Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Charter Harvest

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

  • #76
    funstick, In 1980 the commercial harvest was 1,196,600lbs and in 2012 for the first time it dropped to 1,173,500lbs only the first time the commercial harvest is lower then any ever recorded after the IFQ system was started. At the high point the commercial harvest was as high as 2,163,300lbs. At no time has the charter harvest ever been almost twice the amount ever recorded. It looks to me like the only user group that was given a pass to over harvest was commercial long liners so twist the numbers any way you want. The fact is that if long liners had been kept at the harvest level of harvest prior to IFQ the halibut stock would more then likely be still healthy. You show me where the charter harvest has ever been close to twice the 1980 harvest. I will not let you use a guess, show me true pounds. I used pounds from the IPHC for commercial harvest, Good luck because there are no hard numbers for charters.

    Comment


    • #77
      AKCAPT,

      As always, I appreciate your insight into the fishery and the perspective you offer to both sides. In the interest of preventing further flare-ups on the thread over the use of these numbers, I do think we have to point out some inconsistencies here, which dramatically understates the charter overharvest in one sentence, then overstates (by use of a different method) the number of pounds left on the table by charters in the next.

      "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 "

      Going from 18.3% of the total harvest to 21% in 2014 is NOT exceeding the catch limit by 2.7%, it is exceeding the limit by 15% in 2C and 22% in 3A--That is a dramatic difference from the 4.1% and 2.7% cited. In the next point you use the numbers the other way (which is the correct approach), citing under-harvest of 21% and 13%.

      I very much respect AKCAPT's input here, and I imagine this was just a simple oversight. However, the net effect is that we're severely downplaying the charter over harvest and making it look like a rounding error in one sentence, then using a totally different approach in the next (which happens to be the accurate method). Although I would venture it was accidental, that kind of manipulation of the numbers breeds a lot of confusion and frustration in these threads.

      I would also point out that the last 4 years are an outlier, particularly in 2C with regard to the charters. Why 4 years? If we went back 8 years the story would be very different. What is the appropriate time-frame to look back? It can't just be those years that favor one group over another.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
        funstick, In 1980 the commercial harvest was 1,196,600lbs and in 2012 for the first time it dropped to 1,173,500lbs only the first time the commercial harvest is lower then any ever recorded after the IFQ system was started. At the high point the commercial harvest was as high as 2,163,300lbs. At no time has the charter harvest ever been almost twice the amount ever recorded. It looks to me like the only user group that was given a pass to over harvest was commercial long liners so twist the numbers any way you want. The fact is that if long liners had been kept at the harvest level of harvest prior to IFQ the halibut stock would more then likely be still healthy. You show me where the charter harvest has ever been close to twice the 1980 harvest. I will not let you use a guess, show me true pounds. I used pounds from the IPHC for commercial harvest, Good luck because there are no hard numbers for charters.
        You are truly lost if you think charter harvest has not doubled since 1980.

        First, in the South Central Region (now called Area 3A) there were only a handful of charters operating in 1980. Second, ADFG statistics (Mills, M.J. 1980) show the entire sport fishery in the Region (which included charters and non-charter harvest combined) harvested only 39,796 halibut in 1980. This in comparison to almost 240,000 halibut in 2007 by charters alone - six times the 1980 combined harvest. Charter harvest didn't just double, it increased exponentially. In fact the charter catch was so small in 1980 that, like you say, hard data is scarce. So your argument falls on it's own face. And of course we all know in 2C (where this allocation mess stems) charters more than doubled their own harvest limits and more than doubled their prior catches.

        The commercial sector has towed the line with their limits, which unlike the charters, have been strictly enforced and accounted for in the following year. Clearly you don't understand that the halibut biomass does not stay constant, and that commercial harvest limits fluctuate accordingly, based on abundance - increasing and decreasing with the stock numbers. Your ideology of keeping the IFQ constant at 1980 levels lacks rationality - a reduced biomass would go over harvested and an increased biomass would go under harvested. And clearly you don't understand that charter harvests (with their over-harvests) were always taken off the top, before commercial harvest limits were calculated. This was how the commercial sector lost allocation to charters, and why we are in this mess.

        But of course, this is what you do MGH55...nonsensically blame the commercial fishery, this time desperately going back to 1980. You don't want to talk about charters exceeding their harvest limits again, even though that is the topic.

        Comment


        • #79
          Funstastic, There are no harvest pounds recorded just as you know. With no records how can we know what a true allocation should have been? First off I am a Commercial fisherman, and you are talking out your back side. I am not asking for more fish for any group! I just want the guessing to stop. If we start with a known poundage at the start of the charter season, and when it is reached it is over.

          Comment


          • #80
            My reference to percentages was intentional yes we were both over our allocation by 400,000 pounds, which is 22% or 4% of the combined catch limit both ways have been used in analysis. on the CSP matrix there it was suggested that 3.5% above or below the combined catch limit was the margin of error expected given the pre season management uncertainties and the SSC stated that those were not enough that the swing would be higher.

