Single Page
Screw U: Alaska Government 101
Kodiak Island Resort at Larsen Bay is a small business in a tiny village that the U.S. government is trying to destroy because its owner -- like a number of other small businessmen all around the state -- threatens big-money, industrial fisheries for halibut off the Alaska coast. None of this seems fair to Kodiak resort proprietor Allen Walburn, who pumps about $200,000 per year into the economy of a place that doesn't have much of an economy. Larsen Bay is an isolated community on an isolated island in the cold and stormy North Pacific Ocean. The largest community on the Island, the city of Kodiak is home to only 6,500 people. It is a megalopolis compared to Larsen Bay with its less than 150 residents. Neither Larsen Bay nor Kodiak city have a road connection to the United States, but you can at least fly to Kodiak city on a modern jet airplane from Anchorage, 250 miles to the northeast. To get to Larsen Bay, you have to take the jet to Kodiak city, and then get on a small plane for a 65-mile flight up and over 4,000-foot mountains to near the entrance to Uyak Bay off the Shelikof Strait. And yet, despite the difficulty of getting there, people come. Walburn has managed to attract them from all over the world. The clientele for his lodge has visited from as far away as Europe, New Zealand, Africa and Australia, though there are plenty of Outside tourists who show up, too, and even some Alaskans. Some of these people come to see the fabled Kodiak Island grizzly bears. Some come simply to see Alaska. And a lot come to fish. Walburn's business needs them all to survive. Even by Alaska standards, Kodiak Island Resort is a small operation, and the money made by offering sport fishing for halibut is one of the profit-centers that keeps the business afloat. This benefits not just Walburn but Larsen Bay and Kodiak as well. Walburn detailed some of his economic contribution in a plea to the Small Business Administration asking for its help in battling the powerful U.S. "For 2011 we intend to employ a chef, three boat captains, housekeeper, grounds person, office manager and server/kitchen help that will make, in total around, $95,000 in gross wages. In addition to the salaries we would pay our flight service around $30,500 for transporting our guests from Kodiak to Larsen Bay, another $10,000 for shipping, $18,000.00 to various Alaska food purveyors, purchase 5000 gallons of gasoline ( $30,000), 400 gallons of diesel fuel ($2400.00), $4500.00 for public utilities, Larsen Bay bed tax $2000.00 and $11,000 for business insurance. There are numerous other smaller expenses for equipment, supplies, transportation, advertising, etc. that will not be funded if we are not able to halibut fish in 2011 or the future." Walburn, who is in a fight for his economic survival, was forced to turn to the SBA after Alaska officials turned deaf ears to his plight again and again and again. Some people think the charter fishermen that were excluded from permits "just didn't get their paperwork in in time"-the process was deliberately rigged to exclude most of the industry. They (NMFS/NOAA) first selected a different time period used to qualify for the permit-most of the fleet qualified (too many for them), so they determined that the State Log Books were not adequate to make the determination with (a judge disagreed with that)-so the Feds started by taking control of halibut management, & the State removed the column (method) for recording halibut catches from the Log Books-the fisherman were all told that the feds would be giving them their own forms/books to record halibut catch, but they never did. After several years of no halibut catch being recorded, it was put BACK in the State Log Books. Shortly after, the feds started the halibut permit determination again, using those specific years Log Books, when there was no halibut catch recorded. Only very few fishermen then qualified-a few seemed to have been "tipped-off" as to what was coming, and got around the exclusion by recording their time salmon fishing as "bottom fishing" also, both at the same time, -the Feds then allowed them to use this "effort" as proof of halibut fishing during that period-but most charter fishermen go strictly by the book, and were afraid of recording their hours as both salmon & bottom fishing at the same time-so most Charter fishermen were excluded from receiving the permits. The issue of Charter Halibut Permits is certainly heated. The IPHC and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council review data and make recommendations regarding the harvest of halibut. However, their good ideas must be implemented in such a fashion as to be fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory among all harvesters, just as the Halibut Act mandates. The Council is advisory in nature. They have been making recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service to limit the size of the charter