No one likes one halibut a day and the 37 inch size limit, particularly the guided sport industry. But unless the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan now before the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is adopted this will become the norm for some time.
This is happening for three reasons. First the halibut resource is in a period of cyclical decline. But this is not enough to trigger the current restrictions. Overharvest is the other primary reason. Here in Southeast the charter fleet has exceeded its Guideline Harvest Level (GHL) every year by 22 percent —115 percent since the GHL went into effect in 2004. In the same time, the halibut resource has declined by 58 percent and the Southeast commercial harvest was cut by 78 percent. The reason the commercial harvest has declined so precipitously is that overfishing by the charter fleet is deducted from the subsequent year’s commercial quota to protect the resource. This gets to the third reason why one halibut per day may be the norm — current NMFS regulations do not force the charter industry to stay within its quota thus forcing the International Pacific Halibut Commission to impose bag and size limits. The way around this is the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan now under public review.
Instead of placing a disproportionate share of the conservation burden on the commercial fleet, the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan would allow NMFS to strictly regulate the GHL to the charter fleet; prevent overfishing and share the burden of conservation. Although this seems eminently fair and reasonable, the charter industry would have you think differently. They are painting this as a fish grab by commercial fishermen
Yes, there is an allocation consequence when a sector whose has been overharvesting is now obligated to share in the conservation burden. This message comes through when the charter industry highlights a one-year slice of the pie by correctly projecting a 31 percent reduction in Southeast charter harvest in 2011 if the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan went into effect this year. While they may be right in showing some reallocation pain in future years, it is not the least bit accurate to suggest that the Halibut Catch Sharing plan is allocation driven. Given the charter fleet’s egregious record of overharvest this is a bit disingenuous.
Commercial fishermen, knowing all too well about the economic cost of sharing the burden of conservation, have even agreed to setting the Southeast allocation above the original 2004 Guideline Harvest Level given to the charter fleet. “The commercial sector didn’t like giving up additional allocation for the third time, but we’re willing to do it to reach a final settlement to put the issue to rest”, notes Kathy Hansen with the Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance. Additionally the halibut plan includes a one-way option for charter operators to buy quota from commercial fishermen as a means to lessen the conservation pain and/or provide economic stability.
Right now, the biologists are stumped as to why it’s taking so much longer for the halibut stock to grow into larger reproducing size. Until that answer comes the only recourse is either adopting the Halibut Catch Sharing plan or remain with the norm of one “minnow size” charter fish per day along with increasing cuts to commercial quotas. The other advantage of the Halibut Catch Sharing plan is that when the stocks improve, NMFS will have the ability to remove the bag and size limitation in a much timelier manner than the years it normally takes for regulations to work through the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process.
As Alaskans whose statehood is forged from a pressing need to protect salmon stocks shouldn’t every fishing sector have a role in rebuilding the halibut resource? As Alaskans who herald being the only state with a constitutional provision for sustained yield, shouldn’t we all fairly share in the burden to not overharvest? If you answer “yes,” please support the plan now before the National Marine Fisheries Service.
• Troll is a longtime Alaska resident and resides in Douglas.
Comments (18)
Add commentAn example
A few years ago, there was a couple who had a condo next to mine. They used it only in the summer when they came up from California to run their halibut fishing charter boat. Then they returned to their farm in California and rented out their condo. They have since sold the condo and their boat.
At the end of their last season, I asked how they had done. He said "Pretty good, we got 168 halibut this year." How many Alaskan residents, sports fishermen catch 160+ halibut a year?
The charter boats need to be regulated for what they are, a form of commercial fishing.
Trawl Bycatch is the problem!
If you take all the baby fish out of the nursery (Gulf of Alaska) of course the resource is going to suffer. Keep in mind most of these fish are under 5 pounds:
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/rara/2010/2010.299.Halibutby...
IF there is an observer on board the easiest way to avoid showing even more bycatch than the 2300 metric tons allowed is to just drag an area they've already been to.
But as long as they can keep the end users fighting amongst themselves, they can continue these destructive practices.
Two questions
1. What percentage of the total harvest allocation is dedicated to each user group - commercial and charter operations?
2. How does this catch sharing plan affect resident sport and subsistence users (non-charter)?
Kate, a correction for you.
Kate, a correction for you. Not everyone dislikes the one halibut a day rule, maybe your charter friends do, but that's different from everyone. As you admit, the charter industry has exceeded their guidelines many times. If anyone should take a cut, it's the charter industry. I'm not so sure this sharing plan is so good for Alaskans either if you are advocating for it.
well written
indeed
One a day!
One halibut per day for everyone until the stocks are rebuilt.That includes the commercial fishers who have made millions off these stocks already. They can live off all that money they've been banking from a resource that belongs to all Americans equally.
This is the tow the line - we
This is the tow the line - we paid off the officials-we can buy the regs, commercial fisherman stance!The charters take almost nothing compared to the commercial fiasherman-we know and you know it.Just you guys blaming the charters and sports fisherman is getting old and just an out and lie!Time to clear out the out of state commercial fisherman-put some real limits on the Alaska commercial boys and give the people more fish!
