December 2007 Council Action
Check it out @
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/halibut_issues/Halibutmotion1207.pdf
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comment 79: The IPHC does not view this as a conservation issue. The IPHC would never allow an overharvest of the Total CEY if there were a conservation issue. It should be very clear that due to the conservative nature of IPHC harvest calculations, overharvest of the Total CEY by 60 to 85 percent is possible without resulting in a conservation issue. The proposed rule deals with a pure allocation issue and does not present any resource conservation questions
A blog for the concerned sportfisherman. Big changes are ahead for the guided sportfisherman and this is the place to speak to the issues.
SIGN UP AND LEAVE A COMMENT.
Related Sites
Followers
The latest news from Alaska Department fo Fish & Game
Comment 79: The IPHC does not view this as a conservation issue. The IPHC would never allow an overharvest of the Total CEY if there were a conservation issue. It should be very clear that due to the conservative nature of IPHC harvest calculations, overharvest of the Total CEY by 60 to 85 percent is possible without resulting in a conservation issue. The proposed rule deals with a pure allocation issue and does not present any resource conservation questions
2 comments:
This is my halibut charter management preference.
Catch Sharing:
b. 17.3 % 15.4 % 125% of the 2001-2005 avg charter harvest (GHL formula updated thru 2005)
Element 3. Management toolbox.
Tier 1 measures will be utilized by the Council to try to manage the charter common pool for a season of
historic length and a two-fish daily harvest limit. Tier 2 measures will be utilized if Tier 1 measures are inadequate to constrain harvest by the charter common pool to its allocation. Due to the delayed feedback loop
in implementation of management measures, management measures will, in general, be more restrictive to
ensure that the charter sector allocation is not exceeded. In providing predictability and stability for the charter
sector, it is likely that charter fish may be left in the water.
Tier 1 management measures include:
• 1 trip per vessel per day
• No retention by skipper or crew
• line limits
• Second fish of minimum size
• Second fish at or below a specific length.
Tier 2 management measures include:
• Annual catch limits
• 1 fish bag limit for all or a portion of the season
• Season closure
Suboption: seasonal closures on a monthly or sub-seasonal basis
Example scenario 1: 4–year feedback loop
• Charter fishery ends 2007
• October 2008: Council receives ADF&G report on final charter halibut harvest estimates for 2007. If the
ADF&G report indicates that an allocation overage occurred in 2007, the Council will initiate the analysis
of management measures necessary to restrict charter halibut harvests to its allocations.
• December 2008: Council reviews staff analysis (possibly in the form of a supplement) that updates the
previous year’s analysis with final 2007 harvest estimates.
• January 2009: IPHC adopts combined catch limits for 2009.
• February 2009: Council takes final action on management measures that would be implemented in year
2010.
• Winter 2009: NMFS publishes the rule that will be in effect for 2010.
C. GAF would be issued in numbers of fish. The conversion between annual IFQ and GAF would be
based on average weight of halibut landed in each region’s charter halibut fishery (2C or 3A) during
the previous year as determined by ADF&G. The long-term plan may require further conversion to
some other form (e.g., angler days).
F. Conversion of GAF back to commercial sector
1. GAF holders may request NMFS convert unused GAF into IFQ pounds for harvest in compliance
with commercial fishing regulations provided the GAF holder qualifies under the commercial IFQ
regulations.
Right on!
Only Electronic reporting could actually work:
Option 1. Electronic Reporting. Each GSM permit holder would be assigned a unique reporting number and
would use that number to electronically report the number of halibut caught by clients that day on a daily
basis. The electronic reporting would be done either through an Internet website or a dial-in telephone system.
As additional verification each client would sign the mandatory logbook next to the entry containing their
name, license number, number and type of fish caught, and any other required information. Logbooks would
continue to be submitted weekly.
These are the best bets to be workable. What do you think?
I've got to hand it to guys like you and Bob, Gary. Thanks for keeping up the good fight.You know how I feel about these measures. One fish limits or slot limits would help the very people that caused this mess because they have already tailored their businesses to combo bullsh_t to compete with us in the first place. I like the electronic reporting idea. One trip a day would save a bunch of halibut but also let ACA guys off the hook for what they have done... Let me know if there's anything I can do but I'll be pretty busy soon putting in the new engine, et. al.
Post a Comment