IFQ to fish this year, still not costing him a dime. Also if a long-liner wants to sell his IFQ their getting around $22 to $29 dollars a pound right now,depending on the class,

    When their IFQ was increasing every year they never said a thing as the sport fishing take stayed about the same. so now that their getting their IFQ cut a little, they want to reduce the charter boat catch so they can keep fishing at the same level as their highest year. As the IFQ increased by 100% the GHL for charter boats has stayed the same.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Lets see here they got it for free, it increased by 40% and they can make good money by leasing it out and not even fishing. How can you complain about that???? Personaly i think if you dont fish it yourself for more than one year you should loose it.

  3. #3
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain T View Post
    When their IFQ was increasing every year they never said a thing as the sport fishing take stayed about the same. so now that their getting their IFQ cut a little, they want to reduce the charter boat catch so they can keep fishing at the same level as their highest year. As the IFQ increased by 100% the GHL for charter boats has stayed the same.
    Be careful what you wish for, Captain T. The longliners catch is tied to abundance...the charter GHL has not been. What can go up will also come down.

  4. #4
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Oh, come on. What is the purpose of this thread other than to bash commercial fishermen? "I heard someone say something, and it sounded selfish!"

    Yeah, and I hear a handful of sport fishermen say ridiculous things all the times as well, but it doesn't merit starting a thread titled "sport fishermen complaining" that lumps a large group of people together under one negative banner.

    I have appreciated a lot of what you've added to the board, Capt. T, but this is nothing more than bashing. To what end? What purpose does this serve?

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

    Default

    Lol, I had a huge reply that I proof read and everything and I just deleted it!

    CaptainT, Brian is right. Your post is so full of holes it could sure drain spaghetti. I could go on and on about this issue and have done so on other threads. You ever want to talk issues we can start one of those back up. Many charter operations are very knowledgeable and involved in this issue.......thread like this makes me less sympathetic towards your side of this allocation issue. That's to bad. I'd like to hope in the future there can be a fair resolution of this issue of charter halibut vessels.

  6. #6
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    I think it is best to keep allocation/managment argument based on the facts. I think it is easy enough to win points just doing that.

    I would think they would be more upset about the crappy price. That has to be a tough reduction. About 40% less than last year...


    On that thought, it did almost seem like the 3A longliners took a 10% reduction just to allow a less cut in 2C and still keeping the TAC in balance. The stock assesments are calling for strong year classes in 3A in the next five years and the harvest will likely increase. This combined with the economy virtually creating a mandatory harvest reduction on the charter fleet in 3A is going to make any harvest reductions by charters in 3A unlikely.

    On another note, it looks like the one fish bag limit is in fact going to be decided in court again, as it the "fair and equitable" 13% allocation. I for one am glad. If the Council process was fair....and ...then the courts will decide in favor of the Council's decision. If they cut corners or did not interpret the National Standards as they were meant to be, then the court can weigh in and make it right. At least in my opinion, once the court speaks on this, it will be final and we can move on.

  7. #7

    Default

    Considering how the commercial halibut fleet is hell bent on destroying the charter fleet, I think it's very fair for the charter boyz to bite back a little. I charter fish and I comm fish. (about 60-40 this year in favor of comm fish) The comm fish fleet has a conditioned response to hate the charter fleet, despite the obvious benefits of the charter fleet. I had a high school kid say "f-the charter boats",(mom was a comm fisherman) yet his summer job will be catching charter boats down at the fuel dock and fueling them. He can't connect the dots that the only reason he has a job this summer is because of the charter boats. "f-the charter boats" fishermen pay their bills by their wives working at a business that stays afloat by the money brought in by the charter fleet. Lots of comm fish kids working at lodges around here, despite the parents being "f-the charter boats". Now that I think about it, one of the most anti, I'm goin to run over charter boats, fisherman in my area had 3 daughters who worked for years at a local lodge.. kinda funny if you ask me.



    Email I got this week..

