A spokesperson for the Bering Sea Crabbers, Ed Poulsen, says the majority of quota share holders in the Bristol Bay crab fishery have voluntarily agreed to hold the cap on fees for leasing out their quota shares to 65 percent in the next season.
Poulsen said details on discussions involving lease rate fees and other topics that came up at the Nov. 21 meeting of the crab industry work group in Ballard, Washington, would be presented at the December meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in Anchorage.
The industry standard for the lease rates has been about 70 percent, according to Poulsen, but in some cases they have been even higher, while lease rates for opilio crab quota shares have stayed at 50 percent.
Lease rates are one of several contentious issues that have been under discussion since the federal crab rationalization legislation was approved several years ago.
The NPFMC has scheduled eight hours of its December meeting to hear Bering Sea and Aleutian Island crab stakeholder reports, all five-year review issues.
Some industry harvesters, like Mark Israelson, skipper of the Island Mist out of Kodiak, have said they feel the Bristol Bay red king crab quota share should be 50 percent, just like that for the opies. Another option, said Israelson, would be a 65 percent lease fee, with all expenses for the crab trips paid by leaseholders.
Others, including the Crewman’s Association, based in Kodiak, are seeking more changes in the crab rationalization program to benefit the crew, including provisions to pay crew after normal expenses, including then taking the lease fees off for the crab quota after buyback and individual fishing quota taxes have been subtracted.
The association is also seeking redistribution of 35 percent of the crab quotas to a crew pool held by the state of Alaska and released to the industry after a fair and equitable compensation package for all crewmen that fish the region. The crab skipper quota would be subtracted so that it is 32 percent to allow the skippers access to fair contract for their labors.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Fuglvog Sentencing Now Scheduled for February
US District Court Judge H. Russel Holland has rescheduled the sentencing for former Senate fisheries aide Arne Fuglvog, of Petersburg, Alaska, to Feb. 7.
Fuglvog, who served on the staff of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, pleaded guilty in August in Anchorage to a single count of violating the Lacey Act by falsifying records of where he harvested sablefish intended for interstate commerce.
Fuglvog’s attorney, Jeffrey Feldman of Anchorage, confirmed that the sentencing, originally set for Nov. 18 and then for Dec. 7, had been postponed again, but declined comment on reason for another rescheduling.
Fuglvog is a veteran commercial fisherman from Petersburg who served on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. He was also for a while considered as one of three top candidates to head the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The initial plea agreement reached by Fuglvog with the court was to include ten months in prison, a $50,000 fine and a payment of $100,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is engaged in wildlife preservation and restoration.
Fuglvog is currently free on his own recognizance.
Fuglvog, who served on the staff of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, pleaded guilty in August in Anchorage to a single count of violating the Lacey Act by falsifying records of where he harvested sablefish intended for interstate commerce.
Fuglvog’s attorney, Jeffrey Feldman of Anchorage, confirmed that the sentencing, originally set for Nov. 18 and then for Dec. 7, had been postponed again, but declined comment on reason for another rescheduling.
Fuglvog is a veteran commercial fisherman from Petersburg who served on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. He was also for a while considered as one of three top candidates to head the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The initial plea agreement reached by Fuglvog with the court was to include ten months in prison, a $50,000 fine and a payment of $100,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is engaged in wildlife preservation and restoration.
Fuglvog is currently free on his own recognizance.
Begich, Young Introduce Legislation to Sink Pirate Fishing Vessels
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, is pursuing through Congress his idea of sinking at sea unregistered fishing vessels operating in waters of the United States.
The Alaska Democrat first proposed the idea after the unregistered, rat-infected Bangun Perkasa was seized by the US Coast Guard, some 2,600 miles southwest of Kodiak.
Instead of just bringing it to shore and cleaning it up, Begich wanted the rats on board exterminated and the vessel sunk at sea. Since at the time of that vessel capture the Coast Guard lacked the resources to decontaminate the vessel, making it safe to sink, the vessel was salvaged.
Then on Nov. 18, Begich in the Senate, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, in the House, introduced the Pirate Fishing Vessel Disposal Act of 2011.
