Monday, April 22, 2013

Fleet reduction in Bristol Bay?

The Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association is conducting an "informal poll" of drift gillnetters on the idea of a permit buyback.

The association has told its members to expect a letter from the board very soon.

Bristol Bay, of course, is Alaska's most important commercial salmon fishery, attracting hundreds of gillnet boats each summer.

The BBRSDA works to advance the fishery in a number of ways, and relies on a landings tax the drift fleet self-imposed in 2006.

Bristol Bay setnetters rejected the tax and aren't part of the association.

104 comments:

Anonymous said...

Buybacks are a get rich quick scheme that benefits the permit holders in place at the time a buyback is initiated, only. It is short-sighted and reduces competition at the processor level. While having less permit holders on the Johnson hill line might be appealing, having less advocates when you face the Karl Johnstone line-up at the BOF would not be good. Access to the resource is becoming increasingly political. When things get political, it comes down to politicians, and when that happens it comes down to votes. The less people our industry involves, the more vulnerable we are at the political level. Bottom line on this is buybacks don't pass the long term stink test.

Anonymous said...

please don't fall for this siver bay seafoods vulture capitalist scheme!these vulture capitalistschemes care nothing about the younger generation or the future of the fisheries.it's all about stuffing more money into fewer and fewer pockets and privitizeing alaskas natural resources!please don't fall for this!!

Anonymous said...

Some will sell out in a heart beat because they were never cut out to be fishermen.

Anonymous said...

5:52, I would far rather deal with the "Karl Johnstone line up" than say a John Jensen area M line up. You may have forgotten that Johnstone is a former BB fisherman and that he has done about as much for the Bay fishing when it comes to dealing with the area M guys as anyone else on the Board. Ok, so he is against stacking, but so are half the set netters in the Bay. He even has been the leader in restricting sports fishing in the area to make sure certain burdens of conservation are shared. Especially when it comes to Chinooks. So, don't worry about facing a line up at the board. Worry about what a buy back does to the future and how it impacts new entries and veteran fishermen. You are correct, a buy back reduces competition and reduces new entrants into the market and fishery. And in the long run it benefits but a very few. Fish prices are on the rise world wide. Let's stay with the current model and we will all do OK.

Anonymous said...

Reducing fleet size by 200-300 boats hardly reserves Bristol Bay for " a few". Still 1300 boats even though Entry Commission study says 900-1200 is the optimum number. 16 million fish run, avg gross stock of about 60 K is not an economically sustainable fishery. Suggestions?

Anonymous said...

7:09. You are correct. BB prices are low after adjustment for inflation. But, they ARE on the rise. Unfortunately the fishery occurs after so many other sockeye fisheries and with the sheer volume of fish the prices will never be as high as the earlier fisheries. Include with that the fact that the quality of the fish caught in the Bay has always been low compared to other fisheries. That is also changing with more and more better handling. But consider; where else can a person invest around $250,000 for a permit and modest, but very usable boat and gear, work for around 6 weeks and earn almost a years living on an average year. More on a good year. Invest the 250K and get around 3 to 4 percent return, work six weeks in a job and get what? Nothing compared to fishing the Bay. No, the investment to fish in the Bay is a very good one with an excellent return and still allows one to work at other jobs or other fisheries when not spending the 6 weeks in the bay. The drift fleet needs to jump all over the stacking. When the law was passed it was to deal with the over capitalizing of the drift fleet. Get boats off the water and add a portion of another compliment of gear to those still on the water. The problem is; When stacking was in vogue, it was because of depressed fish prices. So make a really good argument that adjusted for inflation, prices are still depressed and the fishery is still over capitalized. Use experts to make your case. Calling people low IQd and complaining about the problem does nothing to help solve it. Make a good case and see what happens.

Anonymous said...

if we reduce numbers then we may lose processors. Look at puget sound they have reduced the numbers so much they have no voice.If you reduce the numbers too much the permits get too high and young people can't afford to buy in. You need local fishermen to fight things like the pebble mine.

