Tuesday, April 15, 2008

It seems the state is ok with a 1 fish limit.

All correspondence with Sarah and her minions about the impending doom associated with a one fish limit is simply ignored. Perhaps its because commissioner Denby S. Lloyd has a long history of working with the commercial fisheries and Deputy Commissioner David Bedford served as Director of The SE AK Seiners Association and the governor is a setnetter,
No wonder the department thinks that the one king salmon limit is adequate for recreational anglers and a 1 halibut limit should be just fine also. They have history to draw on that says 1 fish is a good regulation that is easy to enforce. A 1 fish limit in area 2C is only the beginning. They will not allow a 1 fish limit in 2C and a two fish limit in 3A for very long. It can only be effective if 3A and 2C are both 1 fish areas so one area does not have an advantage over another and shifts angler effort to that area.
All interested parties need to come together and demand a solution to this nonsense before the halibut sportifshing charters are forced out of business by a totally biased process.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Alaska magazine said to wait and see what the regs say before you book a trip to SE alaska.
This is a national publication from alaska adviseing tourists to
go fishing in 3A because they will get to catch more fish there.
Will the tourism industry care?

The Wolf

mark said...

That much more pressure on 3A. That much sooner we are in the same boat. Those guys got screwed in SE.
People in San Francisco (or wherever)that think Al Gore is on target telling us we can't drill for oil. No mining. No camping behind Jack Cushing's house. $100,000 dollars per annum for ALAN PARKS to tell us to change to energy efficient lightbulbs. Rex Murphy (WTF!) making recommendations that will affect our lives. Gregg Parsley and Bruce Warner sticking their noses in the middle of it. The ACA's Wildman and Rainbow Tours running hundred dollar trips.... What is this place coming to? Where is the money going to come from when everyone goes to Canada instead?

Anonymous said...

Can we lease IFQ's to get a second fish or was the lease thing just gobeldegook for See,we are makeing it OK.

Anonymous said...

Is the leaseing of IFQ's in the future final plan? If not, how could it help in a one fish limit?
Stop the confusion, please...
If they keep us under the GHL how could leaseing ever help us?

Anonymous said...

Is anyone in SE leaseing fish?

CaptBob said...

Leasing of fish is NOT approved yet, the council will consider it in October but everyone is saying it does not pencil out. Also the commercials fought any opportunity to lease their fish out so as to prevent sharebarons sitting at home and leasing their rights for others to sharecrop / rent. Now it seems OK for commercials to lease to us? If we go under the 1 fish limit, and it costs $3.00 a pound to lease from commercials, that is $60.00 more for a 20 pounder, how can they justify it on top of the charter cost of today. $320.00 to catch 1 fish and a 20 pounder, not in my name, my business will head to the toilet if this is my only option. The word is if you lease then your fish must be measured and you pay for every pound you catch, so a hundred pounder costs you $300.00 more, try to pass that on to a customer. I say No to leasing and Yes to purchasing it only. Why lease it every year when you can purchase it once and fish it from then on? I own my property, I am not a renter. In October we fight for a larger allocation, larger than what is on the table now, due to the extra boats the council let in and the time we need between the short term decision and the long term solution, then we look at a real management plan that treats us equal to the other people living in the state that fish for a living.

mark said...

What about the next bunch of boats the council will let in? Will anyone have learned anything? Bob, our friends in Southeast are going to lose everything so that post- (original) moratorium boats could exersize their "God-given" right to fish. The council doesn't care... Remember how cheap charter boats were at the closing of the salmon industry on the West coast? My boat is going to make a pretty good gillnetter, I 'spose.

Big B. said...

Why should we have to buy IFQ's so the public can fish for the fish that they have the right to fish for. We have to put this in perspective, Charter businesses or Guides for the public that sport fish. the public has the right to the halibut. we do not sell fish. we sell the service to give a person a chance to catch a fish. I can not beleave that we are letting the IPHC and the Council sell this shit to us. It is a public fishery and we have the right to service the public.Also when they are giving to different regulations for guided and non-guided fisherman they are violating the American with disabilities Act. A lot of people can't go out on their own to fish and some people who I have taken fishing are in wheel chairs. We can't take this any more. if they want to discriminate and run the hard working people of South East Alaska out of business then lets give them a fight that the whole nation will know about.