About Time
Carol W
2011-01-20 03:50:30
Ninilchik sportfishing guide's license revoked, jail imposed
HOMER — Arthur C. Aho, a halibut sportfishing guide working out of Ninilchik, was sentenced by District Court Judge Margret Murphy on Jan. 18, 2011, for illegal acts committed while working as a sportfishing guide. Aho was sentenced on two counts of aiding a sportfishing client in the commission of a violation, one count of waste of fish, one count of falsifying his sportfishing guide logbook and one count of retaining a halibut while working as a sportfishing guide with paying clients onboard.
On July 10, 2009, Aho guided two Alaska Wildlife Troopers, acting in a covert capacity, on a halibut fishing trip booked through Ninilchik Saltwater Charters & Lodge. While on the guided sportfishing trip, Aho aided one client in retaining a total of five halibut and a second client in retaining a total of three halibut, in violation of both federal and Alaska state laws. After retaining a total of 12 halibut, Aho allowed the six clients to continue fishing for a larger halibut. When one was caught, he instructed his deckhand to throw back a smaller halibut that had been lying on the deck for 40 minutes. Aho actively fished during the trip and one of the halibut hooked by Aho was retained for his clients. Aho also falsified his sportfishing guide logbook by indicating that the six clients caught two halibut each.
Aho was previously convicted in August of 2006 for aiding a client in the commission of a sportfishing violation during a guided sportfishing trip in 2005. The facts of the 2005 case were nearly identical. In the 2005 case, Alaska Wildlife Troopers booked a covert fishing trip with Catch-A-Lot Charters and Aho was their assigned sportfishing guide. During the tip, Aho allowed one client to hook and retain four halibut and a second client to hook and retain three halibut. Judge Murphy sentenced Aho in that offense to a fine of $5,000 with $4,000 suspended, 30 days in jail with all 30 days suspended and one year of informal probation.
At the sentencing on Jan. 18, 2011, the state argued that sportfishing guides like Mr. Aho, who are given the privilege to make a living off of the resources of this state, act as stewards of the resource as opposed to violators of sport fish and game laws. The people of the state of Alaska should not have to rely upon troopers conducting covert activities to ensure that such guides comply with fish and game laws.
Judge Murphy imposed a composite sentence on the five counts of 90 days in jail with 80 days suspended, a fine of $5,000, 40 hours of community work service and six years of informal probation. Judge Murphy also revoked Mr. Aho's sportfish guide licenses and prohibited him from purchasing a new sportfish guide license for a period of two years. This sentence was crafted to not only deter Mr. Aho from committing similar future violations, but to also deter others from within the community by making it clear that repeated violations of sport fish and game laws, especially those committed for commercial gain, will result in the revocation of one's privileges to work within the guiding industry.
DiamondLil
2011-01-20 04:02:22
A slap on the wrist. Hey, the guy's done it before.
yak2you2
2011-01-20 04:21:30
I don't understand why a longliner with a halibut violation has to deal with NOAA and sit in front of a Federal Judge but this guy doesn't? Guides should receive federal punishment like commercial fishermen, and he should loose his six-pack for a long time, so he can't simply go to someone else's state and do it all over again.
The punishment should fit the crime. Assuming he'd been doing this stuff a lot more than what he got caught for, and that he probably made 30K in a summer chartering, I'd think Diamond Lil is right, this is not the stiff message to the community that they hoped to send.
actionalaska
2011-01-20 06:18:07
I think that the sentence has sent a message loud and clear. I would consider this a pretty stiff sentence for any 2nd time misdemeanor. (And deservedly considering the current fisheries situations) He's serving jail time for a fish and game violation that doesn't include out of season poaching or trafficking. Don't get me wrong, I"m glad that this guy got nailed. I'm just sensing a bit of mob rabble rousing with the comments above indicating that the guy got off lightly with a slap on the wrist.
Remember, not all charter operators conduct themselves like this bozo Aho.
Salty
2011-01-20 06:58:30
We have a big case coming up February 7th here in Sitka concerning Dove Island Lodge and one of its Charter captains with multiple violations. What would interest me is the statistics on how many of these undercover stings on SE Charter operations result in violations. What is the % of guides committing violations? Is it less than 1%, is it 5-10%, or, god forbid, 50 plus %.