Anonymous said...

meh...the guys at BBRSDA should have called over to BBEDC and asked Robin S. if he approves. It would have saved a lot of arm waving. My guess Robin says HELL NO (got to protect the impoverished watershed residents after all). Therefore, no buy-back in BB will happen, whether you want it to or not.

Anonymous said...

Robin's got 1 vote just like everyone else, 1 permit 1 vote, 2 permits 2 votes.

Been in America Long? Or do you hate it too?

Anonymous said...

9:11. Now that's funny! I like America just fine, thank you.

If you think Robin is just like "everybody else" then I don't know what else to tell you. He swings the economic muscle of the BB CDQ group like a war hammer. And if you think that makes no difference in Bay politics, then you have no clue!

Feel free to come back with an insult though! Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

According to the official State of Alaska optimum number study, a reduction of a minimum of 600 permits is required to create an economically responsible fishery. The remaining drift permits would still number over 1,200. That number leaves an average of 300 boats fishing any given river district.

I would never consider over 1,200 drift fishermen too "small" of a number to effectively mount a politically driven response to any need that arises. If you think that 1,200 is too small of a number, tell that to the 300 guys from Area M that just handed the 2,800 permit holders (setnetters included) of Bristol Bay another political spanking and get to continue inercepting millions of the Bays fish, which flies in the face of ADFG responsible management tools and techniques laid out for decades now.

Insuring economic viability through a stabilized and reduced fleet reduction was the intent of the State when the CFEC was formed. The problem was, and is, that the State issued too many permits in Bristol Bay.

It is time to recognize this error and do something about it. The State needs to help the economy of this industry. The cycle of poverty in this fishery needs to be reconciled.

BBEDC is doing everything that it can do through financial assistance, but it is not enough. There are too many boats splitting up the fish. Operating expenses are too high for the average fisherman. If the fishery becomes more expensive to buy into, that is because more money is being made by each boat, making the payments easier to afford.

Something needs to be done to help the average Bay fisherman. As the fleet ages, a buyback/Permit reduction only makes sense.

Anonymous said...

IFQs anyone?

Given the changes in salmon from year to year it will be a challenge to manage, but there are benefits.

It will end the race for fish, incentivize more efficient operations and yield better prices and better quality fish. There will be winners and losers, but with it as overcapitalized as it is there are losers already.

Anonymous said...

Area M fishermen have way more smarts than the whole bristol bay fleet combined If you think the area M fishermen have it so good 11:04 then you better buy a permit and fish there...Oh thats right you dont know how to actually FISH becouse you learned in bristol bay that fishing is just following the leader or cheating the line! I feel sorry for you POOR FOOLS

Anonymous said...

OUT OF THE BOX SOLUTION: Instead of a buyback, every permit involved in a line violation would be forfeited, permanently. Permit goes away. This law could stay in effect until the optimum number was reached. That way, permit values would still reflect the actual value of the fishery, instead of a grossly inflated value brought on by buy-back speculation. Definitely would clean up the lines......

Anonymous said...

Damn! I'm not sure, but, I think reading this could almost be more fun than a deckload.

IFQ's will NEVER work for salmon, they are not a stock that waits for harvest.

Yeah, the collaberative brain pool has been w/o proper leadership in the Bay, but that is changing.

Area M smarts? More like conniving conspirators who will stop at nothing to steal other areas fish. Time's a changing boys, there's a new sheriff in town and his name is WASSIP. You can fight all you want but he's got the genetic proof to put you under. So, don't complain too loudly when you lose area and time in the future, you've been given fair warning. You're nothing but a bunch of over the horizon creek robbers who don't give a damn about escapements. Make no mistake, your days are numbered. Nothing personal, just science and the proper management of salmon returns.

Don't feel sorry for me, I'm not a line banger, and I'm sure I know how to fish better than you. I've heard that you guys get scared whenever you get within a mile and a half of the beach. Buh-Bam!

Anonymous said...

I think BBRSDA should definitely proceed with pursuing a reduction effort.

