If you follow the proceedings of the faux judiciary-like process the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council uses in order to appear to be sufficiently respectful of its responsibilities to the fisheries it 'manages,' you can often see them telegraph their punches, and reassure their various supporters. So it was this last meeting. The movement to do nothing in regard to the criminal bycatch of high value species (among others) by the drag industry became clear when Chris Oliver made an (out of focus) YouTube video touting the Council's concern over bycatch but weaseling about how much it was going to cost draggers. Talking out of both sides of your mouth, Mr. Oliver, especially when it is put on video tape is never a good idea. Crying about how cutting bycatch will cost the Kodiak draggers ten million dollars in lost revenues while not addressing the 4.4 million pounds of halibut waste at a current ex-vessel value of seven dollars a pound or 30 million dollars lost to the longliners, commercial charterers, sportsfishermen, and subsistence users is negligence, written large. Little mention is made of the fact that some draggers are able to avoid much halibut bycatch and others are filthy fishers. The Scientific and Statistical Committee finally spoke up chastising the Council process by admitting that making decisions affecting the health of the Gulf of Alaska based on, not just poor information as to observed catch, but purposefully gamed information, is a grave error. Kudos to the SSC for having more courage than we expected them to have and by taking back some of the high ground to which the scientific community is supposed to adhere.
Maybe the science community is finally seeing the need to come clean at the Federal level in light of the way the State of Alaska science community is being co-opted by this current twisted administration bound to develop all resources at whatever cost. " A new, Orwellian policy requires scientists to espouse only the state's official position, as dictated by Parnell and his closest advisors" Rick Sinnott. Governor Parnell made that very plain when explaining that having conservation in the mission statement for the Department of Natural Resources wasn't necessary as it was already implied, and then having Cora Campbell appoint Doug Vincent-Lang to replace indicted Corey Rossi as head of the Alaska's Division of Wildlife Conservation. Cora Campbell shows her true colors (or is she a Petersberg cameleon?) by voting with the outside interests on the Council to up the number of king salmon allowed to be taken by bottom trawls. Why are we surprised? Parnell was originally appointed to the Governor's job by Sara Palin, a self serving no brainer if there ever was one. A no brainer perhaps, but there is much craft in witchcraft.
It appears that the number of Alaskans on the Council who remain concerned over the health of our fisheries is now three: Fields, Cotton, and Hull. Sean Parnell is wrong; CONSERVATION of our resources is not to be simply implied, it must be written large. Conservation must be first, if there is to be a future. If our kids are going to inherit an Alaska worth living in, we have to think ahead. But short term development goals are all that are important to Parnell, 'and the devil take the hindmost.' Out of one side of Parnell's mouth comes states' rights dogma and rhetoric, with such ilk as Vincent-Lang as spokesman, thus assuring the rabble of the railbelt will blindly follow. (The True Believer, Eric Hoffer) Out of the other side of his mouth Parnell blows sweet kisses to foreign backers of the Pebble mine, Wash-Ore trawl interests in the GOA and BSAI, foreign fish processor interests who need cheap fish for profits, and finally his favorite of favorites, Big Oil, who he argues will loves us more and share more of our wealth with us if we give it to them for less.
The Wash-Ore boys were probably right. Some Alaskan interests represented on the Council were perhaps making a wiggle to free Alaska from colonial status but with a little help from their friends, the Parnell administration has sided with the big money to move the Council back from the precipice of conservation and healthy management to development at all cost. Wasting high value species (not to mention all the other waste) in order to supply masses of cheap fish for processor profits is what is important. Now all the draggers will be able to afford to have a new copper roof.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
NMFS Pleased With Court Ruling Re: Sealions
---
"We are certainly most sympathetic to the plight of fishermen in these trying times," Alaska Fisheries Science Center Director Doug DeMaster added. "A healthy ecosystem is in the long-term interest of fishermen, who depend more than most industries on natural resources. We are looking forward to working with our partners and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to maintain healthy, robust ecosystems for the long-term economic benefit of fishers in Alaska."
Perhaps. As a sealion, I am pleased, but the reality is that industry has too much sway over the decisions regarding the protection of the ecosystem and that threatens all of us in fishing for the long haul. For ecosystem protection, the extreme bycatch of draggers in the GOA and elsewhere must be reined in, period. Were it so easy to protect the resources...ha!...when the NPFMC refuses to protect those species deemed Prohibited Species like halibut, king salmon and crab. 'Best science' becomes a club to slug us over the head with when we demand protection and the draggers cry foul over not having enough good data and then drag their feet when good data collection is suggested. Catch -22.
Keep yer flipper wet.
"We are certainly most sympathetic to the plight of fishermen in these trying times," Alaska Fisheries Science Center Director Doug DeMaster added. "A healthy ecosystem is in the long-term interest of fishermen, who depend more than most industries on natural resources. We are looking forward to working with our partners and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to maintain healthy, robust ecosystems for the long-term economic benefit of fishers in Alaska."
