Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force
As of November 1, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 10/31/02................................................................2-5
Jeff Steele 10/31/02.............................................................................................................6-7
Victor Goldsberry 10/29/02 ................................................................................................8-10
Tom Johnson 10/27/02 ......................................................................................................11
John Webb 10/27/02..........................................................................................................12-15
RJ Kopchak, Area “E” Salmon Fisherman 10/27/02 ........................................................16-19
Carl and Barbara Speight 10/26/02 ...................................................................................20-22
Bruce Schactler 10/25/02 ..................................................................................................23-24
Jan Konigsberg, Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program of Trout Unlimited 10/22/02 ..25-26
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
PO Box 232
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: (907) 772-9323 Fax: (907) 772-4495
pvoa@alaska.net
Dear Salmon Task Force Member,
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association is a diverse group of commercial fishermen who participate in
many fisheries around the state. Our primary salmon fisheries are the Southeast purse seine, gillnet, and
troll fisheries. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments as you consider changes to the
salmon industry.
Marketing –
Need to adequately and consistently fund ASMI marketing program.
Need to coordinate all marketing efforts, including regional efforts.
We feel that the most effective way to assist our industry is an expanded and consistently funded
marketing program for our products. The primary problem for salmon fishermen is the low price paid in
recent years. With the attention mainstream press has been giving to the environmental and health
concerns associated with farmed salmon, the opportunity exists for us to create a demand for our
products. However, we would caution that it is essential that this marketing effort does not “bash”
farmed salmon and is not a primarily negative effort. We feel that the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute has done many positive things for Alaskan salmon in the marketplace. However, a marketing
program of the scale necessary to significantly impact ex-vessel prices requires something ASMI has not
been able to count on – an adequate and consistent source of funding. One possibility for increased
funding would be to extend the marketing tax that funds ASMI to include hatchery cost recovery
harvests. Although we recognize that this would involve regions with large hatchery volumes
contributing more to ASMI than those without, we feel that the assessment could be a significant source
of funding for ASMI. Other sources of funding for ASMI, especially state funding, should be seriously
considered. The importance of fisheries to the Alaskan economy is unquestionable. Therefore we feel it
is appropriate for the state to fund efforts crucial to the survival of this industry.
Much discussion has centered around the need for regional marketing. We feel that ASMI’s
current mission, to globally market generic Alaskan seafood, is entirely appropriate. Significant
involvement of ASMI in funding regional marketing efforts would be likely to cause a great deal of
controversy and erode support for ASMI. In addition, expanded regional marketing efforts have the
potential to result in competition between regions, confusion in the marketplace, and an unnecessary
duplication of efforts. However, we realize that regional marketing efforts will continue. Therefore we
suggest that one entity be tasked with the responsibility of overseeing and coordinating all marketing
efforts of Alaska salmon. This would include regional efforts as well as efforts by state agencies. We
visualize an entity that would coordinate efforts to ensure that a consistent message is sent to consumers.
Because we do not feel that it is appropriate to increase the levels of bureaucracy, it may be appropriate
to task ASMI, our marketing experts, with this. However, it should be noted that this could significantly
increase the workload on ASMI staff and therefore would require additional funding.
Governance –
Changes to Board of Fish process, not structure.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
o Reduce number of proposals
o Develop consent agenda for housekeeping proposals
o Strengthen advisory committee system
o Restructure board meetings for public convenience
o One-time, public panel review of process
o Continue current lay board
o Relax conflict of interest requirements
Legislative hatchery policy unnecessary.
Support continuation of the work undertaken by the task force.
Development of transportation and infrastructure in remote areas.
We agree that the Board of Fisheries process has become very cumbersome for individual fishermen
to participate, either as board members or as public attendees at meetings. Although we recognize the
problem, we believe the lay board is the best process available. Therefore we would suggest that
changes to the board process to increase efficiency be considered, rather than drastic changes to the
structure or makeup of the board. For example, methods are available to decrease the number of
proposals the board must deal with each year. Each method may have pros and cons, but several
hundred proposals each year is excessive and the number needs to be reduced. In addition, it may be
possible to strengthen or restructure local advisory committees to reduce the workload on the board.
Finally, restructuring the board meetings would reduce the amount of time the public would have to
spend at meetings. Under the current system an interested party may have to be at a meeting two weeks
or longer to complete staff reports, public testimony, committee work, and deliberations on a single
proposal. Several suggestions would streamline this process. For example, the adoption of a consent
agenda for housekeeping proposals, a reduction in the number of proposals referred to committees, and a
restructuring of the meetings to take up and complete one topic before moving on to the next would all
make the process more accessible to the public. For instance, in a ten day meeting, the board could deal
with crab the first two days, shrimp the second two days, then herring, other shellfish, etc. We
recognize that these changes are mostly within the realm of board policy, rather than legislative change.
