Thursday, February 21, 2008

what a frickin mess

1. Thanks to ? (you know who you are) for putting our industry in this mess!
2. The GHL is an interim motion with no long term solution.
3. The moratorium has not been signed by Sec. of Commerce. Same as "ol IFQ" plan.
4. Is NPFMC interim motion going to be long term ghl/moratorium solution?
5. How can a moratorium that will allow growth keep us from ghl overages & facing major
repercussions. The GHL is Fixed! Why should there be growth allowed under
moratorium? As is you can do more trips, take more people, do more doubles
-all you need is a permit. What a joke! What about the GHL! knock knock! anybody home?
6. New charters want it all at long term charters expense. Will i need to lease fish to fish
the same number of clients as i have in the past 20 years?
7. Is there still a Stakeholders Committe? Why & When do they meet again?
8. 20 years as a charter, 15 years attending Council meetings, No Solututions, at who' expense?


Flatfish said...

Its time to check the states limited entry plan. They have been working on it for a while. I feel the state would be easier to work with than the NPFMC. At least we would be able to talk to our local legislator about our needs. We need to get it together before we get the area 2C treatment. The state website on limited entry is in the related sites heading on the right side of the blog.

Anonymous said...

I think you guys are giving ACA way more credit for screwing up this management plan than they deserve. Have you looked at any of the recent testimony? It is way off base and is not in line with the anything relevent. It is nice to find a scape goat but the reality of it is this effort to f*ck the charter industry is well beyond the very limited organizational power and inteligence of the brain trust at ACA. Blame them if you want but there is really a much bigger enemy than them.
This mess a result of the NPMFC and the State not being able to come up with ANYTHING to help our industry work through this issue.
I think Bob is right, once businesses start getting hurt in SE Alaska, you will see some changes.
Until then, grab your ankles

mark said...

You do have a point. But, no one can convince me that any twelve reasonably organized men with a phone or a computer monitor in their garage couldn't have carried out the 9-11 attacks with a weekend of planning either. I'm not saying either group is brilliant - only desperate and socially incongruous. ACA put on the wet puppy act and that allowed ragamuffin and his investments to have their way.
The crime is not that the politicians are self-serving or inept (by definition, methinks). It's that our chamber, city council, and neighbors were swayed because of the snake oil dispensed by Sutter and his Merry Men. I'm holding on to my spite, thanks.

mark said...

Yes, Gary. I agree. Sorry to catalyze the discord.

CaptBob said...

A State limited entry plan will not get us more fish from the commercial sector without opening doors for more charters, and costing us much more than if we were to do it ourselves. At least if you have to buy IFQs you get to use it, under the state plan all customers will have to pay for the purchase of IFQ but the state will allow any charter to use it. As soon as someone complains to the state that they want in, and the state has a "Tax" coming in from every recreational charter customer, they will have to open the doors for more charters, it is in the states constitution, all resources are for all users, equally. I still believe once the NPFMC makes a decision that gets signed, we will be OK. It helps keep the peace in the coastal communities between us and the commercial guys. Treat us equally is all I have ever advocated.

Anonymous said...

I believe the members of the north council have no reason to see this come to a timely conclusion. They have all but destroyed the 2C charters and its only a matter of time before 3A falls. They have the GHL and thats all most of them care about. Their only concern is to take care of the longliners and draggers.

Anonymous said...

The more you guys point the finger at other charter operators ( in your own harbor...) the farther you are from realizing any solution.

The IFQ program failed because the State and the Council did not want it be. The same holds true for the State now. They do not want an IFQ for charters.

You guys need to quit blameing anyone. It is over and quite done, so get over it.
Too bad you guys are having to work in an environment where you are accusing each other of such horrible shit. It is not like the charter industry is that profitable that you need to work in a place where there is that kind of hating....I feel sorry for all you guys that are in that place.

What the "State Limited Entry Task Force" is trying to do is establish professional standards that are in line with the Big Game Hunting industry. This will make it considerably more difficult for someone who has not put their time in to own a business. It is not limted entry and therfore does not need legislation to be implemented.

I would suggest contact Doug Vincent Lang if you want the details.

I am glad I don't fish in Homer and have to deal with all that drama.....

mark said...

Last anonymous - Point taken... and discarded. Reach across the aisle, if you want, and compromise YOUR morals. Don't you dare reprimand me for caring that you people are stealing from my family's table.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CaptBob said...

Every single idea coming from the Stakeholders has an option to include some form of IFQ type compensated reallocation for those companies operating at levels above the GHL amount or above the amount a common pool can provide. Why is that? These ideas are not being formulated by that Big 'N Nasty (McDonalds Slogan I think) commercial conspiracy, they are real considerations that each business requires separate levels of access. Just as the commercial wants separate accountability so do most charters want separate accountability from each other. Again an individual access requirement will be the answer, why have a common pool that some will find a way to capitalize on over another, this will come back again and again with each plan that provides a common allocation with all of us competing for the most advantageous angle to gain more. Just like doubles or a industry start date, there needs to be a level playing field and it will end up at the business level. We are not all alike.