Original article here: :http://mariners.coastguard.dodlive.mil/2017/01/09/completed-voluntary-safety-initiatives-good-marine-practices-commercial-fishing-vessels/
Posted by LT Katie Braynard, Monday, January 9, 2017
This is a repost: original article written by Jack Kemerer, chief of the Fishing Vessels Division, Coast Guard Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance
On July 20, 2016, Coast Guard Headquarters Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC) posted a notice about the Marine Safety Information Bulletin 11-16 that provided clarifying information on the suspension of development of an Alternate Safety Compliance Program (ASCP), and instead, initiating the development of an Enhanced Oversight Program (EOP).
On November 4, 2016, the Coast Guard announced the release and availability of a working version of the “Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices for Commercial Fishing Vessels.” These good marine practices for older fishing vessels replace the ASCP and EOP voluntary safety guidelines.
Today, the Coast Guard is releasing and making available the revised and completed version of the “Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices for Commercial Fishing Vessels.” Subsequent to the release of the working version of the document in November 2016, the Coast Guard received feedback, comments, and recommendations from several fishing associations and other interested parties. Those responses were considered and incorporated into the revised version where recommended. This document may still be revised when warranted if additional feedback is received by the Coast Guard. This document lists safety initiatives and good marine practices as a starting point that in no way precludes fleets or organizations from modifying them into a specific safety program for their specific fleet. Those parties are encouraged to work with the Coast Guard on developing such programs. This is a living document and as a voluntary guideline will be used as a foundation to continuously develop safety initiatives and document good marine practices to benefit the safety of all U.S. commercial fishing vessels.
As previously discussed with the fishing industry at numerous events and meetings, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 and the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2012 (“the Acts”) extended classification requirements from only fish processing vessels to certain other Commercial Fishing Vessels (CFVs). Since most existing CFVs were not built to classification society rules, nor would such older vessels be accepted for classification due to their age and original non-class construction, the Acts included a provision to develop an Alternate Safety Compliance Program (ASCP) for such vessels. An ASCP was to be developed in cooperation with industry by January 1, 2017 and implemented by January 1, 2020.
The ASCP provision in the Acts would require older vessels to meet safety measures in addition to existing safety requirements found in 46 CFR Part 28, and the proposed rules published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016. However, without existing requirements for these older vessels already in place in regulations, an alternate to the standard could not be developed. Thus, in order to require new or additional safety requirements for older vessels, a rulemaking process is required. Therefore, the Coast Guard suspended development of ASCP standards as previously socialized. Such additional safety requirements will be considered in a future rulemaking project.
Instead, using feedback and recommendations from meetings with industry on ASCP development, the Coast Guard is providing these voluntary safety initiatives and good marine practices that need to be embraced by the industry. These safety measures should be implemented on non-classed fishing vessels where possible and reasonable. Coast Guard personnel will discuss these measures with owners/operators during dockside safety examinations and at-sea boardings. The safety measures and practices contained in this document should be focused primarily toward fishing vessels 50 feet or greater in length, operating beyond three nautical miles from shore, and that are more than 25 years of age. However, these safety initiatives and good marine practices should be considered for ALL commercial fishing vessels where reasonable and practicable. We hope that all fishing vessel owners and operators will embrace these good marine practices. Coast Guard personnel will discuss these measures with owners/operators during dockside safety examinations and at-sea boardings and inquire if any have been implemented on the vessel.
Although the Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices were developed as baseline practices for all vessels to adopt, individual fleets may consider modification of some of these measures as some of the practices may not necessarily apply in all types of fisheries and operating situations. Fishing organizations representing specific fleets are encouraged to work with the Coast Guard’s District Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinators for their region to determine the measures in the good marine practices that may, or may not, be applicable to their fleet. A fleet-specific safety initiative with good marine practices may also be considered in the future, if found beneficial.
The commercial fishing industry may continue and is encouraged to provide feedback through their local Coast Guard dockside fishing vessel examiner or District Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinators. The Coast Guard appreciates the engagement and participation of industry in this process, and looks forward to continued collaboration as these safety initiatives and good marine practices are considered and implemented by the industry.
Note: All previous versions of a draft “ASCP” are null and void; and this completed version of Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices for Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels, dated January 2017, is the current version that should be referenced when providing comments, feedback,or recommendations to the Coast Guard.
