These are the Top Ten reasons to oppose limitations on a recreational fishery that promotes good fishing practices and provides tremendous economic returns to communities. Pick a reason or two for your letters, emails and testimony at the next North Council meeting:
Click HERE to Print this page
- PUBLIC ACCESS WILL BE LIMITED.
After the initial IFQ issuance, at least 30% of the current charter fleet will be out of business (some estimates exceed 50%). Less boats fishing equates to less seats and angling opportunities available for the public who wants safe, professional and reliable transportation to the fishing grounds.
- THE BIGGEST ADVOCATE OF THE HALIBUT CHARTER INDIVIDUAL FISHING QUOTA (IFQ) AND GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL (GHL) IS THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INTEREST’S LEADERSHIP.
They seek to restrict and limit your access to the halibut resource. In short, they don’t want you to enjoy the thrill and experience of catching your own halibut; they want you to stay home and buy your halibut at the store. The primary reason for charter restrictions was the “rapid growth” of the charter fleet’s “expanding sport fishery harvests effectively reduce the percentage of halibut available to the commercial sector.” In 2000 there were 1,478 saltwater charter businesses registered in the state, in 2004 the number shrunk to 1,234. During the 2003 season, the commercial halibut harvest went to 60.53 million pounds up from 33.96 million pounds in 1995, a 78% increase. Where was that rapid growth occurring? Their bycatch mortality was 13.05 million pounds of halibut and near 320 million pounds of other finfish. Currently, catch rates, catch prices and their IFQ share prices are at historical highs. Yet they want to limit you? Their main goal is to dominate the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s rule making process so they can restrict you, secure their markets and preserve their own wasteful and destructive fishing practices which results in bycatch mortality that far exceeds the total recreational/sports fishing catch (7.09 million pounds).
- IT IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION, COMMON USE AND THE MAGNUSON/STEVENS ACT.
Those fish in Alaskan and United States waters belong to you. Since halibut are a federally managed fish, past North Councils ignored our state government’s pleas not to move forward with the Charter IFQs. Past North Councils ignored the spirit of the Magnuson/Stevens Act which calls for a “fair and equitable” distribution of a resource. In the past they subverted these basic tenets primarily for the sole benefit of commercial fishing interests.
- THE GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL (GHL) PLACED UNWARRANTED RESTRICTIONS ON CHARTER OPERATORS.
When past North Councils enacted the GHL, they segregated anglers on charter vessel from the recreational anglers for the sole purpose of restricting your access to the resource by professional captains. The GHL placed a cap on charter operators which never goes up with abundance, only down. With such a limit if more charter operators get in the business or if catch rates are good, sever harvest restrictions maybe applied even if the biomass of the resource is high. The GHL should float with abundance. In many areas of the country, there exists a 50/50 split between recreational, whether their on a charterboat or their own boat, and commercial fishermen; it is a ratio tied to the biological health of the resource, not just an arbitrary allocation based on the whims of commercial interests. It should be that way here.
- JOBS WILL BE LOST.
If the Charter IFQ system is put in place, those operators that do not qualify will be forced to buy IFQs on the open market if they want to get back in the business. The projected cost of shares is $200,000 to $400,000 per operator. It is too much for most operators to afford and compete with those operators that get shares for free. Therefore, many captains and deckhands will be out of a job. Future entry for our youth will be severely restrictive. When boats are tied up for good others will feel the hurt as well: fuel suppliers, electronics dealers, mechanics, welders, fiberglass workers, painters, electricians, fish filleters, fish processors, booking agents, tackle and marine hardware suppliers, airlines, hotels/motels, B & Bs, restaurants, bars, insurance providers, print and office suppliers, bankers will be busy repossessing boats instead of making loans, and many others will adversely be effected, too.
- TOURISM WILL BE REDUCED.
If there are less fishing opportunities available or the cost of fishing on charters becomes exceedingly high because of Charter IFQs, there will be fewer tourists coming to Alaska. If we cap charters, we will effectively be capping our tourism industry, too. As many as 50% tourists that come to Alaska come for the fishing. 95% of the tourists return because of the fishing. Tourist and Alaskans fish with a hook and line: the least destructive type of fishing gear. Why should we restrict them when are halibut stocks are high? Tourism is our biggest value-added industry in Alaska. It is a clean industry. It is the future of Alaska.
- COASTAL COMMUNITIES WILL SUFFER.
Before the N. Council moves forward with any restrictive measure, a full comprehensive economic study should be completed. Based upon preliminary estimates, our coastal communities dependant on recreational fishing and tourism will experience the major brunt of the negative economic impacts. Local governments tax basis will be reduced. Many coastal governments in Alaska and their Chambers of Commerce have recognized this and adopted formal resolutions opposing Charter IFQ/GHLs.
- ENFORCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF A CHARTER IFQ SYSTEM WILL BE COSTLY AND BURDENSOME.
Not only does the Charter IFQ program restrict competition and free enterprise, it increases the size and bureaucracy of government. It replaces the longstanding, simple bag limit of 2 halibut per person per day with a document over 100 pages long. Tracking and enforcement will be difficult at best. Who will bear the additional cost of the program?
- LOGBOOKS USED FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE CHARTER IFQ INITIAL ISSUANCE ARE BADLY FLAWED.
The charter logbooks are issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In 1998 and 1999, halibut entries that individual charter operates made are the basis for the IFQ initial issuance. These entries were not subject to audits or verification. When the department analyzed the data, they determine the entries to be overly exaggerated when compared to their normal statistical survey of the catches. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game invalidated them. Yet, the N. Council is still considering using the logbooks as the primary means for IFQ share issuance. When the commercial fishermen went to an IFQ system, they had dockside receipts on each catch they sold. There was no such record of charter catches.
- THE MAIN REASON WHY MOST CHARTER OPERATORS THAT QUALIFY WANT IFQS IS SELF-INTEREST .
If Charter IFQs are adopted, it will be a big governmental windfall for some operators, worth potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will eliminate and reduce their competition and provide a nice supplement to their retirement. There are provisions that allow them to lease a portion of their IFQs to the commercial industry. After 3 years, the North Council may let them sell up to 25% of their shares to commercial fishermen. These are traditional sport caught fish, caught by clients. Yet, shares and rights belong to the charter operator. He or she will decide if those shares are fished or not, leased, sold and to whom?
|
|
