Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force
As of October 25, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Chris McDowell 10/24/02...................................................................................................2-6
Eric Rosvold 10/24/02.........................................................................................................7-11
Gerald Nicholia 10/23/02 ..................................................................................................12-14
Jon Broderick 10/22/02 .....................................................................................................15-17
Sigurd Mathisen 10/22/02 .................................................................................................18
Dan Castle 10/22/02 ..........................................................................................................19-21
Jim Becker 10/21/02..........................................................................................................22-24
Fred & Linda Hawkshaw 10/21/02 ...................................................................................25-37
Sand Point, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon and False Pass Public Testimony - October 12, 2002
10/21/02.............................................................................................................................38-41
Mitchell Seybert 10/21/02.................................................................................................42-44
Paul Gauthier 10/19/02......................................................................................................45-47
Bill and Ann Barker 10/17/02 ...........................................................................................48-50
Dan Bilderback 10/17/02...................................................................................................51-54
Gerold S. Gugel Jr.10/16/02..............................................................................................55-56
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Chris McDowell
chris.mcdowell@mcdowellgroup.net
8204 Birch Lane, Juneau AK 99801
907-586-6127
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: drift gillnet
October, 24, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Meaningful, region-specific chilling standards for both harvest and processing sectors. Also, improve
surface transportation infrastructure to bring fresh salmon to market in a timely and cost-effective
manner. This means roads.
Regardless of technical differences in the relative “age” of fresh and frozen Alaska salmon upon arrival
at the retail marketplace, the domestic salmon consumer perceives fresh salmon as better quality and
pays more for it based on that perception. Established quality standards should take this perception into
account.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes. This is extremely important for Alaska salmon. The state should establish quality standards and
encourage adherence to them through education and lending practices. The state should not mandate
quality standards.
Mandatory quality standards for harvesters assure that capital and opportunity cost accrue to the
harvester, with no assurance that resulting increases in wholesale value accrue to him. It is
unreasonable to expect processors will voluntarily increase payout of wholesale value without
competition that compels them to do so. Considering the accelerating statewide consolidation of salmon
processing, the potential for absence of competition is a legitimate concern.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, absolutely. Such programs would be an outstanding use of the existing University of Alaska remote
campus system. Completion of a standard quality-training course should be a requirement for state
loans on salmon operations.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Harvesters must have assurance that the capital and opportunity costs of increasing their quality will be
reflected in ex-vessel value.
Low-interest or zero-interest loans are an excellent incentive to improve quality. Their absence could be
an equally effective incentive. The state should not finance salmon operations that do not meet
established chilling and quality standards.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
We should use existing state entities and consolidate them under the direction of ASMI. This will help
immensely with maintaining singleness of purpose and consistency of message.
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)
Harvest and processing sectors should pay for promotion and marketing, with support from the state
general fund consistent with seafood industry’s tax contribution to the general fund.
We should reduce ASMI dependence on Federal grants, as they come with a heavy burden of directives
that often mismatch the needs of the marketplace. This fragments marketing effort and undermines
ASMI’s ability to adapt and respond to constituent and marketplace input.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, absolutely. The state must continue to provide technical training in processing, shipping logistics
and marketing. The state should look into combining the various programs (MAP, ASMI technical, etc)
into a single unified training program for catcher-sellers and catcher-processors. Having a unified
program would streamline changes and updates to the training, making it better able to meet changing
needs of the marketplace.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Change regulations, as directed by consensus of the permit holders in each fishery, to enable the fleet to
catch the same volume of fish using fewer vessels.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Provide transportation infrastructure that enables processors to cost-effectively access the domestic fresh
market. The aggregate first wholesale value of fresh salmon is 54% higher than frozen salmon* but
airfreight cost nullifies the price advantage. Airfreight cost is the most important factor (in many cases
the only factor) preventing access to the domestic fresh salmon market and its substantially higher price.
We MUST have road connections from our salmon-producing regions to the North American highway
system.
* source: AK Dept of Revenue ASPR May-Aug 2002
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 state should ease harvester licensing requirements to allow roe-recovery operations and head-off
salmon shipping without a catcher-processor license. Removing the heads from 100 pounds of dressed
sockeye saves 18 pounds of shipping weight but is illegal without a C/P license. It’s just plain silly to be
flying salmon heads out of remote areas at 50 cents or more per pound.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Divert more of the seafood industry’s general fund tax contribution to marketing, fleet reduction and
quality education efforts.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
I think the state loan programs are good, but the qualification regarding minimum percentage of income
from commercial fishing should be dropped for salmon loans.
Salmon fishing is a great entry-level fishery for young fishermen, but the “25 percent” requirement may
be keeping them out of the state loan program. Average per capita income in Alaska is $31,000* so a
typical Alaskan must earn $7,800 from fishing to qualify for a state loan. With gross salmon earnings
averaging well below $30,000 per permit in the last three years, a $7,800 salmon crewshare is rare.
Without additional crew employment, the average applicant won’t qualify. This is a problem for salmondependent
regions such as Bristol Bay, where few non-salmon crew jobs are available.
* source BEA
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, permits should not be permanently retired. Passage of HB 286, allowing fishermen to hold two
permits in the same salmon fishery, makes a more workable solution possible. Fleet reduction can be
achieved by creating advantages through the BOF process to stimulate permit stacking. Provided
“fractional” permit schemes are banned, permit stacking could allow fleets to quickly grow or shrink
based on profitability of the fishery.
With the correct incentives, fishermen will buy a second permit to increase profitability. For instance, a
Bristol Bay fisherman may buy a second permit if he could use it to skip the 48-hour transfer period.
This type of incentive would reduce the fleet, to the point where growth of permit value cancelled out the
financial incentive to own a second permit. Fleet size balances at that point. Conversely, increases in
price or harvest volume would drive profits (and permit value) up to the point where it is no longer costeffective
to hold two permits. At that point simple economics dictates the second permit be sold to a
single-permit operation, thus expanding the fleet.
Fleet size can be self-regulating in this manner. The fleet can voluntarily shrink to the point of
profitability or expand to full size (per the existing CFEC optimum number) without government
intervention.
Governance
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, I would support a unified hatchery policy, provided stakeholder representation was consistent with
the regional distribution of hatcheries within the state.
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
The state must provide an educated workforce of Alaska residents to the fishing industry, at all levels of
the industry. The state must provide seafood-specific, certificated programs for: basic processing,
vocational and technical skills, logistical and planning skills, marketing, management and food science.
For grades K-12, a basic understanding of fisheries biology, fisheries management and the state’s major
commercial fisheries should be a curriculum requirement.
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?
Post-Secondary Education
To a great extent, on-the-job training with existing processors is the means of education for professional
and highly skilled positions in seafood processing. Whether this stems from industry preference or from
a shortage of seafood-specific course offerings is an open question. The University should assess the
education needs of professional and highly skilled positions in the processing sector and if demand
warrants add more course offerings specific to the seafood industry.
A series of short courses in remote shipping logistics, marketing, seafood technical training and
elementary food science would be an excellent resource for fishermen interested in retraining as catcherprocessors
or catcher-sellers. Federal retraining funds may be a good resource to establish these course
offerings.
Research
By most accounts the University has a great deal of expertise and information available to the public
through the Marine Advisory Program (MAP). Information from MAP can be used to create workable
solutions to several major problems facing the salmon industry. Unfortunately, the University has done a
poor job of promoting the program to industry. Fishermen and processors are largely unaware of the
wealth of information and assistance available through MAP.
The University’s failure to effectively promote MAP to the salmon fleet reduces apparent demand for
MAP services. Without demand, there is reduced incentive to budget for new research that directly
benefits salmon fisheries. The risk is that the program could lose focus and become a granting agency to
the academic community, rather than an extension agent serving industry. Of the five “newest
publications” listed on the MAP website, four are compilations of academic conference proceeding and
peer-reviewed research papers and abstracts. The fifth is a cold-water survival handbook for grade
school children. None of the new publications deals with salmon, arguably the most pressing industry
crisis facing coastal communities today.
The University should step up its efforts to inform salmon permit holders and processors about MAP,
what it does and what it can do for them. This could be easily accomplished with a series of
informational mailings to holders of fishing and processing permits.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
The state must recognize that employment of displaced fishermen in an alternate industry usually results
in salmon fishermen leaving their community of residence, particularly in rural areas. Accordingly, the
state should make every effort to retrain fishermen within different sectors of the salmon industry.
Emphasis should be on support services such as refrigeration, welding, mechanics and on processingPublic
Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
related business training. The state should also offer preferential hiring or training opportunities for
fishery-related state jobs, such as boat officer, field tech, and fishery analyst positions.
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 state must streamline the application process for catcher-sellers and catcher-processors. The
current application process involves three different state agencies and is so difficult that it serves as a
very effective deterrent to developing these businesses.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes, I support the board process, but the board is spread too thin. Under the current system, substantial
time and resources are spent educating the board on the specifics affecting each proposal.
We should establish boards specific to the major commercial species such as salmon, halibut and crab.
A specialized salmon board would have better baseline knowledge of the history and issues of fisheries
on the species. Such boards would be for more efficient and responsive to their constituents.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No, this is not a good idea.
Anchorage and its outlying communities in Southcentral Alaska dominate the Alaska legislature. The
region consistently places charter and sport fishing interests ahead of commercial interests and is
notorious for legislation and policy that serves a narrow regional agenda. Southcentral legislators have
incentive to restructure the board to emulate the existing regional dominance within the legislature.
Access by those lawmakers to an empowered task force would be an unrelenting allocative nightmare
for commercial salmon interests.
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, 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?
The state must address the issue of transportation cost, preferably by linking Alaska’s salmon-producing
regions to the North American highway system. This is a critical issue.
The state should take practical steps to stimulate development of small-scale catcher-processor
operations as an alternative for salmon fishermen faced with processor monopoly or absence of a
processor.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Eric Rosvold
olefish@mitkof.net
Box 1144 Petersburg, Alaska 99833
907-772-3556
Fish_area: Bristol Bay, Southeastern
Gear_type: Pots, Seines, longlines, gillnets
October 24, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Transportation Infrastructure would make the largest difference. Being able to quickly move fresh fish
into domestic markets in the lower 48 would help a great deal. Road Access into key areas, and runway
extensions and apron reworking where roads are not possible. Increased cold storage capacitys, with
value added processing available in those that can't export fresh fish would round out the solution. With
in the industry allow the market to determine quality concerns. Remember also that inherently Alaska
Wild Salmon will not be as "perfect" as the "feedlot" version, and make that one of the cornerstones of a
marketing campaign.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
The market should determine the quality levels necessary. Regulation does not necessarily add enough
value to product to make costs effective. There is no practical reason, for instance, that a Bristol Bay
Sockeye, heading for a can, delivered every 6 hours to an RSW tender, needs chilling upon capture. The
funds could much better be spent to further the industry in another manner.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No, we certainly do not need any more layers of government. Again, the market will take care of
quality. ASMI can develop a program by which product that meets basic criteria can be "stickered", but
we need to be aware of potential confusion caused in the consumer market when there are just to many
choices and labels. The mantra should be "keep it simple". An "Alaska Wild" marketing program,
allowing those fish whom have been chilled upon capture, processed with 72 hours, or those top three
grades of canned salmon, should be able to be sold under such a "sticker".
