Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alaska commercial fishing news and notes
About me
- Deckboss
- I'm a journalist covering Alaska's commercial fishing industry. My real name is Wesley Loy. Reach me at wloy61@gmail.com.
Blog archive
-
▼
2022
(159)
-
▼
October
(12)
- Big crab news for Kodiak
- This just in
- Peltola wants $250 million in crab disaster relief
- A fatality-free year for Alaska commercial fishing
- 'Prepared to fight'
- Crab industry's cry for help
- St. Paul to seek federal disaster relief
- USCG cutter aids injured fisherman in B.C. waters
- The continuing fight over Metlakatla's fishing rights
- Herring looking up in Prince William Sound
- A crab catastrophe
- A minimum age policy for halibut and sablefish
-
▼
October
(12)
18 comments:
The justification for this is flimsy. I know many young people, who with the support of parents, started obtaining quota before 18. I thought the idea was to get young people involved in the fisheries, instead they are creating more roadblocks.
Are rules not supposed to go through the council?
Looks like they're going backwards again instead of forward.
Does seem like council should establish these sorts of rules with plenty of public input. Don't we as taxpayers pay their salaries? I for one am tired of them making rules such as this without fisherman input.
The halibut IFQ program is the most abused sector of the fishing fleet. Always first on the chopping block, they are trying to reallocate pounds to the charter sector, and now they are implementing rules without public comment.
Contract law makes it difficult to do business with and enforce rules with minors. NMFS asked the council to address the issue.
How so? I’ve seen and read about minors receiving plenty of fishing and hunting violations.
Oh come on no teenage kid is buying $50/lb halibut quota. The only thing this is going to stop is people gaming the system by putting blocks in their kids names. You want a generational asset give your kid some Disney stock! Leave a little quota on the market for the first generation fishermen
More like $60 a pound. It should not be a problem for a parent to put fish in a kids name, fishing has always been a family business. If a 14 year old kid can crew on a longliner there is no valid reason to cut them out of ownership. This action is NMFS simply laziness at the expense of young fishermen. NMFS should find solutions rather than default to additional IFQ restrictions.
Unfair advantage for people with children plain and simple. If you want to put some fish in your kids name you can buy up unblocked and give it to them when they turn 18. I would say this has potential to help actual young fishermen not just those born into generational wealth. Now if we can just get rid of walk on quota holders and leasing there might actually be a chance for young fishermen.
You sound like a salty old crew member that never bought quota and now feels priced out. A handful of well off family operations buying kids quota isn’t the reason you have zero equity in the fishery.
Ha I'd rather be a salty old deckhand than a spoiled kid whose daddy gave a bunch of quota and now calls himself a "fisherman" while watching movies in the stateroom.
My first captain started running boats at 12. Our congressional representative has a similar story. In my view, any kid who legitimately fished for the required 150 days has earned the right to participate in this fishery. They’ve also likely earned enough in those days to warrant the investment. They probably can’t get a bank loan like the rest of us, so is it that bad for them to have help financing from family instead?
The contractual issue is a legitimate question, but that doesn’t seem to apply with state permits.
With graying of the fleet everywhere, is a 16 year old kid who wants to invest in fishing as a career really a problem we should be concerned with?
NMFS has proven they are incapable of managing the fisheries, management decisions should go to the council where at least there is a tiny amount of public input.
This is a response to Slipper Skippers who own vast amounts of quota, but who don't really fish, instead choosing to jump on a real fisherman's boat as a ride-along.
Problem is, there are all those pesky rules that prevent excessive consolidation — blocks, vessel caps, vessel class shares. Stuff like that.
How to bypass the rules? Simple, put IFQ in your kids' names. Maybe your wife's name, too.
It is interesting how being an "owner on board" is so important in some fisheries, but not in others.
I watched my wife bait cod guts with morning sickness one trip, chummed up some nice sets too. She could have gotten a medical, but chose to fish while pregnant instead...on our boat. She could have bought stocks or bitcoin, but wanted to invest in fishing and still fishes her quota every year. She has as much right to be there as anybody else.
Kids in High School should be able to get a few pounds and skiff fish if they can swing it. I can see not putting IFQ in a baby’s name but a high school kid should have the opportunity.
If a motivated "slipper skipper" can't hold quota via their kids they will just find another person. An unnecessary and useless rule that goes against the goals of getting young people in the fisheries.
Post a Comment