Proposal 296 Redefine sport fish gear
Salty
2009-02-03 02:04:30
Proposal 296 (Eric Jordan personal comment)
Proposal 296 -5 AAC 75.020 Sport fishing gear.
Amend the regulation to define allowable sport fishing gear for Southeast Alaska as follows:
(d) Sport fishing gear for finfish in Southeast Alaska will consist of a fishing rod that is a tapering often jointed rod equipped with a hand greip and line guides: upon which is mounted a hand powered reel used to deploy and retrieve the fishing line. A downrigger may be used in conjunction with a fishing rod but a downrigger may not be used in conjunction with a troll gurdy.
A downrigger is defined as a device designed to be used with a fishing rod to deploy a line to a selected depth and retrieve the downrigger line and weight. A hand powered, electric, hydraulic or power assisted downrigger is not legal sport fishing gear unless is is used in conjunction with a fishing rod and the fishing rod is used to retrieve the fish. Sport fishing gear shall be operated in a manner conforming to its basic design.
Here is why I am so concerned. Some of us trollers, including former SPC Board Chair, Bob Schell, worked very hard a number of years ago to allow sport fishing for salmon off of our commercially licensed trollers. For many of us it is the primary source of our home king salmon pack.
The particular language I am so concerned about is "....but a downrigger may not be used in conjunction with a troll gurdy." It seems to me that this language is not necessary to prohibit the use of power to retrieve sport hooked fish and is directed primarily at trollers using their gurdies as downriggers.
I suggest you consider the following alternate language that was adopted by the Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Committee after a great deal of discussion and work on the wording.
Proposal 296 -5 AAC 75.020 Sport fishing gear.
The use of power to retrieve sport hooked fish is prohibited.
Except as authorized by 5AAC 75.038.
(And make it less onerous for a handicapped person to obtain a permit under 5AAC 75.038.)
I actually thought quite a bit about the difference between "caught" and "hooked". I concluded it was better to be specific to hooked.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-07 15:50:15
Now what? The one thing the Board just did was to make it legal to test fish before the commercail opening with our gear anywhere we want as long as we use the legal number of hooks. The fish cops just got there hands cuffed by the BoF so the way we read it next time you are wondering what are those charter guys catching in the areas of high abundace get your sport hat on and go see.
Carol W
2009-03-07 16:50:45
This clearly shows how an uninformed board can make very poor decisions, talk about a loop hole to cheat this is more like a tunnel to drive a mack truck through.
JYDPDX
2009-03-07 18:27:34
How many hooks? Can we now use commercial gear for test fishing or do the hooks have to be on sport poles? Can anyone elaborate on this?
Thanks.
Salty
2009-03-07 18:45:42
Give me a break guys. They sell all kinds of binoculars and radio and cell phone scanners. A sport fish guide and client can not stealthily catch and release fish. They fight it with pole raised, they get a big ole net out. They hoist it up and take pictures even if they are going to release it. Then they have to talk to their buddies about it on the cell phone, on their "secret" not so secret radios, and then the clients and the guides brag about it all over town.
We don't need to "scout" anymore. We just tune in or even ask our guide friends what is going on. There is less "scouting" with gear in recent years than there used to be around here. Last year I watched a guide and client catch and release numerous kings the night before the July 1 opening. I was in the area because another guide told me about the fish he caught there the day before.
As I understand the rules now you can use your electric downrigger or gurdies to retrieve your sport hooked fish. In other words you don't need a release to the pole. Kind of like some of the old timers used to do with a spoon on the bottom of their hand gurdy downriggers. What is the fun in that? The whole thrill of sport fishing is the singing drag, the bouncing pole, feeling the fish run and fight.
When I used to "sport" fish there were some ethics. Using power to retrieve "sport" fish doesn't seem to fit the whole "fair chase" ethics of the Alaska sportsman. The whole notion of playing by the rules, ethics in business, politics, and sport fishing seems to be beyond the recent leadership psyche, particularly in Alaska.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-07 20:03:27
When I used to "sport" fish there were some ethics.
Exactly ! I use to have fun sport fishing it was never a "meat hunt" like it is now, it was "fun" but I liked to take a six pack out and drift around jigging for rockfish too. The heaviest line that I used was 12 lb not 80 lb and I landed several fish in derbys that were over 50 lbs. you just cant do it fast.
The CN's are trying to contest the black cod 2-4-8 and change it to 4-4-8 so their chients can take home a full possesion limit of eight not just there two or three day bag limit , if they can change it to 4-4-8 they will be able to havest 8 in two days without cheating.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-07 20:11:01
The BoF gave the sport fishman the go ahead to use pretty much use any gear they want, as long as they stay wihin the limits of hooks and the bag limits so the way we under stand it, it is ok to snap on a couple spreads and go sport fishing no pole required :evil: . Anywhere its open for sport and not to exceed the number of hooks per person
Salty
2009-03-08 03:32:24
Who are CN's?
Ocean Harvester
2009-03-08 06:29:15
Charter Nazi's?
yak2you2
2009-03-08 10:37:14
I can't stress this strongly enough. The all out war with the sport industry has got to stop. Not all sport fishermen are meat hunters, and not all charter operators are greedy pariahs that only show up for a couple of months in the summer to cream our state and split. The sport industry can, and does contribute greatly to our state and local economies, and, it also can be a very healthy outdoor activity that many of our fellow hardworking blue collars spend a lot of their hard earned money to enjoy. It just has to be managed better. It is our state and federal managers who are to blame.
There simply has to be a sustainable limitation placed on the numbers of charter boats, and there has to be a re-education of the sport industry as a whole away from the " full cooler mentality". We cannot win this fight as our usual fractionalized commercial user groups, we are going to have to pull together on this like never before. Furthermore, It's my believe that we still can't win without enlisting as allies the good charter operators and sports fishermen who can recognize that their own industry is in danger as well, and want to fix it. Their out there, I know some of them, they just can't fix it by their selves either.
