The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has approved a "catch sharing plan" for halibut. Here's the three-page motion that passed Friday in Anchorage.
The intent is to settle a long-running competition for fish in Southeast Alaska (Area 2C) and Southcentral (Area 3A).
The motion, as you will see, is complex. In a nutshell, it aims to establish a "clear allocation" between two sectors: commercial longliners and charter boat operators. Each sector would have a percentage of the halibut available annually for harvest.
The catch sharing plan also has an element to allow charter operators to lease commercial quota, if needed, to keep their angler clients fishing.
In the most basic terms, each side sought to control as much halibut as possible, at the least cost. Commercial fishermen harvest the bulk of the halibut, and feel this is appropriate based on their history and investment. The charter captains feel their industry deserves growing room, and shouldn't be forced to pay for quota that many commercial fishermen originally received for free.
Well, Deckboss reckons both sides will be less than pleased with the catch sharing plan and the numbers it contains.
It's always important to remember that the council's actions are merely recommendations. The U.S. commerce secretary has final say.
We've seen the council take "final action" before on solutions to the halibut war, only to see those actions succumb to politics and bureaucracy.
Will this likewise be the fate of catch sharing plan?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
You charter guys are clueless. You say you shouldn't have to purchase quota to expand as all quota holders were given for free their quota. Guess what, you just stabbed all second generation( no free quota/all purchased/financed)guys squarely in the back. Second gen. Guys played by the rules and we bought our quota often times using federal loans which we still must payoff. You should have gone after first gen guys only who received free and clear their quota and who can absorb this reduction in quota. You charter jerks can kiss my second generation halibut.
Ho hum? Make light of this Wes....many commercial second generation guys will pay for charters win and bankruptcy is a real possibility. Many second gen. Guys never wanted IFQ in the beginning and were unfairly treated by the NPFMC as they gave this quota to a few. First generation quota holders should have been the target and could have absorbed this reallocation with no real financial consequences. Was it really part of the plan to financially sink second generation commercial guys? Reallocation without compensation is wrong.
Hey knucklehead, the leasing was supported by people like you. the only differnce is they came to meetings to suggest it. blame your own kind for your problems. the charter jerks didn't even want to lease "junk bond" halibut quota.
Leasing is not allowed in IFQ, and FYI I was present at all meetings to fight IFQ an did offer other ideas. Write with fact not emotion ....idiot.
Its unbelievable really that it came to this. Who was asleep at the wheel?
How could they implement the IFQ program on halibut (to improve efficiency, promote conservation, etc) and then leave the backdoor wide open for the charter industry to come in and completely turn it upside down?
The charter industry came in and robbed this fishery blind.
Charter fishing is an organized crime.
Charter fish guides are, repeat ARE commercial operators. They should buy quota, PERIOD.
The problem with many of these comments is some charter guys have been in it longer than the so-called 2nd gen hook and line guys. Many as long as some of the 1st gen. As usual, in the rush to do something, ie. IFQ, which begat the bastard child CDQ, of which the unintended consequences are only now being revealed. Y'all better get used to it because it ain't gonna be any different; some win, some lose. The dividing of the commons is always bloody. Anyone that invests in a fishery thinking there is security has a basically bad business plan from the get.
Bastard child CDQ? Not sure why you had to bring that into the discussion.
Comments like this will persist as long as Colombus Day is still celebrated.
Bastard child because most people don't realize that without it there wouldn't BE Q's of any kind. That was what tipped the process. What do you call this ?:
Community Charter Halibut Permit
A Community Quota Entity (CQE) representing an eligible community may receive one or more community charter
halibut permits. A community charter halibut permit issued to a CQE will be designated for area 2C or area 3A, will be
non-transferable, and will have an angler endorsement of six (6). The CQE must use a separate application for each
community on whose behalf requesting a community charter halibut permit.
And, who's quota does it come out of?
All of these comments show what happens when a fishey is paartially privitized. "They robbed us blind" Robbed you of what? Their traidtional harvest? the public's right to have access to a public resource?
The charter operators did exactly what they were allowed to by law. In the same the longline sector was allowed to fish this halibut stock into the disaster that is it in. The charter sector was given what they caught last year. It hurt them and it hurt the longline sector but neither is at fault.
It is what it was allowed to be - get over it.
why can"t you people use your real names. your comments mean nothing when you hide behind anonymous.RON BERGAN
Privatization, Q's, is currently the best way to protect the fisheries sustainability and keep them efficient. Why shouldn't communities be allowed to participate in them? I think it actually creates more stability when the people living among the resources have control of them; a more vested interest in the long-run health.
@9:52, you seem to have forgotten the years where 2C charter operators grossly exceeded their GHLs. It was an open-access fishery side-by-side a rationalized one. Charter operators caused massive cuts to 2C commercial quota. They were directly responsible.
Nutzy Futzel says: who cares what Ron Bergen says over what Annanymouse says? So far Ron Bergan hasn't said anything worth listening to. Annaymouse has said some pretty pointed stuff at times. End of story. Good lord, only 50 watt BBT gives a shit about that stuff. The door has been open to the 21st century for some time now.....
Interesting how fish stocks get wiped out wherever the pukers go.
Thems that make a living off of it know better than to kill off the hen that lays the golden eggs.
Read your nightime stories again. Truth is simple. Cold beer is more important to a good day sport fishing than the actual catch. Feeding the world is another story.
Really feeding the world....At 34 dollars a pound.....the commercial sector grossly was allowed to over harvest by the corrupt commercially run IPHC and now we are all taking it in the ass because of it. Take a look in the mirror if you are looking for someone to blame.
no halibut fisherman have been given ifq's for free!the ifq;s we recieved were based on our past history in the halibut fishery unlike the charter fleet who are trying to get something for nothing!you charter boys resource is called a tourist,if you don't get to steal enough halibut from the commercial fisherman then you can still take your resource the tourist out to look for whales and you can still make a living.we halibut fisherman don't have that option, once our resource the halibut are stolen from us!!
Go fish for cod they are open access. The charter allocation is based on traditonal harvest also. Those fish are no more yours than ours. The charter allocation was based on our harvest record for the last 17 years. You can only have stolen what you own, that portion of the resource was never gifted to you. It was set aside for the public. You can't have it all for your greedy needs. Everyone gets some, even sport fishermen,,,,sorry. Get over it go catch some cod and quit whining.
The last to commentator's are deluded. What is given under the IFQ system can be taken away.
Here are the seven purposes of MFCMA:
1. Acting to conserve fishery resources
2. Supporting enforcement of international fishing agreements
3. Promoting fishing in line with conservation principles
4. Providing for the implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs) which achieve optimal yield
5. Establishing Regional Fishery Management Councils to steward fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revising of plans which (A) enable stake holders to participate in the administration of fisheries and (B) consider social and economic needs of states.
6. Developing underutilized fisheries
7. Protecting essential fish habitats
Not hard to imagine scenarios that can dramatically change the game.
The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle derived from English Common Law. The essence of the doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land. The doctrine limits public and private use of tidelands and other shorelands to protect the public's right to use the waters of the state. (Visit the MSRC Web site and search for the State Supreme Court case Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn. 2d 662, 732 P.2d 989)
So, when are the draggers going to buy quota for their halibut bycatch? That might clean things up.
Post a Comment