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Again, No. The industry will, and is taking care of quality concerns. More education programs just
turn into more noise and will be ignored. There really aren't any of us fishermen living in the dark
ages. Most processors have fish handling programs directed at their workers, and have handbooks for
their tendering fleet. Spend the funding on Marketing where it belongs.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
None, other than those provided for by market conditions. For those of us whom have difficulty in
finding funding for basic upgrades, the Division of Loans has reasonable financing packages available
already. Again, if marketing is properly funded, all of these concerns the Task Force is looking into
become less important. Quality is an important part of getting fish through the market place, but
differentiating Alaska Wild from feedlot grown will drive that Quality bus. A lot of these quality issues
were raised in previous Salmon forums. The industry has come a long ways in the last several years,
regardless of surveys done that were inaccurate in their results.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
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 a great institution for marketing salmon. The crime has been its difficulty in receiving
consistent funding. The change should be in properly funding the existing organization. I might suggest
that it be further encouraged to specifically promote "Alaska Wild" as a branding tool. Alaska Wild is
being sought in the market place and a specific campaign should be directed to helping the consumer
find the product, including that of canned salmon. Many consumers have forgotten that canned salmon
is a good source of Alaska Wild Salmon.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
It occurs to me that the entities with the most to lose as Alaska Wild Salmon declines in value is the State
of Alaska, and the communities that make up Coastal Alaska. It will not be the processors, nor the
individual fishers. The eventual social costs of declining communities and infrastructure will far
outweigh any funds that could be advanced to ASMI for marketing salmon today.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
No. The State, and ASMI, have a responsiblity to promote globally Alaska Wild Salmon. Not by
region, not by gear type, not by community, nor by individual fishermen. The funds and energy can best
be spent generically and globally, working to float everybodies boat. Any thing else simply pits fisher
against fisher, region against region, and as most of us know, that is what we can do best.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
I would suggest that the individual initiative of the business man fisher is the tool to use. Make sure
that ADF&G is again funded so they can manage fisheries so we can employ our gear economically. Let
the Board of Fish do their work region by region as has been past practice.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
By not beginning or continuing with programs that add costs to the production side. Much of the quality
discussion bandied about appears to have costs involved that I assume someone may be expected to pay
for.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
If you really want to make me efficient in fishing salmon, allow me to utilize permits in two different
areas. Markets should determine participation rather than government regulation. If I have a market
for Bristol Bay gillet caught fish, and Southeastern Seine caught salmon, why shouldn't I be able to
participate in both with my fishing business. Carry it one step further and allow my fishing vessel to fish
all salmon areas. If I have the market, why not allow my participation. The more throughput I have, the
less my costs are to catch a lb of fish.
Finance
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Yes, by using Raw Fish Tax monies to fund ASMI when fisher/processor tax receipts fall below certain
levels. It is absolutely crazy that as exvessel values fall, funding to ASMI diminishes. It makes it
virtually impossible to maintain the matching grants, and any forward marketing efforts. The
communities dependent on the Raw Fish Tax receipts, are also vitally dependent on exvessel value, so it
occurs to me that this is a natural trade. I do not see robbing the raw fish tax for processor
improvements a trade what so ever, but think their are certain synergys in a Raw Fish Tax for marketing
that make community and State sense.
Further, extend the voluntary and mandatory assessments for marketing to the Hatchery Cost recovery
programs. The Hatcheries should pay the equivalent of the producer tax, and the processor the same as
they do in the common property, all based on the bid price. Those fish have to be marketed as well.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Design a program to assist canned salmon producers, so the industry isn't so dependent on the weak link
processor. Be alert in the future to situations that arose in the late 80's and 90's with permit speculation.
As permit values rise, collateral should have been retained in some increasing fashion, outside of that
maintained by the permit. Borrowing money to purchase salmon permits that were approaching the
$300,000 range wasn't much different than buying Yahoo on margin in 2000. The Division of Loans
and processors advancing cash to buy permits had a great deal to do with the runaway prices paid for
permits.
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. Any permit reductions should be funded by industry, and done in such a way that the permits still
exist. There are things outside our control, namely exchange rates, and dollar value, that could make
this a different world during the next decade. Permanent permit retirement is just that. We need, in our
coastal communities those permits so the young can start, or buy these fishing business's. Most of
coastal Alaska can not survive without a viable fishing industry, close in size to what it is today. You
may carry on conversations about downsize, or shrinking the fleet, but I really don't think the exisiting
infrastructures can survive without something close in size to what we have currently. We need all of
the permits fishing Coastal Alaska today still fishing tomorrow. It is nice to be the only boat on the
point, but that is not good for community.
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. What we have is working great. We all have a chance for input.
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?
Nothing different. The funding can best be spent on marketing.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
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?
Yes.
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
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Get ASMI out from under DCED and distance it in some fashion from those in the legislature whom feel
the need to play politics with its process's.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes. Tighten up the proposal process to eliminate the junk. Perhaps give the local advisory committees
more input at that level. Try to diminish the amount of material that gets to the board. Move the 3 year
cycle out to 5 years. Do not go to regional boards. This only adds more layers of government.
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?
No. More levels of government we don't need. It might be worth exploring the idea of extending the
Task Force's life as most are volunteers. Again, the money could be better spent in marketing. Someone
with some strength in the Governors office could make a difference also.
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
Making sure permits and fishing opportunities remain in Coastal Alaska communities and villages.
Because there isn't a spot for additional comments I'll add them here. The largest single problem we
face is the lack of dollars being spent on Marketing. Currently, we have a unique situation. The feedlot
salmon industry has single handedly created a nation of salmon eaters. Something the Wild side has
never been able to do. We need now to capitalize on this market, certainly not by bashing Farmed
Salmon, but by growing with them. As consumers learn fish, they will be able to differentiate between
Wild and Farmed, and will want to make choices. There is room for both parties, and we need to use
that industry to grow our own. Capitalize on the differences, and don't try to make ours look like theirs.
Developing and selling new products is a very difficult and expensive process. During past Salmon
forums much was made of the problems associated with pin bones in Salmon making marketing difficult.
Currently thousands of lbs of pin bone out fillets are being produced in locations throughout Alaska. We
have now the products the consumer wants! , and now we need to sell those. Canned Salmon should be
marketed as a product that has the skin and bones in for a reason. The consumer shouldn't be picking
the material out, but believing the healthy choice is utilizing the whole can. It is fine to talk about "new
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
products" but the reality is millions of dollars have been spent in attempting to market skinless boneless
and seasoned frozen products. It isn't working, but we still can sell fillets and cans. These markets are
far from dead and need some help in getting consumers to buy the extra units needed to move volume
and prices. If we can move exvessel prices, through marketing, and some help in exchange rates and
dollar value in the order of 20%, many of the contentious issues facing us will be minimized.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
Gerald Nicholia
gnicholia@yahoo.com
PO Box 197, Tanana, AK 99777
(907) 366-7170
Fish_area: Yukon River, Eastern Interior
Gear_type: Fish Wheel, nets, dipnet, rod&reel
October 23, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Why does the industry need to achieve higher quality with the quantity they have now. High quality
product was the wild salmon stocks, compared to hatchery fish wild stocks have more oil content and
texture that sustains users longer. need to rebuild Alaska's wild stocks back up and restrict hatchery fish
which glut the ocean and reduces all fishes survival rate.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
For the interior of Alaska where I live commercial has died along time ago, ten years or more,
ADF&G mis-management. What you have to recognize is the by-catch situation on the high seas
intercept of other fisheries that has adverse effect on all salmon stocks nationally. Harvest of
commercial salmon in the southeastern part of the State can continue for their survival, but you have to
listen to other ares of the State of Alaska that has interest in salmon stocks satewide
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
maybe for the international fishery you can create quality standard or seal, but why create another
commission when there are entities like NPFMC and federal RAC's. If you have to create a commission
you have to include all effected parties, including the interior Yukon River fishermen & fisherwomen
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
yes, they have to learn how they have already adversely, negatively affected our salmon fishery by
wasteful practices, such as by-catch
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
rebuild Alaska's wild salmon stocks to historic portions or close to it, in order for these interior people
to even meet they're subsistence needs to sustain themselves through out winter
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
State promotional structures such as the hatcheries have adversely effected the wild stocks and they
should be down played
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
Alaskan entities, not national entities
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
This has been trid in the interior, but other regulations and laws have restricted such enterprises from
lifting off the ground. Like I mentioned our commercial fishery in the upper Yukon river is dead
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Look too the OSM Federal regional advisory councils, State Board of Fish, and include NMFS,
NPFMC, they have all the data you need, don't duplicate. From there you can come to the conclusion
that something has to be done to save our salmon stocks at lower cost for the stocks to survive
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
you have already help them enough, look to help the little people
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 Alaska's management entities be include in off coastal management where by-catch exists, what
probably has to be done is new legislation that hears the interior voice, not just a few Alaskans where
you just hear they're opinions
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
tax the high seas intercept as to how much salmon is wasted as by-catch. there is too many hungry
people in this world to continue such wasteful practices, make them pay for it
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
reduce hatchery loan practices
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?
The State should pay in our area for the last twenty years of mismanagement. right those limited entry
permits restricts our subsistence fishery by micromanagement
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 would oppose supporting hatcheries, because they have adversely affected our wild stocks by glutting
our oceans and reducing survival rates of all salmon stocks
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Why preach what you even can't protect. If your going to get serious, start from kindergarten on
up. Teach Alaskans the value of their resources
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, look at 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?
Let and my people utilized other resources in our region to make ends meet, timber minerals, 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?
No, just them
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Alaska board of fisheries needs to be region specific as to management of fisheries and not try and
manage the whole state as one region with the same interest, no two regions are the same
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
maybe, like I said don't create something that is already there, OSM (feds) is a good watch dog
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?
they just have to know they have to protect the marine enviroment in order for any species to survive in
the oceans and seas
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?
saving the littleperson from being over run by big industry
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Jon Broderick
broderick@seasurf.net
P. O. Box 1032, Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110
503.436.1039
Fish Area: Bristol Bay (Nushagak)
Gear Type: Set net
October, 22, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Though quality begins with the fishermen, who can handle their fish carefully, keep them cold and
deliver them more often, it will always be the case with wild fish that the quality of the catch varies.
Processors who pay incentives for high quality fish and disincentives for poor quality will see
improvement in the quality of fish delivered. However, as a set netter, a skiff fisherman who can deliver
quickly and frequently, I would object to incentives based on slush ice only.
Reliable, regular tender service and agreements establishing maximum bag size and length of time
between deliveries would increase quality on the grounds.
Responsibility for quality product continues with the processors who currently offer low quality
products to the market. In France, where I lived last year, and where people care about food and its
origin, the only presence of wild Alaskan salmon I found in markets were freezer-burned, water-marked,
frozen chum carcasses. No one buys them. Processors need to expand the products they offer the market,
especially value added products like vacuum packed frozen fillets. This is the salmon we fishermen
enjoy all winter long, yet it’s not available in the American market where consumers, increasingly savvy
about the risks of farmed salmon, would pounce on it.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
The state should create all of these in order to increase awareness of and confidence in Alaskan wild
salmon. Furthermore, if the state has the power to insist that every salmon caught wild in Alaska be
labeled “wild Alaskan” it should do so in order that the distinction between wild salmon and farmed be
asserted in the marketplace since, currently, processors are either unwilling or unable to do so. Since
many processors traffic in both wild and farmed salmon, it is not, perhaps, in their best interest to
distinguish between the two. Fishermen are in too weak a position to force their packers to market their
product as “wild Alaskan” and so need the help of the state to be sure this distinction is established in
the marketplace.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Most of us in the industry understand how to properly care for fish. We need some incentive to do so
consistently.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
A better price for better fish.
