News for January 2009

Board of Fisheries Wading Through Harmful Proposals

The Alaska Board of Fisheries has been meeting this week to consider changes in shellfish regulations, many of them aimed at restricting your customers and harming you.  SEAGO board member Stan Malcom has been on the scene and advocating for the charter industry.

This year more than two dozen proposals to the board appear designed solely to restrict and punish the charter fishing industry.  So far, we have been successful in keeping the Board from falling for these baseless ideas. 

A central theme of the ideas considered in this week’s shellfish meeting has been to restrict the bag or possession limits of non-resident anglers.  While we defeated the majority of these proposals soundly, two of the less consequential ones passed:

1. lowering the sport bag and possession limit of shrimp from 10 pounds or quarts to three; and
2. lowering the sport bag and possession limit of Dungeness and tanner crab from five to three. 

SEAGO member Malcom said “I consider this a win. Although I don’t like the precedent, the really bad proposals were defeated.  But our work is not done.  My take on this board is that they will want to do something to limit overall harvest by non-residents. With the finfish meeting still in front of us, we have to be very strong.”

WATCH YOUR EMAIL FOR MORE INFO FROM SEAGO ON THE SITKA BOARD OF FISHERIES MEETING FEBRUARY 17-26.  WE ARE ORGANIZED, BUT WE NEED YOU TO PARTICIPATE.

State Study Shows Importance of Sport and Charter Fishing

Sport fishing, including charter fishing, forms a very important part of the Alaska economy, according to a just-released study commissioned by ADF&G.  At $1.4 billion and almost 16,000 jobs, sport fishing is one of Alaska’s leading industries.

Based on nearly 3,000 angler surveys, the most recent statewide assessment of the economic contribution of sportfishing in Alaska updates previous studies by the state and shows dramatic growth in sport fishing in Alaska.  ADF&G said “collectively the results suggest that during the past fifteen years, the economic significance of sport fishing in Alaska has increased considerably, in terms of the number of job, wages and salaries, and total economic contribution to the Alaska economy.”

Here are some highlights:

Statewide:

1. In 2007 anglers in Alaska spent $1.4 billion, creating economic activity that supported 15,879 jobs, provided $545 million of income, and resulted in $123 million in state/local tax revenues.
2. Since the entire tourism industry in Alaska (not counting transportation to and from the state) generated $1.5 billion in the 2006-2007 season, the $741 million spent by nonresident sport anglers in 2007 represents approximately 50% of all visitor spending.  Think about that: non-resident anglers support half of the entire Alaska tourism industry.

Southeast:

1. Total spending by all anglers (resident and nonresident combined) for Southeast Alaska in 2007 was estimated to be $274 million, which generated a total economic output of $295 million in the region.  That supported 3,063 jobs, created $99 million in personal income, and paid $22 million in state and local taxes – in Southeast.
2. While nonresidents make up about half of all sportfishing activity statewide, in Southeast Alaska they are a much bigger influence, generating 73% of the total economic contribution of sportfishing.
3. Also within Southeast Alaska, the popularity of salt-water fishing dominates the scene, accounting for about 65% of the sportfishing jobs and taxes in the region.
4. Guided anglers spend more than non-guided, of course, just as nonresidents spend more than residents.  Among salt-water anglers, the range of spending per day runs $163 for residents, unguided, to $744 for nonresidents, guided.

Bottom line?  While sport fishing of all kinds is good for the Alaska economy, charter fishing, especially by non-residents, brings the greatest benefit to Alaskans.

What should you do with this information?

Tell your friends – and your local legislators!  Charter fishing creates almost 2,000 jobs in Southeast alone.  It’s time for Alaskan economic and natural resource policy to support the greatest economic leverage it can – such as supporting the charter fishing industry. 

As Sen. Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla, said to the Anchorage Daily News, the study provides a tool for legislators in the commercial vs. sportfishing debate.   “No matter how you cut it – number of fish, dollars, whatever, we win.  What we have to do is maintain the pace. And, this is the hard part, get a bit more organized,” Huggins said.

Halibut Regulations Continue to Harm Charter Industry

The halibut harvest in Area 2C continues to be a tough problem for all fishermen, but more so for the charter industry, which is being told to take the steepest decline. 

At the IPHC annual meeting January 13-16, the Commission adopted catch limits for the 2009 season that, overall, are 10% lower than last year, but in Area 2C are about 30% lower than last year and close to 50% lower than the average harvest prior to 2008. 
The IPHC is assuming a reduction in the charter harvest of 60%, while reducing the commercial harvest by 19%. 

Obviously that’s unfair.  In fact, across its entire jurisdiction, the commission granted the commercial industry a total of about 3.3 million pounds more than the straight biological numbers would allow.  But the disparate treatment is more than unfair, it’s unwise: as the new state economic study on the value of charter and sport fishing proves, a modest portion of our public fish resources to charter fishing produces great benefit across the communities of Southeast Alaska.  Likewise, causing dramatic swings in availability of halibut to charter anglers will no doubt undermine these income and tax revenue benefits they bring to Alaska, and that hurts everyone.

But the story behind the headline is the one on which SEAGO is focused.  The fact is, the commercial industry has a cohesive regulatory framework and the charter industry does not.  The commercial industry, which has a much longer history, has readily measurable limits that enable them to meet their targets, a relatively simple relationship with regulatory agencies, and the advantages of such devices as a buffering formula to moderate swings in harvest.  Their regulations are built on an understanding of the industry.  Most important, the commercials have a seat at every table.

In contrast, the charter industry in Southeast has a poorly devised system of regulation with little recognition of the needs of the industry, is subject to significant regulatory overlap and conflict, has no buffers, and most important, no seat at any table. 

The saga of the one-fish bag limit as a supposed solution to catch-sharing is a perfect example of this mess.  As you know, the actual bag limit for charter halibut fishing is set by NMFS, not by IPHC.  Assuming NMFS continue its quest for a one-fish daily bag limit and then allows us to fish everyday under that regulation, at least two things will happen, both bad.  First, according to NMFS’ own analysis, the reduced limit will cut bookings by about 30%.  Second, even with reduced bookings, the charter industry will still end up harvesting more than the targeted amount.  So, after making us take a much bigger sacrifice (proportionately) for conservation of the biomass, our special regulatory Catch-22 will put us the in position of looking like we don’t care about conservation.  

Of course, we must fight that perception, and we must keep fighting, period.  SEAGO has just sent a letter to NMFS protesting this untenable state of affairs.  Ultimately, the entire system of halibut allocation needs to be revised, to one that recognizes and supports the charter industry effectively and fairly, just as it does the commercials.  

The IPHC says the downturn in the Area 2C halibut biomass is temporary.  We all hope they’re right, but that’s out of our control.  What is within our control is fighting to create fair, effective regulation of the charter halibut industry.  Please join SEAGO in the fight for a seat at the table and a sensible long-term regulatory system.