ATA & Proposal 329

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Post Reply
sixlines
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:26 pm

ATA & Proposal 329

Post by sixlines »

To any ATA board member,Could you explain why ATA opposes 329?
sixlines
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by sixlines »

Well Guy's, I cant believe that no one has had anything to say.You hand trollers in southeast should be on the four lines for the hand trollers.I live in Yakutat but if I lived in southeast I would be making a lot more noise than I have been,I mean the flags are waving right now for you to make a move NOW.Look the trollers are not getting there share of the fish so I've been reading.Heres something to read,This is real close to whats going to be opening testimony at the BOF meeting in sitka for #329.



The hand troll fleet west of cape Spencer is needlessly hampered in their fishing effort by the unnecessary restriction of fishing only two lines.Up until the implementation of the limited entry in the hand troll fishery,four lines were allowed.When the limited entry system was originally enacted,there were 2162 hand troll permits in the fishery.There are now 1066 hand troll permits fishing now.1096 hand troll permits have been eliminated.The hand troll fleet is loosing 38 permits a year on average since 1980 and will bottom out in the near future at 734 permanent hand troll permits.
In a resolution,(No.79-57 FB), By the Chairman of the board of Fish,dated December 11, 1979, it was stated that the troll catch would be allocated to result in an 80/20 split,(80% power troll, 20% hand-troll).The hand-troll catch over the last ten years has averaged 6.3%.
Due to the reduction in the number of permits,the relatively low impact of the hand-troll fishery,we feel that the reestablishment to four lines is warranted.We would like to see this gear change effective for the entire troll season,July 1 through the closure of the troll season.
The troll fishery in the Yakutat area is closely tied to the management of the Situk River set-gill-net fishery.Some portions of (181-60)troll area are permanently closed during the coho troll season and others are closed when the Situk River gill-net-fishery is closed.As it stands now,when the Situk River gillnet period closes the troll fleet must move to outside waters.Power trollers can fish six lines in outside waters-hand trollers can fish only two.
Originally,the use of six lines by the power troll fleet was allowed west of Cape Spencer due to the high cost of fuel and the distance to the fishing grounds.This arbitrary limit of two lines for hand trollers is not based on any biological necessity, and unnecessarily hampers the hand troll fleet.(If you think this has wieght you should see my notes for closing).

( P.S.)
With all the millions of dollars of fish the trollers arnt catching down in southeast sounds like the hand trollers need extra lines down there also.
sixlines
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by sixlines »

And don't forget we, didn't catch our winter quota last year and I'll be real surpized if we catch it this year looking at the numbers right now.I think all hand trollers should be looking at this on a state wide level.
I look at the user groups and their allowcations and whats being caught by all of them; and I feel the trollers are not quite catching and or meeting there allowcations in the hatchery fisheries at all.Now lets Give Yakutat and Petersburge there shot at putting the hammer down on the spring fishery and give hand trollers state wide, four lines and just see how much of that 20 some million everyone can catch.And maybe see if the hand troller might come close to 20% of the catch.
Yakutats perposal #329, is not written out to be state wide, nor do I or anyone else have permission to negotiate that, but after researching this past week I will have to share all what I have found at the next board meeting on Feb 9. If anyone has any feed back on 329, you guys in Southeast or right here in Yakutat have somthing to say lets hear it.
sixlines
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by sixlines »

Come on, nobody has anything to say?
John Murray
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by John Murray »

It will be revisited at ATA board meeting before the BOF meeting.I want to thank sixlines and yak to you for the info and thoughts on 329.I've had a hard time digging up history on this.Have got bits and pieces but still no complete history.
Were HT's allowed up eight lines like PT's were?That would be fun to watch.Was the line increases above Cape Spencer out passed 3 miles only?
kingquota
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by kingquota »

Hi Jon,

No I can remember there was only four lines for hand trollers. By the way, if my math is correct, when the four lines were reduced, there was twice as many hand trollers as today. So now we are actually fishing only 25 % of what was fished when the two lines were taken.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: ATA & Proposal 329

Post by yak2you2 »

To be absolutely clear, both historically and currently, the use of ANY additional lines west of Cape Spencer has been and will remain to be only an option in federal waters, 3 miles off shore.
Currently 6 power gurdies for power trolling is only allowed in federal waters 3 miles offshore.
Proposal 329 as written is specific when it asks for an increase to 4 handtroll gurdies for handtrollers in federal waters only, west of Cape Spencer.
Were proposal 329 to pass a handtroller would still be allowed no more than 2 hand gurdies inside of 3 miles west of Cape Spencer, just as a power troller is allowed no more than 4 power gurdies inside 3 miles west of Cape Spencer.
Post Reply