Halibut decline by 58% is somebodies best guess.
Halibut decline by 58% is somebodies best guess.
Back in the late 1960's early 70's the thinking was something similar.........no fish. But this prompted closures back then; IFQ's weren't even a thought or a concept for bottom fishing.
Ten years later (1980's) there were suddenly huge halibut everywhere. Halibut that were surely more than 10 years old and people wondered where these halibut were in the 1970's and before. Oh well, the fish were back and nobody questioned the why's of it all.
However the closures continued and the justification switched from "no fish" to "we got to let them migrate" eventually evolving into what became known as the "halibut derby" openings. Thats when 2C finally got their/our share and there were halibut everywhere. 3A was not a factor (more on this later) with the closures that were suddenly across the board from the Aleutian chain and down through the west coast (halibut could use their tails and follow the coast down our way). Things were definitely fixed.
So what you see now is 3A interests taking presidence over 2C (better known as Southeast Alaska). Not as a conspiracy but because they haven't seen less fish in the same measurement as southeast has so they continue to get less of the conservation measures. Interception is not such a big deal up there. In other words, if 3A was closed then 2C would see a return of better halibut fishing because those fish are allowed to migrate as they were in the late 1970's up to 1995 or the final year of the closure system to the now infamous IFQ debacle.
The commercial charter fleet has a place in the blame here there's no doubt. But this simple synomym, IFQ is really what caused the halibut fishery to be turned upside down because nobody wants to be left out and people resorted to every trick in the book to insure they got their share legally,illegally and within the law by overfishing or simply fishing very hard aka highliner.
What am I saying? IFQs have ruined our bottom fisheries and these fisheries need to return to a closure type management such as there in the derby days and before. Thats the only way you will see southeast Alaska return to good halibut fishing because fish will migrate again. Maybe the charter fleet can enjoy what use to be again. But it's my guess that IFQ's will prevail because of the money involved in buying them while the resource is secondary in the decision process.
$0.02
misinformation...
Kate Troll is mis-informed, (as usual) as are the many others when they she/they use the term "Charter Fleet" to blame fisheries problems on. There is no such thing as a "charter fleet" that is over fishing and creating any shortage of fish problems.
Charter boats and their operators don't fish, and don't retain fish. The sportfishing anglers aboard those vessels do. And licensed sport anglers, be they paying for a ride aboard a charter boat, or out fishing aboard their own or a buddies boat, are entitled to access the resource, and SHOULD all be treated fairly with the same sportfishing regulations applying equally to all, regardless of the method of access.
A charter boat (fleet?) with no sport angler aboard doesn't catch a single fish, a charter boat sitting at the dock with no clients doesn't catch a single fish. This so called "charter fleet" is not out there fishing, does not catch fish and is not the problem. The sport angler aboard a charter vessel is the one fishing and catching, and should rightly be able to do so, according the the Sportfishing Regulations.
However, the Commercial folks have to blame overfishing on somebody. So they coined the moniker "Charter Fleet" as the scape goat, and everybody has picked up on it. Imagine how it would make the Commercial folks look if they attempted to blamed overfishing on the sport angler!
But, that's just what they are doing, and most folks don't understand it because they use the term "Charter Fleet" and that sounds palatable. Wait until YOU the Alaskan resident gets trampled on for fishing from a charter vessel, then you'll get the picture. Charter clients (non-resident AND resident) are treated unfairly, with restrictions applying to them simply because they choose to use a charter vessel to access the resource. Sport fishing licenses all say the same thing, and none say "charter fisherman" on them (or with a reduced rate because of the restrictions), yet aboard a charter vessel all anglers aren't equals.
Imagine your vehicle drivers license restricted because you lease or rent a car rather than own one?
Ich Rauche...
I'm with Ich. One of the largest herring runs used to be right in Auke Bay, until it was decimated. Has anyone thought part of the reason the fish might be declining in Southeast might actually be because we've killed all but maybe one of our bait fish? Oh, but we still have to allow the commercial fleet to fish it.
Shut the commercial and charter fleets down when it comes to halibut and bait fish for a period of fie years, allowing only resident sport and subsistance fishing. If you're not a resident, you can't catch a halibut. If you own a commercial fishing boat and you need to catch halibut, the resource belongs to the residents of Alaska, not to you. Sorry, park your boat and get a day job for a while.
Shut the commercial fleet down when it comes to bait fish indefinately. Maybe in 50 years we'll have our bait fish populations back.
...
...
