Friday, January 28, 2011

Halibut cuts confirmed

Here are the major results from the International Pacific Halibut Commission annual meeting in Victoria, British Columbia:

• The commission pretty much accepted the recommendations of its scientific staff and approved a coastwide catch limit of 41.07 million pounds for the 2011 season, down 19 percent from last year.

• Southeast Alaska (Area 2C) will take a particularly hard hit with a catch limit of 2.33 million pounds, down 47 percent.

• The 2011 season will open March 12 and close Nov. 18.

The Seattle-based IPHC manages U.S. and Canadian halibut stocks. The bulk of the commercial catch comes from Alaska.

Here's the full slate of 2011 catch limits, by regulatory area, expressed in millions of pounds.

Regulatory area2010 catch limits2011 catch limits% change


Anonymous said...

That's too bad, this will put a lot out of business.

Anonymous said...

What the commission has failed to understand is that they are reallocating fish that used to go to 2c and 3A to an area that was never fished as hard as when IFQ took place, 3B.
The fish that has been removed from 3B at an excellerated rate since 1995 has caused 2c and 3A to suffer recruitment into these areas. If the commission had left the 3B removel rate the same as the days prior to IFQ, 2C and 3A would not be lacking its recruitment. The increased removale rate (% increase in 3 B) would have migrated as it has for ever south and east and this drastic cut would not have taken place.

Anonymous said...

not surprising, the processors strike again

Anonymous said...

Anonymous has got it wrong. An error in the iphc's stock model in the early 90's took 3B's harvest down to 1/3 of what it historically was. At the time 3B had the highest survey wpue in the entire fishery.

Correcting the error in 3B assesment and the resulting increase in catches is not responsible for the decline in 2C.

It's convenient to blame someone else for your problems but 2C always took the maximum increase in any recommended quotas and often did not take the full recommended cuts in quota. The chickens have come home to roost.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last poster on here....2C has always over fished their area and had nothing but excuses for their behavior. I just came from the IPHC meeting and found it interesting to watch Linda,Dan and Kathy pretty much hog the microphone and repeat their mantra ad nauseum It was the world according to room for anyone elses take! It was refreshingto see the IPHC not be swayed by the 2C WHINING! Rumour is now Linda and Dan are on their way to the NPFMC to try make policy for the rest of Alaska about hired skipper provisions that dont even effect them in there area. Hopefully they will get the same kind of response there

Anonymous said...

Unchanged since 1789
SEC. 9. And be it further enacted...cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.

Anonymous said...

Was it rally an error by IPHC for 3b or was it an annomoly for 3b in the early 90's? The point to be considered and it is stated by the IPHC that 3b was not an area that was fished hard untile IFQ.
So with the increase percentage of removals in 3b from the historical removal ( not the wpue at that time as you stated) after IFQ went into effect those Halibut that were out migrating to the 3a and 2c areas were removed instead in 3b with a higher percentile removal rate. (3b had a historical rate of 15% or less and was increased to 20%) A 5% increase of removals from 3b was an IPHC mistake that caused eastern areas the benifit of infill.
IFQ was concived on a removale rate for each area by historical numbers and data IPHC had used for decades. To change the game after decades of data gathering to increase an areas removale percenatge was flawed and has cost 3a and 2c quota holders a net loss.

Anonymous said...

all things being equal, the idea that halibut are being managed as one stock, but certain areas quotas are cut while others are increased, frankly stinks of politics. Is it a coincidence that 2c is the only area that has no trawling in Alaska? Or is it some weird insidious block on the charter fleet? It is definitly something, but it ain't biology.