Marketing
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
Long ago ASMI decided not to tackle the threat that farmed salmon posed to the Alaska fishing industry.
Whether that decision was merely ill-conceived or downright duplicitous we can’t tell. Nonetheless,
fishermen have a right to be skeptical of the choices made by ASMI if its board includes processors of
farmed fish. I don’t know which bureaucratic entity is best suited to serve the Alaska salmon industry
but it needs to take on farmed fish fearlessly.
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)
All of us should shoulder the cost.]
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
If the state helps individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon it should be certain that
access to possible state quality seals or wild Alaskan labels not be onerous.
Production
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Bristol Bay isn’t suited to IFQ’s.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
I have little confidence in ASMI’s ability to help fishermen get a better price.
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?
To the extent possible the state should work to provide a healthy fishery for as many as possible.
Retiring permits serves to make fewer successful fishermen. The goal should be to make more. A better
price per pound is more important than more fish per fisherman.
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
I suppose it’s adequate. Overburdened, unresponsive, partial to special interests, inclined to cronyism,
but adequate. That’s politics. Might commercial fishermen have a voice or a vote in some
appointments?
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
As Alaska responds to difficulties in its salmon industry, the state should continue to protect the interests
of small operators and families who have earned livings there for generations and continue to resist
changes that benefit the powerful, elite.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
My name is Sigurd Mathisen. I am a lifelong Alaskan Fisherman from Petersburg. I have been running
salmon purse seine vessels since 1967. I represent myself.
1. I oppose pursuing fleet reduction. There has been no demonstrated need to make the fleet smaller in
the last thirty years. Limited entry capped the size of the fleet over thirty years ago. Over the years a
bigger percentage of the existing permits have been fished. This is mainly because of market reasons,
but also because of resource abundance. When Prince William Sound was compromised by the oil spill,
their fleet was well compensated, because it ruined their resource. They in turn bought nice new vessels
and a bunch of cheap, inactive southeast salmon permits. If any one thing has affected the Southeast
fishery this influx of brand new boats and permits has to stand out. Fortunately the influx arrived as the
resource here was rebounding to record levels. Market conditions created a situation where there were
many inactive permits in 2002. We didn’t need to stack them, buy them back, or form a co-op. The
lack of market or price kept them out, and with a hundred less boats the year the price was still bad.
Price is our problem. Not boats.
There are economic as well as political reasons for maintaining the size of our fishing fleets. Spreading
the wealth of the resources to many rather than to a few is politically correct, and economically better
for our fishing communities. The Limited Entry Commission allowed the maximum number in and does
have the ability to reduce fleet for good reason. They haven’t elected to reduce the fleet in the past
thirty years, and I don’t believe we are there now. I don’t think we should just accept the conditions of
the marketplace and just start burning permits. We need to find a way to make this industry and the
people in it thrive. If we cut out permits the first thing cut is the opportunity for the young people
coming up in our fishing communities. Then without those jobs the young people leave and go
elsewhere to earn a living. The community suffers. I say find a way to make this wonderful gift of
resource we have in Alaska worth real money. I don’t think we’ll get there by telling half of us to quit
and go home, but by providing fish in a form the market will pay money for.
2. We have seen some attempts at processor cost reduction over the years. We see it in tender fleet
reduction, and in fish price, which is also where the raw fish tax is taken. This is where our aquaculture
tax is determined. You have hatcheries listed in number two, but I can’t see the connection unless I’m
blocking out the obvious. Hatcheries do not solve the cost of business problem without causing
problems for the fleet. Hatchery returns can give canneries cheap fish, and they may rely on us to catch
them. If it’s a lot of fish it goes on the market in competition with our fish and drives our price down
further. I think the rational solution is for the state to find funding to help canneries retool to allow for
different product forms that have more value than the existing canning methods used now.
3. Requiring refrigerated fishing fleets would help the quality of the overall salmon pack and give it a
better chance in the marketplace. It would give the processor a fish with more potential processing
possibilities.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
Dan Castle
Fish Area: Southeast
Gear Type: Purse Seine
October 22, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
More high quality participants and far fewer low quality producers.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, the state should be involved in a state quality seal program. I have thought for years that this would
be a good idea. The challenge is creating a high enough standard. In the past when this idea came up,
high quality producers were not interested in a label that would group them in with lower quality
producers. We’ve seen the industry balk at stringent federal standards for canned salmon sales, but
most, if not all processors, have complied with the inspection necessary to compete for federal
purchases.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
No Isn’t this what ASMI is supposed to do? Hopefully there will be a direct relationship between price
and quality, so industry participants will be rewarded by better prices for their higher quality product.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Good price.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
Because ASMI is a quasi-government agency, they are unable to negotiate prices. I suggest you change
the name to Alaska Seafood Cheerleading Institute. How can you market something if you cannot
discuss the value of your product with prospecting buyers?
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)
It is easy. The owners of the resource. When fish are in the water the state owns them. When fishermen
have the fish on their boats, they own them. When the processors take delivery of the fish, they own
them.
The promotion and marketing should be paid for by the owner of the resource that is distributing the
product to the customer. These are the people that can make the most impact with the allocated dollars
as they are in control of the potential revenue / cost stream of the product; i.e. distribution costs, sales
volume, price. Nearly all a fisherman can do is treat the fish well, and make them cold.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
These are not individual fishermen anymore, they have become processors. So would you promote one
processor over another?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
The State legislature has already opened the door for a permit buyback program. Ownership of two
permits is now possible, This paves the way for an industry controlled, regional specific permit
reduction scheme. The clear benefit of this concept is to return profit to those that chose to remain in
the fishery. Over the years the fleet has become more efficient. One half of the traditional fleet is all that
is required to effectively harvest the resource. The goal is to assist the remaining half to buy out the
excess permits.
Other options such as permit stacking incentives (removal of 58 ft limit, longer-deeper nets, etc.) are
attractive to very few people. Currently in the Southeast seine fishery nearly one half did not fish in
2002. Do 100% of the remaining vessel owners want a longer boat? The answer is no. We should
focus on a system that keeps the equality amongst the survivors.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
I was not aware that the state used industry taxes to assist our industry at all.
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?
The state should allow the retirement of limited entry permits without the threat of reissuing new
permits. The incentive for retirement is cash. Nobody is giving up their permit without a monetary
reward. Non-monetary incentives are not strong enough to reduce permits to the target level.
I believe that the remaining fishermen should fund a buyback with help from the federal government.
With the passage of NAFTA and other trade bills the U.S. is allowing third world countries and heavily
subsidized corporations to compete side-by-side with traditional domestic industries. We have seen the
negative impacts of these policies on the price of Alaskan Salmon in the last five years. The feds need to
recognize the impact of free trade on the domestic salmon industry and help us create a viable,
profitable salmon fishery for the future. I think the fishermen left standing will be able to hold permit
prices down to a reasonable level if they are committing their own dollars as part of the buy back
program. If it is purely a federal or state program, permit prices will skyrocket as speculators detect an
easy dollar.
Governance
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 should not allow hatcheries to dip into the revolving loan fund until at least 60% of their
production is available to common property fisheries. Furthermore, the revocation process needs to be
shortened for non-compliant hatcheries (it took five years to shut down a hatchery that did not have a
structure).
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
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 role the state played 20 years ago when we had these programs seems adequate.
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 State could regain control of Fish and Game from the Federal Government by solving the
subsistence mess.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes. The legislature should appoint less lawyers and more knowledgeable fishermen. Also, all regions
must be represented so that broader perspectives are brought to the board. ]
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No. The reason the Board of Fish exists in the first place is so that the legislature does not get involved
in fisheries management.
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?
Does the State need another commission? Why not structure existing groups and expertise to work
effectively on behalf of the industry.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
Jim Becker
Fish Area: Southeast Alaska
Gear Type: Drift Gillnet
October, 21, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
As soon as the fish comes onboard it is held in a controlled environment – bled, chilled, iced, and
delivered to a processor promptly.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes the State needs to be a leader in facilitating quality standards. A seal could guarantee quality.
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?
Higher prices.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
We need to use the existing promotional entities but make sure that they are fully funded to do the job.
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)
All of the entities above should play a part.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes; by marketing the fact that most fish are harvested by family-owned vessels.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Permit stacking, fleet reductions, co-ops.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Grants for new technology. Assist with loans and grants in plant renovation, and modernizing.
Additional cold storages in smaller coastal communities.
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 Capital Construction Funds (Fed program) to be used for retailing.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Tax credit for improvement, etc.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Yes.
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… Buyout incentive…Federal funds should pay.
Governance
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?
Hatcheries have already played a large part in the recent past for the fishermen of the SE Gillnet fleet.
But before legislation is proposed developing hatchery policy and performance standards I believe there
should be a thorough review of each hatchery’s development history. After several years of operation,
industry standards for the cost of operating hatcheries now exist; each hatchery is unique as far as its
financial needs, and its ability to contribute to the common property fishery.
The relationship between the State and the hatcheries is very good. Hatcheries make annual reports
to the Dept. of Fish and Game. Many hatchery staff and department personnel work together on
industry boards and technical committees. Regional planning teams review production and harvest
contribution by each hatchery. Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development has a very liberal loan
program for hatchery construction and operational costs.
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 State should facilitate the development of such an educational program.
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. Get more involved.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Grants or low-interest loans for retraining.
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Simplify and consolidate permits required for fishermen to do self-marketing.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes I support the open public Board of Fisheries process, however, the system is now extremely
complicated. There should be screening of proposals by subcommittees; and the formation of regional
boards needs to be looked at. Also the possibility of professional boards needs to be considered.
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?
I would certainly consider such a 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?
Small coastal communities need to be made competitive in the seafood industry, i.e. cold storage, permit
loans, boat loans, and transportation infrastructure.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Fred & Linda Hawkshaw
linfred@citytel.net
421 6th Ave east, Pr. Rupert, BC
250-624-2159
Fish Area:
Gear Type: modified gill-net for live, unmarked capture
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
It needs to recognize that all our wild salmon enter our harvesting world/areas as perfect creatures of
nature at her best. If that recognition can be followed up by an honest and dead serious commitment,
from and to, both the resource and all stakeholders, to no longer simply harvest the fish as an exchange
of money for raw product, but to learn to respect what we’ve got and what we could get from it and how
many could benefit from it if a new attitude and follow-up by serious changes in behavior and even
gear/methods used for harvesting/handling of the salmon, were applied to secure the future for all.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Beyond any shadow of a doubt, if you do nothing else, this is the single most important first step to
protect the credibility and reward the efforts of those who would choose to challenge the future and
quality issues. This will be the only way to create incentives to move ahead and the only sure way of
assuring customers around the world that what they are buying is what they expect to get. This is also
the only way to ensure only the best will get to the top and in so doing, reap the benefits of their efforts,
thereby creating a challenge to all to meet or beat the standards necessary to be successful and
competitive in today’s highly competitive and quality conscious marketplace, successful and competitive
not just for industry participants benefit, but for all stakeholders benefits.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, by all means. There is little point in a fisher bringing in live salmon if neither the processor nor his
workers are prepared to deal with it. Conversely, there is little point in a processor being set up to deal
with live or high quality fish, if his fishers are not prepared or educated in how to harvest high quality
fish. In other words, it is really a chain, starting at the fisher, but like all chains, there is a potential for
a weak link; education and co-operation between all parties should ameliorate/eliminate the weakest
link. We already know how good the quality of our salmon is when they are alive, it’s from the moment
we capture them that we either can continue that quality or ruin it. Another benefit, perhaps less obvious
at first glance is, the better educated and accepting of, fishers become towards high quality harvesting
and gear design practices and usage, the easier and far more effective will become the jobs of the
Fishery Managers and the better able they are to do their jobs, the greater the potential for more access
to surpluses that today would have to be otherwise let pass through the fishery because of uncertainty
amidst the rush for volume.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
One could argue that money would be a good start, but unfortunately that is not always the case. In this
instance, I would suggest the best incentive would be a better and more socially-economically viable
future. Of course there is little doubt that the end must justify the means, but because industry, both here
in BC and Alaska has always rewarded the fisher who catches the most fish and rarely, if ever, the fisher
who brings in the most valuable product, that we have lost our direction. The fish farms have now
replaced our “volume”, and unfortunately our quality, so rather than keep on believing that we’re going
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
to “win” the war of volume, instead we really seriously need to get down off our worn out old high
horse of the past, leap to the saddle of a brand new younger steed and go for the gold of high quality.
