It seems to me the only red herring floating around is the guest opinion by Al Geiser in the Mirror’s Oct. 6 edition. While it is true that the State of Alaska was the first to limit entry into fisheries, it can hardly be compared to the current federal rationalization plans, as each represent a completely different set of ideals.

Article VIII, Section 15, of the Alaska Constitution states that “No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State.” However, this changed in 1972, when the people of Alaska voted to amend the state’s constitution to allow for a restriction on entry to Alaska’s fisheries for the following purposes: conservation, prevention of economic distress and promotion of aquaculture.

When the limited entry law was enacted in 1973, some of the features of the program were to, 1) require issuance to natural persons only, 2) prohibit permit leasing, 3) prevent the use of permits for collateral, and 4) allow for free transferability. The limited entry law also defined entry permits as a use-privilege that can be modified by the Legislature without compensation.

In our state waters, past participation in limited-entry fisheries has been awarded to the permit holder (generally the vessel operator), and while entry into that fishery may be limited, it allows for no individual quotas or shares (private ownership of the resource). In fact, the resource is held in trust by the State of Alaska for the benefit of the people, until it is caught and brought aboard the vessel.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that, “To be constitutional, a limited entry system should impinge as little as possible on the open fishery clauses consistent with the constitutional purposes of limited entry, namely, prevention of economic distress to fisherman and resource conservation. The Alaska Supreme Court’s decision concerning the Chignik salmon co-op (Grunert 2005), emphasizes the importance of the permit holder’s participation in the fishery, wherein the court states that allowing persons who are not actually fishing to benefit from the fishery resource is inconsistent with the Limited Entry Act’s purpose and policy.”

The court’s opinion that co-ops went against the intent of the Limited Entry Act’s policy is in direct contrast to the federal program that allows for co-ops, thereby limiting owner on-board requirements leading to fleet consolidation.

The North Pacific License Limitation Program was implemented Jan. 1, 2000, for vessels engaged in the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and king and Tanner crab fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. Licenses were based on past participation during a set of qualifying years, and awarded the access rights to the vessel owner, ensuring that vessel owners would retain control of the fishery.

This program evolved into the current BSAI crab rationalization program, where vessel owners were given a share of the crab resource based on past landings of crab. This program was passed into law as a rider to an omnibus bill by Congress at the urging of vessel owners and industry, with the blessing of The North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

The recent NPFMC meeting in Dutch Harbor should be a wake-up call to everyone involved in the fishing industry. With only 89 vessels pre-registered for the 2006 BSAI crab season out of 251 in 2004 (pre-ratz), and an AP vote of 17-2 in favor of lifting crab vessel harvest caps, it appears that the NPFMC has no intention of correcting the problems of excessive consolidation/ownership and shows a callous disregard for the concerns expressed by citizens of coastal communities that support and rely on these fisheries.

If the GOA is rationalized, how far away is that same vote that lifts vessel caps and (possibly in the future) processor caps, leading to excessive consolidation and job loss across every sector that directly and indirectly supports the groundfish fleet.

Contrary to Mr. Geiser’s statement concerning the jig fleet’s own allocation of rockfish, we have never had one. We have operated under the same FMP as the trawl fleet. And even though our annual catch has been about one-tenth of 1 percent of the TAC for pelagic rockfish, we were subject to the same July 21, 2006, closure as the trawl fleet. According to NMFS, this was necessary to prevent exceeding the 2006 TAC, but with 52 percent of the TAC still remaining, why this closure included jig gear is a mystery. More puzzling was the reopening of the fishery Oct. 2, to “fully harvest the remaining TAC.”

Len Carpenter has been a Kodiak resident for the last 19 years. He owns and operates the F/V Fish Tale with his wife and children. He serves on the Alaska Jig Association board of directors.