The state has conducted a review of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Download the report here.
Also, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and some of her colleagues are sponsoring legislation to permanently exempt fishing boats from EPA regulation of incidental discharges. Here's a press release.
In Johns v.CFEC, the Alaska Supreme Court clearly recognized the importance of establishing the optimum number for each limited fishery in order to maintain the:
ReplyDelete…constitutional purposes of limited entry, namely, prevention of distress to fishermen and resource conservation. The optimum number provision of the Limited Entry Act is the mechanism by which limited entry is meant to be restricted to its constitutional purposes.Without this mechanism, limited entry has the potential to be a system which has the effect of creating an exclusive fishery to ensure the wealth of the permit holders and permits values, while exceeding the constitutional purposes of limited entry.
There was no mention of the Bristol Bay dual permit fishery in this report that I could see , is this the clause where its says (exclusive fishery to ensure the wealth of the permit holders and permits values)? Why was the dual permit not mentioned in this report, because it is an illegal act? Couldn't we get the same results with a reduction of in gear in the water,lets just say a 100 fathoms of gear per drift boat? "Wealth of the permit holder" how was your "production bonus" this year? Tired of the rich man, poor man fishery? Do away with the dual permit, it should drop the price of permit in Bristol Bay for the buy back. The intention of the dual permit act is not what is has become!Limited entry permits are for"Fishermen" not investors!
a good indicator of the previous post would be the chatham black cod fishery,down to 73 exclusive permit holders owning the sole rights to 120 miles long by 12 miles wide in some places of alaskas water ways! the allowable catch has been dropping year after year but the state value of this permit is still 300,000 thusand plus dollars?a lot of good people have been denied there right to make a liveyhood in this fishery just so the value of the permit stays high!with no impact to conservation just the oppisite.this fisherie needs a total review,to show just how wrong limited entry can be!
ReplyDeleteExactly,the Johns Case showed the need for a correct optimum number. In 2005 CFEC Optimum Number Survey identifies 900-1200 as Optimum number. Your solution of making permits less expensive by adding boats and making the fishery less profitable for everyone does nothing but hurt fishermen and the communities that depend on Bristol Bay Salmon to survive.
ReplyDeleteScenario #1 Permit Price 70$- 1800 fishermen that cant make payments or ever upgrade their equipment.
Scenario #2 Permit Price 200-250K 1100-1300 boats.Robust, manageable fishery that is economically sustainable.
There is nothing exclusive about competing with 1100-1300 boats and any body in their right mind would rather have a higher cost of original investment in a potentially profitable fishery than get a bargain on an entry permit so they can participate in a fishery that they have little chance of paying the bills year after year.
We need some sort of consolidation and dual permits is the only thing that has ever actually made a difference. Bottom line the CFEC issued far more permits than could ever fish at one time and be sustainable year after year and we are stuck with the mess. You are way too hung up on feeling persecuted by some sort of rich man , poor man illusion. Want to make more money with your single permit, work a little harder. There were plenty of 200K lb seasons last year with single permits.
I agree with the post above, scenario #2. Dual permits are a good thing in the bay. I also agree that there are PLENTY of single permit boats hitting the upper end of production, and those crews work extremely hard to do it. Its not like a D permit gets a double length net, its only an extra 300 feet added to the original 900. If you feel that puts you at such a disadvantage, get the beer off the boat and work harder.
ReplyDeleteBristol bay fleet reduction idea: Put RSW on your boat, bleed and chill every fish. Set a deadline (2018 season?) Get it done or get out.
Totally agree with first post February 7, dual permits should not be allowed. This is a bad policy, takes away jobs and has done nothing as to what it was intended to do. Oh, bleed fish? That's a joke, leaving them on deck for an hour while running back to the line. We all see it, just wish guys could come clean on that one.
ReplyDelete9:50 you are completely wrong. Duel permits help everyone. For those with the extra 50 it's worked great. For all involved it's another 150 fm out of the water. Regarding bleeding, the fish still bleed. On my boat I have a dedicated bleeder so we're bleeding while picking. True, on heavy days we can fall behind but we do our best. It does make a difference. Don't knock it just because you refuse to change.
ReplyDeleteI think duel permits was the best thing that happened to me in Bristol Bay, it's an alternative to the so called permit buyback program that everyone is talking about but no action. Some think that duel permit should be stopped to bring the purchase price down so that it will be less expensive for the buyback program, not true! Once the program gets approved "if ever" the permits will skyrocket!
ReplyDeleteI think it should be allowed in Bristol Bay for one person to own and at the same time fish both permits, this will cut down tremendous amount of gear in the water and the optimal number of boats will be achieved.
9:50. You obviously have no clue how a high end Bristol boat operates. Dedicated bleeder, either a half share hand or rotate between your slowest pickers.
