Taken from the NPFMC website.

Agenda Items:
Charter halibut allocation/compensation - Final Action

Charter Halibut Long-term Solution- Discuss

3A GHL management measures- Final Action.

Time line for Implementation:

Proposed Rule April 08

Comment Period May 08

Final Rule November 08

30-day delay effectiveness late December 08

60 day application period January – February 09

Evidentiary period February – March 09

60-day appeals process and resolution of appeals April - rest of year 09



STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE MOTION

NOVEMBER 2007

Staff has been requested to revise certain sections for conformity with other alternatives (not yet completed)

ALTERNATIVE 2. Angler Day Program - Common Pool Allocation

Alternative 1. Angler Day Program with Common Pool Management

• Limited Entry program permits would remain in place with this program.

Alternative 1, Element 1 implements measures to allow market-based reallocation between the

commercial sector and the charter sector using a common pool management regime.

Element 1:1: Holder of Additional Quota Share, Method of Funding and Revenue Stream (How

to increase the initial allocation

.

A. State of Alaska Common Pool

Bonding (funding source)

Option 1: Charter sportfishing license surcharge (stamps) (revenue source)

Option 2. Business license fee/surcharge or limited entry permit holder

suboption 1. fee is based on number of anglers

suboption 2. fee is based on number of fish

B. Regional Non-Profit Association Common Pool

Loan (funding source)

Self assessment fee (revenue source)

Element 1.2: Method of compensation

Option 1: Willing seller, willing buyer

Option 2: Pro-rata reduction

Suboption 1: one time purchase

Suboption 2: annual leasing

Revenue streams will be for a defined period and end after the loan or bond is paid off, i.e.

continuous open-ended revenue streams are to be avoided.

TABLEDElement 3. Allocation of the common pool is administered by conversion to angler

days. An angler day would be used once fishing starts for the day regardless of whether the

angler catches a fish or not.

Element 4: Restrictions on transferability of commercial quota share by charter sector, with

grandfather clause to exempt current participants in excess of proposed limits

Element 4.1: Total limits on transferability by Area with a common pool allocation

A percentage of the combined commercial and charter catch limit will be available for transfer

between sectors.

Option 1. Limit transferability between sectors to a percent of the commercial quota

share units available by area at time of implementation of the program by area (2C & 3A).

Sub-option 1: 10 percent

Sub-Option 2: 15 percent

2_ALT 2_Angler Day Program F.doc Page 2 of 3

Sub-Option 3: 20 percent

Sub-Option 4: 25 percent

Element 4.2: Annual limits on QS purchase by area by entities purchasing for a common pool:

Option 1. Limited annually to a percentage (30-50%) of the average amount of QS

transferred during the previous five years.

Option 2. No limits to the amount that can be transferred annually

Option 3. Restrictions on vessel class sizes/blocked and unblocked/ blocks above and

below sweep-up levels to leave entry size blocks available for the commercial

market and to leave some larger blocks available for an individual trying to

increase their poundage.

(These options are not intended to be mutually exclusive.)

Element 4.3: (Annual) limits on IFQ leasing by a common pool entity

A. The common pool may only lease 0-15% of IFQs back to the commercial sector.

B. Commercial quota share holders may lease up to 10% of their IFQson an annual basis

to the charter industry.

a. Sub-option: Quota share holders that hold less than 500 lbs to 1,000 lbs may

lease 50-100% of their IFQs to the charter sector.