For that reason, we would support a one-time public panel review of the board of fish process. It may
also be helpful to review the Board of Fish budget as well as the ADF&G budget to be sure both entities
are adequately funded to complete their tasks. We also support relaxation of the current conflict of
interest legislation that governs the Board of Fish. Currently, fishermen and others are appointed to the
board for their expertise in fisheries issues. The overly strict conflict of interest legislation prevents
board members from even participating in discussions on subjects in which they have a slight, indirect,
financial interest. Relaxation of these standards would contribute to the success of the lay board
process.
We do not feel that the legislature should be involved in developing a state hatchery policy. The
current structure, relying on the commissioner of fish and game to regulate production and the Board of
Fish for allocation, has been successful and is the appropriate division of authority over the hatcheries.
Discussions by the Governance subcommittee with leading scientists on Alaska’s hatcheries indicate
that the existing policies for regulating hatcheries are already very precautionary and effective. In
addition, scientific consensus dismisses many of the common concerns about hatcheries. The existing
policies have resulted in a hatchery program that is very successful and used as a model for other states.
Limited legislative time and resources would be better spent on other issues.
The idea of creating a seafood commission to continue the work of the task force has been raised.
The salmon task force has an important mission and has identified many issues that are worthy of further
consideration. For this reason, we feel that it may be appropriate to continue the work of the task force
in some form in future years. This will ensure that the ideas and issues raised by the task force are
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
followed through on. We feel that it is important that, in whatever form, the legislature continue to work
with fishermen and fisheries organizations to improve our industry.
Lastly, the governance committee raised the issue of economic development. One very
important element of economic development is development of the transportation systems and other
infrastructure to help fishermen and processors transport their products and receive the best possible
price for those products. Currently, the isolation of many coastal Alaskan communities has prevented
the industry from realizing the full value of many products. Developing the airports, cold storages,
roads, ferries, and shipping terminals that these communities need would provide tremendous benefits
not only to salmon fishermen, but also to others in the fishing industry and other industries.
Production –
Regional self-determination by active permit holders is key.
Fleet reduction programs must allow remaining permit holders to retain existing rights,
with additional incentives for additional capitalization. Permit holders should not be
required to invest additional capital to continue fishing.
Mechanism in place to review impacts of such changes on individuals and communities,
both before and after implementation.
The production committee is striving to reduce costs in both the harvesting and processing sectors.
On this topic, we reference our comments under the marketing heading and restate that increased
marketing to increase prices is a better and more effective strategy than reducing costs, especially for
areas that already have very efficient fisheries. If regions do determine that they want to enter into the
costly process of fleet reduction, we cannot emphasize enough that the programs designed to accomplish
these ends must be voluntary and designed by active fishermen. Therefore, it may be appropriate to
require a vote of permit holders active in a fishery, rather than a vote of all permit holders. In addition,
even if a majority of active permit holders endorse an idea, we feel that it is important that the structure
of the fleet reduction plan does not force individuals to invest more capital simply to remain in the
fishery. The goal of fleet reduction plans has always been to reduce capital in the fishery by removing
boats, gear, and permits. However, some proposed programs would require that those left in the fishery
increase their capital investment simply to remain active. In the state our industry is in, it is likely that
many permit holders wishing to remain in the fishery would not be able to afford a significant
investment of additional capital. For this reason, we feel that any fleet reduction considered should
ensure that individual fishermen are not forced to recapitalize. For instance, a program allowing
individuals to hold two limited entry permits does not force an individual to make an additional
investment. Even if incentives were developed to encourage fishermen to buy two permits, the
fisherman who chose not to recapitalize would still have the opportunity to participate in the fishery,
although he or she would likely be at a disadvantage. On the other hand, fractionalizing permits would
require permit holders to invest in an additional permit to continue fishing at all. Choosing to capitalize
to seek gear or vessel incentives is quite different than being forced to capitalize to retain your current
rights.
In addition, it is important that a mechanism is in place to review the impacts of these changes.
A thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of such a program on individuals, communities, regions,
and the state as a whole should be considered, including effects such as loss of crew jobs and impacts on
support industries. This analysis should be done prior to the implementation of such a program and
periodically thereafter to ensure the program is accomplishing its goals.
Finance –
Support current structure of Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund.
Support a similar program to provide processors with financing for pack loans.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
A thriving fishing industry is vital to our state’s economy. In order for the industry to grow and
thrive in the future, it is necessary that new entrants are able to access the permits, boats, and gear they
need to participate. For this reason, we feel that the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund in
absolutely critical to the continued viability of our industry. It provides opportunities for Alaskan
residents to enter the fishing industry in a way no other program does. Our members depend on the loan
fund heavily, not for subsidies, but to provide the financing necessary to the success of any small
business. Therefore, we would like to offer our strong support for the fund. Specialty programs offered
by the Division of Investments, such as low-interest rate loans to improve fish quality, help improve our
products.
