Put up or shut up

E-mail Print

craig-tease1

Along the Alaska coast, the federal government is preparing to put hundreds of mom-and-pop fishing companies out of business in 2011, and the state of Alaska remains strangely silent.

Odd, given Gov. Sean Parnell thundering away in his State of the State speech about the wrongs imposed upon the 49th state by the federal government. Here's part of what Parnell had to say in case you missed it: "With statehood, the strong assumption prevailed that, as a fledgling state, we would be allowed to develop our own resources without constant federal interference. Today, however, the federal government's actions often seem at war with Alaskan interests."

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Alaska halibut fishing business, where the federal government oversees an operation wherein small, charter-fishing operations in communities like Homer, Ninilchik, Seward and Sitka are relegated to a thin slice of the fishing action while commercial interests dominated by big businesses in Seattle haul in most of the fish. It was merely bad when a paltry 10 percent or so of the halibut went to the charters with the 'commies' pocketing large amounts of cash for the other 90 percent. It is about to get a whole lot worse.

New regulations proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would cut the halibut charter business by an estimated 30 to 40 percent in 2011. The Alaska Charter Association estimates about 150 businesses in Southcentral and another 100 more in Southeast could be forced under by NOAA's new limits on who can fish.

"The state could do something," Homer charter operator Bob Howard said Monday, "but it won't."

No, the state under half-term former Gov. Sarah Palin stood by and watched the charter business marching toward the gallows. And now the state under replacement Gov. Parnell appears willing to remain silent on the issue of halibut as the already struggling charter industry is hung. This despite the new governor's blustering about those evil, Alaska-abusing feds.

"We haven't heard anything from the governor," Howard said. He's not sure why. Palin, Howard added, at least had an excuse for ignoring the issue. "She's a commercial fisherman," he said, which, in Alaska fishing terms, puts her among the ruling elite. Alaska commercial fishermen stick together even tighter than rich Massachusetts Democrats.

No one connected to the commercial fishing business in Alaska is going to complain about federal 'crats dancing to the tune of the commercial-fishing interests that dominate the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). And the commercial fishing interests behind the council don't just want to limit the sport fishing charter business to its current, tiny percentage of what is supposed to be a publicly owned resource.

That would be bad enough, but what the commies want to do now is devastate what they consider 'the enemy'. They try to rationalize this by portraying the angling crowd as guilty of overfishing, an idea some ignorant Alaska journalists (of which there are plenty) have bought into.

Yes, those little charter bastards should be happy with their paltry share of the catch instead of trying to spread the bounty of "the industry's halibut" among the common folk. How dare these little bastards help a man from Houston, Alaska or a woman from Houston, Texas, enjoy an Alaska fishing trip and take home a couple flatfish when those people should be made to pay $20 per pound for halibut in the supermarket.

Sharing Alaska's fishery wealth like this? Why, that's what half-term, ex-Gov. Palin might call "socialism."

The NPFMC puppets, obedient to the strings of their big-business puppet masters, know full well the halibut don't belong to the people. The halibut belong to the commercial fishing business. The halibut belong in the supermarket aisle, not the cooler of some common Joe the Fisherman. And to put as much halibut as possible in the market, so it can put big bucks in the pockets of big business, the NPFMC is happy to shrink the one segment of the Alaska fishing economy that could provide for future economic growth and future jobs in Alaska.

The basics of job creation here are simple. Commercial fishing is a very efficient business; few people are required to make it work. Charter fishing is a very inefficient business; many people are required to make it work.

Thus every time you take fish out of the commercial sector and allow them to be caught in the charter sector, you create more jobs. But the job creation associated with this shift in fishing doesn't end on the boats. Charters survive by selling a fishing opportunity -- not a fish. To take advantage of the opportunity, people must journey north. In the process of getting here and staying here, those people generate business for airlines, bars, hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, and, of course, fishing lodges and more bars.

Were Alaska to follow the track taken by other states, which provide a close to equal split of allowable halibut catches between commercial and sport/charter interests, we could be growing jobs in the Alaska charter business for decades. This is one way we could, as half-term former Gov. Palin liked to say, "progress Alaska."

