As a commercial fisherman, I have great concerns about the state of our oceans and fisheries. Clean water and healthy fish stocks — I rely on them. They’re essential for running my family business. They’re essential for everyone. I love seafood and five times per week it’s the main course on my family’s table. I love fishing with my family, and it is my hope the next generation of fishermen that inherit the consequences of what we (users, managers and decision makers) leave behind for them will be clean and sustainable. However, the state of the halibut stocks in the Gulf of Alaska has been waving a big red flag in our faces. It is disheartening to know that for decades millions of these fish have been discarded, dead, back in the ocean as bycatch.
As second generation halibut quota share holders, we have made significant investments in the fishery and consider ourselves good stewards of the resource. Unfortunately, the population of halibut in the Gulf of Alaska has been dwindling in recent years; limiting the amount we can harvest annually. The reduction in the directed commercial catch of halibut over the last decade has been for the benefit of the long-term health of the resource, and we support sustainable management and accept this. We also accept that things change. There are no fixed quota rates in this industry.
What is frustrating is that the prohibited bycatch limits for halibut in the Gulf have remained almost the same for nearly 25 years. Since 1989, trawl and hook and line (Pacific Cod) fishermen have been able to discard as dead over 5 million pounds of halibut bycatch in the Gulf annually. That is an astounding allotment of fish to waste! And so many of those discarded are small fish that haven’t had the opportunity to spawn. This is flabbergasting to me.
The bycatch is divided as follows: 2,000 metric tons for the trawl fishery and 300 metric tons for the Pacific Cod hook and line fishery. Is this sustainable management? That is more than the yearly 4.4 million pounds of halibut harvested by Southeast and Southcentral sport fisheries combined.
In the last 10 years our halibut quota in 3A has dropped more than 50 percent and this year it took another 17 percent cut. Everyone in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries is making sacrifices.
Change is part of doing business. Often, politics can be socially and environmentally value free and this is so unfortunate. Conserving resources doesn’t have to have so many layers of complexity. Everyone participating in the taking of halibut needs to have some skin in the game. Everyone! There is no right way of doing the wrong thing.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council will be meeting in Kodiak during the week of June 6 -12 to take final action on halibut bycatch limits in the Gulf of Alaska. They will be voting on whether to reduce the limits by 5, 10, or 15 percent. Consider this — if the current bycatch is reduced by 15 percent, that means a 661,380 pound reduction, leaving 3.7 million pounds for discarding instead of 4.4 million pounds. The fleet is responsible for halibut bycatch and can respond to this change; they must! While I believe 15 percent doesn’t give enough of a leg up in the conservation department, it is a start.
I encourage everyone to show their support for commercial, sport and subsistence halibut fishermen and the stocks by urging the Council to pass a 15 percent reduction; show up and testify to the Council during the meeting in Kodiak. It is beyond time for all sectors of the commercial fishing industry to do their part in conserving the halibut stocks.
• Thomet is a commercial fisherman and lives in Kodiak.





Comments (15)
Add commentI agree!
But if we can't fly to Kodiak, is there another option for voicing an opinion to the council?
Put a price on bycatch
For every halibut and king salmon taken as bycatch, charge a penalty of...$50 or $100 per fish. That would motivate the trawlers to modify their practices or trawl locations.
The penalties would be used to fund 100% shipboard observers. And to fund further research and enforcement.
If the trawlers simply cannot avoid all the bycatch, then perhaps the entire practice of trawl fishing needs to be ended. Besides bycatch, it does enormous damage to the habitat - like a bulldozer scraping big swaths of the bottom, killing everything in its path.
I agree with the writer
I agree with the writer wholeheartedly. The halibut and king salmon bycatch should be criminal. I saw a study once that 75% of the king salmon killed in Alaska are thrown over board dead as bycatch on a trawler. And they wonder why the Yukon River king run is down? Sad part is I would rather eat a king or halibut anyday over pollock. Trawling is just the wrong way to do business. Unfortunately, the folks on the Council making the rules are trawlers and they have lots of money...
What's changed?
You've stated that bycatch has remained the same for 25 years and only now there's a problem? I think there may be another problem--directed halibut fishing on a near year round basis and targeting of the most valuable fish by commercial quota fishers!
.
Not perfect but
Along with reductions Why not force these groups to retain process and sell the halibut but take all proceeds and use them to pay for catch reductions from other groups.