Perhaps. As a sealion, I am pleased, but the reality is that industry has too much sway over the decisions regarding the protection of the ecosystem and that threatens all of us in fishing for the long haul. For ecosystem protection, the extreme bycatch of draggers in the GOA and elsewhere must be reined in, period. Were it so easy to protect the resources...ha!...when the NPFMC refuses to protect those species deemed Prohibited Species like halibut, king salmon and crab. 'Best science' becomes a club to slug us over the head with when we demand protection and the draggers cry foul over not having enough good data and then drag their feet when good data collection is suggested. Catch -22.
Keep yer flipper wet.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Salmon Processors Dump MSC Certification
---
Read more.
Maybe the processors are fed up with MSC's Buy a Certificate on Sustainable Seafood Scam? Afterall, they certified filthy flatfish for a price. Or the price is just too high? Or is it the coming storm of issues with hatchery fish. The big processors love hatchery fish. Always something new to worry about.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Read more.
Maybe the processors are fed up with MSC's Buy a Certificate on Sustainable Seafood Scam? Afterall, they certified filthy flatfish for a price. Or the price is just too high? Or is it the coming storm of issues with hatchery fish. The big processors love hatchery fish. Always something new to worry about.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Let's Talk Halibut Prohibited Species Bycatch
----
Wiglaf has made some strong statements in the past couple of years regarding trawl bycatch. For a New Year Review, let's consider some Take Away Messages from 'official sources.' These are the same sources that accuse Tholepin of being unreliable. Go figure.
Take Away Message: Too much halibut bycatch.
IPHC: "The existing GOA Prohibited Species Cap (PSC) limits have been in place for trawl fisheries since 1986 and for fixed gear fisheries since 1996. The Commission staff believes that these limits were based on inadequate data, that monitoring of both historical and current bycatch mortality is similarly inadequate, and that the PSC limit for trawl fisheries should be reduced as a precautionary measure until the improved observer procedures are implemented, at which time the estimated bycatch mortaality levels can be re-evaluated to the context of halibut stock dynamics." IPHC
Take Away Message: Statistics regarding bycatch are NOT reliable.
NMFS: "The current federal groundfish observer program in Alaska is structured by vessel size. As such, groundfish vessels less than 60’ are not required to carry observers; vessels 60’ – 125’ length overall(LOA) are required to carry and pay for their own observers 30 percent of their fishing days, regardless of gear type or target fishery; vessels greater than 125’ LOA are required to carry observers 100 percent of the time. Vessels in the 30 percent coverage category select when to carry observers and are constrained in this self-selection by regulatory requirements for quarterly coverage levels. The two size categories with less than 100 percent observer coverage comprise the majority of vessels fishing in the GOA and out of ports other than Dutch Harbor and Akutan in the BSAI.
“Observers estimate total catch for a portion of hauls or sets, and sample hauls or sets for species composition, including PSC. These data are extrapolated in the Alaska Region Catch Accounting System (CAS) to make estimates of total PSC halibut catch on both observed and unobserved vessels. Observer data are assumed to be representative of the activity of all vessels and are used to estimate total halibut PSC. The ratio estimator is derived from a set of covariates that match both observer and groundfish landing/production information. A detailed description of this process is presented in Cahalan et al. (2010).
Regulations governing observer deployment (i.e., observer coverage requirements) introduces the potential of bias in observer data by using a non-random deployment model which may facilitate nonrepresentative fishing. Given the use of observer data in CAS, and the subsequent use of CAS estimation in stock assessments and quota management, this issue can undermine the data used to manage halibut PSC (among other species) in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries. In response to these issues, the Council took action at its October 2010 meeting to recommend that NMFS restructure the observer program to address multiple issues with the current program, including bias (NPFM 2010). The recommended restructuring preferred alternative provides NMFS with flexibility to place observers onboard vessel using accepted statistical practices so that coverage gaps and vessel-trip selection bias is addressed.” NMFS.
Take Away Message: We are hurting the halibut biomass, its reproductive potential, and the future of all halibut fisheries.
NMFS: The impacts of reducing halibut PSC limits for groundfish target fisheries does not simply reallocate that reduced halibut mortality amounts to directed fishery halibut users. While halibut PSC limits are often closely approached in the GOA groundfish fisheries, these removals are known imprecisely. While all halibut mortality sources are taken into account when commercial IFQ catch limits (and combined catch limits under the proposed Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP)) are set, the negative impacts of these removals on lost spawning biomass and lost yield are not prevented. Incidental catches of halibut result ina decline in the halibut standing stock biomass, reduced reproductive potential of the halibut stock, and reduced short- and long-term halibut yields to the directed hook-and-line fisheries and the guided sport sector in Area 2C and 3A under the proposed CSP.
A reciprocal function of the Take Away Message is the Red Face Test:
Wiglaf: Red Face Test Fail! This simply does not fit with what the IPHC has stated in the first paragraph. Trawling has severe effects upon the viability of halibut as a fishery resource. Since the observer system produces unreliable data regarding bycatch in general, how does NMFS get away with determining that: “it is unlikely that groundfish fishing has indirect impacts on these aspects of Pacific halibut sustainability.”