Unity will never be found, nor will the cure, until we can get past the anger and roll our sleeves up though. The " Charter Nazi" stuff, and bumper stickers like the one on the car parked right in front of the main entrance to the Board of Fisheries meeting that read, " die charter scum", are a waste of time and energy, and simply prolong any chance of solving the problems.
Figure out who the greedy charter/lodge owners are and ignore them for now, focus on the ones who want to be saved, and start bringing them to meetings so we can discuss some cures. Shake hands with a gillnetter,or a longliner tomorrow, your on the same team.
I'm not trying to sound like the Dali lama, I just don't see how being angry or negative right now is helping. Just my thoughts.
Salty
2009-03-08 18:54:31
Wow, well said Yak. I agree 100% that we all need to work together to conserve and share our resources. As someone who knows what it is like to be labeled a pariah (I lived in a mill town as a very public forest conservationist for 20 years until the mill closed down. I still live here but the mill people have mostly left.) it doesn't do the collective community consciousness any good.
Nevertheless good people have to stand up to tyranny and greed when it raises its ugly head. The only reason we saved hundreds of watersheds in SE Alaska from the damaging effects of clear cut logging was by standing up to the tyranny of industrial logging. (There are still hundreds of streams, particularly on Prince of Wales, that have various degrees of salmon passage blockage from inadequate culverts or roading.) A major reason we have fairly healthy salmon runs and salmon fisheries around Alaska is because fisherman organized the drive for statehood in large part to throw the fish traps out. I could go on and on. I actually made a presentation to the Young Fisherman's Leadership Summit where I mentioned other examples.
The mission for those of us who care about conserving and sharing our fishery resources in SE Alaska right now is management of the guided sport fishery. Clear definition and enforcement of conservative bag and possession limits are essential to that mission. The Chair of the Sitka AC, Tad, laid it out clearly when he said the guided sector needs its own allocation and then needs to figure out internally how to live within it for halibut, salmon, etc. The King salmon and lingcod plans actually work pretty well in that regard.
The problem is that the present Board of Fish, and rightly so, recognized that it did not have the experience, the expertise, or the vision yet to wade in and start carving out the regulations to accomplish the mission. I am not sure how we get them up to the task during the next three years. I am not sure the political dynamics favor the kind of allocations we, as conservationists and commercial fishermen, would like to control the guided sector. But, there is an election for Governor before the next SE finfish meeting, likely some new appointments. The political dynamics could change significantly.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-09 01:00:29
Everyone here is right, we have spent the last five years at stakeholders meetings, council meetings, charter limited entry meetings, Board of Fish meetings, charter IFQ finance meetings, AC meetings, private charter meetings and who knows how many other commissoner/legislator/state etc. meeting trying to work with the charter fleet only to be right back to the begining. If anyone wants to jump in and tell us/them how to do it we are all waiting. Linda,Dan,Kathy and Dan Hull has tried for years to work out solutions but everyone of them have been shot down. If somebody wants to jump in feel free there are many more meetings coming soon. We got to one point of agreement and then we were told by the ex-comissioner that it was not the time, we had a limited entry program but that wouldn't work because they aren't the fishermen. We had a program like the big game board design for sport fish, they beat that down. We are at a loss, we want to preseve fish for the future generations to have a few to catch and eat, but at this rate it is not looking good. Commercial fisherman do not have a right to the resource only a "privilege to harvest" the recreational sector has taken the words public resource and twisted it. There are over 950 registered charter operators in Southeast and 75 unguided lodges. They are running at well under 50% capacity, we can only hope the economy does play a large role in the next few years for the sake of the fish and in the hopes somebody with the power to solve this steps in before it is too late. Sportfish has a mission statement to promote Alaska's fishing, the one thing we havent found is how to slow the growth to sustainable levels.
Salty
2009-03-09 01:20:57
Right on. But Ed, "Slow the growth to sustainable levels."?? I think you and I both agree the guided and unguided lodges have grown well beyond sustainable levels in SE unless the bag limits are greatly reduced or the commercial sector is all but eliminated like they are accomplishing in BC.
After the last week of BOF meetings I appreciate what you warriors do even more. I have put in enough time in fisheries politics to know when people are making a difference. You are, but the frustrating thing is that the difference is just holding our own or only losing ground slower than we would be without your efforts. Hard to feel real good about your efforts in that case even though it is probably even more important than when you are winning.
As for Yak's comment about CN's. I don't ever say that anymore, if I ever did. I remember referring to the Reaganites in the early 80's as fascists at a public meeting and remember the repercussions of that comment. I also called the Japanese "liars" as part of a more colorful statement bringing up some unfortunate moments in the history of Japanese/USA relations to make a point about high seas salmon interceptions. I bring these examples up to point out that while I am joining Yak in suggesting we don't refer to SE guides as CN's my own past record of unfortunate, inappropriate comments is regrettable.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-09 02:57:41
If you look I put CN short for Charter Nusance some other post went the other way.
I agree we will not go there. The biggest problem facing us is how to have anything left in the next few years while the problem is being fixed. We have been told over and over that slowing or stopping access is politicaly incorrect at this time and we should wait. Wait for what? and for how much longer?
Say we move all fish to the 50% 50 % split that the recreational fisheries is demanding, then in a few years it will be 75% 25%,
then what will it be in time? When Bob Penny testified to the council and stated that he wanted a 25% Recreational
75% commercial for halibut we should have jumped on it right then. Demand reduction is what we are being told now up to 50% down in catch. What does this mean for the 09 season? Only 35,000 kings? Only 1,200,000 lbs of halibut? I have serious concerns of what this means to myself and
friends that have 0 quota left and just want a fish to eat in the future. Political management has killed fishing up and down the west coast Canadian DFO just announced a one fish limit two in total possesion.
How do we stop or curtail it here before it's too late? Nobody had a problem with a small charter fleet when they just bumped up to the commercial underage, but now they have grown to industrial size there is only one buffer between overfishing and sustanablity and that is us (personal use, commercial and subsistance) figuring out a balance will be a huge undertaking by who?
