How Alaska keeps its seas from being overfished
Science Monitor:
My Shawshank Redemption For Obama, next-gen voters, next-gen doers Letters to the Editor Europe, not the US, can get Russia to behave Read all the columns »
Juneau, Alaska – Apocalyptic predictions have not been entirely relegated to Wall Street these days. We've become quite used to them when it comes to our seas. In 2006, a major report warned that the world's fisheries would completely collapse by 2048 if current fishing (and polluting) practices continue. Like the panic on Wall Street, such predictions cause great anxiety about the state of our world's oceans.

I've frankly been skeptical of alarmist predictions of a worldwide fishery collapse, mainly because here in Alaska
...... Continud@URL..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081110/cm_csm/ybenton_1

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004014882_pollock15.html

http://www.adn.com/money/industries/fishing/story/9424156p-9336428c.html

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E05.htm

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/analyses/BSAIsalmonbycatch205disc.pdf

Chum, chinook, and squid in the nets. And this has no effect?
Sounds to me like a clone of DFW Director Koenings' describing the downturn in our stocks as poor ocean conditions.

I do think that oin some way Alaska does a good job, but the commercials are in the drivers seat and by-catach is a major problem. One example is the pollack fishery that kills as many as 75,000 chinook each year.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/37377

Ha. This wouldn't be the same trawl fishery that has a 14 million pound/per year halibut bycatch, would it?

For those who aren't familiar with trawl bycatch, the fish are crushed in the nets and come up dead. Pollock fishermen aren't allowed to keep any other fish species, so along with throwing back 100,000 dead kings each year, they also throw back 14 million pounds of halibut.

For perspective, the total halibut harvest in Alaska is about 100 million lbs/yr. Of that, approx. 10 million lbs is harvested by sport and charter fishermen. This means that more halibut is wasted per year (14%) than is harvested by sport fishermen (10%).

Commercial fishermen are currently pressuring NOAA and NMFS to reduce the sport/charter halibut take in AK, saying sport fishermen are taking more than their 10% share.

The nasty little secret of halibut discarded by trawl fishermen is that the bulk of fish caught are juveniles of 8-12 inches. Try to imagine how many individual 8-12 inch fish it would take to make 14 million lbs...............Horrible if you think of it.

I own a charterboat, so if the allowable limit for sport/charter fishermen is reduced, then I suffer financially. Because of this, I consider myself biased on this issue. The numbers, however, are quite accurate. It is an allocation battle which Alaskan charters and the fishermen who fish aboard them are faced with. The NMFS is made up largely of commercial fishing interests, so despite the injustice of a 90/10 allocation between sport and commercials, sport fishermen will continue to be cut back. These cutbacks occur despite a fish and game reported 75% increase in halibut abundance in my area(3A). 3A includes Homer, Ninilchik, Anchor Point, Seward, and Kodiak. Commercial fishermen are pushing for the daily halibut limit to be reduced to 1 fish per day in 3A (down from the historical 2 fish per day). Our lovely governor even said, "She didn't think a 1 halibut per day would affect the charter industry." This was a few months before she publicly stated that she didn't think the clean water initiative was necessary to protect Bristol Bay and it's trout and salmon runs.


Sorry. Rant.

-david

The commercials in Alaska are no different than anywhere else, they will take and take as long as they can with no regarde for the resource, they cannot afford to care.
The problem with Alaska is they have it all to pound on until many move down the coast, they get to pick on everyones fish along with theirs. Add subsistance fishing (which is a joke and just another word for commercial fishing) and you have a major fish kill every year that is un-managed even at the basic level. The state talks a good story but are under the commercials total control.

WWJD?

I don't know what I'm going to do with all these clothes.....

Well said, David, and I agree with everything statistic you gave us. Its like they always say, money talks. Its just getting ridiculous though, to think that a few can control so many.


Steve

If you have issues with how pollock and Halibut are fished commercially your issue is with the federal government not the state of Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service regulates it. King Salmon in SE is also managed under a International Treaty. The way I see it is Alaska has never failed me in giving me a great fishing experience unlike us to the south. I have never felt that commercial harvest has affected any of my trips. Even while fishing right beside Trollers all day. The fact remains that the average alaskan that I Know can't stand tourists and charter operations. They will always side with the commercial fleets. Thats just the way they are. Alaskans are for Alaskans. It is there state after all.

I like the idea of pulling up next to a longliner and letting my clients watch them haul aboard their first 10,000 lbs of halibut for the day while at the same time explaining to them that their sport limit was just cut in half.