Element 5: Angler Days, Initial issuance, leasing, transfers

Check that these options match previous committee language

Element 5.1: Percentage-based assignment based on Angler-days1

Initial issuance - award number of angler day units from ADF&G logbooks which

correspond to:

Suboption 1. Total angler-days during 1998-2005

Suboption 2. Average angler-days during best 3 years from 1998 – 2005

Suboption 3. Total angler-days during best 3 years from 1998 – 2005

Endorsement leases

Suboption 1. Allow transfers, limited to angler day endorsement caps

Suboption 2. Allow unlimited transfers

Transfers

Suboption 1. Angler days not transferable

Suboption 2. Angler days fully transferable:

1. Permanent: must go through NMFS (RAM division)

2. In-season transfers: allowed between charter businesses

1 Permit endorsement of an angler day for every client fishing bottomfish/halibut in a day

2_ALT 2_Angler Day Program F.doc Page 3 of 3

Element 5.2: Limited Entry Permit Leases (in-season only; reverts to permit holder at beginning of

next season)

Option 1. not allowed, except for “unavoidable circumstance”2

Option 2. allowed, limited to use cap and not more than 2 out of 5 years

Element 5.3: Permit use caps, individually and collectively, with grandfather provision

Same as under limited entry program

Issue 6. Communities

Tabled (how many angler days should a CQE moratorium permit holder receive or

should a % of the charter allocation be set aside if necessary for use of CQE moratorium permits

to access as angler days?)

2 Acceptable circumstances will be adjudicated on a case by case basis through the National Marine

Fisheries Appeals Division, but includes medical emergencies, military exemptions, constructive losses. An

individual who was assigned to active military duty during 2004 or 2005 and who qualifies as “active ”

during the year prior to implementation7 and who demonstrated an intent to participate in the charter fishery

in Area 2C or 3A.(prior to the qualifying period) shall be eligible for a moratorium permit.

Program effective February 2010

The committee unanimously passed a motion that the Council request

Who do you like?

Gov. Sarah Palin nominated Alaska fisheries veterans Ed Dersham, Mike Heimbuch and Roland Maw as candidates to fill the North Pacific Fishery Management Council seat vacated by Ed Rasmuson.

Dersham, a longtime charter boat operator in Lower Cook Inlet, served on the Alaska Board of Fisheries for more than eight years, including three years as chair and two years as vice chair. He holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Oregon and is a retired from a career as a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency. Dersham is Palin's recommendation for appointment.

Heimbuch, a commercial fisherman from Homer, has fished for halibut, herring, cod, shrimp and salmon around the state since 1963. He has served on a variety of civic and local government commissions, including the fish and game advisory committee and the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Association. He is an active political writer in Alaska newspapers and is currently a member of the Homer City Council. He majored in music and education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Maw, a Kasilof resident, is executive director of United Cook Inlet Drift Association and is co-owner of a charter and salmon research business based in Homer. He has served on the United Fishermen of Alaska's board of directors, on the Kenai Peninsula Fish and Game Advisory Committee and on the Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Governance Committee. Maw has a doctoral degree in forestry and wildlife management from the University of Alberta.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional councils established by the 1976 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to oversee management of the nation's marine fisheries.

The council has jurisdiction of more than 900,000 square miles of ocean from 3 to 200 miles off Alaska's shores, and the primary responsibility for managing pollock, cod, halibut, sole and other groundfish.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires governors of specific coastal states to provide a minimum of three candidates for each applicable vacancy, from which the Secretary of Commerce makes the final selection.

Ed Rasumson Resigns the NPFMC

http://www.adn.com/static/includes/highliner/091307_Edward_Rasmuson.PDF

ADF&G Proposals

What a summer season! All kinds of industry nuances have been presented. More on that later. Take a few minutes to read the proposal book. I am sure you will see more than a few worthy of comment. Proposal 18: Dogfish! Address the ballooning population. Proposal 211. Pohibit dipnetting in the Kenai river until the Biological Escapement Goal is met.... residents collecting food should wait until the commercials have their fish? The commercials are trying to stop personal use at all venues. There are more than a few proposals awaiting your attention. Board of fisheries meetings scheduled for Homer November 13-15. Lands End. Comment deadline, 10/26/07. Be There, Aloha.

Latest Rights Based Halibut Charter Proposal

This is the latest offer from those in the industry that realize an individually controlled management plan is what is necessary to continue keeping harmony in the coastal communities between all halibut user groups and gives each charter business control on their business model and marketing.