The legislation would give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard authority to dispose of pirate fishing vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Options include being sunk by the Coast Guard in live-fire training exercises; being transferred to developing nations for use in fisheries patrol and enforcement activities; being transferred to other government or non-profit institutions for training, education, or research, or scrapping and recycling the vessels.
For vessels to be sunk by live fire, the bill requires that the vessels have all fuel removed and that they be decontaminated of harmful substances; that all fishing gear and other potential marine debris be removed, and that they be sunk in US waters more than 50 miles offshore, in water more than a mile deep.
Begich worked with NOAA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard and the US Maritime Administration to craft the bill.
Sponsors of the legislation can’t speculate on what it would cost at this time, as a pirate fishing vessel has never been dealt with like this before, a Begich aide said. The identified source of funds is the Oil Spill Liability Fund.
The Alaska Democrat first proposed the idea after the unregistered, rat-infected Bangun Perkasa was seized by the US Coast Guard, some 2,600 miles southwest of Kodiak.
Instead of just bringing it to shore and cleaning it up, Begich wanted the rats on board exterminated and the vessel sunk at sea. Since at the time of that vessel capture the Coast Guard lacked the resources to decontaminate the vessel, making it safe to sink, the vessel was salvaged.
Then on Nov. 18, Begich in the Senate, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, in the House, introduced the Pirate Fishing Vessel Disposal Act of 2011.
The legislation would give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard authority to dispose of pirate fishing vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Options include being sunk by the Coast Guard in live-fire training exercises; being transferred to developing nations for use in fisheries patrol and enforcement activities; being transferred to other government or non-profit institutions for training, education, or research, or scrapping and recycling the vessels.
For vessels to be sunk by live fire, the bill requires that the vessels have all fuel removed and that they be decontaminated of harmful substances; that all fishing gear and other potential marine debris be removed, and that they be sunk in US waters more than 50 miles offshore, in water more than a mile deep.
Begich worked with NOAA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard and the US Maritime Administration to craft the bill.
Sponsors of the legislation can’t speculate on what it would cost at this time, as a pirate fishing vessel has never been dealt with like this before, a Begich aide said. The identified source of funds is the Oil Spill Liability Fund.
Alaska Pollock Fishery Assessment Enters Peer Review Stage
The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute announced this week that the Alaska Pollock fishery assessment to the FAO-based responsible fisheries management certification has reached the peer review stage.
Based on the technical expertise required to carry out the assessment, Global Trust Certification Limited has confirmed an external peer review team of Herman Savikko and Dankert Skagen.
Savikko, who has a degree in biological sciences, was employed for 30 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, including the divisions of sport fish, fisheries rehabilitation, enhancement and development, and commercial fisheries. He helped to develop, draft and implement salmon bycatch limits for the Bering Sea Pollock fleet, as well as the foundation for bycatch measures in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries. Skagen is the owner of Kankert Skagen Fisheries Science Consultants in the Bergen area of Norway, and a former senior scientist at the Institute of Marine Research.
The peer review is a technical review of the evidence documented by the assessment team that demonstrates the level of conformity of the fishery to the FAO code and guides. The peer reviewers provide a critical evaluation of the consistency in the recommendation made by the assessment team as together the fishery is recommended for certification.
Alaska crab fisheries are also currently involved in the same certification process.
Alaska salmon earned responsible fisheries management certification under the same program on March 11. Alaska halibut was certified on April 29 and Alaska black cod (sablefish) was certificated on Oct. 11. This independent, third-party certification of the management of major Alaska commercial fisheries is directly based on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization code of conduct for responsible fisheries and the FAO guidelines for eco-labeling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries.
Based on the technical expertise required to carry out the assessment, Global Trust Certification Limited has confirmed an external peer review team of Herman Savikko and Dankert Skagen.
Savikko, who has a degree in biological sciences, was employed for 30 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, including the divisions of sport fish, fisheries rehabilitation, enhancement and development, and commercial fisheries. He helped to develop, draft and implement salmon bycatch limits for the Bering Sea Pollock fleet, as well as the foundation for bycatch measures in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries. Skagen is the owner of Kankert Skagen Fisheries Science Consultants in the Bergen area of Norway, and a former senior scientist at the Institute of Marine Research.