Industry has been in a race with itself to the back of the pack. It’s long past time when we had a change
of attitude and heart and decided that first place is out in front with the best horse, our wild salmon.
There is only one number one; the rest are just that, “the rest”.
First we need to look at defining valuable. To a cannery, highest quality flesh is not that significant an
issue and neither will be the caviar. To a cannery, yesterday, recovery was not associated nor linked to
values or seen as a concern of the fishers, but today, to the fisher, who is more and more reliant on
increasing his quality or amount of total recovery to improve his bottom line, higher volume is becoming
less practical and no amount of recovery from his low quality is helping his bottom line either. Value is
only what we make of it. As the people entrusted by the Public to ensure we maximize the returns from
their resource, we have a responsibility to maximize the opportunities and ensuing values at every step
along the way.
Not so long ago, quality was just a philosophical term, not something one might expect to use or
seriously have to apply when referring to a fish, whether or not it had any potential for value-added
products or caviar. Quality was continually open to abuse and one that was entirely open to definition
by any two parties, one trying to sell a fish/fish-product, the other trying to buy it. Our
customers/consumers soon had a new alternative, live-slaughtered, fresh daily, farmed salmon.
Foolishly, this industry believed it could still convince customers to buy our fish, “because they were
wild”. Our customers want our fish because they’re wild, but not if we can’t be bothered assuring them
that our fish is not only wild, but really, truly and honestly, certified, guaranteed, bona fide by
Government standards to be the best we have to offer.
Let me explain the concern: Beef improves with ageing and it gets tender as the enzymes break it down
and this is a good thing. (even beef has a point of no return). Fish, on the other hand don’t: they don’t
get better with age, no aquatic does and if it is getting tender, it’s because it’s rotting. A fish’s point of
no return begins when it dies and goes through rigor. From the moment it goes through rigor, its only
guarantee is to get worse, not better, this not a good thing, but it’s all we’ve ever had and all our
markets used to have access to.
Bottom line, for fish or any aquatic for that matter, live to the point of consumption is best and ensuring
that the fish gets to the consumer either before or as soon as possible after rigor has completed it’s cycle
is the next best, because after that, we’re heading back into the past.
Today, quality has taken on a new and urgent meaning, namely, will the fishery survive or will it not.
There’s no room left for if, and or buts. Because quality previously had no standard, nor any real
meaning, we’ve lost our way in the worldwide maze of day-fresh, live-slaughtered farmed salmon.
Because we have lost the markets trust of our ability to deliver/guarantee the same certainty of quality,
every time a customer buys our fish, as set by and determined now by the farm salmon industry, and
because our perception of quality, (or lack of it), has left industry with no margin for error, quite
literally, from the losses incurred due to poor practices, both on the boat and on into the processing
plants, just one small blip in the chain from the moment of capture to the time when the fish is ready for
market, will today, tip the scales of success or failure, not just a little bit, but potentially into complete
failure. Percentages of recovery today, both from the fish itself and the caviar, can spell the difference
for all stakeholders. An assurance of the best quality, beginning right on the boat, is the key to our
success and future, not just high splash marketing or processing or labeling alone.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
Fishers will require the same treatment as a person going back to school, being taught new skills, given
the tools and proper equipment to go along with their new skills on how to apply them. Unlike the
proverbial old dog, who “can’t be taught new tricks”, fishers have, not only the propensity to learn new
skills, but by now they know, they have no choice but to accept the need for change if they are prepared
to carry on in this industry in a successful manner or leave the industry to those who are willing to
acknowledge the need for change.
No one is above the need for praise and recognition of effort, reward for greater effort. A distinctive, by
significant price differential, incentive for successful effort and delivery of the best quality fish and a
dramatic lower price distinction for no/little effort to comply and less focus on strictly volume oriented
fishers and more emphasis and encouragement for those fishers focused on values will be the most
significant boost to get things moving in the right direction.
The people who will struggle the hardest with this harsh new reality are the canning focused processors
and the fishers who deliver/sell their fish to them, because the nature of that business is almost entirely
reliant on high volume, not high quality and is mainly focused on flesh recovery for the can, not for
value-adding, high-end, demographically changed markets or caviar. The less amount of product
recovery and the lower the target market values, the longer the prices paid to the fishers will continue to
decline and the less likely the public is going to continue to want to support the industry. Does this
suggest the end of the cannery era: no, but it does say that that industry must take a long hard look at
how it conducts itself and its relationship to and between the marketplace, the Public stakeholders and
the fishers and the future of the resource. The processors will have to take a very hard look at how best
to recover the most from each and every fish. That will not be achieved by continuing to focus the whole
system on high volumes of low quality fish. Every low quality fish that comes to the processors in the
future will be cheating every part of the chain of stakeholders out of a share in the returns and
potentially threatening the future of the industry.
Processors too, will need to be rewarded by monetary gain by support from both Government loans or
grants to help in the upgrading of both the fishers skills and their fishers vessels/gear, and from the
marketing agencies to promote and tell the worlds markets the industry is dead serious about it’s future.
Perhaps too, the processors will require loan guarantees to support bringing about changes to how they
do their business, even for upgrading their type of business and for training their plant workers for new
skills to deal with today’s “ different kettle of fish.”
The Government too must take on the task of establishing criteria for delivery of and assurance of one
certified set of quality assurance standards from the fishers through to the marketplace. This is
necessary to protect the Public’s investments and trust AND the people who will challenge the “quality”
or “standards” (or lack of them). Processors will also have to respect the facts, that in order for fishers
to bring in the highest quality, will in most cases, necessitate focusing more on lower volumes. However,
the upside to this will be higher quality and greater recovery, more market share, a future and may well
result in more fishing time because the job of managing the fishery for both the fishery managers and
scientists/biologists, will, without a doubt, be far simpler, with a fishery focused on values rather than
volume.
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)
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
I would suggest that if the entire industry gets serious about its future, learns from the past and learns to
leave the past where it belongs, in the past, dwells less on volumes and far more on values, through a
solid chain of commitment to not just quality but the highest quality possible, understands the
connection between such a commitment and rewards for all stakeholders, certainly generic type
marketing costs for all Alaskan wild salmon should be born by the public because the fishery is a public
resource. Having said that though, industry must respond by increasing quality and recovery to increase
revenues to the public coffers. Once the focus of industry has shifted from volume to value, the volume
may well increase by virtue of more sustainable access to surpluses that otherwise may not be there
because of the risks involved while the focus is on low quality and high volume.
If the Government sets one industry-wide set of quality assurance standards, the market will buy and
pay accordingly. Thus, the harder everyone strives to achieve the highest quality rating for their
products, the more the entire stakeholder community benefits. The more monetary gains are made, the
more taxes will be paid, the more the public gains and the more money everyone will have to spend,
returning even greater rewards to the public coffers. Therefore, it should fall to the public coffers to at
the very least shoulder some of the costs of getting back a healthy industry. Putting the generic type
marketing costs onto the public’s shoulders should at least support those who may not in the short term
have the infrastructure nor the money to focus on quality, markets and promotion all at the same critical
time.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, and the simplest and most effective way of doing that at the very least is, if this Task Force sets a
firm mandate to bring in quality standards that are both independent of industry and will set the stage
for the future, recognizing that live or live-processed, day fresh salmon will be the top of the line. These
goals should be the easiest to reach initially for the smaller producers/processors, but in the end it will
offer the potential for success to both small and large producers/processors. Remember well, the farm
fish industry is doing it every day and so can we, and they are ten times bigger than we’ll ever be.
The more people strive to reach the top, the better it is for everyone, but it won’t begin with the largest
processors first; volume is still their main concern, but for the smaller producers/processors, with
market share/access one concern and low prices another big concern, necessity will be the “mother of
invention” and it is far simpler and quicker to turn a small vehicle/vessel around in a short space than a
large one.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Set the target for quality high, as high as possible for the producers to aim at while at the same time
supporting, if not just through regulatory changes, and gear/gear format changes, then also by
supporting through education and market driven promotion. Clearly, for someone who has always made
the connection between a fish and money as something so simple as the more fish one can supply, the
more money one will get in return, changes in gear/gear format, fish handling practices and the
reason’s for it are not going to be easily accepted nor understood.
This is where sitting down with both the fishers and the people who buy their fish and showing them
what can be recovered from a (start at the top, it’s easier to understand) live processed fish and what
can/can’t be recovered from a fish that appears to be the same on the outside, but is as different as night
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
and day on the inside. Explain in clear and simple terms, what the consequences are from poorly looked
after fish: (i.e.) lost caviar, caviar lost to sujiko because it won’t make caviar, caviar that gets a poor
grading instead of a top rating, caviar that gets lost because it’s good enough to recover some, but not
all of the roe from each female fish, show them the results of poor quality/handling from the smoked
product perspective, show them what a chef can do with a high quality fish as opposed to one that is
only fit for the can. Even for the can, bruising is a loss, spoilage is a loss. Simply offering a fisher ice is
not good enough, they must understand the relationship between what using it, using it properly and not
using it will do to their bottom line. Offering a fisher the wherewithal to add slush tanks to his/her vessel
without educating them on the consequences too cold, too warm can have on their fish and again, their
bottom line. Too cold, freezes the roe, too warm won’t protect the flesh.
Irregardless of opinion, one side or the other, the “Chignik” example is definitely one possible very
creative solution; that is to say, instead of all fishers competing for the same fish, some fishers become
instead investors and change vocation, while the remainder, who actually catch the fish for all, can
focus on highest quality, highest recovery, best markets, and a smoother working relationship with the
Fishery Managers to maximize access, benefits and sustainability of the resource. Thus, the fishers who
opt to change vocation and allow the rest to best utilize all shares of the fish, if the non-fishers/now
investors, begin a new venture into growing out products that will enhance and extend the use of the
shore-workers and the plants, the potential for success, both socially and economically and communally,
should be greatly enhanced.
I believe though, that such an undertaking must not jeopardize the loss of people from rural/coastal
communities. Simply removing fishers to accommodate more volume for the remainder may in fact
totally devastate a small community. Enhancing the viability of harvesting the salmon resource must be
balanced with the introduction of new opportunities to support and retain/increase not just earnings but
people and also to enhance the social fabric and infrastructure of our coastal communities. Every time a
job is lost and not replaced, school funding suffers, health services funding suffers, community services
suffer and businesses that both support and rely on the success of the community will suffer or go away,
causing more grief.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
The processing sector needs to embrace, through actions, all stakeholders, not the least of which is the
Public’s need to earn a return on it’s resources. What is to be gained if fishers continue to get so little
for their fish, they continually need to depend on welfare or Government bailouts. The public, it’s rural
communities, the fishers and other business folks there-in are all paying dearly because we’ve paid so
little attention to how we harvest, the quality of what we produce, in what format we produce it and who
is benefiting/not benefiting as a result. This will not be achieved by continuing the practices of the past.