PROPOSAL ONLY - NOT AT THE COUNCIL YET

GUIDED ANGLER FISH (GAF) PROGRAM

SUMMARY: HALIBUT GAF PROGRAM

The GAF program would replace the Moratorium program approved by the Council in April 2007. However, participants in the GAF program will be limited to those holding Moratorium Permits. The 2-fish daily bag limit or 2-day possession limit for charter anglers would remain in place. The GAF program could be implemented as early as 2010 if adopted by the Secretary of Commerce. Major features of this proposed program includes:
1. The action does not restrict non-charter recreational anglers. It only affects charter operations.
2. The action does not permit a charter operator to sell fish. Fish caught by charter clients belong to the client.
3. The halibut GAF program would be integrated into the existing halibut commercial IFQ program.

PREAMBLE: Due to the lack of halibut harvest recording on 2002 through 2005 logbooks, this proposal uses a business’s 2006 logbook for ground truthing earlier years by applying a formula to obtain an individual harvest rate (number of fish per angler day) based on the 2006 "verifiable" logbook. An individual's harvest rate derived from the 2006 logbook will be applied to the past logbooks days of bottom fish effort. This gives each business its own success ratio for determining their initial issuance of GAF.
Example: 1150 halibut harvested in 2006 divided by 620 halibut angler days = a ratio of 1.85 halibut per angler day.
Someone who was not as successful would receive a ratio that would reflect their efforts. Example: 750 halibut harvested in 2006 divided by 620 halibut angler days = a ratio of 1.21 halibut per angler day.
For someone with very little halibut effort, the same process would apply.
Example: 10 halibut harvested in 2006 divided by 7 halibut angler days = a ratio of 1.4 halibut per angler day.

2006 logbook data would be used to ground-truth past logbooks only. They would not be used for determining qualification for GAF, as the Control Date of December 9, 2005 would apply. The initial allocation (amount of fish) would be ascertained by the Council and has not been determined.

PLAN OUTLINE:

1. Charter allocations can grow over time through purchase of commercial QS. Initially issued GAF shares may not be transferred (sold) to the commercial sector.
2. GAF shares may be transferred within the charter sector. Commercial quota shares may be transferred to the charter sector. They also may be transferred back to the commercial sector. Restrictions on those commercial quota shares would continue to be applied while they are used in the commercial fishery. (Commercial QS would retain original designations when transferred back to the commercial sector.)
4. Twenty percent (20%) of GAFs (a GAF is the amount which can be harvested in any one year based on a person’s number of GAF shares multiplied by the charter quota) may be leased within the charter sector for the first three years of the program.
5. A small percentage (2, 3 or 4%) of GAF shares will be set aside for underdeveloped Gulf coastal communities to develop additional charter operations (the Council will identify those communities who are eligible for developing new operations. Details of the program will be determined in a subsequent action).
6. GAF will be issued to a charter vessel owner, or to a person who leased a vessel from an owner. A Moratorium permit will be required for participation the GAF program, but once the GAF program is fully implemented the Moratorium would sunset.
7. A GAF share use cap of 1 percent in Southeast Alaska and 1⁄2 percent in South Central Alaska as well as a cap of 1⁄2 percent for both areas combined is proposed, however, anyone who is initially issued quota shares above those levels would be grandfathered into the program at their qualifying level and in years of low abundance, would be able to buy-up to their original grandfather level.
8. A delay of one year between the issuance of GAF shares and fishing under the GAF program to allow for GAF holdings and customers to be synchronized.
9. GAFs would be issued in numbers of fish (compared with pounds in the commercial program) to allow current fishing practices to continue using ADF&G area (3A, 2C) averaging for fish weight.
10. An agency and charter industry committee will develop an implementation plan to address reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.
11. The Council is an advisory body to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which manages Pacific halibut in State and Federal waters off Alaska jointly with the International Pacific Halibut Commission under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.

