Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force
As of November 11, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Barry Lester 11/11/02 .......................................................................................................2-3
Cynthia Wallesz 11/11/02.................................................................................................4-5
Paul Finzer 11/10/02.........................................................................................................6-8
UCIDA 11/9/02.................................................................................................................9-13
Scott Seaton 11/8/02 .......................................................................................................14-15
Don N. Bunker 11/6/02...................................................................................................16-18
Dean Anderson Individual Fishing Allocation Plan 11/6/02..........................................19-22
Robin Thomas 11/6/02....................................................................................................23-24
Robert Moss 11/5/02.......................................................................................................25-28
Sea Hunter Fisheries 11/5/02..........................................................................................29
Kenneth E. Tarbox 11/1/02.............................................................................................30-32
Dario Notti 10/31/02.......................................................................................................33-34
Carey Farmer 10/18/02 ...................................................................................................35-36
Steven Gillman 10/12/02 ................................................................................................37
Chris White 10/8/02........................................................................................................38
Dean Anderson 9/16/02 ..................................................................................................39-46
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Barry Lester
November 11, 2002
These are some ideas and comments regarding the questionnaire sent out by the Joint Legislative
Salmon Industry Task Force.
Quality
1. Everyone involved in the Alaska salmon industry knows what it takes to produce a quality product.
Chilling, bleeding and proper handling procedures by fishermen and processors is essential. Standards
can be written but unless they can be enforced they won't work.
2. We don't believe the state should be involved in creating quality standards unless they can enforce
those standards. The same goes for the
Seal of Approval. Unless the state can inspect every shipment of fish that has the Seal of Approval
attached how will they know what it is being used for. Several years ago in many European
supermarkets we saw Wild Alaska Salmon stickers developed by ASMI plastered all over very poor
quality pink salmon from Russia. It destroyed our credibility and we lost numerous potential customers
because of it. At the end of the day, the issue of quality is between the buyer and seller whether a
fishermen to a processor or a processor to a customer.
3. The state is already involved in a quality education program. ASMI has done a good job of creating
the proper materials that provide fishermen and processors with all the educational materials they need
to produce quality fish. The information has been available for years through ASMI and others. It just
needs to be used. The industry needs to be made aware of the fact that they are competing with farm
raised salmon that can be delivered fresh 365 days a year. No blood, no bruising and no parasites.
4. Price is the biggest incentive a fishermen has to produce a better fish. If processors would pay more
for top quality, much less for number 2's and not buy number 3's we would all be better off.
Finance
1. We have been asking the state to consider fish tax credits for plant upgrades and equipment purchases
for years. The industry needs to invest in new equipment to stay competitive and become more efficient
in the salmon business. Value added processing is just a small component of the overall need. New ice
facilities to improve quality, cool rooms for fresh shipments, automated processing and packing
equipment, cold storage facilities that would allow processors to pack and ship product directly from
Alaska are as or more important.
Production
1. Obviously we believe in the cooperative system having been a fishermen's co-op since 1944.
However, we realize that co-ops are not always workable. We think there will have to be a greater effort
on the part of processors and fishermen alike to work together in the future for the common good of
both. Share the risks and the rewards of the business on a more equitable basis. Develop quality rograms
that will work for both sides, and help each other increase efficiency.
2. & 3. State agencies such as EPA/DEC should be working in harmony with seafood processors to
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
solve wastewater discharge issues without breaking them or forcing them out of business. ADF&G
should be more flexible in setting seasons and extending fisheries wherever possible to take advantage
of fresh markets. They always say they manage the fisheries for numbers not economics. We think that
attitude has to change.
Marketing
1. ASMI does a great job with a relatively small budget. However, they are being micromanaged to
death by the bureacracy and the processing industry.