They too need to recognize and come to terms with the reality that the past is gone, and gone forever.
Today, the best advice I can give the processing sector is, as a 25 year + fisher and currently a live
harvest fisher of both salmon and ground-fish is; encourage and challenge both themselves and their
fishers to deliver the very best quality they can and give them the tools, the education to use them and
the reasons why, the incentives and markets to do so. Know well, that even a properly cut piece of glass
will sparkle, but it will never command the price of a diamond.
Volumes will never replace values in today’s marketplace. The marketplace already has more than
enough volume in fact it already has live fresh quality fish every day. However, no amount of the best
quality wild salmon will resolve the immediate issues, but I believe and I’ve said it already too much,
there must be, set independent of industry, Government standards for industry and fishers to meet or
beat, supported by marketing strategies that focus on and target the high-end marketplace.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
If processors are willing to do their part and their fisher partners are doing their part, recoveries alone
will reduce losses and increase revenues, now add in the access to better paying markets and new
markets such as day fresh fish, whole or pre-portioned, live-quality caviar, etc, there should be less need
to dwell on reducing costs and fishers and jobs.
A caveat here though may be applicable; Norwegian salmon farmers are now finding it more cost
effective to slaughter, H&G and freeze, their salmon and container ship it to places like China, where
cheaper labor costs are enabling them to be more competitive.
Cutting jobs and labor costs is not a solution for our rural communities, the social fabric and our
economy as a whole; far better the fishers, the plant owner’s, the marketing agencies should shape up
on their practices. In addition to these suggestions, there are markets for new products such as mariculture
products like kelp and abalone, etc, that could keep plants open longer and make them more
profitable and viable, aside from the jobs created in producing these new products, processing them and
marketing them.
In addition to setting Government standards for quality on flesh and its products, there also needs to be
the same set of standards applied to the caviar. Many years of poor handling, poor grading, poor
quality, claim-backs, public uncertainty of quality and safety have caused huge losses in the caviar
markets as well. It is a must do to offer protection, not just for the consumer, but also for the industry
and those who will try with a determination and sincerity to beat the past.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Not knowing much if anything about Alaska’s regulatory process, this is a tough question to answer, but
I am aware that there are issues with things like gear changes or formatting, etc. We too have very
tough, linear focused limitations as to gear and harvesting advancements.
For example, my wife and I have been using what we refer to as a “live-capture” or differently
formatted gillnet since 1996, but even this summer, we must still apply for permission to use it and each
year we must receive a “scientific” permit, which then and only then allows us to use it. Leaving aside
the fact that down here we are only allowed access to fish providing fishers can demonstrate they are
complying with the new rules and restrictions of selective fishing, and instead, focus on the other reason
why we are so determined to use it. Having live-fished for ground-fish for many years now for the
oriental markets to the south, coupled with the fact that the markets and prices for wild salmon are all
but non-existent, back in 1995 we decided one day to try bringing in our salmon alive, just for the fun of
it and to see what reaction the processor would have. The initial reaction was very positive, but three
things held us back; 1- the mortalities from a regular gillnet were too high to make it worth the effort
and 2- the processor had no way of dealing with our live fish and so we wound up butchering the fish
ourselves and because the roe quality was far above anything they had from the regular fishery, but in
too small a volume for them to separate and deal with specifically, 3- we both lost the caviar.
Today, the loss of anything, never mind anything so valuable, is unacceptable. Today, here, no
processor will support or even consider taking a look at the potential and the urgent need for fisher
support for supplying higher value and recovery product, unless of course the fisher is willing to take all
the risks him/herself. Couple that with the lack of industry support for innovation and we’ve got a recipe
for disaster. Fisher education, gear changes as new tools for fishers to work with, coupled with the
absolutely necessary complimentary processing changes, changes to the way in which salmon can be
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
harvested that both compliment the Fish Managers jobs and the will offer a more steady supply of high
quality fresh daily, salmon, as opposed to lumps and chunks of high volume, high risk of low recovery,
low value salmon, will go a long way into a more successful and certain future. (It is beginning to
happen here, through the support of the Fishery Managers, but with current Advisory Board focus still
on maximizing short-term volume and not long-term values is making change very slow and difficult and
resulting still in small but valuable, still lost, opportunities.)
There may be regulatory restrictions holding back on the growth of aquatic culture industries, like the
new markets for kelp, etc. I read not long ago of an issue some oyster growers were having with the
Alaskan/Federal Dept of Parks, restricting activities and growth, etc.
Finance
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?
If the State of Alaska enabled an amount deemed “ too many” for today’s fishery to sustain itself
successfully, yes, the state should be responsible for their removal. However, as in the experiences here
in BC, (a publicly funded) by-back of “too many” licenses or permits can have it’s own pit-falls and
risks
Fleet reduction was originally seen as a positive thing, as the intent was to provide for more fish per
remaining fishers, so a fleet reduction here, which amounted to approximately 50% less boats, left the
impression that fishers would immediately reap the benefits of a 100% increase in their individual
catches, which lead to the natural assumption that so too would their earnings. They were soon to find
out they were wrong. The “intent” was right, and there can be no doubt that a reduction in the number
of actively participating fishers will/should be a good thing, but the ensuing results were wrong; yes, the
processors still got their fish, but the fishers now get half the price: the score; 2 for the processors and
zero for the fishers.
We got struck with a gear “type” restriction, so now when times were tough in one gear type, one could
no longer depend on another gear type, such as from gillnetting to trolling for the season, and visaversa,
etc, to help ensure a successful season. Then we were restricted to picking one area to fish in or
buy out another fisher from a different area.
Again, the intent was great, but so far reality has not been. It should be viewed as an initiative designed
to not simply supply more volume/pieces per boat at lower and lower prices, but as an initiative to
change the face and behavior of the fishery in a manner that will generate real fisher earnings by virtue
of quality not quantity, once again in concert with incentives that will encourage them to stay in their
communities and enhance not only their earnings but also the earnings and viability of their
communities.
So now, on a year when surpluses are limited or as the season winds down, and there are still viable
amounts of fish for niche type fishing and/or markets; because we are stuck with such a huge fleet that
can no longer move to other areas or gear type, and an advisory board that dictates either all will fish
or none will fish, those smaller opportunities are lost (a) because of the risk of too many boats chasing
too few fish and (b) because the existing processors can not afford to deal with small volumes of fish and
(c) because in some cases while there may be sufficient target stocks passing through to be viable for
fishers focused on higher quality and values, but not sufficient for a full fleet fishery and the volume it
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
would require to make it “viable” at today’s low prices, coupled with the managers concerns that
without all fishers full and complete compliance with the terms of reference for the new rules and
regulations concerning weak or non-target stocks and species here, it could be too risky to open up the
fishery.(Our local Dept of Fisheries people are trying hard to enable change to happen for those fishers
who are able to viably work with smaller volumes at higher values or species that industry currently
views as low to nil value, without putting non-target species at risk.)
Today, if one wishes to troll, as an option on a bad gillnet year, one must first either own or buy out a
troll permit. At today’s prices for fish, that and/or the other option of buying a permit for another gillnet
area would be not only a high risk venture but one that the banks will no longer support. (“If you want
to become a millionaire in the fishing industry, you’d have to start out as a billionaire first; and it won’t
be long before you’re just a millionaire.)
By this time, we were well into the new era of weak or non-target species and stocks management
concerns/issue, which put another crimp in any thought that a simple by-back was going to heap us with
rewards. Then, no sooner was the ink dry on the buying out of the last permits and some fishers taking
the risk of buying out other fishers permits for other areas to fish when things weren’t so great in one
area, than the processors cut the price paid for fish in half.
So, bottom line, 50% of the folks in the industry no longer had a job and incomes are still dropping like
a stone and the gillnet fleet here on the North coast is still stuck with far too many boats chasing less
and less access to fish and returning less and less on their investments, because both them and the
processors are focused still on one thing; volume. (Unfortunately, even if the fishers were to bring in a
gold-plated live salmon, they’d still get no more money or even thanks for it because there is no
marketing effort promoting the real potential we could achieve. I don’t even know if we still have a
“Marketing Council” anymore) Worse yet, most of the remaining licenses “fished” here, no longer live
here, so as the season winds down or is poor, most of the fleet heads south and our North Coast
communities are left holding an empty bag.
There needs to be a balanced approach when considering altering or upsetting the existing balance of a
community. When fishers or shore-workers become displaced, we need to keep them active and in the
community albeit, today it may be in the form of another marine oriented industry, one that will
compliment the remaining industry.
Incentives therefore, must consider learning from what we went through and are still hurting from.
Retiring permits in a community that has little to no other form of income may not be a solution at all,
because there may be no other recourse for displaced fishers, other than perhaps to leave, jeopardizing
the entire social fabric and economic health of the community.
(If a community once had 50 active fishers and boats, but 40 opted to be bought out and there were no
other options for those who opted out, the 10 remaining fishers might do alright for a short while, but
the community will dry up and blow away, leaving those 10 remaining fishers and their boats with no
services for them or their families and so too, eventually they will have nothing left to stay for or any
support mechanisms left to help them if they break down or get sick, etc, and they wouldn’t be able to
have their families there with no services or schooling.)
If there were other options such as mari-culture in one form or another, a co-operative style reduction
of actual fishers, so both, the inactive and the active licenses and the fish that are attached to them all,
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
in concert with educational and funding incentives that would support those opting out of actually
fishing and instead getting into mari-culture, while still sharing in the benefits of a share in the returns
from a more profitable, less competitive salmon fishery, then that may be one option. For small
communities, simply buying fishers out could cause the collapse of the entire community because
communities need people to be successful; they need people to maintain their health service level, school
service level, related business level; they need each other to make it work and if licenses are removed
from a community, without creating a reason for those displaced to stay, loss and perhaps total loss will
be the result.
Metlakatla, Alaska is an example of how displacing fishers jobs with a trap and a cheque at the end of
the year didn’t work. People lose self-esteem when they feel they are no longer “ earning” a living for
their families. Idle hands are no good for anyone. “Free money” only sounds good. While receiving a
cheque for giving up your share of active access, as an investment in a business can be a good thing, it
needs to be enhanced by access to other opportunities, especially opportunities that will keep those
people in the village or community where they and their contributing families live.
Even in the larger communities where there are other job options, options again such as mari-culture,
or options such as a co-operative where some fishers could become investors in the co-op by retiring
from active participation in a competitive fishery to giving up their share of the harvestable surpluses of
salmon each year in return for a share of the profits, benefiting everyone by starting up another aquatic
venture, to help maintain the viability of the plant and its workers. They should be encouraged to begin
these opportunities with loan support, along with their earnings or shares, while other fishers within the
group or co-operative may wish to remain active fishers and reap the benefits of so doing by having
access to the inactive fishers “fish shares” and be able to focus more on getting higher recoveries and
higher earnings through more attention to higher quality instead of competition for fish and volumes
that in some cases may no longer be there.
Governance
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?
I would suggest that like the farmed salmon or any other food harvesting related industry, harvesting,
processing and marketing wild salmon must become a high tech vocation, where the
producers/harvesters have the skills necessary to become not just the best at what they do, but also
successful at what they do. Fishers today must be equipped with the skills to understand when changes
to their business are necessary, why and how to achieve them. While we still rely on Mother Nature to
provide us with a harvestable surplus and the co-operation of the weather to do so successfully, there is
much that each fisher can do and does have control over to help ameliorate the oddities and vagaries of
nature.
