Salty
2009-11-25 01:25:57
What does this mean, Ed?
It appears from the scuttlebutt I heard down here at Fish Expo that the Charter Halibut limit in SE should be more realistically set at one per year per non-resident.
Ocean Gold
2009-11-26 01:12:16
It means that the resource will be protected at least with the the one fish halibut per client being upheld as legal. In addition the Judge made it clear that she saw the GHL as an actual allocation and as the upper bound/cap and not just a meaningless number as the charter fleet tried to make it out as.
The preliminary 2009 harvest of halibut by the charter fleet in 2C was significantly over the GHL at 1.302Mlbs vs the GHL at 788,000lbs. Maybe the NPFMC and/or NMFS will implement additional management measures with the overage based on the lawsuit decision.
Halibut is a federal fishery and you can't distinguish between resident and non-resident fishermen.
It is expected that the moratorium will be in place for the 2010 season which will cut out a few additional vessels which will likely move over onto OUR salmon, and other state managed species.
actionalaska
2009-11-27 06:21:24
If you have any questions Regarding the halibut charter moratorium, contact Jane DiCosimo of the NPFMC. She is a wealth of knowledge and has been able to clearly and quickly answer any question that I have had about the moratorium. The last time I checked into the moratorium, there was a three tiered progressively restrictive management plan that would start at the least restrictive, and progress to more restrictive when needed based on harvest vs allocation in a five year length of time. Tier 1 least restrictive, tier 3 most restrictive. Tier 3 ends with closure of the halibut charter fishery to all charter halibut moratorium permit holders when the 5 year allocation has been met, no matter what year of the 5 year plan the harvest limit is met in. So it sounds to me like a very clear plan that has the charter operators held to a hard number of halibut to catch which is based on abundance and with conservation in mind. The thing that really gets my wheels turning, is why do the IFQ holders not scream like hell about the commercial bycatch of halibut that is more than double the entire state sport allocation. Specifically with the trawl fishery in the bering for pollock. I'm not downplaying the sport overage, I just think that the numbers don't lie, and there is a bigger evil being committed in the Pacific in regards to halibut. Halibut commercial bycatch isn't worth anything to anybody, at least in the sport sector the halibut caught generate a viable economy in the state.
John Murray
2009-11-27 20:11:14
Lawyer,lobbist and big moneid corporations.After kicking the foriegn fleets out of the north pacific. Who filled the void ?The same multi national corporations with U.S.titles.Oh don't forget the consolidation of the corps.Their reps are at every meeting,there money flows into politicians reelection campaigns.Their a tough nut to crack.Then you add the segment of the charter fleet always stirring the pot with law suits,allocation redirection.Maybe if the fleets can lay down their swords we could redirect our energies toward reducing things like halibut by-catch,habitat,salmon production,stronger communities.Making a bigger pie instead of fighting over the existing pie.Pie in the sky?Think what might be done if we worked together on halibut by-catch.The way thing are going we may never get there.Just look at SEAGO stance."prioritize sport fishing over commercial "sport fishing in Alaska is under attack".
Salty
2009-11-28 18:37:29
A little history is probably important here as I often hear guided sport and other interests wondering why commercial longline halibut fishermen have not done more to reduce halibut mortality in the trawl fisheries off of Alaska.
I have been involved in halibut longlining since I crewed with my father and grandfather when I was 13 years old in 1963. That experience led me to choose not to be involved in a big way in the fishery when I was running my own boat in the 80's and 90's. Nevertheless I have been involved in halibut conservation since I started serving on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council Advisory Panel in 1978. I grew up in Petersburg the son of a Norwegian halibut longliner so I know something of the history of halibut management in the North Pacific. I was a classmate of Sue Jensen, daughter of Gordon Jensen, who served on the Halibut Commission and the Alaska Board of Fisheries for many years. Gordon distinguished himself as a voice for conservation and a good deal of the credit for rebuilding the North Pacific halibut resource and Alaska salmon runs can be attributed to his steward minded leadership.
