Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force
As of October 11, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Tony Neal 10/10/02.............................................................................................................2-4
Milo Adkison 10/9/02 .........................................................................................................5
Dean Anderson 10/4/02 ......................................................................................................6-8
Charlie Hughey 10/4/02......................................................................................................9-11
Andrew Golia 10/4/02.......................................................................................................12-14
Stephen F. Snapp 10/4/02 .................................................................................................15-17
Glenn Brookman 10/3/02..................................................................................................18-20
Scott Mc Allister 10/3/02..................................................................................................21-25
Eric Hesselroth 10/1/02.....................................................................................................26-28
Daniel J. Tucker 9/30/02...................................................................................................29-31
Gary Smith 9/30/02...........................................................................................................32-34
G. Whistler 9/30/02...........................................................................................................35-39
Ray Wadsworth 9/28/02 ...................................................................................................40-41
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Tony Neal
vostokls@ptialaska.net
P.O. Box 3368, Homer, AK 99603
907 235 8141
Fish_area: Salmon set net, Egegik, BB
October 10, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
We all know the answer of what can be done. Fishers and processors wanting to make it in the new era
will know what to do and do it to survive.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
No, there's no way to enforce this and the state should not interfere with processor business. Processors
will know what they have to do to survive and fishers and processors will figure it out. State interference
will just distract from what we want to accomplish.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes as to standard. Yes as to seal. If that takes a commission, ok.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, maybe, but procesors and fishers know best and don't need education from the state. Fishers and
processors should educate from within the industry.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
We deliver high quality salmon as it is and would love to do more. Processors have to mandate what
they want for quality. As processors and sellers develop new markets and new products, the demand and
the means will come from within the industry.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
?
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
Those who directly benefit
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, by loans or grants. I think this could be a very good program to develop new markets. Fishers
need sort of a state "SBA" for fisheries related business plans.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
Re Bristol Bay, there are too many fishers. Regarding drifters, there are too many boats. Fewer boats
and more efficient harvesting and better care of the fish.
Regarding set net fishers, in general the quality of the fish is better. There are too many set net fishers
and these fishers cannot move. I think fewer fishers will be a big help. There are some fishers committed
to doing a good job, making money, and improving quality. There are fishers who cannot put in the time
and effort now.
I propose a plan where set net fishers can co-op together. Say, 10 set net fisher neighbors should be
allowed to co-op and fish, say 4 sites, and have their own agreement about the sharing. The non-fishing
permit holders should not be penalized. Now the state requires fishing a site every two years or losing it.
Now 10 fishers couldn't agree to co-op because the state would take away the sites of the non-fishing
permit holders. There should be a plan where fishers can get together as they choose to form harvesting
co-ops or pool their resources and the non-fishing permit holders in the co-op should have no penalty for
not themselves fishing. The co-op can be registered with the state. This way the state wouldn't have to
buy back permits. The permit holders not fishing would have some return for the permit they own and a
voice in the co-op.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Reduce the number of harvestors and this will help
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
See above, revise the set net site leasing law.
Finance
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
I don't know what is available, but salmon start up projects need to be funded.
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?
I wonder if retirement will be needed if fishers can co-op.Existing permit holders can be in a co-op and
not have to fish.
Education
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?
?
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Nothing
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
NO
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 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Milo Adkison
ffmda@uaf.edu
1019 Edwin Pl., Juneau AK
907-780-6330
Fish_area: N/A
Gear_type: N/A
October 9, 2002
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
The Chignik model is a terrible one for fishery-dependent communities because it allows transferable
ownership without requiring participation. Locals with permits could take them with them into their
retirements outside. Worse yet, there's no reason a Chicago millionaire couldn't buy a share in a co-op
purely as an investment. He'd never have to leave his home - he could just clip the coupons, so to speak.
