NOAA suspends Alaska halibut charter catch-share plan
Craig Medred |
Sep 29, 2011
A sigh of relief and a fair bit of skepticism about the future seemed to be the reaction of Alaska halibut charter operators Wednesday as they heard news that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service was reconsidering a plan to crack down on their harvests.
Rex Murphy, a halibut skipper who helped organize opposition to the plan in Homer -- the "Halibut Capital of the World" -- said he wanted to see as the next step a legitimate attempt "to address the issues.
"Problem is -- with the North Council constituency-- they'll probably do the same thing again," he added.
The North Council, as Murphy calls it, is the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, an organization dominated by powerful commercial fishing interests. The Council advises NOAA on fishing regulations for the oceans off the coasts of the 49th state.
The Council this year developed what was called a "catch-sharing plan" to share the pain of conservation between Alaska's halibut charter fleet and the commercial longline fishery, which catches the bulk of North Pacific halibut. Because halibut populations are declining, for reasons not quite clear, the commercial longline catch quota has been steadily going down. The charter halibut catch, on the other hand, has remained fairly stable for years.
That said, as commercial catches have fallen, the charter take has increased as percentage of the overall catch.
Commercial fishermen have been screaming that's not fair, so the Council came up with a plan to shrink a charter catch approaching 20 percent of the total harvest in Cook Inlet and north Gulf of Alaska waters back down to back under 15 percent, at least. The plan would have cut the daily bag limit for charter anglers in what is called Area 3A from two fish per day to one starting next year.
Many charter operators expressed doubts they could stay in business with a one-fish limit. Many said they are already struggling to sell two-fish outings at $200 to $250 for the day. Cutting prices isn't a realistic option, many charter operators say, given fuel costs that have made it an expensive proposition just getting to the fishing grounds.
Would Alaskans pay for 1-fish halibut charters?
Charter skippers weren't the only ones objecting, either. Anglers chimed in and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) -- a U.S.-Canada treaty organization charged with overseeing the health of West Coast salmon stocks -- warned that a restriction on the charter fleet might soon prove meaningless in terms of regulating the sport catch.
The Council plan would have left the limit for unguided recreational anglers at two fish in Area 3A. The IPHC expressed fears that a one-fish limit on charters with a two-fish limit for unguided anglers might just shift fishing from guided trips to rental operations. There are already indications that is happening in Southeast Alaska, regulated as Area 2C, where a one-fish limit was imposed on charters last year.
Halibut charters there reported business fell 20 percent or more after that happened, and most added that it would have been a lot worse but for advanced bookings made before the one-fish limit was imposed. Business only worsened in Southeast this year when NOAA further restricted the charter halibut limit to one fish under 37 inches.
Some charter operators said that has just about finished them off. Many are talking about going out of business or finding something new to try to sell.
These were ominous signs for operators in area 3A to the north. In small towns like Seward, Homer, Whittier and Ninilchik on the Kenai Peninsula, and Cordova, Yakutat and Kodiak on the Gulf of Alaska coast, much of the business comes from Alaska residents, who were already balking at rising charter fees. If business in Southeast couldn't sell fishing trips to free-spending charters from Outside, they wondered, how were they going to sell them to tight-fisted Alaskans?
These fears sparked widespread opposition to the Council's charter catch-share plan. Donna Bondioli, co-owner of Captain B's Alaskan C's Adventures in Homer, said that when NOAA opened up the plan to public comment, more than 4,000 people responded. And most of the comments were negative.
This is good news, I travel to Alaska at least twice a year to fish. I'm not going to do that if my limits keep getting cut. I just read an article on here about a commercial cod boat that had a bycatch of 114 tons of wasted halibut. That's one boat in a fleet of many that are wasting tons of fish. 114 tons is more than double the total alocated yearly sport catch of the entire state of Washington. It's just a mater of time before this fishery is managed to extinction by greed and poor practices.