Seems like that is an important piece of knowledge that would either exonerate a lot of guides or motivate the rest of us to really get serious about the problem. Personally, I think the majority of the guides I know here in Sitka are doing their best to abide by an ever increasingly complex regulatory climate. But, as their businesses collapse in an ever increasingly carbon conscious and expensive world, they must be tempted to push the envelope to keep clients returning.
As a convicted fish and game violator myself (I could not find my photo ID while commercial fishing and paid a $100 fine) I can report that I have made mistakes numerous times and with the one noted exception, have not been ticketed. In our troll fishery it is common that if you fish over the line, are seen to illegally kill a Chinook, fish in areas that are legal but known to harbor small shaker kings, etc. then you are accosted on the docks and vilified both on the radio channels and at the harbor coffee shops by your peers. I have been on both sides of that coin.
I wonder how many "mistakes" are being made in the guided sport fishery and what the consequences are on our fisheries resources. I wonder if there is a similar peer ethic in the guiding community to call violators out. I hear the guides commonly calling and informing each other where enforcement is. Why do they need to know if they are legal?
Anyway, it would be good to know the percentage of "sting undercover" operations resulting in violations observed.
Again, no attempt to make an excuse for the guide... but it appears he was trying to put 12 total halibut in the boat, apparently the legal limit for 6 clients. Yes, they are suppose to catch 2 each, I understand. The high grading is the real crime, in my opinion, and where the resource is most affected.
yak2you2
2011-01-20 13:56:47
Remember, not all charter operators conduct themselves like this bozo Aho.
I have nothing against charter operators, nor am I thinking mob like. It's not the fine or the jail time that I dispute. Halibut are a Federal fish. Any commercial harvester that violates has to deal with NOAA, and the case is handled in Federal court. I only question why charter operations are any different? The article says the judge took away his right to obtain a charter license, but I am assuming that's only in Alaska. He still has his Captain''s license, what's to stop him from moving to Washington and running a charter boat down there?
I have never understood why guides seem to foster the fill up the coolers mentality when it comes to halibut and salmon. Why do they fight the reduction in bag limit, when it's for the good of their own resource? I've been sport fishing for big game fish before. You real it in, take a few pictures, and then let it go. If I wanna eat a swordfish or a tuna that bad, they sell it at the supermarket. If ALL charter operators would uniformly send the message to their clients that, " your here to have fun, not bring home enough fish to sell to cover your trip," the age old line that my clients will go to someone else, would go away.
Carol W
2011-01-20 15:32:11
Just the fact that there are sting operations going on tells the story that the state beleaves there are dirty operators out there, and the fact that this operator is spending time in jail clearly shows how serious the state is about sending a message this is unacceptable. And the other thing to note this isn't the first violation in this industry, and the violations are spread over a wide geographic area, which would indicate that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and the state realizes this. And I would think that this type of violation and the fact it is happening tends to hurt the charter industry's credibility as good stewards of the resource.
Clearly a case of you give them enough rope they will hang themselves.
Salty
2011-01-20 19:33:48
Or with the right bait they will "hook" themselves. I think I will post this picture here again as it is appropriate to this thread and the "attitude".
[attachment=0]Bad Sport Charters.jpg[/attachment]
Super Cub
2011-01-20 21:47:07
I don't understand; is that Aho's boat, or are you posting it because of the funny name?
Salty
2011-01-20 22:43:14
This is a real boat in Sitka with that name.
I have often thought how the emphasis should be:
"Bad sport" Charters; or
"Bad" Sport Charters"
Wperson
2011-01-21 02:26:43
I heard about this on radio this morning. I'm not surprised at all.
My WAG is that the Troopers catch less than 5% of the violators. The private boats out of Anchorage rarely get boarded.
During the summer about every fifth vehicle is towing a boat, there is lots of traffic, sometimes moving along at 40mph or less.
There is no place to park on the Homer spit, it's a real pain if you have your boat in the harbor. The wait to launch a boat at the ramp can be hours on the weekend.
There is a fishing frenzy from May to the middle of August on the Kenia Penn.
You have got to see the guides working out of Ninilchik, it would amaze you. They launch off the beach using log skidders in the surf. Sometimes the return can be pretty wild. Most of the guides use boats around 28' with two 200hp Yamahas on the stern.
I have been anchored up waiting to get in the Ninilchik Harbor on a rough day (a boat can only get in or out 2 hours before high tide and 2 hours after) and had to stand on the bow with a pike pole to push the sunken boats off my anchor line.