Anonymous said...

I dont mean to point at the elephant in the room, but processor shares for Bristol Bay salmon would make this a stronger fishery for the processor and that rising tide would lift all of our boats.

Anonymous said...

Regarding if we reduce numbers then we may lose processors. April 22, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Yeah right. Like why would they leave? More boats won't provide them more fish. The fishermen have always been able to deliver. When the going gets tough it's the processors that cry uncle. Kudos to Silver Bay. They are shaking things up. That's the kind of competition we need. Not 1866 permits. Let's reduce this fleet and make it profitable for those that stay and pay.

Anonymous said...

hah, "processors shares"... are you on drugs?

Anonymous said...

Processor Shares!?!?!?!?.....ask a Bering sea crabber and a halibut longliner what they think of processor shares. Crabbers got screwed!!

Anonymous said...

Lots of comments over a concept that will never, ever see the light of day in the foreseeable future. There are insurmountable obstacles at this time. There is no large or small group of people that can agree less on anything whatsoever then fishermen. The legislature will never sanction a buy-out. And if, by some one in a million chance, it were to try, the Courts would never approve. So, go ahead and huff and puff, be rude and unseemly to each other, because it is entertaining, even if not the least bit productive. But not as much as a boat load.

Anonymous said...

Joe Plesha? Is that you at 1:39 PM? Is it?

Anonymous said...

Damn! You got me.

Anonymous said...

If this doesn't boil over the 100 comment point, I'll eat my hat.

Anonymous said...

3:48 dont eat your hat it was your bonus one year wasnt it

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day, I don't know a BB fisherman that wouldn't appreciate less boats/gear in the water. However, my guess is it will be a cold day in hell before we get full support for a buy-back. That being said, if this were the late 90's I bet we would be humming a different tune.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a BB fisherman, but have a question. Could a reduced fleet contribute to overescapement if the fish are moving fast?

Anonymous said...

Bay fisherman here and I would fully support a fleet reduction. Processor shares? Uh, NO.

Anonymous said...

Wesley's post indicates an "informal poll" by BBRSDA which is not much to get spun up over. There's a long, long, long way between that and the reality of anything actually happening in the Bay, where innovation regularly gets swatted down. See the 32' limit and General District for example. Stacking is probably gone next meeting, when the locals get their guy on there to replace Webster. Buy-back? Not a chance.

Anonymous said...

The Southeast Seine buy-back program will help has a base model . I believe that took them almost 10 years of figuring out how to get a federal loan for a state fishery, among other things.
I've read they will never get taxed over 3% on a 40 year loan and this year it will be 1.5% .
N.M.F.S. website has some info about the program. I think the hard work has been done...

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting how the blog gets manipulated by Wes. There were some comments on here that are off track, and are now deleted. I found it interesting about the 9:08 post.
I think how it started and what the person said wasn't constructive. The response about Birdseye after had a point!
I believe whichever fishery, the people involed need to figure out what works best.
Just let the blog take its course. Buy-backs are a big issue!
Delete if ya want...

Anonymous said...

The reality is that processor shares for BB salmon would work. I am not saying it will ever be discussed or voted on. However, it would work. If processors were given shares, you can me certain they would have the right number of tenders on the ground and processing capacity to ensure all allotted salmon would be processed.

To those that say crabbers would tell me different, well, you have likely not been a crabber and just feed into the hype and loud noise on this site and others.


Anonymous said...

Having a situation where there is too MUCH fish to go around, would drive more processing investment, from the current folks and potential newcomers.

As it stands right now, there are too FEW fish to go around, resulting in those who have an average or below average season facing a financial jackpot.

Having a fishery where even those who are average or below, can scratch out an income is perhaps the first thing that anyone who is contemplating an investment in a boat & permit should consider. Certainly a bank or other lending institution would. Not everyone can be a highliner.

My macro view is that It's nice to see the RSDA thinking in these terms. They are well funded and seem to have the willingness to consider a project of this magnitude.