Salty
2009-03-09 03:36:43
Ideally you have a Governor and Legislature that are paying attention to the needs of their constituents and appointing people to the various Boards and Councils and Department positions who will be working out these problems.
Unfortunately we have a Governor who is pandering to a national constituency in the delusion that somehow she could be President. We have a legislature, those that aren't serving time for corruption, awaiting trial or indictment, who are handcuffed by a limited session, huge financial problems, and an ever declining commercial and subsistence constituency. Our congressional delegation has been decimated by the loss of our icon, Stevens, due to corruption, the pending indictment of our sole Congressman, and a "Senior" Senator who somehow thinks her future is with Republicans like Orin Hatch rather than with moderates like the Maine Senators, or with the four other women Senators from the West Coast.
The political dynamics for solving these problems is not good right now.
On the other hand, the geopolitical dynamics are shaping up pretty well for commercial small boat fishermen producing high quality wild fish protein from MSC certified sustainable fisheries. It is something people need and want. The carbon guzzling guided sport fishery in SE Alaska does not work in any green future I have seen.
I have a good friend who has been running a successful guiding business in SE for the last 10 years. He does not have any bookings for 2010 yet. He is usually half full or more for that season a year and a half out by now. He just made the decision that this will be his last season guiding for a while. He will be commercial fishing in 2010.
I suspect the geopolitical landscape will change a great deal in the next few years and if we can survive the collateral damage to come from the collapse of the guided sport fishery in SE then we will be fine.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-09 04:52:11
Well it would be nice to think that our political leaders are, well leading, but on the contrary the dock they are walking us down is short. You must not of heard about the State is withdrawing as client for the MSC certification on salmon as of October 1st 2009. Just one more cheery thought for the night. :cry: It seems like they just don't care anymore
yak2you2
2009-03-09 06:46:33
I whole heartedly understand the frustrations with all the efforts that have gone forth to curtail the sport industry and been shot down. I think the biggest thing working against us with each board can be summed up in a word. ALLOCATION. Every effort that I've seen to cutail the sport industry comes from the commercial users, and is always shunned by the board for this reason. That is why I feel we need to get some of the charter skippers and lodges to join us. The word allocation goes away when it's the individual users of the sport industry themselves that come in and ask for restrictions on their own industry. Who can argue with that???
How about starting with a list from the state of every single registered charter boat in Alaska. Then, send every single operator a letter with a facts backed bar graph showing the growth rate vs. the catch ratio/number of clients per trip decline, and ask them to join in our efforts to stop it, before we all lose our productivity. Sure, 2/3's of the responses will go straight to the woodstove, but the other 1/3 are the ones were looking for. The next step would be to start an official organization and call it something like, charter operators for sustainability now. These then become the point men that we all rally behind.
Take a look at the battle zone that the Kenai Peninsula rivers have turned into. It's always the same, commercial vs. sport. Sport interests have lots of money, half of them ARE attorneys, while commercial is always struggling to raise legal defense funds. Every year the commercial guys seem to lose a little more.
I don't see any way for them, or any of us to win, unless we go convince the competition that even if commercial didn't exist, their time would be limited at the current growth rates. We have to convince them to start fighting for their own sustainability, rather than fighting us. In the case of the Kenai, it's down to where their going to have to start having daily raffles or something, because there's just to many fisherman.
Of the guys I know, at least half whole heartedly support limited charter access, 1 halibut bag limit, and 1 king per year limits. It didn't always used to be that way. Most used to say, " they'll go to Canada if we drop our limits." That myth has long since dried up, there is no where else to go. Now, with the current economic situation there is simply not enough clients to sustain them all, and their scared. Your right about this Eric, a lot of them will perish in the next couple of years, but your wrong to think that it will fix it's self in this manner. All the boats are built, plus a whole lot more all along the west coast. As soon as the economy turns around, they'll be back, if we don't use this opportunity to slam the door for good.
Some of the new guys that will miss the moratorium cut off will be the only guys weezing against limited entry, simply because they don't want to get a loan for their business like the rest of us have had to, but the old excuse that their just taxis doesn't cut it. Most of the west coast already has limited access, so the model already exists.
Next is cutting the bag limits back to what sport fishing limits should be. I have never understood why the charter guys fight in favor of bigger limits, it just means more work for them. Once again, the old traditional saying was always," they'll go to Canada if we cut them back." Those days are gone. There is no where left for the meat hunters to run off to. I think an all out information blitz is in order here too. Most of the sports fishermen who come up here are repeat customers. So, we go to the state again, get a list of every single guy who got a sports fishing license last year and start bombing them with the devastating effects of what overfishing is doing to their playground. Again, 3/4's of what you send will probably wind up in the bottom of a bird cage, but even if you get a quarter of them to start questioning the effects of over fishing, I think it would have a huge effect.
This is a different world we live in now-a-days, people are more sensitive. The rest of the world has over fished it's shark stocks, which is why we can't ever get a directed dogfishery, everybody thinks we've got the last couple of dogfish. The general populous has no idea how many there really are, they simply go by what the media tells them. Imagine what people would think if we got some undercover footage of some of the full cooler crew talking about selling their fish when they get home to pay for their trip. Once again, if we could get a group of responsible sportsfishermen together to spearhead baglimit reductions, it would eliminate us looking like were trying to reallocate fish in our direction.
My last thought is one of encouragement. The Yakutat A.C. tried 3 times to lower the Situk river sport Sockeye escapement. We got shot down every time, until we included the words that it was in the lodge's best interests, and it worked this time. So, it can be done, we just have to chin up and stay with it.
yak2you2
2009-03-09 11:13:15
I know it sounds goofy at first, but think about it. with all that's been in the news lately about all the west coast rivers crashing, now just might be the time. If we sent every single sports fisherman a postcard,,, well, imagine yourself an avid outdoorsman and sportsfishing enthusiast, and you get a picture of the Kenai river in full swing. Shoulder to shoulder, as far as the eye can see... and this is what it says; "Not all rivers and bays are like this in Alaska, but their heading there. If you were in this picture your chances were very small of ever catching a fish. Your chances would be quite high though of being hit in the face with tip of someone's rod, or being cussed out in a language you don't understand. Please, help us keep Alaska's sportfisheries sustainable, for everyone's enjoyment, now and for future generations."
