Single Page
Tough new federal halibut regulations draw rowdy Alaska fishermen to HomerHOMER -- A packed room of angry and worried small businessmen fearful the federal government is about to bankrupt them got some simple advice Friday night on how to deal with the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy: "Send a letter." That was the best Glenn Merrill, assistant regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, could offer charter boat skippers facing imposition of what is being called a "halibut catch sharing" plan. Almost everyone now seems in agreement the plan will cut the 2012 halibut limit for charter anglers to one fish per day. There also seems general agreement that the halibut taken away from anglers, who are now allowed two fish per day, will be given to the commercial charter halibut fishery. The goal of the NMFS, which is operating under the guidance of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, is to make sure the charters never catch more than 17 percent of the allowable harvest in Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska and preferably are kept in the 10 to 15 percent range. The council that set this limit is an organization dominated by powerful commercial fishing interests. Arne Fuglvog, the now-disgraced former aide to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was a key player on the council when it set about to first freeze the charter catch beneath a "guideline harvest level" and now reduce it through the catch sharing plan. Fuglvog was at the time a longline halibut fisherman. He got out of that business to become a powerful aide to an Alaska senator, and he almost went on to become head of the NMFS. Fuglvog's run ended when it was discovered he had been longline fishing illegally for years. He this week pleaded guilty to one count of illegal fishing in exchange for the U.S. Attorney letting him off with 10 months in jail and $150,000 in fines. Some in the charter fleet believe Fuglvog is just the tip of a bigger iceberg. There was some talk of the storm now brewing in the fisheries as the "VECO of Alaska fisheries" with Fuglvog playing the part of former VECO Chairman Bill Allen. Allen was the man behind the influence peddling that sent several Alaska legislators to jail and sparked the conviction, later overturned, of the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. Stevens was the victim of overzealous federal prosecutors who demonstrated just how out of control government can run. Some of the charter skippers here think they are victims of another agency -- NMFS -- again showing how out of control government can run. Merrill admitted to the sometimes hostile crowd that the charter fishery has done its part to comply with conservation standards set back in 2003. Not once in the convening years, he conceded, has the charter business exceeded its guideline harvest level. He admitted, too, that NMFS has no idea how much havoc the catch-share-plan is going to wreak on the charter business. "We just don't have very good data," he said. "We don't have the data." But when asked why NMFS didn't attempt to get the data, he didn't answer. Charter skippers say they have a pretty good idea of what the data would show: business would slow and some operators would go bankrupt because of a lack of anglers willing to pay $150 and more per day to fish for only one halibut. Merril countered that charters could lease some halibut from commercial fishermen who, in the NMFS view of things, own a public resource -- the fish -- as part of their "individual fishing quotas."
I can tell you all this was stemmed from BAD science. Halibut Charter Permit, decided by NOAA via NPFMC was created based off data from logbooks issued by AKDFG in 2004 or 2005 when halibut WERE NOT EVEN RECORDED in charter guide logbooks. IFQ/Catch Sharing Plan: The charter industry already falls under a catch sharing plan via the International Pacific Halibut Commission, an international regulatory agency set up between the US and Canada. Future Catch Sharing Plan: Created with data that was estimated and non-collected data. All figures for the charter fleet were GUESSED and statistically created for the charters while catch data for COMMERCIAL is KNOWN. This is all blatant control to take away the PUBLIC'S FISH not just trying to control a bunch of charters. Please don't give up contact SEAGO, Alaska Charter Association, or the Charter Operators of Alaska. I hope that people stand up to this nonsense. Wait, wait...WTF squared...you sure this Fuglvog guy was not a Plain honcho, backed by her? I mean she talks enough about fishing...there must be a connection and this could really, really put her in jail. Why hasn't any one found something on her to put her in jail? Now is the time...get Medred on it pronto...what else does he do but dwell on her and what she does...sulking behind his computer. Let's see some action....mean time I'll find out about Japanese thin omelettes....call me when your're done....(I can see her now, behind bars with halibut packed in the cell with her....ah, sweet revenge!) Ok, help me understand something. While I view a limit of 1 halibut on sport charter as being a most ridiculous fishery management move on the planet, I still do not understand how people expect commercial fisherman, to just automatically and quietly give up their livlihood, to allow the sport fishery to grow. I mean think about it. This is like me saying to your employer, I can do your job better, and I'm willing to do it cheaper, so fire that guy, and hire me. Do people really think the charter boat industry has this right to move in take peoples' livlihoods away? Now I totally agree that economically, the charter boat industry does more for local economy and the value of a sport caught halibut much greater than a commericial halibut, so I'm not in any way arguing the value there, just the how. HOw do you grow a sport fishing industry without decimating other peoples' livlihoods?. Its not right I say. Perhaps the best way around it is attrition, and to allow the sport industry an equal access to buy-in to the available halibut quotas. Halibut are not an infinite resource, there is a set amount that can be harvested in a sustainable manner. I'm not sure the question is so much who gets the pie, but how best to divvy it up in a manner that is civilized and non-destructive to peoples' livelihoods. It's impressive that we are now ready to accept statements such as "Stevens was the victim of overzealous federal prosecutors," as an unsourced fact. I'll editorialize, and point out that there was only one victim in the Ted Steven's saga. That victim was the state of Alaska, and the political process that he helped corrupt by lending political credibility to those who were directly corrupting the process. Ted