My micro view is the thought of having 300 fewer boats on the water. That is something that I would look forward to and wouldn't mind paying for!

Anonymous said...

The reality is that you, 8:10, are a processor looking to control price. You can't be serious. Do you really think that you could sell that STUPID/CRIMINAL of an idea on this blog? Cannery fishtraps were outlawed eons ago.

Anonymous said...

Processors can have as many shares as they want.....they can buy it by the pound.....they deserve what they buy....NOTHING ELSE!

Anonymous said...

Processors will never have salmon shares, end the conversation,should we have a buyback?, ya or nay?, I vote ya

Anonymous said...

One of the key components to this fleet reduction is that the local political players need to embrace the idea of doing something in order to make the average boat catch higher, rather than focusing on how to get rid of outsiders.

BBEDC gives drainage residents a huge advantage over other Alaska residents, who in themselves have a huge nadvantage over non-residents. Local and State loans should be more than enough to tip the buy-in advantage to residents.

So, quit spending your energies on fighting within your industry and work on solutions to increase the "average" income. One solution is to increase the average pounds caught through a minor fleet reduction. When you have 800 boats in a postage stamp area, that is too many.

To the guy that is concerned that a smaller fleet couldn't stop a huge push of fish, ADFG will allow more time.

Anonymous said...

I support a BB Permit buy back program.

BB Fisherman

Anonymous said...

The BB fleet has become extremely efficient. We no longer need the current fleet size to harvest the oversupply. Furthermore, with 1866 permits, this fishery is NOT economically sustainable "for most". Post 10:04 is correct. If ADF&G is concerned about over escapement they can simply extend or provide longer openings.

I am a BB fisherman and I support reducing the fleet size.

Anonymous said...

And yet, big fleet or reduced fleet, there will be some amonst our ranks that cry fowl over foregone harvest, processor capacity, or price. There is no silver bullet. SE permit bauback did not make the price spike nor fishing easier.

BB and SE permit holder.

Anonymous said...

I still think the rotting elephant in the room is the fact that the State issued too many permits. Why do the fishermen have to fund a buyback?

We already pay large landing taxes on those fish. Do those dollars count for nothing?

Anonymous said...

Agreed. The State issued too many permits, however that is well behind us, and little can be done, other than to systematically work towards something more rational.

The fishermen don't have to do anything if they chose noy to. They will then look forward to a narrow slice of the pie and struggle to be profitable. Or, they can take a deep breath, look at all the facts and then democratically take action, recognizing that while the potential solution is painful, the status quo is far more painful.

With a 30-40 million fish drift harvest, all of this is moot. With a 10-20 million drift harvest, simply divide 1,400 boats into that harvest and ponder that outcome.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, but I would think pulling off a buy-back at 10-20 million harvest would have far more support and be far less costly.

Anonymous said...

So when do we get rid of the dual Permit? Or are we going to have a dual permits and a buyback? If the price doesn't go up then we all will end up broke. Then it will probably be one big ass pollack-trawler making a tow from Ugashik to Naknek. I like the idea of the take back of permits for those that chose to fish in the special harvest area at low point and middle buff. Get busted - lose your permit. Who's robbing the bank in your Neighborhood?

Anonymous said...

We prefer to keep the fishermen poor and always begging for money.

When there are too many fishermen we can treat them as replaceables.

Remember, when there are lots of fish, you get low limits, and when there are not enough fish you go bankrupt.

Keep the number of fishermen inflated, we always win.

Anonymous said...

You would be getting less fish per boat if you took back the dual permit option. That is taking gear out of the water and you have not been required to fund it.

Anonymous said...

I am a bay fisherman and support a buyback

Anonymous said...

Make it everyone pull buy hand that will change the game in the bay and when you drop your card that's where you stay

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and you can get rid of your engine also, and fish deadman sand.

Anonymous said...

What would things look like if you were to take 300 boats off the water and still have 300-400 dual permit vessels?

