Waste of our Alaskan fishery resources is in the news again as the North Pacific Fishery Management Council approaches its June 6 meeting. A proposal has finally reached the table to reduce bycatch by 15 percent. Bycatch is the allowed death and wastage of halibut from fisheries. I call this a mild reduction but there are two other options that would reduce the kill rate by only 10 percent or even a meager 5 percent. I hope Alaskans from all walks of life will call or send in a short note by letter or email to push our resource managers to finally take this baby step to control the killing of unwanted halibut during the course of another fishery. I say small step because the 15 percent bycatch reduction is in comparison to commercial halibut catch reductions of over 50 percent and in comparison to the current issue of potentially limiting the sport guided catch from a two fish daily limit to only one fish per day. How crazy is it to limit Alaskans access to their halibut resource while leaving the Gulf of Alaska allowable waste at over 5 million pounds per year? That is more poundage than the entire sport fishery. Since most bycatch is killed while below legal size, the waste is actually a higher number of fish than the entire commercial fishery.
No one knows why, but the halibut growth rate has slowed for many years. Unfortunately, this means that fisheries that catch unwanted juvenile fish do so for a longer time on each year class before that group of fish reach commercial size of 32 inches. In other words, the small sized fish stock is susceptible to more years of that bycatch killing before the year class reaches harvestable size. Also, because bycatch has been set as fixed poundage, the bycatch becomes a larger portion of the entire fish stock as the total halibut population weight shrinks.
Senator Ted Stevens and I had a conversation over 15 years ago about why the federal government allowed some net-loss bottom trawl fisheries. He advised that we should “just shut them down” at the Management Council and that there was no federal requirement to keep such a fishery going if it destroyed more value for others in the crab and halibut fisheries than the value created by its targeted fishing. However, fish politics being what it is, this is the first real action for the Gulf of Alaska since that time. Although a 15 percent reduction doesn’t seem like much compared to Ted Stevens’ suggestion for a high bycatch fishery, after 15 years of waste it would be a start and would set the Management Council on the pathway of saving our halibut resource for real utilization by Alaskans.
Alaska has 6 of the 11 voting member seats on the North Pacific Management Council including the Commissioner of The Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Governor, although not directly involved, sets the governmental direction for resource utilization and development in Alaska. If those Alaska members vote together we can ensure proper resource development of the fisheries so vital to Alaskan communities. I urge Alaskans to have their voices heard about limiting halibut waste by contacting the Governor’s office and the Council members. The governor’s office is (907) 465-3500 or 269-7450 in Anchorage or email governor@alaska.gov. The Council members and additional information can be found at www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc , or email your comment to the Council at npfmc.comments@noaa.gov.
Those people know the details of the issue; they just need to know that you as the Alaskan public want them to take ACTION to reduce the waste of your resource by at least 15 percent.
• Seaton has been a legislator for 10 years, is co-chair of the House Resources Committee, was a founding member of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, was a commercial halibut fisherman from 1974 through 2009, and lives in Homer.
Comments (23)
Add commentWhat's the real problem?
Trawl fisheries have gone on for the past 60 years without a problem; they've not increased in recent times. The IFQ share system is relatively new and allows a prolonged halibut fishery that continues even as abundance declines. Perhaps, for commercial fishing, we need a short, defined halibut season that wouldn't allow harvest by those determined to catch their IFQs regardless of the abundance of fish stocks?
Bycatch penalty
If I'm not mistaken, there's no real cost to catching bycatch right now. So why would the operator change?
Whether it's halibut or king salmon, assign a cost to bycatch. For every fish that's taken, that costs the operator...$50...or something like that. A steep penalty would encourage the operators to utilize gear or methods that minimize bycatch, or fish in other areas.
$ 11.00 a pound v 25 cents a pound
Reported last winter were two incidents where over 100,000 pounds of halibut were wasted as by-catch. At $ 11 a pound each of those incidents was a economic loss to Alaska in excess of a million dollars. Sorry draggers and trawlers that is just poor operating practices that need to end.
