This is important to the health of the halibut resource and might begin a process to roll back the 2000 metric tons of halibut waste in the Gulf of Alaska. Hey, it could happen. Be informed.
Here is the report: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/halibut_issues/HalibutPSC_510.pdf
Keep yer flippers wet.
Showing posts with label Gulf of Alaska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gulf of Alaska. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
HALIBUT! Rockfish Minority Reports-NPFMC Sitka June 2010
------
"Minority Report (Component 7.3): A seven member minority wanted a maximum rollover of 50% and a six member minority preferred a rollover of 30%. The Rockfish Program claims to reduce halibut bycatch and seafloor contact. The rockfish fishery has achieved these goals. However, if 100% rollover provision of unused halibut prohibited species was rolled over, it would undermine the fundamental intent of MSA (Magnuson Stevens Act) in reducing bycatch, thus something less than a 100% rollover is required. The minority believes that the majority choice of 75% is too high. Bottom trawl time and associated impacts to the habitat have significant impacts to the habitat around Kodiak Island in the fall. In order to provide some level of net benefit to the nation, a portion of halibut savings should truly be realised and left in the water. PSC allocations based on pre-program usage (should be the rule?) A 30% to 50% reduction fulfills commitments to reduce bycatch/halibut impacts while achieving program goals. Signed: Theresa Peterson, Jeff Farvour, Becca Robbins Gisclair, Chuck McCallum, Tim Evers, John Crowley."
------
"Component 16): A minority believes that a hard sunset for the entire rockfish pilot program is important. Both ten year and fifteen year sunsets were supported by the minority. The first line of the problem statement is: "The intent of this action is to retain the conservation, management, safety, and economic gains to the extent practicable..." and it is notable that the program has achieved the benefits of a rationalised fishery without giving away the 'property rights' of the fishery.
"The Rockfish Program began as a two year pilot program which was extended through an act of congress. In complying with the reauthorized MSA is has undergone fundamental changes such as no processor association. This program is part of a piece meal attempt to rationalize fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska in allocating a small rockfish fishery along with valuable secondary species. We have no idea what things will look like tens years down the line; especially with the number of Council agenda items addressing bycatch issues with crab, salmon, and halibut on the horizon. A program duration will create incentives to keep the program working so Council may choose to continue the program and the fleet will not have the expectation that the program will exist in perpetuity.
"All that is required for a limited access program to deliver the benefits of a rationalized program is that there be a meaningful quantifiable limit or a set quota on the amount of fishery resource that can be harvested. The public has zero incentive to design programs in such a way as to maximize the bottom line asset value of the resource quota. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the greater the value of the quota, the greater the negative impact on communities through higher barriers to entry into the fishery Limited program duration can serve to achieve the benefits of rationalization while delivering adequate business stability and trying to keep the barriers to new entrants lower than would otherwise be the case. Signed: Theresa Peterson, Becca Robbins Gisclair, Chuck McCallum."
Keep yer flippers wet.
"Minority Report (Component 7.3): A seven member minority wanted a maximum rollover of 50% and a six member minority preferred a rollover of 30%. The Rockfish Program claims to reduce halibut bycatch and seafloor contact. The rockfish fishery has achieved these goals. However, if 100% rollover provision of unused halibut prohibited species was rolled over, it would undermine the fundamental intent of MSA (Magnuson Stevens Act) in reducing bycatch, thus something less than a 100% rollover is required. The minority believes that the majority choice of 75% is too high. Bottom trawl time and associated impacts to the habitat have significant impacts to the habitat around Kodiak Island in the fall. In order to provide some level of net benefit to the nation, a portion of halibut savings should truly be realised and left in the water. PSC allocations based on pre-program usage (should be the rule?) A 30% to 50% reduction fulfills commitments to reduce bycatch/halibut impacts while achieving program goals. Signed: Theresa Peterson, Jeff Farvour, Becca Robbins Gisclair, Chuck McCallum, Tim Evers, John Crowley."
------
"Component 16): A minority believes that a hard sunset for the entire rockfish pilot program is important. Both ten year and fifteen year sunsets were supported by the minority. The first line of the problem statement is: "The intent of this action is to retain the conservation, management, safety, and economic gains to the extent practicable..." and it is notable that the program has achieved the benefits of a rationalised fishery without giving away the 'property rights' of the fishery.
"The Rockfish Program began as a two year pilot program which was extended through an act of congress. In complying with the reauthorized MSA is has undergone fundamental changes such as no processor association. This program is part of a piece meal attempt to rationalize fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska in allocating a small rockfish fishery along with valuable secondary species. We have no idea what things will look like tens years down the line; especially with the number of Council agenda items addressing bycatch issues with crab, salmon, and halibut on the horizon. A program duration will create incentives to keep the program working so Council may choose to continue the program and the fleet will not have the expectation that the program will exist in perpetuity.
"All that is required for a limited access program to deliver the benefits of a rationalized program is that there be a meaningful quantifiable limit or a set quota on the amount of fishery resource that can be harvested. The public has zero incentive to design programs in such a way as to maximize the bottom line asset value of the resource quota. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the greater the value of the quota, the greater the negative impact on communities through higher barriers to entry into the fishery Limited program duration can serve to achieve the benefits of rationalization while delivering adequate business stability and trying to keep the barriers to new entrants lower than would otherwise be the case. Signed: Theresa Peterson, Becca Robbins Gisclair, Chuck McCallum."
Keep yer flippers wet.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
"Flatfish trawlers cut bottom contact by 90%!"
Can you imagine anyone with even half a brain to make such a statement? Well, the Marine Stewardship Council did, making them almost too preposterous. It is like an absurd comedy. Except it is an outrage. This is an act of intentional deception and truly deserves a lawsuit. MSA has indeed certified filthy flats as a sustainable fishery. By such action they have helped destroy the validity of that very word...sustainable is now most officially a greenwash word, a salesman's pitch, a perversion of truth. It would be laughable if it didn't mean now there is a stronger market potentially for flats and that trawlers will continue to trash the resources around Kodiak with hard on the bottom flat fish trawling. Crab stocks, halibut, corals, and the general benthic habitat will suffer. Until overwhelming pressure by commercial fishermen, charter fishermen, sportfishermen, and the general public are brought to bear upon our representatives in government to call a halt, these destructive practices will continue. Write your letters, friends, speak your mind while we still have some healthy resources left in the Gulf of Alaska to worry about.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
$$$ MSC to Certify Filthy Flats! $$$
---
News is that the Marine Stewardship Council is about to certify GOA flatfish as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable! This is an affront to common sense! Flatfish trawling in Kodiak (GOA) is dirty, dirty, dirty...the worst! Crab bottom, halibut bottom, WTF! 28% halibut death for arrowtooth delivered and this from official NMFS records as witnessed by observers! Filthy Mar Pacifico! A nearly worthless flatfish targeted to get the bycatch and in so doing destroying invaluable halibut.
In the infamous video below you can watch crew sort dead and dying halibut to keep a few flatfish. http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/2009/10/filthy-video-of-halibut-waste.html This is exactly the kind of behavior that MSC is going to certify as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable and worthy of condemnation. Sustainable indeed. How shortsighted can they get? Don't they believe their own eyes?
Obviously this is a $green$ organization. Pay them your $green$ and they will give you anything you want! If these crooks had any conscience, it was purchased long ago. Give it up people...you are totally compromised. I see they are getting this through the door before the observer restructuring can get its legs (although I have serious doubts that we can put an end to the sophisticated gaming that will go on even if it gets restructured).
While I do not have any faith that sense and reason can trump money, let these people know that their British bullshit is just that. We need to pull down the Marine Stewardship Council as corrupt as is the Marine Conservation Alliance, where they probably get some of their money. Certainly MSC is getting their money from the same origins...trawler and processor profits off the destruction of the Gulf of Alaska and elsewhere, where dirty unsustainable fishing practices rule.
Shoot them your emails protesting the certification of GOA flatfish. Outrageous!
objections@msc.org
If you do not send them a message, you can not complain that they did not listen to you. You can be sure that the trawlers will be writing (their bosses will enforce that) as directed by the whitefish trawler association.
Keep yer bloody flippers wet.
News is that the Marine Stewardship Council is about to certify GOA flatfish as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable! This is an affront to common sense! Flatfish trawling in Kodiak (GOA) is dirty, dirty, dirty...the worst! Crab bottom, halibut bottom, WTF! 28% halibut death for arrowtooth delivered and this from official NMFS records as witnessed by observers! Filthy Mar Pacifico! A nearly worthless flatfish targeted to get the bycatch and in so doing destroying invaluable halibut.
In the infamous video below you can watch crew sort dead and dying halibut to keep a few flatfish. http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/2009/10/filthy-video-of-halibut-waste.html This is exactly the kind of behavior that MSC is going to certify as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable and worthy of condemnation. Sustainable indeed. How shortsighted can they get? Don't they believe their own eyes?
Obviously this is a $green$ organization. Pay them your $green$ and they will give you anything you want! If these crooks had any conscience, it was purchased long ago. Give it up people...you are totally compromised. I see they are getting this through the door before the observer restructuring can get its legs (although I have serious doubts that we can put an end to the sophisticated gaming that will go on even if it gets restructured).
While I do not have any faith that sense and reason can trump money, let these people know that their British bullshit is just that. We need to pull down the Marine Stewardship Council as corrupt as is the Marine Conservation Alliance, where they probably get some of their money. Certainly MSC is getting their money from the same origins...trawler and processor profits off the destruction of the Gulf of Alaska and elsewhere, where dirty unsustainable fishing practices rule.
Shoot them your emails protesting the certification of GOA flatfish. Outrageous!
objections@msc.org
If you do not send them a message, you can not complain that they did not listen to you. You can be sure that the trawlers will be writing (their bosses will enforce that) as directed by the whitefish trawler association.
Keep yer bloody flippers wet.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Bycatch News and Analysis-Comment
Bycatch News:
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Observer Shell Game
Note the trawler chaffing gear entangling this Tanner crab. This was a common catch clue in 2009.Tanner crab dumped overboard from our favorite dirty dragger. Unobserved drags such as this are potentially occuring on the 70% of unobserved drags taking place in the central Gulf. Why else go through the efforts to hide catches by using the 'shell game' currently utilized by Kodiak draggers?
Wholesale waste of Kodiak Tanner crab from a local dragger, more than your whole Tanner season!From the Federal Register /Volume 74/Number 188...
"While many vessels operate with an observer as they would without an observer, NMFS suspects that others intentionally alter their fishing pattern to meet minimum observer coverage requirements. Often, these fishing events are not representative of normal fishing duration, location, and depth, and catch composition may vary significantly from that associated with the vessel’s normal, legitimate fishing pattern. These non-representative events bias the observer information NMFS relies on for effective management of the groundfish fisheries.
"While many vessels operate with an observer as they would without an observer, NMFS suspects that others intentionally alter their fishing pattern to meet minimum observer coverage requirements. Often, these fishing events are not representative of normal fishing duration, location, and depth, and catch composition may vary significantly from that associated with the vessel’s normal, legitimate fishing pattern. These non-representative events bias the observer information NMFS relies on for effective management of the groundfish fisheries.
"NMFS’ Office of Law Enforcement has also documented instances in which vessel operators intentionally structure fishing activities to fish unobserved until late in the day, pick up an observer and make a short tow prior to midnight, make one more tow immediately after midnight, and then return the observer to port. Additional fishing activities then occur during the remainder of the second day, during which the observer is not onboard. Under the current regulations, this scenario counts for two ‘‘observer’’ days and may result in biased observer data."
Ya think? This is a well used common dragger ruse. Biased data indeed!
"To reduce the potential for biasing observer data, the proposed rule would revise the definition of ‘‘fishing day’’ at § 679.2 to be a 24-hour period, from 1201 hours A.l.t. through 1200 hours A.l.t., in which fishing gear is retrieved and groundfish are retained. It will require that an observer be on board for all gear retrievals during the 24-hour period in order to count as a day of observer coverage. Days during which a vessel only delivers unsorted codends to a processor will not be considered fishing days, as is currently the case. This revision would reduce the cost effectiveness of making a fishing trip solely to manipulate observer coverage requirements. Revising the definition of the 24-hour period from the current midnight-to-midnight definition (from 0001 hours through 2400 hours Alaska local time) to a noon to noon definition (1201 hours through 1200 hours Alaska local time) is intended to discourage vessels from making sets or tows solely for the purpose of obtaining observer coverage around the transitional hours from one fishing day to the next."
Too little, too late.
I guess, NMFS is sobering up, or at least throwing crumbs to us who have complained for years about the corrupt way trawlers in the Gulf have switched out their observers to escape being caught with their proverbial 'knickers down.' The gripe is, that in paragraph two, NMFS enforcement admits to knowing about cheating, yet they do nothing. The best that can happen is that the clean guys, if there are such, need to stop stonewalling with the dirty guys and speak up for the truth about the bycatch and wanton waste of our ocean resources. Or better yet just negotiate out of trawling into a cleaner gear type. Gear conversion, baby. The North Pacific Ocean is the last bastion of dirty fishing. It has to go. Come clean.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