Moving to a system where non-participants can own and sell a share of the fishery guarantees a transfer
of the benefits away from the fishing communities.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Dean Anderson
sierragale@ak.net
P.O. Box 2566
winter 907-362-1875 summer 840-2230
Fish_area: Chignik Lagoon, Alaska
Gear_type: Salmon Seine
October 4, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Stop the race to harvest! Institute Individual Fishing Allocations to groups, this would provide the
foundation to the path for better quality.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Not necessarily it has a lot to do with ones market, location, and product form in which the product is
going into. Other than special cases I would definitely require some chilling guidelines. Problem with
mandatory Chilling is that it would cost the fisherman upgrades that many cannot afford as it is. That's
why I.F.A.'s would be better for everyone since there is already enough chilled seawater systems out
there that are able to handle the states salmon run.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
I believe we half to be able to compete side by side with the quality of farm salmon, therefore it might be
a good idea to create a quality standard. Other than the state getting involved in that, I.F.A's could
eventually take care of that problem by itself.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Absolutely, surprising as it may seem most fisherman and people in the industry lack the knowledge that
would help themselves which in turn would help them in the marketing and educating the public about
Alaska salmon.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Individual Fishing Allocations to fishing groups would be a huge incentive in itself to improve the
Quality of Alaska salmon. It would automatically take less energy to harvest the product in turn shifting
the energy towards the needs of the fish as opposed to the needs (more fish)of the fisherman.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
I am unfamiliar with the structures but might have to change something only if we make big changes in
the method of harvest as opposed to the past.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
The salmon fishing industry needs to stand on it's own two feet. Other than marketing grants, the
industry needs to work on this itself.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, to a certain extent depending on there proposal and or idea but not just freeze fish and sell it on the
street corner. The amount needed is the question. Say if it is setting up a network or web site.
Communication is the big issue in marketing and also making that public presentation. Fisherman need
to get an education (mini-degree) in marketing prior to receiving money from state. That would be good
for the state to fund the education part.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
Introduce the use of Individual Fishing Allocations to fishing groups.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
I.F.A.'s will help the processing sector in a manner where they will be able to plan their day around a
controlled fishery and also enable processor to work from the market and work backwards.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can
help the harvesters and/or the processors?
The I.F.A program covers it from what I can see other than letting fisherman roe strip under some
conditions.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Help the industry by providing the needed infrastructure for the transporting or processing of products.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Converting the permits to I.F.A.'s, would give the banks a chance to recover their losses if the loan went
into default. On the same token it would give the fisherman an out, other than the currently very low
permit price. This does not work in all cases but it's a big help.
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?
Yes. I. F. A.'s would in fact put some value on the permits in a way as to give fisherman a grace full exit
with the exception of the permits with virtually no history, those would have to be given today's fair
market value as long as they were not an interim permit. The fisherman that stay in the industry will
eventually have to pay for the retirement of the permits. If Community Development Allocations were
developed, those regions could apply for grants to fund buy backs, to the benefit of that region or
village.
Hatcheries
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
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?
Hatcheries need to stand on there own two feet. Besides they are currently producing salmon that are
on the average worth next to nothing. or maybe they should start hatching out something else other
than pink or chum salmon. The market for salmon roe cannot even absorb what the wild runs produce
let alone what the hatcheries produce. Its like we're trading dollars when there is other options.
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?
Habits of eating salmon is a form of marketing in itself, there is no other substitute other than leading by
example, Teach them the benefits of eating wild salmon so they can show there children and every one
else in this world. I will take a couple generations and the lowering of our production costs to succeed
in the world market.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
Start now with the thought process whereas fishermen have a hard time with career changes. Make
known the training facility and information. For those that want assist in marketing salmon we should
provide grants for reeducating.
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
No! Have commercial fisherman decide commercial fishing issues and not a panel of individuals that
don't wear commercial fishing apparel to make their living. At least the majority as opposed to none at
all.
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?
If we can't get a better board of fish we are going to need something. First I would hope we could
develop a board that would better reflect the interests of the commercial fisherman.
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?
Work on developing other aquatic products, for we are years behind the world in production of other
seafood products.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Charlie Hughey
standrew@cvinternet.net
P.O.Box 1408
1-907-835-4990
Fish_area: Salmon Area E/ Halibut 3A
Gear_type: Gillnet/Longline
October 5, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
At least for Area "E" we need more time allowed to fish! Fisher's can not continue to try and invest with
money they do not have to invest. You want quality? Fishers need the time, a fair margin of profit after
expenses and then you might see an up-grade in vessels that can manage the on-board requirements the
industry seems to be screaming for! This is not a time to be over capitalizing!
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory
statewide?
Mandatory? I know I'm packing as much ice as possible, and it's probably foolish not too. This is self
regulating.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
I think the State should stay the out of it.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Why? The tenders educate each of us; our groups educate each of us; we educate ourselves!
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
1. More time allowed to fish.
2. Give us back our common property allocation.
3. Quit subsidizing the hatcheries.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
You don't need to sell to the Japanese. You need to be promoting these fish to U.S markets!
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
The State! You can’t collect any taxes from me when I’m sitting on the beach because there is no
market.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Sure! To U.S. markets. Then you can make sure we have cargo area availability on flights and allow us
to fish. An order taken during a closure to be flown out could very possibly not even happen, then you’d
have to retrain us because all of the above plus the continued restrictions and over investments in
hatcheries will have us all bankrupt!