Additionally, we believe that a similar fund, set up to provide pack financing to processors, may
result in stabilization of salmon prices. Specifically, providing a consistent and stable source of
financing will allow processors to sell their product at the time when it will be most profitable. This will
benefit both processors and fishermen who have watched prices spiral downward in recent years as
processors with inadequate financing rush to sell product, are unable to pay fishermen, or are unable to
operate at all. Loans made under this program, similar to the fishermen’s revolving loan fund, would be
subject to state guidelines and dependent on a viable business plan.
Quality –
Regional, market driven quality standards are appropriate.
Quality control programs may be costly to implement and enforce relative to net benefits.
We believe that any quality standards adopted will necessarily be on a regional basis due to vast
differences in fisheries and infrastructure across the state. However, we caution that the implementation
of a third party inspection system and other mandatory quality initiatives may be extremely costly to
implement and enforce, therefore resulting in questionable net benefits. Generally, the most effective
quality incentive programs across the state have been market driven and have been the result of
agreements between processors, tenders, and fishermen.
We appreciate your interest in the salmon fisheries and the communities who rely on them. We hope the
above comments have been helpful. We would be happy to expand on any of these subjects or discuss
any other issues that you may be interested in. Please contact us at the address above if we can assist
you in any way. Thank you for you consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Cora Crome
Cora Crome
Director
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Jeff Steele
October 31,2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
All fish must be either put in chilled seawater or iced right after being caught
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?
Better 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)
Same
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
same as now
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how? No
State already has small business loans available
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Buybacks for overcapitalization –insentive programs for ownership of multiple permits-change rules for
gear and boat size
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Can salmon cartel
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
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Finance
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-feds
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-common goals and visions are needed through out the state to enhance the hatchery program
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?
NO
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
yes
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. Existing infrastructure and the
dollars owed if any by the communities for support and maintaince of the fleet.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Victor Goldsberry:
PO Box 867, Nome, AK 99762
October 29, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Higher quality should equel higher price plus continued and increased marketing of “wild” Alaska fish
as natural & better, plus home”grown”.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Things happen. Higher price for higher quality, lower price for lower quality seems most fair, easiest to
administer and does not penalize fishermen unable for whatever reason to deliver the best quality.
Marketing
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon? (e.g. salmon harvesters, processors, federal government/USDA; state general fund; other
federal funds; other sources)
ASMI seems to be doing good work from what I read.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Quality, Quality, Quality!
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
We have limited entry. The problem wasn’t fleet reductions when there were fish and a decent price for
salmon.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
This is not my area of expertise. However if processing costs are reduced this should equal 1) a higher
price for fishermen & 2) a lower cost to customers=more fish sold or 3)both.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
(No answer)
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Since fishing, like mining and farming is always going to be iffy even when things go well, the uncertain
nature of any given season or year has to be figured into loans.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
Here (NW & Western Alaska) there are no fish. Natives I know have lost permits because of inability to
pay the basic permit fee. Our permits have no value.
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?
Wild fish are better. Where have they gone? Are Alaskan and Japanese and Russian hatcheries part of
the reason wild stocks are disappearing? Alaska used to have about the best hatchery program in the
world. Now Japan does. Why is this?
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Our family is native. Various kids have worked and are working fishing. Its interesting to hear these
first comments after working at Dutch Harbor & finding out Natives are treated where Natives are
minorities in this state –so sad.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
Don’t know.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
C’mon – I haven’t been able to commercially or subsistence fish salmon for years.
Agency Oversight
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
I’m sure there are.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Listen to science, forget political favors.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
A good idea but wouldn’t mean anything.
Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
It seems to me things should be Priority 1-Subsistence; 2-Commercial; 3-Sport. It seems priorities are
now 1-Sport; 2-Commercial; 2-Subsistence – tied.
Economic Development
1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and
individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?
We need more fish biologists –this means funding these positions. We need more data as to why fish are
gone, and where. This means funding. The Bering Sea is changing drastically. Why and to what? We
need a State income tax so we can be at the forefront of fisheries knowledge and production again. I
guess it’ll just keep going downhill.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
Mr Stevens,
I have a couple of comments for your state task force. I was born and raised in Cordova Ak, and have
been a commercial fisherman for 35 years. I was part of a group of fishermen in the early 80's that was
unhappy with the salmon prices on the Copper River. We put together our own processing company,
and set out to improve quality and achieve a higher price. In the process we learned a lot and were a
large part of putting the Copper River salmon on the map. I have also spent years involved with fishing
organizations and Prince William Sound Aquaculture. I helped write the allocation policy for PWSAC
and served as president of Cordava Aquatic Marketing Association.
The biggest quality problem, on the Copper River, is the proccessors encouraging fishemen to hold their
fish and sell them in town for a higher price instead of delivering periodically throughout the opener to
the tenders on the grounds. Most of the fleet does not have the ability to hold a large number of fish and
maintain the quality. I totally oppose any mandatory quality regulations impossed on the fleet. You
should concentrate harder on what happens to the fish between us and the market.
Most importantly, what good is it for the task force to come up with good solutions if the Board of Fish
reallocates the salmon to the sport fishermen! From where I sit, the Board of "sport" Fish is the biggest
problem I have in surviving for the future. How about getting some equal representation for the
commercial fishermen?!? Without this, your committee is just wasting its' time.
Thank you,
Tom Johnson
Box 835
Cordova, Ak 99574
October 27, 2002
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
John Webb
webbslinger2@msn.com
92615 Astor Rd., Astoria, OR 97103
503-325-4549
Fish_area: Bristol Bay
Gear_type: drift gillnet
October 27, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
1. Eliminate or slow down the race for fish. 2. Chill all salmon at point of harvest, and throughout
tendering & processing. 3. Convert to seines or traps exclusively. 4. A change of attitude. 5. Ice barges,
in Bristol Bay wouldn't hurt either.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Yes.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
I believe ASMI has already tried. Does the pamphlet, "the care and handling of Salmon", ring a bell,
even in Bristol Bay I've seen a copy or two.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
1. Money. a. The knowledge that if I don't improve quality - I may not be able to sell my fish, at all to
anyone! b. My fish wouldn't be purchased by a processor unless it's chilled, or the price for unchilled
fish will be substantially less than chilled fish. 2. Pride.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
Yes, we already have ASMI - let's use it, but as changes are needed let's make them without worrying
about the state legislature holding funds hostage,if ASMI has an office, and employees in Bellevue, WA.
Hello, the bulk of the fish, are consumed outside of Alaska. If offices, funds, and people are needed
outside the state, so be it. Give ASMI's staff & Board the freedom to do the job that they were chartered
to do.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
1. Fishermen and processors. 2. State of Alaska. 3. US Federal government. (Free trade with fish
farming countries, might be good for the american consumer, but is killing the salmon industry here at
home. Remember, we're tax
payers too.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
Yes. 1. Supply information on legal requirements (through ASMI). 2. Keep doing things such as the
symphony of salmon promotion, especially outside of Alaska (Chicago this year), Bravo!! 3. Make it as
easy as possible for salmon boats to sell fish off the dock.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Proposed regulations, through individuals, funneled, combined and refined, or rejected, by the Board of
Fish*, and voted upon by the individual fishermen of that regional area. * Oversight by ADF&G on
conservation issues is a must!
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
I will refrain from answering this, as I am not a processor.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
1. Reduction of permits. 2. Get rid of the 32' length limit in Bristol Bay, so I can have a proper tool to do
my job. Diversification is what I chose to use, in order to survive this crisis . The 32' lenght limit
cripples me in my ability to do so. 3. Eliminate race for fish through co-ops, IFQs, or some other type of
a quota system. It would enable us to improve quality, and cut costs.*
* As painful, and radical as these schemes are, they will probably make us more efficient, and
competitive in the world market. This is a thing we need to do! Whatever is decided - we need to start
managing the Alaskan fisheries to the beat of the world market more, and a lot less to the the social
welfare system it's become, especially, in Bristol Bay. WE SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO SAVE
EVERY POOR INDIVIDUAL FISHERMAN AT THE COST OF SURVIVAL FOR THE ENTIRE FLEET!
I personally prefer change that is well thought out and planned to the slow death of doing nothing.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
1. ASMI is necessary. 2. A portion to be used for a buy back of limited entry permits. 3. Give funding to
Fish & Game to augment their ever decreasing budget. 4. Another piece to go to Board of Fish to better
do their job.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Yes, by and large, it does. It's kind of an individual by individual case. I personally think, in some cases,
interest on loans could be lowered, or forgiven, in order to give state residents a chance to survive this
crisis. Loan sharking really isn't too good for the State of Alaska's image.
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?
1. Yes. 2. a. Buy back money. b. Federal tax credits, if possible? 3. I would hope that money would
come from the fishermen, State of Alaska, and the Federal government, as all of us are responsible for
this predicament, and will benefit from the investment.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
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 decline to answer this, as I do not participate in a fishery subsidized by hatchery fish, and have very
little knowledge of the hatchery system.
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 leave this up to the educators of the State of Alaska.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
I don't have enough knowledge about the state's university system to answer this.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Nothing, maybe something? Unless the State causes me to quit salmon fishing, (for example, they outlaw
commercial salmon fishing in Alaska by non-residents), I will always look to myself to financially
survive this. If the State can help, many thanks.
Agency Oversight
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
I'll leave this to smarter people than I.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes.1. Try and make the process more democratic by allowing the individual permit holders of a specific
region to vote on proposed regulations of that region. 2. Give the Board of Fish the funding, and time to
do the job properly. 3. No more combined region, super-board meetings, (like the last cycle of Bristol
Bay/area M. Too many small details fell through the gaps).
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, we have enough boards. The Board of Fish, and ASMI should have this power now, if it doesn't
already. Keep it simple, no more bureaucracy.
Economic Development
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
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?
Very generally, whatever it's going to take, (legislatively), to make the salmon industry prosperous
again, in order to sustain the small towns of coastal Alaska, and ultimatley, the State of Alaska, without
sacrificing too many individuals, even if they live outside the State in the winter. p.s. Thanks for
listening. John Webb.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Please find below a proposal to the Salmon Task Force.
It applies to all committee interests.
“Copper River Red” “Northern Keta” "Bristol Bay Bright" “Chignik Choice”
“Kodiak Prime” “Southeast Select” “Yukon King”
Wild Alaska Salmon Marketing
A Regional Perspective
Each salmon-producing region in Alaska has unique strengths and constraints on harvest, processing, and
shipping infrastructure, species availability, run strength and timing. Opportunities for placement of
product in new and emerging markets are governed by a production regions ability to respond to constantly
shifting markets and supply.
The ability to place and keep an “Alaska Salmon” in a specific segmented market is as dependent on
species, timing and quality as it is on processing and transportation. Not every salmon and not every harvest
area in Alaska can participate in every market segment, and each salmon management area faces unique
challenges in developing harvest methods, processing techniques, and delivery infrastructure that maximize
profitability within the constraints of the production area. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute generic
marketing of Alaska salmon can’t take advantage of unique opportunities in product placement.
To effectively respond to market demands and opportunities we must develop regional marketing programs,
with each region addressing the advantages and constraints placed on its resources. This effort would
develop regionalized programs for product placement and promotion that better represented local
production and processing capacities. The regional areas are already well defined by the Salmon Harvest
Management Area boundaries. If each region were able to play a direct role in the marketing and promotion
of its products, needed changes on the production and processing sides could be more quickly addressed,
and emerging market opportunities taken advantage of.
Copper River Red and King Salmon already enjoy some "niche market" recognition, and the market
position that recognition gives. Many other salmon management areas have embarked on efforts to follow
suit.
OUTLINE FOR REGIONAL SALMON MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS
STRUCTURE:
Geographic Boundaries: Each salmon harvest management area would be authorized to establish a regional
marketing association.
Membership in the marketing association: Valid salmon harvest permit holders would automatically be
members in the regional association.
Establishment of the Association: A 2/3 vote of the permit holders of a management area would establish
the association. Once authorized by permit holders, a seven-member board of governors would be elected
by the members.
Processor Participation: If approved by a 2/3 vote of the harvest permit membership, two processor seats
could be established. These seats would be filled by processor reps elected for two-year terms by registered
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
buyers/processors who had purchased fish in the management area in at least two of three seasons preceding
the election.
Budget and Finance: Each regional marketing association established under these guidelines would receive
state funding of $200,000 per year for five years, $100,000 per year for the second five years, and $50,000
per year for the third five years for administrative support and market plan development and
implementation. Additional funds would be the responsibility of the regional marketing authority.
Organizational Sustainability: Regional Marketing Associations would be authorized to collect a
“marketing tax” to assure internally generated long term funding for marketing efforts. This tax would
require a 2/3-majority vote of the affected membership for implementation (some species might have a tax
differential). The tax would be collected by the state and returned to the regional association. The initial
administrative support, reduced every five years, would be supplemented by, and then replaced with other
forms of revenue.
Mission of the regional marketing Association:
• Promote wild salmon in foreign and domestic markets.
• Develop regional identity “Branded” salmon products
• Establish regional quality guidelines
• Institute certification programs for product quality consistency and source
• Develop new products to respond to market demands
• Recommend new harvest methodology and technology that takes advantage of regional
opportunities and constraints
Regional marketing associations should be fisherman driven. Many processors are aligned with the
farmed salmon industry, and unlikely to be aggressive, or even sympathetic to marketing aimed at
displacing farmed product.
Keys to success in regional salmon marketing:
# 1. Quality: Consistent quality and grade standards for products that assure our consumers always get the
type and grade of salmon they are paying for New smart tag technology will allow us to track individual
fish temperature from catch to the consumer. Regional associations should set quality standards that truly
recognize the differences in handling fish and demand delivery standards be implemented that compensate
fishermen under a formula that reflects the added value that results from careful handling.
Quality standards should be established to assure end users receive consistent deliveries within specific
grade standards, no matter whom they buy from. Consistency is the key, there are markets for #1, #2, and
#3 grades, but a customer paying for a premium fish will not be back if quality is inconsistent.
Each regional association should develop their own standards based on production, processing, and
transportation capacity. Consistency is the key, and the market will differentiate and adjust price and
demand for product even if regional standards are different.
# 2. Regionalization: Regionalization of marketing efforts, and the promotion of regional identities will
allow for "niche" market development at its best. By promoting the subtle differences in flavor, color, and
texture of our fish both by species and harvest areas, we can take best advantage of an often-fickle
marketplace. Like wines, we agree that we are all great, and all subtly different. Labeling and “through the
market identity” is important. In some markets in Europe, the individual fisherman identity is carried
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
through to the retail purchase. People love to do business with “people they know”, and pride in ownership,
and responsibility for quality are included in these approaches. All products should carry a label and state
"Harvested and Produced in cooperation with the Bristol Bay Salmon Marketing Association", “product
quality guaranteed”.
# 3. Consumer Education and Marketing: Without a well-developed education program all other efforts are
futile. Product promotion is important, and educating consumers on the differences in salmon; red, king,
chum, silver, and pink, and also farmed fish, will help develop an appreciation of our unique "wild" options.
Sustainable harvest practices information, and profiles of harvesters, processors, and handlers would help
the consumer identify with us as individuals. We all like to do business with people we know.
# 4. New Products: New product development and promotion is a critical component if we are to stay
competitive with farmed product. There are emerging markets for troll dressed frozen at sea salmon, and
the smoked salmon industry is growing. Portion options, and “pouch” ready meals appeal to some market
segments.
# 5. Transportation and Distribution: Assessments of current transportation capacities and limitations, and
the development of options that can provide for any "new" product needs will be a part of the planning
process. A regional distribution center exists in Anchorage, and Alaska Seafood International along with
FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service fit distribution models most industries would die for. The U.S. Post
Office now has many empty planes returning to the lower 48; perhaps they can be diverted to supply
freight/overnight service for product. Each area will need to address opportunities and constraints.
# 6. Legislation: The U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Act is too restrictive in eligibility criteria for
grant funds. State Laws that affect our ability to develop regional identities and marketing programs must
be changed.
# 7. New Marketing Opportunities: The "NET", overnight delivery, and portions, prepared, glazed and
smoked and any other imaginable presentation for consumers. Electronic "Kiosks" offer an opportunity to
advertise and sell in high traffic areas without needing local inventory or staff. These electronic salespeople
are serving as both consumer educators and ordering stations for growing numbers of products. Located in
high traffic areas such as airports and malls, they are probably the second fastest growth sector in retail,
behind only the "net". Educational videos, and interactive message boards could make ordering product to
be delivered simple for travelers and mall shoppers.
OBSTACLES FOR MARKET GROWTH:
With the availability of fresh-farmed salmon year round, processed and maintained to high standards,
Alaska has some obstacles to overcome to find and then keep market niches. Unlike halibut, black cod, or
Pollock, a wild Alaska salmon can be one of five things. Chinook, Sockeye, Coho, Chum and Pink salmon
options can confuse potential consumers. Many “target customers” lack an understanding of the types of
salmon available, and of the subtleties and differences that define them by type, by area, and by timing.
• There is no quality assurance program that guarantees customers consistent grades no matter who
they buy from.
• Funds for promotional materials and marketing are hard to get, and fisherman's organizations are
not eligible for most product marketing funding. Restrictions on ASMI prevent the development
and promotion of regional identities.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
• No mark, or agreed upon tag that assures the buyer that "Not a genuine Southeast Select Alaska
Wild Coho Salmon without this label".
• No mark that says " guaranteed; produced under strict quality standards approved by the men and
women of the Kodiak Salmon Marketing Association.”
Despite these points, interest and enthusiasm by buyers in the "upper end" of the market indicates
opportunity to create a new market niches. The brands could be called “Bristol Bay Bright” Wild
Alaska Salmon, or “Copper River Red” or “Northern Keta” or “Chignik Choice” or “Kodiak Prime” or
“Southeast Select” or “Yukon King”, although each region should develop their own “name brand”.
With regional branding we can each be the only area able to provide product for our developed
segmented niche markets.
We should jointly market the sustainable management of the resource, and show how carefully managed
harvest assures the health and continuing renewal of the resource. Many consumers with significant
discretionary income want assurances that the natural products they consume are maintained and managed
for sustainable yield. We should show how careful stewardship has protected and enhanced the salmon
runs. We should not underestimate the value of promoting and highlighting the careful management of the
fisheries, for this will help to confirm the purity, natural health, and abundance of regionally promoted
products.
Jointly we promote wild Alaska Salmon; regionally we take advantage of our opportunities and strong
points, and address our constraints.