Proposed by the Alaska Halibut Charter Fleet
April 12, 2007
Motion:
Incorporate a Guided Angler Fish (GAF) program from the charter sector into the existing commercial halibut IFQ program. IFQs and GAFs are an access privilege, not an an ownership right. They may be revoked or limited at any time in accordance with the North Pacific Halibut Act as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other federal laws.
GAF halibut may not be sold into commerce - i.e., all sport regulations remain in effect.

Issue 1. Qualification Criteria: Persons holding a halibut Moratorium Permit would qualify for the GAF Program

Issue 2. Distribution of GAF may be based on:
1. Applying the harvest rate (success rate) determined from the 2006 logbook (number of fish/angler/day in 2006) to the past logbook number of angler days of bottomfishing effort. This gives each boat its own rate. Example: 750 halibut harvested in 2006 divided by 500 clients = a ratio of 1.5 halibut per angler day. 2006 logbook data would be use to ground truth past logbooks only.
2. Qualifying years:
Option #1: Pick the 3 best years from 1998 to 2005 ADF&G logbooks and average the number of bottomfish days. If a charter has only 2004 and 2005 logbooks then a “0” for the third year would be averaged in. In years of recorded harvest only the effort would be used, not the halibut listed.
Option # 2: Pick the 2 best years from 2002 to 2005 of the ADF&G logbooks and average the number of bottomfish days. If a charter has only 2004 or 2005 logbooks then a “0” for the 2nd year would be averaged in.
Option # 3: The Charter business would receive 90% of the average the 2004 and 2005 year logbooks bottomfish effort. Then a charter would receive 20% of the 10% not distributed for each year of participation prior to 2004: Example: If a Charter business has been in business from 1995 and is still currently qualified in the Charter Moratorium then he would qualify for the 5 years from 1999 to 2003 at a rate of 20% of the 10% not distributed for each year of participation. This could result in this business receiving slightly more than 100% of the charter pool.
Option # 4: Pick the best year of recorded bottomfish effort from 1998 to 2005 of the ADF&G logbooks.
Option # 5: Average of 2004 and 2005 logbook bottomfish effort. If a charter has only 2004 or 2005 logbooks then a “0” for the 2nd year would be averaged in.

Harvest rate is determined at the boat level, or logbook level, which are the same.
Each business will be issued their number of fish resulting from formula above and the charter GAF holders will be included in the existing commercial halibut IFQ program.

Issue 5. Transferability of GAF Shares (permanent) and GAFs (on annual basis [leasing])
GAF is non-leasable to the commercial sector
GAF transfers:
1. Initially issued GAF is fully transferable within the charter sector.
2. For purposes of transfer to commercial sector, 100% of an individual’s initially issued charter GAF is permanently nontransferable
3. Commercial QS purchased by charter operator is fully transferable (two-way) across sectors and retains original commercial designations.

GAF leasing:
1. 20% of a charter operator’s annual GAF is leasable within the charter sector for the first 3 years of the program.
2. Leasing is defined as the use of GAF on a vessel which the owner of the QS has less than a 50% ownership interest.
3. 10% of a holder's GAF may be leased to the commercial sector.
.
Block restrictions
Allow splitting of commercial blocks to transfer a smaller piece to the charter sector - split blocks retain original designations.

Vessel class restrictions:
From A, B, C, and/or D commercial vessel category sizes to charter sector, except that no charter business may own or control more than 1 “D” category block equal to or above the sweep-up level.

Issue 6. To receive halibut QS and GAF by transfer: For the charter sector, must be a halibut Moratorium Permit holder

Issue 7. Caps
1. Use cap for charter GAF owners only of 1 percent of combined QS/GAF units in Area 2C and 1⁄2 percent of combined QS units in Area 3A (for all entities, individually and collectively) and grandfather initial issuees at their initial allocation.
2. Use caps for charter GAF owners only of 1⁄2 percent of combined GAF units for combined Areas 2C and 3A (for all entities, individually and collectively) and grandfather initial issuees at their initial allocation

Issue 8. Miscellaneous provisions
1. 10% underage provision of total GAFs.
2. A one-year delay between initial issuance of GAF and fishing GAFs.
3. Halibut harvested aboard a charter vessel continues to be the property of the angler who caught the halibut provided the charter owner possesses sufficient GAF.

