Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: Halibut limits

  1. #1
    Member EricL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska to Stay
    Posts
    670

    Default Halibut limits

    I just saw on the news that there is a meeting tomorrow concerning limiting sport fishermen to 1 fish per trip and 5 per season. I have heard quite a bit about this in the last few months. But I heard for the first time that commercial fishermens catch was up by 60% last year!! Now I have no idea what the total number of fish caught by sport fishermen compared to the total number of fish caught by commercial fishermen but it seems a little out of whack!! It is not hard to figure out who is pushing for this!! EricL

  2. #2
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,918

    Default

    Let's hope this does not happen. Man going out for halibut won't be worth it.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  3. #3
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,768

    Exclamation the proposal is limited to CHARTERS

    year-round in southeast and in august in cook inlet, although that is just what i heard most recently.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Gray View Post
    Let's hope this does not happen. Man going out for halibut won't be worth it.
    already seems so as it is with the 2 fish bag limit.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EricL View Post
    But I heard for the first time that commercial fishermens catch was up by 60% last year!!
    That is simply not true. I overheard bits of this report on the Channel 2 news tonight, but didn't catch the whole thing. I'm guessing you mis-heard the stat, but if they actually said this it was grossly misstated.

    -Brian

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    I also watched it John Carpenter said the commercial quota (catch) is up 60% since 2000 (I think that is the right year, either that or 2000 something) and the charter allotment has stayed the same.

    The only thing this proposal is good for is driving charters out of business, plain and simple!!!!! (And they know it!)

  7. #7
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,853

    Default

    Perhaps it is up that much since 2000, but certainly not just in the last year - that's what I was disputing. As for the charter allotment, you're right that it hasn't been raised by much, but the point behind this proposal is that they're not staying within their allotment and there are no consequences for exceeding it. (This is all described in great detail in the other thread on this topic with many relevent links to get the exact #s)

    Not sure where I stand on this, but just wanted to keep it rooted in fact, no conjecture.

    -Brian

  8. #8
    Member SperBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    114

    Default Long Liners

    On the news it said that the "Long-Liners" were pushing for the 1 halibut/day, 5 halibut/ year limits.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    I don't want to turn this into a bash on commercial fishermen but from a sportfishing point of view, how can this be viewed as anything but a backdoor (or frontdoor) way to get rid of charter operators? Would the charter allotment even be close to exceeded it their allotment had gone up the same percentage as the long-liners?

    Doesn't seem right to me.

  10. #10
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I don't want to turn this into a bash on commercial fishermen but from a sportfishing point of view, how can this be viewed as anything but a backdoor (or frontdoor) way to get rid of charter operators? Would the charter allotment even be close to exceeded it their allotment had gone up the same percentage as the long-liners?

    Doesn't seem right to me.

    I doubt it's a move to "get rid of charters".

    I'd have to think on this before I decide if I favor it or not (I know for Non Res. I DO favor it, no doubt). One thing I HAVE hoped would happen quite some time now, is to see the same minimum (32") size for 'but on charters that the commercial boats must adhere to. Everytime I see the party boats roll into the docks and offload a "limited" boat, and all 40 halibut fit in one tote (with the heads on no less)...well...seems a bit unfair, and wasteful. We joke that at that size it takes 2 of em to make a sandwich, and thats both generous, and not really all that funny...
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  11. #11
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,918

    Default

    I would be all in favor of a size limit instead of reducing the poss. limit to 1.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    780

    Default Halibut and the Sport Fisherman

    Fishing for halibut is second in how the Alaskan angler spends the fishing day. Fishing for king salmon is first. These statistic's come from ADF&G.

    What does this mean?

    I'm really not sure. However my common sense tells me that fishermen aren't going to pay for a one-fish trip and that ADF&G is not stupid.

    I deduce that they will continue to support the charter operator with the 2 fish daily limit in order to protect the tourism industry. There are over 250,000 sport fishing licenses issued each year that contributes to it. Matter of fact, that industry leads the fishing industry. (state of Alaska statistics; government jobs are first, tourism second, and commercial fishing, third)

    If there is any future legislation, I suspect it will be in the slot-limit measurement and not the quota in order to protect tourism.

    If I have missed anything be sure and let me know. Maybe it's time to start talking about fish farming in AK, and you can count on that one being a hot thread...

    http://www.alaskanauthor.com

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    This is not an ADF&G issue nor is it a board of fish issue, it is a Federal issue and the board is composed mainly of those with a commercial fishing interest.
    Hippie, do you think with this proposal Charters will be able to stay in business?
    These fish are not Alaskans fish, although we think they are, they are American's fish and a charter provides a service for citizens (both Alaska resident and non-resident) to access the resource.

