Thursday, March 20, 2014

A catch share concept

If federal regulators move forward with a catch share program for Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries such as pollock and cod, some of the catch shares should go to "community fishing associations."


Some Alaska legislators evidently think so. They've introduced this resolution urging consideration of the idea.

The House Special Committee on Fisheries is scheduled to give the resolution a hearing at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, chairs the committee.


Anonymous said...

Some people should move to Alaska before joining the association.

Fishin with NO Tuition. Ours our the only farmers who never read Homer.

E. We Address Other Arguments Raised on Appeal To Inform the Parties of Other Concerns We Have Regarding the Cooperative Scheme.

1. The emergency regulation authorized a legal entity other than a natural person to operate gear in a Commercial Fishing Entry Commission administration area...
The Limited Entry Act defines person as a natural
person; person does not include a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, organization, joint venture,
trust, society, or other legal entity other than a natural person....

John Enge said...

Wes, as new information has come out on the CFA idea, the hearing was cancelled. The info. wasn't good. For one, there aren't any CFAs in the U.S. to copy. And, two, the AMCC idea would just make them money on the 5 to 10% commission on landings that they want. Three, there is already a program in state law that renders this idea moot and doesn't make a third party rich.

Beth Stewart said...

This is one of those ideas that sounds tempting, but after reflection may lose much of its appeal. Deciding who gets fishing quota is a difficult task, especially in small towns. Local politics are very personal in Alaska's small coastal villages. Passing out fishing privileges would be fraught with consequences, political and legal. Anyone denied the privilege would likely sue. The cost of setting up an administrative and legal system to administer such a program could seriously tax local budgets. Funding such programs through the quota share program would seriously erode the value of the quota shares. Idealistically, community control is tempting, but realistically, it sounds like an idea that just won't work.

Anonymous said...

community catch shares are wrong.We would just be putting more control on our fishing buisness by bureaucrats that have no clue other then how to waste our money and time. Left alone we will bring our fish to the community as we always have.

Anonymous said...

Any catch share or processor share quota should be finite in time, non transferable, owner on board, and revert back to public sector for redistribution or open access as quota holding fisherman reaches retirement age.

Anonymous said...

Who is pushing community shares? A community organizer! Our current Washington administration has been on this path of power grabbing and it looks to be moving towards our independant lifes here in Alaska. We do not need this even if they are our local politicians.

Anonymous said...

And Corporate Catch Shares are good?
Ha Ha, I got mine, suckers.
Kinda feel bad for all the folks who participated but didn't end up with a trust fund for life, that's why crew are crew, the small villages have no chance against the big players and politicians....

And I'm a Slipper Skipper.

Suck Herring Eggs

Anonymous said...

So, is the legislature asking Sean Parnell for this? This is a federal fishery and the federal decision making board is dominated by people appointed by the governor, so ultimately it's all up to Sean Parnell now that there is no Ted Stevens to write legislation to keep the governor in line.

What the legislature really should do is to nullify all of these salmon permits and bring back fish weirs. Why is the fish wealth of Alaska handed out to a few thousand or so folks. With weirs, we could lease river mouths to bidders and charge a 25-35% royalty the way we do with our oil. This would also be environmentally friendly since there wouldn't be all of these little salmon boats out there burning diesel and contributing to ocean acidification.

Why should all of this salmon money go to the privileged few, when the wealth could instead be used for things like the education of all Alaskan children?

Anonymous said...

8:35 do you own a home or any realestate?
Why should realestate or your home be yours?
It also was public property once.
So with your thinking if you own any realestate or a home that should also be put up for bid each year this also would be enviromently friendly then we would not have to build so many homes and more land would be left undeveloped.

Anonymous said...

Ever get past the 2nd grade 8:35, or shall we discuss a couple more trillion for those with no clue.

Wealth never educated anyone.

Did you pay the poor school tax long?

Oil's non-renewable, just in case you've never been to Alaska.

Fisheries Business Tax
(AS 43.75) “Raw Fish Tax”
Alaska’s Oldest Tax est. 1899
Paid by fisheries businesses and persons who process fisheries resources in or export unprocessed fisheries resources from Alaska

Anonymous said...

The State should just claim 25% of the TAC as a State fishery GHL and limit harvest to vessels under 60' and the council should put sideboards on those vessels that have catch shares to prohibit participation in the State GHL fisheries. That way we can take 25% of the bycatch and further reduce it under state law. This would slow the pace of the harvest, provide local opportunity, help processors who don't have catch shares, and provide higher quality product. Win/win for Alaska.

Anonymous said...

Interesting idea 8:35. You seem to have invoked the predictable reaction from the fish chokers. To answer the fish chokers, yes fishing rights are property like real estate (and frequencies of light for the media companies-that one still seems the strangest to me). Also, I suspect that 8:35 did get past the 2nd grade.

But, property can be seized by the government. If real estate is needed for a highway, the government buys it from you, against your will if need be. The same can be done with fishing rights (although the Council sometimes just takes it from one sector and gives it to another without paying for it).

The interesting thing about 8:35's idea is that the weirs would be a lot more efficient. The question is if the difference in efficiency is enough to buy back all of the permits.

For example, if it was worth 100 million, but cost the fish chokers 80 million to catch (gillneters are expensive to maintain relative to what they catch) versus 20 million for the weirs. If the state got 25% of the difference, that would be 15 million a year. It wouldn't take long to pay for all of the permits with that. Then, Alaskan residents would get a boost for the renewable resource forever (unlike oil). Obviously, this wouldn't work with herring or halibut, or the trawl fisheries. But it could with salmon.

I have heard more ideas about fisheries than I can count, but this one is new to me and one of the more interesting ideas that I have heard in a while.