Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: One fish/Halibut upheld for southeast, for now

  1. #1
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default One fish/Halibut upheld for southeast, for now

    Just wanted to let people know that the Federal Courts have ruled against an emergency petition to stop the 1 fish a day, in Southeast. The suit can proceed but will not affect the one fish ruling as of now. Looks like the Charter fleet is down to one fish for the time being. Still in limbo!!!

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Just wanted to let people know that the Federal Courts have ruled against an emergency petition to stop the 1 fish a day, in Southeast. The suit can proceed but will not affect the one fish ruling as of now. Looks like the Charter fleet is down to one fish for the time being. Still in limbo!!!
    I really don't think it is still in limbo.

    It is more like the resource is more important than the charter industry and there was no clear legal path to upset the "limits".

    Otherwise the limits would have not been imposed in the first place.


  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default go ahead and hammer on me

    I am not going to stir the pot too much, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. I do not think any of us can really argue that near the port ( pick a port) halibut stocks have not been hammered pretty hard by both private and charter fishermen. While the unbridled growth in charter fishing is certainly a much talked about factor, the unbridled growth in the private fleet has also been quite substantial, and accept it or don't, they too have contributed to the reduction in near port stocks. As an example, 30 years ago (way before the tractor launches) there were a few guides and a few locals launching and fishing out of Deep Creek and Anchor Point. There seemed to be plenty of quality halibut for everybody. As the pressure increased, it seemed like we had to keep going further out to find "quality fish'. This was not all caused by charters. I was a private boat, and I know we contributed to the problem because we caught lots of nice fish and harvested them. Does anyone have any data that substantiates the growth in use by the private fisherman? Because he (or she) can afford their own boat, should they be entitled to more fish than their neighbor who can't afford a boat? So how is it going to work turning charter patrons into second class citizens? We can do better than this.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gotfish
    Does anyone have any data that substantiates the growth in use by the private fisherman?
    If you plot the data you'll see that private angler harvest fluxuates more widely, but doesn't show much growth. The charter data clearly shows an increasing growing trend...

    Area 2C Non-Charter (M lb):

    1995....0.765
    1996....0.943
    1997....1.139
    1998....0.917
    1999....0.904
    2000....1.126
    2001....0.723
    2002....0.814
    2003....0.846
    2004....1.187
    2005....0.845
    2006....0.723
    2007....1.131

    Area 2C Charter (M lb):

    1995....0.986
    1996....1.187
    1997....1.034
    1998....1.584
    1999....0.939
    2000....1.132
    2001....1.202
    2002....1.275
    2003....1.412
    2004....1.750
    2005....1.952
    2006....1.804
    2007....1.918

    Area 3A Non-Charter (M lb):

    1995....1.666
    1996....1.918
    1997....2.100
    1998....1.717
    1999....1.695
    2000....2.165
    2001....1.543
    2002....1.478
    2003....2.046
    2004....1.937
    2005....1.984
    2006....1.674
    2007....2.281

    Area 3A Charter (M lb):

    1995....2.845
    1996....2.822
    1997....3.413
    1998....2.985
    1999....2.533
    2000....3.140
    2001....3.132
    2002....2.724
    2003....3.382
    2004....3.668
    2005....3.689
    2006....3.664
    2007....4.002


    Quote Originally Posted by gotfish
    Because he (or she) can afford their own boat, should they be entitled to more fish than their neighbor who can't afford a boat? So how is it going to work turning charter patrons into second class citizens?
    The daily bag limit reduction in 2C has nothing to do with what a person can afford. It has to do with limiting an unbridled commercial sportfishery.

    Some of the most wealthy "upper class" citizens hire charters. In fact in 2C (where these limits are being imposed) about 95% of charter patrons are non-residents who not only afford the charter, but the expensive vaction, airfare, lodging, tips, food, licenses, gear, etc. that go along with it.

    A boat is a huge financial burden, and a lot of people who own a boat can't afford the luxury of hiring a commerical charter. And of course most folks can't afford, or are unwilling to afford, either. That's why they get their halibut the most affordable way...at the store.

