Stop Guided Sport Fishing Individual Fishing Quotas
For Halibut in Alaska - A Public Taking
Under the IFQ (Individual Fishing Quota) proposal that the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) is "fast
tracking", halibut sport fisherman that don't own their own
boats will pay much more money to go halibut fishing in the
future. Sport fisherman that don't own their own boats, can't
afford to own boats, don't have the confidence to run a boat
in the North Pacific, or chose to use a charter service for
whatever reason will have to pay the charter operator for the
right to fish in the future if this IFQ program goes through
because they effectively won't own the fish they catch
anymore! IFQ's mean that the halibut charter operator will be
given ownership of the public halibut resource and you will
essentially have to buy the fish you catch from them! A
reasonable estimate is that this extra "IFQ" cost will result
in a new $1.00lb cost for every pound of halibut you catch on
a charter vessel. If the prospect of a new economic barrier
bothers you, read on!
The NPFMC is charged with making recommendations to the
Secretary of Commerce concerning the management of public
fisheries resources in the North Pacific. In 1995, after
years of controversy, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce approved
awarding "fishing privileges" to commercial halibut fisherman
(defined as boat owners). Every Alaskan costal community as
well as Anchorage and Fairbanks went on record in opposition
to this program but the Secretary of Commerce approved it
anyway. A "fishing privilege" is not a property right - it
allows commercial fisherman to temporarily use a public
resource that isn't being utilized by citizens.
An IFQ (or ITQ - Individual Transferable Quota) is known as
an Individual Fishing Quota. The National Marine Fisheries
Service handed out these permits in 1995 to commercial
fisherman based on their average commercial halibut landings
from three of the six qualifying years from 1985-1990. For
example, if your landings averaged 1000lbs for those years,
then you got IFQ's that allow you to catch 1000 lbs every
year. If you don't want to fish anymore, you can sell them to
someone else and keep the money. The annual 1000lb catch is
adjusted every year based on the overall halibut stock
condition - so your quota can change over time. The total
value of the 1995 IFQ program was worth in excess of 2
billion dollars - and it was given away for free. Many
commercial fishing companies (that owned the boats) and
individual boat owners became instant millionaires! Crewman
that helped all the vessel owners catch all the fish that
were used as a basis for awarding IFQ's were left out in the
cold. One of the largest quota shares (worth several million
dollars) was awarded to four Anchorage lawyers who never
fished a day in their lives! They saw the IFQ program coming,
bought a fishing boat and hired a crew and skipper. They were
the "vessel owners" so they got the IFQ's. The 1995 IFQ
program was authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There
has been so much public opposition to the program that
Congress put a moratorium on any future programs. The
moratorium is set to expire in October 2002. The NPFMC claims
they can go ahead with the 2001 sport IFQ program because it
is an extension of the 1995 commercial IFQ program and not a
"new" program.
IFQ's are not considered to be property, strange as that
might seem. They are defined as a fishing privilege because
Congress can revoke them without compensation per the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. But they certainly are property because
they have monetary value, can be bought and sold, and can
even be used as collateral for loans! There has never been a
serious legal challenge as to whether or not IFQ's are
property, so they remain in force. The commercial fishing
industry certainly believes they are property and often refer
to IFQ's as having "privatized" the public fisheries resource
- the rhetoric is so common that even the public apparently
believes it. Several years ago, the Internal Revenue Service
started to seize IFQ (and other fishing permits) as
"property" in bankruptcy proceedings. An Alaskan Congressman
succeeded in changing the bankruptcy rules as a way to
sidestep the property issue and avoid having the IRS pursue a
court ruling on the question. IFQ's were moved into a status
that the government can't seize in bankruptcy proceeding -
just like a calculator and filing cabinet is to a bankrupt
accountant - they need these items to make a living and pay
the government back the owed taxes. The IRS dropped the
lawsuit after Congress changed the tax code. Of course, if
the Federal Courts were to ever rule that IFQ's are property,
it would invalidate the 1995 IFQ program.
Who Is Steering the Ship?
The Alaska Sportfish Council is promoting the sport halibut
IFQ proposal to the NPFMC. Of course, these same people will
benefit tremendously from IFQ's. Mr. Bob Ward has been a
leading proponent and a member of the NPFMC advisory panel.
