Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: NMFS rejects 1 fish bag limit in Alaska

  1. #1

    Talking NMFS rejects 1 fish bag limit in Alaska

    As per members of the Halibut Stakeholder Committee currently in Anchorage, the one fish limit imposed by the IPHC will not be signed by Bill Hogarth. Looks as if everyone will be able to still catch two a day.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks for the report, I hope your sources are right!

  3. #3
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    I knew this would happen. I will say this will be readdres this fall/winter.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  4. #4

  5. #5

    Default NMFS rejects 1 fish bag limit in Alaska

    The IPHC is being painted as the bad boys in all of this, but we were basically trying to give the council a way to implement their own plan. This won't go away long term without reallocation at the council or legislative level.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default hmmm

    Yep, I'll be interested to see if all we see is a bunch of "yipee, we beat the council and IPHC again!" or if the charters are going to wake up and realize that something is going to be done one way or another. I still see a LLP as the only real alternative along with a real quota (which would mean a real cap.) Along with increased dockside sampling, logbooks, and more data on catch overall.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default proposal

    Here is the initial page of a HUGE document about the possible options the NPFMC will look at the next council meeting. I got it from www.fakr.noaa.gov
    and also www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/default.htm


    Initial Review Draft
    Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a Regulatory Amendment to
    Limit Entry in the Halibut Charter Fisheries in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A

    Date: January 19, 2007
    Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service
    P. O. Box 21668
    Juneau, Alaska 99802

    Responsible Official: Doug Mecum, Acting Alaska Regional Administrator

    Abstract: This analysis examines two alternatives to limit entry into the Pacific halibut guided sport
    (charter) fisheries in International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Areas 2C and
    3A in the Gulf of Alaska. One alternative would take no action. The second alternative
    would implement a moratorium on entry into the charter sector, as of December 9, 2005. It
    is intended as an interim step in the Council’s long range plan to limit charter halibut
    harvests. Permits would be issued to persons based on minimum threshold levels of
    participation and certain eligible communities based on maximum threshold levels of
    charter halibut participation in those communities. Both types of entities would be subject
    to use caps.
    None of the proposed actions are expected to have the potential to result in a “significant
    action,” as defined in Executive Order 12866, or result in adverse impacts on directly
    regulated small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final regulatory
    flexibility analysis focusing on the preferred alternative will be included in the final
    regulatory package submitted for Secretarial review.
    Comments Due: The public may comment on the proposed action until the Council selects its preferred
    alternative, currently scheduled for April 2007. A formal public comment period will be
    announced by the Secretary of Commerce upon publication of the proposed rule, expected
    sometime in 2008.

    For Further Information Contact: Jane DiCosimo or Nicole Kimball
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306
    Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2252
    (907) 271-2809

  8. #8
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Yipee

    Yes we did in fact work to over turn the screwing that the IPHC handed down. If it was fair it would have withstood the public's pressure. It was a BS deal and was dealt with as such.

    We have been and will continue to work within the Council process to get a solution to the problem. In the mean time our industry and the public will not have to be held hostage by an unfair process in which 3 Canadian and 3 American fishermen, none of whom live in Alaska, will be deciding how many halibut each sport fishermen in Alaska can keep.

    Makes me proud to be an American to know that the public process works.

    If the Council wants to take measures to restrict the harvest and they follow the proper process, then so be it.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    That is awsome, that would be a big pain for the businesses. do you know about the crew fish, if they are aloud to take fish or is that already 86 and a done deal?

  10. #10

    Default

    Thats been gone away with for a few years now AKNEWby.

  11. #11
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Crew Members

    Crew members have not been able to fish as long as I have been up here.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  12. #12
    Charterboat Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anchorage AK.
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Dave, as far as saltwater is concerned "crew" have always been able to fish along side of clients and keep there catch, until may 1 of 07 anyway.
    i am sure there are a couple of exceptions that i do not know of, 1 bieng the Special Management area on the lower penninsule that NO guides may fish kings while with clients may thru June while in this area. that goes away in July though. Butts however have not had a closure to crew harvest. However it is illegal to allow your clients to take crew caught fish home.
    effective 5-1-07 wont have to worry about that.