Throw in some over the top numbers of Halibut and salmon sport overages that are becoming the norm., and it would HAVE to frighten some of them into signing up to go ask for tighter restrictions.
My thought is; the state makes a lot of money off of large numbers of these guys . They sell them licenses, issue them tickets, king salmon stamps, etc., etc.,, to them sportfisherman are a cash cow. I don't think you'll see much change, until the cows start complaining.
yak2you2
2009-03-10 07:30:55
Thats the friendly way. Then there's the not so friendly way. You call for a meeting and you tell the State, NMFS, and the charter operators, "listen, you either stop this nonsense right now, or we will. You want to find out who really owns and runs the towns of S.E. Alaska? You may get to make some of the rules, but you don't have all the power. If we don't see limited entry and a sustainable harvest level maintained by the charter industry this year, then we the communities of S.E. alaska will have no choice but to implement whatever forms of taxation we need to in order to curtail the guided sport fishing industry down to a manageable level. This means communities implementing sliding scale fish box taxes where possible, Bouroughs and classified cities implementing or raising bed and sales taxes, head taxes, taxes to walk down our docks and sidewalks, and whatever else we can think of. Make no mistake, there will be no attempt to conceal the purpose of these taxes, this will be an effort to make it expensive enough to force enough of the clients to avoid coming, until a level of sustainability has been reached. This is not a measure that we would choose to use, but you have left us little choice. Everyone, including you can see that the charter fleet growth has gotten out of hand and threatens the livelihoods of the commercial , subsistence, and charter industries, and, ultimately if left unchecked will threaten the various species of wild Alaskan fish that have thrived here for thousands of years. Every single year the guided sport fishery has gone over it's agreed upon Guideline Harvest level of Halibut, and you have done nothing about it. We as communities and fisheries organizations have tried at all different levels to get some kind of managed sustainability of saltwater sport harvests of our various salmon species, and you've done nothing about this either. Every year we watch helplessly as exponentially larger numbers of fishboxes full of our salmon our being flown out of our communities with no foreseeable end to the growth rate. We have serious concerns that if left unchecked we may soon find ourselves without even enough fish left to eat. Please, the time has long past come for a cap on the number of charter boats operating in S.E.Alaska, a moratorium going back a few years should be used to drop the number of allowable permits to a sustainable level. Yearly salmon guideline harvest levels need to be implemented for ALL salmon species. In some cases baglimits will need to be reduced. Most importantly, the overall attitude of sportfishing needs to change from being about filling the cooler to one of enjoying the wilds of Alaska, and playing a fish with a sport rod. The ball is in your court, so to speak. These are changes that you must implement yourselves, or we who are still the majority of S.E. Alaska's citizens, spread throughout all of S.E.'s communities will be forced to."
Trust me, every town in Southeast is just waiting for a letter calling them to join in on this. You get a coalition of communities together, and you use the power to tax, ridiculously if need be, as your hammer. they'll come to the table.
There are no downsides. I don't care what anyone says, there is NOWHERE else for them to go. Remember when we voted as a state to implement the head tax on cruise passengers? The propaganda was," they'll just go on a vacation somewhere else." Guess what, they're still coming. Where's a sportfisherman going to go? Disneyland??? We've got it, they want it. It's time for us to truly recognize that.
yak2you2
2009-03-10 09:14:27
I highly doubt that any actual taxation changes would ever even have to happen. Here's why. Let's say that doubling taxes on the sport industry was needed in order to force half of them to not show up. The communities take would remain the same, but half as many out of state sport licenses being sold, and half as many charter clients in a year when their already down by half, is going to get some immediate attention.
All it would take to start it would be just one little town's city council to ratify a resolution to this affect and send it to every other S.E. community and fishermen's organizations, native organizations, and even some of the charter operators, asking for a letter of support, once you have the support, you set the hook.
the key would be to have a unified front, and uniformed taxation increase plan, so nowhere would look a little cheaper than anywhere else.
In the long run, it would be for the charter industry's own good, and everyone else's, I believe the vast majority of S.E.'s citizens recognize this. Even the meat hunters can come away unscathed. Most of them don't have the foresight to become known shippers over at the airlines, so they have to pay excess baggage fees to ship all that fish home. Instead, they could come up here and actually relax, buy however much fish they want from the commercial guys, and we will airfreight it to them the right way. So it costs their buddies a few dollars more per lb., big deal!
I honestly believe this could fix the problem.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-10 14:20:34
yak2you2
2009-03-10 15:55:33
well, sounds like it's time to go straight into option "B" then. The only hitch is, it will just be another failed Community coalition, co-op, union, organization, like so many of the rest of our efforts if we don't unanimously support it.
The other trick will be structuring the taxation to have the desired affect on the right sport fishermen. Meaning, you don't want to raise the bed taxes on all hotels and lodges, or affect "clean sport fisheries" like the Steelhead guys. It would have to be structured to affect just the Charter clients. Like a special halibut tax, or fishbox tax, or maybe a special fuel surcharge. Somehow, you'd have to isolate out the ones you want, take a little legal research, but I'm sure it can be done.
Ultimately, it really is the only source of power over our fisheries that we as communities have.
