Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who owns the Halibut

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gooch View Post
    I don't agree with the bycatch issue, nor do I agree with the giving of a public resource to private folks (IFQ's).
    And you know what. Fullbush and I agree with you on that. For starters, it adds another layer of cost to the products. Secondly, it cost way too many people their jobs and made people, who's only stake in the fisheries was monetary, filthy rich at the cost of the people who were doing the actual work of catching the fish. Third, as the fleet gets consolidated, and gets consolidated even more by the practice of leasing quota, it creates a monopoly. Without competition, there is little incentive for prices to drop. Fourth, the loan system that was set up to buy quota was rigged to favor the haves, not the have nots. But the system for buying quota lets the value for shares run amok on sheer speculation and hope. All in all it's a horrible system.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

    Comment


    • #17
      It's obvious

      The attached graph indicates who currently "owns" the resource. The comfish controlled managers have purposely lined their pockets with millions. Meanwhile the remainder of the state has lost millions in economic impact to the tune of $211M just between 2006 and 2008 and lost over 1200 jobs. I can't wait to see what happen when the recession hit in 2009 and what the LEP impact is going to have on jobs and economic impact. The select few of IFQ owners as a whole would have gained $9M extra annually even at 1995 catch levels just because of the price/lb increase. Instead however these select few were provided with an average annual increase of $53M annually because of the increase in catch limits. The question we must ask ourselves is did the added $53M/year provide any job growth? I seriously doubt it!!! Same old boats, same crews. Take a look at the NOAA economic reports and you'll see the losses on the recreational fisheries in Alaska. It's truly disgusting. America benefits the most when our resource provides the maximum amount of economic impact on the least amount of harvested resource. Providing a select few with large amounts of income utilizing 90% of the resource just so it can be turned into feterlizer is waste of commonly owned resource. I believe most Americans would like to see more jobs and economic benefit by utilizing the least amount of the resource and would careless if wasn't available in the store. If you want moose meat you have to hunt for it. Same principle would eventually apply for halibut. Most can't afford the $21.99/lb at Wasilla Carrs either so they'll now fish for it on their own or just go without.
      Attached Files
      North River, Alweld and Phantom Boats, Mercury Marine, FNM Marine Diesel
      Hamilton, Kodiak, Almarine Jet
      Prop, Impeller repair, Planar Heater Sales & Installation
      Visit www.akfrontierfab.com

      Comment


      • #18
        interesting how in that chart the commercial catch is plummeting while the "sport" catch continues to rise
        I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

        Comment


        • #19
          I own the halibut that are in my freezer. That's about all I know about it.

          -Mike
          Michael Strahan
          Site Owner
          Alaska Hunt Consultant
          1 (406) 662-1791

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by twodux View Post
            I don't know about you, but here in Washington State, I can buy halibut for 8.99/lb most of the time. When it gets higher, I don't buy it. If nobody buys it, the price drops. So if the price is high, it's because it's worth it to somebody.
            How is it one half the price there, that our stores charge in AK? That just doesn't make sense to me.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by FamilyMan View Post
              How is it one half the price there, that our stores charge in AK? That just doesn't make sense to me.
              New Sagaya in Anch is advertising whole (headed & gutted) chicken sized 'butts for $8.95 lb and they will fillet them for free if you ask... I'd bet 10th & M has a similar deal... /John