He is a Homer, Alaska charter operator and commercial halibut
longliner. His clients landed over 900 halibut during each of
the 1998 and 1999 seasons. The number of halibut landed by
clients is part of the basis that would be used to award
IFQ's. The sport fishing IFQ proposal that the NPFMC is
advancing could result in Mr. Ward receiving approximately
21,000 lbs (in all fairness, the exact details haven't been
finalized so this figure is based on one of the recently
approved final draft proposals) of halibut IFQ's worth likely
in excess of $200,000. Other members of the Alaska Sportfish
Council would receive similar amounts. A few large fishing
resorts could receive in excess of $1,000,000 of IFQ's. The
Alaska Sportfish Council purports to "support public access
for recreational uses", yet they support IFQ's! Don't depend
on the Alaska charter industry to "do the right thing" and
protect your sport fishing rights and access. They won't -
there is too much money at stake! They are doing the wrong
thing for recreational fisherman!
The NPFMC is composed primarily of commercial fishermen whom
take an oath of office "to protect and safeguard the public
interest". Of course, they only look out for there own
commercial interest. An analogy would be that we could have a
North Pacific Forest Management Council that was composed of
commercial users such as loggers, dam builders, miners, and
timber mill owners. How do you think they would manage out
Public forests? Of course, the public would cry foul, yet
this is the norm in the federal fisheries arena.
The real issue is that commercial fisherman view IFQ's as
property (they think they own the fish!) and want to be
compensated monetarily if America's population grows and more
people sport fish. This will happen in the future because the
plan several years out is to allow charter operators to buy
1995 commercial longline IFQ's so they can expand their
business if they desire. The percentage of the total halibut
landed in Alaska by commercial longliners increased from 80%
of the total harvest in 1996 to 89% in 2000 (35,000,000
pounds landed in 1996 versus 57,000,000 pounds landed in
2000)! During this same time, the sport harvest decreased
from 20% in 1996 to 11% of the total catch in 2000 (6,900,000
pounds landed in 1996 versus 6,700,000 pounds landed in
2000). Yet they are concerned about the growing guided sport
harvest???!!! What is wrong with this picture? Who has
grown?
Summary
IFQ's are inappropriate for recreational fishing. IFQ's
privatize a public resource and charter operators are neither
commercial nor recreational fisherman. Charter operators are
service providers - not fisherman. They provide the
transportation and local know-how for citizens to access and
harvest their own public halibut resource. It is unfair to
the public to separate guided from unguided sport fishing and
this is the effect of this sport IFQ program. Citizens that
either don't own boats, can't afford to, or don't have the
local know-how will be economically penalized by this IFQ
program. It will result in a situation where guided sport
fisherman effectively (if not legally as well) won't own the
halibut they catch on a chartered vessel. Since IFQ's are
treated as property rights, the sport fisherman will have to
either buy their halibut catch from the charter operator or
initially pay more to fish. This is because the charter
operator that buys IFQ's will have to amortize this cost as a
business expense and pass it on to the sport fisherman. It's
the same either way. Every U.S. citizen has ownership of our
public halibut resource with the right to access and harvest
by simply buying a sport fishing license. IFQ's for guided
sport will penalize major sections of the U.S. population -
those that lack a sufficient size boat or any boat at all,
money, experience, and boat operating skill. Young and older
sport fisherman will be especially negatively impacted since
they are more likely to use a charter service. Public access
will have a new economic barrier. Guided and unguided anglers
will be treated differently. IFQ's are not in the public
interest!
The NPFMC could easily reduce the sport harvest with existing
tools already in place such as implementing charter
moratoriums (where needed to avoid over crowding), adjusting
season lengths and bag limits, and adopting local area
management plans or harvest limits. They shouldn't be
recommending giving away the public fishery resources via
IFQ's to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
What Should Sportfisherman Do to Stop this Public IFQ
Giveaway?
Write everyone you know who likes to fish. If you are a
member of a sport-fishing group, have your group write a
letter in opposition. Send your friends this letter as an
explanation of the issue. Send letters to Governor Tony
Knowles (he supports sport IFQ's) local Congressman,
Secretary of Commerce, NPFMC, newspaper outdoor editors. Send
this letter around on the Internet. Oppose this IFQ program.
The NPFMC is planning to approve the IFQ plan at the April 8,
2001 meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. Comments must be received
by the end of March. The only way to stop it after they
approve it is at the Secretary of Commerce level. Addresses
follow:
Secretary of Commerce
15th St. & Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20230
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
State of Alaska
605 West 4th, Suite 306
Office of the Governor
Anchorage, AK 99501-2252
P.O. Box 1100011
Fax 907 271 2817
State of Alaska
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 1100011
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Fax 907 465 3532
|