We have a group of professionals that have been hired to do a job. Let them do it without having to
worry about state politics and undue pressure from processors who are always looking for a bandaid to
cover bad decisions. Reduce the number of board members to no more than 12, eliminate most of the
committees and keep the bureaucrats out of it. Let ASMI function as a generic marketing association in
cooperation with regional and gear specific marketing groups that can share funding, materials, people
and expertise.
2. ASMI should be funded by everyone who participates in the industry. Processors, fishermen,
transportation companies, gear vendors, suppliers and business that profits from the industry. More
money from the state and federal government is a must.
3. We don't think the state should fund or help indivisual fishermen
market
their own salmon. It will eventually confuse an already confused market
and we will be competing against ourselves in the long run.
Agency Oversight
1. The board of fish process seems to work although it seems sluggish at times. We think it needs more
flexibility to make in season changes and adjustments as necessary.
2. We do not support a task force to oversee the board of fish. It would just add more bureaucratic
layering and bog down the process further.
Seafood Commission
1. We do not support an Alaska Seafood Commission to advise the legislature. There are already enough
groups to advise the legislature without creating another.
Governance
1. We've put enough fish in the water. We can't sell what we have now for a decent price. We talk about
farm salmon as though they were the only competion. We have also produced too much low value
hatchery fish that has reduced prices for all Alaska salmon.
Education
1. The educational issues described by the task force seem politically self serving. Higher prices for
salmon will bring new people into the industry and keep people employed!
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Cynthia Wallesz
F/V Lofoten
P.O. Box 2028, Petersburg, AK 99833
cwallesz@hotmail.com
November 11, 2002
Hello. My husband has fished out of Petersburg for about 10 years from his 31-foot, salmon gillnetter. I
fish with him sporatically. This year I am spending much of my time marketing our fish. We feel that
fishermen need to start marketing their own fish in order to survive these depressed economic times. We
plan to target restaurants this winter to sell our product. Although I don’t have a lot of experience in the
fishing industry I am inspired to submit these comments as I feel there are many families in my situation
(where salmon is our main income, we own small boats, and are beginning to market our own fish).
Quality
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Perhaps. I hesitate to say "yes" feeling that in order to enforce a quality standard will cost extra money
and time that could be spent on producing the actual product. If any standard is to be enforced I’d like to
stress that levels of quality in specific aspects may be limited to vessel accommodations and size.
Quality levels may need to be varied with fishery.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes. Please organize the salmon quality experts in our state and allow us, the fishermen, to have easy
access to this necessary knowledge. Quality is a sincere consideration that we take pride in to the best of
our knowledge and ability.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities?
As a small fisherman doing what I can to market our gillnet salmon I do not feel that ASMI is as helpful
to me as I would expect. I feel the products and whatever services ASMI produces should be more
applicable to my needs as the small fisherman who is trying to break into the unknown world of seafood
marketing. We have paid a lot of money over the years to this organization. For the first time I am
learning more about ASMI and trying to gleam whatever information I can to help me with our
marketing ventures. I have been ordering a number of informational brochures and other products and
often disagree with specific content in specific publications. Thus, I am discouraged to send the
publication to a prospective buyer. An example of uncertain content is in the ‘Alaska Salmon Menu and
Marketing Guide’. It tells a buyer to take the temperature of their incoming product and expect their
fresh salmon to be from 30-38 degrees and their frozen salmon to be delivered at 0-10 degrees. "If the
temperature does not meet ‘shipping specifications’, notify both the carrier and supplier immediately."
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
We provide the best care we possibly can to the salmon we market but our fresh fish will have an
impossible time arriving in Tucson, Arizona at 30, 31, 32, 33, or even 34 degrees. I would like to think
we would still be in the range (up to 38 degrees) but with frozen salmon the range of 0-10 degrees seems
really narrow. This winter I plan to market our first frozen salmon to Tucson, AZ. If I send them this
Menu and Marketing Guide and they receive frozen fish at 28 degrees, this publication tells them that
their product from me is now inferior. The fish is frozen and fine but due to these publicized numbers it
might raise concern for the buyer and unneccesary stress for everyone involved. Maybe elsewhere in
Alaska these temps are representative but not for me in Petersburg.