ReplyDeleteIf you picked faster you wouldn't have an hour run back to the line. If I had an hour run back to the line for every line set, I'd just go do 3 hour sleeper sets every period. Mostly because I love wrapping tenders, I think they all just need big net hugs.
We know how highline boats work in bristol bay,
ReplyDeleteThe only way you can keep up is with the extra net.
Get off your high horse, your not that good, your ideas all lead to more over capitalization. Dual permit is a bad idea, just keep pushing it and judge Boldt will be coming your way.
This seems so simple to me, am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteFor each D-boat:
You remove 100 fathoms of gear from the water, and remove one boat. More space for everyone and more fish for the fleet. And, yes, 33% more gear for the D-boat.
You increase demand for permits, increasing the value for everyone.
So the D-boats, have more or less funded a buyback, and the non-D-boats benefit as well. Seems like a big win for the Non-D-boats for no out of pocket cash.
Seems like a no-brainer, if people can get over the idea of someone having 33% more gear than they have, even though the D-boat paid for it. An guess what, anyone can have an extra permit on board, if you pay for it.
Very positive business like thinking, you read my mind, I totally agree with you.
Delete9:50 and 8:46 are both wrong. They are perfect examples of a quote by Oscar Wilde:
ReplyDelete"Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities"
Increased demand for permits and permit value only matters to people leaving a fishery. Though's who wish to stay and participate shouldn't have to buy into your johnny come lately vision of bristol bay.
ReplyDeleteA whole lot of people give their permits away 2:55. Many people gave em to their kids for $0.00?
ReplyDeleteSome people treat em as a privilege, some people don't. That is another personal genetic question.
§ 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery
No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State.
Why would i want to pay 250K for 50 fms of net, wouldn't i want the full deal and extra 150fms, their are some that want this! Can't wait for the Board of fish. Is the the dual permit really going save Bristol bay?One skipper talks about all the crew he is hiring to bleed and pick his fish, probably going to need a bigger boat for the crew and the extra net? Is Cfec going to add more permits so everyone can have equal chance lets say 2400 permits so we can make 1200 duals? Who would be entitled to the said "new" permits? As for the high end production fleet , Ray Charles can see how that"s being done in Bristol bay! Still the question is why didn't CFEC write about the dual permit in this study? I think they should so the dual permit can be clarified. "will the dual permit be permanent or will you be able to be split the said permits when ever someone feels the need"? As for a for a buy back, do you really need a optimum number study, S.E. Seine fishery didn't seem to need one.Is cfec really doing there job, do we want the board of fish managing are permits? i think this is what this report is about.Quality equals a better price, a good business plan isn't how much fish you catch, it about how much money you put in "your" pocket !!!
ReplyDeleteNo, increased demand for permits and permit values really only matter to those in the fishery as it's the true indicator of that fisheries economic vitality. (excluding Sitka herring)
ReplyDelete5:50, you understand. The idea is they want dual permits, then they want all the net 300 fathoms, then do away with 32 foot limit, next will be catch shares and new catch methods. Where does this stop? What matters is price and making money, all these dual permit guys think about is catching more fish to make more money. They try to push the none economic viability of the fishery to support the idea of dual permits and buy backs. Well they are the ones with the $700,000 boats and are economically none viable. They have 5 man crews with fish bleeders and all this junk and want to push this idea of bristol bay on the rest of us who have our boats payed for, own one permit and are fine. The dual permit came when price was depressed and permits sold for under $70,000. The dual permit system has run it's couse, do away with it.
ReplyDelete5:50, we already have an optimum number.
ReplyDelete1850 divided by 2= Optimum Number.
http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/notices/NR_2005_1011_bristol%20bay.pdf
Whoops?
" D. The Chignik Cooperative Fishery Scheme Permitted by Former 5 AAC 15.358 Impermissibly Allocated Within a Single Fishery."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1119517.html
2/12 at 12: 10 pm
ReplyDeleteI got news for you, it's not the guys with 700k boats that need the help. Read the BBRSDA Economic Report. 80% of watershed residents are in the lowest quartile making 41K or less per year. Get it through your head, 1500 boats are too many in Bristol Bay. Fewer boats allow the same pie to generate 15-20% more income per boat. Then the lower quartile makes more per person.We have improved quality but as runs get bigger we get paid less, supply and demand. Don't believe me, if the forecast is correct for 2015 look for a base price around 80 cent, give or take. You are so worried that someone else has a bigger boat that you are willing to let your neighbor starve. Shame on you.
It's hard to fathom the simple economics of this fishery.
ReplyDeleteLike the $38,000 brand new Rawson, catching $1.25 lb. sockeye in 1979, or was it the 2014 Wigley, catching the $1.25 a lb salmon, that missed everyone optimum number study that been studied longer than it takes to fish 30 seasons.