Issue 9. GAFs associated with charter quota shares may be issued in:
Numbers of fish (based on average weight determined by ADF&G)

Issue 10. Reporting:
The Council defers design of the reporting and enforcement strategy to a GAF technical implementation team, comprised of agency and industry. It is the intent of the Council that a more comprehensive reporting system will address the following items. The Council has noted in the past that ADF&G logbooks would not be considered sufficient for monitoring and that the team should consider fish tags and other reporting systems suggested by industry.
1. More timely, verifiable reporting of catch;
2. Enforcement concerns;
3. More accurate geographic referencing of catch location which provides for analysis of halibut harvest in LAMP districts.

Issue 11. Community set-aside (revised)
1. Set aside 2, 3, or 4% of the combined commercial and charter halibut quota to communities with 1 percent annual increases if utilized, to a maximum of 4 percent.
2. Source of the set-aside: Equal pounds from the commercial and charter sectors.
3. Sunset provisions: 5 years (starting in the first year of issuance). Persons currently participating in the set-aside program at the time of sunset would be allowed to operate within the guidelines of the program.

THIS IS A DRAFT ONLY.

Stakeholders Committee will have further work to do on this proposal at the October, 2007 meeting and will present this to the council at the November or December, 2007 meeting.

Other proposals for a permanent solution are also being considered

Moving the Halibut Controversy Forward

From, mike heimbuch

Moving the Halibut Controversy Forward

This position paper is written in the hope of attracting moderate voices and leadership to the controversy surrounding the halibut charter industry in Alaska. In spite of federal control and management of the halibut resource, it is Alaska’s communities that are being divided by the shrill and undisciplined voices of debate. We should have the right, and responsibility, to secure peace amongst our commercial industries without the influence of those whose views of public resources have no regard for the history and delicacy of coastal Alaska economy.

In the halibut charter controversy much has been made about the public owning this resource and having the highest priority for access to it. This is widely accepted as true and to the extent that a person catches halibut, without being aided by any commercial business entity, there has been no attempt to diminish that access. It is also true that halibut plays a critical role in Alaska’s maritime economy. As a result, unregulated access public access to halibut, through any commercial enterprise, can be a threat to the stability of coastal communities.

