The International Pacific Halibut Commission today announced catch limits for the 2016 season.
The coastwide limit of nearly 29.9 million pounds is up slightly from last year's 29.2 million pounds.
The season will open March 19 and run to Nov. 7.
Here's the full breakdown of catch limits by regulatory area.
For comparison, here are last year's limits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If you don't feel like doing the math.
3A -5.16%
3B +2.26%
4A no change
2C +6.45%
Nice to see the western areas stabilize. I don't know what you take from a five percent drop in 3A stabilizing. An IFQ holder has to wonder what impact the trawlers are having on the area, its the hardest hit out any of the areas. Is 3A at a point where the stock can't get a footing to rebuild?
Seeing guys purchasing 3A unblocked at $58 seems risky and rich to me. Time adjust your halibut position to the West.
Wesley, Do you have any interest in the real story here. Area 2B got 2 million lbs over the blue-line while the US regulatory areas got table scraps. Also look into the extreme bias against area 2C. Theres a story here and the US commissioners should be asked about why they do this every year.
Commissioner Jeff Kauffman of St. Paul noted the overall decision was about 12 percent, or 3.2 million pounds above that “blue-line” number. “To let you know where most of those increases came from, about 2.5 million pounds out of the 3.2 million pound increase above the blue line came from area 2, an area that I think we have a lot of confidence in, an area that’s responded very well to the cuts that we’ve all experienced over the last decade or so and about 660,000 pounds of the increase above the blue line came from areas 3A and west, areas that we have I think more concern about,” Kauffman explained. “So the bulk of the allocation above the blue line came from area 2 and about 660,000 pounds of that came from area 3A and west.” Area 2 stretches from Southeast Alaska to California.
Seriously Jeff? 2 million to area 2B. What about 2C? I dont even know what to make of your ridiculous comment.
Yes the IPHC quotas reflect politics as much as biology. Problem is Canada get a vote disproportionate to their resource. To understand what happened you need to look at survey results, the blue line (scientists recommendations) and finally the quotas set by commissioners (politicians).
Canada has pretty much a veto power and over harvests more than the blue line with a decrease in their survey results. They try to hold own 2c quotas in hopes fish migrate to Canada.
The 2c guys complain but they also were given a harvest number above the blue line. They did have a good survey and this continues a trend. Their argument might be with the model the scientists use as why the low blue line with a climbing survey?
3a got a gift of a harvest # above the blue line with a falling survey.
3b, with no political clout, got screwed. The only area with no catch quota above the blue line despite 2 years of increasing surveys and commercial catch rates.
4a got harvest quota above the blue line despite a falling survey. The rest of area 4 got catch quotas above the blue line but had increasing surveys to justify them.
The thing to remember is the survey doesn't lie. It seems that more often than not the model the scientists plug the survey data into to establish quotas DOES lie. Politics or uncertainty? Both?
Post a Comment