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?
If research support is anything like what it is down here, no, it does not meet the requirements of today’s
technology in aquatic’s production. This industry has for ever been reliant on the canneries for making
all it’s decisions and providing all it’s markets and has used the same old gear and format, other than
the brief foray into the trap era, for harvesting and selling all its salmon. That has worked, no telling
how well because little else was explored, until 25 years ago, when the farming of salmon became an
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
acceptable and successful practice. The live slaughter of their fish and day-fresh marketing of bruise
free and guarantee of freshness should have been a wake-up call to this industry. A stubborn belief that
because industry had been capable of looking after business itself in the past, setting it’s own quality
guidelines and standards, guaranteed we were going to miss the “boat” of opportunity as it went sailing
on by.
Our reluctance to recognize that one day they would take over control of just about all our markets, and
at the same time our reluctance to rise up to meet their challenge has brought about our downfall. In
fact, BC Packers, a.k.a- Nelson Bros, etc, quit this industry some while ago and quickly got onto the
farm fish bandwagon, both here in BC and in Chile. That too should have been a warning sign that we
were heading for a downfall when they could no longer see a future in this industry. In the aqua + mariculture
industries all around the world, including here in Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are
being spent on research, technology and marketing support. The farm-culture industry doesn’t have a
past to fret over; they only see the future and all the possibilities it holds. We, on the other hand, keep
hanging onto the past, believing it will protect us and our future and we’d be very wrong.
The farm industry is continually researching new and better ways to better the quality of their fish and
all the other products they are/can now produce, new and better markets to develop and enter while we
continue to languish in the hope they’ll either go away or our customers will once again jump on the
canning wagon. I don’t believe either will happen and I’m certainly not alone in that opinion. It is an
opinion shared by millions of people all over the world in a world of changing demographics. We too,
must learn that we need to change if we are going to survive, never mind be successful with our Public’s
resources for our collective future. There might be a future for some quote/unquote “canneries”, but it
won’t include us, the fishers, if we the fishers, don’t do something about the quality of what we deliver.
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 suggest that if a person becomes displaced by changes in industry, that consideration be given
to choices. What choices could we offer people who have formed their lives and their communities
around the ocean and its riches: the same opportunities only instead of chasing the resource, as
hunter/gatherers, why not instead offer education and financial support to open up new forms of reaping
the rewards the sea has to offer, only instead of chasing them, growing them, such as is the case with
mari-culture.
Alaska has very clean and very cold seawater. While this might be seen as a grow-out disadvantage in
an industrial world that likes to hurry things up all the time, there are very serious markets for very high
quality and environmentally friendly grown foodstuff. Warm water oysters or clams or kelp or whatever
the choice, may well have a faster pace of growth, but in this case, that can sometimes be a
disadvantage. In other words, compare an oyster grown say on the Willipa in Wash and one grown in
Alaska. Yes, the one from Wash will grow faster and look nice and fatty, but if we can for a moment
compare an oyster grown here in Pr. Rupert and one grown on the south coast of BC, I’ll pick the one
grown here any day because not only does it look more like it’s wild cousin, it tastes like it’s wild
cousin, very special indeed. To the south, pollution is a constant concern; in Alaska the pristine water
should be seen as a huge advantage.
In the case of Oysters, or any aquatic product, it is very important to eat them as close to the time they
came out of the water as possible, to prevent the loss of juice and freshness.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
This is where research and technology needs to step up to the plate here, and find solutions for getting
our products, irregardless of the specie, irregardless of distance to markets, at the peak of their
freshness, anywhere in the world.
Kelp is a rapidly growing new market opportunity for those who would still like to earn a living and a
good one at that, from the sea, but it can be dried for market. Abalone requires kelp, a potential synergy
of both fish plant and worker resources and effort/energy. Today Abalone is commanding prices that
would literally knock ones socks off. These and many other aquatic products are both opportunities and
in need of research by our Universities that will keep our plants and workers viable, successful, efficient
and effective.
Agency Oversight
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Considering that the last three questions have all been focused at the Board of Fish, perhaps this is an
indication that there are some concerns here that might or might not want or need to be addressed.
From my experiences here in BC, if the Board of Fish is anything like what we call Industries “Advisory
Boards”, I would suggest if that were the case, yes, something should be done to facilitate innovation
and change and support for it.
Change is not just something that is necessary for the actual industry itself to undertake, to benefit
earnings, socio-economic impacts and markets, etc, but changes in how industry conducts itself, how it
sees the benefits of focusing more on quality than quantity are changes that will also affect how
effectively the Dept of Fish and Game can do its job. The Fishery Managers are tasked with the Public
responsibility of managing the resource in a sustainable fashion, one that will ensure both sustainable
fish productivity and viable, sustainable jobs for the future. A linear focus on high volume has not only
put the industry’s future at risk but it also puts the resource and the Managers jobs at high risk, which
can lead to under and over-escapements, not because they want to but because high volume leaves little
room for error and little time for decisions that will ultimately benefit both the resource and industry as
a whole. This brings us all back to the need for more focus on responsible, quality focused fishing
practices that will bring in a higher value product that in turn will lead to better relationships and
feelings all around and a better and more successful, sustainable future.
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 would suggest yes. Why so? Today’s marketplace, supply of salmon and consumer tastes and needs
are in a constant state of flux. The wild salmon industry is not, more it is in a constant state of
turmoil. For instance, studies have shown that as our populations demographics are changing,
along with daily access to fresh products. One study has shown that those people born before 1952,
(I believe) will still buy canned salmon, but those born after that date, are no longer interested and
are looking instead for fresh fish, or ready to cook, pre-portioned fish.
2. Unlike our generations, most urban folks today do not harvest wild berries for winter, can fruit or
fish or meat for winter, etc, anymore; they can do their harvesting everyday of the year in their local
grocery store. Someone else has gone to the trouble of harvesting and providing our food for us. The
wild salmon industry needs to become more aware, more flexible, able to respond to changes in the
marketplace and what’s being served on consumers plates, quickly, more able to deliver consistently
high quality, good tasting, food, food that they know comes from a safe, sustainable source.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 36 -
3. These issues may best be served by an entity that has the ability and time to help in the keeping of
the legislative process abreast, even ahead of industries needs. (e.g.) When the WDFW decided it
was going to look for innovative solutions for fishers to harvest Columbia River hatchery stock King
salmon, while at the same time having the ability to release alive and unharmed wild stocks, they
went to the legislative process and set everything up ahead of time so that in the event they were
successful in finding a gear type/format that could do the job, and be scientifically defendable, it was
essentially a relatively short time, easy move then to make the necessary legislative changes to
legally discontinue the use of the old gear format and at the same time legally bring in the
requirement for fishers to comply with the new gear and regulations in order to participate in the
fishery..
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?
Both Greenland and Newfoundland are good/bad examples of where to find solutions and if there are
any and what can be done if no solutions seem readily apparent. More recently, the shutdown or
collapse of the Ground-fish fishery all along the entire west coast of the lower 48 and up into the Gulf of
Georgia in southern BC, will provide examples of what not to do or where not to continue going.
A community, totally reliant, ever since it’s beginnings or existence, on the fishery for it’s
socioeconomic well-being, may not be in a position to grow hot-house veggies to help alter or
ameliorate the issues facing it today, but it may be well positioned for considering some form of
Aqua/Mari-culture, that could, in a symbiotic or synergetic relationship with it’s current plant and
workers, current fishers, albeit perhaps with a product that requires harvesting hopefully at a different
time than the salmon fishery, could offer more security, more earnings, a much extended plant
operational season and a more sustainable future. All around the world, new opportunities and markets
are opening up, waiting for people to seize them.
Change is as inevitable as the rising and setting of the sun each and every day. It is the only thing in life
that is constant and if we in the wild salmon fishing industry want to see and have a future in it, we must
recognize and embrace change ahead of or in concert with an ever evolving, ever changing, world.
Thank you most sincerely for creating this opportunity to be involved in offering possible solutions to a
common problem. If I have offended or upset any one group in particular, or any folks in particular, I
apologize because that was not my intention. It is not my intention to upset or offend anyone, but to offer
hope and suggestions for what is clearly a time for change. I also apologize for being so long-winded,
but that’s just me. I have spent every day since this came out, trying to make it as sensitive and sensible
as possible while still remaining neutral, positive and responsible.
It is easy to find fault, but very difficult to find solutions. As family fishers for over a quarter of a
century, our resolve is to see us, and the others who will follow in our footsteps also have a future in this
wonderful and vital industry. You people are embarking on a voyage of discovery into a new era, a new
beginning for a priceless and precious resource and industry. You are in fact not just making a
commitment to industries future, but to all stakeholders future and most important of all, to the publics
resources success and future. For this you must be applauded and supported, because it is an essential
and vital part of our collective social and economic success and future.
With best wishes,
Sincerely, Fred and Linda Hawkshaw
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 37 -
421 6th Ave East,
Pr. Rupert, BC
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 38 -
SAND POINT, KING COVE, NELSON LAGOON and FALSE PASS
Public Testimony - October 12, 2002
Paul Gronholdt
P.O. Box 288
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Area M seiner
• Supports an A/B fishery – works in all salmon fisheries; divide the fleet into two sections,
alternate openings; if you want to fish both A and B, have to get a permit for the other group
• Other ideas are piecemeal
• PWSAC is $30,000,000 in debt – get rid of them because of their debt, they’re unsuccessful,
hurting pink market, cost recovery is eating everything up
Melvin Larsen
P.O. Box 33
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Supports a buy-back – would help Area M, not sure where money would come from
• Can’t harvest fish because of Board of Fisheries regulations
• We can’t compete with the hatcheries – people in AYK are starving
• Have improved my quality through refrigeration; nothing from Gunnar Knapp giving credit for
improved quality efforts; processors are not going to spend one dime changing salmon handling
• ASMI – all areas of the state should be treated the same
• Quality should not be mandatory – need to manage fishery for quality
• Should educate buyers instead of fishermen
John Mavar
P.O. Box 312
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Bristol Bay fisherman
• Supports permit buy-back
• Would have difficult time improving quality
• Permit stacking – can’t ask fishermen to spend money without any return for their investment
• Supports coops and IFQs
• Fund buy-back through state, federal and fishermen
• Change statute to forbid new entrants after a buy-back
• Fishermen could turn in permits in exchange for debt forgiveness
Richard Eastlick
P.O. Box 147
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Veteran of Board of Fish process for 18 years; should expand BOF to 11 or 13 members; have
people conflict out if they have a financial interest
• Do not need a Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 39 -
• Fisheries should not be conducted in rivers
Dick Jacobsen
P.O. Box 307
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Supports reduction in number of permits through buy-back/stacking
• Loan program – fishermen cannot use state program without first being rejected by commercial
bank
• Needs to change regulations on fish handling
• Need to encourage direct marketing
• Need to give more autonomy to fishermen
• ASMI – need someone to expedite the movement of product
• Need to change regulations to allow fishermen to remove heads
Dave Osterback
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Should take 1% marketing tax and use it for buy-back
• Quality is very important
• The large processors are marketing their fish the same as they have for the last 100 years
• Board of Fisheries – last 10-15 years not a very enjoyable process to go through; 95% of their
decisions are based on politics; need a review committee for BOF; need agency oversight
• Hatcheries – supports a statewide policy
• Education – supports UAA
• ASMI – change structure entirely
Theo Chesley
Nelson Lagoon, AK
• Supports refrigerated fish; investing in an RSW system would be a good investment
• Cooperatives – likes the concept; there’s a huge allocation problem in the Chignik style coop –
can be worked out
• Buy-back – likes the concept; could work at current permit prices if federal help were available
• ASMI – need help; halibut and cod should contribute in assessment; not making much headway;
salmon industry on lat legs
• Tend to get less on price than others when we strike; not getting support on negotiations
• Disaster relief always goes to western Alaska – we should get it too
• Would like fishing time back in June; until we get salmon industry healthy, this won’t happen
• Need help getting a better price on fish; being charged $.20/lb. for ice – everyone’s using ice –
realized it positively affects quality
• State’s culpability very important to fishermen – if the BOF takes fish away, the state should pay
Kenneth Mack
P.O. Box 176
King Cove, AK 99612
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 40 -
• Area M coop fisherman
• Does not support A/B fishery – just need adequate time to fish
• Supports buy-back – tax per gear type plus contribution from the state
• Wants to direct market – fishermen need freezer space to hold onto product
Marvin Hoff
P.O. Box 32
King Cove, AK 99612
• Have lost all respect for Board of Fisheries – making political decisions
• The state should be culpable for taking fish away
Della Trumble
P.O. Box 161
King Cove, AK 99612
Paul Schaack
Cold Bay, AK
John Foster
P.O. Box 225
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Need to consider differences in each fishery
• Quality – need a commitment from fishermen to do it – I won’t do it unless I get paid more
money
• Need to manage for quality
• Need more control in our fishery
• Coops can work – historical catch is very important
• Permit stacking – won’t buy a permit unless there is an economic incentive
• Buy-back – would have to be by each area
• Board of Fisheries – supports designated seats
Duane Kapp
P.O. Box 304
Sand Point, AK 99661
• Buy-back – have a reverse auction – buy lowest guys out first
• Need reduced freight costs
• Should be subsidy for flying seafood out
• Suggested tariffs
Edgar Smith
Anchorage, AK 99502
The following individuals were also in attendance:
Jack Foster, Jr.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 41 -
P.O. Box 254
Sand Point, AK 99661
Glen Gardner, Jr.