Wiglaf: Red Face Test Fail! Welcome to the zone of great unknowns. <If >;” the proportional catches of prey species are small” … we can’t know that based upon the admission that: “Given the use of observer data in CAS, and the subsequent use of CAS estimation in stock assessments and quota management, this issue can undermine the data used to manage halibut PSC (among other species) in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries.” Also, it is likely that evidence of catches of many very small and fragile prey species may be missing from recovered trawls because they break up and are washed out of the drags. That these prey species are important is obvious. Plenty of trawl crew have reportedly seen large numbers of small prey species washing out of cod ends upon recovery. To state that trawls don’t have an important effect on prey species is at best wishful thinking and at worst a lie. If a prey species dies in the trawl but is washed away with no one to see it, did it exist?
Keep Yer Flippers Wet
Wiglaf has made some strong statements in the past couple of years regarding trawl bycatch. For a New Year Review, let's consider some Take Away Messages from 'official sources.' These are the same sources that accuse Tholepin of being unreliable. Go figure.
Take Away Message: Too much halibut bycatch.
IPHC: "The existing GOA Prohibited Species Cap (PSC) limits have been in place for trawl fisheries since 1986 and for fixed gear fisheries since 1996. The Commission staff believes that these limits were based on inadequate data, that monitoring of both historical and current bycatch mortality is similarly inadequate, and that the PSC limit for trawl fisheries should be reduced as a precautionary measure until the improved observer procedures are implemented, at which time the estimated bycatch mortaality levels can be re-evaluated to the context of halibut stock dynamics." IPHC
Take Away Message: Statistics regarding bycatch are NOT reliable.
NMFS: "The current federal groundfish observer program in Alaska is structured by vessel size. As such, groundfish vessels less than 60’ are not required to carry observers; vessels 60’ – 125’ length overall(LOA) are required to carry and pay for their own observers 30 percent of their fishing days, regardless of gear type or target fishery; vessels greater than 125’ LOA are required to carry observers 100 percent of the time. Vessels in the 30 percent coverage category select when to carry observers and are constrained in this self-selection by regulatory requirements for quarterly coverage levels. The two size categories with less than 100 percent observer coverage comprise the majority of vessels fishing in the GOA and out of ports other than Dutch Harbor and Akutan in the BSAI.
“Observers estimate total catch for a portion of hauls or sets, and sample hauls or sets for species composition, including PSC. These data are extrapolated in the Alaska Region Catch Accounting System (CAS) to make estimates of total PSC halibut catch on both observed and unobserved vessels. Observer data are assumed to be representative of the activity of all vessels and are used to estimate total halibut PSC. The ratio estimator is derived from a set of covariates that match both observer and groundfish landing/production information. A detailed description of this process is presented in Cahalan et al. (2010).
Regulations governing observer deployment (i.e., observer coverage requirements) introduces the potential of bias in observer data by using a non-random deployment model which may facilitate nonrepresentative fishing. Given the use of observer data in CAS, and the subsequent use of CAS estimation in stock assessments and quota management, this issue can undermine the data used to manage halibut PSC (among other species) in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries. In response to these issues, the Council took action at its October 2010 meeting to recommend that NMFS restructure the observer program to address multiple issues with the current program, including bias (NPFM 2010). The recommended restructuring preferred alternative provides NMFS with flexibility to place observers onboard vessel using accepted statistical practices so that coverage gaps and vessel-trip selection bias is addressed.” NMFS.
Take Away Message: We are hurting the halibut biomass, its reproductive potential, and the future of all halibut fisheries.
A reciprocal function of the Take Away Message is the Red Face Test:
1. NMFS: “The GOA groundfish fishery has an adverse impact on Pacific halibut through direct mortality due to prohibited species catch. Under the status quo, Pacific halibut are a prohibited species and it is incumbent upon fishermen, under the regulations, to avoid catching them. The Groundfish Programmatic EIS considered impacts of the fisheries on the halibut population, reproductive success, and habitat, and concluded that it is unlikely that groundfish fishing has indirect impacts on these aspects of Pacific halibut sustainability.” http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/HalibutPSCLimit911_exsum.pdf
2. NMFS: The groundfish fisheries also incidentally catches halibut prey species, including euphausiids, herring, sand lance, capelin, smelt, pollock, sablefish, cod, rockfishes, octopus, crabs, and clams, however the catches of these prey species are very small relative to the overall populations of these species. Thus, groundfish fishing activities are considered to have minimal and temporary effects on prey availability for halibut.” http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/HalibutPSCLimit911_exsum.pdf
Wiglaf: Red Face Test Fail! Welcome to the zone of great unknowns. <If >;” the proportional catches of prey species are small” … we can’t know that based upon the admission that: “Given the use of observer data in CAS, and the subsequent use of CAS estimation in stock assessments and quota management, this issue can undermine the data used to manage halibut PSC (among other species) in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries.” Also, it is likely that evidence of catches of many very small and fragile prey species may be missing from recovered trawls because they break up and are washed out of the drags. That these prey species are important is obvious. Plenty of trawl crew have reportedly seen large numbers of small prey species washing out of cod ends upon recovery. To state that trawls don’t have an important effect on prey species is at best wishful thinking and at worst a lie. If a prey species dies in the trawl but is washed away with no one to see it, did it exist?