Only, the powers that be haven't shown much interesting in progressing in Alaska. They seem happy to turn this issue over to a cabal of Outside interests which would rather regress the state. They'd like to take the fishing industry back to where it was 50 years ago when it ran Alaska.

"We're still a colony," Howard said. "It is interesting in that regard. I didn't really understand until I got involved in fish politics."

Howard is no dummy. He is a 65-year-old former civil engineer who made the simple mistake of believing that in Alaska, as in America, government is supposed to try to benefit the people, not just big business and ever bigger government.

"I got into the fish politics in late November of '06," Howard said. "I was naïve and thought you could make a difference. It's all about who's funding whose [political] campaigns and whose [government] programs."

The NPFMC, Howard came to understand, doesn't work for the people of Alaska; it works for the commercial fishing industry. It could care less about how the prosecution of Alaska fisheries benefit or harm the state. It exists to ensure the fish, the big business of commercial fishing, and the 'crats and politicians in the pockets of the big business of commercial fishing are protected, and it is sometimes hard to tell which of those interests come first.

If someone wants to have an Alaska "Tea Party," here's the place. Maybe we could all march down to the NPFMC headquarters, grab a few NPFMC staff, and dump them in Turnagain Arm to make a point in the grand tradition of the founders of this country.

Yes, I know; that would be wrong. Taking a 'crat, or better yet one of his or her political bosses, for a swim is illegal. Letting the 'crats and their political bosses choke the life out of Alaska small businesses, though, is apparently just fine. Or at least the sound of nothing coming from the government of the state of Alaska would make one think so.

It wasn't supposed to happen this way. A big part of the push behind statehood 50 years ago was aimed at getting Alaska out from under the thumb of Seattle-based commercial fishing interests. And now lookie -- thanks to the feds -- Alaska is back under the thumb of Seattle-based commercial fishing interests.

If Alaska's new governor really wants to do something about federal intervention in Alaska issues, other than just beating on the dead cow of Endangered Species Act abuses, here's a place he might really make a difference. The question is, does he really want to do anything? Talk is cheap, and we are headed into an election year. The politicians are sure to promise Alaskans everything they love; in fact, they already are busy doing that.

The "D's" are offering a constitutional amendment to guarantee that annual Permanent Fund Dividend check, because what true Alaskan could be against that? And the "R's" are promising to get the feds off our backs, because what true Alaskan could be against that?

And the tough stuff, like taking on the powerful, monied interests that control big chunks of Alaska's fishing business, well, who wants to do that? That would take some political courage, and there doesn't seem to be much of that in Alaska these days.

Contact Craig Medred at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Discuss
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Member Comments
Posted By: Gambier @ 01.27.2010 3:00 AM
One huge omission from the halibut article is effect of cruise passengers on fish stocks. When 500,000 male passengers cruise here each summer, they are looking for other activities than tanzanite shopping or viewing a glacier, such as halibut sport fishing. That continuous pressure on stocks cannot sustain the resource. The NPFMC and NOAA made the right decision to limit sport charter catches to one halibut per customer. If stocks continue to decline, then charters should operate every other day, not 7 days a week.
Posted By: Coho Dave @ 01.27.2010 10:46 AM
I truly appreciate the gravity of the situation and fully concur with Mr. Medred's sentiments. The only thing I would like to add that seems to be overlooked, and that Gambier doesn't seem to realize, is that limiting the number of charter operators, at least in Homer, will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of halibut caught.

It is a well known fact here that there are already more than enough charter operations here in Homer that go out each summer with empty seats. Limiting the number of charter operators the way the NPFMC/NOAA has is not going to change that. There will still be plenty of seats to go around for anyone interested in going halibut fishing. The only effect it will have will be to distill the "established" operations into an elite few, pad their pockets with a little more money and deny people like me that aren't "mom-and-pop" operators, and are trying to make a serious "go" at establishing a livelihood, the opportunity to pursue a serious vocation. It has been my dream for many years now to start my own charter business here in Homer and as of Feb. 1, 2011 I can forget about the halibut aspect. Not to mention the people that started their operation in 2005 and will miss out on being able to make a living because of some silly rule saying that since they weren't established a year earlier they don't have a right to make that living.

