The annual summer survey is crucial for managing the halibut fishery. But it's facing serious financial challenges as the halibut stock struggles.
"The spawning biomass of Pacific halibut is near the lowest levels observed since the 1970s and catch rates in nearly all IPHC regulatory areas are at or near the lowest levels observed in 40 years," says this brochure posted on the IPHC website.
The commission historically has paid for the survey by selling catches, but low catch rates and low fish prices coupled with rising costs have created a funding crunch, the brochure says.
In the special session, commissioners plan to discuss survey design for 2025 and beyond.
11 comments:
It may be time to face the music and start a rebuilding plan for this collapsed fishery. You can only beat a dead horse for so long and IPHC scientists can no longer ignore that the halibut fishery is in serious trouble. If the survey can't pay for itself then we have a problem. Price reduction in current years is less of a problem than the fact that there are not a lot of fish on the grounds. Dismantle the conference board, go back to blue line recommendations without excessive Industry influence and try to get this fishery out of the toilet.
Big cuts are needed in 3A, not the 7% of last year. Does anyone know what costs are rising for IPHC?
Dockside prices have languished the last decade.
East Coast Canadian product and Norwegian farmed halibut have taken away a lot of the East Coast market.
Boats put in bids for the contract to do the survey, and they are now bidding higher. Everything is more expensive — fuel, bait, gear. Even crew don't want to work for $200 a day to longline.
The first post is right! You have a fishery that harvests 100% females. Overallocation to Canada every year. IPHC staff and commissioners increasing fishing intensity rates and now considering a year-round fishery, so harvest can continue during spawning. Let's get back to following the science to rebuild this fishery.
Big cuts are needed by all sectors regardless of "business plan." Fish come first. Too much politics involved in quota decision making.
You all have to admit a lot of the problem comes directly from the IFQ program. No one liked the derby days including myself but back then there was a lot less area targeted. With this nine-month fishery there's hardly a square inch of bottom that's not fished on. It's a no-win situation. Long season good for markets but bad for stocks. Short season bad for markets but easier on stocks.
Too much quota chasing too few fish. Just like limited entry that doubled the number of salmon permits fishing statewide. That race for quota that started in the '70s after the voter enacted limited entry really hasn't worked out in any fishery. Ask those who are out of business in salmon, crab and halibut today. We can just give 'em all to the drag fleet and finish off this small-boat industry once and for all. Now we get another task force, just like in 2002, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1944, &c., &c., &c. Good thing U.S. Grant got that federal Fish Commission started in 1872, still trying to figure what's wrong 150 years later.
For the past 15 years are so I have seen longline vessels unloading boatloads of small halibut not one much over 20 pounds. In the past, longliners used to avoid nursery grounds to let these small fish grow. Closing these areas to longlining may go a long way to helping the stocks to rebuild. Also, in 2C, does anyone have any realistic idea just how many actual pounds of halibut are being harvested by the sport and charter fisheries?
I visited the sport docks cleaning station in Homer a few years back and didn't see one 20-pounder. I got the dirty look when I mentioned that even my kids would have let those babies go. I hear late-term abortions have gotten real popular as a political doctrine for the Democrats in Homer, too.
Gordon Jenson told us: Why would I want IFQs? When the fisheries collapse, they will be worth nothing.
Post a Comment