    According to ADF&G, anglers who hire a commercial charter are more effective at catching fish than non-commercial anglers. And the charter industry makes up 60-70% of the total sport harvest. Obviously the charters have a commercial-sized impact on the fishery. I fail to see why they should not fall under commercial-sized regulation. There is no legitimate reason why someone who obtains their fish commercially should be entitled to the same thing as those who obtain their fish non-commercially. They are not the same means of obtaining the fish.

  5. #5

    Default

    The SE Charter fleet takes 2% of the total halibut taken in Alaska. The commercial fishing fleet wastes 41% of the total halibut taken through bycatch and waste.


    Nobody denies that the charter fleet has grown in SE AK. It is a very healthy industry that brings jobs and money to the small communities of SE AK. The SE charter fleet just wants fair limits. The charter/sport will be happy with a fair 50-50 split in the total halibut caught in Alaska.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    270ti, where are you getting your information? Reference?

    Why are you relating what the charters take (concentrated in areas 3A and 2C) to the total commercial catch in all areas of Alaska?

    Are these charters, who can not sell their halibut at a store, serving even 2% of the people of the U.S., or is the public resource harvested in the best interest of the people (as stated in law) by the commercial fishery?

    And finally, when speaking in terms of fair allocation, and a 50/50 split between commercial and charter, how are you justifying that 50% of the public resource should go to the charters? In fact, what authority or law are you using that gives the niche charter industry any allocation of halibut at all? Do you really believe the charters serve 50% of the people of the U.S., and a 50% proportionallity is fair to the rest of the citizens of this country who depend on buying halibut at the store?


    Below are commercial harvests for areas 3A and 2C (where the bag limit is being reduced), and the % of charter harvest to commercial harvest.

    Reference: Commercial Harvests Charter Harvests


    Commercial harvest 2C (M lb):

    1995....7.787
    1996....8.534
    1997....9.638
    1998....9.660
    1999....9.896
    2000....8.192
    2001....8.170
    2002....8.432
    2003....8.242
    2004....10.088
    2005....10.459
    2006....10.340
    2007....8.304
    2008....6.107
    2009....5.020 (allocation)


    Commercial Harvest 3A (M lb):

    1995....17.978
    1996....19.366
    1997....24.277
    1998....24.606
    1999....24.311
    2000....18.066
    2001....21.071
    2002....22.560
    2003....22.282
    2004....24.600
    2005....25.100
    2006....24.953
    2007....25.957
    2008....24.020
    2009....21.700 (allocation)


    % of charter harvest to commercial harvest in 2C:

    1995....12.7%
    1996....13.9%
    1997....10.7%
    1998....16.4%
    1999....9.5%
    2000....13.8%
    2001....14.7%
    2002....15.1%
    2003....17.1%
    2004....17.3%
    2005....18.7%
    2006....17.4%
    2007....23.1%


    % of charter harvest to commercial harvest in 3A:

    1995....15.8%
    1996....14.6%
    1997....14.1%
    1998....12.1%
    1999....10.4%
    2000....17.4%
    2001....14.9%
    2002....12.1%
    2003....15.2%
    2004....14.9%
    2005....14.7%
    2006....14.7%
    2007....15.4%

    I also believe the charter industry is important to Alaska. However, I believe, as managers do, that it should be controlled and limited as any commercial fishing industry that exploits the resource for profit should, particularly in 2C where it has been allowed to grow uncontrolled while the commercial fishery has been dramatically reduced.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    270ti, where are you getting your information? Reference? It's all over the 'net. (edited)

    Why are you relating what the charters take (concentrated in areas 3A and 2C) to the total commercial catch in all areas of Alaska? Halibut move. What happens in the Bering and gulf of Alaska, doesn't just affect the Bering the the gulf of Alaska. Didn't the biologists say "opps" and change they way there were counting halibut numbers. Who's to say they are right this time. How do you explain where all the halibut went in the mid-eighties, before the charter fleet was even a fleet?

    Are these charters, who can not sell their halibut at a store, serving even 2% of the people of the U.S., or is the public resource harvested in the best interest of the people (as stated in law) by the commercial fishery? (edited) Sport fishing should always take priority over longlining. That is the difference between you and who you represent and me.

