Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Halibut Moritorium final rule published

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

    Default Halibut Moritorium final rule published

    Final rule for the charter halibut moritorium was published on 12/29/09 making the qualifying criteria being:

    Partcipation in 2004 or 2005 and 2008

    to get a permit a charter boat must have submitted atleast 5 days of bottomfish effort during the qualifying period

    for the permit to be transferable at least 15 trips must have been done during each of the qualifying years.

    Here is the link to the whole thing:

    http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sust...sfiled1209.pdf

    Here is the link to the civilian version

    http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/news...ibut010410.htm

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

    Default

    Thanks AKCAPT. It looks like a fair, well thought out plan. Not perfect of course.

  3. #3
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    I think it is fair and it was good to see all the comments and responses from NMFS. It gives everyone a place to go to see what they were thinking when it was crafted.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    When they say "transferrable" I assume they mean a permit holder is allowed to sell their permit?

  5. #5

    Default

    yes, the transferable permits will be able to sold

  6. #6
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    I guess now it is official...........

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/fishing/story/1080524.html


    I see too they have dragged Southcentral into the halibut war too.......

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    I guess now it is official...........

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/fishing/story/1080524.html


    I see too they have dragged Southcentral into the halibut war too.......
    Areas 3A and 2C have always been included together in charter regulations (but not necessarily bag limit restrictions).

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

    Default

    AKCAPT, I wanted to give you some info on your prior CQE concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    I believe there were two people pushing that agenda, one of which is now on the Council. They came to one meetings suggested - or made their demand - and it was like the Jedi mind trick - everyone just kind of put their heads down and agreed with it.
    I wasn't there, but according to the Federal Register...

    "Cultural and social framework:

    The Council and the Secretary have taken into account the cultural and social framework relevant to the charter halibut fishery and affected fishing communities. The Council received substantial public testimony during the early development of this rule which influenced the design of elements included for Secretarial consideration. The Secretary in turn has received public comments on cultural and socioeconomic aspects of this rule, has considered these comments and responded to them below. The Analysis of alternatives (see ADDRESSES) reflects this consideration by finding numerous communities with little charter vessel activity while a few communities have a well-established charter vessel industry, as indicated by the numbers of vessels that terminated charter vessel trips in coastal communities during the qualifying years. Hence, this action supports limited development of a charter halibut fishery in specific rural communities through a special community charter halibut permit program."


    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT
    It seems to me that every rural community in Alaska is in a different situation and to make a one size fits all plan to increase the latent capacity of the charter fleet in each area by 75 - 100 boats is just not right.
    I remember some kind of use it or lose it criteria that we proposed for the rural communities, I didn't see that in the final document...but I didn't really look that hard either.
    A couple of things to think about on that...

    There will also be charters that are eliminated from the capacity of the fleet by the initial limited entry rules themselves (2004-05, and 2008 participation). So the affect of adding these CQE's to the fleet while others are removed, is unclear to me at this time. I would assume managers figured that in the management plan where capacity is concerned. It does look like they allowed some charter growth, but that growth will be in a some rural coastal communities. Maybe their intent was to spread the socioeconomic benefits around for the benefit of Alaskans, and spread fishery impacts over wider areas. I don't know.

    Also the new rules require that CQE charters must begin or end at the specified community. For example in 3A you are talking about clients accessing communities like Akhiok, Chenega Bay, Tyonek, Karluk, Ouzinkie, Tatitlek, Larsen Bay, Port Lyons, Port Grahm, Old Harbor, Nanwalek, Yakutat, Halibut Cove, and Seldovia. These aren't exactly communities that are appealing for clients (or charters), in more ways than one...facilities, difficult and expensive access, social acceptance, etc. Plus CQE's are non-profit. I guess I'm not as concerned with the CQE impacts, but I certainly understand yours.

  9. #9
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    I agree, the non transferable permits will reduce each areas latent capacity as they get retired and honestly many of the CQE permits will never be used. Or more likely not used very much. I am sure between the economy, bag limit reductions and poor business management, there will be more departures from the industry than new entrants in rural Alaska. There was some compelling comments written by the community of Kake in the document explaining that they needed to be able to do some charters for economic stability. I understand that, and everyone wants to be fair to an under priviliaged rural community but it seems unecessary to reward communities that are already so well off that they could purchase the entire 3 A charter fleet if they were so inclined.

