This section examines estimated underages and overages of sablefish harvests by management area over the 1991 to 1995 time period. In this section, an overage or "over harvest" means that the harvest exceeded the total allowable catch (TAC). Similarly, an underage or "under harvest" means that the harvest was less than the TAC.
The 1991 to 1994 estimated harvests come from a computerized file that contains fish ticket records for catcher vessels and records derived from NMFS's Weekly Production Reports (WPRs) for catcher-processors.1 Harvest data for 1995 comes from the RAM catch records.
Table 7.1-1 compares estimated harvests in each management area with the corresponding TACs in each area for the years 1991 to 1995. The TACs have been defined to exclude the portion of the actual sablefish TAC allotted to trawl operations. In 1995, the table defines the TAC to exclude the CDQ harvests in the Aleutians and Bering Sea areas. The table also shows the harvest minus the TAC and the percentage the harvest represents of the TAC.
The table indicates that 1995 estimated harvests in the IFQ fishery fell below the TACs in all sablefish management areas. The estimated shortfall ranged from about 7.2% in the West Yakutat area to 34.6% in the Aleutians. In the Southeast and West Yakutat areas the 1995 percentage of the TAC harvested fell below the estimated percentage of the TAC harvested over the 1991 to 1994 time period. In other sablefish areas, the 1995 percentage of the TAC harvested fell within the range of percentages observed over the 1991 to 1994 time period.
Table 7.1-2 breaks the unharvested 1995 TAC analysis in Table 7.1-1 down further to compare actual harvests in each management area and vessel class with the estimated total IFQs held by persons in that management area and vessel class.2 This table shows that the harvest percentages varied among the different vessel classes within the management areas.
In the Central Gulf, Western Gulf, Aleutians, and Bering Sea areas, catcher vessels "less than or equal to 60 feet" harvested a smaller percentage of their 1995 IFQs than did the other two vessel categories. In the Southeast and West Yakutat areas, freezer vessels harvested a lower percentage of their 1995 IFQs than did the two catcher vessel categories.
Table 7.1-3 organizes the information in Table 7.1-2 differently. Table 7.1-2 is sorted by management area and by vessel class within management area. In contrast, Table 7.1-3 is sorted by vessel class and by management area within vessel class. This makes it easy to see patterns within a vessel class. The data indicate that, in all vessel classes, the percentage of IFQ left unharvested was highest in the Aleutians and Bering Sea areas.
Underharvests represent lost current year gross earnings to the fishermen, but to some extent they may represent a partial transfer of gross earnings to future years. The fish are still in the water and subject to continued growth and reproduction as well as natural mortality. They may contribute to healthier stocks and increases in future total allowable harvests. In addition, under program regulations, fishermen are allowed to carry-over underages of up to 10% of their annual IFQ accounts to the following year, so some of the foregone harvest may be taken during 1996.3
7.2 Totally Unharvested QS Owned by Initial QS Recipients at Year-end 1995.
During 1995, a large number of persons who received an initial QS allocation did not fish any portion of their IFQs, nor did they transfer, lease, or alter their QS holdings. Table 7.2-1 and Table 7.2-2 provide information on this subject.
Table 7.2-1 shows the total amount of QS in each area. It also shows the total amount of QS holdings in each area that did not change in terms of number of QS units from initial issuance through year-end 1995 and the percentage this QS represents of the total QS in the area. In other words, these QS represents QS holdings by species, area, and category, that were not added to or subtracted from during 1995 by transfers. As can be seen, such QS holdings represent from 75% of the QS in the Southeast area to 91.6% of the QS in the Western Gulf area.
Some of these QS holdings that did not change during 1995 were fished and some were not fished at all. In Table 7.2-1, QS holdings are divided into "harvest" and "no harvest" groups. An unchanged QS holding was classified as "QS With Some Harvest" if any portion of the IFQ associated with the QS was fished either by the person holding the QS, a lessee, or a designated skipper. An unchanged QS holding was classified as "no harvest" if none of the IFQ associated with the QS was fished.
As can be seen, the portion of these QS holdings that did not change during 1995 and that were not fished at all ranged from 1.5% in the Central Gulf area to 14.3% in the Bering Sea area. The average QS and the average 1995 IFQ associated with these holdings was relatively small.
Table 7.2-2 provides similar information on QS holders, as opposed to their QS holdings. The table shows the number of initial QS recipients in each area. The table also shows the number of initial QS recipients who did not change their holdings of a particular type of QS defined by species, area, and category during 1995. In other words, this particular QS holding was the same at initial issuance as it was at year-end 1995 and was still held by the same person.
As can be seen, the percentage of initial QS recipients who did not change a QS holding during 1995 was quite large, ranging from 73.6% of initial QS recipients in the Southeast outside area to 87.1% of the initial QS recipients in the Bering Sea area.4 Again, these QS holders who left at least one QS holding unaltered from initial issuance through year-end 1995 were divided into two groups: persons with some harvest of the IFQ associated with the QS holding, and persons with no harvest of the IFQ associated with the QS holding. Again, if the QS holding was fished by a lease holder or a designated skipper it was also counted in the "some harvest" group.
The data indicate that the percentage of the persons who had some unchanged QS holdings and did not fish those holdings was large, ranging from 21.4% of the initial QS recipients in the Southeast outside area to 40.7% in the Western Gulf and Bering Sea areas. Again, the average size of the associated QS holdings was small when measured in terms of 1995 IFQ.