For proof of this we need look no further than the fact that 100% of the maximum sustained yield of the halibut resource is caught every year. Commercial enterprises do this either by bring the resource to the public or bringing the public to the resource. Since both the commercial and the charter fleets provide public access to the resource for a fee, and most of the people who eat halibut don’t come to Alaska, it is hardly fair to construe either industry as having the strongest link to the public’s right of access. Either way, with 100% use, you cannot escape the fact that changing the proportion of harvest between 2 types of commercial enterprises cannot happen without economic damage. This is clearly what is happening with a regulated commercial fishing industry and an unregulated charter fishing industry.
But we cannot deceive ourselves that the halibut controversy today is strictly about this. Some people are promoting individual access rights to the resource as a logical extension of public ownership of the resource. This distortion ignores the absolute right of public government to limit individual acts. It also masquerades an unregulated and unlimited commercial charter industry as indispensable to public ownership of the resource regardless of the consequences to others.
For several decades our highest courts have wrestled with state programs that limit some public access to seafood in seemingly stark contrast to constitutional language which reserves Alaska’s fish and game resources ‘to the people’. It is perhaps unfortunate that a small number of justices have been allowed to determine the meaning of this based on legal precedents for interpreting the literal words of the constitution as opposed to a serious review of the historical intent and mind set of its framers and citizens at that time. The living memory and historical record of our first constitutional convention clearly display the widely popular public sentiment of removing control of the salmon resource from the monopolizing hands of lower 48 corporations. The control was to be reinvested in the public, conceived primarily as those people who worked in the commercial fishing industry in maritime communities of the state. Further proof of that mind set occurred during the early 70’s when Alaskans fully supported a constitutional amendment which allowed programs that limited public access to seafood for the purpose of promoting economic stability. In spite of reserving fish resources ‘to the people’ in the constitution, earlier Alaskans recognized that coastal economies could not withstand unlimited numbers of transient fishermen coming here for the summer and competing for the resource.
The high mobility of the world’s population and the increasing attraction of sport fishing in the growing tourism sector, have put the halibut resource industries in the same vulnerable spot that salmon was 40 years ago. Because the overall harvest is clearly limited some action must be taken. There is no alternative for the charter fleet except to limit themselves in some fashion or reallocate the resource from the traditional commercial fleet.
Significant numbers of Alaskans are involved in this controversy and it is important that our state leaders understand the debate. Regardless of past court decisions, questions of federal authority, or strong philosophical arguments in the media, we cannot hope for peaceful progress or wise leadership from the state without acknowledging one fundamental economic reality: Very simply stated, when a seafood resource is utilized at 100% of its capacity, reallocation of harvest opportunity between commercial business groups cannot occur without financial loss. The reality of that financial jeopardy should impose a sense of fairness on us, which transcends simplistic debate over public access issues that remain unsolved even at the highest judicial levels.

At this point there is movement toward limiting the halibut charter industry and it is likely that the state will have a role in designing and implementing a manageable program. If we are to make headway on this with some clarity of purpose and understanding, we must lower the volume of those voices who say that any tourist arriving here has a higher right to access halibut than a coastal community resident who has been selling halibut to the public for decades. That mindset is proving to be a major stumbling block at the NPFMC in solving the halibut access problem and does a grave disservice to the good faith efforts of long time charter and commercial fishermen trying to work things out.
here are very straightforward ways to move the charter fleet into fully regulated status while remaining in harmony with the public and the traditional commercial halibut fishing industry. The state can aid in this effort by promoting the same vision for Alaska’s seafood resources that our constitutional framers saw 50 years ago. That vision is relatively simple: Corporate interests will not dominate access to and control of our seafood resources; and some types of public access are justifiably limited to protect the seafood economy of coastal Alaska.
Elements of a workable halibut charter plan

1. Individual quotas (ITQ) can be adopted that recognize and reward different levels of charter activity over time. This must be done in as simple of a fashion as possible which leads either to establishing a system where qualifying participants are ranked individually and awarded rights according to personal history, or a system of several different classes of historical participation where individuals within each class are awarded rights equally.

2. The ITQ program must not be forced into the same monitoring, accounting and compliance program that the commercial fleet has under IFQs. It is far too burdensome to accomplish, extremely expensive to implement, are far too spread out to provide accuracy. Regardless of the license program adopted, a simple way to provide visual monitoring, compliance, and accounting – is to provide each authorized charter boat with lip tags for halibut which are fastened to the jaw prior to docking and must be left on until removed at processing. The tags would be designed to make re-use impossible. Research and monitoring efforts would be greatly enhanced – as the tags would be clearly coded and numbered for each business. The tags could also be colored to indicate the category of license awarded as discussed in #1 above. There could be great variety in the configuration and uses. It would make ITQs transferable to other qualified operator by the simple sale of lip tags and answer many problems associated with inability to fish or needing more ITQ quota during a season. Conversion of commercial halibut IFQ to a specified number of lip tags would also be possible if the program was designed around harvesting halibut according to numbers of fish and average weight – instead of actual weights such as in the IFQ program.