Lat and Islander are correct
Snagger again misses the entire point, and focuses on the one part of the fishery that has been stable. Again - commercial catch was stable, and every single pound is counted. Snagger knows as well as I do that the problem is the more recent, wildly growing charter industry, which underreports it's catch every year by around 30% or more, and in which neither licenses nor pounds have been regulated or counted up to this point.
crucified
Let's not forget about all the scarred faces on young halibut that have been run through a crucifirer on a longliner. I sportfished on spot in lower Stephens pass where every third small halibut had half of it lips or face missing! I wonder how many were killed by this practice?
your ignorance is showing...
swimmergirl, it's quite apparent you are misinformed, mis-guided and ignorant on this subject. Spreading lies and mis-information that it's a "wildly growing charter industry" that is responsible for declining halibut resource issues, is irresponsible. Your statement regarding the charter industry is neither accurate nor factual, and is an outright lie. Best to keep silent until you are better informed and know the true facts, than to open your mouth and prove your ignorance and bias. I know now to simply dismiss your future comments, as I am sure many informed readers will also do.
Douglas boy
And you are rude.... Calling someone you don't even know "ignorant"? And talk about bias - you are so OBVIOUSLY in the charter industry of which she speaks. I know now to simply dismiss your comments, as I'm sure many informed readers will do also.
Douglas boy-
As we speak a world class charter fishing lodge is being built at Steamboat Bay on Noyes Is. It is just a short distance from another world class lodge Waterfall Resort(the biggest in the state I believe). And, this business isn't growing? The big charter lodges are directly responsible for wiping-out the juvenile halibut nurseries off of Noyes and Suemez Islands. A hundred years of trolling in this area had a negligble impact on these fish. Commercial longliners did not set in this area because the fish were under sized. Twenty-five years of charter fisherman camping out on these spots and the halibut are gone---
From a previous story:
"While the commercial fleet faced severe penalties if they exceeded their allowable harvest, charter boats were allowed to exceed their guidelines without any ramifications, she said.
Year after year, the levels exceeded by the charter fleet were deducted from what was allowed the commercial fleet, Behnken said."
seems Swimmergirl is accurate, factual, and telling the truth....who's the liar now?
thanks kids.....
It's clear who's been paying attention! There have, as several of you have pointed out - been numerous stories in the Empire regarding the issues with the charter fishery in the last 15 years or so. There are also numerous articles outlining the refusal of the charter industry to agree to any kind of regulation for years, using the "we're sportfishermen - just like you locals" argument, which is bunk. We've all seen the advertisements for charter operations with two guys posed in front of way more fish than I catch and put in my freezer in a year, and probably more than were legal for the day. Finally the one halibut and size limitations were implemented recently, and I believe a future cutoff for new charter licenses, which would be great, but I could be mistaken about that.
halibut trawl bycatch
Even if the NPFMC "reduces" halibut bycatch it will be meaningless. Gulf of alaska trawlers have 30% observer coverage. They "game" the system and fish safe areas while observed, and behave totally different when unobserved.
You folks in SE have no idea what goes on out of kodiak and westward. Trawlers often kill more halibut than their target species.
The Canadiens went from 2 million lbs of halibut bycatch to 300,000 in one year while catching ALL their trawl allowable catches. To do this they had individual boat bycatch limits, 100% observer coverage, gave trawlers ifq's for target species and let them fish where and when bycatch could be avoided. This was over 15 years ago!!!
We have not changed because the worst offenders sit/sat on the NPFMC and the status quo rewards the dirtiest fishermen.
surely you jest...
Read the "My Turn" article.... "How crazy is it to limit Alaskans access to their halibut resource while leaving the Gulf of Alaska allowable waste at over 5 million pounds per year? That is more poundage than the entire sport fishery. Since most bycatch is killed while below legal size, the waste is actually a higher number of fish than the entire commercial fishery".
Some apparently disregard this glaring fact 'cause it don't fit their ideology. They simply must blame it on the charter industry at all costs. Mis-informed or ignorant... you choose. I say both.
Read the full article again, then do a little research. My only bias is for the truth... where ever it leads.