RJ Kopchak, Area “E” Salmon Fisherman
P.O. Box 1126
Cordova, Alaska 99574
rjkopchak@hotmail.com
(907) 424-7178
October 27, 2002
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Carl and Barbara Speight
settneter@attbi.com
1301 NE Hwy 99W #195 McMinnville, OR 97128
503-472-8084
Fish_area: Egegik- Bristol Bay
Gear_type: 2 Set gillnet permits- 1 Drift gillnet permit
October 26, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
The ability to chill fish at the time of harvest. If this were made mandatory, all buyers would have to
supply ice to their fishermen.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Yes.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes. There should be a state wide standard of quality. Those fish meeting this standard, should be
advertised as such.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes. All participants need to be on the same page. It does no good for fishermen to deliver quality fish
that sit unprocessed for days.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Money talks. Quality fish will bring a better market price. Some of that should be passed on to the
harvesters.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
We need an independent ad agency who can focus on Alaskan Wild Salmon. We need consumer
education about our superior products, its health benefits, and for our salmon to be conveniently and
attractively packaged. Marketing should enclude labeling like pesticide free, antibiotic free, organic,
etc... This will draw a clear distinction between wild and farmed salmon.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
Most of the funding should come from the state and federal governments. We could use the monies from
the current ASMI tax as well.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
No. All monies should promote all Alaskan Wild Salmon products. These could be promoted by
geographical area names ie. 'Bristol Bay Reds' or 'Kenai Kings' etc... Not individual fishermen trying to
market their own catch. That would be getting into the realm of small business loans.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Voluntary, permanent, permit buy backs at fair market values would reduce the ratio of fishermen to fish
in all regions. This would make the fisheries more economically viable for those who choose to stay in it
and create a market for those who want to sell their permits.
Based on last year's drift fleet size in Bristol Bay, we could have a 33% buy back of those permits
increasing the number of fish caught by the remaining 67%.
We are opposed to permit stacking and/or fractional permits. These ideas do not address the main
concerns of quality and marketing that our industry is facing.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
No or Low intrest loans to aid processing facilities. They need to be able to flash freeze, and/or use
mylar packaging for large volumes of salmon rather than canning it.
Canned Salmon gives the whole salmon industry a bad name. It is a very low quality product that should
be avoided. It makes people believe that they don't like fish because canned salmon was their first
introduction.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
In addition to quality fish being delivered to the processors, you can regulate the quality of the
processing being done. Canning the fresh salmon I have just delivered is a waste of a resource and it
ruins the marketing efforts of all other forms of Alaskan Wild Salmon.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
ASMI is not affective. Put our taxes into marketing, new product development, and value added
processing equipment.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Refinance at no or low interest rates. Promote value added incentives. We are against forgiving loans
that fishermen have agreed to repay. As a businessman, they are responsible for repaying that loan.
This is just like a mortgage on your home. If the market value drops you lose equity, if it rises, you gain
equity. But you are still responsible for your decision to buy and should be responsible for keeping up
your payments, refinancing, or filing bankruptcy.
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. Voluntary permanent retirement of permits at current market value, as fishermen choose to sell
their permits or default on their loans.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
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?
All hatcheries should be state owned to avoid any conflict of interest. Areas around the state that need it,
could be enhanced with hatchery fish.
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?
Minimal. Not a main focus for now.
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?
Encourage programs in marketing, research, and product development.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Our monies need to be focused on bettering the fishing industry as a whole. If I lose my job, for any
reason, it is my responsibility to find a new one; not the state's job to find it for me.We are business
people not victims that need a hand out.
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?
Look into ways to make it practical for individual fishermen to process their own catch. ie. Cold storage,
shipping cost reductions, local value added processing available.
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?
No.
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
Yes.
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?
Our Primary Focus Needs To Be Producing And Marketing A Quality Product. The communities and
individuals affected by the fishing industry will benefit.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
October 25, 2002
TO: The Legislative Task Force
FROM: Bruce Schactler
Dear Chairman Stevens:
I first would like to comment on the possibilities of LTF action this winter during the legislative session.
To be realistic, passing six or so pieces of legislation would be significant. Given that optimism, it
strikes me that the primary criteria for legislative action should be expectation of significant short-term
benefit (2003 season).
So, what is there that can immediately benefit the participants in the salmon industry?
1. Anything that can increase ex-vessel price.
a. Every tax on the salmon industry is based on ex-vessel price. Increase in ex-vessel value
will increase the state’s tax base, the local tax base, marketing money to pay back
aquaculture loans and the 7 x multiplier as the money enters the public revenue streams.
b. Enabling salmon fishermen to harvest salmon for its highest value.
(i.e. – carcass discarding could immediately double the ex-vessel price
of chums. )
2. Increase revenue that is available for marketing.
3. Increase the volume of new and high value product into the domestic market.
4. Decrease the number of permits that are available to fish.
Everything else is long term. In fact, reducing the number of permits probably belongs in the long-term
category although in the short term this would help those who still have the ability to remain solvent
through these times..
I believe that these other three ideas can be very easily used as a measuring stick to put proposals
forward for potential statutory action.
I have several proposals that I believe fit the description of short-term benefit:
1. Enable the State of Alaska to forgive a portion of hatchery debt. A similar portion of the
fishermen’s aquaculture tax would be moved into a REGIONAL marketing fund to be
administrated by a regional marketing review board.