I really want to send my customers these beautiful publications that ASMI has put together. Obviously a
lot of money, time and energy has gone into them but so often I’m finding that specific works don’t
apply to what I’m looking for in our promotion.
I would like to see ASMI have a division for fisherman trying to market their own fish. More and more
people will be looking for information on how to broaden their business in order to make up the lost
wages of local fish prices. Where are these people supposed to go for information? How do they get
started? I don’t necessarily think new organizations should be formed but would rather see existing
organizations preparing themselves to answer the many questions that have been and will be raised as
people start a whole to aspect of their fishing business to stay afloat. The two organizations I think of are
ASMI and the Marine Advisory Program (University of Alaska). I think it is needed to have one or two
places for people to turn to educate them in the world of marketing. These two organizations would need
to be continually supplied with the latest information on regulations, quality issues and standards,
marketing procedures, funding sources, business pracitices and more. For a fisherman to commit to the
decision to market their own fish is quite a step. More people need to make this step if our industry is to
survive (I theorize). The information and education on how a fisherman is to go about such a task needs
to be freely available in an organized, usable fashion. As it is, the information is scattered, decouraging
and not really there as far as I can tell. We are going about our marketing trail pretty blind-folded.
In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can
help the harvesters and /or the processors?
Again I look to education and information availability. As we get into this new aspect of fishing and
marketing we are constantly learning of new regulations, taxes and restrictions that are imposed upon us.
If there was something available describing these issues that we could have looked at beforehand
perhaps we would have increased our prices to make up for any incurred lose in monies (or decided to
not market altogether). As a small business with a small boat (31 feet) it is difficult to see that marketing
our own fish is worthwhile after you spend the money to comply with the needed regulations as well as
pay all the taxes. Streamlining the regulatory procedures, less taxes and more applicable, consistant
regulations may help the single boat businesses go into marketing.
Governance/Education
I can’t help but have a narrow focus here and just stress the point of providing education and
information to the fishermen themselves before they/we are displaced. (Please see previous comments
under "Marketing" and "Finance".)
Thanks for the taking the time to read and consider my thoughts!
--Cynthia Wallesz
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Paul Finzer
pfinzer@earhtlink.net
PO Box 4364 Kodiak AK, 99615
Fish_area: Kodiak Island Moser Bay
Gear_type: Gill Net
November 11, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
This is a Question that is not easily answered. When you ask about quality were dose it start. Quality
should start with the first one who handles the fish. Then that quality needs to be maintained till the fish
reaches the consumer. The price paid will have alot do with quality. So I would say that the most
important thing to achieving a higher level of quality is price.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
NO. Not at this time. This would be a financial burden to a industry that does need more financial
burden at this time.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
On. I don't think that the state needs to spend money doing this sort of thing. Most of the fish that this
would help is going to Japan. At this time I don't think that Japan is going to pay more no matter what
the state does. But if there becomes a need for this kind of thing then it should be under state control.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
I think that there is a program already being run by ASME. To deal with this.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Mo money. I will not do the work if there is no reward.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
The change that I see that needs to be done is tax the cost recover fish. This could help bring in more
money.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
I fell that the entities that benefit from the marketing should pay. Those that I see benefiting the most at
this time are the State of Alaska and the fisherman.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
I think that the state might be able to help promote individual. This might be by providing low interest
loans or something like that. Maybe grants.
Production
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
I not sure what the LTF can or can't do. But in my area we need to change the means & method we use
to harvest salmon. I think this is something that you could help with. I know that it is a local thing and
not state wide. But by allowing the use of a trap in a small area it could benefit the hole state. I know
that this would reduce the cost of over head.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
I don't know why the State of Alaska would want to aid the processors that are controlled by large out
state foreign companies. Don't get me wrong I know the importance of these processors.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Yes increase the funding for the department of fish. So that management can better manage the fisheries.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No. I would not resale permits that the state repossesses when that loan is defaulted. I know this would
be a slow way to reduce the over capitalization. But it could help.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
YES. The remaining permits holders should pay. Althouth it might take seed money from the state to
start a program.