The peer review is a technical review of the evidence documented by the assessment team that demonstrates the level of conformity of the fishery to the FAO code and guides. The peer reviewers provide a critical evaluation of the consistency in the recommendation made by the assessment team as together the fishery is recommended for certification.
Alaska crab fisheries are also currently involved in the same certification process.
Alaska salmon earned responsible fisheries management certification under the same program on March 11. Alaska halibut was certified on April 29 and Alaska black cod (sablefish) was certificated on Oct. 11. This independent, third-party certification of the management of major Alaska commercial fisheries is directly based on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization code of conduct for responsible fisheries and the FAO guidelines for eco-labeling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Voluntary Lowering of Lease Fees Offered By Some Crab Quota Share Holders
By Margaret Bauman
A report of the crew work group meeting at Dutch Harbor during the October meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council notes that some current crab quota shareholders have agreed to voluntarily lower lease rates.
The report, prepared by Edward Poulsen, distributed on Oct. 4 to members of the working group who participated in the Sept. 29 meeting, notes several issues covered by those in attendance and via teleconference, including a Kodiak connection.
It does not mention electronic data reporting, a subject on which the council will take final action at its December 5-13 meeting in Anchorage. Poulsen, former executive director and now an advisor to the Bering Sea Crabbers, said he was preparing an updated report on the meeting to deliver at the December meeting.
A number of people who crew on crab boats have expressed concern since the crab rationalization legislation went into effect several years ago about loss of jobs and income, mainly because of fleet consolidation and leasing of quota shares. Some crew members also feel they should have been allocated crew quota shares because of their long-term participation in this dangerous fishery, an opinion challenged by some vessel owners who said they have invested substantial capital in the fishery, as opposed to physical effort alone.
Several people representing crewmembers also want data reports made available that show specifically how much income crew members earned annually before the federal crab rationalization program was approved.
“What we would like to see on public record is the pay from pre-rationalization,” said Steve Branson, a veteran Kodiak fisherman. “It would be nice to be able to compare what was going on before and after privatization.”
Branson said after seven years of traveling from Kodiak to attend various meetings of the federal council he is not overly optimistic about change any more, even though ”the council now is more fair-minded. I don’t think it (crab rationalization) would have passed if it had been scrutinized more closely.”
Vessel owners held the Dutch Harbor meeting to discuss progress in development of measures to address crew issues, as a precursor to the industry’s report to the council in December.
First up on their agenda was a proposal of vessel owners to provide a right of first offer to active participants on 10 percent of the quota share being transferred in any transaction. The right is intended to increase the portion of the quota share pool held by persons actively fishing. The remaining 90 percent could be subject to a similar right of first offer for either people active in the fleet or owning a fishing vessel.
Proponents of the measure are still developing the specific agreement and suggested that a written description could be provided at the next meeting.
Vessel owners also reported that a substantial portion of current quota holders have agreed to voluntarily limit their lease rates to 65 percent in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery and 50 percent in the Bering Sea opilio fishery, Poulsen said. The lower limit is intended to reduce the pressure on vessel owners that could arise under arrangements that only guarantee crew minimum shares of a vessel’s gross revenues, Poulsen said. In the absence of limits on lease rates, a reduction on the lease rates that may be charged to crew may disadvantage vessel owners that lease a substantial share of the quota that they harvest, he said.
Supporters of the limit on lease rates suggested that in the future cooperative agreements could be modified to include a limit on the lease rate percentage that may be charged to crew, Poulsen noted in his meeting report. However, it was also noted that affiliated coops would also need to implement similar changes that could be more difficult as they are not FCMA cooperatives, he said. In addition, provisions could be included in that agreement to prevent vessel owners from modifying crew contracts to pass on additional costs to crew that might offset the reduced charges on lease costs.
Before crab rationalization went into effect, crew made more money for their efforts because only a percentage of the vessel’s fuel, bait, food and pot loss were deducted before their percentage of the profit was calculated. Once crab rationalization went into effect, some vessels began fishing a great deal of leased quota shares, for which they were paying a lease fee of sometimes up to 80 percent of the harvest, and that lease fee was added to the list of vessel expenses deducted from crew pay.