In the late 70's pacific longline halibut fishermen were battling to reduce halibut poaching and by-catch by foreign fleets fishing within 12 miles of the Alaska coast. I was involved in many battles on the Advisory Panel to the Council to protect the halibut savings grounds north of the Aluetians, get observer coverage on both foreign and domestic trawlers, and reduce outright halibut poaching by foreign fleets. It was not easy battles as the foreign fleets resisted observer coverage, the American trawlers did not want any observer coverage, and wanted to trawl in the halibut nursery grounds closed to the foreign fleets. We won some of those battles and lost others.
In the 90's I worked for the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and one of our campaigns was to "Take the trawls off the bottom" in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. I was at the Untied Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) meeting representing the Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association when UFA voted unanimously to support prohibiting bottom trawling in the Bering Sea Pollock fishery. With UFA, marine conservation, and many other groups supporting, the Council passed that prohibition and it has no doubt saved millions of halibut over the years.
Linda Behnken, just recognized last week by National Fisherman Magazine as one of their "Highliners", led a campaign in the late 90's to prohibit groundfish trawling east of 140 degrees (South of Yakutat) in Federal Waters (outside of 3 miles). This prohibition passed the Council and has been in effect for the last 10 or so years. In the late 90's the Alaska Marine Conservation Council empowered me to help get a companion prohibition on groundfish trawling through the Alaska Board of Fisheries in the State waters of SE Alaska. These prohibitions have no doubt saved tens of thousands of halibut.
Thus, the record of commercial fishermen and marine conservationists in working and succeeding to save halibut from trawl by-catch is clear. There are also state water prohibitions to bottom trawling around Kodiak and SW Alaska that we worked hard to get through the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Time for the sport fish interests to lead another campaign to reduce by-catch instead of resisting efforts to live within conservation goals mandated by a diminishing resource.
actionalaska
2009-12-03 18:20:10
I think that you misunderstood my intentions Salty. I am not trying to downplay the past efforts of coservation activists in the commercial fishing industry. Nor am I trying to shove the overages of the charter fleet under the rug. My hat is off to those that saw the overutilization of the halibut stocks and decided to take action. That action produced real results and whether they know it or not, anyone who takes a halibut out of the ocean for a livelihood owes those involved a great thanks. The issue that really spikes my interest, is that some individuals in commercial fishing, take every opportunity to point out the downfalls of charter operators and use the actions of some charter operators to condemn all people engaged in that fishery. Some of those individuals scream like hell about the charter operators catching too many halibut and ruining the resource. This causes a situation where finger pointing is socially approved of, and people end up looking down their noses at each other, instead of sharing information, and providing a atmosphere where people are willing to be educated about an issue. I think that you are guilty of this very thing. "Time for the sport fish interests to lead another campaign to reduce by-catch instead of resisting efforts to live within conservation goals mandated by a diminishing resource." This is your last statement from your last post on this issue. If you look at ocean golds first post that started this thread, I believe that Ocean Gold stated there were 17 plaintiffs listed on the charter halibut lawsuit. I know for a fact that I was not one of those 17, yet I get accused(not by all commercial fishermen, but by some) of not wanting to adhere to the conservation goals based on the abundance of a diminishing resource. Even when those individuals have never been onboard my charter boat when I "LOSE" a big breeding female halibut right at the boat, or when I go sightseeing after I reach my yelloweye limit instead of "RELEASING" them after they come to the surface. Both of these things that I do are not required by the rules, and are in the name of conservation. I'm not looking for a pat on the head by saying this, I'm looking to not be grouped with the likes of those that filed the charter halibut lawsuit, as I am strongly against that kind of "IT's the other guys problem" thinking. Your statement leads me to believe that you see the current commercial by-catch issue as a real problem, but think that the commercial fishing voice has already been to the front line of this issue and is now relieved of duty on that front. If that is truly what you believe, and think that the overage of the sport charter sector is a much bigger