    IPHC Demonstrates Intent to Protect Commercial Quota
    At the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) annual meeting in January commercial groups asked the IPHC to impose a one halibut daily bag limit with a 32" size restriction on guided anglers in Area 2C (Southeast Alaska). The commercial groups argued this was necessary to hold guided anglers to a 788,000 pound Guideline Harvest Level (GHL) in Area 2C. The GHL is a benchmark established in 2000 based on the average guided angler halibut catch from 1995 to 1999 compared to the average commercial halibut IFQ harvest during those same years. Since 2000, guided anglers in Area 2C have nearly doubled, from 56,000 in 1999 to over 100,000 in 2007, while IFQ holders in Area 2C declined from 1,544 in 1999 to 1,302 in 2007.
    The commercial IFQ fleet argued that guided anglers should only get one small halibut in Area 2C because there is a conservation crisis. The Charter Halibut Task Force (CHTF) told the IPHC why the IPHC's own actions demonstrate that there is no conservation crisis in Area 2C. Instead, as CHTF explained, the IPHC staff assumed a one halibut daily bag limit on guided anglers in order to increase the amount of halibut available to the commercial fleet. By assuming a one halibut daily limit, the IPHC staff was able to increase the commercial quota from 3,970,000 pounds to 4,540,000 pounds by taking halibut from guided anglers. Taking fish from one user group and giving it to another is not conservation; it is allocation.
    In the end the IPHC did not recommend a one halibut a day limit with a size restriction. Instead the IPHC relied on a new proposed NMFS rule to impose the one halibut a day limit and added another 480,000 pounds of halibut to the 570,000 pound increase the staff had already assumed - for a total commercial quota of 5,020,000 pounds. Thus, the IPHC demonstrated that it has no conservation concerns in Area 2C. It appears the IPHC's only concern is how to increase the commercial quota by taking fish from guided anglers.
    Written by Earl Comstock for Alaska Outdoor Council 2009 annual newsletter by request.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Well, one great post, and one based on "I hate the other guy cause he hates me." I know you are talking about where you live, and since I live in anchorage for all I know people do talk like that where you are from. I do know that is just the kind of thing that shouldn't be part of management decisions.


    I see in that letter that 100,000 guided anglers were mentioned? Say each catches 100lb of halibut (2/per day with current average size butts). So 10,000,000lb of halibut right? How much is 13% of the current harvest?

  9. #9

    Default

    [QUOTE=Captain T;496525]I've talked to some Halibut long-liners in the last couple of days and their whining about their IFQ getting cut by 10% this year in area 3A. I reminded them that their IFQ had doubled for free since they got it in 1995, so even with a 10% cut their still up at the least 40%, thats if they were one of the few who purchased their original IFQ. If they were grandfathered in their not losing a thing.
    QUOTE]

    Have to correct the record here. There was no doubling of quota. In area 3A the original issuance of quota in 1995 was 20 million pounds. Since 1995 to 2009 the highest allocation that 3A has received was in 2007 at 26.2 million pounds.
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/ifqreports.htm#harvest Allocations and landings (listed by individual year).

    The IPHC Commissioners at the end of the 2009 annual meeting announced that they made their decisions based on staying within the staff catch limits for the coastwide model but did adjust fish between areas so Area 3 lost fish not only to Area 2C but also to Area 2A and 2B. This was a surprise to everyone in the room and casued some concern when one commissioner went on to say that we might be overfishing Area 2 (all three portions of area 2)
    Last edited by Just the Facts; 05-18-2009 at 09:47. Reason: correct sentence

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    The original post, and most of this thread, are full of bogus information. As JTF already posted, the data is readily available HERE.

    The data shows that the commercial quota in 3A has never "doubled". The most it ever increased was 23% in 2007, and that quota wasn't even fully harvested.

    Furthermore, the commercial quota in 3A certainly did not "increase every year". The commercial sector has seen quota reductions in the past. In 2000 the 3A quota was reduced by almost 10%...the same year 3A charter harvest increased about 20%.

    And that brings up what caught my attention...The original post ignores area 2C. After all, 2C is where this issue stems, where the area of concern is, and where the restricitons are taking place. Commercial quotas in 2C have been cut in half while the charter fleet has consistently and increasingly exceeded GHL's almost exponentially.

    Additionally, if you combine areas 2C and 3A, commercial quotas have dropped 8% since their implementation in 1995. Charter harvests have increased by over 35%. GHL's in both areas continue to be consistently exceeded by the charter industry.


    The idea that IFQ's were implemented for "free" exemplifies more disinformation posted.

    First, at the time the IFQ program was implemented, the Magnuson-Stevens Act clearly did not allow payment for IFQ shares. It was illegal. It was illegal because the NPFMC wanted to disburse windfall profits at initial allocation and not create a monopoly, understanding that the IFQ's would eventually consolidate through the market, which they did.

    Second, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not allow IFQ holders to create a permanent interest in the fishery, or any right to the resource. That is a common misconception. If the program is discontinued, or if the resource is depleted, IFQ shares are not entitled to compensation.