Salty
2009-03-10 16:59:03
Yak,
We have a fishbox tax in Sitka but somehow they are evading it in large part.
yak2you2
2009-03-10 17:05:39
I haven't really thought about this idea for a while, but remember, boroughs and cities can make laws too. Again, it would take a little legal research, but the obvious spot to catch them is where they all have to go. To a license vendor. Right when they go to get signed up, you stick em with say a city of Sitka halibut stamp or coho stamp.
even if their lodge is the vendor, it will still be the law in that borough that you have a stamp, so they'll be in violation.
actionalaska
2009-03-10 17:27:20
it's refreshing to hear some invested commercial guys talk about joining forces with concerned charter operators. I'm a life long SE Alaskan, I've chartered for the past eleven years and added handtrolling in 2001 to supplement my charter income.(which by the way I like doing so much more than chartering) In my lifetime on the ocean I've seen the decline of the resource, I also see every year a flock of people show up before the tourists, they bring with them fancy pickup trucks that either have commercial gear, or sport rods stacked up high in the truck bed. The problem is the same, none of them have alaskan license plates. They bring in a bunch of their equipment and goods from out of town, put a strain on the local infrastructure, ie water, sewer, ems, garbage, power generation etc., make a living on the resource, and then leave. That situation is wrong. Every local sport fishing guide that I know is either a strong supporter of or not opposed to limited entry into the charter fishery. I am a fierce advocate for limited entry into the charter industry, and I think that it's the only way to be sustainable. I also have quite a few ideas about rule changes to the charter industry that in the interim before a solution on limited entry, would make the bag limits more liberal overall, but reduce the stress on the resource. The main one being the catch and release of salmon. I would rather see a fraction of the Kings that die due to wounds incurred by catching and releasing tacked onto an allowable catch for charter operators, this would liberate the bag limit. But to make up for the additional bag limit of the fish that are getting returned dead anyway, the rules changed to limit the use of bait, and make full retention of any salmon caught mandatory up to catch limits, even if it is smaller than 28". A dead king is still a dead king to the ocean wether it ends up in a cooler, or floats dead to the ocean floor. Charter operators would not stay on a bite of sub-legals because the clients want big fish pictures, and if you must keep everything that comes onboard, that equals small amounts of fish, and small fish pictures. If mandatory retention was required, a boat that has 6 people on it and each of the people for the day must keep the first kings that come onboard, depending on limits, 6, or 12 or however many kings would be landed, end of story. I would much rather see that situation instead of catching and releasing two or three, or five or six or more, looking for the "BIG ONE", lets assume that about half will die, they have killed two or three that they release, plus the one that they finally keep and tag. This means that catching and releasing, plus keeping the one at the end, would lead to that boat killing many more than their daily bag limit. Once the science is analyzed, this would lead to overall a lower take on Kings, compared to the status quo, so it would allow for more kings to be kept than are currently allowed. Also, once an angler has reached their limit of any species of salmon, the bait MUST come off the hook when salmon fishing, bait leads to swallowed hooks if the angler doesn't know when to set the hook. It also wouldn't hurt to take the barbs off after a limit of any species of salmon has been reached. Of course science would have to set the bag limits, to whatever they end up being, and maybe there isn't any room for increased bag limits at all, but the catch and intentional release of wounded fish must stop in my opinion. As for bottom fish, it's so easy to greatly reduce the rockfish by catch when sportfishing, STOP FISHING FOR THEM. It's no secret how to really get them to bite. If lead headed jigs with scampi tails were required to be pulled out of the water after the rockfish limit was reached, and a minimum size of circle hook needed to be used all the time as well, the rockfish by catch would greatly be reduced. I also know that it is common for many guides to put down a salmon rod with weight and a salmon leader with herring on it when bottom fishing. This almost always catches a rockfish. If a mandatory full retention of all rockfish was required, coupled with daily bag limits that end the anglers fishing day, the angler puts down the fishing rod, and picks up the binoculars, problem solved. Guides would have incentive to keep the rockfish off of the hook, and if it's just not possible, then the angler needs to learn how to be happy with what he's caught for that day, and take in the experience. I know how to limit my rockfish catch, it's much harder to do around Kruzoff Island compared to elsewhere, but it is possible to minimize the catch, mainly by selecting gear that rockfish have a hard time getting onto. And while I'm on the bottom fish rant, ALL sport fishermen, and subsistence users and any halibut users should have to have a minimum size limit of 32", PERIOD. Keeping the small ones is ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Guided anglers should be able to keep at least one halibut a day, science can set the per year bag limit, and with abundance increase, daily bag limits should go up as well, within reason, but all fish kept regardless of abundance, should be between 32" and 59", the upper limit being about 100lbs. Fish bigger than that can be measured in the water by length, and all guides can have small numbered plastic tags that can be inserted in the fish back by the tail. A picture of the fish in the water, then a picture of the angler can be put on a website with date, location, estimated size, fight time, depth etc, that big breeder is free to go on making more baby halibut to catch in future years, the angler has plenty of good eating fish to take home, and an online trophy room to brag to all the buddies back home about the big one. This would also give extremely valuable info about migration patterns. These things just seem so simple to me, but regardless how the management is changed and moulded to better fit the current situation, something needs to be done, and it starts with limited entry into the charter fishery. I would be very interested in getting together with anyone interested and start talking about what needs to be done to drive the industry towards responsibility, and sustainability.
Cody Loomis actionalaska@yahoo.com
Salty
2009-03-10 20:41:59
Great ideas Cody.
Somehow I think we have this debate all wrong though. Kind of like when I went to college decades ago and school officials were debating the specifics of paddling students. Or back in the 60's when people were debating the specifics of segregation rules in the South. Or when we used to debate the details of regulating and enforcing bottom trawling. Or how to manage the salmon trap industry. Or when I was an active forest conservationist debating the size of leave strips when the problem was industrialized clear cut logging. The problem in all these cases was the activity not the details of how they are prosecuted.
The whole idea of spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of gallons of fuel to "play" with fish that comes out of someone elses livelihood, subsistence, or the escapement is just wrong. In an increasingly carbon footprint conscious world how does this activity make any ethical sense? I am not sure the answer lies in trying to regulate the details of the SW guided sport fishery in SE Alaska. I think we just help it die with an ever increasing hostility toward it, education about the adverse effects, and a zero tolerance policy regarding expansion. Worked in all the other examples above.
