Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Charter Harvest

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

  • #61
    MGH55, please stop the nonsense and try having a civil discussion.

    I didn't call you an a-hole. I told you I wasn't trying to be an a-hole by asking you to prove your argument - I just wanted your facts:

    "I asked, not to be an a-hole, but because if you are going to suggest charter harvest limits are all wrong because of the data, then we need to be able to show it factually." - Funstastic post #57, paragraph 5.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/145049-2014-Charter-Harvest?p=1440870&viewfull=1#post1440870


    As for tossing cow pies...it wasn't me who claimed management doesn't know harvest numbers, and just picks them year after year. That was you (post #27). I simply responded with facts. It wasn't me who claimed the numbers were bad because adequate sampling wasn't happening. That was you (post #27 and #31). I simply responded with facts. It was you who claimed charters were "under-allocated" because management was just guessing at numbers (post #31). Again, I simply responded with facts.

    As for me saying the data is good enough...I am not saying that - the science, studies, evaluations, reports, reviews, and models are saying that. I agree with them. It is you who rejects the facts, and has shown no evidence backing up your claims that the harvest data is not good enough. All we've gotten from you is emotional conjecture. And I will say it for the 4th time: I support more accurate harvest data (for any fishery), and I would support a requirement for charters to have their halibut weighed upon returning to port. Which, according to the info you've posted, will show charters are over-harvesting worse than we thought.

    As for me being responsible for raising IFQ limits; that accusation is horribly wrong and quite lost. Clearly you don't realize that back then charter harvests came off the top before IFQ was calculated. So what the charters were harvesting really didn't have much to do with IFQ, but the opposite was not true; the more charters harvested the less IFQ commercial got - exactly what started the whole mess - unlimited and unrestricted charters taking away allocation at an alarming rate from a limited and restricted commercial fishery.

    So lets get back on track MGH55. I would ask that instead of posting angry personal attacks to justify your claims, you post the facts. After all, the object is to reel in charter over-harvests, and we can't do that with conjecture.

    Comment


    • #62
      fact I never had any halibut checked from 2003 to 2011 as a charter. Fact I had over a 40lb average on my halibut. Fact ADF&G has no true number, only a best guess from what was sampled. If you want to call me an A-Hole offer still sands. Fact the numbers pulled to set charter harvest allocation were pulled from who knows where. Fact the size of halibut have gone down for the average fisherman. Fact charters that go after big fish still get them. Fact I am glad not to charter fish any more Fact I hope you have a great Thanksgiving! Fact sorry if I took the A-hole comment the wrong way, offer stands . I have coffee. It is hard to justify personal experience, but that is what I have. 21 years in Alaska in the Coast Guard doing fisheries, and after that having a charter and now gillnetting the Inlet. Fact I just don't buy the numbers that are from samples that can be twisted. I know what I saw, and I have seen what the old time charter harvests were "back in the day". I do not call it over harvest, but under allocation.

      Comment


      • #63
        Funtastic are you the same person that used Grampyfish?

        Comment


        • #64
          Fact, I worked in the government long enough to know BS when I see it.

          Comment


          • #65
            MGH55, you are welcome to your opinion.

            Thousands of halibut were sampled from 2003-2011. The data is available from ADFG.

            A 40 pound average has never happened since ADFG and IPHC began collecting data. If it did happen, charter harvests would've been about 200% of GHL - gross overharvests, not under allocations.

            ADFG's numbers are justified scientifically, peer reviewed, and evaluated and re-evaluated for accuracy and precision, particularly at the request of the IPHC. If those numbers were just a "guess from samples" then they could just as well be high rather than low.

            Thank you for apologizing about the a-hole comment that you read wrong.

            The numbers used to set charter harvest are clearly explained in the Federal Register. They come from comprehensive scientific data. The numbers are usually not in question, the models are.

            Yes, the size of halibut has gone down, and yes some charters still kill the big ones.

            Your personal experience is certainly justifiable, however it does not represent the overall charter industry.

            Your opinion that the samples are twisted has no merit if you can't show it.

            I don't doubt what you saw, it's what you didn't see.

            "Back in the day" isn't necessarily 21 years ago. That's only back to 1993 when there were already hundreds of charter boats, and enough concern about unlimited charter growth that the CSP was already on the table.

            If your argument is true: that the data should represent bigger fish on average, then it would not be called an "under allocation", it would be called a gross over harvest. Because the current data, which you claim is a guess, is already over harvest limits. I call it the aftermath of unlimited charter growth - too many charters.

            MGH55, the object is to get charters to meet their harvest limits, rather than find excuses for exceeding them. The answer is not more allocation, as the fishery is already fully allocated. Now, I get that you reject the data and facts, and nothing rational presented to you will change your opinions. So since I am no expert at dealing with irrationality, and since I do not wish to engage in personal accusations or aggression, I am no longer going to digress this with you. Good luck.

