Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Charter Harvest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Funstastic, you do know that AKCAPT is a IFQ holder and does longline to fill he Quota. I would like to point out that no matter what you think AKCAPT does know the numbers as good as anyone.

    Comment


    • #17
      Sorry I should have looked at this sooner. I am short on time here, as I have two other jobs to pay for my charter and long lining hobbies.......

      Taking the last five years for comparison is perfectly reasonable. There is no need to go back 10 years or more. We have been operating under a moratorium for the last four years. This is why I went back that far. Those fish were in fact left in the water and if you want to go back further in 3A over all, there have been millions of pounds of fish that were left in the water.

      MGH55 is correct, I paid 38 dollars a pound for 3000 pounds for halibut IFQ four years ago and now it is 1000 pounds and I still get to roll over the 10% I do not catch on the one day that I get to longline. and the same should be true for the charter fleet. If you are treating the charter fleet like the longline fleet - "share in the pain and share in the gain" then we should be able to roll over 10%.Which if we did for the four years, we would be even this year.

      Recreational fisheries are just that and should be treated in a similar fashion. The concept the halibut is "unique" is a convenient what to say it is okay to screw over recreational fishermen because you want to. The National Recreational Fishing Policy cautions Councils against holding recreational fisheries to a hard cap....For the very reasons I stated above and below:

      I agree trawlers behavior is no excuse for charters to exceed our allocation and we will make changes to correct our overages but it is unrealistic to think that in the first year of a new catch share plan that the charter fleet would land right on their allocation when all that has to happen is the average size goes up by two pounds. In fact if you look here:

      http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFd...onPaper312.pdf

      To save you the trouble of looking at an old document I will paste here a paragraph that explains that keeping the charter industry managed to a hard cap is going to be very difficult.
      In February 2009, the SSC ( that is the scientific and statistical committee of the NPFMC - noted that (emphasis added):

      “Projecting charter halibut harvests is difficult, because it requires predictions or assumptions about how the consumer demand for charter trips will change through time, predictions or assumptions about how people will respond to regulatory change, as well as changes in the abundance, distribution, and size composition of halibut stocks. The limited time series data available for use in estimation severely constrains model complexity. The discussion paper effectively describes these limitations and how they affect forecast accuracy. It also describes asymmetries in risk and the distribution of risk that arises from under- and over-estimating catch. The forecast methods used in the discussion paper are suitable given current data limitations.
      While the resulting forecasts have had large errors, errors of this magnitude are not surprising given the uncertainties in the data, variability in the processes affecting the halibut stock and its fisheries, and the shortness of the time series. Consequently, the SSC believes that the magnitude and range of uncertainties will prevent the forecast accuracy to be anywhere near the plus or minus 3.5% allowed in the charter range allocation of the preferred alternative.”
      The SSC suggested that the +/-3.5 percent range was insufficient given harvest estimation uncertainties. The IPHC’s experience in 2011 is the most recent example of the difference between estimated harvest under a regulation and actual harvest. In this case, the IPHC was aiming for the 0.788 GHL and had a harvest of 0.388 Mlb even though the overall number of fish caught between 2010 and 2011 stayed unchanged (note the IPHC had not considered the hybrid approach when it adopted its 37 inch limit).

      Funtastic,


      The fact is that it is not okay to screw our clients out of a good trip to meet harvest goals. It is okay to force regulations on the charter fleet since they are the ones offering this "commercial" endeavor that allows our clients access.

      One final thought, lets not begin the discussion about the fact that commercial halibut fishing feeds the masses and charters are only for rich people. Neither a fishing charter nor a 27 dollar a pound piece of fish is feeding or entertaining anyone but upper middle class and up Americans. We are both catering the top 15% of income earners in America. Both are luxury items and both provide a good economic engine for Alaska's economy and our traditional way of life.
      But I am going to stop there because this issue is decided in Anchorage in December and talking about further on here is only going to server to confuse readers as you manipulate my reasonable argument by dissecting each sentence. I just can't commit the time on here to post anything else.

      good luck with solving these problems on the internet instead of the alternative.
      www.graylightalaska.com
      http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
      (800)566-3912

      Comment


      • #18
        This would be easy to solve if anyone would listen. Charge a 10.00 per NR license for a weekly,15.00 for a two week and 25.00 for a yearly NR lic. Take that money and buy out charters. Start at 100.00 per seat and go up every week until some one sells. Tear up that permit to have it never be used again and you have a painless way to cut the charter numbers and in turn the charter take. NO one is forced to sell and it will slowly but surely carve away at the numbers of halibut charters take. you could also apply some of that money to buy out longliners. Alaskans would not have to pay for anything. Tell me why that would not work?