I also find it quite interesting that Rex Murphy of Winter King Charters in Homer, who was instrumental in the decision making process for the rule (see: http://www.homernews.com/stori..._008.shtml) didn't push for restrictions that might have put himself out of business---say make the qualifying year the year before he established his operation. According to the cited article Mr. Murphy has been in business for 8 years. Funny he didn't push for the established years to begin in 2000. If I just happened to be operating in 2004, 2005 and 2008 I think I'd be dancing with joy that as of Feb. 1, 2011 I'd have about 142 less operations to compete with. Sure there are a lot of "mom-and-poppers" out there, but what of those that have been in business for four years, or less, or just happened to not operate in one of those years and will now be shut out?
Posted By: andrewweaver @ 01.27.2010 9:35 PM
very good article mr. medred.

i had the chance to spend the better part of a day with a captain bob in homer (i think different than this bob howard, but a halibut charter guide) on a 10 day field course that i took while completing my Natural Resource Management degree at UAF.

He described the blooming of guides register on the kenai peninsula (and likewise in Southeast) from the nineteen-nineties to today (well, this was in 2006). I believe it was nearly 15 years ago that people were proposing to the NPFMC to limit the number of halibut charter guides, which they refused to do, over and over again.

Obviously deciding on the terms of such limits is difficult business, but they have let the problem get worse and worse, and this has been a crippling factor for the industry, which is only compounded by the ongoing factory trawler decimation of what has for my entire life been described as the best fishing grounds on earth.

We have the bering sea, and we have the gulf of alaska

It seems to me that we as a country are allowing these to be torn apart by large trawlers while the little fish eeking a living on the mainland are given table scraps.

Hardly anyone in public discourse is talking about the decimation of our fisheries, and our shores hardly even get to do the slimey jobs.

I appreciate the desire to want to be a chart operator....but this number should have been capped based on charter-purchasers long ago.

and if the halibut stocks weren't being sucked up by the vacuum cleaners of the pacific than the one fish limit would never have come to be


please cover our fisheries more. oceans and mainland.

thanks
Posted By: Coho Dave @ 01.28.2010 7:28 AM
I don't understand. Mr. Weaver, you say that the number of charter operators should have been capped a long time ago. Please show me the evidence that doing that would have had, or will in the future have, any effect on the number of sport fish halibut caught. As a person with a degree in Natural Resource Management you must understand the importance of stating facts to back up your assertion. The fact is, there always have been plenty of seats available on charter boats seeking halibut and even with the new rules there will still be empty seats, so capping the number of charter operators won't effect the number of halibut caught at all. It's as simple as that.

In this bleak economic environment we are all facing right now doesn't putting nearly 150 people out of business in the Southcentral area alone seem like an odd way to deal with an issue that won't be affected in the least by the supposed fix? Let's put a band-aid over our cancer and hope it goes away.
Posted By: beentheredonethat @ 01.28.2010 12:59 PM
Another excellent article, Craig. But, maybe only good for recorded history.
Gambier's comment reminds me of the often used propaganda tools: misinformation and hyperbole.
To Coho Dave, please don't judge Rex by one article.
To andrew, I hope college taught you to use more than one reference source before drawing conclusions. Unfortunately, a degree in Natural Resources doesn't require a history class in fishery politics.
Posted By: ohmystars @ 01.28.2010 4:45 PM
Thank you Craig for another good article. I think that people in this state will only figure out what is at stake when they find themselves standing on the shore not able to fish. I have a comment for coho dave: if you want to see what Rex Murphy had to say about this whole issue you should go the the www.regulations.gov website and see what he had to say. www.regulations.gov/search/Reg...64809c5bcb

This last site will get you to those comments. Hopefully you submitted yours too and contributed to the process.
Posted By: Coho Dave @ 01.28.2010 11:27 PM
Thank you "ohmystars" for posting that link. I had never seen it before and it certainly puts Rex Murphy's views into a much better perspective. I hope everyone that reads these comments will read it as well as it's a very concise observation of what's wrong with the new rule and absolutely supports the fact that the rule is a "band aid applied to a cancer" and won't do a thing to limit the charter fleet's halibut catch.