3. If the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopts a program that brings the charter fleet into compliance with the existing guideline harvest levels (GHL) there will be no reallocation from the commercial fishing fleet and the subject of compensation will be moot. If the council either forces reallocation by raising the GHL or makes provision for future conversion of halibut from the commercial long line fleet to the charter sector – the question of fair compensation will be a central point of controversy and certainly the subject for litigation considering all the conventional loans outstanding in the fishing fleets for halibut IFQs. If the notion of fair compensation prevails as a result of reallocation, the state may have to decide what role to play in imposing or collecting fees to cover the costs of such a program. Regardless of the mechanism, it would be helpful for the state leadership to declare an interest now in helping to implement a financial accounting program if it helps secure an ending to the halibut charter controversy.

4. Many long time commercial halibut fishermen and charter boat operators would support a system that is designed somewhat as follows:

ITQs based on (4-6) levels of active participation during the qualifying years.
Fee program to compensate IFQ fleet for reallocation into new ITQ system
Lip tags for annual ITQs determined by license category and transferable
Accounting system based on numbers of fish with average weights – not pounds
A set GHL % of the MSY adjusted strictly through numbers of lip tags issued
Mechanism for converting IFQs to ITQs through a lip tag conversion program

IFQ YOU!

ADF&G, NPFMC, NMFS, IPHC, NOAA, ACA, NACO, RFA, WHAT THE HELL? NONE OF US WILL LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE AN END TO THIS.
Email your neighborhood commercial and tell them its time to push A modified IFQ plan and put this behind us. An entrepreneur friend of mine asked why he would invest in a fishery that wants to take fish from the commercials, customers from me and then tax me to help pay for it all! Heaven help us. I'm outa here if I can find a buyer.

RFA Letter to NMFS

RE: Charter Vessel Halibut Comments
Dear Ms. Salveson:

As a recreational fisherman, I object to the proposed regulations to reduce the guideline harvest level for Pacific halibut in the guided sport charter sector in Area 2C. The recreational halibut fishery in this area is critically important to the local economy and brings non-resident anglers from across the entire nation to Alaska. As it is currently written, the proposed rule will modify the daily bag limit from 2 fish per day to 1 fish any size and 1 fish smaller than 32 inches and stands to severely disrupt this important historic fishery. My opposition to this action is outlined in the following points.
1) Proposed rule is a misuse of guideline harvest limit (GHL). GHL’s set forth in 50 CFR 300.65(c)were established to monitor the halibut charter fleet not to restrict its activity or growth. Downward adjustments to GHL’s are only to be taken when there is a decline in Pacific halibut abundance.
2) Proposed rule is based on incomplete data. NMFS is using data developed through Alaska’s Statewide Harvest Surveys (SWHS) to support the proposed rule. At this time, SWHS data from the 2006 season are preliminary projections and will not be finalized until August of 2007. It is not appropriate for NMFS to take such drastic action using incomplete data.
3) Proposed rule will discriminate against non-resident anglers. The vast majority of non-resident anglers that travel to Alaska to fish for halibut do so in Area 2C. The proposed regulations will disproportionately affect the non-resident anglers that fish this area and damage the traditional charter fleet supported by these fishermen.
4) Proposed rule fails to take into consideration growth of the sector. When GHL’s were implemented, levels were set to accommodate growth in this sector. Since the GHL was put into effect in 2003, it has been exceeded every year; hence, it was never set appropriately and set to be exceeded.
Growth of the charter fleet harvest in Area 2C has increased, on average, less than 1% annually with only higher increases in recent years. This gradual and expected increase is consistent with discussion during the development of GHL’s.
5) Proposed rule fails to impose restrictions on commercial fishing sector. Under the proposed rule, fishing reductions will only be implemented on the charter sector of the fishery. The recreational halibut fishery is far more valuable than commercial halibut landings yet the guided sector is restricted
to an allocation less than 20% of the poundage allocated for commercial bycatch. A more efficient approach would impose management measures to reduce waste in the form of commercial bycatch and use the savings to accommodate the natural growth of the guided sector harvest.

Thank for your consideration,