My thinking is that guided saltwater sport fishing in SE Alaska as it has been developed and sold over the last 20 years is a dying duck. Our job as concerned residents is to minimize the collateral damage to our communities, the other fishing sectors, and the resources as this industry dies or hopefully metamorphoses into something more carbon, resource, and other sector friendly. Like carbon guzzling SUV's, industrial scale clear cut logging in SE Alaska, and investments with Bernard Madoff, saltwater sport fishing in SE Alaska for hundreds of pounds of filets a trip is a failed artifact of the past.
I think you and Casey are proposing solutions, the metamorphoses, and I think that is great and you both have very good ideas. But, don't you think before solutions we have to fully and publicly acknowledge the problem? Something like:
"Saltwater guided sportfishing in SE Alaska for hundreds of pounds of halibut, salmon, lingcod, rockfish, and blackcod fillets per client is an unsustainable, resource depleting, community disrupting, carbon guzzling behavior that has to end."
The mission for those of us who care about these resources, our livelihoods, and our communities is to minimize the collateral damage from ending of this behavior.
The mission for the guides and their clients is to try and figure out how to metamorphose their businesses and recreation into a more sustainable, more neighborly, less carbon consuming, less resource consuming activity. I don't know how they can do it. I think the Boat Company here in Sitka might be a good model.
But, the guides and clients are not publicly trying to metamorphose yet. I understand they are suing the NMFS to keep catching two halibut in face of great opposition from other users and the halibut commission. I understand they are petitioning the Board of Fisheries for more blackcod than 8. They successfully convinced the Board of Fisheries to let them have at least one Chinook per day regardless of the quota. Looks to me like they are struggling hard to maintain the status quo.
Since I lived through the segregation battles, the debates over paddling students, the campaigns against bottom trawling, and the battles over industrialized clear cut logging I have a pretty good idea how the battle over salt water guided sport fishing in SE for hundreds of pounds of fillets a trip will eventually turn out. Unfortunately it will be painful for all for a long time and the scars will remain for lifetimes and beyond. While segregation in the USA is officially dead racism persists. Long after guided sport fishing in SE for hundreds of pounds of fillets a trip is dead the resentments toward the guided industry for decimating local populations of halibut and rockfish, attempting political reallocation of salmon, halibut, and rockfish, and otherwise being poor marine resource stewards will persist.
Ocean Gold
2009-03-14 16:03:06
Petition was not granted. Remember the charter fleet is just a bunch of cab drivers, in their own words.
Steve
2009-03-15 02:07:25
I have been following this thread for some time now and was encouraged to read the March 8th post by Yak2you2:
In my opinion, it is morally wrong and counter-productive to vilify the charter fishing industry. Treating all charter business owners and charter fishermen like pariahs serves only to push many of them to more extreme points of view. The commercial fishermen’s' anger and frustration should be focused on the politicians, and the fisheries management organizations, whose responsibility it is to look after the public interest. It has been legal to get into the charter fishing business and it is only rational to try to grow one's own business; it's up to government to manage that growth.
I know for a fact that there are those in the charter business who are sympathetic to the commercial fishing point of view and are willing to accept reduced catches to insure conservation of our shared public resource.
I know this because I am one...and there are others.
I have a rather conspicuous lodge in Pelican, AK and own several charter boats. I do not belong to ANY charter organization. I have publicly testified AGAINST last year's lawsuit (that was filed to stop the one halibut bag limit) by filing an affidavit for the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I will do so again this year. I belong to the Alaska Troller's Association and the Fishing Vessel Owners Association and have contributed to the Halibut Coalition every year since it's inception.
And yet...I am being called a Charter Nazi? Am I running an organized crime? Would I rather have my daughter in a whorehouse? What does that make my son, who works on our charter boats? This is not only counter-productive; it's insulting, mean spirited, and shameful.
I have trolled and/or longlined in Alaska every year since 1976. I BOUGHT most of my IFQs and used the proceeds from my commercial fishing operation to build my lodge and boats over these past 6 or 7 years. I now have an equal investment in halibut IFQ and my charter fishing business. I built my lodge when the price for troll king salmon was well under a dollar a pound; and I built it in a SE Alaska commercial fishing village that everyone thought was dying at the time (and now?). I thought I would diversify my income, help the town reach sustainability and bring my family together in the enterprise. I didn't expect any thanks, but I didn't expect my mooring lines to be cut, diesel fuel to be let out of my fuel tanks into the boat harbor, and my children and my guests to be insulted, either.
Nor did I realize that the inherent conflict of loyalties for those caught in the middle would be so painful.
I have been outspoken about my views with other sports fishing charter business owners, with my own clients, and with just about anyone who happens by my booth at a sportsman show and starts to rant about "greedy commercial fisherman!” Someone has recently put up a web page that disparages me to the sports fishing industry and invites potential guests to reconsider booking a trip at my lodge (see www.highlinerlodge.net or www.highlinerlodge.org or .biz).
I think Yak2you2 is correct, in that, there are those in the charter fishing business who would like to: de-emphasize bringing home large volumes of fish (discourage the meat hunters); accept some responsibility for conservation (a one halibut limit isn't so bad...I always say " don't you want your grandchildren to be able to catch some halibut in the future"); reduce the amount of effort in the charter fleet (limited entry or IFQs), see more accountability (monitoring, enforcement); and who feel bad that their commercial fishing neighbors in SE Alaska (and/or fellow US citizens from elsewhere) have had to bear the burden of conservation alone (they have suffered over a 50% reduction in their IFQs over the past 3 years).
There are also those on both sides... whose motives are very questionable.
Thank you Yak2you2, for pointing out that not all those in the charter industry are alike. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it seems the battle lines have been drawn, and through propaganda and intimidation, neither side in this argument is allowed to see, or speak, the point of view of the other.
I don't agree with everything you said, but...
From Wikipedia: "An often cited quote that describes the principle of freedom of speech comes from Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often mis-attributed to Voltaire) 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'."
Sincerely,
Steve D.
tacorajim
2009-03-17 01:32:29
It might be helpful for Steve to offer this disclaimer. “I have a right to defend myself as an opportunist!”