Go to the ADFG web site (or NOAA or NPFMC) and get the actual numbers on the "wildly growing charter industry". You can point to all the "stories and articles" you want... but if you take take the time to do the research and get the numbers you will discover the truth. Simply yelling louder or longer or refusing to acknowledge the data doesn't make it true. But apparently some believe that. Pitty.
The anglers landing fish aboard a charter boat are sportanglers just like me, and probably you. Maybe a different address, but sportanglers just the same, and these sportanglers are taking legal fish, according to ADFG regulations.... yet somehow the "charter industry" is responsible? How so? Does the "charter industry" cause folks to become sportanglers? Gimme a break! Truly this is showing ignorance.
I've been a sportangler in Juneau since before statehood. I'm proud to see the charter industry standing up for all sportfishing rights, both resident and non-resident alike. And here's a novel idea, look up a few Charter Association web sites (not just Alaska) and see what they stand for.
And I'm rude for calling someone ignorant on a subject when they show their ignorance? Surely you jest. What's rude and disrespectful is someone lying, or not taking accountability for their ignorance. I simply called them on it... but if that's your defination of rude then so be it. Guilty.
And by the way... the Kings are running...good fishing to you!
Also interesting to note:
Douglas boy repeatedly said that Swimmer was wrong and ignorant of "true facts" (are there any other kind?) but he himself provided no "facts", no data, no evidence, nothing at all to support his assertions, just a lot of yelling. The IPHC just released the 2012 meeting notes and the recommendations for catch limits; surely there is something in there that supports DB's unspoken assertion that charter fishing mortality is unrelated to observed population dynamics?
The decline in size-at-age is likely partially cyclical, as current size-at-age is roughly comparable to that observed in the 1930's (Clark and Hare 2002), and the current decline corresponded to the regime shift in the mid-1970's. The current mortality vectors, however, are not what they were in the 1930s, and fishing mortality is likely far in excess of what it was at that time (full disclosure: no, I have not formally calculated that), impacting the ability of stocks to return to larger size-at-age levels.
Stop the bycatch!
The pounds of halibut bycatch from the trawlers consists of fish many times around 5 pounds! Just think of how many baby fish that is? If you wipe out the nursery it doesn't matter, charter, small commercial, subsistence or sport fishery will all suffer. The trawlers decimated the crab. Now they are killing off the baby halibut. The chinook bycatch numbers would really make you sick. Look it up.
Research...
I've done much research, and continue to do so. Many years of it, and lots of personal hands on involvement in fisheries issues. I don't drink the kool aid. And I'm not here to give a class or spoon feed anyone. Not my style, nor the time or place. I'm simply pointing out the "facts" aren't as swimmergirl stated. And just trying to point others to a place to "start" their own research on this issue if so inclined.
Are there any facts other than "true" facts?
Apparently so... as these "facts" appear to be swimmergirl's... ......"Snagger knows as well as I do that the problem is the more recent, wildly growing charter industry, which underreports it's catch every year by around 30% or more, and in which neither licenses nor pounds have been regulated or counted up to this point."........ which actually appear to be an opinion, not facts. Big difference.
So apparently there are "untrue" facts, which in my book are the same as lies. So I spoke up.
Everyone has their opinions. Just don't try to pass them off as, or confuse them with, facts. That's dishonest.
Good Fishing....
True enough, DB...
but all you've said is "She's wrong", and presented no facts of your own. You may not be here to "give a class or spoon feed", and that's fine, but if you assert, you need to support, otherwise it's nothing but words. SG's assertion that the charter industry under-reports catch by around 30% also requires some sort of citation.
Simply insisting "Go do your own research and you'll find out I'm right but don't ask me to support my own statements" won't fly (or rather, swim) in here.
According to the 2010 Pacific halibut stock assessment from the IPHC, commercial take is (of course) far larger than other mortalities, with the exception of area 2A, in which commercial take, sport take, and combined waste/bycatch were roughly equal. In areas 3A and 2C, sport catch exceeded combined wastage and bycatch (both under and over 32 legal limit). This allotment appears to hold roughly equivalent for the past eight years. Depending on area (2A, 2B, 2C and 3A), the advent of increases in sport removals that made them equivalent to or exceeding waste+bycatch began in the mid to late 1980's. In areas (3B, all 4), there appears to be little to no sport fishery at all, making commercial removals the largest source of mortality, obviously.