Halibut catch sharing
As a percentage of total catch, the sport halibut industry's harvest is a very low percentage when compared to the commercial harvest. Also, in area 3A, skippers and paid crew are allowed to retain fish. The charter crews in 2C haven't even been able to retain a rock fish for supper for at least 7 years, unless a customer offered to give you a fish. So, lets get back the differences between 2C and 3A halibut charted regs. In 2C no more than 6 lines may be fished off of any vessel, in 3A if your vessel is CG inspected to carry 42 passengers, 42 lines may be fished if the boat is full, the bag limit in 3A is 2 halibut any size, so if a large party boat goes out with a full load, plus crew, they might bring in 90 halibut a day! Where is the equality in that? Lets just level the playing field here, and make the sport fishing regs the same state wide, 1 fish over 32 inches per day per person, and the first fish you bring up over 32 inches is your fish for the day, then do away with the rediculous and abused halibut subsistence fishery. Just exactly how much halibut can one family use over a years time?
BigDan
Dan,
Since you put it that way I bet you can't name a "single family" that has abused the "halibut" subsistence fishery. Or did you mean "clan".
Now go do your research ha ha.
Well written - and spot on.
The commercial charter industry has shot itself in the foot by continuing to take zero interest in the protection of the resource as a whole. They have had many opportunities.
Snagger's and others continued insistance that the resource "belongs to all Americans equally" is disingenuous at best, overly simplistic, and impractical - do all the trees in the Tongass belong to all Americans, so we should take back 80% of all existing logging contracts? Does all the gold at Greens Creek belong to all Americans, so we should tell them they can only dig out 20% of what they got last year? How about all the coal in Virginia? Responsible extraction of resources by those who already have contracts (IFQs) to harvest the resource, can distribute resources most effectively, and consideration for those who follow the rules and bought into the system in good faith, and who were part of a stable fishery before the charter industry ballooned, are factors.
It's also beyond simplistic to suggest just shutting down an industry for 5 years - we all have neighbors who are commercial fishermen, who've bought into a closely regulated industry, who worked hard to qualify for their pounds or purchased them, and who've already seen almost 80% of the value of their IFQs diminished simply because no one realized that the commercial charter industry would get so big so fast.
Commercial charter fishermen want you to believe that handing over an ever larger portion of the stock to an industry that has no limit to growth (so far I believe there is no limit to the number or charter licenses that may be given?) no self-control (over quota every year) and no accurate count of their pounds - is a good idea because it's "American".
Snagger really means: "I want mine now, someone else is making a living so I'll take his, screw everyone else, and who cares if there are no fish in the future."
ignorance is showing...
You know not of what you speak swimmergirl. Your very first sentence indicates your ignorance on this subject. There is no "commercial" charter industry, (they don't sell fish). And they HAVE been active in resource protection for many years and to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's the average sport angler who hasn't been involved. But many are now starting to wake up to the fact that the Commercial folks simply don't like the sport anglers on the water. Period. First go after the guided angler. Beware, the unguided angler is next. The many other inaccuracies (guesses) in the rest of your blog also indicates you don't know the facts or the issues.
The Commercial IFQ was the worst thing to ever happen. And now they want to compound the problem by a issuing charter IFQ's. NO ONE should ever own fish on paper! Ever! Catch a fish to own a fish. That's it. Placing a monetary value on IFQ's is nuts. IFQ's should never have had a "re-sale value". Use the permit, and fish it, and give it back when done, or loose it if you abuse it, but never a re-sale value. Dumbest thing ever invented. There is no way out of the current quagmire now with out going back and fixing many past mistakes. More bandages will NOT fix the problems or heal the wounds. Time to take all the band-aids off and treat the wound, or it will continue to fester.
This means hard tough decisions need to be made, without money and political interests in the game. The current path will only lead bigger problems. Some folks will get hurt in the process, but doing the right thing is always the best plan.
Eventually we'll get there, but the sad thing is, not until the fisheries have been devastated first. Then and only then will they be forced to do the right thing in order to un-do the damage. The current process is unsustainable. (Think East Coast). Commercial Fisheries lobbyists know this but don't have a dog in the hunt. They simply get paid for doing what they are hired to do, and that is to influence the lawmakers (to benefit the Commercial Fisheries) and contribute to their re-election campaigns. Eventually it'll all come grinding to a halt, but not on their watch, so they don't care.
Things will get a lot worse before they get better. Caution, Politicians at work!
blah blah
Haven't we heard all this over and over for a few years now?
Charter and Guided Anglers, do you make money with your business? You must or else you would not scream so loud.
If you make money then your are a commercial business.
No getting around that. Now, if you are a business and don't take Joe Blow from Texas out there for free or because you love to see him catch fish, you need to share in the conservation of the resource. You are not "special", so just pipe down or scram back to Westport or to wherever you came from.
I would love to see the 37
I would love to see the 37 inch and one fish extended to ALL nonresidents, statewide, regardless if Bubba comes up from Texas and is fishing on his cousin's boat, or paying a charter boat. I would also like to see all non-resident charter businesses limited. You want to play here, live here. 75% of the halibut charter businesses are owned by non-residents.
Swimmer is right to, that we have to stop overfishing the bait fish. Makes you wonder when we have starving sealions, and decimated stocks of fish, but are pulling millions of tons of bait fish out.
Trawlers also need to go.