Branson, who was not among those attending the Dutch Harbor meeting, said he would have made substantially more money the last time he crewed on a crab boat, had lease fees not been deducted.
Some crewmembers at the meeting expressed support for efforts of vessel owners to improve crew compensation through reduced lease fees. These representatives suggested that they would support allowing vessel owners to continue with the effort to use reduced lease rates to address the crew compensation issue.
Poulsen said meeting participants also discussed the means of evaluating the effects of the reduced lease rates on crew compensation.
Vessel owners offered to advance a list of quota holders and/or vessel owners who agreed to the arrangement, but opposed any effort to collect additional information on crew compensation.
These vessel owners expressed their opinion that the adequate information would be provided by the list of quota holders. Vessel owners said that, when available, electronic data reporting data would demonstrate specific effects on compensation.
Some crew representatives voiced concern that electronic data reporting data may not be available until more than a year after some seasons, which would limit the ability to address compensation, if the lease rate reduction measure fails to achieve its intended result. For this reason, they believe that some other means of demonstrating the effectiveness of the measure should be pursued, Poulsen said.
Vessel owners also offered to bring a written description of the agreement to limit lease rates to the next meeting for review by all participants. That description could help participants evaluate the measure, including the potential for reports to establish its effectiveness, Poulsen said.
It was suggested by staff that the group meet prior to the December meeting of the federal council, perhaps on Nov. 21, to ensure that all participants have the same understanding of the progress of discussions.
Poulsen said in an interview later that a loan program up and running since this summer allows crew to get low interest loans to purchase crab quota shares through the National Marine Fisheries service, with amortizations over a 20 year period. “The issue is the NMFS loan program is so low that there is not a lot of incentive for more programs, he said.
The federal crab rationalization program was the first and only program that gave 3 percent of the individual fishing quota shares to skippers. The quota share holders would not be supportive of reallocating quota shares, because it would be disruptive to their businesses now ongoing, he said.
Another Kodiak commercial fisheries veteran, Kodiak city council member Terry Haines, noted that efforts to get banks to offer reasonable interest rates to crew members seeking to buy into quota share did not work out well. “And you can’t blame them,” Haines said. ‘The whole concept makes the banks nervous, that crew might have rights to quota shares they have already given out loans on.”
Haines noted that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act identifies quota shares in the crab fishery as a privilege that can be taken back at any time, if there is enough reason. “It makes the banks very nervous,” he said.
Caps on leased quota share, Haines said, are on the other hand something that is quite doable.
Another issue the council has not discussed is caps on the amount of quota share that may be harvested on the same vessel, he said. When huge amounts of leased quota are harvested on the same vessel, it takes away from a crew’s ability to leverage pay. The bottom line is, what is their percentage of net profits now? Before rationalization is was 6-8 percent for the crew and the skipper got 15 percent (after expenses). Now with 80 percent lease fees off the top that leaves you 20 percent,” he said.
Haines and others are also eager to get the crab electronic data reporting up and running to provide data that provides more information.
Public comment submitted at the Dutch Harbor meeting by Stephen Taufen for the Groundswell Fisheries Movement urged that data collection should include reconciled fish settlement accountings, and inclusion of each crab vessel’s by-species/fisheries lay share contracts.
The reconciled fish settlement accountings should detail whose quota is consolidated on which vessel, the rents or leases charged to the vessel and portion passed along to crews by lease, as well as shared trip settlement expenses by categories, such as fuel, bait, and gear, the percentage for each crewmember by name, showing individual trip settlement costs as well as total personal deductions, Taufen said.
The electronic data collection should also include lay share contracts for all captain and crewmembers, as part of the collection of data that confirms both quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment of whether or not the Bering Sea –Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program meets the requirement that in order to hold quota rights, all applicable federal laws must be obeyed by each IFQ holder, Taufen said.
Haines said that from a community perspective, he looks at the reduced revenue going out of communities as a result of consolidation of the fleet after rationalization and lease fees. From a community perspective, vessel caps and a limit on lease fees would address capital flight form communities, he said.
Haines is a member of the Crewmen’s Association, which has been advocating for crew rights for several years, but said he is more focused at this time on Fish Heads, an advocacy group for the preservation of the vitality of Alaska’s fishing communities.
A number of people who work as crew members have been reluctant to speak out about their support of the Crewmen’s Association, led by Shawn Dochtermann, and other advocates for crew rights because if they were to put their names on a list of those groups they could lose their jobs, he said.
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margieb42@mtaonline.net.
A report of the crew work group meeting at Dutch Harbor during the October meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council notes that some current crab quota shareholders have agreed to voluntarily lower lease rates.
The report, prepared by Edward Poulsen, distributed on Oct. 4 to members of the working group who participated in the Sept. 29 meeting, notes several issues covered by those in attendance and via teleconference, including a Kodiak connection.
It does not mention electronic data reporting, a subject on which the council will take final action at its December 5-13 meeting in Anchorage. Poulsen, former executive director and now an advisor to the Bering Sea Crabbers, said he was preparing an updated report on the meeting to deliver at the December meeting.
A number of people who crew on crab boats have expressed concern since the crab rationalization legislation went into effect several years ago about loss of jobs and income, mainly because of fleet consolidation and leasing of quota shares. Some crew members also feel they should have been allocated crew quota shares because of their long-term participation in this dangerous fishery, an opinion challenged by some vessel owners who said they have invested substantial capital in the fishery, as opposed to physical effort alone.
Several people representing crewmembers also want data reports made available that show specifically how much income crew members earned annually before the federal crab rationalization program was approved.
“What we would like to see on public record is the pay from pre-rationalization,” said Steve Branson, a veteran Kodiak fisherman. “It would be nice to be able to compare what was going on before and after privatization.”
Branson said after seven years of traveling from Kodiak to attend various meetings of the federal council he is not overly optimistic about change any more, even though ”the council now is more fair-minded. I don’t think it (crab rationalization) would have passed if it had been scrutinized more closely.”
Vessel owners held the Dutch Harbor meeting to discuss progress in development of measures to address crew issues, as a precursor to the industry’s report to the council in December.
First up on their agenda was a proposal of vessel owners to provide a right of first offer to active participants on 10 percent of the quota share being transferred in any transaction. The right is intended to increase the portion of the quota share pool held by persons actively fishing. The remaining 90 percent could be subject to a similar right of first offer for either people active in the fleet or owning a fishing vessel.
Proponents of the measure are still developing the specific agreement and suggested that a written description could be provided at the next meeting.
Vessel owners also reported that a substantial portion of current quota holders have agreed to voluntarily limit their lease rates to 65 percent in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery and 50 percent in the Bering Sea opilio fishery, Poulsen said. The lower limit is intended to reduce the pressure on vessel owners that could arise under arrangements that only guarantee crew minimum shares of a vessel’s gross revenues, Poulsen said. In the absence of limits on lease rates, a reduction on the lease rates that may be charged to crew may disadvantage vessel owners that lease a substantial share of the quota that they harvest, he said.
Supporters of the limit on lease rates suggested that in the future cooperative agreements could be modified to include a limit on the lease rate percentage that may be charged to crew, Poulsen noted in his meeting report. However, it was also noted that affiliated coops would also need to implement similar changes that could be more difficult as they are not FCMA cooperatives, he said. In addition, provisions could be included in that agreement to prevent vessel owners from modifying crew contracts to pass on additional costs to crew that might offset the reduced charges on lease costs.
Before crab rationalization went into effect, crew made more money for their efforts because only a percentage of the vessel’s fuel, bait, food and pot loss were deducted before their percentage of the profit was calculated. Once crab rationalization went into effect, some vessels began fishing a great deal of leased quota shares, for which they were paying a lease fee of sometimes up to 80 percent of the harvest, and that lease fee was added to the list of vessel expenses deducted from crew pay.
Branson, who was not among those attending the Dutch Harbor meeting, said he would have made substantially more money the last time he crewed on a crab boat, had lease fees not been deducted.
Some crewmembers at the meeting expressed support for efforts of vessel owners to improve crew compensation through reduced lease fees. These representatives suggested that they would support allowing vessel owners to continue with the effort to use reduced lease rates to address the crew compensation issue.
Poulsen said meeting participants also discussed the means of evaluating the effects of the reduced lease rates on crew compensation.
Vessel owners offered to advance a list of quota holders and/or vessel owners who agreed to the arrangement, but opposed any effort to collect additional information on crew compensation.
These vessel owners expressed their opinion that the adequate information would be provided by the list of quota holders. Vessel owners said that, when available, electronic data reporting data would demonstrate specific effects on compensation.
Some crew representatives voiced concern that electronic data reporting data may not be available until more than a year after some seasons, which would limit the ability to address compensation, if the lease rate reduction measure fails to achieve its intended result. For this reason, they believe that some other means of demonstrating the effectiveness of the measure should be pursued, Poulsen said.
Vessel owners also offered to bring a written description of the agreement to limit lease rates to the next meeting for review by all participants. That description could help participants evaluate the measure, including the potential for reports to establish its effectiveness, Poulsen said.
It was suggested by staff that the group meet prior to the December meeting of the federal council, perhaps on Nov. 21, to ensure that all participants have the same understanding of the progress of discussions.
Poulsen said in an interview later that a loan program up and running since this summer allows crew to get low interest loans to purchase crab quota shares through the National Marine Fisheries service, with amortizations over a 20 year period. “The issue is the NMFS loan program is so low that there is not a lot of incentive for more programs, he said.
The federal crab rationalization program was the first and only program that gave 3 percent of the individual fishing quota shares to skippers. The quota share holders would not be supportive of reallocating quota shares, because it would be disruptive to their businesses now ongoing, he said.
Another Kodiak commercial fisheries veteran, Kodiak city council member Terry Haines, noted that efforts to get banks to offer reasonable interest rates to crew members seeking to buy into quota share did not work out well. “And you can’t blame them,” Haines said. ‘The whole concept makes the banks nervous, that crew might have rights to quota shares they have already given out loans on.”
Haines noted that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act identifies quota shares in the crab fishery as a privilege that can be taken back at any time, if there is enough reason. “It makes the banks very nervous,” he said.
Caps on leased quota share, Haines said, are on the other hand something that is quite doable.
Another issue the council has not discussed is caps on the amount of quota share that may be harvested on the same vessel, he said. When huge amounts of leased quota are harvested on the same vessel, it takes away from a crew’s ability to leverage pay. The bottom line is, what is their percentage of net profits now? Before rationalization is was 6-8 percent for the crew and the skipper got 15 percent (after expenses). Now with 80 percent lease fees off the top that leaves you 20 percent,” he said.
Haines and others are also eager to get the crab electronic data reporting up and running to provide data that provides more information.
Public comment submitted at the Dutch Harbor meeting by Stephen Taufen for the Groundswell Fisheries Movement urged that data collection should include reconciled fish settlement accountings, and inclusion of each crab vessel’s by-species/fisheries lay share contracts.
The reconciled fish settlement accountings should detail whose quota is consolidated on which vessel, the rents or leases charged to the vessel and portion passed along to crews by lease, as well as shared trip settlement expenses by categories, such as fuel, bait, and gear, the percentage for each crewmember by name, showing individual trip settlement costs as well as total personal deductions, Taufen said.
The electronic data collection should also include lay share contracts for all captain and crewmembers, as part of the collection of data that confirms both quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment of whether or not the Bering Sea –Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program meets the requirement that in order to hold quota rights, all applicable federal laws must be obeyed by each IFQ holder, Taufen said.
Haines said that from a community perspective, he looks at the reduced revenue going out of communities as a result of consolidation of the fleet after rationalization and lease fees. From a community perspective, vessel caps and a limit on lease fees would address capital flight form communities, he said.
Haines is a member of the Crewmen’s Association, which has been advocating for crew rights for several years, but said he is more focused at this time on Fish Heads, an advocacy group for the preservation of the vitality of Alaska’s fishing communities.
