Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 88

Thread: Halibut Charter Permit program petition

  1. #1
    Member Cliffhanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Homer, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    732

    Default Halibut Charter Permit program petition

    Here's a link to an online petition started by the non-profit Charter Operators of Alaska asking The President, The Congress, our Governor to step in an fix the new Charter Halibut Permit program.

    It's a very simple petition to sign. Just fill in your info on the right side and push the button.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Thanks Cliffhanger. I signed it.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks Cliffhanger, I signed.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    signed it now

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Coffman Cove, POW, Alaska
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Hey Guys (slight hijack),

    The petition is great and I wish you all the best of luck. I watched the news program on the licenses and it was well done hopefully it sheds some light on the situation in a positive way. I also appreciated that folks admitted to KNOWING it was coming and bought in. Good luck in the fight, I consider a lot of the folks friends who are fighting. Not being able to take friends and family is something we all need to fight as well.

    The true travesty here folks should focus on is the 37" rule in SE. This rule just won't knock a few folks out of the fishery like the CHP (who all can buy a permit) it will KILL the SE fishery. Unguided anglers next in SE, continuing on to 3A next - bet on it. I read the petition and I see no relevence for using the 37" rule for this petition. NOT one and the same.

    Side note the list of charter licenses is 1089 permits - where did the 400# come from in the petition?

    So who has written on behalf of SE AK?

    Here is where you should be writing letters:

    If you are concerned about your rights to catch halibut in SE Alaska this summer, call or write.
    ---

    Federal Contacts
    Eric Schwaab
    NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
    (301) 713-2239 x 195
    eric.schwaab@noaa.gov
    Russell Dunn
    NOAA National Policy Advisor for Recreational Fisheries
    727-824-5399
    russell.dunn@noaa.gov
    Jim Balsiger
    Administrator, Alaska Region
    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
    P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802
    (907) 586-7221
    jim.balsiger@noaa.gov
    Mr. Eric Olson Chairman
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    605 West 4th Ave, Ste 306
    Anchorage, AK 99501
    (907) 644-0326
    eolson@gci.net
    Alaska State Contacts
    Governor Sean Parnell
    Juneau Governor's Office
    P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001
    (907) 465-3500
    governor@alaska.gov
    Cora Cambell
    Office of the Commissioner
    ADF&G
    PO Box 115526 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
    Phone: (907) 465-4100
    dfg.commissioner@alaska.gov
    Senator Lisa Murkowski
    (202) 224-6665
    709 Hart Senate Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/i...fm?p=EMailLisa
    Arne Fuglvog
    Fishery Adviser, Senator Lisa Murkowski
    709 Hart Senate Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    (202) 224-6665
    arne_fuglvog@murkowski.senate.gov
    Senator Mark Begich
    144 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    phone. (202) 224-3004
    http://begich.senate.gov/public/inde...p=EmailSenator
    Bob King
    Fisheries Advisor, Senator Mark Begich
    bob_king@begich.senate.gov
    Congressman Don Young
    Office of Congressman Don Young
    2314 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515
    (202) 225-5765
    https://donyoung.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx

    __________________
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

  6. #6
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default not gonna do it...

    Well, I guess I’ll be a stick in the mud and say that I will not sign the petition.

    It’s not because of any ill will. It’s not because I want to see anyone go out of business or necessarily lose money. It’s not because I’m jealous that you guys get to go fishing as a job. Well…okay, maybe just a little with that last one.

    It’s because something clearly needed to be done for the sake of sound management. It’s because this most recent action should not have been a surprise to anyone…I repeat, ANYONE who has followed fish politics in the least little bit over the past decade or did amount or did any amount of due diligence when researching a significant career change and investment.

    Cliffhanger, I'm sure you didn't necessarily start this thread to begin a(nother) discussion on the issue. I have a lot of respect for you…in fact, I’d love to go fishing with you one day…yes, even for halibut (on your boat or mine). You readily admit that you knew this was coming when making your decision. Beside the fact that it would be nice to be able to guide clients for halibut again, I’m curious about your other reasons for supporting the petition. It sounds like NMFS is already looking at ways to accommodate non-halibut guides fishing on their time off, without opening a huge possible loophole.

    The petition states “arbitrary and capricious actions were used in developing the criteria”, but I wonder what’s being referenced. Control dates, qualifying years and effort thresholds have been used in pretty much every form of limited access.

    No sector should be allowed unlimited growth, at the expense of others...at least without a conscious decision made to allow such growth. This is at least twice that the charter sector has lost that argument.

    I also won’t sign it because nothing is being offered as an alternative. Is this not better than the charter IFQ program that was dumped years ago? At least that allowed for growth to meet the fleet’s needs. Additionally, from the little I’ve read about it, the new suggestion from SEAGO looks like it might help get the southeast fleet out of this 1-fish box without simply taking it from someone else.

    Across the web (including here) I’ve seen a lot of venom from some aimed at organiztions (SEAGO) or individuals who received permits… it's a “you got yours” attitude…but unless the folks complaining now are saying that no controls on the charter fleet are needed now or ever…it sounds like the argument now being made is simply, “re-open the door and then close it behind me”.