There is another launching area 20 miles south on the beach south of the Anchor River. More Ninilchik guides are starting working out of here because of the wait to get hauled out at Deep Creek.
Right now the Winter King fishery in Kachemak Bay is stalled because the Homer harbor is froze up. Heard some bitching about it at the Gearshed. Talk about getting a Tug to break the ice.
The sport fishers here appreciate the Kings feeding in the bay. Wonder how many of them are Hatchery fish from SE?
Ward
RUSSELL
2011-01-21 03:07:06
Cumulatively 4 million lbs overage on halibut since 2004 in 2c for the Charter fleet. Makes it hard believe this is an isolated case of one bad apple fishing with a lower standard of ethics.
On several occaisions this winter I have talked with folks who have gone to SouthEast for there summer vacation and fished with charters and were so excited with the amount of fish they caught and released and how much extra fish they brought home above and beyond what they caught.
Not to throw stones but " Im just sayin"
actionalaska
2011-01-21 07:21:06
Yak, are you asking a philosophical question, or a procedural one. Procedurally , the reason that charter guys don't have to answer to NOAA general counsel is because NOAA hasn't yet done a sting operation on a questionable charter outfit. The state troopers nailed Aho, and NOAA at that time didn't have and license issued to Aho to operate. It's a matter of jurisdiction. Philosophically, I completely agree with you. Once the charter halibut permits are issued by NOAA, you can expect to see convicted charter operators tried in a State court having to face the music to NOAA as well in the form of license suspension or revocation. The six pack deal is a whole separate arena as well. That's coast guard, they are concerned with flares, placards, and PFD's. I hear talk of a state imposed moratorium on saltwater guides around the dock. Seems like the next logical step.
Salty, I've seen you reference the "carbon guzzling" charter fleet numerous times, I don't think that you realize how efficient a small planing boat can be. I have operated a 27 foot 30 knot boat, with an inboard modern computer controlled diesel. I routinely get 3 miles per gallon when running with full fuel, ice and fish. My 42 foot 3-71 powered 6 knot troller doesn't do that well when I"m running. Outboards are a whole different story, but there's no loan programs for charter guys to make the switch to a fuel efficient operation like there is in commercial fishing. Cash flow is a serious issue with something like that. As you all probably know too well. So the charter fleet isn't as bad of a carbon emitting evil giant as you may think.
At the risk of further alienating myself to most guys on both sides of this argument, I have been a charter operator since 1999, and I have commercially trolled along with guiding since 2001. I have never had a boat full of clients that expect the same thing as the next group. Some do think that every day is going to be like a brochure, and others are true veteran sport fishermen that use light line, no barbs, and never touch bait. I can assure you all that the nature of the fishery is changing, there are some businesses that are still toting around the old philosophy of fill the boxes, but eco tourism is becoming a huge industry, conservation is beginning to become mainstream, and the clientele that can both afford the trip, and are interested in a fishing vacation are becoming younger, and from a different generation, filling the boxes is becoming less and less of a goal every year. It's still how some people judge the success of their trip, but not all charter anglers think that way.
When you look at the issue of halibut allocation across the user groups, you cannot deny that the majority of the impact is made to the halibut biomass by the commercial sector. And here's why. I do not dispute that the charter fleet has gone over their allocation in many recent years, but the allocation wasn't realistic in the first place in terms of need. There simply isn't enough hooks in the water in the 2C charter fleet to make the kind of impact that the charter fleet is getting the blame for. 4 million pounds TOTAL over allocation since 2004 according to RUSSELL, that's during a period of 7 years. 2010's commercial take in 2C was 4.4 million pounds. So the commercial fishermen, just in 2C, an area that was hit hard by the recent allocation cuts, and the commercial take in one year exceeds that of the charter overage combined over 7 years. The statewide directed fishery landings totaled just under 50 million pounds. So the charter overage is about 1% of the total take. Still seem like the charter guys are to blame? 3A has more charter operators than 2C, and a much bigger allocation, and that area's quota hasn't been cut as much as in 2C, but if the charter operators are to blame, why hasn't 3A's quota been drastically cut? It's because the charter fleet doesn't have the capacity to impact the biomass with the current bag limits. I'm not trying to take away the fact that roughly an extra .5 million unallocated pounds per year has been taken by the charter fleet, which will be adressed by the charter halibut moratorium, it's just that the charter fleet gets the blame for the lack of fish, and the numbers just don't support that notion. In fact, the numbers say that since 2004, the commercial longline fleet in the Pacific has taken 434.3 MILLION pounds of halibut out of the ocean. The charter fleet overage is a bit less than 1% of the commercially directed harvest for the same time period. The entire 2C charter fleet would have to catch double their limits, every day, all summer, and not get caught, falsify logbook data all season long, be able to buffalo every state trooper boarding when they get back to the dock at the end of a day with double limits, and do this for seven years straight to begin to approach the amount of overage that it would take to equal the cuts in the 2C allocation. The charter fleet did not single handedly cause the problem in 2C. The statewide charter fleet didn't cause the decreased Pacific halibut biomass. The numbers don't lie. "I'm just sayin"
Salty
2011-01-21 18:53:56
Wow, great explanation. Here is a question for all. Why should charter operations get halibut allocation when trollers, who historically harvested halibut in 2c got 0?