            Comment


            • #66
              Funstastic, I am no longer calling for a larger % of halibut for charters. I am not asking for less % for longliners. All I am asking for is a better way to track who is catching what. I don't care what you or I think, or what we saw. Let's just do it right from now on. No more guessing! I am all for working inside the box given. No more pointing fingers, no more BS. Pounds per charter seat will do it. Get it done. Coffee at my shop anytime.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                Funstastic, I am no longer calling for a larger % of halibut for charters. I am not asking for less % for longliners. All I am asking for is a better way to track who is catching what. I don't care what you or I think, or what we saw. Let's just do it right from now on. No more guessing! I am all for working inside the box given. No more pointing fingers, no more BS. Pounds per charter seat will do it. Get it done. Coffee at my shop anytime.
                Yes he is Grampy, which is why you can get no reasonable or factual dialog. Best to pass on this discussion. Even our CATCH proposal - a genuine offer to buy IFQ's at more than market value to transfer allocation from one sector to another, willing buyer and seller, will undoubtably get opposition from this guy..... not worth the exercise on my fingers or my mind. Happy Thanksgiving - I am out again. You all know where to find me...Volunteering at meetings, representing our sector and trying to keep us in business.

                Grampy..Eat some turkey, take a deep breath and write back some snarky circutious argument, taking things out of context to find happiness in life. whatever floats your boat.
                www.graylightalaska.com
                http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
                (800)566-3912

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by AKCAPT View Post
                  Yes he is Grampy, which is why you can get no reasonable or factual dialog. Best to pass on this discussion. Even our CATCH proposal - a genuine offer to buy IFQ's at more than market value to transfer allocation from one sector to another, willing buyer and seller, will undoubtably get opposition from this guy..... not worth the exercise on my fingers or my mind. Happy Thanksgiving - I am out again. You all know where to find me...Volunteering at meetings, representing our sector and trying to keep us in business.

                  Grampy..Eat some turkey, take a deep breath and write back some snarky circutious argument, taking things out of context to find happiness in life. whatever floats your boat.
                  AKCAPT, why is it so hard to discuss the information I've posted, and yet so easy to launch a personal attack?

                  I have been more than civil and patient here, trying my best to address the conjecture and offensive personal jabs. I have discussed the issues at hand, posting facts, data, and references. I am sorry that bothers you.

                  I am not "grampy" and I have no idea who that is. Last time you accused me of that, the owner/moderators of this site verified who I was. But you are welcome to verify it with them again.

                  The question I have for you is, what difference does it make who I am? How will my identity change the facts? It is your way of distracting the real discussion?

                  Listen to yourself...you are actually telling me what my views will be, just to justify your own argument. I have not discussed your CATCH proposal to buy out commercial IFQ. Heck, even with the published facts and science, we still can't get past the wild notion that the data is a "guess." If you want to talk about buying out commercial IFQ, then quit making presumptuous accusations and do it.

                  I appreciate your work representing the charter sector, but your posts leave me disappointed. Clearly you see any opposition to your proposals, or any discussion of the facts, as anti-charter rather than another view or what's best for the entire fishery. Let me be clear, I wish the best for the charter industry, but I will not condone their over-harvests, unlimited growth, or their attempt to take allocation from other sectors. I clearly understand that hitting the reset button with charters is going to hurt.

                  Of course my view is not that of a charter captain like you who has an economic stake, and talks about "screwing over clients" and class warfare. Mine is a view from someone who is neither a charter captain or a commercial IFQ holder, and who just wants the best for the stock, and all sectors comprehensively.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    AKCAPT, I hear what you are saying! All I was asking for is a way to put it to rest so we can move forward. It is going to hurt, but if you know how many pounds you have to work with you can add to it as needed, then if you do not use them with your charter you can mop them up and sell them no skin off anyone's back side. I can see where in the future charter fishing in Alaska may end up just like Hawaii you pay for the trip and if you want the fish you buy them. As for Funstatic, Ron White said it best. Some things just can't be fixed. The kings are off the charts here this year. Good fishing to all!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I think MG is right about coming up with a different model. In Hawaii, Mexico (most other places it seems) the fish are owned by the boat. The notion of taking a charter to come away with boxes of meat for less than the market price/lb is going to be difficult in the future. If the average GAF fish next year is 70 lbs x $5.00/lb to buy the GAF, then the price to buy extra GAF fish will be in the neighborhood of $350/fish. The clients that want to keep those fish in excess of their normal limits will have to pay the captain who had to lease/buy those IFQ pounds. The bottom line is that if the normal bag limits are exceeded (either as a fleet or individually), it becomes a question of who gets the check and who is really selling the fish?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I still say don't change a dang thing. The industry is flourishing despite cuts. Cut a little more and let it keep going. If charters want to do a permit buy back, more power to them. It's going to take a whole lot of $ though.
                        Alaska Wide Open Charters
                        www.alaskawideopen.com
                        907-965-0130

