| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Web posted
"Activities on subsistence fisheries are now very different. There is potential for abuse that was not there under state management," said Tom Morphet, outreach coordinator for United Fishermen of Alaska. He said there is also a "potential for friction until people understand that their catches could eventually be regulated somewhat by this federal management."
Loosened laws on receiving cash for subsistence halibut and salmon are two of the new twists that bear watching, Morphet said. Previous to a rule that goes into effect in May, there was no recognized halibut subsistence fishery in Alaska. Under the new rules, subsistence halibut harvesters are limited to 20 fish per day, and they can receive up to $400 in cash annually for "fishing for others."
That's a pretty dramatic change and many worry the regulations can be easily abused, according to Morphet. "The idea behind that was for people to be able to get $50 from your old auntie for giving her a bunch of fish. It's a concern for not only commercial fishermen, but some subsistence users say it could be a real Achilles heel," he said.
Cash sales for salmon is another red flag. Previous to the federal takeover, the state allowed cash sales only for herring roe on kelp fisheries in Southeast. Federal regulators changed that to allow sales of any subsistence fish taken in federal waters, as long as the sales did not constitute a "significant commercial enterprise." But what exactly was that?
"What was passed is a rule that says no subsistence fish can be purchased by any businesses. It can be sold to other residents, as long as the person buying the fish is consuming it in their own family," Morphet explained. Subsistence users can only sell as much salmon as they can legally harvest, but it's tough to enforce. And while it may not have an immediate impact on commercial or sport fisheries, Morphet believes it warrants a close watch.
Meanwhile, Alaskans should pay attention and get involved in the federal rule making process. A sort of "Subsistence for Dummies" booklet is available from the UFA office in Juneau.
Bycatch bounce
In a concept similar to swapping industrial pollution credits, fishery managers are considering a plan that allows transfers of halibut bycatch between trawl fisheries. "If they are able to prosecute a fishery in a manner that produces less bycatch, the trawlers would like to take and apply that bycatch to fisheries they currently can't prosecute because they've reached the caps," said Stosh Anderson, a member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The concept of bycatch transfers is drawing boos from some stakeholders. "Any new plan should advance conservation in a way that has not been achieved in the current open access fishery. The way the plan is being designed at the moment, it is not going to reduce bycatch," said Dorothy Childers, director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.
"If you transfer halibut bycatch from one fishery to another, where there may be a greater use of a gear type that could do more damage to the bottom or to other species, what you're doing is playing a shell game. You are not creating conservation gains," said Bob Storrs of the Unalaska Native Fishermen's Association
Anderson countered by saying that the transfer idea does not expand halibut and other bycatch limits. "I would hate to label it as all negative. It can provide an economic incentive to try and do a better job. Industry as a whole has done much better in reducing bycatch and this is another way to help them do even better," he said.
Get a grip on the Gulf
Bycatch transfers is just one part of the ongoing plan to divide up all groundfish species (pollock, cod, rockfish, flounders) among all gear types in federal waters (beyond three miles) of the Gulf of Alaska. Privatizing a public resource and limiting access to that resource creates tremendous wealth for those who receive the entitlement, and no one wants to be left out.
The framework for the "Gulf Rationalization" program has been narrowed so far to include four options: Status quo (come one, come all); quota shares for harvesters (one pie); shares for harvesters and processors (two pie); and fishing cooperative models. Another alternative being considered is community fishing quotas (CFQs).
At the June meeting in Kodiak, some very clear lines will be drawn about who gets what. "The amount of quota shares, or whatever access rights people will be granted, is up for decision . . . the years the fishing history will be based on. We may be making some substantial decisions," said NPFMC member Anderson.
He added: "Right now we have four options, and we'll be looking at whether we should mix and match, or create more alternatives. People better pay attention."
Kodiak-based free-lance writer Laine Welch can be reached via e-mail at msfish@ptialaska.net.
|