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
                interesting how in that chart the commercial catch is plummeting while the "sport" catch continues to rise
                Looks to me like the sport catch decreased from 06 to 09. Besides that, commercial lbs landed increased (skyrocketed) by 60,000lb from 77 to 02. 'Plummeted' as you call it by less than 30,000lbs from the peak of 60,000lbs.
                Sport barely broke 10,000lbs....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Old John View Post
                  New Sagaya in Anch is advertising whole (headed & gutted) chicken sized 'butts for $8.95 lb and they will fillet them for free if you ask... I'd bet 10th & M has a similar deal... /John
                  Hmmm, so when it's filleted and skinned you've lost 50% of what you paid for so your actually paying nearly $18lb. Quite the bargain!
                  North River, Alweld and Phantom Boats, Mercury Marine, FNM Marine Diesel
                  Hamilton, Kodiak, Almarine Jet
                  Prop, Impeller repair, Planar Heater Sales & Installation
                  Visit www.akfrontierfab.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Halibutgrove View Post
                    Hmmm, so when it's filleted and skinned you've lost 50% of what you paid for so your actually paying nearly $18lb. Quite the bargain!
                    I'm glad I read the responses first. I'd have said the exact same thing!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
                      interesting how in that chart the commercial catch is plummeting while the "sport" catch continues to rise
                      Really??? I'd say sport caught has been pretty stable. Maybe the commercial has plummeted because they were allowed to take over 300 million pounds extra out of the biomass since the start of the IFQ in 1995. They could have left the quota at 1995 levels and still saw an average growth in ex-vessel revenue of $10M/yr. Instead, they were allowed to plunder and given additional quota to the tune of an extra 20M pounds during some years and as a result have seen an average growth rate in revenue of $53M/year. In 2009 $240M was grossed between less then 2800 IFQ holders which equates to an average of $85,714 per IFQ holder. Not bad for a few days of fishing. Meanwhile the sport fisheries have lost $211M in sales and added value between 2006 and 2008 alone. We definitely need to support the pebble mine Ak_Monkey......it will be the only thing creating jobs in the future. Comfish isn't adding any and they're killing one of the biggest job builders.
                      North River, Alweld and Phantom Boats, Mercury Marine, FNM Marine Diesel
                      Hamilton, Kodiak, Almarine Jet
                      Prop, Impeller repair, Planar Heater Sales & Installation
                      Visit www.akfrontierfab.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        banish them to nondalton!!!
                        Semper Fi!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Halibutgrove View Post
                          Hmmm, so when it's filleted and skinned you've lost 50% of what you paid for so your actually paying nearly $18lb. Quite the bargain!
                          Compare apples to apples HB. After your charter trip, and you skin and bone your fish, now how much have you paid per lb. of charter caught fish?
                          An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                          - Jef Mallett

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Halibutgrove View Post
                            Hmmm, so when it's filleted and skinned you've lost 50% of what you paid for so your actually paying nearly $18lb. Quite the bargain!
                            Halibutgrove
                            you don't loose 50% of a halibut that is already headed and gutted.. You loose an "estimated" 50% when filleting a WHOLE halibut.../John

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by twodux View Post
                              Compare apples to apples HB. After your charter trip, and you skin and bone your fish, now how much have you paid per lb. of charter caught fish?
                              twodux, Carrs in Wasilla was recently charging $21.99/lb for a skinned halibut fillet. Someone catching two 20lb halibut would end up with over $400 worth of fillets at $20/lb rate. A charter is running around $300. People go fishing because they want the reasonable opportunity to catch their own and hope to take home enough to make the trip worthwhile. In the end they probably will spend way more for the fish when you add up the "Value Added" expenses for fuel, lodging, restaurants, vacuum pac, grocery store, lounges, ect.
                              Sadly, the recreational fishery in Alaska, according to NOAA's economic reports has lost $211M in sales and Value Added expenses between 2006 and 2008. I can't wait to see how much it's lost in 2011. Meanwhile the fewer then 3,000 IFQ holders are seeing record ex-vessel revenues even though they are catching less. The great news is the state is going to spend $12M to promote tourism in Alaska. Obviously they don't want them to do much when they get here.
                              North River, Alweld and Phantom Boats, Mercury Marine, FNM Marine Diesel
                              Hamilton, Kodiak, Almarine Jet
                              Prop, Impeller repair, Planar Heater Sales & Installation
                              Visit www.akfrontierfab.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I get a laugh when I pop in here and see the same ole folks starting the same ole threads with the same ole contentious spin against the commercial fishery...Still arguing this stuff over and over because nobody will listen to their deceptions, they can't face the facts, and sour grapes is a hard thing to move past....

                                kgpcr, you know well that we've discussed and answered your questions over and over. So is it that you don't like the answers, you don't understand them, or you just want to stir up trouble?...

                                Originally posted by kgpcr
                                It is my understanding that the halibut are owned by the people of the US. Is that true? If it is then how can they distribute the catch so unevenly?? Comfish gets a huge cut and the sportfishery that is made up of the people of the US who own the halibut get a very small fraction of the catch.
                                Established fishery laws determine fair and equitable allocation of halibut between user groups, not emotions or bias. No valid rationalization has ever been presented that halibut should be distributed "evenly" between sport and commercial, including your rationale.