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
I'm not even sure where this is supposed to go.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
I am not in favor of aiding the processors!
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can
help the harvesters and/or the processors?
Yeah! Hatchery cost recovery is excessive consumption of the common property resource. We both
borrow money for our operations, but while I have to sit on the beach they are able to fish.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Yeah! Get some better amortizing estimators on board. I was looking at a nice drop in interest last year
and then found out they miscalculated my payments 8 years earlier. I ended up paying MORE!!
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
See above. Otherwise I think it's great.
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?
I'd retire this permit at 1989 prices! But today? I'm watching my retirement dribble away and I can
thank the States ridiculous position on subsistence.
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?
You bet I would!!
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 bother! Most of us will be just history before long. Isn't that the big plan?
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?
Personally I've been involved with science on a participatory element where a working relationship
between fishers and researchers as a great opportunity face to face. Not the case with ADF&G Region
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
II As far as adequately? I don't think they fold in very much money to have fishers or their boats used in
research.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
I've been waiting!! Probably have a bunch of us retest or subsidize a school of our choice.
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?
You bet! Make the Tour Ship Industry stop discharging industrial-scale sewage and waste in our clean
waters. Get a clue that the fed's actually had wisdom about subsistence. And get a handle on not putting
new managers on a system every couple of years –retain good managers with knowledge in an area.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
I agree. But it's too damn pro sport fish!
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
WHY? A Gov's going to manipulate it towards sport fishing anyway!
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?
What you need is an Alaska Coastal Communities Commission, to advise the legislature on the needed
harvest opportunities of local communities.
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?
First things first. I suppose they could start by taking their heads out of the Sport Fish Industry's back
pocket and get a grip on the fact that if the commercial harvesters fail because of excessive reallocation
to all other users, we'll have one hell of an over escapements problem and we all know who will get
blamed for that.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
Andrew Golia
agolia@nushtel.com
P. O. Box 663 Dillingham, AK 99576
(907) 842-5307
Fish_area: Bristol Bay
Gear_type: drift gillnet
October 4, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
In Bristol Bay, we need more fishermen to use slush ice bags to rapidly chill fish down. We also need
ice barges to deliver ice on the fishing grounds. In BBEDC/Peter Pan Seafoods pilot slush ice program,
it was found it's not economical to tender ice to fishermen. We also need ice "shoots" for ice machines.
The ice machine in the Dillingham boat harbor required fishermen to use a wheel barrel and shovel to
obtain ice. As a result, no one bought ice.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
No. The cost to produce ice in Bristol Bay and Western Alaska is currently too expensive because we
pay two to four times the amount for electricity than folks in Anchorage. In other words, it may $50 in
Homer to produce a ton of ice, while in Dillingham it may cost $200 a ton because of the high cost for
electricity. Yes, if the State subsidizes the cost for ice, and we know this is not going to happen because
the State is broke.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No. Only if such a service is provided throughout all Alaska. Too often we see programs like this go
mostly to Southcentral and Southeast Alaska.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes. Fishermen must be taught how to use the slush ice bag program.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
5 cents per pound more for sockeye.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
Change the 1% marketing tax program to allow for international promotions. The way it's set up now is
not working. Most of our salmon in Bristol Bay is currently marketed overseas, and very little of it is
going to domestic markets, while very little is done to promote our salmon sales overseas.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
We've got to regional marketing efforts. We've got to create regional marketing entities and make sure
our 1% marketing tax goes to a local entity that promotes salmon sales both domestically and
internationally.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, by getting rid of ASMI, making regulatory changes to the 1% marketing tax to allow for
international market promotions, and allowing for regional marketing entities to receive revenue from
the 1% marketing tax so they can promote salmon sales internationally.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
By allowing for cooperatives to be organized in Bristol Bay's salmon fishery similar to the Chignik
Cooperative.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Don't know. Ask the processors.
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. To reduce Bristol Bay's salmon fleet, allow for the Division of Investments to retire Bristol Bay
drift permits that are seized by foreclosure.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Yes. Get rid of ASMI. They've done very very little of us fishermen in Bristol Bay, despite the fact that
we make up 40% of their budget from tax revenues. Allow for the formation of regional marketing
organizations that would be able to receive the 1% tax dollars to promote salmon domestically and
internationally.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No. We've got to extend the loan terms from 15 years to 20 years.
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?
Yes. I'm willing to pay a small percentage of my gross earnings as a fishermen to buyback permits.
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?
No. Let them go out of business. They have cost me my pink salmon fishery, dropped my chum salmon
prices, and caused a drop in my roe prices. They have put chum fishermen in the Kuskokwim, Yukon,
Norton Sound, and Kotzebue out of business without any type of compensation.
Education
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
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 the importance of quality.
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 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?
Give money to BBNA so they can offer this type of assistance to Bristol Bay/Chignik fishermen.
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 don't know.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
No. Regionalize the Board of Fish process.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No. It'll be too political.
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?
Only if it doesn't provide too many good recommendations to Southcentral and Southeast Alaska areas.
It seems that these areas always benefit the most from any commission.
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?
Restructuring Bristol Bay's salmon fishery and assisting us to lower the cost for energy to produce ice.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Stephen F. Snapp
snappshipwright@alaska.net
P.O. Box 6165,Sitka,AK 99835
907-747-8421
Fish_area: S.E. Ak, & Yakutat
Gear_type: Power Troll
October 4, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Better fish quality throughout the entire state. This should be coupled with financial incentives to the
fisherman and tough grading criteria. If the individual boat operator is paid better for making the effort
to deliver a top grade product, they will respond favorably and put in a higher season gross income.
Deckhands will also feel the benefit in receiving a share of a larger gross. If this all took place, the
"ALASKA" label would stand out in the world market.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?:
In a perfect world this would be fine. I imagine that there are many buying stations that are capital poor
at this time and would have to close down if such a requirement was established. Fishermen respond
better to incentives than to heavy handed penalties. Statewide chilling at point of harvest should be a
goal to press for.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes. Alaska has the opportunity in today's world markets to boast of a healthy environment, and
abundant natural resources from the sea. Even the most "P-C" environmentalist can enjoy Alaska
seafood. Coupled with consistent high quality standards identified by an attractive "ALASKA" label, we
as a state, would stand out as the finest example in the world of quality wild seafood available from
sustainable fisheries.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Perhaps. There are already pamphlets available, and the buyers in this area are quick to offer pointers
to a fisherman who's fish are not up to standards. Limited financial resources for such a program might
be better applied to helping finance vessel improvements, such as insulated holds and refrigeration
systems.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
A better price for the product. Many fishermen are unable to come up with the capital to do structural
upgrades on their boats and insulate their holds under today's depressed pricing structure.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
I am not sure on this one. I will give ASMI the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are doing their
best. The last time that I saw ASMI go high profile was when Tommy Moe put a salmon sticker on his
helmet. The state seafood industry needs more national and international exposeure. Customer
education needs to be addressed and will take a continued effort over a long time.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
Fishermen, processors, and state and federal economic development funds as available.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Beyond the availability of a standard small business loan, no. That is a personal business venture, and
although they can be encouraged, I don't feel that tax revenues should be used in that manner.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
Tough question. I do know that in S.E. Alaska, processors in small communities such as Pelican are
essential to the economic health of the regeon. Anything to help these small community processors make
it keeps people employed and off of food stamps. They also provide much needed services to the fleet in
highly productive but remote fishing areas.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Help with infrastructure projects that benefit both the community and the processor. I am talking about
water supply and electrical power upgrades, etc. There also need to be some changes in the regulations
for freezer boats under 60' in length. The requirements and paperwork required to permit a small vessel
to freeze their fish is just nuts. The effort and costs impede economic development within our 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?
Yes. Take a look at the cumbersome and expensive requirements for small freezer vessels, under 60' in
length. This class of vessel needs regulations and requirements that are better talored to the realities of
their situation.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
I think that the state has done a pretty good job. Enhancement has been a success and I hope that that
will continue. As far as ASMI goes, I don't have the information to critique them. We do need more
advertising exposure.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
I have not explored this, so I do not have an opinion.
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?
I am against permanent retiring of permits. This reduces the viability of the industry and makes it
unprofitable for many of the remote buying stations to stay in business.
Hatcheries
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
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 have doubts about this one. It sounds like another agency milling around with clipboards, getting in
the way of the people who are actually doing the work. If there is a problem, then it should be
addressed. I am under the impression that the hatcheries on Baranof Island are real rock stars in
salmon production. I wouldn't mess with success.
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?
These programs should be offered to train deckhands, future skippers, and maritime transportation
people. One of the most common problems in our fleet is the difficulty in finding qualified local people
to work aboard our vessels as deckhands.
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 don't know. See above answer.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
I think that the available funding provided by the efforts of our senators Stevens and Murkowski through
the Bush administration are currently sufficient. The State of Alaska does not have the tax base or
funding to offer many additional big programs.
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?
Perhaps the DEC requirements for freezer vessels could be talored to streamline permitting, and ease
up on unnecessarily burdensome onboard physical requirements. Other than that, no. Between the
USCG and ADF&G, a fine job is being done
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
Yes-I support the current board process. It works and provides for industry and public input.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
I don't know.
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.
Economic Development
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
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 must help our smaller coastal communities remain economically viable on something other than
tourism. Tourism alone will not keep our schools and hospitals going. We need to keep our healthy
seafood out in front of the world and domestic markets and steal a march on the fish farmers. Let them
try to catch up to us for a change. Fish dollars pass through many hands and support families and
businesses. Yes, it is a bit of a tough go at the moment, but we are still in the game and willing to do
what it takes to keep the Alaska salmon and groundfish industry viable. We fishermen are ready to go.
Let's git 'em!
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
Glenn Brookman
Aleutianstorm@hotmail.com
6717 37th Ave NW
206-550-2722
Fish_area: Chignik
Gear_type: Seine
October 3, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Quality control which has been nonexistent in a fair and discipline form Boats with high quality control
have been subsidizing the dry boats and everyone else with inferior product. We all get the same price.
So in order to change this eliminate the tenders. Everyone make dock deliveries (less abuse) and get
paid according to quality grading. ALL quality parameters will be transparent in document form with
all guidelines and photo exhibits to prevent corrupt downgrading. These guidelines will be mandatory,
and onboard all vessels before fishing proceeds. Guidelines will include price /grade scale. Boats
bringing an inferior product will lose their market until they’ve been fined for wanton waste and
retrained.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Bled and iced better yet cleaned and iced.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Only if the poor quality boats do not be given any more hand holding and step up to the plate.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Definitely. It has to promote discipline and actual results. Maybe certification. Instill penalties for the
violators.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
A fair price and an end to corporate domination. Are they systematically reducing us fisherman to
paupers so they can control the resource after we're weakened.
I believe that their was no real adjustments made at all to compete with farmed fish. Their never was
any true quality control. Just large amounts of mediocre fish going to the same tired world market
where the world market dictates the price.
Is it true that the fish packers show a loss on their US taxes and make their profit overseas avoiding US
taxes.
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 trying to save the marketers who did not have the talent or foresight to adjust to the changing
times. There was no quality control. Sure their were colorful flyers telling us how to handle the fish and
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
posters at the market. What did ASMI do to enforce quality. Promoting is one thing but results have to
start on the boat and those posters won't make a difference unless our seafood stands way above the
rest. I want to see proof of any success from ASMI. What do they do? Fly around and eat seafood?
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
I don't know if that’s a good idea because their are to many politics involved. And we all know what that
leads to. It's destroying our nation. Corporate America is on trial and rightfully so. This nation better
make corporations accountable for their mistakes and quit trying to bale everyone out an give golden
parachutes. All we have to do is look at the stock market and see the results of this new attitude of no
responsibility that will be our demise.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes but not for free. Provide ice facilities and cold storage processing facilities that can be rented
out. Fishers may can or smoke their own fish under the guidelines of a certified fish tech whose wage
would be paid by the fisher. Fuel must be available in the remote villages that don't have public fuel
docks. These facilities must have internet marketing infrastructure. Make it possible for the fisherman to
market his high quality product. Establish a fair tax based on sales that is applied only to fisherman who
choose this route.
If that is sucessfull go to the next step. Perhaps loans for onboard ice makers or blast freeze systems.
Establish a fish auction via satellite. Gutted and iced sockeye or blast frozen salmon can be sold while
on the fishing grounds. Then flown out upon arrival to port. Or put into cold storage. For later sale or
delivery.
If we look at the beer industry you can see the only way is on the microbrewery level. The large volume
marketing is not for coinsurers. And that is the demographic group we must sell to in order to compete
with farmed salmon. Not the Costco shopper who doesn't care what goes into his body.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
See above and we might make enough to pay those costs.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
See above.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can
help the harvesters and/or the processors?
Whatever it take to make my ideas possible.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Start a new tax for independents that do not go to ASMI since they have other interests. These taxes
should go to my ideas above.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
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?
Use above ideas and that won't be needed. New attitude should be less fish caught with more money to
the fisherman who can pay more taxes to AK .Good for the resources
Buybacks are only a way for corporations to squelch our voice and eliminate our political voice then
bring in IPQ'S, then eliminate our boats, then bring in fish traps. Now that is a hollow society!
Isn't the fishing industry interesting to tourism?
Agency Oversight
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Aren't they just a group of politians who are bought and sold. Review everyones history and unveil their
true agendas in this time of desperation. These are times when there is alot of sneeking around
feathering one's own bed. Also a good time for undesirables to capitalize on unorganized and split
fishing communities that have been weakened and divided by the hard times in the industry.
Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic and it's happening right now in some
areas.
Somehow I wonder if it's all been calculated. Corporations controlling the resource.
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?
Let the industry correct itself and let individuals do their work. If you want something done right you
usually have to do it yourself. I'm not going to wait for a miracle from the government I paid $250,000
for my permit and now I'm losing my fishing rights in Chignik because everyone wants a bale out.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
Scott Mc Allister
scooski@aol.com
316 Distin Ave., Juneau, Alaska, 99801
907-463-5831
Fish_area: I have fished all seine areas
Gear_type: Seine
October 3, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Take better care of salmon as they are harvested. The following four steps are layed out in order of
importance.
1) It is most important that salmon are bleed while they are still alive.
2) Gutting and gilling are second most important.
3) Proper chilling. Chilling methods are different for cut fish as opposed to round fish and the
intended use of the fish, eg canned, fresh, frozen.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Absolutely.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes - BUT, not with out providing for a harvest environment in the high volume seine and gillnet
fisheries that allows harvesters to high-grade money fish from cannery fish and do primary processing
as they are landed. Bleeding and even gutting and gilling if practicable must be facilitated. The 58' seine
boat and the 32' BB limits harvesters ability to perform these elementary tasks of quality control. Also,
tenders must also be limited or eliminated where ever possible.
Without this degree of quality control at harvest, very few salmon will ever qualify for meaningful
quality standards and a seal that goes with them. There is a real risk that standards with few qualifing
fish will not speek well for the rest of Alaska's salmon production in the market and this will further
devaluate the bulk of Alaska's salmon harvest.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
This is an on going process and has been for years. Most all fishermen and processors have known
about the benefits of bleeding, chilling, processing quickly and minimally handling salmon for years
now. It is obvious to us in our daily operations. The problem is that our history and our business culture
is still in the canned salmon ere and chained to it by regulations in the harvest sector.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Cash.
But, we clearly have a chicken and egg thing here. The sad reality is that the cash won't come unless we
lay the egg. We must change.
Government will never be in the business of dictating price for quality or any other reason. It has to
come from industry.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
Structures must change to close the disconnect between the air cover style, Alaskan Brand promoting
that Asmi does and sales promotions that actually sell our salmon. More resources must be made
available to industry to sell our Alaskan salmon products from their inventories.
I suggest that a granting program be developed to grant marketing money to industry on a Request For
Proposal (RFP) basis for the purpose of selling the products we produce.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
As these are public trust resources and the public is returned a rent at exvessel value, government as the
fiduciary has an inherent responsibility to the value of our salmon in the market. I think that industry
and government a like should be paying for promotions and marketing in these difficult times. At least
until we get our quality up and recapture prominence in the markets again to become profitable. Once
profitability returns, industry should fly on its own.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Help? Yes. Make it a priority? No. This is good extension service project but it will never have the kind
of impact we require to recapture prominence and value in todays salmon markets.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
1) Give the board clear statutory authority to form co-ops such as the Chignik one so we don't
have to test this in court every time the board makes a decision.
2) Encourage permit stacking as provided for in legislation last session and make revolving loan
funds available for these programs as they come up.
3) Strike the 58' limit from statute and give the board of fisheries authority to regionally provide
for bigger seine boats that will pack more fish to processors. This will cut tender costs.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Make available to processors pack loan money through a revolving loan fund with terms that are more
conducive to futures selling rather than short selling to meet the requirements of the banking industry.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Given our current situation, this is a moot question. With the value of our salmon being what it is, there
is not enough money from taxes to maintain current levels of management and marketing.
No idea how to spend it better.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
A revolving loan program for processors to take pack 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?
Yes.
Market values should be paid fishermen retiring permits.
These are public resource and Government regulations helped get us here so it should be a combonation
of industry and government that pays.
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?
No
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?
There are way more important things kids need to learn in school. I know my kids have had plenty of
exposure to Alaska's fisheries in their schooling. It kind of goes with the territory here in Alaska.
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?
As a focus point this is way down my list. I do know that you can't learn to run a seine boat in school
and it scares me to death to think what academia might cook up in a labratory or a class room to affect
the way we operate.
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 like to think I will be one of the last men standing and profitability will return to the fisheries
some day.
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?
Sure but nothing so important that I am willing to spend alot of time on it.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
I like the idea of a commercial fish commission or sub board of the board of fisheries. Regional boards
are also a good idea. However I do think the town hall aspect of the our fish and game boards is as
good as it gets in the regulatory process.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
This is way down my list of priorities.
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?
I have my doubts about another layer of scrutiny for our industry. We should be able to move forward
without it. We need leadership.
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?
Take it one change and one community at a time. Make no mistake about it though, change must
happen!
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
Eric Hesselroth
erichesselroth@hotmail.com
1001 Duchess Road Bothell Washington 98012
(425) 483-4295
Fish_area: Bristol Bay
Gear_type: Gillnet
October 1, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Require cold fish deliveries at no more than 36 degrees... Slush ice would then be provided for those
fishermen who do not have RSW...
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?
Incentives are already there... We must be able to compete with farmed fish... $ for slush ice bags would
help.. and drop the 32 foot limit so that others can carry ice tots
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
Add "FISH BRANDING" to existing promotional structures...Develop product reconition with money
from State's fisheries development foundation...
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
State's fisheries development foundation... and Fishermen themselves should pay a fish tax towards
regional differentiation to expand markets for Salmon especially in the USA..Borough Governments
should also get involved.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes,,, Provide money for regions to set up product reconition,,,ie Brand name,, logos,,web-sites,, and
make it easier for new buyers to operate in Alaska if they sell Salmon in the USA..
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
A buy-back in Bristol Bay of about 400 permits,,,and reduce the 48 hour transfer time to 24 hours...
allow the formation of Co-ops similar to the one in Chignik...
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Processing sector needs to target the USA where demand for Salmon is still high... Make it available in
places like Evinsville Indiana, where Alaska Salmon doesn't even exist...STOP shipping Alaska Salmon
to Japan where the market is glutted...Provide delivery at all cannery docks for fishermen...
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,,, get rid of the 32 foot limit in Bristol Bay along with the 48 hour transfer(reduce to 24)....Require
cold fish (36 degrees)...
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Promote Salmon sales in the USA
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Restructure and review loans to reflect current permit values..
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?
YES YES YES,,, The State should pay since the State is responsible in the first place for raising the
number of permits above the number recommended by limited entry ....
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?
I Do not know,,, but I wonder why AK hatcheries produce cheap Pinks when they could produce Silver
and Sockeye Salmon instead...
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?
Provide education materials to all AK schools...
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 do not know
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
I am not a State resident
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be
changed to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
State Agencies need to work more with fishermen..
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
Yes,,, but the board needs to have better membership...
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?
GREAT IDEA !!!!!
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?
Alaska Salmon must be harvested for quality that will allow ALASKA to produce consumer ready
products for export in the USA... Stop EXPORTING RAW FISH TO FOREIGN CONGLOMERATES
WHO DOMINATE OUR FISHERIES AND CONTROL PRICE !!! Produce more jobs and a stronger
economy in Alaska by producing our own high quality products (not canneries),,, but consumer ready
frozen boneless fillets with regional reconition !!! Also,,, make it impossible for major buyers to
retaliate against independent buyers who are trying to gain access to Alaska Salmon to sell locally...
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
Daniel J. Tucker
tucker@mtaonline.net
4330 Wickersham Way, Wasilla, AK 99654
907/376-2630
Fish_area: Susitna
Gear_type: sport
September 30, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
No comment on this item.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes. Standardization and uniformity help assure quality products are consistently delivered to the
public.
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?
The money I get paid should be/is incentive enough.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
No comment on this item
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
Those benefiting the most - the harvesters.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Individual assistance should only be provided within a paid-back (not forgiven) loan structure.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
No comment on this item.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
No comment on this item.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can
help the harvesters and/or the processors?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
No comment on this item.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
No comment on this item.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
NO! Loans that are reserved only for so-called commercial harvestors, yet not available to fishing
guides (required by law to register as commercial users) are unfair. In fact, the procedure of requiring
sport fishing guides to register as 'commercial users' in the same context as net harvestors is patently
wrong! Fishing guides are little more than knowledgeable taxi drivers - they do not harvest or sell the
resource, they only provide expert access to it. There is no comparison - yet no equality either.
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! Limited entry permits are only licenses to access a fishery. They do not have any cash-value except
to another who wants the same opportunity for access. They provide no guarantee ot harvest or return -
AND SHOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY BUY-BACK VALUE. There should be NO retirement value. There
should be NO funding for this purpose - if there are too many fishing - let the market-value of the
permits drop and the excess not be renewed by the 'losing' fishermans choice. NO PUBLIC FUNDS,
even from fish taxes, should be used to retire any limited-entry permits under any circumstances.
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.
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?
As long as the 'education' includes adequate recognition of the importance of the personal-use (sport,
and other resident/personal use harvest), and recognition for adequate escapement to allow these mostly
resident used fish, I support it. Solely championing the commercial 'net' and/or 'for-profit harvest
fisheries is not fair or equitable or in the best interest of the public.
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! They don't adequately, fairly or reasonably represent the not-for-profit harvestors.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
I already have been displaced by changes in the salmon industry and no effort or offer was made in any
way, form or manner. As an example of any other 'trade or craft' if housing construction changed from
wood to metal - the workers would either adapt or move on. I fail to see why it's the state's task to
retrain folks who work in a primarily seasonal job. Most have other skills (or need to develop them) they
can rely on and should live off of.
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?
No comment on this item
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
Yes. If changed, I would support more representative membership. There are thousands more personaluser
fishers than commercial harvestors, yet the board makeup is usually more heavily weighted toward
the for-profit harvestors.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Yes. However, I also feel the Alaska Board of Fish and process is the fairest process nationwide. I
may not agree with all of their decisions or actions but at least I know I have my opportunity for input
and influence.
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?
Yes. Alaska's salmon industry is unfairly and unreasonably viewed as the for-profit harvestors without
adequate representation or concern for much greater number of personal users of salmon. This common
resource is the property of all the people of Alaska, not just or primarily the for-profit commercial
harvestors.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Gary Smith
sea250@oakharbor.net
Fish_area: Bristol Bay
Gear_type: Gillnet
September 30, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
For Bristol Bay, the only practical way to improve fish quality is to reduce the size of the fishing fleet.
This would allow for more fishing time per-vessel, which would then allow for fisherman to take more
time away from the fishing grounds to make more frequent deliveries. It is very difficult to convince
yourself to give up any fishing time in order to improve quality when your time to fish is so limited. If the
time of fishing periods is increased through fleet reduction fishermen would feel more comfortable about
giving up fishing time to make additional deliveries. The decreased size of the fleet may also reduce the
delivery times after the fishing period is closed. Reduction of the fleet would mean reduction of gear
congestion and the need to tow the net as often. Towing a net with fish in it is not the way to improve
quality. Another way to improve quality would be to allow for the use mono-filiment nets to be used. It
is less damaging to the fish when they a picked out of a mono net than it is the current multi-stranded
nets. Allowing Mono-filiment nets would also result in less towing. With the multi-stranded nets the fish
can see them, so in order to get the fish in the net, the fisherman must tow hooks in the ends and
constantly run the fish in by running the boat up and down the net. To eliminate this process would
mean a reduction in fuel costs and would also reduce the impact on the fish that are already in the boats
hold. The constant beating and pounding that the fish take does not help to preserve the
quality.
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?
Yes.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
None. Just get the current gear regulations out of the way and let the fisherman work on it. If this is
effective the market price in general will reflect it.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If
changed, what changes should be made?
No. I would say that you should implement the "Alaska Wild" marketing program that your Senator
suggested in his letter. It is the most impressive source of knowledge that I have ever read to date.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
All groups that will benefit. Private, Public and Gov.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Yes. Once again promote "Alaska Wild".
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
Allow use of mono-filiment gillnets.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Provide tax incentives for new salmon product development.
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 Allow the use of mono-filiment nets
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
I do not have enough knowledge in this are to provide an answer.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No. They should all be eliminated. I believe that they are a critical element to the magnitude of the
current problem that now exists for Alaska state resident fishermen.
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?
Yes, however, there should not be any incentives for retirement. The State of Alaska should view Bristol
Bay permits in the same way acompany views it's own shares of stock. The State of Alaska should go
into the open market and purchase permits as any other would. They should set a 5 year time period to
retire at market prices a number of permits that will produce effective results. There is no need to pay
further incentives. These permits are bought and sold every year. In other words people have already
chosen to give up their rights to fish in Alaska year after year. The value of the remaining non-retired
permits will increase in value if the economics of the market so decide.
Governance
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?
All Hatcheries Should Be Eliminated
2. 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?
None promote other vocations.
3. 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 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
No answer
4. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be
changed to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Maybe.
5. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
Yes I do.
6. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No.
7. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the
legislature on the needs of the seafood industry?
Yes.
8. As Alaska’s salmon industry ch