This blog is not a replacement or substitute for the formal posting of regulations and updates or existing processes for receiving formal feedback of the same. Links provided on this blog will direct the reader to official source documents, such as the Federal Register, Homeport and the Code of Federal Regulations. These documents remain the official source for regulatory information published by the Coast Guard.
ASMI Market Report for Black Cod and Halibut
ASMI recently released a report summarizing harvest and market trends for Alaskan halibut and black cod in 2016. They describe an increase in both harvest volume and wholesale price for halibut, and record export prices/harvest lows for black cod.
Read the report here.
Comment on Municipal Halibut QS
Please find below a letter from ALFA director Linda Behnken stating ALFA's view on the recently proposed Municipal Quota Entity, which would allow the city of Sitka to buy and lease halibut quota.
Dear Sitka Assembly Members,
I understand that a proposal will be introduced on January 24th for consideration by the City Assembly that would allow Sitka to petition for authorization to purchase quota share and lease that quota to longline or “rod and reel” fishermen. As I believe you have been told, January 24th coincides with the annual meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) in Victoria, BC, hence many ALFA members will be out of town, myself included. I regret that I will not be able to address the Assembly on this proposal in person, but wanted to provide some background and comment with this letter.
At this point, the goals and details of this proposal are not clear to me. I am not sure if the proposer’s goal is to reallocate halibut quota from the commercial to the charter sector or to allow the City of Sitka to invest in halibut quota for use by commercial fishermen. It is also not clear to me whether or not the Assembly understands that Sitka currently does not qualify to purchase halibut quota, hence would have to request a regulation change in order to purchase and hold halibut quota. Whatever the details, the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA) opposes the proposal as we currently understand it. By way of explaining that opposition, I provide the following background.
Halibut Management 101
As many of you know, fisheries management is complicated with multiple agencies and overlapping jurisdictions. No fishery is more complicated than the halibut fishery. Halibut is managed under an international treaty with Canada, with the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) charged under the Halibut Act with conserving halibut stocks and optimizing yield from the directed fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (“Council”) is responsible for allocating halibut between user groups and with managing the groundfish fisheries that take halibut as bycatch. Unlike other fisheries, the longline halibut fishery is managed in both state and federal waters by the IPHC and the NPFMC; the State of Alaska does not have jurisdiction over halibut but does assist with monitoring the sport and charter halibut fisheries.
As some of you remember, during the 1980s effort in the halibut fishery created short, intense and dangerous halibut “derbies.” To end the derbies, the Council implemented Individual Fishing Quotas in 1995. The Council’s goals were to improve safety, reduce gear loss and waste, lengthen the halibut season and improve product quality, but to do this while controlling fleet consolidation and preserving the small boat, independent operator nature of the halibut fishery. As designed and implemented, the IFQ program limits how much quota an individual may fish and how much quota may be fished from any one boat; the program also established vessel size classes, which prevent quota initially issued to small boats from ever being harvested on large boats. Most importantly, the quota program requires second generation quota share (QS) holders to be “real” people—not corporations, non-profits or municipalities— and to have a history of participating in commercial fisheries in a harvesting capacity. The Council took these steps to prevent corporations from dominating the QS market, because Council members recognized the importance of supporting Alaska’s independent communitybased fishermen and that these community-based fishermen would need an affordable entry level to these fisheries now and in the future. The Council did not award quota to deckhands, but did provide this path to ownership for those who work on deck in these fisheries.
Community/Municipal QS Ownership
The Council made three exceptions to the “real” people rule: 1) because fishermen in western Alaska communities had not yet established themselves in the halibut fisheries, the Council issued community development quota (CDQs) to non-profit community-based organizations in the Bering Sea; 2) some years after implementation of the IFQ program, the Council authorized Gulf of Alaska communities with less than 1500 residents that were off the road system to form community-based non-profit entities (Community Quota Entities, or CQEs) and purchase quota share because the Council observed that QS was being sold out of these communities; and, 3) the Council allocated approximately 10% of the initial quota to existing corporations based on their historic operations as corporations, and allowed this quota (designated as “A” shares) to be purchased by corporations and entities in the future. CDQ groups have leveraged initial allocations of halibut, sablefish, Pollock, crab and flatfish to purchase more quota; CQEs have made little progress toward quota share ownership because the high cost of quota has proven to be a significant obstacle; “A” shares are seldom on the market and sell for a premium price when they do become available.
Since the halibut/sablefish QS program was implemented, the number of QS holders has declined substantially and the number of boats participating in the fisheries has been reduced by half. The price of quota has risen from $5 per pound of halibut individual fishing quota to over $60 per pound. Over 65% of the people who now hold quota have purchased some or all of the quota they currently hold. Commercial fishermen have borrowed and invested heavily to participate in the halibut fisheries. Sitka fishermen are no exception. In fact, more quota share is held by Sitka residents now than when the QS program was implemented in 1995. The same is true of Petersburg and a few other larger Alaska communities. The smaller communities, those that are struggling to form CQEs, have experienced a significant net loss of halibut quota.
The Council recently conducted a 15-year review of the halibut/sablefish program. The review considered the success of the program in meeting initial program goals. The review concluded that the program had met conservation, safety and marketing goals, but more work was needed to support independent fishermen and entry level opportunities. We agree completely with these findings. As I described to the Assembly last summer, ALFA helped launch the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust (ASFT) some years ago to assist deckhands and entry level fishermen with accessing the halibut fishery. We are in the process of capitalizing the ASFT to take to scale our investment model, but in brief: ASFT will provide bridge financing to qualified young fishermen; the bridge financing will allow local fishermen and others who care about sustainable community-based fisheries to share the risk and entry level costs of QS purchase and provide new entrants with an affordable path to QS ownership. In sum, we share the Assembly’s goal of investing in sustained fishery access for Sitka fishermen; what we do not share and cannot support is an initiative that advocates for changes to existing halibut regulations that allow more “entities” to purchase and hold halibut quota.
Our reasons for opposing changes to the owner-operator regulations are two-fold: 1) entities generally have better access to capital and their entry into the QS market will further inflate already high halibut QS prices, making it that much more difficult for Alaska’s community-based fishermen to afford access; and 2) in our experience, independent community-based fishermen are community and industry leaders; they are also strong advocates for ocean health and sustainable fisheries. Independence is one of the most important values shared by our members and small boat fishermen across the state and country. ALFA looks to support, not undermine our coastal residents with gaining access. With the CDQ and CQE programs already in place, the missing piece is support for individual fishermen, and that is the piece ASFT, with ALFA’s help, is designed to address. We welcome the City of Sitka’s support for this work; we DO NOT support the City of Sitka lobbying for additional entry into the QS market of new “entities,” municipal or otherwise.
Reallocation
ALFA’s reasons for opposing the reallocation of commercial halibut quota to the charter sector may be obvious to the Assembly—when quota is reallocated away from the strongly Alaska commercial halibut fleet, commercial deckhands, processors, supports sectors, and the millions of Americans who access halibut through restaurants and grocery stores suffer-- but perhaps more background would be helpful here as well.
Until 2009, harvest by the growing halibut charter sector was deducted from the total allowable catch of halibut in each halibut management area before the catch limit for the directed commercial fishery was set. As a result, increased charter harvest led to pound for pound decreases in commercial fishermen’s individual fishing quota. Given the substantial investment commercial fishermen were—and are—making to purchase halibut quota, this reallocation imposed unacceptable costs and inequities. After 20 years of controversy, the Council finally addressed the inequity, first by assigning a Guided Harvest Level to the charter sector and later with a halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP). The CSP ties both sectors to the same index of abundance and allows individual charter operators to lease a small amount of quota from commercial fishermen to provide increased harvesting opportunity to charter clients. This leasing provision is called the Guided Angler Fish (GAF) program. Because some charter operators were dissatisfied with the cost of leasing GAF, they proposed yet another reallocation scheme called the Recreational Quota Entity (RQE). The RQE, which was approved by the Council in December 2016, allows the charter sector to form a non-profit entity authorized to purchase commercial halibut quota for use by the charter sector, creating yet another exception to the owner-operator principles of the halibut QS program. RQE proponents hope to charge either all sport halibut fishermen or halibut charter clients a fee to cover the cost of purchasing halibut quota, creating a revenue stream to fund yet another reallocation and upward pressure on the halibut QS market.
Summary
Hopefully this background allows you to understand the strong and negative response you have received from Sitka halibut fishermen who have heard about the municipal quota entity proposal. Sitka’s commercial halibut fishermen worked hard to secure a QS program that protects independent community-based fishermen. We worked even harder to protect the Southeast resource from the habitat destruction wrought by trawlers. We fought to protect the halibut resource from bycatch and we worked hard to protect our investments in halibut quota share from reallocation to an insatiable charter sector. We have watched CDQs, CQEs and now RQEs authorized in contradiction to the owner-operator characteristic of the halibut fishery, and each authorization has driven halibut quota prices relentlessly higher. At this point, scant space remains for independent community-based fishermen, and we are doing all we can to hold that space by taking to scale our Fisheries Trust. We would welcome the City’s support of the Trust.
As you may know, ALFA was recognized last fall by President Obama’s administration for our work promoting sustainable fisheries in general and the next generation of small boat fishermen in particular. We are on your side in promoting Sitka’s future in fisheries. We cannot support creation of yet another entity that will compete with local fishermen for halibut quota, and we will strongly oppose a municipal entity that purchases commercial halibut quota for reallocation to largely non-resident charter clients.
I hope this background helps you to understand the position of our organization on the municipal quota entity proposal. Again, I will be out of town when the Assembly addresses this proposal in January, but I would be happy to talk to or meet with any Assembly members before that date to discuss this issue. Please feel free to contact me through our office in the Sitka Sound Science Center or by calling my cell (907-738-3615). Thank you for your time and your service to Sitka on the Assembly.
Sincerely,
Linda Behnken, Executive Director, ALFA
ALFA Office Closed- Under Construction!
Our office at the Sitka Sound Science Center is under construction, and ALFA staff will be working from home until the renovations are complete. We expect to be back in the building sometime next week and will send an email out to members when we have more information.
NPFMC Authorizes Charter Purchase of Halibut Quota
In a dark day for Alaska’s small boat halibut fishery and the next generation of commercial halibut fishermen, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) today authorized formation of a non-profit Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) that can purchase and hold commercial halibut quota in Areas 2C and 3A for use by the charter sector.
The Council took this action despite strong opposition from commercial fishermen and processors, Gustavus coastal residents, and the National Park Service at Glacier Bay, all of whom weighed in to oppose the subsidized reallocation of quota from the commercial to the charter sector. Details of the decision are below, but for the record the only Alaskan to vote against the action was Buck Laukitis. He was joined by Oregon and Washington representatives Roy Hyder and Kenny Downs. Council chair Dan Hull and ADFG Commissioner Sam Cotton spoke in strong support of the RQE amendment.
Council final action on Charter Recreational Quota Entity
- Establish an RQE as a qualified non-profit entity registered with the IRS to purchase and hold commercial halibut QS for the guided halibut sector.
- Establish one RQE with two quota pools, one in each Area 2C and Area 3A
- Allow two way transfers. Quota class and block designation is retained if the quota is transferred back to the commercial sector.
- Annual limit on transfers to the RQE in each regulatory area are 1% in Area 2C and 1.2% in Area 3A (amounts based on 2015 QS pool)
Total (cumulative) limit on amount of commercial quota share held by RQE and leased under GAF:
10% of the 2015 commercial QS pool may be held as RQE and Guided Angler Fish (GAF) combined in Area 2C and 12% of the commercial QS pool may be held as RQE and GAF combined in Area 3A
Cumulative cap will be managed annually on a sliding scale between RQE and GAF, with GAF transfers restricted to accommodate RQE QS holdings.
The RQE may not purchase more than 10% of the D shares in Area 2C (annually and in total) and not more than 10% of the B shares in Area 2C. The RQE may not purchase any D shares
No D shares in Area 3. No more than 10 percent D or 10 percent B shares in 2C
The RQE may not purchase blocked QS that equates to less than less than or equal to 1500 pounds in 2015 pounds.
Use RQE QS holdings as of October 1 each year as the basis to estimate IFQ pounds to add to the estimated guided recreational allocation under the catch sharing plan for the upcoming year. This amount must be maintained for the following fishing year. This estimated combined allocation would be used to recommend the guided recreational harvest measure for the following year.