You might start by saying you first came to Pelican as a non-resident from Vancouver with eyes wide open. And years later, as a teacher you filed for a seat on Pelican’s City Council. The election was challenged and overturned by a judge. Yet your write-in opponent let you slide.
Over the years you rose above the local native population’s agenda, mainly the preservation of Pelican Cold Storage and the future of commercial fishing out of an historic village ‘Closest to the Fish’. What little is left of Pelican’s once vibrant economy is the direct result of opportunism on your part as a local leader. But you are astraddle the top of your totem pole. Big lodge overlooking the remnants of a once profitable commercial fleet. Liquor license
You had it both ways. You began commercial fishing, went into chartering, took advantage wherever you could to acquire depressed properties. And now you are a big frog in a small pond burping for political sympathy from those opposed to your agenda. Boo hoo.
yak2you2
2009-03-17 14:58:23
Wow Jim!! I won't comment on the political nature of your message, not my business, but I do have to tell you, that is some seriously descriptive writing dude, very impressive.
tacorajim
2009-03-17 19:58:44
Thank you Casey. Freedom of speech is so
Salty
2009-03-17 22:47:27
I would say that tacorajim's Monday post on this thread qualified as an epistolary comment.
yak2you2
2009-03-17 23:03:26
Ok Salty,
save me the trip to Wikepedia, what does epistolary mean??
tacorajim
2009-03-17 23:16:11
You got me, Salty. But if you notice, Steve signed his letter? His missive? My response answers his epistle in similar form. Am I legal?
Salty
2009-03-18 10:27:00
epistolary
PRONUNCIATION:
(i-PIS-tuh-ler-ee)
MEANING:
adjective:
1. Of or relating to letters.
2. Composed of letters (as a literary work).
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin epistola (letter), from Greek epistole (something sent), from epi- (upon, over, on) + stellein (to send). Ultimately from the Indo-European root stel- (to put or stand) that is also the source of stallion, stilt, install, gestalt, stout, and pedestal.
USAGE:
"Case in point: Griffin & Sabine, Nick Bantock's epistolary novels told entirely through extravagantly illustrated postcards and letters tucked into envelopes contained in the book."
Jennie Yabroff; Love on the Blocks; Newsweek (New York); Mar 2, 2009.
Steve
2009-03-20 20:02:04
You might start by saying you first came to Pelican as a non-resident from Vancouver with eyes wide open. And years later, as a teacher you filed for a seat on Pelican’s City Council. The election was challenged and overturned by a judge. Yet your write-in opponent let you slide.
Over the years you rose above the local native population’s agenda, mainly the preservation of Pelican Cold Storage and the future of commercial fishing out of an historic village ‘Closest to the Fish’. What little is left of Pelican’s once vibrant economy is the direct result of opportunism on your part as a local leader. But you are astraddle the top of your totem pole. Big lodge overlooking the remnants of a once profitable commercial fleet. Liquor license
You had it both ways. You began commercial fishing, went into chartering, took advantage wherever you could to acquire depressed properties. And now you are a big frog in a small pond burping for political sympathy from those opposed to your agenda. Boo hoo.
Tacorajim,
Your above post might make a fine premise for a novel, but I don't think that's what you have in mind. Apparently you are attempting to expose me as an "opportunist" (and a non-resident!) and in doing so, imply that the point of view that I expressed in my earlier post, is not worthy of consideration. (I notice you are from Illwaco? Does this mean your point of view is not worthy?)
You have not addressed any of the issues that I raised in my post. You have only made personal attacks on my character. If any, or all, of what you said about me is true: does it follow, that my ideas are invalid?
I don't pretend to know you. You seem to think you know me. Have we ever met? Have we ever had a conversation?
For your edification: I moved to Pelican in 1981 with my family from Portland, OR. I was never a teacher. I was a troller and longliner. I bought my home in Pelican in 1982. I ran unopposed and was elected to Pelican City Council in 1983. I was never involved in a disputed election. My former wife & I constructed a building next to our home and put in a coin-op laundry, Pelican's first bed & breakfast, a one bedroom apartment. We brought Wings of Alaska to Pelican to compete with Channel Flying. We ran the Wings ticket office from our new building. I was the wrestling coach (we had a 2nd & 3rd place finish at the state meet...competing against every large school in AK). My two sons went to school in Pelican. My former wife was the magistrate. In 1988 we left Pelican for Juneau, then Anchorage. In 1991, I moved back to Portland OR.
We tried to sell our property in Pelican at half ($120K) the tax assesed value ($235k) for 8 years. For the next 2 years it was offered for sale at less than $50k! Pelican's population dropped from 350 to 100. By 2001, almost every property in town was for sale (including the Cold storage).
What happened to Pelican?
Tacorajim, you're a troller, you should know. The price of troll salmon dropped over time by 90% (adjusted for inflation). I think the ex-vessel price was 60-80 cents a pound for large red king salmon. I started out hand-trolling in 1976 for $2.50 a pound! The other thing that brought Pelican down was the rise of the fresh market for salmon and halibut. "Closest to the Fish" ? Yes! Farthest from the markets? Unfortunetly for Pelican Seafoods, yes.
The plant was closed down by the Japanese in ~2000, closed down by Kake Tribal in ~2006, and closed down by Ed Bahrt in 2008.
I sold fish to all three owners of PSI. I never wanted the plant to close. Both of my sons troll for salmon on their own boats today. Don't you think I want to see them during the summer? I still troll and longline (a little) and I want to sell my fish in Pelican too.
I came back to Pelican in 2001 and started renovating my old property. In 2002, after being for sale for over two years, I bought the old Pelican Steambath & Wetgoods building. The former owner & I agreed on a price, I can only presume that he was glad to sell it. I bought the 3 little cabins ajacent to my home as well. They were for sale by Kake Tribal for over a year when I bought them. I own two other lots, which I bought last year where I store boats and stuff. I use all the real estate that I own. I don't hold any property fallow for speculation in Pelican, I am against that on principal. I want others to invest in Pelican and improve their properties. That can't happen if someone holds property for speculation.