Salty
2011-01-22 05:15:44
carojae
2011-01-22 06:56:08
Re: trollers 0 allocation for 2c.
Years ago I occassionally targeted/trolled halibut when a person could sell a halibut on a troll license (lunker herring on the bottom spread). Did pretty good a couple of times back in the late seventies - early eighties - nothing really big but you know us "low-liners" we're easy to please :D .
But mostly, we've all hooked the occassional halibut out there that would help out the daily cash count. Why must we release it just because it is caught on a
Jim
$0.02
actionalaska
2011-01-22 08:04:29
Salty, I completely agree with you philosophically, except that whole scenario is a bit before my time. I was deckhanding on a couple of gillnetters turned longliners for a few derby openings, but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of how a troller would have qualified for halibut landings in a world where IFQ allocation was a necessity.
I would guess that commercial halibut landings were taken as face value during the allocation as far as poundage, and the guys that were unlucky enough to have chosen not to "put those nasty things on my boat", (referring to Halibut at $0.65 per pound, or something like that), as I remember hearing around the docks during the derby days from the highliner salmon fishermen with new shiny boats and fancy pickup trucks. Halibut was not a luxurious fishery then, and trollers, gillnetters, and most other salmon fishermen decided not to target them, Right?(Recalling this from a long time ago, and intending for people to chime in with corrections) So when the allocation of IFQ's came down the pipe from the powers that be, if you trolled during the halibut openings, instead of going halibut fishing, you probably weren't going to make the cut as far as getting some IFQ's, because the rules were written to exclude those parties that weren't targeting the species. (If I remember correctly, I was pretty young and not thinking about paying attention to the details at that point in my life.) If there is anything that the Charter Halibut permits have taught me, it's that the management of the oceans biomass is a fluid thing, and can be influenced, and changed, usually for the overall good of the biomass, but sometimes to the detriment of one user group or another. So mayber it's not too late to take an allocation issue to the NPFMC on behalf of the few trollers that historically landed halibut during the pre IFQ days, counted on the income, and got left out during the allocation. I know that the troller fleet is primarily made up of "experienced" fishermen, and perhaps the majority of Alaskan trollers have been negatively affected by being left out of halibut allocation, in that case, there is certainly a need to pursue the issue, the worst thing that can happen is the situation stays the same.
Think of the creatively insulting bumper stickers this issue could spawn!!
Super Cub
2011-01-22 08:24:10
http://www.adn.com/2011/01/21/1660986/lodge-owner-sentenced-to-700-days.html
Are you implying that everyone that charters sportsmen is a poacher? I'm just curious. I think there are bad apples in every user group. I can easily point out several commercial fishermen with major violations that just got slapped on the wrist here in the lower 48. At least these two got jail time and lost licenses rather than the paltry fines I've seen applied to commercial poachers here in Oregon / Washington. I'm in favor of proper enforcement and stiff penalties for poachers on both sides of the fence, but I don't think it is fair to assume that either user group is all good or all bad.