If the RQE holdings provide a charter harvest opportunity greater than the unguided recreational bag limit in either area, NMFS would not issue annual IFQ in excess of the amount needed for the charter sector to obtain the unguided recreational bag limit to the RQE for that area. (This is VERY unlikely in Area 2C; could happen in Area 3A)
Unallocated RQE IFQ would be reallocated as follows:
- 50% to all catcher vessel QS holders in the applicable area who do not hold more than 32,333 QS units in Area 2C and 47,469 units in Area 3A (2,000 pounds in 2015). This 50% redistributed among qualified QS holders proportional to their QS holdings.
- 50% equally among all CQEs that held halibut QS in the applicable Area in the year prior to the reallocation. If no CQE held QS in the applicable area in the preceding year, unallocated RQE IFQ would not be allocated in that area (left in the water).
The Council envisions the RQE will use funds primarily for the acquisition of commercial halibut quota, halibut conservation/research; promotion of the halibut resource; and administrative costs. Council intends the RQE resources not be involved in political campaigns.
RQE organizational structure:
To be approved as an entity eligible to purchase and hold commercial halibut QS, the RQE must submit articles of incorporation and management organizational information to NMFS, including 1) bylaws and 2) a list of key personnel including, but not limited to, the board of directors, officers, representatives and managers. In addition:
- A representative of the Alaska Department of Revenue may sit as an ex-officio member of the RQE board, and the Commissioner of ADFG, or their designee, may sit as a voting member of the RQE board.
- The RQE shall file an annual report detailing RQE activities during the prior year by January 31. The annual report shall be provided to the Council and shall include:
1) List of all purchases and sales of QS
2) Any changes to the bylaws from the preceding year
3) Any changes to the BOD or key personnel from the preceding year
4) Number of charter halibut permits purchased or held
5) Funds spent on conservation, research and promotion of the halibut resource and a summary of the results
6) Administrative expenses.
Big thanks to Jeff Farvour, Carina Nichols and Dan Falvey who travelled to Anchorage to testify. We could have use about 80 more commercial fishermen at the meeting.
Thank you also to Carter Hughes, who testified for Seafood Producers Cooperative, Jim Machovjak who testified for Gustavus-based fishermen, Rhonda and Jim Hubbard of Kruzof Fisheries, Matt and Malcolm Milne, from North Pacific Fisheries Association, Megan O'Neil, from PVOA, and to Tom Gemmell of the Halibut Coalition, who kept the troops organized and well-informed.
More to follow soon once the Council takes action on electronic monitoring....
UAS Offers Spring Fisheries Courses
The Fisheries Technology Program housed at the University of Alaska Southeast is offering several courses open to degree and non-degree seeking students, including:
- Fisheries of Alaska
- Fisheries Management Techniques
- Fisheries Biology
- Salmon Culture
- Fisheries Management, Law, and Economics
View a flyer with more information here.
Snagging Savings: Energy audit aims to cut costs for fishermen
This article was originally posted on KCAW by Emily Russell. Read and listen to the full story here. Photo by Bethany Goodrich.
Commercial fishermen are largely at the whim of the seafood market. Prices can vary wildly, while operation costs stays the same — That is, until now. An energy audit aims to help Sitka’s fishermen increase their profit margins.
It’s a sunny morning in Sitka. Usually Steve Fish — yes, that is his real name — would be out on his boat the Kariel, trolling for salmon or longlining for black cod or halibut. But today, the 66-foot fishing vessel and its captain are parked in the harbor.
Fish has surrendered the Kariel to a swarm of engineers, who can’t help but ask about how his gear works. Fish explains.
“The fish hits the cruise fire and then the winch, as it’s hauling the gear, pulls the hook out of the fish’s mouth.”
They’re all aboard the Kariel to conduct an energy audit of the vessel. Fish, along with 17 other fishermen in Sitka, volunteered for the audit.
“It’s dollars and cents,” Fish says.
For Fish and most others in the industry, each year those dollars and cents are spent at the pump.
“We might use somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 gallons,” Fish says, which costs between $20,000 and $50,000, depending on the price of diesel.
One obvious way to cut costs is with a more efficient engine, but Mike Gaffney says there are other, less expensive avenues as well. He’s an engineer based in Norfolk, Virginia and usually works on larger ships like cruise liners and Coast Guard cutters.
