January 24, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The agenda for the week-long annual meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission is brimming with new ways to look at catch limits, new tools to assess risk, and new ideas for research, but the issue grabbing the most attention is allocation of this year’s fishery.

Which regional area gets how much of the coastwide catch is a perennial topic, but it’s sharper this year by a stock that remains low compared to a decade ago, little sign of recruitment, and the yet unresolved issue that created an impasse between Canada and the U.S. at last year’s meeting.

Indeed, progress at the 2018 meeting to reach an agreement on catch limits ran aground on the issue of Canada’s catch limit allocation. British Columbia longliners fish waters off the Canadian west coast that make up 12-13% of the total coastwide area fished by both countries. Yet their catch limit has persistently been higher than that based on the argument that much of B.C.’s halibut are resident and the Canadian authorities long ago implemented a robust accounting program for all mortalities, compared to what is being used in Alaska.

The two sides have met throughout the year since and are now considering a handful of options to use this year. Those options, and perhaps more, will be discussed at the meeting that begins Monday, January 28.  The meeting is complicated by the US government shutdown.  Two US commissoner terms expired at midnight on Thursday, and they will not be available to vote on final motions Friday.  As a result, the Commission may skew its agenda so that all votes take place before the US Commissioners go poof.

This year’s meeting has only two stakeholder proposals, both from the Pacific Norwest, or Area 2A. The first, a request for a minimum fixed amount of 1.5 million pounds for commercial and sports fleets. That fishery amount would mean a total mortality of 1.67 mlbs, including subsistence, bycatch, and other incidental mortalities.

The proposal was initially made by the Makah Tribe but now has the support of most stakeholders in Washington, Oregon, and California.

Because it is the first official regional request for a catch limit floor — a minimum that fleets and processors can expect for years to come — it has garnered attention and prompted comments that if they are allowed a guaranteed miminum, what about other areas?

Supporters of Proposal 2A say conditions in that region support establishing a floor and add that 1.67 mlbs. is only a small percentage of any coastwide total. They say — and the IPHC agrees — that the proposal presents no conservation problems because of that.

“The Tribe’s proposal is based on, but less than, the average total removals from Area 2A during the seven-year period before the current coastwide stock assessment and distribution methodology was implemented in Area 2A in 2009. During that period, total removals from Area 2A averaged 1.79Mlb,” Patrick Depoe said in his proposal.

That is precisely the issue for Canada as well. When the IPHC moved from a regional to a coastwide assessment in 2009, there were winners and there were losers. Canada lost 5-7% of their average share of their apportionment. They have compensated for it ever since by setting higher than recommended catch limits for their area, 2B, than IPHC staff suggests.

The second stakeholder proposal was submitted by Michael Pettis, a Newport, OR longliner, and is in response to the IPHC’s request for a change from the current 10 hour derby fishery to a more extended fishery for safety and business planning reasons. The change would not affect that group’s allocation.

The Pacific Council’s Groundfish Advisory Panel discussed the issue and supported an analysis of longer periods. Fishermen on the GAP also proposed assigning the entire commercial halibut quota to incidental catch in the sablefish fishery.

In November 2018, the GAP supported the option again, “if the IPHC does not move forward with a 5-, 10- or 20-day season as discussed in or inferred from its report.”

The five Newport fishermen who submitted the proposal to the IPHC have not supplied public comment to the PFMC or the GAP.

However, since Area 2A is entirely within the U.S. EEZ, management of any system would fall primarily to the federal government. Some industry members have suggested the NMFS cost of establishing a quota system for Area 2A would be far more than the fishery is worth.

On Friday February 1, catch limits for the 2019 season, as well as opening and closing dates, and any proposals that make it through the meeting, will be announced.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.