My wife and I operate a seafood company, primarily salmon, but also Halibut. We, and every seafood producer, pay three to five percent of fish purchase dollar values to the State of Alaska each year. Forty plus million dollars a year may not mean much to Bob Penney, but it seems like real money to us, and probably most Alaskans. The trawler bycatch of Halibut can and should be reduced, no argument there. The longline allegations of size shopping however, seem hollow to us. It is a 10/20 (small fish) business anymore, the volume of larger fish just aren't there, so the economic incentive to cull for larger fish also isn't there, too much time, too little volume, and a relatively modest price difference. The reference to a "90/10" split doesn't seem at all accurate, just as a fiahing guide represents not only him or herself, but also their clients, so a commercial fisherperson represent not only themselves, but thousands of consumers who enjoy Alaska's seafood bounty at a restaurant or seafood counter.
I have always had real heartburn with the attitude that many commercial halibut fishermen and charter operators have that they have some ownership of the halibut in Alaskan waters. These fish are not the property of either party. They belong to the people and while these groups should be allowed to use this resource, they should have no ownership right to it and their use of it should not limit or cause harm to the general public’s use and access to the resource.
The way that the fish are currently managed is contrary to the original intent of constitution of the State of Alaska and further, the regulation of these state fish is being done by a international commission. The International Pacific Halibut Commission has six seats, three appointed by the President of the United States and three appointed by Canada. Traditionally, each country appoints a representative from the Processor community, one from the Commercial Fishing Fleet and one from the Federal Management Agency. The state is not represented on the commission and was not a signatory to the convention that created it. Yet, large portions of the waters these fish reside in are state waters and all other fish and wildlife in those waters are managed by the state for the residents of Alaska. This is a state's right's issue if there ever has been one and it appears that nobody is willing to step up and defend the sovernty of the State of Alaska and the rights accorded the residents of the State in our constitution.
It will be interesting to see what action the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) takes on this issue.
Bruce Leaman, executive director of the IPHC, filed IPHC comments on the CSP to NMFS:
Point 5 of the IPHC letter -- it says that the "benefits" of the CSP may "dissipate" if unguided anglers are not brought under control as well, and advocates a trailing amendment to limit unguided angling as soon as possible.
The IPHC comments validates the divide and conquer strategy that comfish has been pursuing -- get charter first, then go after the unguided sector.
The "concern" expressed by the IPHC about benefits being dissipated demonstrates the extreme bias of the IPHC in favor of the commercial IFQ holders -- why should the IPHC care who catches the halibut when their job is to protect the halibut resource, which the IPHC can easily do by reducing the commercial allocation if they are fearful that the recreational sector will catch more than ADF&G projects they will.
Thus, this point only makes sense if you translate "benefits" into "increased allocation to the commercial IFQ holders".
Heads I win, tails you lose - the coordinated strategies of the NPFMC and IPHC to increase commercial harvests by first reallocating fish away from anglers who choose to fish on a charter boat, then going after those that fish on private boats.
Part of the problem you hit right on the head. ADF&G projections of the sport and charter catch. In 2c there is no accountability on the sport side of the fishery. I can't speak for 3a. F&G uses creel surveys. And not very thorough ones. IPHC has absolutely no idea of the actual charter and sport catch.
There have been proposals for catch records for halibut for the sport sector. A card you fill out every time you catch a halibut, you write down the date, the length. The card must be mailed in every season, or you lose your fishing privileges for the next season. It would be a simple way to get a handle on the sport catch. After all, the comm fish catch is well documented and a known, outside of the by-catch by the trawl fleet and cod long liners.
Unfortunately, proposals along these lines have been rejected by ADF&G, as they feel their estimates are accurate. Kind of like grading your own test. Hey! I got an A!
If IPHC does have a commercial bias, it is because this is the industry they have been working with for 100 years. It just goes to show that the charter industry is very new and emerging, and trying to wrest a resource that was already being exploited from the hands of the long line fleet. Long liners were here first. We were doing it before charter boats were conceived. Sport and charter interests are guilty of the resource grabbing. Comm fish is guilty of holding, but only after it was handed to us.
Good news for the small operators -charter operators- who by their very existence spread $ around to a wide variety of businesses by their customers' largesse.
They delayed the proposal, excellent. Hopefully something big will come down the line to destroy it. I know just what could do it in: Take those 2 sentences you devote to talking about the trawl by-catch and do some research. Right now there's a whole fleet of trawlers on edge in Kodiak worried about catching too much Halibut when they have a fisheries observer on board. I wonder why?
Single Page
Comments