    And finally, when speaking in terms of fair allocation, and a 50/50 split between commercial and charter, how are you justifying that 50% of the public resource should go to the charters? Not just the charters. SPORT FISHERMEN. You do your best to try to diminish the role of the guy on the boat holding the fishing pole and the fishing license, because it is the only move you have. I believe the Amercian people deserve 50% of the halibut that they can access through sport fishing. In fact, what authority or law are you using that gives the niche charter industry any allocation of halibut at all? Laws written by lawmakers that are heavily influenced by commercial interests. (notice i didn't say "paid off", but plenty of guys are thinking it.) Do you really believe the charters serve 50% of the people of the U.S., and a 50% proportionallity is fair to the rest of the citizens of this country who depend on buying halibut at the store? (edited) Charters don't discriminate. ANYBODY can book a charter. Lots of people from all 50 states do come to Alaska to access their federal fish. Infact, I had a boatload of Trident workers a few years ago on my charter boat. Those guys wanted to catch every fish in the ocean and called themselves "meat hunters". Kinda funny if you ask me.


    Below are commercial harvests for areas 3A and 2C (where the bag limit is being reduced), and the % of charter harvest to commercial harvest. We all have seen the numbers time and time again. It's called "fair allocation". The charter fleet just wants fair allocation. The commercial fleet in it's greed, does not want to share the resource that they have exploited for years. It's really rather simple. Everybody is fooling themselves if they think that the commercial interests will stop with SE AK. They will continue to take from sport fishermen until we all will have zero halibut to catch.



    Reference: Commercial Harvests Charter Harvests


    Commercial harvest 2C (M lb):

    1995....7.787
    1996....8.534
    1997....9.638
    1998....9.660
    1999....9.896
    2000....8.192
    2001....8.170
    2002....8.432
    2003....8.242
    2004....10.088
    2005....10.459
    2006....10.340
    2007....8.304
    2008....6.107
    2009....5.020 (allocation)


    Commercial Harvest 3A (M lb):

    1995....17.978
    1996....19.366
    1997....24.277
    1998....24.606
    1999....24.311
    2000....18.066
    2001....21.071
    2002....22.560
    2003....22.282
    2004....24.600
    2005....25.100
    2006....24.953
    2007....25.957
    2008....24.020
    2009....21.700 (allocation)


    % of charter harvest to commercial harvest in 2C:

    1995....12.7%
    1996....13.9%
    1997....10.7%
    1998....16.4%
    1999....9.5%
    2000....13.8%
    2001....14.7%
    2002....15.1%
    2003....17.1%
    2004....17.3%
    2005....18.7%
    2006....17.4%
    2007....23.1%


    % of charter harvest to commercial harvest in 3A:

    1995....15.8%
    1996....14.6%
    1997....14.1%
    1998....12.1%
    1999....10.4%
    2000....17.4%
    2001....14.9%
    2002....12.1%
    2003....15.2%
    2004....14.9%
    2005....14.7%
    2006....14.7%
    2007....15.4%

    I also believe the charter industry is important to Alaska. However, I believe, as managers do, that it should be controlled(more goverment control [edited]) and limited as any commercial fishing industry that exploits the resource for profit should, particularly in 2C where it has been allowed to grow uncontrolled Does capitalism and supply and demand bother you? while the commercial fishery has been dramatically reduced.Laffin! Dramatically reduced in what they were given for "free". (edited)

    Added a few comments in red.
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-10-2009 at 14:08. Reason: personal comments

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Unfortunately without a reference your claims can't be substantiated.

