Crew Data - Forums Archive

DaveM

2009-09-21 03:31:02

what's the feeling on being required to submit economic data on crew members? I think it's a very bad idea on so many different levels.

First, has everyone heard about with the crew data issue?

Basically, the Southwest Economic Council decided they might be able to receive grants if they had economic data on crew members. The Council brought the idea forward to the State, and phoof, the ADF&G now feels this is wonderful idea and how beneficial this data will be once collected.

I called Dan Bruce, who's the point, and tried to get a seat on the advisory board. Does ATA have a seat on this data board? If not, why not?

The State already has a pot of money, an advisory board, and leadership behind this idea.

The bottom line - we (anyone hiring a crew member) will soon be required to submit data to the state (how much they made, how long they fished, which fishery). this will become a requirement.

Salty

2009-09-21 16:08:51

What is the problem here? We have to have that data for taxes, for insurance, for our records anyway. We have to have written crew contracts for the Coast Guard (I added a clause, remove seabirds from cabin as requested by the skipper). Is there a problem sharing this data other than the burden of filling out another form?

DaveM

2009-09-22 03:18:06

Salty,

Fairly cavalier attitude about the Government's proposal to require us to submit data they have no specific use for.

Why not accept what our State officals propose, after all, they are here "to help"

Bottom line, the State is proposing requirements on us, for information they have no specific idea on how to use - other then talking about the numbers in front of each other.

Is there a specific grant or contract which rely's on this data? - nope

Is there a specific management plan or proposal which rely's on this data as a basis for it's decision? Nope

Your funny Salty.

Salty

2009-09-22 04:23:03

Good points!! I thought there was a paperwork reduction act a while back. Guess it didn't apply to trollers.

ata

2009-10-07 21:33:39

Hi All:

Just saw that there was a question in this thread about ATA and the crew data study. Does ATA have a seat? Yes. That said, there hasn't been a whole lot of action by the committee and most of my work has been on the phone as opposed to in meetings.

A meeting was called this summer, but it occured when I was already commited to another meeting that had priority. The follow up included an extensive telephone survey that I completed regarding the gap in crew member data and the need to fill it. Another meeting is right now being scheduled for early January, so I do appreciate hearing what others think on this topic. ADFG hopes to brief the legislature on its findings in January, following release of the survey results and another meeting of the working group.

I hear you about additional burdens of gathering data and have advocated a streamlined process that doesn't involve much additional energy from skippers. Discussion has revolved around adding to the existing fish ticket and the electronic reporting format which is already in use by some fisheries. It could even involve a process whereby the crew members themselves bear part of the responsibility for being counted.

Is there a need for some additional crew member data? In my opinion, as one who speaks regularly on behalf of this industry, yes.

Currently, it is very difficult to quantify just how many people are employed by the commercial fishing sector, much less where they are employed and for how long each year. If you think about all the spin off jobs and value our industry provides, it's massive, but hard to get a handle on. Such information is of great value when we are involved in issues where we need to show the economic importance and value of our industry - generally, or in relation to others.

Deckhands would be one of the easiest groups to count, but right now those numbers are murky. Most US workers can be quantified by checking tax rolls. Canada can look at tax rolls and unemployment claims in the off season or during times of economic distress. However, because most of our industry pays deckhands as 1099 contractors, there are no tax or unemployment records, so counting the crew gets trickier. Those numbers are huge for Alaska - maybe 20,000 or more - and sigificant to our jobs base, since so many deckhands, in all fisheries, tend to be residents.

And it's not just a matter of seeing who buys a license each year, since not everyone who purchases a crew license uses it. That's no problem with permit holders, since there is a record of which permits fished and which did not.

As it stands now, I make a back of the envelope guess on how many deckhands are employed by trollers and other gear groups and hope for the best. Better statistics could be helpful by providing a more complete and credible picture of our industry's impacts to policymakers and the public, some who seem to chronically use a lack of data to marginalize us.

Knowing what format would be most convenient and reasonable from your perspective is important to me, so if you have thoughts, please weigh in!

Best!

Dale, ATA

spike christopher

2009-10-07 22:29:29

I don't know how many times I've been informed by the state and many politicians that the fishing industry is the 3rd largest employer in the state.

I don’t see what is so important about 18 thousand versus 20 plus thousand in numbers. I am always suspect of governmental offices looking for ways to justify their positions or trying to thinking of ways to increase their odds in receiving grants or funds. Is this what this about.

ata

2009-10-08 04:18:46

Hi Spike:

Not that I don't have a healthy dose of paranoia when it comes to certain branches of 'helpful government', but in this case, I don't think that's an issue. I'm not even sure where the grants you reference would come from, or why, but it seems like you have some ideas(?).

The two folks heading up the project for ADFG are a former, decades long commercial fisherman and someone else in a commercial fishing family. I don't sense they have any agenda beyond getting solid information. Some in the legislature continue to do a lot of mischief with the Cook Inlet issue and talk down our industry in the process. The legislature has also financed economic studies for the sportfishing industry. Some folks perceive that tourism might be catching up or surpassing our industry with respect to jobs. I get the sense that not everyone agrees and some in goverment want to settle that argument.

The other issue that's out there for some folks are quota fisheries, which seem to be favored by NMFS these days. There have been some rumblings that other fisheries may be interested in additional IFQ programs, so I suspect decisionmakers would like to understand the crew situation better if that comes up again than they did during halibut and black cod debate.

All that said, I might not fully understand everyone's motivations, but when asked if ATA wanted to participate, the obvious answer was yes, if for no other reason than to advocate for less is more when it comes to burdening y'all with additional requirements. ATA didn't call for this forum, nor do they have a position on it. Again, I personally see some value in getting the data pulled together, but that's only because I like to provide good and factual information on our industry. I do not support gathering this information in ways that creates significant hardship for you.

By the way, for many years, the Alaska seafood industry has been known as the number ONE employer, and second biggest generator of revenue for the state - only oil brings in more money to the general fund. I think we're still hold those positions.

Nite!

Dale, ATA