A number of people who work as crew members have been reluctant to speak out about their support of the Crewmen’s Association, led by Shawn Dochtermann, and other advocates for crew rights because if they were to put their names on a list of those groups they could lose their jobs, he said.
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margieb42@mtaonline.net.
Today's Catch: Once Bitten, Twice Shy
In this space in August of 2008 it was suggested that the Sun is most likely the cause of any global warming the earth might be experiencing. This theory was in stark contrast to the widely publicized (and generously funded) theory that the conversion of petroleum into carbon dioxide was to blame. As of this summer, the former scenario has become the more credible of the two, with the revelation by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland of an inverse correlation between periodic changes in sunspot activity levels and quantities of cosmic rays entering Earth’s atmosphere that trigger surface-cooling cloud formations.
In 1996, two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, theorized that it is changes in the Sun’s magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures. In 1998 their theory began to be put to the test at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, deep inside a mountain on the Swiss border. Over the past 12 years, the CERN team, led by particle physicist Jasper Kirkby, has been experimenting with a custom-built chamber filled with air and chemicals, including water vapor, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia, and bombarding the chamber with protons. The preliminary results, released in late August, seem to show that the cosmic rays have a much larger effect on climate than has been alleged by adherents of the manmade global warming theory.
Professor Svensmark notes that there is much more work to be done, but the fact that an actual controlled physics experiment calls into question a computer-generated theory that has been considered by many to be “settled” might be a powerful tool in the fight to remove science from politics, or vice versa.
Speaking of politics and science, as the global warming science becomes more unsettled, a new crisis is gaining ground among the environmental lobby: ocean acidification. As manmade global warming was “proven” by data showing that the earth had warmed, so manmade ocean acidification promises to suck more grant money into the vortex of science-for-hire.
The fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic seems to be a generally accepted premise, and therefore warrants concern and study. But, rather than encouraging public support for further scientific research, the use of a soon-to-be discredited theory (that man is to blame for changes in climate) to explain the oceanic rise in acid will likely be met with skepticism.
An upcoming event in Seattle on ocean acidification, sponsored by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Washington Sea Grant and the Sustainable Path Foundation, will promote the manmade acidification theory with speakers from NOAA and the federal government. One of the speakers claims, “The same CO2 that’s heating the planet is causing ocean acidification... This is not abstract theory; this is the consequence of fundamental principles of chemistry and physics. “
The proponents of manmade acidification already see it as “settled” science. We “deniers” will be ridiculed and vilified for our calls to consider other causes, and eventually someone will conduct a groundbreaking study, like that of Professors Kirkby et al, suggesting that maybe man isn’t to blame after all. If the ocean is indeed becoming more acid, we shouldn’t readily accept the first explanation and spend 12 years heading down the wrong path, but rather keep an open mind and use science to find the cause, and maybe a solution.
Chris Philips
editor@fishermensnews.com
In 1996, two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, theorized that it is changes in the Sun’s magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures. In 1998 their theory began to be put to the test at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, deep inside a mountain on the Swiss border. Over the past 12 years, the CERN team, led by particle physicist Jasper Kirkby, has been experimenting with a custom-built chamber filled with air and chemicals, including water vapor, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia, and bombarding the chamber with protons. The preliminary results, released in late August, seem to show that the cosmic rays have a much larger effect on climate than has been alleged by adherents of the manmade global warming theory.
Professor Svensmark notes that there is much more work to be done, but the fact that an actual controlled physics experiment calls into question a computer-generated theory that has been considered by many to be “settled” might be a powerful tool in the fight to remove science from politics, or vice versa.
Speaking of politics and science, as the global warming science becomes more unsettled, a new crisis is gaining ground among the environmental lobby: ocean acidification. As manmade global warming was “proven” by data showing that the earth had warmed, so manmade ocean acidification promises to suck more grant money into the vortex of science-for-hire.
The fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic seems to be a generally accepted premise, and therefore warrants concern and study. But, rather than encouraging public support for further scientific research, the use of a soon-to-be discredited theory (that man is to blame for changes in climate) to explain the oceanic rise in acid will likely be met with skepticism.