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Halibut move.
    Halibut migration has little to do with trying to compare SE charter harvest to the total state-wide commercial harvest. A more realistic apples-to-apples comparison would be to compare the charter harvest in 2C to the commercial harvest in 2C, specifically where the charter restrictions are being imposed. I have already provided that data (and the reference). The conclusions are not only obvious, but they exemplify the root of the entire allocation issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Didn't the biologists say "opps" and change they way there were counting halibut numbers.
    Calculating the exploitable biomass is a complex issue, and methodology has changed many times over the years. It's easy to criticize management with hind-sight. However, Alaska's halibut stocks are currently healthy...evidence that management methods work.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    How do you explain where all the halibut went in the mid-eighties, before the charter fleet was even a fleet?
    Ironic. The decline of halibut in the 80's can, in part, be attributed to the inability of management to control and limit the open-access commercial fishery....exactly what we are seeing with the charter industry today....an inability to control and limit the open-access commercial charter fishery. History tends to repeat itself. And now we are seeing some of the same types of limits and restrictions that were put on the open-access commercial fishery being put on the open-access charter industry.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Sport fishing should always take priority over longlining.
    I realize as a charter operator you feel that way. However, the foundation of our fishery laws are quite clear. With the exception of subsistence, there is no prioritization of one fishery over another. The commercial fishery has been given authority, by law, to harvest fish in the best interest of the people. And that makes sense since the commercial fishery provides food to the masses. According to the Department of Commerce, almost all of Alaska's commecially-caught halibut go to our own domestic markets...restaurants and stores.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    That is the difference between you and who you represent and me.
    The difference is, I have no special interest. No dog in the hunt. I am not a commercial fisherman. I am not a commercial charter operator. I represent no one. I am a private, non-commercial sport fisherman. I make my own way, catch my own fish, and I don't charge people to catch theirs.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Not just the charters. SPORT FISHERMEN. You do your best to try to diminish the role of the guy on the boat holding the fishing pole and the fishing license, because it is the only move you have.
    Actually, State and Federal fishery managers, agencies, and many of our fishery laws separate sportfishermen who hire commercial charters from those who do not. This is because the two do not obtain their fish using the same means, nor do they have the same impact to the fishery. One does it commercially, with more efficiency, and with commercial-sized impacts, the other does not.

    So unfortunately the role of the guy on the charter boat holding the fishing pole is different (you call it "diminished"). He is paying a professional to find the fish, pursue the fish, provide the gear, bait the hook, kill the fish, bring it on-board, clean the fish, and provide any knowledge, training, or accomodation along the way. Data shows his impacts on the fishery are of greater magnitude.

    Finally, it is not the "SPORT FISHERMEN" who are resisting management, filing lawsuits, fighting for more halibut allocation away from the commercial sector, or rejecting limits and control on the charter industry. It is the charter industry. The charter industry often lumps "SPORT FISHERMEN" in with their special interest agenda, because they profit from them and need their support.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    I believe the Amercian people deserve 50% of the halibut that they can access through sport fishing.
    Americans already have 100% of Alaska's halibut accessed through sport fishing....There is no allocation, quota, or harvest cap limiting what we can take...Not in our private boats...Not via the charter industry. Each and every American can go sportfishing and catch as much Alaskan halibut as we want. And we can even get 2 halibut per day doing it.

    The truth is, 50% of Americans do not access Alaska's halibut through charters, let alone any type of sport fishing. They access their halibut at the store or restaurant, where almost all of Alaska's commercially-caught halibut is sold. There is no justification to give a niche charter industry 50% of the public halibut resource...just so they can kill it for profit, for the extremely small select percentage of Americans who hire them.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Charters don't discriminate. ANYBODY can book a charter. Lots of people from all 50 states do come to Alaska to access their federal fish.
    That's no reason to want 50% of the halibut resource. The fact is, not "ANYBODY" comes to Alaska and books a charter. "Lots of people from all 50 states" is a drop in the bucket compared to those Americans who get their halibut from the commercial fishery.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    It's called "fair allocation". The charter fleet just wants fair allocation.
    "Fair allocation" is not taking half of the resource and giving it to a small percentage of select people who pay a niche charter industry to kill it for them. It is not taking halibut from the vast majority of Americans who buy it in a restaurant or store. "Fair allocation" is not taking 60-70% of the sport harvest, or 23% of the commercial harvest in 2C (2007). It is not increasing harvests exponentially without limit or control while other fisheries are cut in half.

    The charter industry is important to Alaska, and it should be privileged as a part of the fishery. However, what the "charter fleet just wants" is disproportionate, unfair, self-serving, and limitless; as exemplified by their resistance and rejection of any type of limit or control of their actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    The commercial fleet in it's greed, does not want to share the resource that they have exploited for years.
    The data shows otherwise. In 2C where the issue roots, the commercial fishery has been cut substantially while the charter fishery has been allowed to increase dramatically. Charters continue to take more and more allocation away from the commercial fishery, with no end in sight. Even in 3A this year the commercial fishery saw a 10% reduction while the charter industry sacrificed nothing. There is no question the commercial fishery has, and continues to share the resource....The question is to what end.