  10. #10

    Default Use it or lose it

    AK Capt. - There was a use or lose it portion that got pushed off into the mass of ideas for the long term - there was several things looked at that were further refinements of the limited entry plan like possibly allowing the non-transferable permits to become a transferable permit but at a level that they historically operated at, the use it or lose it clause, there seems to me but I would have to go through the documents to be sure, additional ideas on the community issue such that if they haven't applied for permits 10 years down the road the opportunity doesn't exist anymore.

  11. #11

    Default

    I didnt get the chance to read it all...but does that permit go to the boat owner or hired capt?


    never mind I guess it doesnt matter, my first year as a skipper was 06, ugg! It will be interesting to see what these permits go for.

  12. #12

    Default

    Permits go to the businesses

  13. #13

    Default

    either way looks like my skipper days are officially done! Kinda sucks really!!!!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TB, unfortunately it was the same way for the commercial guys when their limited entry went in. Not only did crews not get permits, but even some of us owners who had previously fished and invested in the fishery did not get permits because we did not fish the qualifying years.

    I'm guessing crews were left out for two reasons, practicality and principle. Unlike the business owners, in practicality the crews historically did not report their fishery participation. And trying to evaluate the credibility of actual crewmember participation would be futile. In principle, the intent was probably to issue permits to those who had already invested into the fishery. While crewmembers invested time, for which they had been paid, only vessel owners and lessees put monetary investment at risk to participate.

    It shouldn't effect your "skipper days", just your chance of getting an initial permit. You can still skipper a boat, and even buy into the program later on. I guess "limited" means just that...gotta draw the line somewhere.

  15. #15
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    ...I'll just sit back and patiently wait to see what they begin selling for. With no carriage requirement until 2011 it should be interesting to watch what happens this season.

    -Case
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  16. #16

    Default

    Grampy,

    I'm sure you're well aware the even hired capt's are logging log books, not the companies themselves.....oh well.

    Due to the economy this last summer a bunch of us got laid off, basically on standby which doesnt do this guy good living 1000 miles from sitka LOL, so I knew what it ment. I had my run it was fun. Honestly a guy shouldnt get paid so good to have so **** much fun at work and I'd do it again in a heart beat!

    Hopefully this thing is a cure to the 'problem'. Unfortunatly I dont see it happening! Good luck to all the lucky sob's who get a tag or can afford to buy one down the road!

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    Permits go to the businesses
    Cool...

    In my area, Waterfall Lodge and Resort will get 30 permits. Catch a King Charters will get 10ish permits. Fireweed Lodge will get 10 permits. Sunnaheah will get 8 permits. (bankrupt, and the owner is rumored to be in jail in panama)

    Over half of the permits given in Craig/Klawock will go to 4 people, who hire mostly non-residents to work at there lodges as Captains.

  18. #18

    Default

    The thing that will foul up some businesses is the line per boat limit they are putting on the permits.

    A guy could have built his business in SE scraping by on 2-3 anglers per charter. Now he has a bigger boat and runs groups of 6.. But he'll get a permit for 3.

  19. #19
    Member captaindd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Salcha, AK
    Posts
    762

    Default Number of Lines

    If you qualify in 2004 or 2005 and also fished in 2008 you will get the maxium number of lines fished in 2004 or 2005. Min is 4 Max is 6. In 3A the number can be for more depending on how many the boat fished.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    TB, unfortunately it was the same way for the commercial guys when their limited entry went in. Not only did crews not get permits, but even some of us owners who had previously fished and invested in the fishery did not get permits because we did not fish the qualifying years.
    It would make an interesting book for someone to write about the aftermath of the IFQ system here in SE AK.

    An acquaintance of mine told me about how him and his brothers all fished the derbies for years out of the same boat. They could fish and would make a much needed 10k-20k a year each. (not bad for a short fishery) When IFQ's were handed out, one of his brothers got the IFQ as he has his name on the boat. (despite all sharing in maintenance and boat expenses) A few years later that brother died in an accident. His widow got the ifq and sold it. (so the story went)

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •