46°

Sound off on the important issues at

And still nothing has been done to settle the question of the burgeoning halibut charter fleet.

At the end of this month, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has a chance to take action. It will decide at its Anchorage meeting whether to institute a moratorium on entry into the halibut charter fleet.

The decision won't mean a peace treaty. The best we can hope for is an armistice, a first step toward a permanent solution.

Action is needed - and fast - because for the last three years, the charter fleet has been taking more than its limit. Last year the Southeast Alaska halibut charter fleet caught up to 47 percent more than the "guideline harvest level," according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

It's nice that there's a guideline. It's too bad that it's virtually meaningless, since there's no way to enforce it.

If the charter fleet catches more than its share, it just means fewer fish in the future for commercial longliners. The International Pacific Halibut Commission, set up to preserve the species, is not about to let fishermen of any kind damage the overall stocks.

The heart of the problem is that the charter fleet continues to swell. With a finite number of fish, that means fewer fish for other user groups.

In 1997, for instance, the net weight of the guided halibut sport catch in Southeast Alaska was 1,034,000 pounds. That figure more than doubled by 2006.

It's going to keep climbing if nothing's done.

The charter fleet plays a vital role in Alaska's tourism economy, but like other industries, it needs to be regulated.

Several options could provide a long-term solution: individual fishing quotas for charter boats, a limited number of permits for the fleet, a hard quota or a transferable seat program.

A transferable seat program, in which charter operators are allocated a certain number of client seats, is unlikely to garner enough support to get off the ground.

A hard quota is Draconian and could mean death to charter businesses. Charter operators would have a tough time booking clients if customers know fishing could be shut down whenever the quota is reached.

Limited entry and individual fishing quotas are more reasonable solutions. One problem with a limited entry system, however, is that it may be hard to set up in a way that deals fairly with the different types of charter operations.

For instance, operators who offer halibut fishing as a part of their other services could be cut out if they're competing for permits with charter operators dedicated to nothing but halibut.

Individual quotas, on the other hand, could allow charter operators different shares of the harvest based on their historical catch. Those who offer some halibut fishing would get smaller shares, but they wouldn't be cut out of the fishery. Meanwhile, the halibut-only guides would get larger shares.

Implementing any kind of regulatory system will, no doubt, bring its share of pain, as commercial fishermen found when individual quotas for halibut were introduced.

Charter operators who have been in the business longer and served more clients will likely fare better than newcomers in any new system.

But whatever management program wins approval, a moratorium on new boats must be put in place.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council needs to approve that and then tackle a final solution as quickly as possible. That's the only way to give peace a chance in the halibut war.