problem, your efforts are seriously misguided, and here's why. The entire charter fleet in the whole state of Alaska, in area 2C and 3A combined since the inception of the industry, has been over their harvest limits 6 years total. And they were the most recent 6 years. Also in those most recent 6 years there was a great increase in commercial harvest allocation for area 2C, followed by a decline in that same area. In those 6 years, the total poundage of overage in areas 2C and 3A, not allocated to the charter fleet, amounts to 4.752 million pounds. That number is a comprehensive total of the ENTIRE sport charter fleet in areas 2C and 3A for the ENTIRETY of the charter fleet history in the state of Alaska. So what that means is that in the history of the charter fleet in Alaska, that fleet's overages equal 39% of what the commercial fleet THROWS BACK DEAD IN ONE YEAR. By the way, I took the commercial fleets lowest by-catch mortality rate, which was in 2007 to get that number, so any other year between 1987 and 2006 would end up with a lower percentage. The by-catch mortality was 12.3 million pounds that year, and it was the lowest since 1987. Charter operators are not the main reason why the halibut stocks in the pacific have declined at the rate that they have in the recent past. PERIOD. Charter operators primarily operate in areas 2C and 3A, commercial fishing takes place in the entire pacific and is by far the biggest user group, so rightfully so has the biggest impact on the resource. The maximum that Alaskan charter fleet under the current plan will ever take out of the pacific 5.082 Million pounds, even when abundance rises, no other user group has this hard cap when abundance rises. I'm sure that I have raised some blood pressure at this point, but before you condemn me as a lost cause charter guy, read this next part.
So let me now say that the charter fleets overage is inexcusable, I for one am not OK with any user group taking more that it's allocated share, or any user group harvesting irresponsibly, regardless of whether or not you agree with the allocation. IT's like killing the goose that lays the golden egg to treat the largest renewable resource on the planet with such indifference. With that said, the charter fleets overage is being dealt with, and it is being dealt with by the inception of the moratorium. which by the way, is slated to be launched in the summer of 2010, and be enforced in the summer of 2011. That process is past the public comment period and nearing the final stages of translation by NOAA to enforceable language. The moratorium will keep the charter fleet to their allocation, and with the tiered restrictions ending in closure of the charter halibut fishing upon reaching the allocation, it seems iron clad to me. The days of the charter fleet overage will be gone in the next two years, and it may greatly impact that fishery and the money that it brings into the state. What will the commercial interests blame the next decline of the halibut stocks on with the charter fleet kept to a hard allocation? The bulk of halibut are taken out of the water by commercial fishermen, and that sector has the greatest impact on the resource. The numbers above prove that. I think that it's irresponsible to make a statement like you did salty, about it being time for the other guy to take up the cause of conservation. You for one, should know the value of a person such as yourself that has been involved in conservation for many years. I don't think that there are many fishermen or fishergals around the state that wouldn't recognize the name "Eric Jordan", hardly any of those same people would know who "Cody Loomis" is(me). To me, with notariety comes responsibility. I am ready to do what I can to fight for conservation, obviously I'm outspoken enough about my ideals, and I have an interest in the facts and numbers of a situation. But, like many youngsters in the fisheries, I lack the experience, and resources, to know how and where to concentrate my efforts so that it has an impact. But I am learning. I had to learn about the rulemaking process of my livelihood, ie board of fish, NPFMC, NMFS, fish and game, noaa, etc through trial and error, just like everyone does. As I become more involved, my knowledge expands, and I become more effective. Time will tell whether or not I can help achieve results on the same scale as those that championed the cause before me. Meanwhile, the halibut issue persists.
On a side note, I have greatly appreciated your ability, Salty, to be respectful and tactful in disagreeing with someone on issues that you are very clearly passionate about. I think that speaks volumes about a persons character to be able to disagree effectively. Kudos.
Salty
2009-12-03 22:28:43
Cody,
Do you have a hand troll permit? Ken Ash, longtime handtroll representative on ATA and the Sitka AC is retiring. The AC election is on the 10th of December. I greatly appreciate your post. I have been busy preparing a presentation for the Young Fisherman's Summit. The purpose of my presentation is to motivate young fishermen to act now.