  13. #13
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    I guess we're just luckier down here in SE...ha!
    I've never felt it was "cool" to fish for myself while I'm guiding... seems I should be paying more attention to my clients than MY fish. Besides, how will it make my client feel when I get a bigger fish than her? Then again, if I have 6 clients on board fishing, there's no legal room for my rod anyhow!

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

  14. #14
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    I merged the two similar threads on this one. Hope you can all make sense of it.

    -Brian

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default Hey capt!

    AkCapt I hope you don't think this is an us against them thing. (or a me against you really) You can never tell in email what people are "saying" sometimes.

    I told you before I was hoping you'd find some kind of solution and be able to fish and have a great year. You are a good poster on this issue, and so I'm wondering what you think on it as a whole. Not the one fish a day fiasco, (which I alway viewed as the same kind of proposal as the recent "dipnet take same as sport"...ie I thought it was just to yank the chain so to speak) but the going over the GHL so dramatically. Or the fact the the council sure looks like it will be doing Something. What do you think should be done? What is fair? Do you (charters in general, you in specific) want a larger share overall of the total quota or what you have now? (whatever that is ) Do you see any problem at all?
    What I'm asking you is what is your take on all this? Is there really a problem, and if so what would you like to see done? I am looking forward to your answers.

  16. #16
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Could be wrong, would not be the first time.

    Quote Originally Posted by POLE BENDER View Post
    Dave, as far as saltwater is concerned "crew" have always been able to fish ....
    ....effective 5-1-07 wont have to worry about that.
    I could be wrong. I did some researching on guiding and found that on the Kenai you may not fish as a guide. I could not find much on the salt water regulations. I do remember in Glouster Mass. the crew members fishing now that I think about it. Don't know if they are under the same rules 70 miles out of port though.

    What is changing on 5-1-07?

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  17. #17
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CanCanCase View Post
    I guess we're just luckier down here in SE...ha!
    I've never felt it was "cool" to fish for myself while I'm guiding... seems I should be paying more attention to my clients than MY fish. Besides, how will it make my client feel when I get a bigger fish than her? Then again, if I have 6 clients on board fishing, there's no legal room for my rod anyhow!

    -Case

    I don't fish while I guide unless I hate my clients (one decided to waste a perfectly good king I was cleaning for him because the meat was coho red instead of sockeye red, didn't tip at all, and was just indignant towards my fishing tips, at that point I didn't care) or they invite me to fish with them (the clients I like the best!) at any rate.

    For most streams (all?) you can't fish for kings while you are guiding. Clearly the problem of "boat limits" is hard to enforce with out this regulation.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  18. #18
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Problem

    [QUOTE= You can never tell in email what people are "saying" sometimes.
    What I'm asking you is what is your take on all this? Is there really a problem, and if so what would you like to see done? I am looking forward to your answers.[/QUOTE]

    AKBF,

    Nothing personal and of course there is a problem, especially in SE.
    I hate to have this discussion on this forum because the complexity of this issue does not lend it self to discussing it here. But I will try:

    No reasonable solution can be made with a gun to the head of the industry.
    I am sure there will be a limited entry program and a compensated reallocation of commercial IFQ to the charter sector. All within the next 18 months

    Who's paying for it?
    Who will hold it for the recreational fishermen?
    How will the fish be shared?

    Those are the real issues.
    However both sides on this issue are responsible for road blocks and cheap parlor tricks to either redirect or slow down the process. The reality of the situation is that now we (me anyway) are way too wise to bite on the tricks. Our industry has found powerful allies to defend itself (political and legal) and now it is time for the long liners to come to the table and settle this by giving up a few fish this year and in exchange demanding a long term solution and working with the charter industry to get it done.
    No last minute plans that are pulled out in the last hour of a two day meeting and stuffed down the charter industry's throat at the Council level, after they are rejected by industry at the stakeholders meetings.
    Those days are over. It is time to try to work this out without that kind of posturing. Plenty of smart people at the table and if everyone can stow the BS (on both sides) there can be a solution that allows sport fishermen to keep two halibut for the foreseeable future and long liners to continue to enjoy the unparallel prosperity that they have been. If you know this issue was well as it seems, I am sure you know exactly what I am talking about.