Ws it the .45 cent diesel, or the 4.50 diesel that confuses everyone?
D permits were a good idea, except all it did was take all the permits that weren't being fished and get them back in action, essentially putting more net in the water......Maybe a DD permit is in order?
ReplyDelete12:10 So your idea is less boats ans double permits will make the local people more money, like 15-20 percent more. Am I missing something here, that doesn't make any logic. So you are all in with the catch more get payed less idea that you write about with supply and demand. So 80 cent this year, may I ask is that other 60 million coming to Canada this summer? Oh no, did they come last summer so that's why I got $1,20 when in 1979 the price was $1:25. My oh my I missed something in your writing.
ReplyDeleteSo can an average person with viable experience profitability operating their own boat in another fishery enter the bay and pay for starter boat and permit payments, crew and upkeep at current prices?
ReplyDelete5:01 PM
ReplyDeleteGood job disagreeing with every suggestion made to try to brainstorm a way to create a economically sustainable model in Bristol Bay . Instead of just stating your disagreement with explanations that are a mish-mash of random, disconnected thoughts, can you please offer us your solution, and please don't tell me the solution is another 35K grant program from BBEDC
as spring is approaching, the wonderful spring Togiak sac roe fishery is soon to be! I guess we could say that we have doubled, tripled , even quadrupled the reduction of those none limited entry Togiak permits. There is no "price". the fishery is just based on volume , and still one mishap and your pretty much screwed and out of business. How has the reduction in the fleet help this fishery . Hasn't, but someone is going to go so they can catch boat loads of nothing.Do away with dual permit , everyone for themselves and then we can have survival of the fittest ,and see who the last asshole standing. It will be a great T.V show, the royalty's should be awesome!!!
ReplyDeleteThe solution is to leave the rule book alone. Go catch your fish for your market and stop trying to eliminate others for your own personal gain. All this economic hardship you talk of is solved by price not volume. Maybe we need some balls like the west coast longshoreman. I think I know where you stood in 1991, so your the problem and don't come crying to us to change the rules in your favor. Do you really believe your fish this coming season is only worth 80 cents? If that's what you believe sell out and quit fishing for you don't deserve the right to catch bristol bay salmon, you have no respect for the fish. On that note any buyer only paying 80 cents doesn't deserve the right to buy fish in bristol bay yet look what we have, guys who will fish for nothing, case in point the post above talking of togiak. Until the price becomes viable nothing will fix our problems, all the rule changes, dual permits , boats, it's all a smokescreen of our basic problem, price. So now you will want to know how to get a price. Well you give your buyer the price you want and if they don't give it to you, you don't sell them your product. It's very simple but to hard for greedy pigs who will go fishing for nothing.
ReplyDeleteYou dumb asses have forgotten about farm fish.....the price will never be what it was because of that....ever
ReplyDeleteOh, and is that why we've just had the best price since 1988?
ReplyDeleteat 8:05 pm
ReplyDeleteThe 80 cent number speaks to the significant recent sales of H and G by major processors at under $2.50 when the price of 2013 fish was over $4.00 You may not want to believe it, but this is a business and it is subject to the basic principle of supply and demand. If the 2015 forecast comes true we are looking at an additional 30 million lbs of finished product on the market and our Processors and ASMI and BBRSDA has done NOTHING to prepare for that event. Have another beer, puff up your chest, tell me I should strike and threaten to burn my boat and bury your head deeper in the sand. If there is any one group of fishermen that has kept Bristol Bay from evolving into a better fishery, year after year it is most certainly made up up of Neandrathals like you.
Yes the Processors ,ASMI and the BBRSDA have done nothing. Most of the Processors are owned by the Japanese markets! One is owned by a Canadian Buyer, and new one has some Korean involvement. Do understand that Canned sockeye salmon and frozen fillets are the same price in the super market. The cost of the tin is worth more than fish that is put in it. As for the herring fishery Cardboard totes I believe are @ $200 dollars a ton. the cardboard is worth more than the herring, the tin is worth more than the salmon! there room for improvement , if you owned both buying station and the selling station and some even own the grocery store. Monopoly anyone, their winning ,we lost! Dual permit isn't the answer
ReplyDeletei thought this was a dicussion on the review of the limited entry program?not bristol reality program revisited!
ReplyDeleteMore rash comments from folks that dont know hwat they're talking about. you are correct that
ReplyDeleteBBRSDA, with over $4M cash in the bank has done nothing to help the problem that is all theirs!! The ASMI Board, however commmitted over $1M in additional funds specifically to address sockeye this fall. Assuredly, that # will increase as the market dictates going forward. So how aboutall you BBRSDA shareholders go in mass to the next meeting and demand they Match the ASMI Million dollar for dollar???