On another note, I marvel at the fact that the conventional wisdom seems to bad-mouth the dual permit holders in the Bay, when in fact, they invested and did everyone a favor by taking a potential boat off the water. I would much rather compete with one dual permit vessel than two single permit vessels. Is it me? Am I that dense? I would sure like to understand why this is a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

Pebble should buy us out

Anonymous said...

You are correct. Stacking is a GOOD thing. The bad feelings toward dual permit boats are founded in short sight jealousy. The fact is, that dually took 100 fthms of gear out of the water. Instead of theose 2 permits fishing 300 fthm, they only fish 200. Some people just never get it.

Something else that is related and rarely recognized is the fact that the "average" poundage harvested is incorrectly skewed to the high side by the dual permit boats being included in averaging. The duallies make up most of the top quartile of poundage per boat results. In order to get a true picture of the "average" season you need to throw out the top quartile. When you do that, you can see the numbers are pretty bleak. No where else in the business world would those numbers merit anything but a sell order.

Instead of fishermen just going bankrupt and being replaced by someone who might go bankrupt in the future, a fleet reduction is the only sane plan.

BB is not experiencing boom and bust cycles. It is experiencing "getting by" and bust cycles.

Question is: what is the best fleet reduction plan?

Anonymous said...

Wow! You nailed it!

Anonymous said...

Need to help us out in the villages
Our leaders always say no buybacks but we need them to survive and catch more fish than the outsiders

Yes to buyback

Anonymous said...

What about us set netters?
Can U guys buy me out too?
I already get a better price cause U guys are keeping your fish cold and drive up the price because of quality. Give me some of that BBRSDA money U got in the Bank.
1% times 1800 times 7 years must be a bunch of cold hard cash.

Anonymous said...

No to buyback
We need lots more boats for the processors to choose from

That way we can play you off each other and keep lower prices. More fishermen is the answer

Anonymous said...

Villagers that keep their permit will catch more fish. Don't let those leaders tell you different. Less boats mean more fish for those staying to fish. BBEDC can help.

Anonymous said...

Setnetters won't get any more fish. They get their fixed %. Just more fish per boat.

Anonymous said...

Just about everyone in the bay has bought a permit. There are probably a couple of guys out there that earned them, but not many.
People make bad business moves all the time. If you bought in after carefully researching the amount of permits, fish harvested, historical prices, expenses, debt service, etc, etc, and you are not making it, then you made a poor business decision. Either your data was flawed, you are a failure at catching fish, or you were just delusional going in. It doesn't matter. Buying in and then crying for relief through a buy-back is like buying a house next to I-5 then complaining about the noise.

Anonymous said...

buybacks generally do not make it any easier to make money as only the low producersor dead permits sell.Those with money will buy extra permits and turn a quick profit in the buyback.
Anyone who thinks that there will be less competition at the lines are kidding themselves.
Those who will make money in the low years will have their boats paid for and keep their costs down.

Anonymous said...

Crying for relief?

I-5 corridor?

You are right, there should be no buyback.

We should allow foreign floaters in and the price would jump to true market values. At $2.50 lb. it becomes viable.

But then again, we wouldn't want foreign floaters to compete with our shoreside foreign processors, right?

Fleet reduction or fair trade, what will it be?

Business as usual is not working for the average legal fisherman.

Anonymous said...

Fleet reduction or fair trade, what will it be? Need you ask? Fleet reduction.

Anonymous said...

why not let the permit stacker pre register every week for certain areas for an extra day of fishing? It would pay for the investment of an extra permit. You could cut the fleet in half..

Anonymous said...

I think investors in Silver Bay's plant should be able to fish early so we make sure Silver Bay gets the fish and is successful. We need them to survive to bring price competition to Trident and BBEDC stranglehold on price.

Anonymous said...

That will work, they seem to fish whenever they want in SE anyway.

Anonymous said...

Haha, that's a good one. "This is the ADF&G with an announcement for the Egegik district...oh wait, if you fish for SBS please disregard and fish when you like."

Anonymous said...