    Most that know me know that, while I may be opinionated, I’m not a closed-minded guy. I didn’t post this to poke anyone in the eye, nor to simply “stir the pot”.
    Art.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Megga Dittos, MRFISH
    "No sector should be allowed unlimited growth, at the expense of others...at least without a conscious decision made to allow such growth. This is at least twice that the charter sector has lost that argument."

  8. #8

    Default

    At the expense of who? Is some user group entitled to get a certain percentage of the halibut?

    The deck is obviously stacked against independent charter operators, by big business and special interests.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Coffman Cove, POW, Alaska
    Posts
    753

    Default

    I received a PM and asked the person if I could answer it openly and he agreed - No I do not charter nor plan to charter. I do however use charters in my business model and personally in both SE and cook inlet.

    Admittedly I have no 'idea' to fix the mess on my own. Charter cap will help and go from there.

    Lastly - Cliffhanger is a friend of mine and I sincerely wish him the best in his business I did not intend to derail his petition. If you feel it is right by all means sign it! Life would be a lot easier if there was limitless numbers of fish....
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Across the web (including here) I’ve seen a lot of venom from some aimed at organiztions (SEAGO) or individuals who received permits… it's a “you got yours” attitude…but unless the folks complaining now are saying that no controls on the charter fleet are needed now or ever…it sounds like the argument now being made is simply, “re-open the door and then close it behind me”.
    The free market was doing a wonderful job of controlling the charter fleet. Lower limits were working great too. The charter halibut permits are a joke. Many were given to part time weekend warriors, who are now leasing to guys who will run them full time. I know several people who got them for their spare boats, because they had enough breakdowns during the qualifying years on their main boats to get the trips on their spares. Or the guy who filed for bankruptcy, and got a bunch of permits.. I hope he sells those permits and pays back all the people he owes money to in town!

    Tell me Mr Fish, how will CHP help with "sound management"? Can you honestly say that the CHP is a management tool with a straight face?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Gooch speaks the truth.

    15 seconds to go....
    The other team has the ball.......
    Interception, unlikely....

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
    Admittedly I have no 'idea' to fix the mess on my own. Charter cap will help and go from there.
    Gooch.. What mess? The charter halibut permits will do nothing to help the halibut grow faster. The fish managers screwed up. Plain and simple. They are now not letting a good crisis go to waste, that's for sure.

  13. #13
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Tell me Mr Fish, how will CHP help with "sound management"? Can you honestly say that the CHP is a management tool with a straight face?
    Honestly 270ti, I thought the (earlier) charter IFQ plan was better than this, though still not perfect. It had the potential to place the allocative implications (and costs) of growth decisions on the head of individual business owners. Others disagreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    The free market was doing a wonderful job of controlling the charter fleet.
    While I won;t argue that the economy has had it's effects on charter harvest of late, that isn't really an exercise of the free market. IFQ's are much more free market than this.

  14. #14

    Default

    IFQ plan was worse in my opinion.

    Like most government intervention, the CHP was a terrible idea. They'd have been MUCH better off taking the money the spent to get the CHP implemented, the money they spend to enforce it, and the money to maintain it and spend it on research to figure out what is really going on.

    Lets see.. If CHP's were going to make any difference, why is SE down to 1 halibut under 37"? Well, because even with the CHP in effect in SE in 2011, the charter fleet in SE(with permits) would have still doubled the GHL, with a 1 fish limit. Oops.. Not much of a management tool, eh?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Coffman Cove, POW, Alaska
    Posts
    753

    Default

    270, the mess I refer to is the current situation we are in Alaska wide - CHP's, 37" fish, bycatch, fish managers who screwed up, possible sport fish restrictions, whatever. Right now whatever is going on is a mess - a big freakin mess.
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
    270, the mess I refer to is the current situation we are in Alaska wide - CHP's, 37" fish, bycatch, fish managers who screwed up, possible sport fish restrictions, whatever. Right now whatever is going on is a mess - a big freakin mess.
    Roger that.

  17. #17
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    IFQ plan was worse in my opinion.
    270ti, we don't always agree but I still appreciate your views. But, how was it worse? Do you say that IFQ's were worse from the perspective of a (former?) charter operator and/or skipper...or worse in some other way?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Or the guy who filed for bankruptcy, and got a bunch of permits.. I hope he sells those permits and pays back all the people he owes money to in town!
    Even if he can sell those from Costa Rica or wherever he's hiding out, I doubt anyone in Ak will ever see a dime from him, unfortunately!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AkKings View Post
    Even if he can sell those from Costa Rica or wherever he's hiding out, I doubt anyone in Ak will ever see a dime from him, unfortunately!
    Is it that obvious who it was? (grin) Although I'll say that I kinda enjoyed not having those little white boats all around me..

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    270ti, we don't always agree but I still appreciate your views. But, how was it worse? Do you say that IFQ's were worse from the perspective of a (former?) charter operator and/or skipper...or worse in some other way?
    I don't think that sportfish should be bought and sold on the open market. IFQ's would have done just that.

    All the IFQ would have done (if they went by pounds) is reward the meat hunters, who built businesses in big halibut areas by catching a ton of them. The guys who did more combo trips would have got the short end of that stick.

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
  •