A Delicate Subject in the Alaska Fishing Community

The following news item is one of several on the subject that is circulating throughout the Alaska fishing community these days.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2011/09/26/former-crew-members-attempted-to-turn-in-fuglvog/

Some thoughts from Captain Mac -

As many of you know, I have been involved in fisheries politics for over 30 years. Since 1993 I have been particularly active in halibut issues. Halibut is a “federal” fish, by virtue of the fact that it is managed by an international convention between the U.S. and Canada.

As an international, federally managed fish, many layers of law and bureaucracy affect halibut. The primary U.S. agency that governs halibut is the Department of Commerce, and its sub-agencies, NOAA fisheries, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS. The primary laws affecting halibut are the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, commonly called “The 200-mile limit law” because it kept hungry foreign fishing fleets beyond 200 miles of our coastline.

In addition to many other facets of the law, Magnuson-Stevens created a series of eight Fishery Management Councils that cover the entire U.S coastline, including the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard. The Council that is responsible for the federal waters and fish off Alaska is called the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and is usually referred to as the ”North Council.”

The Council process is very deliberative and is constrained by many federal laws and processes requiring in-depth analysis, public input and rigid administrative procedures. It takes forever to get anything through the Council and into law or regulation, and sometimes by the time it becomes law it is already flawed and outdated. State fisheries management does not have near as much red tape.

Some would say that the Council process is proper in that it mandates these deliberative procedures and assures that the public is involved in the process. It sounds good, but in practice it doesn’t always work the way it was intended, especially at the North Council as it struggles to deal with recreational fisheries.

The various commercial fisheries off Alaska are huge, so it follows that federal concern and jurisdiction is almost entirely directed toward commercial, not recreational fisheries. As a result most of the North Council’s eleven voting members are linked to, or have commercial fishing backgrounds. Even the State of Alaska’s representative on the Council, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) invariably comes from the commercial sector of state fisheries management. In fact there is only one recreational fishery representative on the North Council. One out of eleven. So it is little wonder that issues involving recreational fisheries that compete with commercial interests do not get a fair hearing. Votes involving recreational issues are defeated by a 10 to 1 margin with monotonous regularity. The North Council also has an Advisory Panel (AP) comprising about 20 members, give or take. Similarly there is only one, or occasionally two recreational representatives on the AP. And similarly, in spite of a preponderance of public comment to the contrary, recreational issues go down by votes of 19 to 1 or 2. The North Council was intentioned to deal with commercial fisheries and it was never envisioned, nor is it structured or equipped to deal fairly and appropriately with recreational fishing issues.

What recreational fishing issues does the North Council have to deal with? There is only one. Halibut. The federal fish. And it is a minuscule amount of fish in the grand scheme of the fisheries of the North Pacific that the Council must deal with on a regular basis.

And how does one get to be a voting member on the Councils? Through political recommendations and appointments. Surprise, surprise.

Since 1993 I have served on three committees at the NPFMC relating to sport and charter halibut issues. No, I was not a political appointee. I volunteered and paid all my own travel, lodging and meal expenses to serve on those committees. I wanted to know what was going on in the federal regulation of our industry so I could prepare myself and inform other charter operators and lodge owners.

So what has all this to do with the news article and Arne Fuglvog?

The North Council was where I first met Arne, over 20 years ago. He and a few of his associates initiated the anti-recreational halibut wars at the North Council and were formidable opponents to the fledgling sport halibut fisheries that they viewed as threatening to them. I sat across the table from him at committee meetings and gave testimony before him and the rest of the Council countless times when he was a Council member. He was an influential, bright young man and a rising star in the fisheries management world. The news story tells the rest. In fact, in early 2009 he was considered a strong contender to head NMFS, the very agency responsible for enforcing federal fisheries regulations. See:  http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-alaskan-to-head-nmfs.html

  Photo by: ERIK HILL / Anchorage Daily News Arne Fuglvog, former fisheries aide 

for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, leaves federal court Thursday morning, Aug. 11, 2011, in Anchorage.

Ten months in jail is only the beginning of his worries. He is still a young man, in his forties. He will also pay $150,000 in fines. His licenses will likely be stripped from him, and the fishing community will hold him in contempt for the rest of his life. He is a fifth-generation commercial fisherman who has held many influential positions in fisheries management agencies and has been awarded the U.S. National Fisherman Highliner of the Year as well as the commercial fishermen’s union’s United Fishermen of Alaska's Fisherman of the Year.

It will be a long way down for Arne.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/former-murkowski-fisheries-aide-headed-prison

But the real tragedy in this story is that the behavior that brought down Arne is not limited to just this one person. Rumors and stories are rampant about the abuses that commercial fishermen inflict on the resources upon which they depend for their livelihood. There is a mentality among many (not all, but many) in the fleet that says, “I need to get mine before it is all gone.” Arne was an icon, an award-winning professional, a highliner. If Arne is not above such action, then who in the commercial fishing industry is? The word on the street in his home town of Petersburg is that many are worried about what Arne knows, and who he might implicate to mitigate his own circumstances.

Meanwhile the charter industry is being subjected to what I believe is unprecedented scrutiny, and dare I say harassment, by federal (NOAA/NMFS/USCG) enforcement activities. Do I have proof of this? Can I produce statistics and history of enforcement activities? No, I cannot. All I know is that in all my years in the business I do not recall a time when there has been this much going on, enforcement wise, in the charter industry. I also know that when the USCG launch comes alongside in preparation for a boarding, the first question they ask these days is, “Do you have any halibut on board?” If you say no, they will usually not board you. If you say yes, they certainly will. Why is the Coast Guard so interested in halibut all of a sudden? And why should that affect whether they board you or not?

The agencies will tell you there is justification for these actions. That may well be true. They certainly have been able to make their charges stick. But what about the likes of Arne in the commercial sector? Is there a like amount of energy being directed towards them? How much damage can a commercial vessel inflict as compared to the average charterboat? The commercial take of the halibut resource is over 80%. Certain sectors of the commercial fisheries waste up to three times the total sport halibut catch. If conservation concerns are really what is driving these enforcement activities, couldn’t that effort be better directed where there is a greater possibility of some serious damage being done?

Breaking the law cannot be condoned, no matter who it is or in what sector it occurs. And you can’t fault the boots in the boats, the enforcement officers and Coast Guard men and women. They are courteous and professional in doing their duty and carrying out their instructions. But you have to ask, where are their orders coming from and why is this apparent increase in enforcement attention, effort and money being directed at the charter industry at this time? 

Charter operators, particularly in Southeast Alaska have been subjected to halibut restrictions that, if left in place for just a few more years, will decimate the industry and eliminate it as a competing fishery for halibut.  Could the politically powerful and well-healed commercial sector have a stake in the outcome? Could people like Arne, closely aligned with commercial fishing interests and very tight with top federal regulators, have influenced the decisions that have caused so much chaos in the recreational side of the halibut fishery? When Southeast Alaska charter fishermen are eliminated as viable competitors for halibut, who is next?

And ask yourself which sector, commercial or sport, has the potential to do the most damage to the halibut resource. Remember the story of Arne the highliner. Was he the only one?

Mac      

                                     More articles on Arne Fuglvog