Attention Togiak fishermen. This is an announcement from ADFG regarding the herring opening in 2014. We will abide by proudction capacity of the Silver Bay plant and manage accordingly as we do in Sitka.

Anonymous said...

Hey Wes, your bio says "My real name is Wesley Loy." What's yer alias, Leslie Woy?

Mrs. Loy, can Wesley come out and play.

Got any pictures of you fishing?

Anonymous said...

Lets see........ A fishery with a quality problem due to a crush of volume and a processing capacity problem during a short, fast, and furious season.

And your solution is fewer boats?

Yah, that will solve the quality/price problem. Fewer boats catching more fish. What could go wrong there?

Bigger sets, more power rolling, longer pick times, rougher handling, delayed chilling, more net marked fish, more #2s.

The only improvement would be shorter lines at the tender.

What the Bay needs is more processing capacity and some new creative processors giving the old guard some competition.

Bottom line, if you want better quality/price, you need to model your fishery to better handle the catch, not stress that ability even more.

Anonymous said...

Back to the buback issue.... The only way a buyback would lessen competition is if only the top 50% of the producers were allowed to take part.Then they would have to sign out of the fishery in any capacity for a certain number of years.
An ordinary buyback takes only the non-producers out of the fishery. This would only lessen the number of voices that support the fishery.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me. The producers would be paying for the non-producers to depart.

Anonymous said...

You were making some sense until you got to the personal comments section (except that Sarah ain't too hard on the eyes).

Yes it is true, with a fleet reduction, fishing periods could be lengthened if additional harvest is required. As it is now, some fishing periods are as short as 4 hours and could easily be lengthened by a marginal increment.

Fishing sub-districts could be enlarged to accomadate a more orderly and improved quality harvest. The WASSIP report has shown the negligible interception rates between the various sub-districts. In fact WASSIP shows that it is a fairly minimal and equitable give and take between adjacent sub-districts.

There are multiple options for the State (ADFG, BOF, CFEC, Legislators...) to step up and help a struggling yet potentially much more valuable and profitable fishery.

There is a lot of talk and very little action.

The State funded and facilitaed that 2 year BB salmon study, 10 years ago, oficially reports that they issued approximately 800 too many permits for the fishery, repeat, 800 too many permits, and then does nothing.

I believe BBRSDA, funded by fishermen dollars, should initiate the efforts into increasing the value of the fishery. Fleet reduction is one of those avenues.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the avenue, my hope is that the setnetters get left out in the cold. The BBRSDA is funded by the drifters and the value that they create via whatever program is put in place should go to the drift fleet. It is high time the free-ride ends. Is it enough that the setnetters would have to wait around for the drift fleet to catch up on allocation? Maybe, but I would feel better if they felt like uniting (ie paying their 1% backed tax).

Anonymous said...

Setnetting should be what it was meant for, local resident subsistence. At times and places when a commercial fishing opener is not in progress.

Anonymous said...

Don't sell out, keep fishing these permits so the next generation can have a go at it. Why does this generation think they are the only ones who count. If you can't make it at these prices, get out and let someone else try. To sell into the less means more ways of today really is about greed nothing more. After all how many years did people fish where only a few made it and the rest just got by? Why is everyone entitled to make a big killing on fishing, it just doesn't happen.

Anonymous said...

It's not about making a big kiling, its about making enough to keep fishing, boats, engines, nets, fuel, not gooing broke.

Anonymous said...

How about a buyback that just buy non resident permits?

Anonymous said...

No Buy Out. No Pebble Mine. No Hand Outs Period. The future of our fishery is in our hands. Use your voice, typing skills, and vote for the right people that will not bend over and take it in the A$$. We all have our opinions about how this fishery has been managed, and how the future will effect our way of life. With Silver Bay Seafoods stepping up the the plate, and giving the commercial fisherman a plan for future success is inviting.
The biggest threat to Our Bay is the proposed Pebble Mine. Be ready for change,Most our public servants
are working towards letting this mistake happen.
If there is no fish, everything we have will ge gone. We need to organize, to the people who want to reduce the size of our fleet, I feel that will only help the Proposed Pebble Mine and not help to protect what we have. <')----<

Anonymous said...

