Groundfish IFQ's discussed, Oregonian

craigc · 10-30-2003, 12:26 PM

It would great if all the details were printed for everyone's review. Until the details are shown, most proposals can be interpreted in favor of a specific vested interest. That's a favorate way to market an idea in politics... I would speculate that one of the biggest problems would be enforcement. Unless there is an economical method to monitor all the top side activities on a trawler on the high seas, the captain can always choose to shovel the by catch over the side of the boat. I doubt the industry would be willing to purchase the monitoring equipment, and then you have the enlargement of government to manage the system.

I like the general concept, but the difficult task would be 1] creating rules without loopholes, 2] would reduce the amount of groundfish caught while forcing the by-catch to be put on the market for sale, 3]that is enforceable and 4]would be paid for by the industry[unless the 'people' want to be tax'd for one more service]... imho...

CAPT KUJO · 10-30-2003, 05:23 PM

Everything still gets killed! I see it solving nothing productive. Just ban the Tollers

Metal Manipulator · 10-30-2003, 06:28 PM

Looks to me that they the trollers admit the destructive actions caused by the commercial trollwlers. It doesn't appear to me to even slow down the kill of specific declining stock of paticular species. If they keep it up the will fish themselves and us right off the ocean. :whazzup:

fishwhenican · 10-30-2003, 06:45 PM

Capt Kujo, I presume you meant trawlers, not trollers. Trollers have always been fairly selective in the species targeted and they lose gear when it gets drug on the bottom.

The issue is too many commercial fisherman and too few fish. Indicriminate waste is ridiculous, they need to change fishing methods to reduce waste. They (the rule makers) say don't catch it, but you can't see it, if you do catch it drop its dead carcass into the sea because you can't keep it! It would be very difficult to make a career change mid-life, but how else do we "thin" the ranks of commercial fisherman? Then the ones that are left could make a decent living.

I'm sure most of the fisherman feel bad when dumping dead fish over the side. Kind of like a 24" min. on Ling cod. Try to measure them before you spear them!

10-30-2003, 08:03 PM

Bottom trawlers destroy the habitat.
As far as IFQ's go, it makes it safer for them to fish.

Pilar · 10-30-2003, 11:46 PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...oregonian?lcen

By Joe Rojas-Burke.

What do you guys think? Is individual fishing quotas the way to go?

kenai · 10-30-2003, 11:58 PM

As I understand it, it doesnt address the main problem. The use of trawl nets that damage habitat and are very non selective.

KeyWest · 11-01-2003, 08:05 PM

I see in the Oregonian today that they did a buy-out program. Retired a 1/2 of the west coast trawl fleet, 1/3 of the Oregon fleet. What is interesting about this buy out is that those that remain fishing agree to pay for the buy out over the next 30 years so it is cost neutral to the tax payer - good program. Buy out programs in the past have been funded by tax payers. Total cost of this buy-out was $45 MM.

The Nature Conservency has been fairly successful in purchasing land in an effort to preserve habitat. Just a thought - if IFQ's were set in stone - meaning a licence got an allocation regardless of thier actual catch, there might be an opportunity for a similiar type conservency to take control of the IFQ's - such as a sport fishing group. Again, just a thought, but...

Sensei-san · 11-02-2003, 02:30 PM

Funny that IFQ's are surfacing now that the Bush adminstration has gotten rid of the former Clinton appointees to NOAA and NFWS. Oregon's rep on the PFMC was removed from the PFMC because of this issue. His take was that IFQ's are just making a natural resource, groundfish like federal timber that belong to all of us, a commodity that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder with all of them eventually belonging to the company with the most capital.

Nah.. I see it as a way for the corporations to own everything. The devil is in the details. Will IFQ's come with a market share provision? I doubt it. Better to have a catch limit with restrictions on method of take and seasons than selling off our heritage as free people and fishermen. Just look at farmers... Does the family farmer have a chance against the argibusiness giants that sell him everything and only buy at the price they set????

KeyWest · 11-03-2003, 06:56 PM

Good point - an angle I hadn't thought of.

Mark Mc · 11-03-2003, 07:20 PM

Just look at halibut IFQs in Alaska. Even the sport allocations are divied up by IFQ. Even if you are a resident of Alaska, you can not just go out in your own boat and catch a halibut. You have to go on a charter boat that owns an IFQ. It is common knowledge that many of the sport IFQs were bought up by high-income lawyers & business folks in Anchorage.

Maybe a bit off topic since this started with commercial IFQs.

So what do y'all think about the processor's arguement that he should have access to IFQs because he has invested so much capital in his plant?

craigc · 11-04-2003, 09:34 AM

I would like to think the intent of the IFQ is to limit the catch of any one species, or in aggregate. I'd speculate the processor is motivated to purchase an IFQ to ensure they have on-going access to fish that represents revenue to their company. The company would probably resell their IFQ at a discount to someone that would agree to a contract with the processor. So the processor, as with the remaining west coast fishing industries are primarily trying to protect their current investment. I don't remember the public promising the commercial fishing industry an unexhaustable seafood supply, and I don't believe anyone has a right to an IFQ; they took their investment chances in creating their business, like we take our chances working for a company, government, or ourselves.

The fishing industry is not like raising cattle or chickens, as hard as certain segments[ farm raised] are trying to grow. The harvesting of seafood should not be considered an unlimited resource. If there's going to be IFQs, I'd like to the IFQs be for total catch with nothing thrown back. If the general public can't find the specific kind of seafood they want, they can pick from what is available. If they don't like what's available, they can purchase something elese. Seafood retailers/industry should NOT expect to be selling seafood at the same price/pound as chicken and beef. Either way, I think we have got to stop shoveling the by-catch back into the ocean... it's a crying shame....