Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflicts run deep in Alaska fisheries regulatory councilMore than 50 years ago, Alaska became a state and broke the domination Outside interests had long held over the salmon of the Alaska Territory. The desire to rid the north of salmon-catching fish traps largely controlled by Washington-state-based fish processors was one of the motivating forces behind statehood. Later, the young state strongly backed federal efforts to drive Japanese fishing boats out of a federal Fisheries Conservation Zone stretching 200 miles out to sea from the Alaska coast. The political battles then were easy. All Alaskans were united against the foreigners. Things are different now. These days the battles are fought between powerful commercial fishing interests and the masses, though many of the latter have yet to catch on. When the National Marine Fisheries Service went to Homer in August to explain to charter boat skippers and the public that new fishing rules drafted by commercial fishing interests will likely mean a one-fish limit for charter anglers next year, there appeared to be only one member of the general public there -- a halibut angler from Outside. He did make his opinion known. If the Alaska halibut limit dropped from two fish to one next year, he said, he wouldn't be back. It isn't worth it. Those words were music to the ears of a couple commercial halibut fishermen in the room, the main goal of whom is to increase their percentage of the halibut catch. It now stands at about 80 percent in Cook Inlet. They'd be happier with 85 or, better yet, 90 or 100 percent. These commercial fishermen have significant support from Outside in pursuing their agenda. When the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act -- named for the late Sens. Warren Magnuson, D-Wash., and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska -- seized control of the waters off all the states in 1976 and established the framework for the future management of fisheries in coastal waters stretching far to sea, it invited Outside influence back into Alaska. The act created the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, one of seven such councils stretching from the Caribbean to the Arctic. The states of Washington and Oregon were both given voting seats in the council. So, too, Washington-state based fishing interests. Alaska was granted a majority of the 11 seats at the table of the council family, but those quickly came to be dominated by commercial fishing interests that have at times over the years appeared to treat the federal fisheries service as their personal government agency. Some biologists in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and particularly some retired Fish and Game biologists, use the word "cowardly" when describing the unwillingness of federal bureaucrats to stand up to commercial fishing interests when they push agendas clearly counter to the state's or the public's best interests. Fish and Game once had a rich tradition, and still has some tradition, of biologists speaking out when they thought resources were being abused or the politics of fisheries allocation had become unfair to the point of illegality. The National Marine Fisheries Service has no such tradition. NMFS staff have done nothing as the council family has moved toward a one-fish limit for charter halibut fisheries expected to put any number of them out of business while at the same time imposing a new form of economic discrimination on individual halibut anglers. Those wealthy enough to afford their own ocean-worthy fishing boats will still be allowed to catch two halibut per day. But anglers who can barely scrimp together the cost of a charter -- an expense less than the cost of one monthly payment on even a smallish Cook Inlet-capable watercraft -- will be allowed only one fish. Despite this, Ed Dersham, the lone representative for anglers and charter operators on the council, defends the NMFS staff marching the charter businesses toward ruin. "I'm not going to say anything bad about those guys at NMFS," he said. "I have to work with them everyday." Thank you for trying to expose this travisty of the commercial interests controlling the halibut catch. the fish belong to the people of the state of Alaska and the people should not be forced to buy their fish from commercial interests. The people of Alaska have the right to catch their own fish and to charter a boat if they don't want to pay for their own. Please keep trying to draw attention to this problem. Thanks, Duane Beland, North Pole, Alaska I’m trying to remember a time when commercial fishermen got more allocation from the sports or subsistence. Usually the allocation just goes down to commercial fishermen, even though many fishing families have to mortgage everything they owned just to buy IFQ’s. I guess this story doesn’t fit your predetermined view of commercial fishermen being “mafia” instead of hard working investors in their community. It's all about money, lots and lots of money. Subsistence takes priority, but the subsistence users are getting locked in the cellars with no lights at the end of the tunnels. We're talking about thousands of Alaskas poor people, many of which are Alaskan Native, watching money hungrey hogs fight over the resources belonging to the people. It's ironic that the regulatory council, NPFMC, is made up of people protecting their own interests. This 'Family' needs to be overhauled as soon as possible. Thank you Mr. Medred, I carefully studied this report. As a future subsistence advisory council member, I appreciate the information. Thanks for the info flatfish, guess you needed to post 5-6 pages of spam to drown out the constructive, diverse, and informative posting that was taking place. Good to hear you caught some "barn-doors" this summer sportsfishing, bully for you. As for your support of the council and insult of Craigs reporting it just goes to show how bad your information regarding council motives and resource health is. Either that or you're a shill for some interest group. The council blatantly disregards both law and conservation in their actions and is made up of compromised individuals. The REEL halibut controversy is taking place in the central gulf and has nothing to do with Charter fisherman or individuals on vacation from the lower 48. Once again I will direct people to where the facts have been documented: http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/ The dude abides Well, I think everyone that made it through Craig's revisionist history of the halibut fishery realizes how full of baloney it is. That's Craig for ya. Halibut fishing with my kids this year was nothing short of spectacular. With out all those pesky charter guys wiping out the halibut grounds close to home we were able to once again land some barn doors. Havn't seen fishing like this in several years. Kudos to the NPFMC for there efforts. WAKE UP ALL ALASKA!!! 2011 tolls the death bell for Southeast Charters, the LIMITED ENTRY PERMIT was the first hit and the 37 INCH HALIBUT was a mortal hit. Fishermen couldn't fill ONE 50 lb box in 5 days of fishing! They have ALL stated that they would not come back to ANYWHERE in Alaska. They do not trust these agencies to not change the limits a few weeks before they board the plane, as they did in Southeast. They're telling everyone how sickening it was to catch about 10 halibut a day just to see them float away fins and jaws hanging off from their fight to the surface. It isn't just a 2 or 3% bycatch as the state study reported. The guides are now at a much greater risk in their efforts to unhook so many more fish. It isn't any fun to witness the slaughter till finally one is caught small enough to keep. Boats are being boarded DAILY by each of the different agencies in hopes of a fish being a HALF INCH off! Clients are completely disgusted by all this and making plans now for their groups, families and companies to make it an annual MEXICO FISHING TRIP!!! once again...tholepin.blogspot.com.....knows where the halibut are going. He's been spot on for the 2 years he's been blogging on it. Verified by crewmember accounts. Yea...Halibut are "growing slower" and not reaching "legal size fast enough." That's misinformation. Since when do scientists actually stop the wholesale destruction of fisheries? Haven't ever heard of a ground of scientist preserving a fishery. They count fish and look at migration. So they're seeing the smaller fish, less fish in areas down wind of the Central Gulf. It's directly related to unreported trawl bycatch by the kodiak trawl fleet. I have no vested charter interest and am not a longline fisherman. I'm not here for a special interest to spew crap. I've just seen the effect of 1/3 observed days on fleets. If everyone just spent 5 minutes reading tholepin.blogspot.com they would have a better understanding of the Halibut situation. Great article Craig and the analogy between the industry and the Mafia is right on. The English translation of the popular name for the Sicilian Mafia, La Cosa Nostra is "this thing of ours". That's the way the industry and the NPFMC view what used to be the nation's common property fish resources. The council chair, Eric Olson works for the CDQ group Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association. The CDQ groups are major players in the family business and are organized and run just like the other families to the detriment of the impoverished villages they are supposed to benefit. Hard hitting stuff, Craig and all true. Thanks for letting the public know about it. We need some sunlight on this brazen theft of our fisheries resources. Mandated CDQ Review, 20 years of the program, is coming up in 2012. CDQs have halibut IFQs - who is getting the bulk of the benefits? I must agree that the current situation with the North Pacific Management Council is very definitely completely unethical but this is only a small part of the issues faced by the public in seeking to manage a resource that is very valuable to all of us. Medred is very quick to place all blame on the commercial fishermen and while I have some very serious issues with the IFQ system I think that a lot of the blame he is seeking to place at their feet is more than likely misplaced. He indicates that the change to the IFQ system has made the fishery very difficult to police in that the season lasts a good portion of the year but does not mention that NMFS does actively police the commercial Halibut fishery and is generally very successful in doing so. He also neglects to point out that historically the Charter Operators have faced little or nonexistent enforcement and that it is a well known secret in the charter community that for years bag limits ware largely ignored by charter operators who knew that the odds of being caught were very slim and that if caught the action against them was generally light. This led to a situation through the 1990’s and the early 2000’s where one could stand in the Juneau, Ketchikan or Sitka airports on any day in the summer and see at least one charter fisherman checking in for a flight and having ten or twelve fish boxes of Halibut to check in. Those boxes average right at 70 pounds each and that means that somebody is either largely ignoring the bag limits or has a guide who has a almost unbelievable ability to find very large halibut. Yeah, Ted Stevens pulled some real boners. The Mag Act was one of them. So, what does anyone suggest? Not voting for Lisa Murkowski ever again is top on my list. But then, I had already wised up in time for this past election. I voted for Joe Miller despite all the theatrics from the Alaska Dispatch. The economic benefits to the state from halibut is maximized through the charter sector. At a minimum it should be two. Three would be better. Whether people are for or against all this, they need to speak up. This isn't about playing sides. It's about realizing it's your right as an American citizen to speak up when injustice has been done and your government is supposed to work for you. It's just like people who don't vote, you can't complain. Either way, it is unfair for all sides and we (John Q. Public) will all be the losers. Do not let the fire of frustration die, yet harness it to do something constructive and noteworthy for you and your future generations. "...your government is suppose to work for you.", with millions and millions of dollars to be made in the sea, it appears that my government is choosing to go with the money. page 5 "Dersham believes that if the charter industry can make a convincing argument poundage is being overestimated they might get more fish and a chance to hang onto the two-fish limit." I believe the best defense for charters is to testify how times have definitely changed for this fishery. They are no longer simply targeting trophy fish. At be it, there are some charters who do, but the cost to chase those fish has skyrocketed with the price of fuel. The further you fish out, the bigger the fish typically. Data given to every governing agency simply estimated the weight caught or had taken one dockside sample and applied it to every Joe Charter. They also assumed that charters always land the big one, but true guides know this is false. Not once, did I ever see a Federal Observer on board a charter. Never, now tell me anyone knows the numbers definitively for the total pounds of halibut caught be charters? I feel for SouthEast, I do. They fought the one fish limit and won the first time, but mysteriously lost the second time to the SAME judge. Sound fishy? You betcha. |
Comments