I think that the fleet reduction project may very well be worth looking into. I like the idea of one permit, one vote and the fact that the fleet can collectively determine their future in an apolitical fashion.

I can't think of a better organization to head up the discovery work than the RSDA. Perhaps they could sponsor some type of forum for discussion in the Bay this summer, beyond their annual meeting in DLG.

It certainly will be topic "A" in the boat yards this season.

Anonymous said...

Thank god for Pebble Mine, you will always have a place to work. And maybe losing all your low quality Reds off the market won't be that bad either!

Anonymous said...

6:26 bs it's about making more money and having an exclusive fishery. if, as you say here, it's about staying in the game then nobody has gone broke and everyone is still fishing. keep the permits, you need to have enough for the buyers and new entrants, you don't make sense. otherwise you will end up selling to the only buyer left, ALPHA SEAFOODS if you wish to compete for pennies and with a foreign crew.

Anonymous said...

Or you can be like most seafood industries in the world and get your daily marching orders from the office..you will be told when to go, arrive, and how much to deliver. But you won't have to worry about anything else..they will provide crew, permit, boat and fuel... It amazes me how Alaskan fishermen have been fixed on the moment with little research gone into how other fisheries have been changed, especially since the fishermen have lost in almost every fishery. The business models are in place, supply will keep fisheries going even if it is farmed. Southeast seiners will fish for nothing, they already have, volume is the name of the game. Are you ready to pick 300,000 lbs. just to make it?

Anonymous said...

Se seiners fish for nothing?
Yeah. Pinks are 110 a case.
Pinks went from avg price of ..05-.08 cents to .50 cent plus average last 5 years.
Se seiners are doing well enough that none of them come to the bay anymore as it's a loser.
The bay is a joke
It missed the whole market
Worst produced salmon in Alaska
Bruised, gaped crap unfit to compete with Se seine caught fish
Get a grip Bristol bay fishers

Anonymous said...

Fishermen have lost in every other fishery? In Alaska?
Name one

Anonymous said...

If you can't read it was about the world fisheries. BUT..since you still cannot see beyond Alaska..Kusko-Yukon Kings are a lost fishery. Bering Sea Crab has been taken away from most and given to a few..another lost fishery..can YOU get in? Halibut and BLACK COD gone the same way..that has been taken and given to a select group...care to buy into that?? I can keep going but you might not see the point anyway...Sitka herring..want in? looks like it is slipping away.

Anonymous said...

1:50 IF the bay is a joke, then why is your coveted SBS coming in? They wouldn't be able to, or anyone else if the pool of boats where knocked down like the idiots just did in SE. Now they are building three million dollar seiners to catch humpies? Pack 200,000 lbs., cut out tender service, get every boat off the water, use spectra nets, tow 5 knots, kill the strong swimmers, where once the surviving salmon spawned after navigating a gauntlet of nets ends... completely motivated by a few full of greed. The joke is on you.

Anonymous said...

No one ever built a 3 million $$ boat to fish humpies
They're fishing year round
No one ever buys a million dollar boat to just fish humps
As for strong swimmers--what a joke-- the strong swimmers-- try towing on humpies in PWS or on hatchery dogs at deep inlet-- you get a waterhaul-- you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about-- tow a little harder on your monofilament gillnet

Anonymous said...

And BSAI crab was kept by the fishers there who earned their quota--Sitka sac roe same-- you just werent there-- ask the processors in Alaska to cruy tears for the poor, beat down, impoverished fishermen--ayk? Throw up some numbers-- a few good years in the 70's-- ranking in state for salmon has been steady since then -- a good year in ayk is what, 2% of salmon value--a bad year is sub 1%-- that's just how it is-- talk about a place that needs a buyback

Anonymous said...