    Finally, IFQ's were issued, not for free, but only to those who had already invested in the fishery with long-time participation. IFQ's accomplished its goals...limiting the fishery under applicable laws, while trying to preserve the character of the fleet the best it could (change in the character of the fleet has been a result of ongoing IFQ market transfers by those holding IFQ's, not IFQ issuance).

    The suggestion that "3A longliners took a 10% reduction just to allow a less cut in 2C and still keeping the TAC in balance", does not make sense. While 3A is seeing the 10% cut, 2C is seeing a 19% cut. Yet the opposite occurred in 1999-2000 when 3A saw a 26% cut while 2C saw a 20% cut. This is evidence that the 2C and 3A are managed, for the most part, independently as the laws require. I might suggest if conspiracy theory comments are made to the contrary, that they be substantiated with proof.

    In my opinion, 13% is more than a "fair and equitable" allocation, particularly considering the commercial fishery has been given the authority, by law, to harvest their quotas of fish in the best interest of the people of the United States...The charter industry has not. I fail to see how a niche commercial charter industry, who recently generated itself and squeezed itself into the fishery, and who serves such a small percentage of citizens, deserves such a large portion of the people's resource. In my opinion, if the charter industry wants a portion of the commercial allocation, then they should achieve legal authority to do that in the best interest of the people, not themselves or the extremely small percentage of the population they serve. And they should do it under similar control, limit, taxes, and management restrictions of the other commercial industry.

    I think the 1 fish daily bag limit for charters in 2C is in-line with the 50% reduction the commercial fleet has endured in 2C. The 10% reduction to the commercial fishery in 3A doesn't appear to be an equal reduction to 3A charters. I'm sure if the 3A charters were reduced 10% they would be "whining" too, much like the 2C charters are doing now.

  11. #11
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    The original post, and most of this thread, are full of bogus information. As JTF already posted, the data is readily available HERE.

    The suggestion that "3A longliners took a 10% reduction just to allow a less cut in 2C and still keeping the TAC in balance", does not make sense. While 3A is seeing the 10% cut, 2C is seeing a 19% cut. Yet the opposite occurred in 1999-2000 when 3A saw a 26% cut while 2C saw a 20% cut. This is evidence that the 2C and 3A are managed, for the most part, independently as the laws require. I might suggest if conspiracy theory comments are made to the contrary, that they be substantiated with proof.
    .
    From JTF:

    The IPHC Commissioners at the end of the 2009 annual meeting announced that they made their decisions based on staying within the staff catch limits for the coastwide model but did adjust fish between areas so Area 3 lost fish not only to Area 2C but also to Area 2A and 2B. This was a surprise to everyone in the room and casued some concern when one commissioner went on to say that we might be overfishing Area 2 (all three portions of area 2)


    No Conspiracy Theory Gramps....There in fact WAS some weird science going on at the IPHC meeting. Not necessarily at the expense of the the sport charter industry but just a strange shuffleing of fish throughout the coastwide model, perhaps taking a little from 3A to ease the sharp reductions the longliners in 2C had to deal with. That is my guess.

  12. #12

    Default

    Grampy- good response to Capt T's misinformation. Maybe Capt T will correct his misleading example (doubt it). There are many younger guys trying to get into comm Halibut or who have recently gotten in, who's financial future isn't looking too swell right now. Quota reductions and price per pound reductions are going to ruin these younger guys. So while it makes for a good story to say all these old guys got free Quota, the reality is, there are younger comm guys financially hurting. So I don't feel sorry for 2A charters taking a reduction, it's only fair.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default Halibut fishing

    Just raked in 2600 pounds of Halibut last week on charter trips. 2003 was the last time I landed a 180 pounder this early.....I'd say I'm ahead of last year's catch.......Maybe that 10% cut in IFQ is a good thing......

  14. #14
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default 2006-08 Kenai King Early Run Comparison.... Sonar, Harvest, Escapement...

    Here is some information on Early Run Kenai Kings. Interesting that the Funny River data is not used for management purposes considering ratio telemetry data suggest that 20% of the early run is composed of these fish. Also interesting the high jack numbers in 2006 and 2007 Yet, there was not a correlation for those same age classes in 2007 and 2008 Very very similar pattern to what they are seeing for Columbia R spring chinook, strong jack returns yet the adults survivals remain low and or decreasing?