Migration of halibut across management areas has been shown to be a significant factor in stock assessment, and the IPHC has come to understand they had overestimated abundance due to not explicitly modeling migration.
Mean gear selectivity for the commercial fleet in all areas is 11.3 years, roughly equivalent to 50% maturity. I haven't been able to find any sort of value for mean charter selectivity, although as halibut are size-dependent spawners, the selection of trophy fish (big size) would have a disproportionately large impact on recruitment, especially in conjunction with commercial bycatch impacting younger ages, but it would have to be shown that the number of removals was significant (also not found yet).
What do the experts know?
When I first got involved in fisheries there were Japanese and Russian trawlers off our coast; when we got to see their catch they were full of POP(Pacific Ocean Perch); small red rockfish that I've never seen heavily harvested by any domestic fishery lately.These trawlers must have had halibut and salmon by- catch; yet our commercial halibut and salmon fisheries were doing fine. King salmon from April 15 to September and 10 days of halibut early in May.Then came optimum yield and various other means of trying to create sustained yields.None of the current management seems to be directed towards abundance management. We're always skating to the puck rather than where the puck will be; actually we always want the score to be the same. Well I think nature is variable and in a poor halibut year people would have caught less and perhaps not fished in the following year or years. Now with IFQs and Alaska Airlines flying in thousands of sportsmen everyone fishes to the "limit" whether or not there are fish.Someone needs to slow this whole thing down.
Snagger is partially right
The foreign trawlers did fish out the POP before turning to pollock and other species. What you got wrong was that they did decimate the halibut.
In the 70's and early 80's halibut fishing was the worst it had been in 80 years. Schooners would make 20 day trips and be happy with 50-100 lbs a skate.
The Magnuson act got passed and the US took control of the 200 mile limit from the coast. We put observers on foreign draggers and kicked out those with bad bycatch performance.
Guess what, halibut, salmon and crab rebounded.
We have not put similar controls on US flagged draggers and we are suffering the consequences.
we are on the same side this time
I support reductions in the Gulf of Alaska halibut by-catch.
I invested in 2C halibut after the IFQ program was implemented because it helped to diversify my SE Alaska fishing operation. Little did I realize at the time that all my hard work paying off quota would disappear as quota cuts evaporated everything that I worked for.
I’m no halibut biologist, but given the success of the “experts,” my years if halibut fishing experience leads me to comment.
There are likely lots of reasons that the halibut resource is not as strong as it used to be.
Some say it is just a cycle. I sure hope so.
Bad management plan that lead to overharvest is one theory that sounds plausible. I believe that some of that occurred here in SE. In my opinion our current harvest levels now are helping the resource rebound locally. However gulf wide halibut stocks are in steep decline.
Equally possible is by-catch in trawling. Every commercial halibut fishermen has seen the picture of nets bulging with undersize halibut. Everyone has heard the stories of trawlers gaming the observer coverage to produce artificial numbers.
Since IFQ’s was implemented on halibut there has been a growth in the Pcod fishery. Hook and line by catch is a possible. I’m sure that non quota holders are gently releasing halibut caught on Pcod gear.
I had to by IFQ if I wanted to go fishing at considerable expense and sacrifice. Now it is almost all gone, yet by-catch is allowed to continue to take more halibut than the whole 2C commercial harvest.
If quota holders must take reductions then every resource user should share some responsibility for rebuilding the stocks. By-catch should be no different.
If trawlers and Pcod fishermen need more by-catch, make them buy quota. Given my personal experience buying IFQ I understand why by-catch fishermen have always opposed this idea.
It can be hard to find consensus between IFQ holders and charter fishermen. Perhaps you remember a few pervious disputes. This is one issue that charter, sport and IFQ holders agree on. By-catch is part of the problem.
Trawling
Bottom trawling is the most indiscriminate fishery in the world. It kills everything in its path from salmon to gray cod, Black cod, pollock, shelf fish and halibut, crab and did I say our Salmon? From there is when the trawler selects his intended prey, victim or target fish.