We re-opened the WetGoods & Steambath (it had been closed for 2 years). We offered steam baths, liquor store services, office services, laundry service and showers to commercial fishermen. We rebult and enlarged the building and offered meals and accomadations to commercial fishermen. Next we offered accomadations to sports fishermen too. Next kayak & boat rentals. in 2004, charter boat operators asked if they could house their guests in our loge. And finally, I got my captain's license and we started to promote our own charters in 2006.
BTW, almost everyone in Pelican is in (or has been in) the charter business, or directly benefits from the charter business: The mayor (Dragon Fly Charters); the town mechanic and city council member (Chicobi Charters); the owner of the Wheel Watch Lodge & Lounge (Big Mick's Charters); and Lisianski Inlet Cafe (& Charters). And located just outside of town: Pelican Charters and Lisianski Wilderness lodge. It's my contention that charter fishing's contribution to the local economy actually saved this town from total collapse (this seems more logical than saying charter fishing, or anything I did, contributed to it's fall).
Am I an Opportunist?
opportunist |ˌäpərˈt(y)oōnist|
noun
a person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans : most burglaries are committed by casual opportunists.
adjective
opportunistic : the calculating and opportunist politician.
I don't think so. I'm in this for the long haul.
You can keep your rigid orthodoxy, bumper stickers, your snide remarks, and spread your fictions about people you don't like. I have a home in Sitka and Pelican. I will still be here.
Thank you for proving my point.
Steve Daniels
PS. Yak, I find it ironic that you choose to applaud the attack on someone who is reinforcing your argument. Why won't you question Tacorajim's politics? I thought that's what this forum is supposed to be about.
PSS. Salty, I was told you are a reasonable person. Why are you cheerleading a personal attack on me, instead of addressing the issues I have raised?
Is the social pressure to conform that great? Or are there other motives at play here?
Salty
2009-03-20 21:41:47
Steve,
I am not cheer leading here. I actually wrote a long note in reply to your note applauding your engagement on this site. Somehow it got lost in the inter space. I think I talked to you during the board meeting in Sitka and I think I watched your kids wrestle. You may know my great friend Mike Turner who coached Sitka wrestling for many years. He has been crewing with me part time the last couple of years and is great company.
I have been called a lot of things over the years, including some at this recent Regional Aquaculture Association meeting. I have never seen myself as especially "reasonable" because I am often passionate and outspoken about issues. I do like and respect a lot of different people and have had the opportunity over the years to help bring people, even charter and commercial fishermen, together to solve problems. These opportunities have come not so much because I am reasonable but because for some reason I really am interested and willing to engage with people who have very different values than I do.
The post that got lost related some of my experiences as a conservationist when it was not popular to be one in SE Alaska. I was never apologetic for my positions even though it made for some difficulties with my neighbors over the years. I don't expect the guides to be apologetic for their business either. I came to realize that choosing to be a conservationist meant people were going to be upset with me because my positions were a threat to their livelihood. It is the same for the guides now in SE Alaska. In the last hour I have an e-mail from our Sitka AC representative at the BOF meeting in Anchorage describing the heavy lobbying going on to increase the blackcod limits the BOF just passed here in Sitka.
Choosing to be a guide in SE Alaska these days means carrying a burden of hostility from commercial users, subsistence users, resident sport fishermen, conservationists, and community members upset with the group you have chosen to be part of. Not because of your character, you personally, or the nature of your business, but because of the behavior of the SE guides in resisting halibut limits, black cod limits, fighting for more rockfish, lingcod, and king salmon. Hopefully we can resolve these issues civilly.
In conclusion I greatly appreciate your thoughts and the toughness to read the posts on this site and share your thoughts. Of course I was not surprised to hear you were a wrestler. I am going to break away now and watch the NCAA Div I wrestling semifinals on ESPN.
yak2you2
2009-03-20 23:34:58
Steve,
I thank you for your consideration of my thoughts and comments in earlier posts, and I thank you for writing your open minded thoughts as well. I don't know you, or Jim, or anymore than a handful of folks from Pelican.
It occurs to me that there is a little more than generalization here, which is why I said, not my business. I simply commented that Tacorajim's comments were colorful. How am I to know if your not friends bantering about?
Stating that something is descriptive is not the same as condoning.
As I've said, where ever possible, users of each group who can put the tempers aside an workout the issues, should.
There are bound to still be plenty who can't.
Do I find the phrase "big frog in a small pond burping for sympathy," funny? Yes, but not because it was directed at you, or even your industry.
tacorajim
2009-03-21 00:20:51
Mommy? Is Steve still upset? Boo hoo. I was just flexing my creative writing skills.
Thank you, Mommy.
farmed fish eater
2009-08-01 00:57:38
It seems as if both user groups have reached the end of their ropes and have tied a knot to hang on to what is their's or so they think and as a commercial fisherman myself it is ironic to have to fight for our lively hoods. I do think the charter fleet is a bit meat hunter and a bit selfish, myself when I go sport fishing I am there to fish and enjoy the day relaxing, when I go comm. fish I am there to catch and bring home the bacon. Sport industry only has to leave the dock to get paid they don't ever count the days catch and calculate if they paid the fuel bill or if their kids are eating top ramen or steak, so I do believe they are a taxi with to many rights in a struggling industry and how far over was the sport allocation this year. But they want more we are out of rope on this matter what end of the rope will fray first. Scary to think that the State takes such a middle man position on this and lets what got this State to where it is fade out to a dim light and takes such considerations for the sport industry. And can anyone answer if the allocation is exceed this year is it taken from the next year and if so are they not running out of sport fish. All of the river counts are down from 20 years ago Calif. is no longer fishing ore. soon to follow should we really rely on the F&G to sort this out or try to find a better mediator on this. Just my thoughts don't take it serious, I probably have no idea what I am talking about I don't have a biologist degree like the state boys do.