I do think you misunderstood this sentence:
Time for the sport fish interests to lead another campaign to reduce by-catch instead of resisting efforts to live within conservation goals mandated by a diminishing resource.
I did not mean that the rest of us who care about the halibut resource should abandon our continuing efforts to reduce by-catch and conserve the halibut resource. As you and others know I do not own any halibut IFQ or crew halibut fishing. Yet I spend a good deal of my fishery conservation energy studying and discussing halibut conservation because I see it as a problem for all of us who care about halibut on the one hand and care about successful fisheries conservation for all the resources on the other. Just this last week I sent several e-mails and had several conversations about halibut conservation including a couple with people who have been involved with halibut management since the 70's. You may know that the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, a group I helped found in the 90's, just released explosive video of high halibut and tanner crab by-catch by trawlers off of Kodiak.
Years ago I learned that having an opinion that is different from your peer group is difficult in so many ways. Nevertheless that is the proving ground where you really learn what you are made of, where you find the holes in your character, where you learn about your own weakness, your personal failings of self-confidence and persistence. But, that is the fertile ground for growth, for changing the future, to building both your own political integrity and discovering the character of your peers. Having a different opinion from your interest group and expressing it publicly in writing is a great step toward distinguishing yourself, steeling yourself for the leadership trials to come. Proposing regulatory change to conserve the resource at your and your users groups expense, which I have accomplished, condemns you forever in the eyes of some of your peers. That is the country where the sledding becomes tough.
Developing the round pink and chum troll fishery with your father-in-law in Cross Sound in defiance of the hobbits and Paul Johnson 20 years ago is an example. There were times I was glad for every one of my 300 lbs. as individuals took me to task face to face on the Boardwalk. Nevertheless history has proved Jim and I were right on that one (one of the few I had it right on.) Don't ask me about the plan to open the troll fishery July 15 or the treble hook prohibition, or the barbless hook proposals.
So, where this is all headed is: Step up to the plate Cody. The one fish halibut limit will not keep the SE Sport fishery within its GHL next year from intel I hear. What is your proposal to keep the sport fishery within its GHL? I just wrote a letter last week suggesting a mechanism to radically reduce trawl halibut by-catch. I just corresponded with an old friend about it this morning.
actionalaska
2009-12-04 06:08:15
Well said Eric, Thanks for the clarification.
I'll contact you about setting me in the right direction with who to contact and where authority lies regarding this issue as I am ready to advocate for what I think is right for the resource and the industry.
Thanks again.
actionalaska
2009-12-04 16:55:49
I was contacted by an involved guy in Homer, and he informed me that some of my numbers were off because I was looking at the preliminary harvest numbers, not the final approved numbers in regards to harvest totals in the years listed. It ends up that the overages of the GHL by the charter fleet are less than what I listed. I will research and make sure I have accurate info before I update.
Salty
2009-12-04 19:05:01
Getting the numbers right, having the very best and latest information is so important because in the end, after all the years, the only real currency in fisheries politics is your credibility. It is amazing though how different people will bring whole different perspectives to what the same numbers mean. It is also very interesting how most of us have no real comprehension of what millions of pounds mean. What a thousand metric tons of one pound baby halibut really looks like. I just did something a couple of weeks ago with numbers that finally woke a lot of my troll fleet peers up to a problem. I turned millions of dollars into 2009 summer Chinook equivalents. Whole different kind of response than just the millions of dollars.
Are you going to the Young Fisherman's Summit next week? I think there might still be some sponsorship money.
John Murray
2009-12-05 18:37:51
Cody the Sitka AC is in need of a HT seat, election soon.I think you'd find it an interesting group and one learns about our area resources and people.
actionalaska
2009-12-07 22:11:12
I just traded in the HT for power gear last february so I guess I wouldn't qualify for that position. I'm drafting a letter now to throw my hat in the ring for a seat on the advisory council to NPFMC. There are currently no seats open, but you never know when one will become available. I appreciate the heads up though John. Thanks.