What is the cut between comfish and sportfishing in the homer area 75/25?? any one know?
What is the cut between comfish and sportfishing in the homer area 75/25?? any one know?
are paid for charters.. sport or comm?
"If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."
meet on face book here
14% of the combined set line and charter harvest goes to the charter fishing clients in area 3A which is from Cape Suckling to Kodiak Island.
In Homer there were 1,08800.00 pounds halibut or about 70,000 fish taken by charter clients in 2008
For the sake of discussion lets put charters with the sportfish guys
That is a question that goes round and round. My interpretation is the charters or the "for hire" sector as it is sometimes called is most definitely a commercial business operation BUT the client is by all definition a recreational fishermen. The client catches the fish and retains the fish. The removal from the biomass is considered a "Charter removal" and guided anglers are under a diferent set of regulations than unguided anglers....
First, lets clear up one thing...Charters fish and kill halibut for money. That makes them "commercial".
Second, the port of Homer is in area 3A. However that does not mean halibut logged in Homer do not come from other areas of 3A like Kodiak or Central Cook Inlet (I sometimes port at Homer but fish CCI).
If you are trying to compare the proportion of sportfishing harvest, including commercial charters, to commercial fishing...
In 2008, 3A charter sportfishing harvest was 3.842571 Mlbs. (232,130 halibut). This exceeded their GHL of 3.65 Mlbs.
Non-charter sportfishing harvest was 1.942 Mlbs. (145,286 halibut)
Total charter plus non-charter sportfishing harvest was 5.784571 Mlbs. (377,416 halibut)
Commerical fishery harvest was 24.020377 Mlbs. (I do not know the exact number of halibut). This was under their harvest limit of 24.220 Mlbs.
The proportion of charter plus non-charter sportfishing harvest to commercial fishing harvest is: 5.784571/24.020377 = 24.1%
Contrary to AKCAPT, 19.4% (not 14%) of the combined set line and charter harvest goes to the charter fishing clients in area 3A.
The port of Homer sportfishing charters logged 1.289038 Mlbs. (83,716 halibut).
The port of Homer non-charter sportfishing harvested 0.708627 Mlbs. (53,822 halibut).
The port of Homer total charter sportfishing plus non-charter sportfishing was 1.997665 Mlbs. (137,538 halibut).
The port of Homer commercial fishery harvest was 9.084704 Mlbs. (I do not know the exact number of halibut).
The proportion of charter plus non-charter sportfishing to commercial fishing is 1.997665/9.084704 = 22%.
Reference 1 (page 3)
Thanks guys i was just wondering. I wonder if you took how much money sportfishing and Charter fishing combined pump into the economy VS the comfleet per pound of halibut harvested what that number would be? Who contributes more to the economy per lb of halibut harvested.
Grampy if the charter fleet is comfish why no IFQ's they can sell?? No they are not Comfish.
Like Grampy said, charters fish for commercial interest. They are in it for the $ just like the officially labeled commercial folks are. However, they count under the sport fishing total as recreational fishermen are the ones doing the fishing to put on the BBQ and in the freezer at home. Maybe it doesn't make much sense in some ways, but it is what it is.
kgpcr, IFQ's don't designate if a sector of the fishery is commercial or not.
Your economic comparison would compare a commercial fishery who's product is food to a charter fishery who's product is recreation. The variables, extension, and implications of each sector are totally different. Not to metion laws do not allow the fishery to be dictated by economics alone. It is explained in the Final Rule and the latest Court decision.
I get the idea we are going down the same slippery slope we already have in numerous other discussions here...charters/sportfish vs. commerical. Both are vital in different capacities. Please take some time to research the data and facts before bringing up the same topics over and over. There is a mountain of information available. If you do a search here you'll find that 99.9% of this stuff has already been hashed.
It is always a loaded question to ask which sector brings the most money into the economy. The under lieing argument is which is the highest and best use of the resource.
It is the typical uninformed answer that really freaks out the likes of Grampy. That incorrect answer is something like this - Well a charter costs 300 dollars and then add the cost of a charter, hotel, air fare and meals and then come up with something like 75 dollars a pound for halibut on the charter and the commercial boat sells it across the dock for 4 dollars...
This is an unfair comparision and none of this is correct and taking into account all the metrics involved in determining the complete contribution to the economy for 1 pound of halibut is a complex task.
The nicest answer is both sectors are important to the Alaskan economy. The bottom line is that is not practical to assign harvest rights or any type of access to the public resource based solely on which user brings the most value in terms of dollars. If both are stimulating the economy, then both a valued consumers. The problem with assigning usage based soley on the economic contribution is that other intangable values from resource use are lost in the bean counting. Things like historic participation, the value of maintining a cultural tradition, the experience...All those things that don't really fit into an economic study and really can't be given a financial value.
With all that said, two guys are still dropping close to 1000 dollars to catch 4 halibut...come on of course the sportfishing dollars are larger.....
Happy New Year Grampy....Sorry I had to put this one in.....
AKCAPT, you were doing so well...and then you contradicted your entire post with your last remark.
If your clients are paying you $1000 for 4 halibut, then you are engaged in commercial fishing...selling fish for money. And those dollars would go toward the economic benefit of the commercial sector.
Now you might argue you are not selling them fish, but instead selling them recreation - a chance to catch a fish. And that is exactly how the law defines charters..."recreational". If that's the case those dollars would go toward the economic benefit of recreation.
So you are right back to the point of your own post...the problem and unfairness associated with comparing the economics of a food product to the economics of recreation. Yet you are doing just that.
This is one of the exact reasons why our fishery laws specifically dictate that economics can not drive the fishery.
The best use of the resource means different things to different users. For the vast majority of the nation's public, that simply means having it available to buy in a store for food, not traveling to SE Alaska for a recreational fishing trip on a charter.
AKCAPT, if you have a study or report showing a comprehensive side-by-side, apples to apples comparison of which sector is most economically benificial to the nation's public, please post it. Even the best economists, Federal fishery analysts, and Courts have yet to do it.
Come on Grampy,
The last sentance was a joke. I just put that in there to get the exact response that I did from you.
There is no study that I know of that measures all the costs and financial benefits of one industry to the other in Alaska.
I believe that in some areas of the Northeast these studies have been done and have ended up closeing State waters to certain types of commercial fisheries, where the commerical harvest was marginal to begin with and the recreational harvest had a huge economic impact to a urban region. Maybe state waters for Fluke, Scup or Seabass I can't remember exactly.
Over all I have to say I am impressed with your determination. You have stuck by your postition for a long time now without variance. You should be commened on your stuburness and resourcefullness. I don't agree with much of what you say; but you do frame your position well and seem to have the willingess to respond to almost every remark that people make no matter how well or poorly their argument is framed. You should have been a lawyer or perhaps the director of the Alaska Longline Fishermens Association. Linda Benkin has nothing on you.... You are wasting your skills on this forum.
Ahh...a joke to trigger a response from me.
There is no question that the socioeconomic makeup of Alaska's halibut fishery is much different than Northeast fisheries...location, access, user groups, community impacts, history, etc. I think we should learn, but not duplicate.
AKCAPT, given your latest "joke", I'm not quite sure how to take your personal comments. Hopefully you realize the issue isn't about me.
Charters that where not going to get IFQ's testified against it and many of comm fish decided that they did not want the charters to get IFQ's. The data that was used to determine who got the IFQ's and the amount that they recieved was flawed. The state change the log books in 2006 to get more accurate data.
Like any attempts to control or regulate the charter industry, the record is replete with the charter industry rejecting charter IFQ's. The log book program was revised, in part, because it was being falsified and abused.