    It would be interesting when the 2009 data comes in and I am working on adding the age class data from the lower river creel vrs Funny R. Possible coorilation between high king sonar counts and large numbers of early run sockeye. Although, this is very complex considering that in 2006-07 the jack numbers where so high.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,957

    Default

    As much as I hate to say it, Grampy is correct that the allocation has not increased 50%. In 1995 the total was 37,422,000 pounds, 3A was 20,000,000. Although there has been increases and decreases over the year, 2009 allocation is total of 43,548,800 with 3A at 21,700,000. That's a lot of fish. I find his very militant trashing of the charter fleet a little tiring. I have nothing against commercial fishing. However, I find it disheartening that they have cut my fish because I cannot afford a boat and rely on a charter. That equates to punishing me to reward the commercial guys. Controlling the charter fleet is also something I have no problem with. We will see what happens in court.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill S. View Post
    As much as I hate to say it, Grampy is correct that the allocation has not increased 50%. In 1995 the total was 37,422,000 pounds, 3A was 20,000,000. Although there has been increases and decreases over the year, 2009 allocation is total of 43,548,800 with 3A at 21,700,000. That's a lot of fish. I find his very militant trashing of the charter fleet a little tiring. I have nothing against commercial fishing. However, I find it disheartening that they have cut my fish because I cannot afford a boat and rely on a charter. That equates to punishing me to reward the commercial guys. Controlling the charter fleet is also something I have no problem with. We will see what happens in court.
    In 1995 the total IFQ was 32,502,416 Seven years later in 2002 the total was 58,122,339 pounds pretty close to doubling.......I can't find it but there's no totals from 2005 forward, if I remember right the total IFQ at one point was in the high 60,000,000 pound range.......
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/ifqreports.htm#harvest

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain T View Post
    In 1995 the total IFQ was 32,502,416 Seven years later in 2002 the total was 58,122,339 pounds pretty close to doubling.......I can't find it but there's no totals from 2005 forward, if I remember right the total IFQ at one point was in the high 60,000,000 pound range.......
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/ifqreports.htm#harvest
    The data for 2005 and forward is right in the link that you posted, every year from 1995 to 2009 is listed.

    But what does it matter what the Statewide total is? The importance is what is happening in the individual regions for both the commercial and charter folks

    In 1995 in Area 2C the original quota issued was at 9 million lbs, it dropped in 2000 to 8.4M LBS increased to 10.63 M LBS in 2006 and dropped to it's lowest in 2009 at 5.02 M lbs

    In Area 3A, in 1995 the original quota issued was 2.021 M LBS, in 2000 dropped to a low of 18.31 M Lbs increased to the high in 2007 of 26.2 Mlbs and in 2009 was at 21.7 M lbs.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Bill S., 2C is where the sport limit is being reduced, not statewide or in 3A. In 2C the commercial fishery has already seen about a 50% reduction in quota. 20% this year alone. All while the unbridled charter industry has exploded uncontrollably, exceeding GHL's more and more each year. You've already been presented with the facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill S.
    I find it disheartening that they have cut my fish because I cannot afford a boat and rely on a charter.
    The daily limit reduction in 2C has nothing to do with your own financial situation, or your personal choice of what method you use to get your halibut. Everyone, including yourself, has the same equal opportunities to catch them. The fact is, (after reading your other posts), you simply choose to spend your money on other stuff like guns and hunts. And you have simply chosen to use the commercial sport fishery to get your fish...a fishery that's regulated differently than the private sport fishery...a fishery that is under no entitlement or obligation to allow a 2-fish limit in the first place.

    You fail to explain why a commercial sport fishery, or someone paying the commercial sport fishery, should fall under the same regulations as non-commercial fishery, or a private angler.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill S.
    That equates to punishing me to reward the commercial guys.
    You aren't being "punished". You can still catch all the halibut you want, and even get 2 fish per day like the rest of us if you want. And the commercial guys aren't being "rewarded". As stated above, they have already been cut 50%.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill S.
    I find his very militant trashing of the charter fleet a little tiring.
    I think what you find "tiring" are the facts. And you would like to portray those who present them as "militant trashing" because the facts they present don't support your views.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Some people refuse to acknowledge the facts, and they will continue to wrecklessly bamboozle folks as a way to push their own agendas. Obviously they don't want to talk about 2C, where the charter industry has grown uncontrollably causing their own bag limit reduction.

    Captain T,

    Daily bag limits for commercial charters are being reduced in 2C, not statewide or 3A.

    Charter harvest in 2C has more than doubled: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/curre...butdata908.pdf

    Commercial harvest in 2C has been cut almost in half:
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/ifqreports.htm#harvest

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    That first link is pretty amazing.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •