Small Alaska charters sue big government over halibut
Craig Medred |
Apr 04, 2011
Largely abandoned by state tourism and small-business interests, a group of skippers who run small halibut charter boats in Alaska went into a federal court in Washington, D.C., Monday to try to stop the U.S. government from running them out of business. Four Alaska charter companies and Charter Operators of Alaska challenged as arbitrary and capricious a new federal regulation to limit the number of charter boats in Alaska. The new rule is expected to put 327 fishing operations out of business. A motion for a preliminary injunction against the rule seeks to prohibit the U.S. Department of Commerce from enforcing the regulation until the courts can rule on its legality. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service earlier this year imposed a charter halibut permit program designed to shut down about a third of the halibut charters that fished state waters last year. The NOAA program is designed to limit competition between the charter operators, whose clients catch about 10 percent of Alaska's halibut, and commercial interests that catch more than 80 percent. Charter operators' spokesman Jack Roskind said a decision was made to file suit in the nation's capital because of the feeling on the part of the charter businesses that the whole fisheries management system in Alaska is stacked against them. The reaction among state political leaders to the chaos in the charter business has largely been a big "so what." "They (all) told us they're not going to help us in any way," said Roskin. "That's why we filed in D.C. There's too much commercial interest in Anchorage and Juneau." The charter operators contend the new NOAA regulations ignore the federal "Halibut Act" and fail to meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the review of economic impacts in federal fisheries off Alaska's coast. The suit also questions whether the new halibut rules abide by Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for fair and equitable access to fishing opportunities. The NOAA plan, the suit says, is "not fair and equitable to all halibut fishermen." The Halibut Act is a federal law that ties the U.S. government to international management of halibut stocks that migrate around the North Pacific Ocean. It dictates that all halibut harvests be "reasonably allocated to promote conservation." But in the latest case the attorneys for the charter operators argue, no consideration whatsoever was given to conservation. The NOAA plan, the suit alleges, "only seeks economic consolidation of the charter industry." The new rules, the suit says, are "based solely on economic allocation and not conservation." "We are reviewing the suit,'' said Alaska Region NOAA spokeswoman Julie Speegle in Juneau. She did not know when the review would be complete and added that NOAA doesn't usually comment on lawsuits anyway. Charter Operators of Alaska has for months been publicly protesting the new restrictions as little more than a halibut grab by powerful commercial fishing interests, but the organization has had little luck in gaining much in-state support. The two-thirds of charter halibut operators gaining NOAA permits are largely supportive of the new program because of potential financial rewards. Along with limiting competition for clients, the program hands out permits that could be very valuable. Once charter businesses get permits, they are free to traffic in them. Some are already being offered for sale, along with charter boats, at prices in excess of $300,000, despite lingering questions about the legality of the new permit plan. The NOAA plan is the first foray by the federal government into limited-entry for sport-fishing-related businesses. The plan, like other federal programs for limiting participation in fisheries off the Alaska coast, is largely modeled on the state limited-entry program for commercial salmon fishing. That now decades-old program made salmon permits in the 49th state sometimes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The program has been a gold mine for commercial fishermen looking to retire or cash-out of business for other reasons.
by xcharterguy | April 6, 2011 - 12:05pm
One big problem with comparing charter vs commercial catch in pounds is that they have no idea of how many POUNDS of fish the charter fleet catches. They use the number of fish from log books and use an average to come up with an estimate. With the size of the fish that I see coming across the docks, from K-Bay anyway, they just keep getting smaller each year. There is NO WAY that they have a clue how many pounds of fish the charter guys are catching AND I would bet that it is GROSSLY overstated.
by Frumious | April 5, 2011 - 3:29pm
Fresh Halibut is $17 a pound at Costco today. Sheesh! We are fast coming to a ridiculous state of affairs where we Alaskans are priced out of commercial-caught halibut and are restricted in catching our own on charters. I have chartered most years, taking my kids aboard. They love the experience - to them bouncing around in a six pack puker is a memorable part of growing up Alaskan. (We caught an 8 foot shark one time!) To me a charter is quality time with my family and chance to enrich the local (Homer) economy. I once calculated that it cost about $40 a pound to drive to Homer, spend a night in a hotel, pay for the charter and have the fish filleted and flash frozen. But its worth it to do it with the kids. I wish the charter folks success in their law suit. The per fish economic impact of the charters is far greater than that of the commercial boats.
by Rita | April 5, 2011 - 2:25pm
good effort-but the real issue behind all of this is trawler bycatch, and instead of mandating the wanton waste of halibut, far above any and all targeted catch put together, they took the trawler fleet's largest annual Halibut bycatch ever recorded (only that being recorded), and simply doubled it, and called it a "cap". Check out the sickening waste of a resource documented at http://tholepin.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-happened-to-halibut-dad.html
by Kapco | April 6, 2011 - 10:02am
Yep, if conservation and sustainability for the halbut biomass means that the feds write over 10 million pounds of waste into the commercial regs then the halibut are definitely in jeapordy. Deflectiing the blame and efforts onto the charter fleet just illustrates the hush hush nature of the bargains that have been struck between the commercial halibut fishing industry and our politicians. Sad.
by AKgasman | April 5, 2011 - 11:29am
About time, long passed due. The whole Alaska fishery system needs overhaul.
by Joe 12-Pack | April 5, 2011 - 7:50am
Craig, you have some things right, and others…well, not quite. You’ve got the North Pacific Council pegged correctly…they are dominated by large commercial interests (and, sadly, a complicit Commissioner of ADFG). To a large degree, the Council has done a good job managing some things…particularly when it comes to issues that are of little interest to anyone other than the big commercial guys. They have failed on issues when other user groups come into play. Look at how they addressed Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea: viewed from 20,000 feet, their action looked like it was “bycatch reduction”, but in reality the Council bent over backwards to accommodate the billion dollar pollock industry, at the expense of the Chinook salmon and the people who depend on them. Now they’re doing the same thing with Chinook bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska…and will likely do it later when they address chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea. I’ll partly agree with you on this charter situation but, particularly in SE Alaska, something had to be done. Was it conservation or allocation that drove this action? The charter fleet was going WAY over their allocation. When a resource is fully allocated and utilized…how is that not a conservation action unless you advocate simply taking those charter overages from the hides of the commercial fishermen? I guess that makes it allocative? Lastly, you buy into the assertion that the charter guys are mom-and-pop Alaskans whereas the commercial fleet is not. You’ve missed some of the significant differences between the charter industry SE and the rest of the State. Is this approach by the Council the right way to control the situation? I don’t know. I think the charter IFQ system that the Council had previously recommended was better, though not perfect.
by ahinman1 | April 4, 2011 - 8:09pm
Why should the charter operators who do recieve permits be free to "traffic" in them? the permit they recieved was a boon given them by the regulating industry at everyone elses expense. these permits should be transferrable but not saleable. this is a mistake that was made with the commercial fising permits as well and we have seen that allowing the sale of these permits has locked the next generation of fishermen out of the fishery unless they inherit a permit. |













Comments