might have got off on a technicality, but don't give me this revisionist "victim" nonsense. Let's give all the federal officials they send here a Tlingit Boat Ride. That should solve the problem. So charter fishermen would have to pay a commie fishermen for a portion of their 85% of a public resource. And for those of you that argue that charter fishermen are commercial, then why do their clients need a sport fishing license? And when is the bycatch going to count against the commie fishermen's 85%? Craig Medred: Overall, I found this report informative. However, in the 3rd paragraph you refer to "halibut charters" and "commercial charter halibut fishing". Please explain the difference. It seems unfathomable to me that "commercial halibut fishers" are loosing from the charter business, unless one or the other is not reporting accurately. And isn't that the bottom line in the Fuglvog case, as you say "the tip of the iceburg". It is an outrage to me that after all the years that various government entities, both State and Federal, have been manipulating the fishing industry in Alaska, haven't acquired accurate data to complement experience of halibut fishers. Oh, yeh, SOA gave up Coastal Management. Many years of observation, seemingly 'enlightened' plans forever fail to provide necessary budget consideration for science or enforcement. Perhaps the fisher-voters, don't forget some of whom really do not live in Alaska, should have looked out for their own best interest when voting instead of the interest of, for instance in reality, Big Fish in Seattle. Thank you, nem Alaska's own politicians did this with Alaska's own appointments to the commission. Washington state's politicians protected their own fisherman. Our own people did this to us not a specific parties' administration. We elected idiot governors who sold out the charter industry for campaign contributions by appointing 5 commercial fishing industry members out of our 8 spots on the commission. Blame those really responsible. The charter boats don't just bring in their fees. There are lodging and dinners. The charter's customers also pay the cooks, waitresses, waiters and housekeeping staff. Fisherman who charter boats pay sales and lodging taxes. We are talking a lot more jobs than the fishing fleet floating off the coast. It's insane to send all that money outside Alaska for pennies on the pound compared to what we spend to catch two fish a day. We are giving away public fisheries to commercial fisherman who give back very little in comparison and take millions of pounds of fish compared to a thousand to maybe 1500 pounds per boat a day. Charter boat customers fill flights, buy trinkets,rent cars that's only a tiny amount per pound that is spent compared to 17 dollars a pound in the store which is the total gross per pound. We are giving away votes to our politicians who are giving away the fishery to an industry that all but a handful will leave nothing more than fishing license fees while taking 85% of the halibut outside or charging us the same price as fish shipped to New York City. Alaskans as a whole should be outraged not just the charter boat operators since this will take money out of Alaska's economy and we all will suffer for it. Senator Murkowski should be ALL OVER this situation. It reeks of corruption. Ted Stevens certainly would be reacting to his constituents` concerns by this time! If this situation is truly hurting ALASKANS, (and it certainly appears to be) at the expense of fleets of commercial fishing boats from Seattle and places beyond, then she, along with Begich and Young, are derelict in their duties and should be called on the carpet in no uncertain terms. Stevens wouldn`t have stood for this, he`d be over in front of that committee chairman`s face letting him have what for. What are our senators doing? Hiding from questions from constituents while pandering. Lisa should admit errors as well as she claims successes. That hasn`t happened in this case. My feelings on this are based on how it all affects Alaskans who live here in the summers AND the winters. The ones who are being screwed by higher and higher heating bills and transportation and freight costs. A couple of fish in a short season means the difference between success or failure to many of these charter owners who bring so much to this state. We should be looking at the high-seas fleets and their monumental by-catch and quota violations, not the small operators who bring so much to the small communities in Alaska. Why do THEY always have to pay the ultimate price when our senator screws up? I am not a commercial fisherman, but I have gone fishing with charters out of Alaska towns. This seems like "David and Goliath",..but David left his sling-shot back at the hut where the senators are sipping wine with Herod. Lisa Murkowski hired Arne in '06 after he had been engaged in illegal fishing for years. Does anybody believe the UFA's Vinsel-- O I got an email in 05 a few weeks after we endorsed Foglvog, but heh I get letters all the time. Vinsel's avatar said, Hello Lisa, listen we got a problem with Arne, fire him. Vinsel's avatar would have called NOAA. Heh this guy may be a crook. Investigate him. But Vinsel the man says, I just deleted Enge's email telling me all the details about Arne now shown to be true. So who's the reliable guy now Vinsel? So UFA loved Arnie so much they didn't tell NOAA or Murkowski? Ah... ya sure Vinsel, no body believes you. The email I presume you are referring to was reported in the Anchorage Daily News on Friday - it was from May 2009, UFA endorsed Arne for the NMFS position in 2009. So what is your rant about 2005, there was no email deleted in 2005, it was 2009. welcome to our world (SE Alaska area 2C Charter Fishermen)-soon, they'll reduce Sport Fishing to one fish, to keep from reducing the Commercial guys any further, cause they're running the boards-meanwhile the trawlers are scooping them up while everyone's back is turned My family hires a halibut charter once a year out of Homer. If the catch limit is reduced to one halibut per day, we will not continue. It is already un economic to fish based upon the two-per-day limit; I estimate my catch costs about $30 - 40 per pound of take-home fish. That would increase to $60 - 80 per pound. My family enjoys the halibut fishing tradition and has been been willing to pay the "premium" for the experience. But at this price we would just as soon eat real chicken than chicken halibut. It's the same in my family. We want small halibut since they are the best to eat. For me the fillets from large fish for sale are not a replacement. The loss will be to businesses in Homer and Seward because we spend much more locally than for the charter. One fish for a higher price won't cut it. Where's my comment? |
Comments