Keep Yer Flippers Wet
Monday, December 12, 2011
MCManman and Keaton Conspire to Confuse Less Careful Readers
On page six and seven of December's 2011 Pacific Fishing Magazine's Don McManman starts a twisted apology (probably mostly to advertisers) about having passed on information Wiglaf pulled from official NMFS numbers (although McManman seems to confuse Wiglaf and Medred). Josh Keaton of NMFS also weighs in to twist Wiglaf''s flippers over the posting. Admittedly, Wiglaf has been pretty hard on NMFS for not protecting the resources of the GOA. McManman even includes some palaver from Merrick Burden, of MCA, a wholly owned and operated extension of the draggers and processors serving as a thinly guised propaganda service to promote DP interests. Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to respond, but since this is a clumsy attempt to gut our credibility, here goes. I do appreciate that this need to fill two pages in Pathetic Fishing means we hare having some effect, or no one would mention us.
No projections of the Alaska Beauty's catch was made by Wiglaf. Straight off NMFS's report. No application to the fleet was made by Wiglaf; the Alaska Beauty is regularly dirty, owns no IFQ halibut and so is apparently disinterested in taking care of that resource. (Don't you love the way Keaton apologizes for the Alaska Beauty?) We have to wonder though, what happens when Alaska Beauty doesn't have an observer aboard. Keaton says one observed bad tow, NMFS records show there were five. NMFS numbers: 43% of his catch of cod was PSC halibut. Beauty, eh? A black mark on Alaska to be sure.
The fleet-wide catch was officially extrapolated with an approved NMFS model by NMFS number crunchers and published as such. That they adjust these numbers regularly as they feel the pressure by the industry to deflate them or find errors in their methods (are there many?) should be our concern, but we publish as the information surfaces.
As far as to what Craig Medred says (we saw the error in his report), we have little care. Medred is devoutly anti-commercial fishing, and so is hardly an ally, except that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" occasionally makes him useful. Nobody, after all, informed of the horrific bycatch waste in the Gulf of Alaska fails to flinch. And while it is true we all have bycatch, whether pot, longline, seine, troll, jig, gillnet; the fact remains that trawl bycatch is beyond what anybody should tolerate, and while we argue, trawlers are busily degrading the GOA, its habitat and ocean inhabitants. NMFS is comfortable with its own models and sincerely does not have the will to change the modus operandi of GOA trawling. Some say they sincerely don't care. Too much trouble and too much well financed opposition with no political backbone in DC to back them up. Fisheries science is up for sale. Wake up.
"At times the GOA trawl fleet seems more intent on avoiding halibut (PSC bycatch) than actually catching its target species. The fleet voluntarily stood down for three weeks in September because of high (observed) halibut bycatch." Don McManman says. Oh, Don, come on, you are not really that simple are you? They had damn well better be careful. If they exceed the PSC they will be forcibly shut down by Federal law. Their behavior is called self interested self preservation. McManman kisses on...
"The GOA trawl fleet also voluntarily took on 100 percent observer coverage---paid for out of their own pockets---to ensure an accurate and timely count of halibut bycatch." Really? Don, they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts, it is called CYA. A PR ploy that worked on you and didn't cover anymore time than they needed it to, operating as an informal co-op. Part of this was to stopper their 'pirate' or sloppy skippers who can't avoid bycatch because they are too unskilled or impaired. It was also a demonstration of what they could do if we give them the Gulf as IFQ.
Years ago, Al Burch said we had to hang together as commercial fishermen or the greenies and the tree huggers and PETA would hang us all separately. It is a simple argument that has appeal if you are basically distrustful or paranoid, but not if you are more willing take a chance with honesty with the fish consuming public. It is the public's ocean. We need to clear the air, fish as cleanly as we can and change how we catch fish if we need. If dragging is unable to clean up its act, it needs to go the way of the dinosaurs...extinct. That restricting trawlers might affect Pacific Fishing's bottom line, or anyone else's, is meaningless in the long run, and that is what we care about, the future of fishing. We look east of us and see it is mostly gone or a shadow of its former health/wealth. We don't want to look back at the good old days. We want them from here on into the future. You got a problem with that?
Bycatch is an emotional issue, you say? Damn right. To see the future swept away by the lust for profits, to see the passive response of NMFS and the NPFMC to such criminality of wasting this year 1829 metric tons of halibut. One metric ton is 1000 kilograms, so a metric ton is roughly 2205 pounds, so 1829 X 2205 = 4,032,945 pounds. Check that Don. No bullshit.
This is straight off the internet. Try it, you'll like it. And if what we believe is true, this is a fraction compared with what is really being killed off as bycatch in the Gulf. 100% observed trawling for an entire year will get us some ground-truthing of what the real cost to the resource is for complacency over trawl bycatch.
Journalists are dependent on economics to survive. Fishing magazines (all small magazines) are under stress. They need every advertising dime they can garner. The smaller the outfit the more dependent they are on their advertisers. Advertisers hate controversy. It is hard on the bottom line. So most journalists are not very independent, they depend on advertising dollars for their daily bread. Bloggers are not dependent on cash made from their journalism. They can speak the truth as they see fit without the compromise of fearing offending groups (except for violent threats). The blog is a leveler. Wiglaf is saying nothing that hasn't been said before on the docks, but for the first time, you can read it out loud and online. This news can get beyond the shorelines of this little fish town. That shakes things up.
Last. Anonymity is for self protection. What's a name, anyway? Call me Wiglaf. Judge the argument. If you want to get a hold of me, use the comment link, but otherwise don't waste my time.
Keep your flippers wet.
No projections of the Alaska Beauty's catch was made by Wiglaf. Straight off NMFS's report. No application to the fleet was made by Wiglaf; the Alaska Beauty is regularly dirty, owns no IFQ halibut and so is apparently disinterested in taking care of that resource. (Don't you love the way Keaton apologizes for the Alaska Beauty?) We have to wonder though, what happens when Alaska Beauty doesn't have an observer aboard. Keaton says one observed bad tow, NMFS records show there were five. NMFS numbers: 43% of his catch of cod was PSC halibut. Beauty, eh? A black mark on Alaska to be sure.
The fleet-wide catch was officially extrapolated with an approved NMFS model by NMFS number crunchers and published as such. That they adjust these numbers regularly as they feel the pressure by the industry to deflate them or find errors in their methods (are there many?) should be our concern, but we publish as the information surfaces.
 |
| 24 September 2011 |
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car240_psc_halibut.csv
This link has weekly bycatch rates/mortality by area and gear type. (Thanks, GF)
This link has weekly bycatch rates/mortality by area and gear type. (Thanks, GF)
"At times the GOA trawl fleet seems more intent on avoiding halibut (PSC bycatch) than actually catching its target species. The fleet voluntarily stood down for three weeks in September because of high (observed) halibut bycatch." Don McManman says. Oh, Don, come on, you are not really that simple are you? They had damn well better be careful. If they exceed the PSC they will be forcibly shut down by Federal law. Their behavior is called self interested self preservation. McManman kisses on...
"The GOA trawl fleet also voluntarily took on 100 percent observer coverage---paid for out of their own pockets---to ensure an accurate and timely count of halibut bycatch." Really? Don, they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts, it is called CYA. A PR ploy that worked on you and didn't cover anymore time than they needed it to, operating as an informal co-op. Part of this was to stopper their 'pirate' or sloppy skippers who can't avoid bycatch because they are too unskilled or impaired. It was also a demonstration of what they could do if we give them the Gulf as IFQ.
Years ago, Al Burch said we had to hang together as commercial fishermen or the greenies and the tree huggers and PETA would hang us all separately. It is a simple argument that has appeal if you are basically distrustful or paranoid, but not if you are more willing take a chance with honesty with the fish consuming public. It is the public's ocean. We need to clear the air, fish as cleanly as we can and change how we catch fish if we need. If dragging is unable to clean up its act, it needs to go the way of the dinosaurs...extinct. That restricting trawlers might affect Pacific Fishing's bottom line, or anyone else's, is meaningless in the long run, and that is what we care about, the future of fishing. We look east of us and see it is mostly gone or a shadow of its former health/wealth. We don't want to look back at the good old days. We want them from here on into the future. You got a problem with that?
Bycatch is an emotional issue, you say? Damn right. To see the future swept away by the lust for profits, to see the passive response of NMFS and the NPFMC to such criminality of wasting this year 1829 metric tons of halibut. One metric ton is 1000 kilograms, so a metric ton is roughly 2205 pounds, so 1829 X 2205 = 4,032,945 pounds. Check that Don. No bullshit.
 |
| http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car120_goa.pdf |
Journalists are dependent on economics to survive. Fishing magazines (all small magazines) are under stress. They need every advertising dime they can garner. The smaller the outfit the more dependent they are on their advertisers. Advertisers hate controversy. It is hard on the bottom line. So most journalists are not very independent, they depend on advertising dollars for their daily bread. Bloggers are not dependent on cash made from their journalism. They can speak the truth as they see fit without the compromise of fearing offending groups (except for violent threats). The blog is a leveler. Wiglaf is saying nothing that hasn't been said before on the docks, but for the first time, you can read it out loud and online. This news can get beyond the shorelines of this little fish town. That shakes things up.
Last. Anonymity is for self protection. What's a name, anyway? Call me Wiglaf. Judge the argument. If you want to get a hold of me, use the comment link, but otherwise don't waste my time.
Keep your flippers wet.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Proposal: 100% Observer Coverage an All GOA Trawl Vessels for One Year
---
GOA GROUNDFISH TRAWL SUBSECTOR OBSERVER PROPOSAL
Submitted Repeatedly for Six Years
on the Official Record of NPFMC/NOAA Fisheries
D-3 Groundfish Issues and D-5 Staff Tasking-Requesting Placement on the Agenda
Applying National Standards:
NS #1 Issues of rebuilding, optimum yielding, preventing overfishing
NS #2 Best science and providing most current, comprehensive information
NS #3 Close coordinated management
NS #7 Minimize costs (damaged stocks, wasted fuel, etc.)
NS #8 Sustained community participation
NS #9 Minimize bycatch and mortality on non-target species. For multispecies management to maximize net national benefits from Kodiak fisheries
Name of Proposer: Ludger W. Dochtermann
Name of Proposer: Ludger W. Dochtermann
Date: (orig. June 1, 2005) December 7, 2011
Brief Statement of Proposal:
Full (100%) Observer Coverage on All Gulf of Alaska Trawl Vessels for the Year 2012, and once in every 3 years, thereafter. By "Year 2012," I mean "year-1 deployment" - i.e., before any further Rationalization or Catch Share regulations are promulgated. So, inherent in this proposal is a halt to further action until the best (adequate) scientific data is made available.
Objectives of Proposal (What is the problem?):
To accurately evaluate the trawl fishery subsector's entire catch performance regarding the bycatch of non-targeted species and the on-board management conduct of the fishery's prosecution. There us a serious need to have years of full knowledge regarding bycatch for several reasons, not the least of which is for comparison with other years of reduced coverage where the Nation relies upon self-reporting during non-observer hauls.
Need and Justification for Council Action (Why can't the problem be resolved through other channels?):
Due to the nature of the extraordinary value of bycatch-often exceeding the value of targeted species, and due to the nature of massive discards when incidents of "bad hauls" occur, NOAA Fisheries and the Council need a more accurate base, of first data year statistics. Absent the presence of constant recording cameras and other means of improving data collection-and given the need for human confirmation of such 'remote sensing' were it to occur-the 2012 fishery would be a first start in accurate measurement.
Human behavior, swayed by overwhelming economic rewards and absent effective comparison data and enforcement, demands that NOAA base its decisions on more accurate data, and confirm that said behavior is not incorrectly reported when observer coverage is not at 100%. The Council and NOAA are also aware of the uselessness of GOA bycatch data. The OMB needs to review Compliance with Data Quality Act in the self-reporting system.
The recent submittal of pictures of tanner crab bycatch in the Kodiak groundfishery at the June 2009 session clearly demonstrates the need for 100% observer coverage, full time for one base year. The pictures from tholepin.blogspot.com simply reinforce this message. While some have historically considered Bering Sea crab pod encounters to be rare, true or not, around Kodiak, trawlers do fish shallow bays and other grounds that increase the likelihood of pod encounters or are simply dragging through crab abundantly concentrated on the ocean floor.
Foreseeable Impacts of Proposal (Who wins, who loses?):
The recent submittal of pictures of tanner crab bycatch in the Kodiak groundfishery at the June 2009 session clearly demonstrates the need for 100% observer coverage, full time for one base year. The pictures from tholepin.blogspot.com simply reinforce this message. While some have historically considered Bering Sea crab pod encounters to be rare, true or not, around Kodiak, trawlers do fish shallow bays and other grounds that increase the likelihood of pod encounters or are simply dragging through crab abundantly concentrated on the ocean floor.
Foreseeable Impacts of Proposal (Who wins, who loses?):
The program would arguably be costly and operationally inconvenient to many vessels, however government could cover much of the costs in return for the knowledge gained. For the cost of not having full and complete knowledge-at least every 3 years, and at least once in 2012-before creating any further arbitrary resource allocation (property rights shifting) regulations (such as rationalization schemes) may be a grave loss to society and regional economies as heavy impact, intense methods of fishing, i.e. hard on bottom trawling, proceed unabated and unwatched.
The question of 'who loses' has been answered by the profound losses suffered by crab and halibut fishermen unless a 100% observer program for one base year is put in place. Considering that Kodiak was once the 'king crab capital of the world' and its restoration continues to be severely harmed by trawl subsector bycatch incidents, the Council needs this base year to analyze such comparable loses.
The question of 'who wins and who loses' is also moot under the logic that the Public resource is an invaluable asset for the Nation, and no one loses when we all know what are the true conditions of the prosecution of such fisheries. Everyone wins when regulations are based on the best data, and when they follow the National Standards in the Magnuson-Stevens and Sustainable Fisheries Acts, in their spirit and intent-especially when the regulatory process proceeds on science, not politics and greed.
Are there alternative solutions? If so, what are they and why do you consider your proposal the best way of solving the problem?:
Are there alternative solutions? If so, what are they and why do you consider your proposal the best way of solving the problem?:
There is another means of keeping an eye on the prosecution of the fishery, but the cost of having numerous Coast Guard vessels on site, around the clock, along with random boarding fair observer coverage would be much higher than instituting a full coverage year stratification program that operates only once every 3 years.
Supportive Data and Other Information (What data are available and where can they be found?:
This is a complex matter, as NOAA has not had adequate budgets for better research. But the conduct of the trawl fishery and the witnessing of its highly destructive prosecution are well known among NOAA personnel, Alaskan communities, and fishing crews. The Council and NOAA have greater insight on data collection and statistical need, and that could all come out during discussion of this proposal were the Council to specifically request NOAA to go forward with 100% observer coverage in 2012 (or 2013).
I ask you to please take this into discussion on Groundfish Issues, and to make your motion for prioritization of a 100% observer coverage Year 1 deployment, specifically in the GOA trawl sector.
Signature:
Signature:
Ludger W. Dochtermann, F/V North Point, F/V Stormbird- Kodiak, Alaska
Monday, December 5, 2011
Unaccounted for Halibut Mortality Explained?
---
Wiglaf,
Wiglaf,
The announcement by the IPHC that halibut predicted by the stock model have gone missing in following years has led me to think about where they may have gone. When Doug Hoedel was on the NPFMC (and had a huge halibut PSC problem while trawling cod), he said, at an informal meeting in Kodiak, that trawlers needed 8,000 metric tons of halibut for their bycatch needs. Later, at another meeting, Julie Bonney of GFDB repeated the same number. Now I wonder how they both came up with that specific number?
Most people familiar with this fishery realize that the present 2,000 metric ton PSC cap on Gulf trawlers is nearly meaningless due to gaming of the observer program, potential sampling problems, and industry involvement in the generating of bycatch numbers that appear to always lead to reductions. Could it be that the 8,000 metric tons (17,600,000 pounds) of halibut bycatch desired by the GOA trawler is closer to the actual number that they know they catch? If it is true, 6,000 metric tons (13,200,000 pounds) of mortality would be missing from the IPHC management model each year from this one fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. Each year the model would recommend a directed catch that was substantially too high. The next year's survey and directed fishery CPUE data would see this but the model would produce a new harvest goal that was still wrong due to the unaccounted for mortality.
 |
| Unaccounted for bycatch leads to poor modelling by stock managers. |
I would recommend to IPHC director Bruce Leaman that his staff retrospectively run the model calculations with 8,000 metric tons of gulf trawl bycatch to see if the model predictions are corrected. Knowing the magnitude of the "missing" halibut would be a good start to finding them.
Graybeard
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Almost Four Tenths of One Percent Pays Draggers Big Dividends
---
Laine Welch reports all over the 'net that draggers destruction and waste equal warm and delicious fuzzies for the poor and indigent. "Alaska food banks are the beneficiaries of fish taken as bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska thanks to Kodiak fishermen and local processors." And all this positive spin for 3.7 tenths of one percent of the waste of halibut alone. The story goes on to state that 5000 pounds of halibut and chinook bycatch were donated to Kodiak and 10,000 pounds of halibut and salmon bycatch were donated to Anchorage; the rest of the 4.02 million pounds of halibut and the 20, 983 king salmon were destroyed, wasted and lost. No one knows how many kilotons of other species, not named or counted were destroyed, since they don't have name recognition or official value to make it into the NMFS statistical accounts.
For at least the past two weeks very positive news stories have circulated warm fuzzies, making it seem that bycatch has a valuable other side. Contrarily, the magnitude of the outrageous waste and destruction of the public's resources by a small number of trawlers (about 40) has been neglected by the news media, who, lazy and ill informed, take the easy path and report the most simplistic news story. Shame on Laine Welch and all the simpletons who picked up this story. The painful truth remains untold, except maybe here. They don't even need thirty pieces of silver to sell out the Gulf of Alaska, 3.7 tenths of one percent of their waste is enough.
If we make those donated pounds into meals, we get (at 1/2 pound of donated bycatch per meal), about 30,000 meals. Wow, that is a lot of food for the poor. But what remains untold is that at least 7,908,000 meals are dumped and that is just counting this year's reported halibut PSC. Nevermind the salmon, cod, crab, and everything else.
Point. The waste of bycatch in the GOA can not be compensated for by some half ass program to feed poor people (as nice as that is) when the real story is the wholesale destruction of tens of millions of pounds of fish in the GOA. Some of these fish are not valued (like Kodiak and Anchorage's poor?), but they play an important role in the health of the Gulf of Alaska. 3.7 tenths of one percent is all that the draggers need to donate of make a positive spin in the media.
As far as keeping all these fish and feeding the masses, think again, most of the halibut wasted by draggers are very small. You can see them sorted into totes for grinding at our local canneries. Six inches long. Total waste. GroundupFish Data Bunk and friends claim small halibut don't count. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Will Alaska wake up and see the real toll before it is too late for the Gulf? Will the NPFMC do its legal duty to the people of the USA and Alaska and protect these resources? Or will the spin specialists like the Ground(up)fish Data Bank and the 'pugh boys' on GOA draggers destroy one of the last great fishery resources left in the world.
BTW, I hear that NMFS says Wiglaf's figures are not accurate; well of course not, he gets them from NMFS on the web, and NMFS changes them constantly, especially when AGData Bunk calls them, so go figure. And they impugne Wiggy's credibility? Look, almost all NMFS figures are extrapolations based upon few (and far between), skewed and inaccurate observations. If NMFS would become transparent, Wiggy would be forced to get his flippers off this keyboard. He can't wait.
But until that day, Keep Your Flippers Wet,
Laine Welch reports all over the 'net that draggers destruction and waste equal warm and delicious fuzzies for the poor and indigent. "Alaska food banks are the beneficiaries of fish taken as bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska thanks to Kodiak fishermen and local processors." And all this positive spin for 3.7 tenths of one percent of the waste of halibut alone. The story goes on to state that 5000 pounds of halibut and chinook bycatch were donated to Kodiak and 10,000 pounds of halibut and salmon bycatch were donated to Anchorage; the rest of the 4.02 million pounds of halibut and the 20, 983 king salmon were destroyed, wasted and lost. No one knows how many kilotons of other species, not named or counted were destroyed, since they don't have name recognition or official value to make it into the NMFS statistical accounts.
For at least the past two weeks very positive news stories have circulated warm fuzzies, making it seem that bycatch has a valuable other side. Contrarily, the magnitude of the outrageous waste and destruction of the public's resources by a small number of trawlers (about 40) has been neglected by the news media, who, lazy and ill informed, take the easy path and report the most simplistic news story. Shame on Laine Welch and all the simpletons who picked up this story. The painful truth remains untold, except maybe here. They don't even need thirty pieces of silver to sell out the Gulf of Alaska, 3.7 tenths of one percent of their waste is enough.
If we make those donated pounds into meals, we get (at 1/2 pound of donated bycatch per meal), about 30,000 meals. Wow, that is a lot of food for the poor. But what remains untold is that at least 7,908,000 meals are dumped and that is just counting this year's reported halibut PSC. Nevermind the salmon, cod, crab, and everything else.
 |
| Picture removed by Google. Question: Why does a web host or blogging service provider get DMCA takedown notices? Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)m a safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." This safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by materials its users post, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous. |
As far as keeping all these fish and feeding the masses, think again, most of the halibut wasted by draggers are very small. You can see them sorted into totes for grinding at our local canneries. Six inches long. Total waste. GroundupFish Data Bunk and friends claim small halibut don't count. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Will Alaska wake up and see the real toll before it is too late for the Gulf? Will the NPFMC do its legal duty to the people of the USA and Alaska and protect these resources? Or will the spin specialists like the Ground(up)fish Data Bank and the 'pugh boys' on GOA draggers destroy one of the last great fishery resources left in the world.
BTW, I hear that NMFS says Wiglaf's figures are not accurate; well of course not, he gets them from NMFS on the web, and NMFS changes them constantly, especially when AGData Bunk calls them, so go figure. And they impugne Wiggy's credibility? Look, almost all NMFS figures are extrapolations based upon few (and far between), skewed and inaccurate observations. If NMFS would become transparent, Wiggy would be forced to get his flippers off this keyboard. He can't wait.
But until that day, Keep Your Flippers Wet,
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Tanner Crab Quota Cut, NMFS Drags Feet on Regulations, Trawlers Drag on Tanners
As the Kodiak 2012 tanner guideline harvest level is cut some 650,000 pounds as compared to the 2011 season, trawlers continue to drag away on known tanner crab habitat. Of particular concern are vessels like the Golden Fleece whose March 2010 bycatch was particularly inexcusable, reaching over 350 individual tanner crab per metric ton of catch observed. Consider: the capacity of the Golden Fleece is listed by the Alaska CFEC at 6000 cuft (times 64 pounds divided by 2200), or 174 metric tons; the Golden Fleece could have removed as many as 60,900 tanners per trip. While this 350 crab number was observed only for four hauls, the real take is completely obscured, or occulted by the faulty observer system, by the gaming, and by requiring only 30% observer coverage for vessels under 125 feet. Regardless of the actual numbers, to err on the side of caution, when population numbers of species are down, is prudent management.
Spring forward to 2011 data from http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/pscinfo.htm Vessel Specific Bycatch:
In 2010, the NPFMC passed restrictions keeping trawlers off some known critcal tanner bottom in the Kodiak area without full observer coverage, yet the NMFS has not published the regulations putting these new restrictions into effect. The result? More tanner crab get lost to bycatch, fewer crab available for harvest, less money coming into the Kodiak economy, less likely the tanner crab will recover to historical levels, etc.
KYFW.
 |
| Here the Golden Fleece and her cohort, both owned by Wm. Bisbee of South Bend, Washington, drag away on arrowtooth and pollock. This area is a known tanner crab hot spot (halibut too). AIS from 10/29/2011. |
 |
| 2010 data show how devastating trawler hauls on tanners can be. |
 |
| Curiously, the Golden Fleece disappeared from AIS shortly after this screen shot was taken. |
 |
| While the extremes of 2010 data are not found in 2011, nevertheless huge numbers of tanners were observed to be caught by GOA draggers. Golden Fleece here represents three differently dated observations resulting in 24 observed tows. These are the worst offenders in 2011. |
 |
| Golden Fleece and Mar Pacifico position from AIS, on the proposed tanner crab protection area as selected by the NPFMC. What is the delay in implementation? |
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Hammer, Hammer, Hammer the Kings; Trawl Away, Drag Away, Throw Away the Kings
-
Obviously, the draggers don't feel any compunction about dragging away (and throwing away) Alaska's threatened stocks of king salmon. Although the take is half of last week's, it is still an outrage.
 |
| No cap is yet in place for Kings. Although the NPFMC has passed a 25,000 cap of Kings, it does not apply to this year's catch. Kiss your King salmon good bye! http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car120_goa.pdf  http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/pscinfo.htm |
KYFW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
