My Turn: IFQ plan for charter boats needs to be shot down
R egardless of one's position on Individual Fishing Quota halibut limitations on sportfish charters, it seems most of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council viewed the IFQ proposal as severely flawed since it was voted down by a margin of nearly 3-1 (8-3). I submit that Sunday's Empire editorial supporting the proposal was a shallow representation of a complex issue.
Albeit the number of local halibut charters are few compared to salmon charters, they nonetheless comprise a portion of the local sportfish business. The IFQ proposal would have had a negative effect on some of the two dozen active local charter operators. For example, anyone who did not log halibut charters prior to 2001 would need to purchase an IFQ, paying by the pound (20 pounds per fish regardless of size) for every halibut caught by a sportfisherman aboard. Obviously costs of prepurchasing an individual quota would have to be included in overhead and pricing, and new charter operators would be unable to compete with those grandfathered. (Under the proposal, an IFQ purchased at $20 per pound amortized over 20 years would cost about $20 per halibut caught for the next twenty years.)
A person (resident or nonresident) can sportfish by renting, owning, borrowing a boat, boating with a friend or fishing from shore. Sportfishing in Alaska is limited by daily and annual catch and by residency status and the geographical area of the catch. Contrary to the Empire's implication, sportfish caught from a boat by sport-fishermen paying a licensed sportfish captain or guide do not come from commercial fish allocation.
The Empire stated that charter boats "catch a lot of fish that otherwise could go toward sustaining Alaska's commercial fishery and its hometown processing plants." Indeed sportfishing, whether caught from charter or private boats, sustains a large industry of suppliers in Alaska, and virtually all fish caught by nonresident anglers are processed and shipped by "hometown processing plants."
The editorial opined that "Getting on the water in the first place under the commercial regulations is an expensive enough proposition." This is certainly true enough, but inherently implies a charter operation is not expensive in its own right.
In addition to the investment in the boat itself, there are other fixed annual overhead expenses like moorage, maintenance and commercial insurance, plus Alaska state personal, charter fishing vessel, fishing guide and business Licenses. Furthermore, charter-boat captains are required to be Coast Guard-licensed and enroll in a random drug test program. Thus the charter boat operator's corollary to the Empire's assertion about commercial fishing is that "getting on the water in the first place under Coast Guard and state regulations is an expensive enough proposition."
The Empire poses the question "Why is the charter fleet not expected to play by the same rules as commercial fishermen? ... it appears Alaska wants its charter operators to have free rein, potentially at the expense of their commercial counterparts."
I would submit the fact that the charter fleet cannot play by the same rules as commercial fishermen because their portion of the catch comes from the sportfish allocation. Their "daily bag" and daily profit is limited by the number of licensed sport fishermen aboard, not by a total poundage quota owned or caught by the boat. Argument on the fairness of the current 85 percent /15 percent commercial to sport catch is irrelevant to charter operations.
The Empire closes with "What is now certain is that the commercial fleet will be limited in its catch, while the charter fleet will not have similar limitations." I guess the editor doesn't fish and is unaware that Fish and Game annually publishes sport fishing regulations.
I will not opine upon the fairness of the current allocation nor whether the sport limits should be changed, because that is irrelevant to the issue. My point is the IFQ system as proposed was deeply flawed and was recognized as such by the NPFMC. I would urge the Empire join company with the city governments of Anchorage, Gustavus, Homer, Kenai, Valdez, Whittier, numerous chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus and many Alaska charter boat and sport fishing organizations, and oppose the now-defeated IFQ proposal.
• Juneau resident Jack Cadigan is a local charter boat captain, licensed fishing guide and businessman.