NMFS is federal, as is the International Pacific Halibut Commission(IPHC). Both are very heavily loaded with commercial and processor interests. Now there is an allocation issue. Surprise surprise for who gets stuck with the 10% on a 90/10 split.

Charter boats provide a platform for sportfishermen to access a resource. Tourists in my area can either haul a boat capable of fishing 30 miles out the 3000 miles up the Alaska Highway, or they can spend $225 to fish aboard my boat.

P.S. I believe the majority of halibut qouta is now owned by non-alaskans.

Alaskans are for allowing their resources to profit non-residents. It is their state after all.

I agree that is the way it is. In SE where I fish more than 30 days a year, Residents will side with commercial interests on all issues. They will go out of there way to voice displeasure of the charter fleet. The charter fleet is refered as the Charter Nazi's. In Sitka they went ahead and put a tax on all charter client fish boxes that leave the airport. They closed area's to charter Halibut fishing while allowing both subsistence and commercial longlines to continue fishing that area.

Charters provide an opportunity for American citizens to access a public resource. Charters let people go fishing for a day. The driving force behind these "Nazi Charters" is a person's desire to catch a fish on their own. NOT be forced to buy it from Wal-Mart at market price.

Now if you think it's bad for people to go fishing, or you think that people who don't own a boat should be excluded from sport fishing, then by all means lets get rid of the Charter Nazis. Maybe we could get together and burn some flags at a "Take a kid fishing" event too. People teaching their kids to like fishing. Psshaw! Teach a kid to like fishing and he could very well end up supporting a charter nazi someday. Oh the humanity!

Elbowing out charters reduces the public's access to a public resource. Plain and simple. Commercial IFQ's take a public resource and put it in the hands of a few private entities. Many IFQ holders became instant millionaires when the shares were given out. Now these qouta holders are fighting tooth and nail to defend their million dollar *gifts*. The easiest way to do this is by crushing the competition. Crushing the competition means reducing the number of sport fishermen who compete for the resource. The quickest way to do this is to eliminate charters.

If you don't think the public has a right to utilize a resource, then by all means lets get rid of those charter boats. If you think the public should have the right to catch 2 halibut a day with rod and reel, then write a letter.

The back and forth debate above partially illustrates Alaska's coming of age in natural resource conservation. Oh, the state has done fairly well in conserving fish stocks from depletion, but by coming of age I'm referring to having to grapple with making the conservation decisions about "highest and best use." When resources are plentiful, then any and all uses can be supported and sustained. As resources become less plentiful, or scarce as in the case of the lower 48, policy makers have to deal with the social and economic values of allocating public resources between user groups, like recreational and commercial fishing. Good posts from JoJo and David. Thanks for the insight.

Sg

David,

I am all for chartered anglers to get 2 Halibut. I work for a charter operator part time. The Issue is what the state of Alaska and it's citizens want and what the Fed's want. At this point I think the Feds have done a good job of managing halibut that has kept them at sustainable levels. Where I think this whole situation has gotton out of hand is when NMFS and the State of Alaska failed to rein in the huge increases in charter boats especially in 2C. IFQ had already gone through and they didn't figure in the consequences of a growing charter fleet that would eventually go over there GHL. The only solution I see is for charters to buy IFQ. As far as I know there is no way for the feds to take commercial IFQ and give it to sport fishers without some form of payback to the longliners. Unfortunatly we can't go back and fix what wrongs may have been done. Here are bumper stickers going around SE Alaska that spells out the fight for the resource and how the commercial and local population feel about the charter fleet.

Good God Almighty.... that's some pretty radical signage.

Obviously, the haters are alive and well.

No kidding Doc.

Makes you wonder where peoples heads are to display something like that.

This hatred goes much deeper than just fish wars between the users. As towns like Sitka grew in popularity so did the influx of outsiders that bought up real estate and have driven up prices so quickly that some locals that didn't already own a house can now afford no better than a beat up mobil home. Affordable housing is non existant with cheap rent being over $1000.

Locals outside the tourist industry have made it as difficult as possible for Cruise ships to come into Sitka (voting against a deepwater dock) forcing some to drop Sitka off there schedules. They just don't like outsiders.

Seems consistent with the concept of Alaska being populated in large part with social misfits.

I can see both sides argument on these difficult issues and in no way defend the childish actions by some SE residents and commercial fisherman. Were seeing the same thing play out in Skeena country in regard to Non residents use of the skeena and it's tributaries. Thankfully it hasn't got this heated yet. To look at it another way would we be happy as washington residents if the bulk of sport caught fish harvested in Washington were by Non Residents. I don't think we would be.