                                Alaska's commercial fishery provides halibut to millions of U.S. citizens, compared to Alaska's sport fishery which can not. By law, the resource is to be used in the best interest of the people of the U.S., and that is achieved primarily through the commercial fishery, not the sportfishery. The fact is, the vast majority of U.S. citizens (all who own the halibut) do not, and can not, travel to Alaska and catch their own for dinner...They prefer to buy it in the store...Commercial fishermen provide that opportunity for them.

                                What's really laughable about your question is that, unlike commercial fishing limits, there is no limit to what the sportfishery can harvest...Every U.S. citizen could harvest their daily bag limit each and every day of the season, every year, if they wanted. I know I fill my freezer in just a few trips, and I could fill 100 more freezers if I wanted. So your point is really lost in the fact U.S. citizens aren't maximizing the opportunity to sportfish the halibut that they already have...nothing to do with the commercial fishery.

                                The real question is why is such a large portion of Alaska's halibut going to a small niche charter industry and their small number of niche clients, and why do they not pay a resource use tax and provide direct revenue to the State like other commercial fisheries?


                                Originally posted by kgpcr
                                Dont charter boats just provide access to the resource they already own?
                                No. Charters pursue, kill, and transport halibut in exchange for money. Under definition of law (posted for you over and over), that makes charters commercial...a commercial fishery.


                                Originally posted by Captain T
                                It's the golden rule, He who has the gold makes the rules. In this case commfish has the money.
                                Charter operators like Captain T would like you to think that hoping it will give him traction, but the truth is our fishery laws are long established through due process, public comment, a culmination of state and federal agencies and Congressional approval by your own elected Congress. The good news is you can change those laws when you become the majority and have a valid reason that benefits all U.S. citizens. Until then, scapegoating the issues away from your charter industry and on the back of the commercial fishery won't help your special interests.


                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                The attached graph indicates who currently "owns" the resource.
                                That graph, which you made yourself, exemplifies the misguided tacticts being used by some charter operators that are ruining our fisheries and driving wedges between user groups. Your ensuing rhetoric against the commercial fishery is nothing more than another re-word of your "ban commercial fishing" crusade.

                                First, you act like because of commercial fishermen, there aren't enough halibut for sportfishermen. When in fact any sportfishermen like myself can easily catch more halibut than he and his family can begin to consume. He can catch his limit every day of the season if he wants, with no limit on how much he packs in his freezer. Your graph depicts, not how much the sportfishery can catch or how much they are allocated, but how much they chose to catch.

                                Second, you are deceiving folks with your apples to oranges graph comparison. The sport fishery, made up largely of charters and recreational fishermen, is a community coastal fishery. For example, the sport fishery isn't exactly out in the Bearing Sea or other vast areas of Alaska waters where the commercial fishery takes place. So your graph is not representative nor does it explain the magnitude of the two different fisheries.

                                Third, your graph is out of context. The two fisheries are completely different...Different regulations, quotas, methods, means, areas, and so on. This addiction you have in comparing the two fisheries as if they should be on equal terms and treated the same is astounding. When sportfishermen and commercial charters begin having hard quotas, observers on board, fish for more than a few niche clients, and start paying landing taxes, etc. then maybe we can begin to compare the two. Again, your graph exemplifies how out-of-touch you are with the facts. I doubt you have ever commercial fished, or understand the fishery itself.


                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                The comfish controlled managers have purposely lined their pockets with millions.
                                The halibut resource, and any decisions thereof, are managed by federal agencies, under Congressional approval and our U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Even the lowest level of management is made up mostly of state and federal agencies, along with an apportionment of various user groups including sportfishermen and charters, due process, and public input...all which our laws clearly spell out. Your emotional accusations hold little merit.

                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                Meanwhile the remainder of the state has lost millions in economic impact to the tune of $211M just between 2006 and 2008 and lost over 1200 jobs. I can't wait to see what happen when the recession hit in 2009 and what the LEP impact is going to have on jobs and economic impact.
                                Again, the charter operators would like you to believe the halibut resource is better utilzed by them...of course. When really charter operators like Halibutgrove refuse to recognize what dependency on a limited resource, dependency on tourism, and dependency on economics mean. I guess he forgot it is called "fishing" for a reason. In fact, it was the charters themselves, with their unlimited harvests and uncontrolled numbers, that drove those economic expectations in the first place. And anytime we let economics, which Halibutgrove is so fond of, drive our resource management, we are in big trouble. Nothing, in law or in fate, guaranteed economic prosperity for the sportfishing industry. Sorry Halibutgrove. Maybe rather than whining, you should take up commercial fishing since you say it's so great...with all it's money and jobs, and so on.