  14. #14
    Member DMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    On the news it said 'sport fishing' and that the charters had brought in more yada yada yada. Here is my question. Is Charter sport fishing and sport fishing out of a personal boat regulated differently? I didn't think that it was so I assumed when I heard they were suggesting the change for sport fishing due to the catch of the charters last year that it would change the bag limit for us fishing in PWS. Anyone know the answer to how it is regulated?

    D
    ... aboard the 'Memory Maker' Making Memories one Wave at a Time!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Much of this stems from the fact that the North Pacific Fisheries Management council met here in Anchorage this week. You can view the agenda and some of the relavent issues through the following link.

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/

    I actually had a couple beers with some of these commercial long liner boys last night who are here in Anchorage for the council meetings and must say that I do respect where they are coming from. This is NOT a new issue. In fact, the board has been struggling with this for 13 years. Don't expect big decisions to be made at this point. Well...it's unlikely, but who knows, crazy things have happened. The nucleous of this issue comes from SE Alaska where the "hundreds of thousands" of cruise boat passengers want to go catch a halibut, resulting is some pretty severe overfishing via the charter outfits. Add to the mix all the local folks that try to make a living via other methods of fishing and the problem becomes clear, but the solution is grey at best.

    We should be able to track any decisions made through the attached link.

  16. #16
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,890

    Default North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

    Don't know if halibut is on the agenda.

    The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is meeting at the Anchorage Hilton Dec 6-11

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/Agendas/1206Agenda.pdf
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  17. #17
    Member DMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    It looks like from the link flyguy posted that it is intended only for Charter Anglers and not sport fish as a whole. I didn't catch that in the news. Thanks flyguy!

    I still think it is very risky for the Alaska Tourism industry.
    ... aboard the 'Memory Maker' Making Memories one Wave at a Time!

  18. #18
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,890

    Default Advisory Council

    I am on the Advisory Council for Valdez so as I get notices I will post them for you guys. Somehow for a while I was not getting them.
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  19. #19
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanAuthor View Post

    I'm really not sure. However my common sense tells me that fishermen aren't going to pay for a one-fish trip and that ADF&G is not stupid.
    Seems that fisherman already pay a comparable amount to go on a one-fish trip for King Salmon, how would this be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon

    Hippie, do you think with this proposal Charters will be able to stay in business?
    I certainly do. I used to work in the charter fleet before succumbing to the "Dark Side" of being a commercial fisherman <grin> and I know from experience that MANY Charter Captains and owners would prefer to see the "ping pong paddle" halibut tossed back. But setting a policy on the boat that is not based on a regulation only drives consumers to boats that don't care how small the fish, nor how many within the limit of these small fish they catch. Make it a law, and you remove that option.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    These fish are not Alaskans fish, although we think they are, they are American's fish
    Actually, they are an international fish, and given the data that shows how widely they range an implementation of this law via the IPHC would affect more than just Americans.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    and a charter provides a service for citizens (both Alaska resident and non-resident) to access the resource.
    Yes, they provide a service. And 20 years ago that service, under then current regulations, allowed for the open season of 2 ling cod per day and 10 rockfish per day. We've seen the decimation wrought by that liberal catch limit. And are now dealing with the restrictive regs that have resulted in a smaller, more clearly defined season and bag limit on ling cod, as well as a diminished limit and general size decrease in rockfish. Services should be allowed to be provided, as long as they are regulated with an eye on future stocks, and wise biological management.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,846

    Default from a good source

    Talked to someone at the meeting and he related the following. The harvest has exceeded the sustainable level in SE (area 2c I believe). The reason the level went below the sustainable level is that the sport fishing quota was exceeded. The commercial guys stayed within their quota.

    The ADF&G failed to report hooking mortality to the Council which added in another 500,000 pounds which drove the harvest further away from the sustainable level. The options being considered include taking it out of the commercial quota, reducing the bag limit to 1 fish, or reducing the possession limit to 5 fish for the year. The council has not made any decisions and it is a complex regulatory network to do anything. There was discussion of Cook Inlet limits in August only.

    The reason all of Alaska is being impacted when the problem is in southeast is that the laws setting up the federal control do not allow for allocation when areas or groups ( it is not just a limit on charters but everyone from my friends perspective).

    So at this point nothing has been decided but the fact that ADF&G kept data from the council has made everyone mad. I guess ADF&G sport fish division knew for two years what the hooking mortality estimate was and did not provide it to the federal scientist or council. That is the real rub from this meeting. ADF&G not being honest hurts everyone.

    In summary, it now has become a biological issue rather than allocation and therefore it takes on a whole new set of actions. We do reap what we sow.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •