Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 1 -

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force

Volume 2

As of October 17, 2002

Table of Contents

Responses by:

Victor Goldsberry 10/17/02 ................................................................................................2-4

Jeff Berger 10/16/02............................................................................................................5-7

Russ Parkison 10/15/02.......................................................................................................8-10

Peter Schonberg 10/15/02 .................................................................................................11-13

Victor Smith 10/14/02.......................................................................................................14-15

Paul Harder 10/12/02 ........................................................................................................16-18

Gary C. Lang 10/11/02......................................................................................................19-22

Mark Buckley 10/11/02.....................................................................................................23-26

Testimony by Jerry Spencer 10/11/02 ............................................................................................. 27-29

Gerry Merrigan 10/11/02................................................................................................................. 30-32

Testimony of Albert and Melinda Hofstad 10/11/02 ........................................................33-34

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 2 -

Victor Goldsberry

PO Box 867, Nome, AK 99762

October 17, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Higher quality should equel higher price plus continued and increased marketing of “wild” Alaska fish

as natural & better, plus home”grown”.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Yes.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Things happen. Higher price for higher quality, lower price for lower quality seems most fair, easiest to

administer and does not penalize fishermen unable for whatever reason to deliver the best quality.

Marketing

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon? (e.g. salmon harvesters, processors, federal government/USDA; state general fund; other

federal funds; other sources)

ASMI seems to be doing good work from what I read.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Quality, Quality, Quality!

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

We have limited entry. The problem wasn’t fleet reductions when there were fish and a decent price for

salmon.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

This is not my area of expertise. However if processing costs are reduced this should equal 1) a higher

price for fishermen & 2) a lower cost to customers=more fish sold or 3)both.

Finance

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Since fishing, like mining and farming is always going to be iffy even when things go well, the uncertain

nature of any given season or year has to be figured into loans.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 3 -

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

Here (NW & Western Alaska) there are no fish. Natives I know have lost permits because of inability to

pay the basic permit fee. Our permits have no value.

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Wild fish are better. Where have they gone? Are Alaskan and Japanese and Russian hatcheries part of

the reason wild stocks are disappearing? Alaska used to have about the best hatchery program in the

world. Now Japan does. Why is this?

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

Our family is native. Various kids have worked and are working fishing. Its interesting to hear these

first comments after working docks etc & finding out Natives are treated where Natives are minorities

in this state –so sad.

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Don’t know.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

C’mon – I haven’t been able to commercially or subsistence fish salmon for years.

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

I’m sure there are.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Listen to science, forget political favors.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

A good idea but wouldn’t mean anything.

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

It seems to me things should be Priority 1-Subsistence; 2-Commercial; 3-Sport. It seems priorities are

now 1-Sport; 2-Commercial; 2-Subsistence – tied.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 4 -

Economic Development

1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and

individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?

We need more fish biologists –this means funding these positions. We need more data as to why fish are

gone, and where. This means funding. The Bering Sea is changing drastically. Why and to what? We

need a State income tax so we can be at the forefront of fisheries knowledge and production again. I

guess it’ll just keep going downhill.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 5 -

Jeff Berger

dccp@ptialaska.net

Box 2219 Ninilchilk, Alaska 99639

907-567-3980

Fish_area: Cook Inlet

Gear_type: all

October 16, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

First if all differentiate between #1 grade and off grades. The quality of the fish will increase

immediately. Educate all participants at every level of the chain of custody especially fishermen and

process workers.

B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?

ABSOLUTELY NO!!!! The government has no business in this arena. The only time government

should be involved is in the case of health risks. Besides it will happen when competative forces make it

happen.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

No. Again this should be left to competitive forces to make it happen. The state should help in some

aspects as a means of helping a transition but has no permanent place in this arena. A business

dependent on public funds is not an asset but a liability.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

There could be a voluntary organization. This would be helpful in coordination of effort.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Money is the key. We have to improve or we will loose all of our markets to others. It happens all the

time. Look at Washington apples.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

I would support the existing structures but change them to be more effective. Times are changing and we

need to focus less on export markets and more on our own domestic markets. If we capture half of the

farmed fish market existing right now we will selkl most of our Alaskan pack domestically.

Stop sueing our best market.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

We need help right now but in the long run it has to be the fishermen and industry.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

No. The state should help existing entities to market wild salmon. The fishermen market their salmon to

processors. Processors and marketing firms market the production on the open market. We need tgo

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 6 -

help them increase and differentiate the product on the open market. This will increase prices for all

concerned. Industry is responding to these forces, but, it is slow. We need help for the short run. Doritos

sell for $15.00 #.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

First of all get the politics out of fisheries management. Let the Biologists manage the fisheries for

maximum sustained yield, not political goals. The local area fishermen will solve the other problems.

Let the chips fall where they may.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

If industry needs a shot in the arm the fastest and most direct help would be fisheries business tax relief.

Taxes are to generate revenue from healthy business, not tax ailing business out of business. Then you

have nothing.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Let the biologists manage the fisheries for the benifit of all users. Maximum sustained yield and realistic

escapement goals. They can factor in things like having openings on a schedule that helps increase

efficiency and reduce production costs.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Yes, Help with marketing. Tax relief for ailing processors.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

I would say there are many financing avenues for fishermen and boat owners, but, it is exceedingly

difficult to find financing for pack loans and processing plants. We sure could have used the money

spent for the ASI plant for more worthwhile help. I guarantee that if the SouthCentral processors had a

few million dollars each we would have frozen microwaveable entrees and dinners on the shelves

nationwide right now!

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would

you suggest for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

No. The effort will allocate itself through competitive forces and sound business decision making. If

there is no profit people will quit doing it. If it becomes more profitable in the future more people will

resume. Just do not create any more limited entry of ifq systems that foster these problems. We need to

follow our own good example and let free market forces allocate resources where ever possible. I know

it can be painful but the reward is it gives us the encentive to be the greatest producing nation in the

world.

Hatcheries

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 7 -

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

I do not know enough about the way things are now to comment on this.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

Educate with facts not fiction. People think that the more salmon you harvest the less fish that there are.

The truth is, the more you harvest in most cases the more are produced. Everyone should be educated in

rudimentary fisheries biology.

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

I think they are doing an excellent job. I have received help from the extension service and the fish tech

center many times.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Many things. Our state is the richest state in the union in natural resources, yet we are the most

undeveloped. We have unimaginable development opportunity. If we have development capital. We

need everything.

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

Don't create any new regulation we have too much already. If we pass a new regulation we should be

required to retire an old one.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

I support the process but, I think the board needs professional membership. Or at least a high

level of training or experience to serve on it.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

I think that would be a good start.

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an AlaskaSeafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

The legislature needs to be better educated and informed about this vital industry. If that is what it takes

to do this then I would support that.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 8 -

Russ Parkison

1462 W 37th St

San Pedro, CA 90731

Cook Inlet Driftnet

October 15, 2002

Quality

1.What does the Alaska salmon industry needs to achieve a higher quality product?

In the Kenai drift gillnet fishery: Low prices will not allow us to retrofit our boats for chilled seawater

and iced handling on board. My boat will not lend itself to this retrofit. Bleeding live fish when they

come on board raises the quality of the fish significantly. Our processor, even after the fish was

“Surefish Certified”, left our fish, until his pack was completed. This was very detrimental to

quality.Our filleting and pinbone removal was done for value added then vacuum packed. As of October

we have lost about 10% to bad vacuum bags or process. Quality becomes an issue when you are

catching a big load of fish. You bleed as many of the live ones as you can, but at $.50 a pound you catch

as many as you can because you are not paid significantly more for iced-bled fish. More frequent and

shorter fishing periods to spread out the product. Maybe Individual fish quotas for salmon would let us

fish when we want and take our time on the grounds. The farm fish industry has a fine product and a big

market. We will not match their quality or price with the methods and fleets we have at present.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, seal, and commission?

All of these standards are in place now. HACCP training from UofA- Surefish certification of product

was in use at the dock in Kenai. Mayor, Dale Bagley developed a Branding program for Kenai Sockeye.

You already have five sub committees to work on a problem that was created by all the committees that

preceded you.

3. Should the state have an education program?

Use the HACCP program. And still, only the motivated fisherman, processors will care to change. It’s

motivated by individual profit.

4. Incentives for me to improve quality!

For all the years I have been fishing in Cook Inlet people have wanted their piece of the salmon.

Sportsmen-subsistance-vacationers-setnetters-drifters-dipnetters. The Kenai River is the backyard for

Anchorage. We now have too many people, and to few fish.Kings, Silvers, Sockeye, fishing time reduced

for user groups.With today’s methods, expenses, and allotted catch it would take $1.80 a pound to get

me to fish again. With the market and the economy where it is today it is impossible. Too little too late!

Our Co-op fish is still not sold!

Marketing

1. Do we use existing promotional entities?

If ASMI had done the job of promoting Alaska Wild stock Salmon then our co-op would not be sitting on

9,000 pounds of certified frozen vacuum packed fillets that have no market. We would also not be fishing

for $.50 pound for sockeye. The State of Alaska needs to spend the millions that it would take to hire a

major marketing agency to do a big job of advertising the fish we catch. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to put

a tariff on import farm fish to pay for the advertising. If all the things that I have previously responded

to were in place today and product quality were to radically change, then marketing would have a sound

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 9 -

base with which to start. At present we have no market for our fish. Our co-op still has not sold the fish

for this season.

2. State help for fishermen to market their own fish?

Fishermen are fishermen. Most are not market people. To give millions to fishermen to market fish will

not get the fish to market. Our co-op is doing the best we know how and still our fish is not sold. We

could sell it for about what we could break even with when we were forced into this by $.50 a pound this

year. Check our web site: http://www.bnet.org/rbsd/shores/health/kenaisalmon.htm

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs?

Subsidize my fuel costs! Reduce the fleet in Cook Inlet to 200 boats. Make it economically feasible for

me to sell my boat and permit. Develop a system of I.F.Q.’s to enable the smaller fleet to fish when best

conditions are in place to produce a high quality product. i.e. weather-run size-processor capability. We

have a co-op now and it is not working very well. (10 boats) Fishermen are independent businessmen.

There are great fishermen, good fishermen, and poor fishermen. You will not get them to pool product.

If we all got I.F.Q.’s for salmon we could sell them like the Halibut guys! The best fishermen would get

the higher I.F.Q. poundage. Alaska should not go into the farming business. It’s saturated and will fall

to wild stocks! HACCP certification would allow the fisherman to process (head and gut) fish on board

if there were allotted time on the grounds. Enforcement of 200 boats would save time and money to

ADGF. Corridors produce a poor quality fish from fishing in the mud and towing the net. It’s hard to

rationalize reduced cost to harvest when the fish that we did harvest is still not sold!

2. Reduced cost for processors?

The processors along with the fishermen have been taxed into oblivion! Raw fish tax- aquaculture-

ASMI. All of a sudden you found the money so we could make a few bucks!!

The hatcheries have never helped the drift gillnetter in Cook Inlet.

3. Regulatory changes

Let the ADFG regulate the fishery biologically. Throw out subsistence for the “CITY” of Anchorage.

Stop dipnetting. IFQ’s for salmon.

Finance

1. Are there better ways to use tax money to assist the salmon industry?

If our co-op were to go into processing our own fish it would have to be totally funded with state money.

Three freezer plants have closed on the Kenai and the rest are ready to close. How could we possibly

fish and process too! Check our web site for an explanation of our co-op :

http://www.bnet.org/rbsd/shores/health/kenaisalmon.htm

2. AK loan practices?

Would you give me a $50,000 loan on my boat and a $50,000 loan on my CI permit? Then would you

forgive the loan? Call me when you can do this!

Hatcheries

1. Hatcheries do not play a role in the future of Cook Inlet wild Sockeye harvest.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 10 -

Education

1. K-12 education is doing all it can to prepare these young people to enter a workforce that is not in

existence today. The evolution or demise of the fishing industry should not be put on the shoulders of

educators.

2. The University systems research in my judgment is suspect to the whims of the politicians. In the mid

90’s they were given untold thousands of dollars to determine the impact on the economy of the Kenai

Peninsula commercial fishery. They failed! And now you have five committee’s to undo the demise of a

fishery.

The University is doing the HACCP training. It is an incredibly boring but important part of the quality

issues you are facing.

3. I am already displaced by changes in the salmon industry. The key to the Cook Inlet commercial drift

net fishery is “Keep your winter job”.

Agency Oversight

1. The board of fish decisions is made for the Sports interests in the State of Alaska. If we are to address

the commercial issues we must let the ADFG manage the fisheries biologically. If you want to have a

commercial fishery then see my responses in the Quality Subcommittee Response.

2. No, I do not support the Alaska Board of Fish. It is a pawn of Bob Penny and Tony Knowles.

Eliminate it and manage biologically and get ride of Anchorage subsistence. Anyone living 1 hour from

a Safeway market is not a subsistence user.

3. No, manage the fishery biologically!!!

Seafood Commission

1.Some kind of commission should have seen the demise of the commercial fisheries coming years ago!

You now have five subcommittees to look at why we are where we are! How many committees does it

take to change the light bulb to get the idea that it may be to late to save the fishery in Cook Inlet and

around the state?

Economic Development

1. The Alaska salmon industry is not just changing. It’s imploding, and it all has to do with the allotment

of the resource to user groups. There are too many people, and to few salmon. Do you want a

commercial fishery? Then manage biologically and lessen the impact of sport and subsistence. Do you

want a recreational fishery for Anchorage? Then get rid of my boat and me. Do you want everyone to

subsist on the stocks that are left at the present time? You’re a little bit late for me. I have a fishing boat

in a yard in Kenai. I had to sell the house I built on the Kenai River and my permit sits in the drawer

and there is not much chance of it fishing in 2003. That is an economic impact on me. Thank you for

allowing me to give input into this process. Please make sure all committees get all responses. They are

very intertwined. I’m sorry if it is a bit cynical. I have lost a major part of my livelihood for all these

years and it hurts a lot. Check our web site: http://www.bnet.org/rbsd/shores/health/kenaisalmon.htm

Russ Parkison F/V Tina D.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 11 -

Peter Schonberg

pschonberg@aol.com

75-816F Hiona St., Holualoa, HI 96725

808-331-0989

Fish_area: SE

Gear_type: Seine

October 15, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

The product needs to be chilled ASAP and the temperatures need to be monitored from catch to

customer. Bleeding the fish would be great, but very difficult in the high volume seine fishery. The

amount of time between catch and freezing or canning needs to be minimized. I believe that ASMI is on

the right trac with its recommendations.

B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?

Chilling should be mandatory!

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Yes, all of the above.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

All fishers, crews, and processors should have to get a certificate attesting to the fact that they have

been trained to properly handle the fish.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

We need quality bonuses for those who have invested in the equipment and training to handle the

fish properly. Perhaps these come at the expense of those who don't care.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

ASMI should be cut loose from state control if the current marketing restrictions remain. ASMI as a

structure is an excellent start. Do we really need to reinvent here? No! Let's improve what we

have.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

Fishers should continue to pay in, but we need much more support from federal and state governments.

Marketing with enough money will be far cheaper that any kind of buyback or continuing disaster

funding.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Sure-monetary credits for investments made in marketing.

Production

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 12 -

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Allow formation of co-ops, buybacks etc. and let the groups from each are decide which way they want

to go.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Don't know.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Yes. I believe that all hatchery fish should be harvested in coops. The way we do it now does not make

any sense. A terminal hatchery fishery could easily be run as a coop which would greatly reduce costs

for everyone involved.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

At this time, all fish taxes should be used in the industry for management, improvements and buybacks.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Not sure. I don't use the programs.

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

Definitely! Fishermen should contribute, the state should contribute, and the federal government should

contribute. I'm sure it would end up to be cheaper than a constant bail out of fishermen and

communities.

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Yes. The state provided loans, but the fishermen have paid for the hatcheries. Any policies should

recognize this. The fishermen should have considerable say about the hatcheries. I think the processors

should be kept out of this discussion.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

Don't know.

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 13 -

If you look at the current managers, I think you will find a lot of U of W school of fisheries influence.

Why isn't the U of A turning out the qualified managers on the same scale?

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

I won't be.

Agency Oversight

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

The board of fish is highly political and many of the members represent interests different from

commercial fishing. This has resulted in some very bad decisions. Where are the levelheaded

professionals in the process. The appointment system is terrible.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Yes

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

Yes

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 14 -

Victor Smith

sawmillcreek@rockisland,com

PO Bos 2477 Fricay harbor, WA 98250

360-378-3639

Fish_area: Southeastern

Gear_type: salmon seine

October 14, 2002

Marketing

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

I would like to comment on this question as well as attempt to answer it.

The assertion by the Task Force, that there is no intention of limiting discussion on Fleet Reduction to

permit stacking/ fractional permits, is contradicted by the omission of any mention of the Federal,

Magnuson-Stevens fishing reduction loan program. All across the nation, fishermen interested in fleet

reduction have embraced this program.

But, an amendment to this program, the Gilchrest Amendment, has been, and still is, being lobbied for in

the US Congress. If passed, this amendment would make Processor Quota Shares possible in all of

Alaska’s fisheries. Executives of at least two of Alaska’s fisherman’s associations, the United Fisherman

of Alaska, (UFA), the umbrella association that claims to represent over 10,000 Alaskan fishermen, and

the Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS), took steps to prevent their organizations opposition to

the passage of the Gilchrest Amendment, in spite of their members whishes or best interests. During

the same period of time they were doing this they also gave support to candidates who hadn’t voiced

opposition to Processor Quota Shares.

A year ago, the UFA voted to oppose Processor Quota Shares in the red crab fishery. According to one

first hand report, the UFA president “nearly went ballistic” over the vote, and a special session of the

UFA’s executive board was called that reversed the previous decision. Dave Bedford of SEAS, one of

UFA’s execs, then returned to the SEAS board and advised SAES not to take a position on Pro Quos

either. The justification given was that the red crab fishery was not within the realm of concern of

SEAS, and SEAS should stay out of it.

Not getting involved in the Red Crab fishery was about way more than just the crab fishery though, and

should have been of great concern to SEAS. The UFA, and SEAS didn’t tell their members about the

Gilchrest Amendment. Fishermen in Alaska should have been made aware of the Gilchrest Amendment,

and it’s significance, and the UFA had the responsibility to bring it to their attention. Not having done

so is just one example of how the UFA violated its charter to represent the interests of Alaskan

Fisherman. Instead, the UFA isolated the crabbers, and hung them out to dry. As applied so far, the

"regional self-determination" that the Salmon Task Force talks about appears to mean, divide and

conquer.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 15 -

Similarly high-handed tactics were used in the passage of the permit stacking/fractional permit bill,

HB286. At the Nov. ’01 SEAS meeting in Seattle, a proposal for a new fisheries management program

utilizing permit stacking, was presented by Terry Gardner, of Norquest Seafoods. His presentation was,

met with stony silence by the SEAS board, and one of SEAS board members even commented after Mr.

Gardner left the room “Terry doesn’t know a thing about fishing”. Yet, in spite of his member’s

opposition to fractional permits, SEAS general manager, David Bedford, without the authorization or

knowledge of his board or his committee that was looking into fleet reduction options, assisted the

UFA in writing, and passing HB286, that would make fractional permits possible. This is not an

example of self-determination.

The claim that the Task Force “did not intend to limit public comment to these two proposals (permit

stacking incentives and fractional entry permits), but just “wanted to highlight them for public

discussion.” doesn’t ring true either. Most of the people involved in the passage of HB286, and the

efforts to not oppose Processor Quota Shares, are in positions of influence on the Salmon Task Force.

They literally have appointed themselves, and have brought with them their old agenda and

tactics.

Fishermen do not want Processor Quota Shares or fractional permits, and they should pay close

attention to who is proposing them, or they could get them, and worse. Fishermen’s interests are no

longer being

represented by their organizations, yet the fishermen’s organizations names, and misrepresented

intentions, are being used to rip the fisherman off.

If fisherman want a fleet reduction program that just reduces their fleets, with no sneaky deals; one that

is fair, and legal, and that’s been closely examined, and approved by fishermen all over the United

States, they should look at the Federal plan. The proponents of fractional permits on the Task Force

have misrepresented the Federal plan, making it appear not to be workable, while at the same time,

misrepresenting HB286 to make it appear to be a better choice.

The proponents of HB286 have said that they wanted a fleet reduction program they could control, and

they are attempting to do that, not only by directing the discussion, but also by misrepresentation of

facts, and making deals that don’t represent the fisherman’s best interests. The temptation to reap

personal gain from ownership of two permits, or to use the prospect of such gain as a carrot or incentive

for making deals is just to great for some to resist. If reduction permits don’t actually go away, or be

removed from individual’s hands, the problems we have with too many permits will not go away. The

present problems we face will just be traded for ones that could potentially be worse. In answer to the

question, yes, I am personally in favor of a fleet reduction program.

Production

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

The processing sector needs to put more effort into finding profits in sails rather than getting cheaper

raw product.

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Yes.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 16 -

Paul Harder

harderpaul@hotmail.com

1860 Sherman St. #4 Port Townsend WA 98368

360 344 3429

Fish_area: Kodiak and PWS

Gear_type: Seine

October 12, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Low interest loans or grants to build fishermen owned cold storages and packaging/shipping centers

and upgrade vessels.

B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?

No!

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

No!

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

No!

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

The chance to earn money from the product. Fishermen are required to have contracts with their crews

that guarantee a percentage of the catch. Why is there no such law for processors? Packers should be

required to have contracts with permit holders that would guarantee a percentage of the finished

product and open books to fishermen the same as skippers do for crews!

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

ASMI is run by people that don't have enough incentive to improve our situation. What wild salmon

lacks is a distribution network in the states. It needs to be built from the ground up one step at a time.

Instead of ASMI stumbling around throwing a little money here and a little money there, our

infrastruction needs to be built just like a corporation for a chain of restaurants or stores. Start with

one "WILD ALASKA SALMON" store/restaurant and pay smart people to make sure it's done right.

Serve cheap inexpensive salmon by the plate, package, or case. Become the dominant supplier for

salmon in that local and then move on to other markets. Franchise the business and we're off and

running.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

Those that make the most money from it. We need to open some books to determine that.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 17 -

Of course. Low interest loans, matching funds, grants, or whatever it takes to save the industry.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Allow co-ops to be formed. If a co-op of 25% of one areas fleet is formed that co-op should be granted

25% of the harvestable run.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Co-ops will reduce tender costs, book keeping costs and the cost of serving a big fleet.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Co-op support in any form.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Start a competition to see who can come up with the best plan and have big prizes for the winning ideas.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Rock and I mean ROCK bottom interest rates for long and I mean LONG TERM loans.

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

Retiring of permits sounds good on the surface. However, anyone that takes the time to pull out a

calculator and compare the benefit of removing part of the fleet as compared to forming co-ops, will

discover that the cost of buying a permit in for example Prince William Sound would be exorbitatant.

Consider that PWS seiners have been earning about $13,000,000 per year on average for the last 10

years. If 15 boats were paid $300,000. each to harvest the run. $8,500,000. would be available to be

divided up. If every non catcher boat permit in PWS shared in the co-op equally it would amount to

about $33,000. each. Compare that dividend to a certificate of deposit and you got an investment worth

over $1,000,000. There is a group of guys in Alaska that are trying to hoodwink unsuspecting fishermen

in hopes of buying their permits for pennies on the dollar. It's criminal!

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Yes. Hatcheries are guaranteed not to fail and they can choose how much they will compensate

themselves. What a scam!

Education

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 18 -

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

Teach them about the carcinogens in farm raised salmon.

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

I have no clue! Being a salmon fisherman I can't afford to put one foot in a university. That's only for

people that have state jobs with free health care etc.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Maybe giving us remote land to start tourist related lodges for sport fishing etc.

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

How about unemployment benefits for fishermen ...for ever!

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Nobody should be on the board that works for a company that is dominated by foreign owners.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Sure why not.

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

No!

Economic Development

1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and

individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?

Fishermen need some programs that will help them move into other industries.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 19 -

Gary C. Lang

gclang@ptialaska.net

po box 2586,sitka ak.99835

907-747-4573

Fish_area: southeast alaska

Gear_type: purse seine

October 11, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Incentive from processors to pay more to fishermen for higher quality product at present processors

refuse to take unchilled fish, but also refuse to pay the fisherman for chilling the fish, and at paying

pennies per lb,80% of a very meager price disappears as soon as we start our rsw, with fuel at $1.50 per

gal or more, we also need to allow any and all fish buyers, foreign and domestic to be able to purchase

our fish, to get rid of the big 4 monopoly on Alaska fish, and to let the rest of a very fish hungry world to

purchase our fish, if they want them, and to eliminate the Japanese monopoly, they are as foreign as any

Russian, Chinese, Korean or European buyers.

B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?

Only if it is also made mandatory that any buyer of fish statewide be required to pay a minimum of $.10

lb. for rsw added to the per lb price of the fish, and if the price of fuel goes up, the buyers price for rsw

goes up. Processors want chilled quality consistently, but refuse to pay for it consistently. If this is

passed, make it beneficial for the fisherman for once, excellent quality from the fishermen should be

rewarded.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

No, we already have a very high quality standard in the seine fleet, we deliver chilled fish daily, the

quality starts to diminish when the processors take possession and the fish are handled 4 times or more

before they reach the market, at 40 to60 times the price paid the catcher, if quality standards are set, set

them for the processors, and check them with observers because of the wasted fish they have all been

caught dumping and grinding

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Again, only if it is for the shore based, Japanese owned, so called Alaska canneries

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

A decent price per lb + a minimum $.10 per lb. rsw because chilling the fish requires engines[diesel]to

run 24 hrs per day while fishing to chill +the main propulsion motor to catch the fish, processors should

be required to pay for a third of a boats fuel cost per season, or the rsw cost.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Market to the world, not just Japan, if possible eliminate Japan and find some new markets, many other

Asian countries eat fish also, get off this fixation on Japan

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 20 -

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

The same processors that spend all that money in Juneau lobbying for different ways to cheat the

fishermen of their fair share.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes, allow fishermen to sell their product as they find their own market for those fish, also allow

the eggs to be marketed by seiners along with the fish, eliminate the red tape involved with these things,

now there are so many permits and licenses and paperwork involved in this process it's ridiculous,

punch a road into Wrangell thru Canada, so we can market in Canada and the lower 48,many buyers

say they are willing to give good prices for all our salmon if we could get a road into southeast, so they

could truck the product to their markets, and we could displace farm fish, simply because this is the only

salmon the midwest sees

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Get the hatcheries in southeast out of the fish selling business, they take away 50% or more of our

markets, we can eliminate cost recovery by all hatchery fish being caught by fishermen, and a

percentage of the hatchery caught fish price being taken off the fish ticket for the hatchery cost, also

eliminate all private non profit hatcheries, these are politically approved fish farms in Alaska, and

anyone that thinks cost recovering 24 million lbs[100%] of chum at $.45lb like the Juneau hatchery

does every year is non profit, they have blinders on. The processors pay this amount to hatcheries for

the same chum salmon they pay fishermen $.12 for, any excess return to any hatchery, chum, coho, or

king salmon should be for the fisherman, not hatcheries to roe strip and or sell, seiners have never ever

gotten any of the millions made from the sale of salmon eggs.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Eliminate the Japanese, get new management with new ideas, automate wherever they can, create

different salmon products, get off the can syndrome, require all processors to use pin bone machines,

allow all foreign buyers in, obviously our present processors don't want pink salmon, let us sell our

pinks to anyone that wants them, and we'll sell our money fish to the shore processors, a road to

Wrangell would help transport the processors product south also

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Change the magnusen act wording so that it actually helps fishermen and not let processors based in

Seattle and Canada abuse it to exploit the fishermen it was created to help. Eliminate the sale and

ownership of any salmon permits that allow Canadians[vessel and crew]to fish Alaska waters,

reimburse them and cancel their permits if you want to eliminate permits

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Create an emergency fund to help fishermen pay their fishing related bills in a year like 2002 where

certain Japanese owned, Seattle based processors are trying to put as many seine fishermen out of

business as they can

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 21 -

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Loaning only to Alaskans that reside year-round in Alaska, allowing fishermen to skip payment where

payment is not possible and add the passed payment on to the end of the loan, lower the interest on

loans to 5% or lower. We need a solution for now, 2002; many of us cannot make it thru the upcoming

winter without state or federal financial assistance

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

It should be voluntary, ask for federal funding to pay each fisherman $300,000. That chooses to retire

his permit, most net fishermen don't have retirement, and have most of their lives in this fishery and their

vessel and gear, this would be their only compensation for a lifetime of fishing. the ones with the big

fancy gear have many permits, ifq's, inherited wealth, greed and cheating going for them, many are

Seattle lawyers doctors etc and do this for their vacation time, so divide the cost between federal, state,

and processors

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Yes, first eliminate all private hatcheries, their fish farms, and should be illegal in Alaska anyway. Get

the state and fish tax supported hatcheries out of the fish selling business, if they are going to have

cost recovery and the hatcheries get paid 70% more for the same fish that the fisher gets, eliminate the

hatchery tax and get the gill-netters out of seine areas, or eliminate cost recovery and raise the hatchery

tax to 4% and let the fishermen catch all hatchery fish, eliminate roe sales by hatcheries

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

The instructors should be retired fishermen, teaching in their own field of expertise, salmon, crab,

pollock, halibut etc. a secondary class that would be very helpful to a new [greenhorn] person entering

the business, would be teaching gear work to them, many new people don't get hired or get the lowest

pay because they can't do gear work or navigate or can't use the electronic gear provided on any vessel,

this can all be taught by retired fishermen and skippers in their field

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

No, put more emphasis on how entire cultures depend on salmon, the poor returns in the chum rivers in

western Alaska, Yukon river area can be helped to recover by the same hatcheries they blame for their

demise, send sraa and nsraa people to educate these people on how to enhance a run by hatchery

help, another case of teaching

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Most independent seiners are in their late 50s and 60s, retraining would be very hard, but not

impossible, most job training would be told were to old, classes are geared for 18 to 25 year olds, I’ve

run my own boat for 26 years and would like to finish on the ocean, if the state could help me get black

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 22 -

cod and halibut ifq's, or set up in Dungeness crabbing, I would be very willing to go this route as

alternative employment, and all it would take would be a very low interest loan

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

Re opening areas the state took away from seiners in the 60s, so we could fish areas we traditionally

fished before bad political decisions took them away from us, inian islands, cape edgecumbe, beam

canal, boca de quadra, home shore, these are some of the areas lost to seine fisheries because a

politician had friends in other fisheries etc these areas provided seiners with a decent amount of money

fish, plus would spread the fleet, no more big concentrations of boats in small open areas, don’t regulate

the fisheries so the f&g people can sit in their offices, regulate for the fishermen

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

New people with new ideas, eliminate political appointees, no special interest people that are there

because they promised someone something, actually get some people involved that know something

about whats going on in the seine fishery, get politics out of this, think Alaska fishermen instead of

Japanese owned processors, these processors put us in this mess

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

As long as no processors were involved, and seine fishermen were, no appointees that know nothing

about the seine or fish business in general. Lets actually get something done this time

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

Absolutely, made up of people in the fishing end of the business, not the processing end

Economic Development

1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and

individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?

Rules should be implemented that allow small fish companies to operate in se Alaska without fear of

getting put out of business by the very big companies [cossack seafood etc.]all fishers should be able to

sell any seafood caught anywhere without need of special permits, licenses or unnecessary red political

tape designed to set the fisher back instead of foreword, the road to Wrangell would solve a lot of the

present problems

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 23 -

Mark Buckley

mkbuckley@alaska.com

Box 649 Kodiak, AK 99615

907 486 4680

Fish Area: Bristol Bay

Gear Type: Drift gillnet

October 11, 2002

Quality Subcommittee

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Industry and government must first understand what the market wants and must then make the necessary

changes to provide products that people want to buy. Today, most Alaskans in the industry believe that

a ‘quality’ fish is mainly one that tastes good. However, my research demonstrates clearly that our

perception and the market’s perception are at odds.

In truth, the salmon move through distribution channels that are concerned mostly about two things: 1.

Appearance, and 2. Shelf Life. Buyers who place orders for Alaska salmon are typically interested in

moving the product through a distribution chain quickly and profitably. Those buyers are not the

consumers, but they are our most important customers. If they get burned they stop coming back.

Similarly, if there is cheaper product available at similar or superior quality (e.g. farmed fish), many of

those buyers will stop placing orders for Alaska fish or will negotiate the price downward. I would say

Appearance and Shelf Life each account for about 40% of the buyer’s concerns with taste accounting

for 10%.

For its part, Appearance can be broken down into two sub-categories: External Appearance and

Internal Appearance. External appearance refers to the fish’s color and the overall condition. Does it

look fresh and ocean-bright? Does it smell? Are there scales missing? Has it been mutilated in any

way?

Internal appearance refers to the look of the fish’s flesh. Is there bruising? Is it discolored or of uneven

color? Is it firm?

Shelf life is relatively self-explanatory. Basically it refers to risk management, insofar as the buyer

wants to have the maximum amount of time to hold the fish before he has to drop the price to move it or

to throw it out altogether.

With those thoughts in mind, what can the State do to promote salmon quality? Plenty.

First, the state should recognize the current regulatory and management practices are in large measure

outdated. Most systems now in place made good sense in 1959, but they are a great hindrance in 2002.

Regulations that work against fish quality are numerous, but the biggest offenders are the ones that

prohibit fishermen and processors from delivering quality products. The state forces many fishermen to

catch fish in places that are far from optimal for fish quality and in ways that the market does not want.

Those regulations are rooted deep in the Limited Entry system. They require fishermen, for example, to

fish in some areas with gillnets only. This is true even though many fishermen and fish buyers would

prefer to use other means to harvest fish. Basically, gillnets are bad for quality in two ways: they

frequently negatively affect the fish’s appearance due to scale loss and internal bruising. Also, gillnetPublic

Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 24 -

caught fish are often dead when brought aboard ship. If the fish is dead, it cannot be bled effectively,

and that affects shelf life.

The state should allow fishermen the option of converting existing licenses from harvest methods that

work against quality to methods that work for quality.

For example, the state forbids any commercial salmon trolling west of Cape Fairweather. Why? There

is no logical reason for this. Fishermen are businessmen who should have the option to deliver trollcaught

fish wherever they can find a market, not merely in SE Alaska.

In Kodiak in September 2002, seine-caught silver salmon were fetching 10 cents per pound for the

fishermen. At the same time in Sitka, troll-caught fish were worth 90 cents per pound. One reason for

the wide disparity is due to processing costs. In a typical plant that processes fish in the round, more

than 20 persons handle each fish as it moves down the line being headed, gutted, cleaned and boxed for

fresh shipment. In a Sitka plant I counted 4 persons handling each troll fish from unloading to boxing.

Trollers usually bleed and clean the fish soon after harvest, saving labor and enhancing shelf life.

Another way the state works against quality is by requiring fishermen to harvest salmon in or near

stream/river terminuses. This practice often results in the fish appearing water marked, affecting their

appearance and reducing their quality. The regulatory process and ADFG should work to limit harvests

near fresh/brackish water whenever possible and instead encourage harvests in or near the open ocean.

A third way the state limits quality is through regulations limiting vessel length. Fishermen should be

allowed to use whatever boat makes sense to them as they strive to deliver higher-quality product.

Forcing fishermen into boats whose lengths made sense in 1959 is counter productive. Fishermen who

want to improve their quality should be free to equip their boats with whatever processing machinery

and devices they need to deliver a catch wanted by the market. Perhaps, for example, a fisherman will

want to convert his boat into a live tank and hold fish live until just before processing.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Yes, the state should do this. There must also be mandatory controls on fishermen, processors, and,

where possible, on public carriers such as airlines and shipping companies to assure, whenever

possible, that all seafood leaving Alaska is handled in a manner that supports quality as defined above.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes. It might be a requirement for getting a license renewal. OR, if a person has completed a quality

course, he/she might qualify for a license at a reduced fee.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Before I return to harvesting fish, I will need to see sweeping regulatory reform along the lines I have

outlined above. I will want to have more options in the way I can harvest the fish and in the ways the

state

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

This question is too vague. What is its real meaning?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 17, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 25 -

Education

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

I would prefer that the state change its regulations so I can get back to work.

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

The CFEC regulations need to be changed to allow permit holders to convert existing licenses into other

types of license: E.G. convert a Bristol Bay driftnet permit to a BB troll permit; facilitate harvest

practices that would allow fishermen to retain live fish, and allow for certain new gear types and/or

harvest techniques that will promote, rather than degrade, quality.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

The BOF should recognize the current regulatory and management practices are in large measure

outdated. Most systems now in place made good sense in 1959, but they are a great hindrance in 2002.

Regulations that work against fish quality are numerous, but the biggest offenders are the ones that

prohibit fishermen and processors from delivering quality products. The state forces many fishermen to

catch fish in places that are far from optimal for fish quality and in ways that the market does not want.

Those regulations are rooted deep in the Limited Entry and Fish Board systems. They require

fishermen, for example, to fish in some areas with gillnets only. This is true even though many

fishermen and fish buyers would prefer to use other means to harvest fish. Basically, gillnets are bad

for quality in two ways: they frequently negatively affect the fish’s appearance due to scale loss and

internal bruising. Also, gillnet-caught fish are often dead when brought aboard ship. If the fish is dead,

it cannot be bled effectively, and that affects shelf life.