“But this is my first episode with fishing vessels, so that’s why I keep asking how the operations work,” explains Gaffney.
Gaffney was brought up to help with the Fishing Vessel Energy Efficiency Project. That’s a joint effort by the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association and the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation aimed at energy and cost savings.
But to do that, Gaffney says they need a baseline of data: How much, say, a vessel like the Kariel uses without the upgrades.
Gaffney climbs down the narrow ladder into the Kariel’s engine room
“And of course there’s lots of room here to move around,” Gaffney jokes.
The space is tiny. Gaffney tucks himself up against the electric panel and runs wires between it and his power quality analyzer, or PQA, which resembles a clunky, oversized calculator.
“It is the Hioki 3197 model,” Gaffney explains of his PQA. “That one is sexy.”
He starts with the vessel’s lighting. It’s measuring amperage, voltage, and power factor, which together determine how much energy the lights actually use.
“So we’re going to measure what he’s currently drawing and see how long he actually keeps them on,” Gaffney says. “We’ll figure out what his annual cost is to operate these lights and see if it’s cost effective to switch to LEDs.”
Right now the vessel uses high pressure sodium lights, which Gaffney says have a long warm up period, so fishermen tend to just turn them on and leave them on.
“Also every time you cycle them on and off, it shortens the life of the bulb,” Gaffney adds.
That’s not the case for LEDs. There’s no warm up time and it doesn’t hurt to turn them on and off. And they’re brighter.
“If you put an LED lighting in this engine room, it’ll brighten it way up,” Gaffney says.
For fishermen, though, that’s not always a good thing. Some complain about the light being too blue, too harsh on the eyes. Another problem unique to fishermen especially in Alaska: LEDs don’t heat up the way other bulbs do, which means more ice buildup on outside lighting.
It’s the data but also these insights that make the project unique.
Chandler Kemp is an engineer based in Sitka. “I don’t know of anybody who is doing this type of work on fishing boats,” Kemp says.
He’s compiling all of Gaffney’s data and writing up reports for the 18 vessels that volunteered for the audit. Kemp says the end goal is an online tool for fishermen.
“It would be an online interface that people can go on to easily access the information we have collected and enter in a little bit of information about their boats, say the fisheries they participate in, the length, the engine size,” Kemp explains.
The tool, which Kemp expects will be released in 2017, will then generate ways to make the vessel more energy efficient, and for fishermen, that means more profitable.
ALFA Meeting December 6 at 1pm
ALFA NEWSLETTER UPDATED
IPHC releases 2017 halibut stock assessment
Click here to view the IPHC stock assessment presentation
On November 29th, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) staff presented the 2016 stock assessment results and the 2017 halibut catch limit decision table. Stock assessment results show a stable or slightly increasing spawning biomass. A few highlights include: Area 3A and 3B stocks are recovering; bycatch in the Bering Sea is down by .44 million pounds (allowing for an increased catch limit in Area 4CDE); and Area 2C survey Weight Per Unit Effort is again the highest across the entire fishery. Despite these improvements, or in some ways because of these improvements, the staff “blue line” catch limits for Areas 2B and 2C are down from last year. The reason for the Area 2 decrease is that coastwide fishery catch limits are down slightly from last year and the survey, which determines apportionment between areas, found more fish relative to last year in Areas 3A and 3B than in Areas 2B and 2C. In other words, Area 2 gets a smaller percentage of the total as other areas improve. This counter-intuitive result raised questions and concerns from both Canada and the U.S.; expect more discussion of this apportionment issue at the annual meeting. REMEMBER—the IPHC will meet in January to consider the decision table and establish catch limits.
After reviewing the decision tables, IPHC Commissioners discussed rebuilding objectives for the halibut fishery and noticed their intent to move away from the outdated and mostly ignored existing harvest policy (which results in the blue line catch limits) and toward a Spawning Potential Ratio approach (explained in Halibut article on Page X). Adopting an SPR approach and Identifying an appropriate SPR, or level of fishing intensity, will take additional work and input from IPHC staff and advisory bodies, but this notice from the Commission provides a road map toward a new harvest policy.
The IPHC will be accepting catch limit proposals and comments until December 31st. The IPHC Annual Meeting will be held in Victoria, BC January 23-27th 2017.