P.O. Box 444
Anchorage, AK 99661
Brian Wilson
3801 W. 72nd Court
Anchorage, AK 99502
Steven Czajkowski
201 E. 16th Avenue #320
Anchorage, AK 99501
Robin Larsen
P.O. Box 264
Sand Point, AK 99661
Norman Larsen
P. O. Box 52
Sand Point, AK 99661
Bob Burnett
P.O. Box 274
Sand Point, AK 99661
Fred Parnell
P.O. Box 137
Sand Point, AK 99661
Tina Anderson
P.O. Box 347
Sand Point, AK 99661
John Nickels
False Pass, AK
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 42 -
Mitchell Seybert
sockeyeman
pobox 55 port heiden ak 99549
9078272207
Gear_type: drift
October 21, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
in Bristol bay shorter opening, less permits, more openings, limiting stern hauling of fish(pulling in
large
amounts of fish in stern)zones by lines for pulling in so no towing occurs.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
after 6 hours
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
yes but can be abused and tarnish .all the background work has been done already in the technical
committee at ASMI
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
I believe that this is already happening at ASMI,to make it mandatory could not hurt
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
long term markets that increase price
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
the existing structure is working fine domestically but is terribly under funded in major salmon export
markets. changes, get marketing funding for japan,uk,and europe
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
industry and the state, the state could do a lot better in a crisis, than it does presently
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
yes. and it already does a lot, make a book available that points out state programs.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Fleet reduction,
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 43 -
the processors that are left are the riches fishing companies in the world, design mandatory efficiency
methods.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
stated thru out
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Export marketing, fisheries taxes that are distruted to local governments are a small part of their
budgets. the taxes are better spent in their whole form. such as marketing and any plan the task force
comes up with.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
low interest processor pac 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,?/the state should pay to make this industry more viable and
in the long term would be able to recover its costs.
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 were good before the farm salmon explosion. as with fishers ,hatcheries should be
retired if they become unprofitable. cost recovery and harvesting close to hatcheries is a bad quality
product that takes markets away from other salmon fisheries.
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?
inside Alaska it is not needed, outside Alaska the word of best managed superior fish would probly
be good
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
welfare
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
yes
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 44 -
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?
no, there is already ways that it is being done
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 45 -
PAUL GAUTHIER
GAUTHIERS@PTIALASKA.NET
PO BOX 135 KASILOF, AK 99610
9072603245
October 19, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
1. FISH TRAPS OR PENS, TO KEEP FISH ALIVE UNTIL THEY ARE READY TO PROCESS, SO THE
AMOUNT OF FISH READY TO PROCESS DOES NOT EXCEED PROCESSING CAPACITY OR THAT
DAY'S MARKET DEMAND FOR FRESH PRODUCT. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING TO AIM FOR
IN THE FUTURE.
2. PRESENTLY, WE NEED A MARKET THAT WILL PAY MORE FOR A HIGHER PRODUCT.
3. BETTER HANDLING METHODS AND TIME TO BLEED AND ICE ON BOARD IMMEDIATLY
UPON CATCHING THE FISH. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN AND SHOULDN'T BE
RE-INVENTED.
4. INCENTIVES OR GRANTS TO UP GRADE BOATS AN PROCESSING EQUIPMENT TO
HANDLE MORE FISH IN A TIMLY MANOR
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
IT SHOULD BE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD, NOT A MANDATE BY THE STATE.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
NO. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE THRU ASMI, KENAI WILD AND COPPER RIVER BRANDING
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
NO, THE STATE SALMON INDUSTRY SHOULD AND DOES THROUGH ASMI
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
MARKET VALUE HAS TO GO UP. GRANTS FOR UPGRADING ICE MAKERS, FREEZERS, AND
TOOLS TO MANAGE THE HARVEST AND TIMING OF THE FISH AND PROCESSING.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
ASMI. GET THEM TO HELP THE "LITTLE GUYS", NOT THE LARGEOUT OF
STATE FIRMS. MOVE ASMI'S OFFICES BACK TO ALASKA
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
WE ARE ALLREADY PAYING THROUGH FISH TAXES
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 46 -
NO
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
BUILD FISH TRAPS AND GET AWAY FROM GILL NETS.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
HELP LOCAL ALASKANS WITH NEW ICE MAKERS (ENERGY EFFICIANT AND HIGHER OUT
PUT), INSULATED TOTES, AND NOT CATCH TOO MANY FISH TO PROCESS
IN A 12-24 HOUR PERIOD.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
GIVE INCENTIVES FOR LOCALLY ALASKAN OWNED AND OPERATED FISHING AND
PROCESSING COMPANIES BREAKS ON FISH TAXES AND EMPLOYEE TAXES. ALSO LET
BIOLOGISTS, NOT POLITICALFACTIONS, MANAGETHE FISHERIES FOR ALL USERS.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
BRING ASMI BACK TO ALASKA AND PROMOTE ALASKA BY ALASKANS, NOT FROM SEATTLE.
GRANT MONEY TO ALASKAN FISH COMPANIES TO PROMOTE OUR FISH FROM LOCAL
REPRESENTATION.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
NO. GRANTS THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO IN-STATE BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO OUT OF
STATE POCKETS AND/ORGO TO "WHITE ELEPHANT" PROJECTS LIKE THE PROCESSING
PLANT IN ANCHORAGE THAT HAS BEEN LOOSING STATE MONEY AND BAKRUPTING ITSELF
BY DREAMING UP A SECONDARY PRODUCT AND THEN TRYING TO CREATE A MARKET FOR
IT. THAT IS BACKWARDS AND IS NOT A GOOD, SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICE!
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?
LEAVE IT ALONE! THE STATE HAS ALREADY CREATED A LIMITED ENTRY PROGRAM THAT
NOBODY WANTED, AND NOW THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
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?
MAYBE.
Education
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 47 -
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?
HAVE A SUMMER SCHOOL AND CREDIT COURSE FOR KIDS FROM ALL OVER THE STATE TO
GIVE CHILDREN SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE TO DO IN THE SUMMER AND EVEN EARN SOME
HONEST MONEY. KIDS COULD LEARN ALOT OF THINGS SUCH AS BIOLOGY, MECHANICS,
BUSINESS, FOOD MANAGEMENT, GEAR WORK, MANUFACTURING, OUTDOOR SKILLS TO
NAME A FEW.
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?
MORE BUSINESS COURSES OFFERED FOR FREE.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
NOTHING SHORT OF HELPING THRU THE STATE'S JOB CENTER SERVICE.
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?
POLLUTION LAWS, SOUND BIOLOGY, LESS STATE POLOTICS, TAX INCENTIVES, MOVE ASMI
MARKETING BAK TO ALASKA.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
MAKE IT MORE INDUSTRY ORIENTED, NOT POLITICAL
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
IF IT CAN BE FREE OF POLITICAL AND BIG MONEY/SPECIAL INTERESTS LOBBY.
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, IT SHOULD BE MADE UP OF ALASKAN OWNED AND
OPERATED SEAFOOD INDUSTRY, NOT A STATE POLITICALLY APPOINTED NOVICE TO
THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY.
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?
DEVELOP EACH AREA IN THE STATE TO PRODUCE THE BEST AND MOST EFFICIANT
PRODUCT AND HELP GET IT TO MARKET AND PAID FOR. BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL
POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDIALS.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 48 -
Testimony for the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Submitted by Bill and Ann Barker
PO Box 2135
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
907-486-8229
lannbarker@hotmail.com
October 17, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
I assume the unstated words in this question are ‘from the legislature’ to achieve a higher quality
product. I don’t believe the State should expand its role in the quality control business through
laws and regulations. A better return on state money would be to advertise the differences
between wild and farmed salmon; give recognition to processors who produce a superior
product; work to create the administrative regulations that would enable fishermen to catch and
deliver the freshest product, live if possible.
2. Should the state be involved in creating quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No, legislating quality will never be as effective as allowing the demands of the market place
regulate quality. We fishermen are at a point where the only way to receive a paying wage from
our fish is to search for a market or develop our own market for top quality wild product.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
No, there isn’t an experienced person in the fishing industry that doesn’t know when the product
is being degraded, whether it is in the handling or the long holding of fish before delivery. When
it became important for processors to improve salmon quality they paid a small incentive for
iced, well delivered fish. They received iced well-delivered fish. When processors are clear about
the quality they will accept then that product will meet standards or the fisherman is without a
market and out of business.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and or processed salmon?
A money incentive for a quality product always works.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities?
We should use and enhance the existing promotional ASMI structure. A change that could be
made is for a long while Alaska Wild Salmon received positive marketing but negative
advertising about farmed salmon was not pursued. Let’s us decide to tell whole story about wild
salmon Vs farmed salmon - taste differences, health differences and environmental differences.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 49 -
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and or marketing of Alaska’s
wild salmon?
Present marketing costs are borne by the fisherman and to a smaller degree by the processor. If
these costs are spread wider throughout the whole industry along with help from the State of
Alaska in times of crises then the increased value of that industry benefit all.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, How?
A program of grants to provide seed money would be most helpful. These grants would cover
costs of experimenting with changing harvest techniques, of processing on the fishing grounds,
and of finding domestic niche markets. These grants would give independent fishermen an
incentive to try innovative approaches that could be duplicated in other situations across the
state. In addition a prize system that would nominate and reward people for innovative
approaches that work in the salmon industry would be money well spent.