  19. #19
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Default Hold the boat!

    None of this makes any sense and feal free to correct me but, The commercial fisherman want their share of the fish and sportsman want to be able to do what they enjoy/work for as well as feed their families. Charters want to provide a "service" to those sportfishermen that would like to catch halibut for sake of this arguement.

    So who technically is after the fish? IMO its the sportfishermen and the commercial fishermen yet the discussion is about commercial vs charter allocations (or overharvest of said allocations). In the bigger picture if charters are restricted whether you want to call it allocation or by limited entry the sportsman is the one after those fish. Charter boats don't see a dime or fill their tummy from the fish that may or may not be caught, they provide a ride.

    The problem I have here is that there should never be a business that haults a man or women from harvesting a resource in light of profit. I as a citizen should be allowed to catch fish, mine for gold, grow crops etc. and should never be told no you can't you must purchase it! We are citizens of the US and therefore each imo should be entitled as an individual to certain things and not directed by business. If I found oil coming from the surface in my back yard I should be allowed to make fuel from it if I so choose for my own use, not be forced to leave it and purchase it from the service station. I should not be forced to buy electricity, propane or natural gas to heat my home, if I want to cut up firewood and burn it for heat the gas company shouldn't be allowed to stand in my way! If the Charter Industry feels they need to back the sport fishermen I don't see a problem and actually welcome it, but it sure seems that this is a bunch of political mumbo jumbo bs if you ask me.

    Leave the sport regulations as they are, if the rescource is not able to withstand the harvest levels, sorry but the commercial guys should take the cut first. If their harvest level drops the price will go up and they will still make money, supply and demand. If you cut the sportsmen well he won't have as much to eat and will be forced to purchase food to replace what he wasn't allowed and therefore it will cost him, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, fishing isn't cheap but those that enjoy doing it pay for it but we shouldn't get the double axe. I don't see that this is any different than local preference in relation to hunting. Citizens first, business second.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    sigh, a charter costs what? $200 bucks? If this was just about food, I'd ask how much food could you buy for that? How much Pollock could you buy if you just wanted fish with a white meat for that much? So this isn't about survival, but choices and what choice you want to have.

    That takes me to another thing..your right to some of those fish. Here you are totally correct. These are in reality everyones fish. In realitly though as well, the resource has been split up and allocated because of the tragedy of the commons. So the fish are in fact owned. Still though at no time was your ability to actually take 2 halibut sport fishing ever challenged. Unless of course you don't own you own boat and need to use a charter. If you owned your own boat you could have and still can take 2 butts per day.

    Now on to your other point...that the commercial guys should get the cut first. Well, they did. The quata is down in the affected areas. Also I don't think one user group should suffer when others don't. I've always thought cuts should be across the board. This entire thing boiled down to the fact that the charter industry is unregulated in a federal and international fishery. My opinion on it was that it was just a rough attempt to get the issue in the news, and bring the one side to the table. (charters). I believe that the longline halibut guys are willing to give some fish "away" in order for a regulated charter fleet. Like AkCapt said I think both sides need to be serious about this, and bring reason and facts to the council table. Emotions get involved in this and make it seem like some us vs them thing, or commercial vs charter, or sport vs charter when in fact I never really thought that. It was a pretty ugly wrangling of the public and the charters I'll admit, but did it work? Are we now seriously discussing the issue? Will this finally get settled so we all know what is going on? I'm sure the charters would love a gurenteed (sp, sorry) quata. That makes a business more predicable with makes it easier to plan effiecently. I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that this is resolved to the delight of all parties, and done by the end of next year.

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
  •