    Finally, "the commercial fleet in it's greed" is limited by our founding fishery laws and management agencies. The fleet does not set their own harvest quotas no matter how "greedy" you think they are. If laws are being broken on behalf of "greed", then I suggest you post which ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Everybody is fooling themselves if they think that the commercial interests will stop with SE AK.
    The data and facts disagree. Again, in SE commercial harvests have been cut substantially. That fishery is limited and controlled. It is the charter industry's interests who have taken more and more, resisted and rejected any type of limit or control, and remained unbridled.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    They will continue to take from sport fishermen until we all will have zero halibut to catch.
    Actually it is the charter industry who takes 60-70% of our sport harvest. And it is years of the charter industry's own actions, unlimited growth, and resistance to any type of control, that has imposed the recent bag limit reduction for sportfishermen in 2C. Commercial harvests in 2C have already been cut in half. Sport fishermen, particularly private sport fishermen, need to wake up and realize what we are losing, and will continue to lose, as a result of the unbridled charter industry. Again, the commercial sector is limited and controled by managing agencies and our founding fishery laws. They aren't asking for more. They are trying to retain what they already have as it's being taken by the charter fleet.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    (more goverment control [edited])
    I don't believe any fishery should be exploited to no end by uncontrolled commercialization.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Does capitalism and supply and demand bother you?
    No. In fact it's what our commercial fisheries are based on.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti
    Laffin! Dramatically reduced in what they were given for "free". (edited)
    Charters are given an unlimited allocation of halibut for "free" every year. They pay nothing for the fish they profit from.

    A newcomer charter operator would have to pay nothing for the halibut he kills and brings aboard his boat. And he would have no quota or limit on the amount he could profit from. On the other hand, a commercial fisherman would have to pay upwards of $20/lb for a limited quota.

    What you're not admitting to is that he Federal Laws of the Magnuson-Steven's Act did not allow the original issuance of quotas to be sold to commercial fishermen. IFQ's were issued, not "free", but based on previous investment in the fishery and prior years history of fishing. So costs were involved. Plus a tax was imposed on the fishermen to cover the cost of the IFQ program.

    Again, charters not only have no quota requirements, but the unlimited amount of halibut they can profit from is "free".


    270ti, I hope you realize the commercial fishery is not responsible for the charter industry's problems, nor do the solutions to the charter industry's problems lie with them.

  9. #9

    Default

    Sorry Grampy. I'm not going to play on this site anymore. I've helped out guys with POW questions, and have even told them some of my hot spots on the island. But I'm not going to contribute to a site where the moderators edit posts.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    The SE Charter fleet takes 2% of the total halibut taken in Alaska. The commercial fishing fleet wastes 41% of the total halibut taken through bycatch and waste. .
    Lies repeated often enough tend to make people believe it but doesn't make it any more true. Interesting how you compare the SE charter fleet to all of the alaska catch but then use a made up number for the total amount of wastage in Alaska compared to the total alaska catch. But you won't accept the numbers provided by Grampy with links that compare all the numbers in SE fairly.

    For the last year I could find this chart for that shows all the removals for everyone in all areas was 2007.
    http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco...rep/ar2007.pdf Appendix 1, Table 1

    Taking these numbers I figured that the total Alaska sport fishery took 12.3% of the total removals in Alaska, if you combine the sport numbers with personal use the percentage goes up to 13.8%. Total Alaskan by-catch mortality (legal sized and sub-legal sized fish) equaled 14.99% and bycatch and wastage combined equals 17.55% - these numbers are a far cry from 41%.

    IPHC states in the 2008 RARA (Report of Assessment and Research Activities) document - bycatch section that: http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halco.../2k8rara07.pdf page 1 Abstract.
    Estimates of the bycatch mortality of Paci
    fi c halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in 2008 totaled 10.7 million pounds (net weight), a decrease of 12% from 2007 and the lowest seen since 1986. Significant decreases occurred in Areas 2B and 4. Most of the decrease is attributable to lower

    bycatch in the Alaskan ground
    fi sh fishery.

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
  •