        Comment


        • #19
          I would like to see the charter permits rolled into a fixed percentage of the charter allotment. We now have a known number of seats in the charter fleet, each sheet should be a share of the allocated charter harvest. If you need more shares to run your charter buy someone out. Also all nontransferable permits will be fazed out over the next ten years and as of this next year those permits should only be able to be fished by the person named on the permit. If there is a need for a higher % of pounds for charter harvest a user fee could be used to buy longline IFQ and transfer to the charter allocation.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
            I would like to see the charter permits rolled into a fixed percentage of the charter allotment. We now have a known number of seats in the charter fleet, each sheet should be a share of the allocated charter harvest. If you need more shares to run your charter buy someone out. Also all nontransferable permits will be fazed out over the next ten years and as of this next year those permits should only be able to be fished by the person named on the permit. If there is a need for a higher % of pounds for charter harvest a user fee could be used to buy longline IFQ and transfer to the charter allocation.
            For now the Council is analyzing the concept that kgpr is talking about but in the money will go to buy quota and also to at the same time maybe buy out permits. Right now there are about 33% of the permits that have been used 10 days or less per season for the last four years. These "Latent permits" represent a threat to successfully managing the fishery. I like his concept though and if this fails that may well be how we do it.
            www.graylightalaska.com
            http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
            (800)566-3912

            Comment


            • #21
              If the charter fleet is going to be managed by pounds of fish we need to attach a number of pounds to each permit to limit the chance of going over the allocation. The other option is to shift to a flat number of fish per permit, and that would be hard to get passed the Council. As for Latent permits the permit I sold is used only during hunting season not sure if it is logging over 10 day a year if not that is OK. If others want to sell out that would be good too. Not sure I would want to see anyone be forced to sell out, but would like to see it to where the permit holder has to be on board the boat it is used on or at least be the owner of the boat it is used on to cover charter offices the run more then one boat.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                Funstastic, you do know that AKCAPT is a IFQ holder and does longline to fill he Quota. I would like to point out that no matter what you think AKCAPT does know the numbers as good as anyone.
                I posted a link to the correct numbers - they are published and official. It's not about what you think AKCAPT knows. If an argument is going to be made based on throwing numbers around, we should use the right ones and put them in the right context. BTW, I used to longline and hold an IFQ too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  AKCAPT, Here's why using the last 5 years for justification is not reasonable: Charter harvest limits have been in effect for 12 years (2003-2014). For that period, allowable limits totaled 14.897M lbs and charters harvested 14.242M lbs (using actual log book harvests 2006-2013). The net is virtually a wash - "millions of pounds of fish" were not left in the water. Keep in mind that the lifespan of a halibut can be 30-50 years, with females maturing at 12. Plus we all know big fish were targeted. So charter harvests that happened prior to your 5 years do have an effect today, especially considering halibut tend to occupy or migrate to the same area each year. Additionally, as you know, there have been a lot of changes to charter harvest limits in the last 5 years - moratoriums, size limits, IFQ sharing, etc. None of which have established stability with charter harvest well enough to issue "credits" back to charters. The link and quote you provided below explains that. Rolling over under harvests is putting the cart before the horse considering charters just exceeded their limits.

                  I fail to see your justification for a 10% charter roll over, other than you think charters and longliners should be the same. They are not. I might agree with you if charter overharvesting had the same consequences as longliners, or wastes and mortalities were figured in the same for charters as longliners, or charters had their catch weighed each trip like longliners, or had the same observers, were allocated the same amount, and used the same gear. I might agree with you if charters had the same record for meeting and not exceeding limits, had better stability without fluctuating demands of tourism and client base. Not to mention charters just exceeded their limit, and cherry-picking a set of years and discussing rollovers to justify it, is putting the cart before the horse.

                  Your comment about "screwing over recreational fishermen", is the same mentality that needs to change if we are to make progress. First, charters don't provide access, they just make existing access easier - and that causes more harvest - the problem. Second, whatever expectations charters and clients have, are of their own making - they generated it themselves from the good old days of unlimited charters, unlimited clients, and unlimited fish. Things have changed - charter fishing might not be what it used to be - there may be disappointed clients. Good news is that recreational fishermen are not bound to hiring a charter under charter regs - they have alternatives. They can fish the way they always did, like before the 1980's when charters decided to impose themselves on the fishery.

                  AKCAPT, I am not sure why you brought up rich people, class warfare, luxury item, and feeding the masses. Allocation is allocation, no matter what it is used for, or who uses it. The only difference is which fishery gets how much, and that is determined by well-established criteria in fishery laws. The problem here is protecting stocks by controlling charter allocation overharvest. And it won't be solved until we make access more difficult - many good suggestions have already been posted.