2. Enact a 1 cent a pound marketing tax levied on all hatchery and Fish & Game cost recovery
salmon. There is presently zero tax on these millions of pounds of fish. This tax would also go
into a regional marketing fund. This would quickly generate marketing dollars and provide a
way for other areas of the state that do not have an aquaculture program to derive some benefit
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
from these other aquaculture programs that many view as detrimental to their non-aquaculture
economies. ( marketing in one area is benefit to any and all areas.)
3. Make the required paperwork for fishermen’s processing on-board and state export permits one
or two pages – something that can be filled out easily and simply with minimal cost. The
paperwork, fees, and obligations should be designed to encourage “processed at sea” and new
market ventures, where as they presently deter those that would otherwise become involved in
this type of new fisheries development!
4. Repeal the 58’ limit on salmon vessels with the restriction that they must process on board.
5. The state can and should forgive the massive bad debt in permit loans. The permits would
disappear back into the CFEC and be held, not resold. The permit holder would not be able to
ever participate in the salmon industry again, even as a crewmember. The state will never see
the majority of this money anyway-------It is unpayable bad debt, and will only be realized as an
asset by using that IOU to reposses the debter’s house or other assets. This will only cause
further social and economical problems. The state could and should encourage other permit
holders not yet on the repo. list, to give their permits up to this program also.
The LTF has received many good proposals. Let’s take the ones that benefit the fishermen in 2003
and turn them into legislation, and file them early. Let’s not waste the 2003 session with those
proposals that only offer possible long-term solutions----WE DON’T HAVE THE LUXURY OF
TIME.
Bruce Schactler
P.O. Box 2254
Kodiak, AK 99615
907/486-4686
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Trout Unlimited Remarks
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force Public Hearings
Anchorage
October 22, 2002
Chairman Stevens, Task Force Members:
My name is Jan Konigsberg. I staff Trout Unlimited’s Alaska field office. Trout Unlimited is the
nation’s major trout and salmon conservation organization. Our position is that sustained yield depends
upon conservative management to protect salmon biodiversity.
As the industry struggles to regain market share lost to the sale of farmed salmon, it knows that it cannot
afford to shoot itself in the foot – whether through poor quality or some other marketplace gaffe. Unless
a consistent supply of Alaska salmon can be deliver with consistent quality at a competitive price and in
desirable product form, most consumers are not about to believe that St. Peter welcomes only those who
eschew farmed salmon for wild Alaska salmon.
Nonetheless, we know there is a small, but growing segment of the market that caters to those whose
body is their temple and whose decisions in the market place are guided, some may say “constrained,”
by environmental values. These are the consumers that do pay attention to the intrinsic, as opposed to
the superficial, virtues of the protoplasm they ingest and are willing to pay a premium for the privilege.
In other words, they want that wild salmon in the seafood window. Yet, much like Alaska salmon has
disappointed the more pedestrian consumer with inconsistent quality, the State and industry jeopardize
their relationship with the more discriminating market segment with the misleading and false claim that
all Alaska salmon are wild salmon.
Roughly one third of Alaska’s annual salmon harvest is hatchery fish, not wild fish. By failing to make
the distinction, the State and industry sabotages its credibility with the very seafood consumers they seek
to dissuade from farmed salmon. Alaska’s ban on salmon farming is justified “to protect strong native
stocks from hybridization, disease, pollution, and competition for food.” Yet, these are precisely the
same scientific concerns when it comes to ranched salmon: Ranched salmon are treated with chemicals;
they eat other ocean fish; they can transmit or increase the incidence of disease among wild fish; and
they can have adverse impacts on wild fish. In reality, a hatchery is a farm for juvenile salmon, and a
farm is a hatchery raising adults. The risk that hatchery fish pose to wild fish is a more significant and
ubiquitous one than that posed by farmed salmon, because hatchery fish have more opportunity to stray
into wild stock streams and interbreed, thereby reducing genetic fitness, and because there is more
opportunity that hatchery fish can displace wild fish in the ocean environment.
Since eco-health conscious consumers place a premium on knowing where their fish was born and
raised, once they learn that hatchery fish like farmed fish are not naturally sustainable and may harm
wild fish, how do you think they might react to marketing that does not differentiate between hatchery
and wild? If the consumer doesn't know whether he is purchasing wild or hatchery-produced salmon,
then perhaps she may not buy any Alaska salmon? So, why jeopardize demand for the real thing--wild
salmon, particularly since the catch of those salmon species that are most prized--sockeye, coho, and
chinook--is overwhelmingly composed of wild fish? Why not differentiate between hatchery and wild?
This differentiation is upheld by the science, and by Alaska statute. It is the honest thing to do.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
Finally, since the task force considered and then ruled out salmon farming for consideration because it
was not consistent with the task force’s wild salmon mandate, how is it that hatchery production is
consistent with this mandate?
Jan Konigsberg
Director
Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program of Trout Unlimited
1399 W 34th Ave #205
Anchorage, AK 99502
907-248-0693
tuinfo@gci.net