It leaves Stellar Sealion seeking new territory to find them selves food and lets them compete for resources that otherwise were fine (kind of what Snagger tried to say but blew it again....).
If that is not enough, It puts a hurtin on Alaskans - our citizens right to the resource$$$ and even our traditional uses as whites and natives.
From there it leaves so many blogger babbling about who should pay in Alaska and who's to blame.
After this, nothing will be done.
entropy1
Right on.
thanks dust....
I had done the research, just didn't save it.
DB - I think I might feel differently about it if the charter industry for one second took any sort of responsibility for the problem, but the truth is that they have flatly refused to accept any culpability at all, and instead try to pretend that they are the same as those of us who go halibut fishing in the skiff a couple of times a summer. They are not.
Look - I get it, historically commercial fishermen used to have a larger 'share' of the entire resource. The catch also went to a much broader, public section of the population - but whatever.
Commercial guys bought IFQs based on historical catch in good faith. They paid a lot of money to buy into a finite resource, in order to maintain the management of that resource. They played by the rules, and every single pound was counted.
Then more and more people started running charter boats. No limit on the number of boats, no limit on the number of trips or people, no accounting for the number of fish taken - which were underreported by charter captains every year, and no way to limit their catch.
The charter groups have NEVER said "we recognize we are the growing population taking fish from a finite resource, we'll agree to limiting (take your pick - trips, fish, charter licenses, etc.) ourselves at the same time the commercial fishermen take a (take your pick over the years - 5%, 15%, - adding up to about 50% of the IFQ) hit to their livlihoods, in order to preserve the resource for all of us in the future".
The groups representing charters have been clear that they don't care if commercial guys get wiped out entirely, as long as they get their payday, and that they have no interest in any limits on "sportfishermen" at all - even if their continued growth resulted in the complete collapse of the stocks.
It doesn't matter what you call them - tourists, sportfishermen, commercial charter business clients. If a finite resource was reasonably stable, and you introduce a new, unlimited drain on that resource, then that drain must take a share of the responsibility.
Swimmergirl, there you go again...
Jumbling opinion and facts together. You were fine until you went here:
"Then more and more people started running charter boats. No limit on the number of boats, no limit on the number of trips or people, no accounting for the number of fish taken - which were underreported by charter captains every year, and no way to limit their catch.
The charter groups have NEVER said "we recognize we are the growing population taking fish from a finite resource, we'll agree to limiting (take your pick - trips, fish, charter licenses, etc.) ourselves at the same time the commercial fishermen take a (take your pick over the years - 5%, 15%, - adding up to about 50% of the IFQ) hit to their livlihoods, in order to preserve the resource for all of us in the future".
The groups representing charters have been clear that they don't care if commercial guys get wiped out entirely, as long as they get their payday, and that they have no interest in any limits on "sportfishermen" at all - even if their continued growth resulted in the complete collapse of the stocks."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however, you present these two paragraphs as statements, like they are facts. They are NOT facts and simply are not true... ie: a lie! However, if you prefaced it by saying this is your "opinion" then I'd have no problem, other than to say I disagree with your opinion based on the information I still have, from being involved with the process for many years. (I saved my research).
In my OPINION, bottom trawling, IFQ's (both commercial and charter), and CHP's are big problems. I won't go into the many reasons... folks already know. Chp's and IFQ's permits should never have had a monitary value to the holder.... owning fish on paper should never have happened! I made my voice heard and my reasoning clear on that long before it happened. Being able to SELL that permit... big mistake. Use the permit, fish it, and own ONLY what YOU catch. NO selling or leasing permits. No monitary value to the permit holder. Done with fishing.... return it so it can be re-issued (procedural details to be worked out).
The current system is a mess, and the fish stock and the user groups all suffer for it. In my opinion, management has got it all wrong, and it's because it's a political football. Big money and lobbyists appear to be in control rather than a responsible management team looking out after the public resource in the public interest.
Without big (and painful) changes there is no cure on the horizon. I could be wrong, but that's my view.