                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                The select few of IFQ owners as a whole would have gained $9M extra annually even at 1995 catch levels just because of the price/lb increase. Instead however these select few were provided with an average annual increase of $53M annually because of the increase in catch limits.
                                An increase in price and a strong market is a good thing. The state receives more direct revenue from the direct tax it produces. Only someone upset that it wasn't their revenue would be sour grapes. And although your graph would try to imply that catch limits should stay at one level (1995), they don't. Catch limits do change and cycle according to various factors - from sport harvest to charter overharvest, to bycatch deductions to biological biomass data calculations to prior year's limits. The commercial halibut fishery has not exceeded it's catch limits...by law they can't. Although from what I can tell, your graph somehow indicates they exceed limits every year. However, the charter industry, particularly since 1995, consistently exceeded it's harvest levels and grew its revenue to no end. Your hypocrisy there is ridiculous Halibutgrove. Unlike the commercial fishery, charters don't even provide the state with direct resource tax revenue. The charters have created their own economic woes due to their own uncontrolled actions, all while taking allocation away from a viable commercial fishery and tarnishing the sportfishery in general.


                                Originally posted by Derby06
                                Looks to me like the sport catch decreased from 06 to 09. Besides that, commercial lbs landed increased (skyrocketed) by 60,000lb from 77 to 02. 'Plummeted' as you call it by less than 30,000lbs from the peak of 60,000lbs.
                                Sport barely broke 10,000lbs....
                                The big problem with your comparison is that you forget the sportfishery has no harvest limit....they can harvest as much as they want. So the sport numbers reflect the sport demand, not how much halibut was availabe to them. So sport harvest is what it is...whatever it is. I can put two 100 pounders in my freezer every day from February through December. On the other side, the commercial fishery is bound lawfully to specific harvest limits. Again, apples and oranges.


                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                I'd say sport caught has been pretty stable. Maybe the commercial has plummeted because they were allowed to take over 300 million pounds extra out of the biomass since the start of the IFQ in 1995.
                                Again, the sport harvest is not a reflection of allocation...a sportfishermen can take as much halibut as he wants. Your graph represents only what the sportfishermen elected to harvest. They could've harvested an unlimited amount more. And you obviously don't understand how catch limits are determined...they are not determined by 1995 limits...they are determined based on various biological, biomass, and harvest data which fluxuates and cycles from year to year. Sorry, but there is no hindsight or crystal ball used when setting catch limits, just justified, published rationale by fishery managers...It isn't always perfect.

                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                Comfish isn't adding any and they're killing one of the biggest job builders.
                                As depicted by your own graph, sportfishing hasn't growing much over the years. And if you want to assume the sportfishery is being killed, it is the charters, with their own unlimited overharvests and uncontrolled industry, who are killing the sportfishery. Look at the Kenai River...a sustained commercial fishery for decades and a river chocked full of record Kings. Now after the era of the charter/guide fishery, the fishery is devistated and the local economy is headed to the dump. The fact is, the commercial halibut fishery, regarless of the price of fish, continues to be regulated to havest less and less halibut. You ideology to the contrary only suits your own special interest where enough is never enough and taking more on the backs of others for a buck is all that matters.


                                Originally posted by Halibutgrove
                                People go fishing because they want the reasonable opportunity to catch their own and hope to take home enough to make the trip worthwhile.
                                Yep, I sportfish halibut for recreation, and because I like to eat it a few times a month. There is certainly ample opportunity, as catching them is easy. So I can't imagine any sportfisherman who knows how to put bait on his hook complaining that he doesn't have enough fish because of commercial fishermen. Although I could see sportfishermen complaining that their local coastal areas are being wiped out by hundreds of charters. That aside, according to your graph, the majority of people in the U.S. get their halibut from commercial fishermen. They want halibut, and apparantly don't believe their opportunity to catch their own is a trip worthwhile.

                                Have at it boys...I'm sure the anti-commercial fishing scapegoat sentiment you're about to post will bode well for your clients when the fish aren't biting.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X