smallboat
2011-01-22 19:29:58
Hey Actionalaska,
Sounds like your heart is in the right place but the data your using is skewed. I really hope your not being disingenuous. 1%? The whole Gulf and Bering Sea? Really? The charter overages are in SE not the Aleutians. We are specifically talking about SE. Not the whole state. That is where most of us operate and that is where the charter industry is way over their quota. The commercial IFQ fleet has never been over their quota since IFQ"s. The charter GHL was set at 125% of their best years! No other sector has got even 100%. IFQ recipients got 80% at best or if your like me you didn't get any and have to buy in. There was simply too many many people chasing too little fish. Sport fishers (charter and non-charter) in SE in 2009 took about 35% of the halibut in SE, in 2010 between 40-45% and 2011 sport take could very well exceed commercial in SE. All this time the charter sector is exceeding the quota. No other sector is. Charter overages are near to 5 million lbs. Commercial IFQ has NOT exceeded their quota. Ever. The Charter moratorium is not designed (and probably won't) keep the charter sector in their quota.
On the carbon foot print, you have to look at the big picture. Salty is right. By the time a charter client flies up here and goes fishing and flies home, well I think it's clear. A commercial boat typically goes out for 3-5 days and brings in 1000's of lbs. Our clients buy mostly at restaurants and grocery stores. Demand for commercial caught halibut is higher than the supply but we are not asking for charter quota. Your comments on client "expectations" are a big part of the issue for sure and it sounds like you help educate your clients on that.
I want to ask Action how many halibut are released in the SE charter industry? The data suggest's it's 4 released to every 1 that is kept. What's the mortality of those released fish? Less than commercial but still the charter logbooks do not reflect it. Commercial has it's mortality accounted for. I hope you help with a solution rather than asking for more fish. The charter sector is important but not so important that going over the quota is acceptable or demanding that other sectors take less just because charter sector are not willing to live with 125% of their best years. There's only so much fish. Bottom line.
You sound earnest Action and I hope you are an advocate for every sector staying within their respective quota's. If not what's the point? All the fighting over whether or not the charter sector can be held accountable for themselves is just a distraction so some operators can make a bunch of $$$ meanwhile the resource and communities are the ones that suffer. Commercial halibut fishing is almost a century old fishery with sustained participation, charter fishing clients in SE are about 95% non residents who depend on disposable income for their trip. The industry desperately needs community based charter operators that are looking out for the long term health of the resource.
Good fishing ya'll
Salty
2011-01-22 21:20:20
Long post on civility deleted. Condensed to: Important to be civil toward all, even to charter operators on the trollers forum.
Katlian
2011-01-22 21:29:41
I have avoided rambling thus far. It would seem like we could all head toward these goals.
create a system that reliably counts all removals from system
each sector harvest by management guidelines
tax ourselves to fund enforcement
each sector is accountable for their own actions.
too long for a haiku
Wperson
2011-01-23 00:04:41
The state did a study on the Kenia River on mortality of kings hooked and released. They caught them, tagged and then released them. After five days, if the fish survived they assumed that it would spawn. Roughly about 20% did not. I assume that they where very careful with their handling of the fish, so the mortality of released fish in a normal charter operation would be probably greater.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds90-16.pdf
carojae
2011-01-26 20:48:03
A thought occurs to me.
Why not open charter halibut and shut them down when the Charter sports quota has been reached? That way you weed out the bum charter captains and you have happy clients. :o
Just a funny thought I guess.
$00.02
Wperson
2011-01-28 02:00:35
Action, what is the percentage of charter owners that live instate year around?
Here in Southcentral after Labor Day, parking is plentiful, traffic moves along a 55mph, stores are not crowded and you don't see guys wearing stetsons with captain embroidered on their shirts.
I too, ended up with a small IFQ because in '92, '93 I was a single parent raising two girls and needed a paycheck and insurance.
From the '70 through '80s I caught thousands of pounds of Halibut, which did not count. Yes, I did fish salmon during that time, also crab.
Now I jump on a friend's boat and pay him 40% to catch my IFQs and I find it hard to pencil in $25-$30 a pound IFQs to buy.
To give an idea of the effort on the fish during July here, picture the whole population of Sitka out after Halibut and salmon in one day, and this estimate is probably on the low side.
Check out how many fish are harvested for personal use in the Upper Cook Inlet, just to understand the effort, this just one of the fisheries. The bag limit is 30 per permit: 389,552/30=12,985 fisherpeople just in reds on the Kenia River. Of course a bigger family is allowed more than 30.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/region2/personaluse/CipuHarvest.cfm
grinder
2011-02-22 00:30:34
That was a great post. I think you have hit the nail right on the head. I am waiting for Action Alaska's response.