halibut fleet for over 15 years. The Council actually posted their intent to limit the size of the charter halibut fleet in the Federal Register in 2007, however, since the Council has no rule-making authority, they can post whatever they like but it is non-binding. The NMFS, by authority of the Halibut Act through NOAA and ultimately the Secretary of Commerce, makes binding rules at the recommendation of the Council. Whatever motions the Council recommend to the NMFS, it is the responsibility of NMFS to review them and even send them back to the Council if unreasonable, unethical, or infringes upon American's individual freedoms; that’s NMFS job. Then when drafts are deemed fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory, NMFS may publish just and effective rules. The Final Rule as posted is unfair, inequitable, and prejudicial. Again, I am not opposed to a rule to issue Charter Halibut Permits. But I am vehemently opposed to the current method that NMFS is using to implement the rule issuing CHP’s. Bully tactics don’t cut it with me and that’s exactly what they are using. It’s tough to fight an agency that has the balls to manipulate the public comment requirement (they make things up) due to underlying agendas. My father-in-law says there is one thing worse than a lie; it’s a half-truth. NMFS responses to comments included double-talk and statements with no research or facts; half-truths. Personally, I have participated in the fishery 3 years and have assets totaling over $150,000 with over $60,000 debt. I pay insurance, harbor fees, advertising fees, and taxes. I purchase ice, bait, food, fuel, mechanic services, and lodging from local businesses. My bills are paid from charter income; I am completely dependent on the halibut fishery. My clients fly in from all over the continental US and a few from the far reaches of the globe. They spend their money on transportation, food/lodging, and gifts, stimulating Alaskan economies. I fish Whittier, a one-hour drive from Anchorage. The direct result of the Final Rule will cut our fleet in half! I know NMFS has said that the remaining fleet will accommodate all the folk wanting to charter in 2011 but I don’t think so. I think they manipulated the equations and neglected to consider high-volume days when we are booked to capacity, like weekends, holidays, and times of cruise-ship arrivals. Last year (2010) I personally witnessed potential clients left behind at the dock on high-volume days They intentionally implemented a rule that they knew would economically devastate 300 Alaska families! Did you know that the Halibut Act states that present participation in the fishery must be a consideration when implementing a regulatory program? Did you also know that over 50 charter companies received a CHP and did not carry clients in 2010? Why should they, they just found out they would receive a piece of paper worth $100k+; they won the lottery! Also, you know that up to 70 CHP’s could be issued to people that have never taken a client halibut fishing all because they live in a village? No present or historical participation there; looks more like a discriminatory re-distribution to me. Reasonable remedies abound. NMFS could issue CHP’s to all applicants that demonstrated present and historical participation with 2010 logbook data. If one looks up the legal definition of “present” and “historical” 2010 alone could be deemed as appropriate; don’t confuse the issues and keep it simple, remember 1 + 1 = 2. The 2010 logbook data are now and have been available from AkF&G ever since the application process began in fall 2010. For NMFS to insinuate that 2008 was the best “present” participation year is ridiculous and the same for 2004/2005 for “historical” participation. With literal interpretation of the Halibut Act verbiage, even 2010 would satisfy historical as long as more than one charter was recorded for the year. The Halibut Act is straightforward but NMFS has an agenda; to cut the fleet size regardless of the economic impacts to families and small businesses. NMFS could make all permits non-transferable and when not used for maybe 3 years they revert back to NMFS for re-distribution through a wait-list. Use it or lose it. If the Council or NMFS determines that there are still too many halibut charter businesses, they can purchase/buy-back CHP’s from recipients, NMFS stated they would be valued ~$5k, right? Something like this would be fair and equitable and probably go a long way towards citizens’ right to equal protection and due-process. Whatever the scenario, we are being bullied and existing small businesses are taking the hit; all because the Council has been crying wolf for more than 15 years and NMFS/NOAA did not respond. Long term, what about commercial bycatch? Millions of pounds of halibut are wasted annually. How about commercial interests being required to keep all halibut landed? This bycatch could be part of their recorded catch and count against