I, unfortunately, didn't know about the whole "process" until after it was a done deal. I heard "rumblings" about the possibilities, but when I came to the realization that it might effect me and started investigating the whole thing I came to discover it was past the comment period and was just waiting to be implemented.
Posted By: Concerned Alaskan @ 01.29.2010 8:11 AM
Once again, Medred is spot on with his article "Put up or shut up". However, the cause of the fisheries management attrocities needs to be more direct to be fully understood. Nothing decends on Alaskans from D.C. via the Sect. of Commerce, NOAA or NMFS by just falling out of the blue, or is it conceived by some intellectually superior Washinton politician. Every management program is created by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and is sent TO Washington for the rubber stamping. We can complain about these fisheries programs and even go so far as participate in the "council process", nothing will ever change. Council members do not listen to facts and nothing alters their commercial fishing agenda.
Change absolutely has to come at the top! Changing the Governor of Alaska! We as Alaskan citizena and voters must change the Governor who ultimately fills the north council seats. There is NO other way. We currently have the worst council composition in the entire country. Thanks entirely to Sarah Palin. Past governors were only too happy to take commercial fishing money and ballot box support and in return created a council top heavy with commercial fishng agents. Consequently, all the management programs that came out of the council process favored com-fish interests-NEVER the sportsman.
Our current Halibut crisis began in the mid 90's The north council created the commercial Halibut IFQ program which divided the Halibut resource harvest into quota shares and awarded them "free" to the oldest and largest commercial halibut fishermen. Every Alaskan need to be aware of the Bromley Report "Rethinking Fisheries Policies in Alaska". This report was commissioned by the state of Ak by internationally recognized scholars and buried by the Palin administration. It summarizes the negative impacts of the north council's programs and forcasts the demise of the Halibut resource. Go to www.aae,wisc.edu/dbromley/pdfs/alaska.pdf.
Then in '05, the north council offered a similar IFQ program for charter operators. The program would have eliminated nearly 70% of existing charters. It really had nothing to do with Halibut management and everything to do with limiting sport fishermen. Rremember, neither charter operators or charter boats catch fish! They only transport sport fishermen. Cooler heads prevailed at the council level and the program was dropped. But, commercial fishermen were furious. When Sarah Palin took office, the United Fishermen of Alaska insisted she remove of every voting member who voted against the charter IFQ program. Even when Washington urged her to comply with the spirit of the Magneson-Stevens act by noiminating council voting members, whe refused. She reconstructed the council to include only rabid commercial fishing sympathizers. It's been all down hill!!!...cutting the harvest in SE Alaska in half, the charter moratorium - limiting charters who can serve the public. And, several proposals are being considered now to further limit sport access to Halibut.
Don't be fooled! Every commercial fishing representative indulges in " perception management". It is the process of saying something often enough that the listener comes to belive it-even if the truth is buried so far beneath the rhetorical garbage that it can not be found. For example: every com-fish advocate begins with the statement" the out of control of the charter fleet is overharvesting the halibut resouce and shrinking the available biomass for commercial fishermen who rely on it ro feed their familys and pay off their huge loans". Fact: as of Jan '10 there are fewer charter business and vessels in both SE Alaska and Southcentral Alaska than when the current assult began in '04.. There is never a mention of the enormous bycatch waste which is documented, the waste which is never documented because the north council refusal to consider electronic or photo monitoring ( like Canada) or acknowledge that com-fish kills and wastes more halibut each year than they sell ( this from the director of the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
Bottom line: We can not ever again consider a candidate for Governor who is alligned with commercial fishing, has taken money from com-fish or the United Fishermen of Alaska. We can not have the multimillionare fishermen from Washington state ruling Alaskans.
Posted By: KennyLake47 @ 02.01.2010 2:23 PM
Most dollars per fish to the State of Alaska=Charter Operations. Best Chance to wipe out any hope of having a healthy number of fish stocks for the future=Commerical fisherman. Just as the cod were wiped out in the North Atlantic, so the Pollack and Halibut will disappear. Anybody who doesn't believe this has their head in the sand.
Posted By: KennyLake47 @ 02.01.2010 2:27 PM
and one more thing, thanks to Craig for this article...If Republicans aren't going to stand against the Fed in these issues, I am going Libertarian.
Posted By: AKsmokesalmon @ 02.04.2010 11:39 AM
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) just approved catch limits for 2010, and the process shows just how on target Craig's article is. THe IPHC process, of course, is controlled by commercial fishing interests.