Sure getting paid for not fishing isn't what most fisherman want but forcing the waste of the fish also seems shortsighted. Once caught, a high value fish should not be wasted. With non-revenue halibut taking up their holds I bet they initiate efforts to reduce on their own.
Agree wholeheartedly
with the writer, Latitude, and Kpawsuh on this one.
Snagger, how do you not get that 2,300 metric tons, not somehwere less than 75% of 4.4 million pounds, is the problem?
Trawling should absolutely be stopped. Why are we supporting the catch of cheap 'fishstick' stock at the expense of high-quality seafood?
Comment on the meeting here: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/
The link is right at the top.
Snag
I do agree with you that the commercial season is too long...It seems to me that reducing the by-catch and shortening the season should be considered.
Fish sticks!
A whole lot of quality protein feeds millions who can't afford halibut. It's for those 99%!!!
Price of halibut would go
Price of halibut would go down if there were more of them, which would result from not killing 4.4 million pounds and throwing it back into the sea... Enjoy that McFishwich...
reply to fisherwoman44
You can provide written comment that will be considered before a final, final decision is made by the Council. Written comment carries the same weight as public testimony, so it's not a cry from the Wilderness.
In a nutshell, here's the process: "Each Council decision is made by recorded vote in public forum after public comment. Final decisions then go to NMFS for a second review, public comment, and final approval. Decisions must conform with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other applicable law including several executive orders." [pulled from NPFMC webpage]
KP makes a critical point -
our entire "free market" for fish is based on SCARCITY!! In other words, it is NOT based on healthy, sustainable populations of fish. If there are "too many" fish, price goes down. "Insufficient" fish, and the price is high, but the outlay of time and money and materials to catch the fish (very low catch-per-unit-effort) is too great, and again financial return is low. If populations are "just sufficiently" depleted but still "sufficiently" abundant to find the maximum on the benefit-cost curve, then everybody is happy.
BUT - the buffer around that maximum point is very thin, meaning that normal variability in populations can push it over into depletion.
Why not change the damned market so that we reward fishermen for participating in a truly sustainable and healthy ecosystem?
what difference.....
Does it make how long the commercial season is? The quota is the same for the commercial catch, whether you catch them all in one month, or over 12 months. I don't believe there is a 'spawning season' for Halibut, and if there were, just exclude that season.
If the commercial catch is the same over the last 10-15 years, and the bycatch is the same over the last 25, then what element makes the difference? ............Snagger? .........Snagger?............
Can you say----
Commercial halibut overfishing!! They even get paid more for big spawners!
Swimmergirl- The problem with
Swimmergirl- The problem with long seasons is that the small, undersized fish keep getting a ride to the surface and unless they are handled gently they become a statistic called mortality. I have posted on this subject before as I have seen more torn faces and lips on small halibut than I care to see.
snagger?
It is helpful to remember that we have been through this before during the last halibut down cycle in the 60’s and 70’s. The solutions used then were to stop fishing on spawning fish (generally thought to be in the winter) and to impose a minimum size for halibut retention. The stocks rebounded.
Since we currently don’t directed fish on stocks in the winter. The thing that has changed is the retention of small fish by the trawl and charter/sport fleet. Most of us that have been around a while have seen the pictures of trawl nets bulging with undersize halibut. Recently data has supported that the average size fish caught in the charter fleet is less that can be legally retained by commercial fishermen. A directed fishery on undersize fish is new. Also the growing P cod longline fishery has grown in recent years.
Yes there are other reasons for halibut decline. The IPHC has functioned like a political rather than a science based body. We should have never been harvesting the Gulf of Alaska a 60 million pounds annually. The halibut harvest model was flawed and been changed radically recently, hopefully for the better.
I will agree with snagger on the issue that paying a premium for larger fish has created incentive to target bigger fish. I never happens on my boat but I know it happens.
Rather than dwelling in the blame game we must move forward. The most logical solution is that all user groups take cuts to benefit the resource. Trawl by catch should be reduced.
I wasn’t a big supported of IFQ’s when implemented. Eventually I realized I would have to put up or shut up. Since investing I have watch quota be reallocated to other sectors (charter/trawl) that have resisted IFQ’s for their fisheries. Trawl fishermen have resisted making their by catch an IFQ that could be traded between boat that fish dirty and those who are cleaner. This solution would allow that the resource not be wasted, while the public enjoys their fish sticks.
Right now IFQ’s is like a leaky wood boat that someone forgot to cork the garboard seem.