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          270ti, Correct me if I am wrong, but you work for a lodge and do not have your own charter boat and permit. I sold my permit and boat, but have been thinking about getting back in. My wife claims I am not thinking at all. If I get back in I need to know what I am getting. If it goes to a system that each seat gets a set % of the charter harvest I could come up with a plan to work with even if I had to buy 2 permits to be able to run one 6 pack for the summer. For you, and I understand all you need as a hired Capt is days to make your money. It would be up to the owner to get the pounds you would need to run the number of days you need for your income needs. This is not about you or me it should be about the fish. If the halibut stock regains the high numbers of the past and the pounds of halibut could not be used on clients. Charters could then sell the pounds they have left or harvest the halibut and sell them. What would be the problem with that? I am open to a better option, but so far have heard none. As for money you are a fisherman like I am, and we can't take it with us when we go! Are you trolling and killing them? I hope it goes great for you!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by 270ti View Post
                            I still say don't change a dang thing. The industry is flourishing despite cuts. Cut a little more and let it keep going. If charters want to do a permit buy back, more power to them. It's going to take a whole lot of $ though.
                            I don't think this is what is going to happen. There is no interest from the Council in going back to an IFQ plan or some kind of privatization. We will work with day of the week closures to keep within the allocation. This year, a single day.... Hopefully seldom used CHP's will be recalled and eliminated and the fleet we have now, will be the fleet. Maybe we will see either a common pool compensated reallocation or a loosing of the GAF to include a private purchase option to use as you see fit within your business model. And that will be the end of it. In times of low abundance, we will have to find something else to fish for a couple of days of week, its is better than a one fish/ reverse slot limit like they have in 2C. Its the best we can do with what we have to work with. If running a charter boat for 80 or 90 days a summer is your sole source of income, you better find a job because there is not much more we can do. The allocation fight and other prior arguments are simply not being entertained. If anyone is still mistakenly thinking I am wrong, more power to them. So far I have been telling the groups in my sector exactly what was coming and it was met with some skepticism but I have been correct. Heading to Anchorage Monday for the meetings.....
                            www.graylightalaska.com
                            http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
                            (800)566-3912

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              One more thing to keep in mind in regards to overages:

                              The CSP discussion and preamble to the rule expected charter harvest to average out over time close to the allocations:

                              “NMFS recognizes that, because the CSP would not change management measures during a sport fishing season, the management measures implemented prior to the start of a sport fishing season may result in harvests that are greater or less than the catch limit. However, the Council anticipates, and NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut harvests by the charter halibut fishery under the CSP would stabilize around the charter halibut catch limits, thereby promoting conservation and management objectives over the long term. The IPHC would continue to account for all removals when determining the annual combined catch limit under the CSP, and IPHC stock assessments would continue to account for charter halibut harvests that unintentionally exceed the fishery’s catch limit. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that halibut fishery management under the CSP is more responsive to changes in halibut abundance than the GHL program.”

                              The 2014 2C harvest is 2.7% over (21% of the combined catch limit vs the allocation of 18.3%), and the 3A harvest is 4.1% over (23% of the combined catch limit vs the allocation of 18.9%).

                              Over the past four years that the Council has been adopting management measures, the Area 2C allocation is 21% under the allocations and Area 3A is 13% under

                              These are indisputable facts and it is not common place to look back over a longer period to determine performance. you simply cannot say what did or did not happen to halibut that were left in the water 10 or 15 years ago. That is not how the analysts evaluate the performance of a sector or its effect on a specific stock
                              .

                              I am shutting this time drain off. Wishing you guys all the best for the holidays.
                              www.graylightalaska.com
                              http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
                              (800)566-3912

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                AKCAPT, this is where I lose respect for representatives of the charter industry, like you. You deceptively left out a very important part of that NMFS preamble concerning how they expected harvests to average out over time. I suspect you did this to advance your agenda. The NMFS comments from the CSP you excluded are in red....

                                “NMFS recognizes that, because the CSP would not change management measures during a sport fishing season, the management measures implemented prior to the start of a sport fishing season may result in harvests that are greater or less than the catch limit. However, the Council anticipates, and NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut harvests by the charter halibut fishery under the CSP would stabilize around the charter halibut catch limits, thereby promoting conservation and management objectives over the long term. The IPHC would continue to account for all removals when determining the annual combined catch limit under the CSP, and IPHC stock assessments would continue to account for charter halibut harvests that unintentionally exceed the fishery’s catch limit. Operationally, overages may contribute to a corresponding decrease in the combined charter and commercial catch limit in the following year. Underages would accrue to the benefit of the halibut biomass and all user groups and could result in an increase In the combined catch limit I the following year. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that halibut fishery management under the CSP is more responsive to changes in halibut abundance than the GHL program.”



                                The "indisputable fact" is that during a critical time of conservation, 3A charters just took 123% of their limit. These are the same halibut that have been in the water for 10-15 years, and the same halibut that charters have been fishing for 10 or 15 years (halibut can be 30 years old and return/occupy the same areas each year). And on the contrary, it is common to go back a long way and look at charter sector performance - the potential harvest capability, the ambiguity, inconsistency, and fluctuations, the impacts to the stock over time, etc.

                                But hey, if charters are operating with 2C under allocation by 21% and 3A by 13%, then all is well and we can begin shifting the allocation charters took from the commercial sector back to them.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X