An upcoming event in Seattle on ocean acidification, sponsored by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Washington Sea Grant and the Sustainable Path Foundation, will promote the manmade acidification theory with speakers from NOAA and the federal government. One of the speakers claims, “The same CO2 that’s heating the planet is causing ocean acidification... This is not abstract theory; this is the consequence of fundamental principles of chemistry and physics. “
The proponents of manmade acidification already see it as “settled” science. We “deniers” will be ridiculed and vilified for our calls to consider other causes, and eventually someone will conduct a groundbreaking study, like that of Professors Kirkby et al, suggesting that maybe man isn’t to blame after all. If the ocean is indeed becoming more acid, we shouldn’t readily accept the first explanation and spend 12 years heading down the wrong path, but rather keep an open mind and use science to find the cause, and maybe a solution.
Chris Philips
editor@fishermensnews.com
Decision Expected Soon in Latest Exxon Valdez Litigation
A federal judge presiding over the latest litigation in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill has taken under advisement oral arguments on whether Exxon should to pay millions of dollars more for unforeseen damages from the Prince William Sound disaster.
The spill proved devastating to commercial fish harvesters, wildlife and others dependent on fish in that region.
Judge H. Russel Holland heard oral arguments in Anchorage on Nov. 15 from legal counsel for Exxon, the federal government and the state of Alaska.
Exxon has entered a motion asking the court to enforce a 1991 consent decree, relieving the oil giant from paying an additional $92 million to deal with environmental damages from the spill. Exxon argues that the original agreement made clear that parties to the lawsuit limited the reopener phase to restoration projects, which are different from cleanup projects.
Attorneys for the state and federal government argued that the words “cleanup” and “restoration” could be used interchangeably.
Exxon has already paid some $900 million in damages for cleanup costs, but the 1991 reopener decision allowed the government to reopen the case if it could show that problems remained.
State and federal government officials submitted a restoration plan in May of 2006 for more cleanup of residual oil on beaches in Prince William Sound, following with a demand for payment in August of 2006. Since then the governments have not pursued the matter and Exxon has not paid out any additional funds.
Marine biologist Rick Steiner, who had spent 14 years working on Prince William Sound, had filed an amicus brief asking that Exxon be ordered to pay the $92 million, plus about $25 million in interest.
Steiner also asked the court to grant the governments discretion in how best to use these monies in the best interest of full ecological recovery, and that the court issue guidance to other court regarding construction of future reopeners for unknown injury provisions in environmental consent decrees, to avoid problems that have plagued the Exxon Valdez reopener provision.
While the court denied his amicus brief, the judge can still order the requested relief, said Steiner.
The spill proved devastating to commercial fish harvesters, wildlife and others dependent on fish in that region.
Judge H. Russel Holland heard oral arguments in Anchorage on Nov. 15 from legal counsel for Exxon, the federal government and the state of Alaska.
Exxon has entered a motion asking the court to enforce a 1991 consent decree, relieving the oil giant from paying an additional $92 million to deal with environmental damages from the spill. Exxon argues that the original agreement made clear that parties to the lawsuit limited the reopener phase to restoration projects, which are different from cleanup projects.
Attorneys for the state and federal government argued that the words “cleanup” and “restoration” could be used interchangeably.
Exxon has already paid some $900 million in damages for cleanup costs, but the 1991 reopener decision allowed the government to reopen the case if it could show that problems remained.
State and federal government officials submitted a restoration plan in May of 2006 for more cleanup of residual oil on beaches in Prince William Sound, following with a demand for payment in August of 2006. Since then the governments have not pursued the matter and Exxon has not paid out any additional funds.
Marine biologist Rick Steiner, who had spent 14 years working on Prince William Sound, had filed an amicus brief asking that Exxon be ordered to pay the $92 million, plus about $25 million in interest.
Steiner also asked the court to grant the governments discretion in how best to use these monies in the best interest of full ecological recovery, and that the court issue guidance to other court regarding construction of future reopeners for unknown injury provisions in environmental consent decrees, to avoid problems that have plagued the Exxon Valdez reopener provision.
While the court denied his amicus brief, the judge can still order the requested relief, said Steiner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FN Online Advertising
.gif)