            The reason I looked at the last 4 years is that is exactly what the Council looked at. What happened eight or twenty five years ago is not what anyone in the management process is talking about. The facts are that in the last two years prior to the CSP, under the limited entry program our sector left 1 million pounds in the water by 3A charter operators is exactly the kind of underage that contrasts the last years overage of 400,00 pounds. The reason we look back two or four years instead of 8 or 25 years is that we do not know what happens to fish left in the water after that much time.

            The position funtastatic is taking is not one adopted by the long liner sector in regards to charter management. His position is so hard over and out in left field, I can't even respond to that. He reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers they found hiding in a cave ten years after world war two that thought the war was still going on....

            The bottom line is that the longline sector representatives, who have been vocally critical of the charter sector in the past, are accepting proposed cuts and methodology used to get them. you guys need to get off the internet and come to the meetings and see how things have changed, we have learned how the science is used and perceptions of our industry are changing because we understand the process and are working to achieve the conservation goals. They understand that managing a recreational charter fishery is different than the IFQ fishery. We will constrain our allocation in the next year or two. Under the CSP the overage of the 3A charter sector not longer comes out of the long liner's hide, so there is direct loss to the longline fishery. The war is over, not it is a matter of trying to figure out how to survive in the new landscape. I am done, heading to Hawaii to wash the Council meeting off in the ocean. I am leaving my computer at home and will not be back for a month, so I guess I get the last word! Happy Holidays
            www.graylightalaska.com
            http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
            (800)566-3912

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
              Funstastic, There are no harvest pounds recorded just as you know. With no records how can we know what a true allocation should have been? First off I am a Commercial fisherman, and you are talking out your back side. I am not asking for more fish for any group! I just want the guessing to stop. If we start with a known poundage at the start of the charter season, and when it is reached it is over.
              As I already posted, there are records of the number of fish caught (Mills, M.J. 1980). There are no records of charter poundage in 1980 because harvests were not recorded in pounds, charters were not differentiated from non-charters, and there were barely a handful of charters operating (their harvest was just included in regular sport fish harvest). If you want to use that as a baseline or comparison for charter allocation, then you are not being reasonable or rational. It will not work. Charters would only get a small fraction of the 39,796 sport caught halibut recorded in 1980, compared to the 240,000 they alone caught in 2007.

              Charter harvest limits (implemented in 2003) were in fact based on historical catch: the average of 1995-1999 charter harvests plus an additional 25% for growth. It's explained in the Federal Register. Charters simply exceeded that growth grossly, and created a new norm that we are stuck dealing with today, at the expense of other users.

              Charters already have a known poundage. It is not a guess - it is biologically and historically justified. That limit is published prior to each season. It doesn't matter to me how charters catch it or distribute it, or how they determine when it's met. The object (the topic here) is for them not to exceed that limit. I am not against divvying up charter allocation among charters, or a requirement to weigh each catch upon arriving back at port, or closing the charter season when the limit is reached. Those are details. I am against reestablishing what that limit should be, especially by using cherry-picked historical harvest - that will undoubtedly result in an yet another allocation shift.

              MGH55, I'm sorry you think I'm "talking out my backside." That just confirms how completely uninformed, irrational, and unreasonable your posts are. Good luck.

              Comment


              • #82
                Funstastic, No you are wrong. That is why the charter pounds needs to be set for each permit holder, and when they catch their allocation they are done. As for irrational and unreasonable look in the mirror! If you went to as many meetings as I did you should know that I am very well informed. Just because I do not bow down to your claims.

                Comment


                • #83
                  This was my post #66 so why do you think I want more.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                    ...why do you think I want more.
                    "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" - Post #19

                    "It looks like after years of under guessing the harvest of the charter fleet to justify the under allocation" - Post #31

                    "If there had been a true record of charter halibut in the past the charter allocation would have been much higher" - Post #35

                    "It looks to me like the only user group that was given a pass to over harvest was commercial longliners" - Post #76

                    MGH55, you can't set poundage for each seat or permit holder (your idea) with harvests that are a guess and allocations that are all wrong (your claims).

                    Good luck.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by AKCAPT View Post
                      The position funtastatic is taking is not one adopted by the long liner sector in regards to charter management. His position is so hard over and out in left field, I can't even respond to that. He reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers they found hiding in a cave ten years after world war two that thought the war was still going on....
                      That's ironic...charters are still exceeding their harvest limits like they were ten years ago, and as a result the allocation "war" is still going on. But of course you don't see it that way as long as other sectors are absorbing your overharvests - the "war" is over for you. Right. After all, we can just establish a "new norm" for charters.

                      AKCAPT, you are welcome to your opinion. But I'm not sure what position you think I'm taking, other than wanting to stop charter overharvests from hurting the fishery. Not sure why you think I must adopt the long liner sector's position, or your charter sector's position.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Back to post #66! You are wrong just like IFQ's for long liners when the allocation for that user group is set each IFQ holder knows how many pounds they can harvest. The same would be for the charter fleet each set would be a known % of the charter harvest allocation, and each charter knows how many seats they have. As we all can see you just want to vent, so go for it. I do feel the sport fishermen using charters to harvest their fish have gotten the shaft. I sold my charter because I could no longer give my clients the trip that they were after. I moved on to gillnetting in the Inlet. More fun for me, but wnat ever!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Good luck.

                          Comment

                          Footer Adsense

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X