                  Good luck.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I don't see the link to see your numbers. I am not sure, but AKCAPT is using the same numbers that the north counsel is using for what that is worth. I hope that when you sold your IFQ's you got a fare price for them. With your know about this you should be on the north counsel to help solve this.
                    Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                    I posted a link to the correct numbers - they are published and official. It's not about what you think AKCAPT knows. If an argument is going to be made based on throwing number
                    s around, we should use the right ones and put them in the right context. BTW, I used to longline and hold an IFQ too.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                      I don't see the link to see your numbers. I am not sure, but AKCAPT is using the same numbers that the north counsel is using for what that is worth. I hope that when you sold your IFQ's you got a fare price for them. With your know about this you should be on the north counsel to help solve this.
                      The links are in post 13. They are from the NPFMC, NFMS, and ADFG, and include charter allocation limits, charter harvest, log book data, and commercial allocations and harvest. I always submit my comments to the Council, thanks.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AKCAPT View Post
                        ...going over by 400,000 pounds this year needs to be weighed against the past five years where millions of pounds were left in the water and we never got credit for them. Commercial longliners can "roll over" 10%, so if they did not catch those fish one year, they can get them the following year. We do not get that privilege.
                        The 10% rollover for commercial is only for the prior year, not the last five prior years combined, like you want for charters. You can't just take however many prior years you need, add them up, and use them to cancel out an overharvest. Even if you did, rolling over 10% from the prior five years combined still does not make up the 400,000 pound overharvest for charters.

                        Commercial in 3A does not have a history of exceeding limits, and in fact they catch under their limit virtually every year but a few. Their harvest patterns are stable, and on a much larger scale. Using your "credit" philosophy they would be owed millions of pounds of halibut.

                        Your whole idea of harvest credits to charters makes no sense when they just exceeded their limits by about 25%, the stock is trying to rebuild, and so many changes and other factors are making the catch unpredictable and unstable.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I am having a hard time with the fact that we do not know how many pounds were harvested by the charter fleet. All we have is a number picked by people that have proven year after year that they don't know the true pounds the charters have landed. When I had my charter not one time in over 7 years did I have a halibut checked in Homer. The only halibut samples I saw ever checked were from the half day boats. we can not have a true discussion until we have true numbers to work with. That is why we should make it to where all charter fish have to be treated just as other commercial halibut, and each charter given and known pounds per seat to work with. We can't change the past, so we must move on with solid numbers to work with.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                            I am having a hard time with the fact that we do not know how many pounds were harvested by the charter fleet. All we have is a number picked by people that have proven year after year that they don't know the true pounds the charters have landed. When I had my charter not one time in over 7 years did I have a halibut checked in Homer. The only halibut samples I saw ever checked were from the half day boats. we can not have a true discussion until we have true numbers to work with. That is why we should make it to where all charter fish have to be treated just as other commercial halibut, and each charter given and known pounds per seat to work with. We can't change the past, so we must move on with solid numbers to work with.
                            But we do know. Charter harvests are calculated based on a combination of state wide harvest surveys, log books, port interviews, and actual sampling. Confidence intervals are more than accurate enough for management purposes. The only way to know exactly how many pounds were harvested, would be to have a mandatory weigh station that each charter must check in at upon arrival back at port.

                            As for checks in Homer...

                            "Halibut data collection was integrated with the existing catch sampling programs at Kodiak, Homer, Deep Creek/Anchor Point, Seward, Whittier, and Valdez. Biological data were collected three days per week and interviews were conducted two days per week at Homer, Deep Creek/Anchor Point, Seward, and Valdez. Biological and interview days were chosen at random such that each type was distributed proportionally among weekends and weekdays to minimize bias due to differences in user group composition. Interview and biological sampling effort were distributed between Deep Creek and Anchor Point proportional to harvest so those data could be pooled to represent the Central Cook Inlet (CCI) SWHS area. At all other ports the interviews and biological sampling were conducted concurrently on five randomly selected days per week. The sampling season generally began in mid- May at Homer and
                            Deep Creek/Anchor Point, and in late May or early June at other ports. Sampling extended through the end of August or early September, depending on port and year." - ADFG

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Everybody knew that this would happen. Demand for charter is at an all time high in southeast. 2013 and 2014 showed some of the best salmon fishing in recent memory, and people just can't get enough of it. Everybody will be booked solid for 2015, and we can expect similar numbers, or even an increase in the amount of halibut taken. I'm expecting a decrease in the reverse slot limit, down to 40" or so. Most of the meat hunters are gone, and the new breed of clients have adjusted to the ever changing limits in SE, and continue to rebook. A trip to SE is a dang good vacation, and a lot of people are figuring it out.

                              My opinion: Change nothing, except the limits to match the prior years harvest. It's an imperfect system, but it's what we've got. Let the free market take over, and let the weaker charters get culled as limits decrease. With demand being the way it is, a good charter won't sit idle no matter what the limits are.
                              Alaska Wide Open Charters
                              www.alaskawideopen.com
                              907-965-0130

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                                The only way to know exactly how many pounds were harvested, would be to have a mandatory weigh station that each charter must check in at upon arrival back at port.
                                Why not just have the charter measure the halibut, and put the length in the logbook next to the clients name when the fish is landed? It won't be 100% perfect, but it'll get them in the ballpark. It takes no time to measure a halibut, and write down lengths. Charters will play nice because the 3 agencies that chase us around will all be checking our measurements every chance they get.
                                Alaska Wide Open Charters
                                www.alaskawideopen.com
                                907-965-0130

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X