the commercial allocation; I think that’s fair. They could also be fined for the tonnage retained. This could help produce more efficient trawling and bottomfish efforts and reduce the perceived necessity to reduce charter and sportfish allocation. What’s funny about this rule (I’m being facetious) is the fact that my wife and kids love to catch halibut and they really love when I cook it. According to the NMFS (NOAA), if I am a licensed guide and take my wife and kids fishing on our own boat, without a CHP we cannot keep our own sport-caught halibut! I’m not kidding; see FAQ #7 at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/halibut/charter/faq.pdf Finally, NMFS stated in their answers to comments in the Final Rule that we may advertise and target other species. I think I do a very good job advertising that. But, last year out of 28 charters, only one was for a species other than halibut. On my website I have many prominent pictures of customers with salmon, lingcod, and rockfish. I try to get people interested in other species but halibut is dominant. Where did NMFS get the idea that we could switch our business models? I think they pulled it out of thin air. Maybe another half-truth? To date, I have booked and received deposits for 10 charters in 2011; the latest to date being August 20th. Should I not book charters? I am an established business and have a interim permit so I have not been denied access. Considering the circumstances, would anyone recommend I purchase a CHP for $100k (NMFS posted that they estimate the value at $5k). Would you loan me the money to purchase a CHP? My profit margin is small as it is, would you mind that I do not pay you back? And that $100k permit, it may only be worth pennies on the dollar a year from now. I’m only one example of 300. There is a non-profit organized and they have retained legal counsel. Charter Operators of Alaska located at www.charteroperatorsofalaska.org Check them out, sign the petition, donate to the legal fund and lets get on with fishing. I wondered why ATIA was so quiet. Thanks for the answer. Craig your distain for the commercial fisheries of Alaska is laughable. After all these years you would think that you would have a better understanding of fisheries. They are not some giant corporation or organized crime gang; they are on the most part small family run business’s just like the lodge on Kodiak. There are risks in all business. There has to be a management plan and a limit on how much fish that can be taken. It is not unlimited. The charter industry knew that limited access was coming and to imply otherwise is a joke. Nice dig on the enhanced salmon program. As a reporter you really should have tried to get all the information and make a balanced informed article instead of your bias whining Expect to see more and more squabbling for resources as the world population continues to explode and human beings do what they do best: over consume and destroy their natural environment. Gemmell wrote.... To quote from the November 2009 FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/halibut/earirfrfa_charter_vessel_moratorium110609.pdf Businesses that operated in 2008 but failed to qualify may have been unaware of the qualification criteria for this action. The Council chose the control date in December 2005, and incorporated it into its final action in April 2007. It was published in several issues of the Councilâ��s newsletter, and by publication in the Federal Register in February 2006 (71 FR 6442), the Council and NMFS met their notification responsibilities. Operations making significant, irrecoverable, investments in the business would have had a strong incentive to inquire into the regulatory status of the fishery as an important element of due diligence. Other operations, making less significant and largely recoverable investments (e.g. using an existing vessel to explore the potential of the industry) may have had smaller incentives to do so. However, the existence of these incentives and the Council and Secretarial publication of the control date, do not preclude the possibility that some operations failed to fully understand the implications of Council activity. Businesses that were aware of the criterion, and that nevertheless entered the fishery after the qualification period, may have believed that there was a significant chance that the Council or the Secretary ultimately would not impose the requirement of having fished in the qualification period, or they may have structured their operations in light of the upcoming limited access permit requirement. In either case they would have anticipated that there would be a significant chance they would either have to cease operations if the control date was part of the final program, or that they would have to buy the requisite permits, work as a hired skipper or subcontractor to a firm that held permits, or access community halibut charter permits through a CQE program. |
Comments