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?
A legislative repeal of the ban against trap fishing would take this out of statue and a state wide
vote for the removal of the constitutional prohibition of traps would enable the salmon industry
to capture and process live fish. .
2. Do you support Alaska’s Board of Fish process?
Yes, the Alaska Board of Fish represents a democratic system and process where individual user
has direct input into the regulations that control and regulate his fishery.
2. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No, the legislature needs to stay out of fishery management and changes to the State Board of
Fish. None of the scenarios put out so far solve the problems of smaller area politics or special
interest groups influencing individuals on the board. We believe that members on a statewide
board are forced to view the state as a whole and keep decisions based upon biology first.
Although much is required of a member of the State Board of Fish, we appreciate the distance
board members have from the day to day disputes in our local area. We trust that they give
attention to a fresh and fair viewpoint. Also, it makes sense for a statewide board to hear and
make decisions statewide as some disputes are among allocative issues in adjacent but separate
areas.
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, I’ve never had a problem talking to my legislator about any fisheries issue. Why set up
another layer to hear and talk about fishery problems and give advice? If a Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 50 -
were in place we would have to talk to them plus the legislators who have decision making
power.
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?
One, develop the infrastructure for value added processing plants and two, develop long term
cold storage where an individual or small group producing a high quality frozen product could
store it while marketing.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
We would like to make the case for grants in the form of incentives and seed money for innovative ideas
for marketing Alaska’s wild salmon.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry?
We have never utilized the State of Alaska loan system but we would consider it if it were available for
making needed changes within our business, in catching, processing or marketing.
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?
We don’t see the problem in salmon as being over capitalization but the rather the devaluation of the
salmon product. When we were making a dollar and a half a pound everyone was making a living and
many more fishermen were participating in the fishery then this last summer.
There follows some finance questions that weren’t asked in this section that we believe would be
helpful:
Is there a way to enact an income tax so the State of Alaska receives money from people
taking the resource out of the state? We like Jay Hammond’s idea of giving Alaska
residents a tax credit.
Is there a way to prevent foreign ownership of the salmon industry? In the pre-statehood
days of the salmon trap, the canneries owned the traps. In this ownership, the people of
Alaska were by passed in the benefits of the salmon harvest. Now foreign governments
own the canneries and we have little choice in whom to sell. By being at the mercy of
foreign cannery ownership there is little competition for our product. I realize I have over
simplified the problems but I have done so to highlight one of the ways we have sold
ourselves into this hole.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 51 -
For example, in most of the United States a high quality fresh frozen wild Alaska salmon
is not available for purchase at any price, at any time of year. We believe there would be
a market for our product. It is a superior product with high value for human health.
Summary from our perspective:
If the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force is to be helpful to us as setnetters on
Kodiak Island, then give directives to the State Board of Fish to establish commercial
salmon allocations by area and remove the road blocks to the ways and methods of
catching salmon for processing live fish.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 52 -
Dan Bilderback
sage@gci.net
4623 Campus Circle, Anchorage,Ak 99
907 562 8428
Fish_area: E
Gear_type: Driftgillnet
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
1.Fishermen hands on education on vessel, fishhold, and fish bag hygiene, (ie- in Cordova 70%
of the fishermen drag their fish bags off their vessel, which is great, but then pull into the
polluted harbor
(fuel,oil, and fecal matter)and leave the bags in the water through the whole closure).
2.Mandated time and temperature imprinting of fish tickets.
3. Grading standards and differential pricing at the plant or tender (for fishermen).
4. Mandatory bleeding of all fish.
5. Better trained tender operators and crew in quality handling and considerations.
6. Immediate onboard chilling.
7. Fish weight evenly distributed in vessel.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
yes,yes,yes
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?
QUALITY STANDARDS,FOLLOW THROUGH ON ENFORCING STANDARDS,AND PRICING
DIFFERENTIALS,
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
USE SAME, ENCOURAGE REGIONAL BRANDS
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaskas wild
salmon?
THE STATE OF AK, US GOV'T, AND INDUSTRY.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
YES. RESOURCES AND SMALL GRANTS FOR INNOVATIVE APPROACHES.
Production
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 53 -
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
IN OUR AREA I BELIEVE THAT QUALITY IS OUR SINGLE BIGGEST OBSTACLE. I BELIEVE THAT
SALMON ARE SOLD CHEAPLY BECAUSE OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZED DISINCENTIVES
INHERENT IN THE CATCHING AND PROCESSING METHODS. I SUSPECT MOST AREAS IN THE
STATE ARE LIKE THAT. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF FLEET REDUCTION,THE LIBERAL USE OF
THE CCF FUND, AND THE VESSEL OBLIGATORY LOAN PROGRAM, (I FEEL THIS HAS LED TO
OVER CAPITALIZATION)
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
1. BETTER FORECASTS AND IN SEASON MANAGEMENT,(BUDGET ADF&G
RESEARCH)
2. EMPHASIZE QUALITY HARVESTING IN MANAGEMENT.
3. LOAN PROGRAMS.
4. MARKETING OPPURTUNITIES,(NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPEMENT RESEARCH).
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
NO PROCESSOR QUOTA SHARES!!!! SELF-CERTIFICATION OF PRODUCT TRAINING AND
MONITORING BY THE STATE FOR QUALITY SEAL.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
YES. MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH, MARKETING,
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. THE PERMITS SHOULD BE BOUGHT OUTRIGHT AND RETIRED. THE FLEET
SHOULD PAY THRU THE BUYBACK PROGRAM.
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 states relationship with all hatchery owners?
YES GOALS SET FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HATCHERIES,AND EVALUATIONS OF COST
EFFECTIVENESS TO COMPARE EACH OTHER WITH NOTES TO POINT OUT THEIR
DIFFERENCES. I WOULD NOT CARE TO SEE THIS GET TOO INVOLVED AND TURN INTO A
HATCHERY BASHING PROGRAM.
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?
THEY SHOULD TRACK AND
COMMIT RESOURCES TO HELP THIS PROCESS THRU THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM,(SEA
GRANT).
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 54 -
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?
YES
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
NOT INTERESTED AT ALL.
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
A BIAS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR BOARD MEMBERS THAT IS ENFORCEABLE.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
YES,YES,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?
I LIKE THAT IDEA. I WOULD SUPPORT DOING THAT FOR ALL NATURAL RESOURCES.
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?
THE HIGHEST AND BEST VALUE TO THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE OF ALASKA FOR THE
BENIFIT OF ALL IT'S CITIZENS.
THE BROADEST SPREADING OF INCOMES POSSIBLE CONSISTENT WITH SOUND
ECONOMICS. SMALL BUSINESS AND CORPORATE STRUCTURES WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
VALUE ADDED EMPHASIZED, WE NEED TO QUIT SENDING OUR JOBS AWAY WITH RAW
PRODUCT.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 55 -
I Received a letter from the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry requesting a response to a number of
issues facing the commercial fishing industry. They stated that we could respond on the web at this site.
I am at least a third generation commercial fisherman. I started fishing at the age of 6 in 1954, so that
gives me 48 years of experience in seining salmon in Kodiak and a number of years seining for herring
in PWS, CI, Kodiak and Togiak.
At present I own a 58 foot seiner, and a 32 Bristol Bay gilnetter.
After scanning through the multitude of questions, I figured that I would like to put in my "two cents" on
some of the issues. I will attempt to keep this reply brief.
Most of the major processors, which buy salmon in Alaska, lack incentive, or are not motivated, to make
the kinds of changes needed to move forward to meet the emerging market demands of today. There has
almost been no response from Alaskan processors to the farm fisheries expandsion. While the farmers
have extended their product from one end of the USA to the world, we Alaska fisherman have seen our
superior product loose value due to mishandling and lack of vision. I imagine that there are a number
of reasons for this situation, such as: foreign ownership, status quo, cost of gearing up for new products,
price fixing, competition from farm fish? As an individual fisherman, there is not a lot that I can do to
change this situation. I have installed the state of the art RSW system on my vessel, capable of dropping
water temperature at 5 degrees an hour. However, there is not one processor that I am farmiliar with in
Kodiak, that can take advantage of the quality of fish cared for this way, in spite of the fact that fish like
this are what meet current market demands.
I am aware of a couple processors that have been bucking the establishment: Copper River Fine
Seafoods, in Prince William Sound, and Leadercreek Fishteries, in the Bristol Bay. Copper River Fine
Seafoods was established by 6 drifters who were tired of selling there product for very little. They have
met with sizable success building markets for their fresh reds nationally and internationally. I have
been able to sell some fresh Kodiak reds and silvers through them.
Suggestion for Kodiak: Make available a dock with 7 unloading cranes. Place behind each crane a
metal building which would be licensed for processing. Make an area available for freezer vans. Make
available an ice system and a shipping office for the shipment of sea food to market, by van or by air.
This facility could be used for halibut, cod, black cod, bottom fish and salmon. Establish a reasonable
rental fee for the use of these services. With this kind of opportunity, I believe fishermen would take
advantage of meeting market demands for superior condition, fresh or frozen seafood.
Make developement money available to those processors that have a plan and history of pulling the
Alaska salmon industry into the 21 century.
Cost recovery for hatcheries must stop:
An obvious concern is farm fish, however, cost recovery has done more to deminish the profitability in
the area of pinks, than foreign farm fish. There must be another way of fianancing these hatcheries.
The hatchery cost recovery system in PWS is an example. As the canned price for pinks drop, they need
more product to reach the cost recovery goals. As they increase product harvest and the fishermen
harvest as well, the price drops further. Alaska pink salmon industry has been hurting from this for a
while, and this trend should be at least halted, and hopefully reversed.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force October 25, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 56 -
Solution: Stop the state loans for hatcheries that operate by selling salmon to recover their costs. Turn
the hatcheries over to the permit holders in that area to manage instead of fishing.
We need organic labeling for Alaska Wild Salmon:
I know that there is effort in this area by Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, and others, however, even in
restaurant menus the designation of wild or farmed should be clearly included with all seafood sold.
Place of origin labeling:
I believe that the State of Alaska, and its representives should put more effort into seeing that this
become the law of the land and the enforced. When ever and where ever seafood is sold, including
resturants menues, the place of origin, whether wild or farmed..
Buy back permits:
The orginal distribution of permits was based on a world that no longer exists. I would like to see the
amount of competition be reduced. I am not sure, however, with a 50% reduction, that just more volume
is the answer. If, though, the reduction in permits allowed the remaining permit holders the ability of
move toward quality, that would be positive for reasons already cited above.
If the number of permits is reduced, there needs to be a benefit:
Kodiak: Allow another 50 fathoms of gear for each permit owned. Bristol Bay: change the law to
allow permit stacking, and create even and odd days. Those with two permits would be able to fish
enough volume to afford to own 2 permits and remain a viable small business.
An aside: Any of these positive fiscal changes are going to benefit more of the economy than just the
fishermen. There are so many secondary support businesses being ruined by the unpaid accounts of the
fishermen. They will be recipients of brave and wise adjustments as well.
State buy back program:
Set up a committee to determine a number of optimum permits in a fishery. Change the laws so that the
state could retire permits purchased or retire permits over an extended amount of time. The purchasing
of permits should be done in secret, so as to not to escalate the price of the permits and make the cost of
the buy back program cost too much.
I plan on being at the meetings in Anchorage. Thanks for taking the time.
Sincerely,
Gerold S. Gugel Jr.
Wasilla, AK 99687-8978
Kodiak seine and Bristol Bay