Specifically in 2C, which is Southeast Alaska, the typical commercial fishing refrain is: it's the charter guys who are catching all these fish... and that is the cause of the conservation concern and decreasing catch limits in our area... and there is no way we can allocate more fish to the charter fleet because of the conservation concerns...

The IPHC staff recommendations are based on conservation: In 2009 it was 5.02 million pounds, while the staff recommended 3.71 million pounds for 2010.

The IPHC approved 4.4 million pounds for 2010, which is 700,000 pounds more than staff recommended.

Do we hear a thundering chorus of CONSERVATION concerns being expressed by ANY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN in SOUTHEAST ALASKA over an additional 700,000 pounds of halibut being taken out of area 2C in the upcoming year? You know, cause like an additional 700,000 might be a conservation risk to the long term health of halibut stocks in SE Alaska?

No, because most of that will go directly into the calculation of the commercial fishing IFQ amounts for the year.

Of course, 700,000 pounds is not a conservation concern, but any overages in the SE Charter Fleet above the GHL (guideline harvest levels) thru the years have grown to be cause celeb for conservation concerns.

Bottom line, the IPHC staff for years has been making Catch recommendations in 2C that are less than what the IPHC itself approves, showing us all that it is more important to feed fish into the commercial fishing machine than to manage for halibut conservation in 2C.

Staff recommendations are made by biological considerations, while the IPHC makes decisions will strong input from the commercial fishing industry.

So of course the spread between the staff recommendations (biological based) and IPHC approved (industry recommendations) limits over the years in 2C has amounted to millions and millions of pounds of halibut being made available for commercial catch over the past decade.

This is the true "Reallocation" of fish, from conservation of the resource to the commercial fishing industry.

No better text book display of smoke and mirrors than that.

Say all you want about the overages the charter fleet takes above the GHL, any mention of true conservation concerns by commercial fishing interests in 2C for halibut should be met with laughter and derision.

Thus the yearly spread in the past decade between IPHC staff recommendations and the IPHC approved limits speaks volumes about the integrity of the IPHC process. It is driven by and for commercial fishing interests.

Just a matter of keeping people off balance and executing a deft slight of hand parlor trick: in one instance, when the IPHC is shoveling fish into the pocket of the commercial fishing fleet, it is "Nothing to see here, move along now, keep moving, nothing here to look at..." and then "Hey, look over there, there is a conservation fire burning out of control in the Charter sector - hurry, get the fire trucks running and hoses pumping cause we have to dowse that Conservation fire, it is out of control..."

Great theater if you don't want to be a charter captain.

And for any who have a beef with the one charter fishing interest appointed to the NPFMC Advisory Panel, ask yourself a simple question of why there is only seated person (out of twenty) on the AP and the Council itself (out of eleven) who represents charter interests?

At a certain point, people wake up and start drawing lines in the sand.

For theater, watch how many commercial fishing bills get past a certain Co-Chair of the House Finance Committee this year.
Posted By: AKgasman @ 03.03.2010 3:34 PM
How long before they start calling Parnell the do nothing governor?

Where the blank is the Attorney General ?

Why is Parnell trying to peddle the Alcan Gasline illusion to the seeming exclusion of every thing else?

Whatever happened to the $100 million in Cook Inlet gas over charges by Conoco/Marathon/ Chevron/ Enstar that Murkowski’s Attorney General was working on?

Where the blank is Parnell’s Attorney General ?

busy