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