Ever count the dropouts in a driftnet fishery with rough weather-- talk about unnecessary killing--Se is managed for robust escapement-- if fishers more efficient they get less time--2002-2007 seines fished 80% time at peak-- now 50% time-- with windows-- not Microsoft windows-- fishing period windows-- proven management

Anonymous said...

Whoever is having too many dropouts is fishing too small of mesh. Losing money? Clue up Gilligan.

Anonymous said...

When was the last time you heard about off-shore fish farms? Legislation supporting them came from NOAA, at the behest of multi-national food corporations. I'm sure it is still around, the end game is long for those guys.
Believe it or no, there are business interests that would love to do away with our segment of the fishing industry. Oil companies, whose environmental mishaps result in reimbursement to fishermen effected. Environmental nazis, PETA, mining companies, multi-national food corporations, and all the politicians in their pocket would love to see us go away. Every permit, at least active permit, has at least, in the case of the bay, 3 or 4 advocates attached to it. Losing advocates is not something our industry can afford.
The beauty of commercial fishing the way it is done now, the one thing that makes it GOOD for society, is the distribution of wealth. Consolidation, for example, IFQ'S, Bering sea crab are not necessarily in the best interest of the industry.
If the end game for you is just about your career, then yes, support a buyback. If your end game is preserving the industry that has given you the opportunity to be self-employed and allowed you not to "work" for a living, an industry that is sustainable and with care and good management could well last hundreds of years, providing jobs and economic opportunity the whole way, vote no.

Anonymous said...

You really got me laughing there.

Distribution of wealth? Wealth? Do you see too many guys getting wealthy fishing the Bay? I don't. It looks more like a breadline to me.

And, the political power of all those struggling permit holders and their starving deckhands, yeah right. There isn't even a legitimate fisherman's organization representing concerns NOW! The heavy lifting in the battle against Pebble is being done by others. No market negotiaters. No power in Juneau. etc...

Too many people are splitting up the pie of pay in order to have extra money/time to devote to Bristol Bay improvements.

CFEC study shows that 1,800 permits in the Bay are 800 too many. You think that retiring some of those will hurt? You are wrong. Dead poor wrong.

My end game has always been to ensure the health and economic opportunity of the salmon industry. Poverty is not healthy.

Anonymous said...

After reading 5:28's comment I was going to chime in. However, 6:39's comment did it for me. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

If you have been starving in Bristol Bay in the last 7 or 8 years, you are a failure. Sell out.

Anonymous said...

5:28 here. CFEC's optimum permit number was based on numbers from the salmon depression, with trending down ex-vessel prices coupled with increasing costs. The costs have risen, and the price has been getting better, slowly over time. Those numbers should be revisited.
Same story in southeast. Seiner's buyback was conceived by guys fishing for $.06 a pound. It doesn't make sense at $.50+.

Anonymous said...

5:28 post/poster, your clear vision and well chosen words tell the truth very well. As you point out, the seiner's buyback is a disaster for many. Those lost permits could have provided many good paying jobs. It is a crime these permits are not kept on the table for use, todays holders alone should not be capable of deciding how the industry will be in the future. Consumers have been known to reject corporate food. Think about the value of sockeye increasing, you do not need to give your power away.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, don't give away your power of being poor.

Anonymous said...

BBEDC could easily finance a buyback. Why aren't they?

Anonymous said...

Look at who runs BBEDC. That should tell you all you need to know. BBEDC will fall on its sword to stop a buyback.

Anonymous said...

Bristol
Bay
Economic
Dereliction
Corporation

Nothing like letting a few hundred million dollars sit idle.

Anonymous said...

Seiners buyback began November 21, 2001. The price had been 20-25 cents a pound in 1997-2000, before dropping to a low of 15 cents in 2001

While these are low prices they are the equivalent of fishing for 30-50 cents a pound in 2013 dollars

Bobbyt

Anonymous said...

Sonofabitch, FIRST time I could agree with the mighty boobt!

Hope springs eternal.

Anonymous said...

BBEDC is CDQ Money from the Pollock Fishery for fisheries related economic development.

Anonymous said...

Hat firmly safe on caribou rack once again.