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
yes
Education
1. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet there search and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
I have no idea.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes leave it like it is.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No
Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
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?
Yes
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Submitted by: Upper Cook Inlet Drift Association
PO Box 907, Kenai, AK 99611
(907) 260-9436
ucida@kenai.net
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Yes, in many instances. The state either directly or indirectly must promote higher quality seafood,
including salmon. Apply region by region, fishery by fishery solutions.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state
quality commission?
No, not at the present time. Let the state and industry work on quality issues and practices for 5
years then re-examine this issue. A quality seal would help. Quality seal for all seafoods
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
This is a good idea, but we have some concern about it being voluntary or mandatory for the
industry.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed
salmon?
None. We feel we are trying many of these options at present. Let the free market sort this out
among the industry participants.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed,
what changes should be made?
Changes required to ASMI. If ASMI was doing such a great job why have we ended up in the
present depressed markets? ASMI continues to flog old unproductive markets. We need new
markets. If ASMI can’t change as the markets change then ASMI should cease to exist.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of
Alaska’s wild salmon?
Producers and processors should pay for promotion. Only problem is that ASMI is processor
controlled.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, provide in law that individual fishermen to have an option as to who receives the 1% or 2%
fish tax to market their catches. Change the law so co-ops or regional brands may receive either 1%
or 2% for co-op or regional brand marketing.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
Create a new law that allows fishermen to pool their catches in “tender vessels” prior to delivery to
a fish buyer. This would allow fishermen to remain on the fishing grounds and reduce costs involved
in delivering catches to the fish buyer. Allows fishermen flexibility in delivering their catches (draft
act attached).
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Help all the industry by having predictable fisheries over longer periods of time. This would allow
for capital investments in new equipment and processing facilities.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that
can help the harvesters and/or the processors?
Stabilize the relationship between state loan programs and allocative decisions by the BoF. One
agency provides state loans for permits and vessels while the BoF allocates away the opportunity to
catch fish to pay off these loans. By law either prevent the BoF from such allocations or provide
subsidies when the BoF allocates away the opportunity to pay for the loans. Add the ability to pay
back loans on additional allocation criteria. Ammend 16.05.251 (14)(e) by modifying (6) or adding a
new number 7.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Yes. Develop alternative ways of using raw fish taxes. Use taxes to create revolving loan funds for
processing equipment, to develop new products and to develop new fisheries in Alaska. Either the
department of ADF & G or new Seafood Commission to administer these funds.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not,
what changes would you suggest?
Yes. Implement in law these changes:
A. Good payment record – automatically reduce interest rates.
B. Adjust rates in times of economic stress. Return to “normal” interest rates during times of
economically productive fisheries.
C. Provide for utility rates of interest for aquaculture operations
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
1. Limited entry permits are property and need to be treated as such. If permits are to be retired then
purchase them at a negotiated sum.
2. If fishermen are to be taxed to retire the permits then the BoF must, by law, be prevented from
allocating away any benefit received by reducing the number of permits in a region. Example – it
would be unfair to tax fishermen at 7% of gross ex-vessel value to retire 1/3 of the permits only
to have the BoF allocate away 1/3 of the fishery resource to another user group.
3. Permits of non-use or if someone dies with no heirs or in a situation where numerous violations
have occurred the state should purchase or foreclose on these permits and retire them.
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?
A. Yes. We support the development of a State of Alaska Fish Hatchery Policy. This policy must
apply state wide and accommodate regional needs.
B. Implementation of the Hatchery Policy must be through the commissioner of ADF & G. With the
BoF only allocating surplus stocks.
C. Performance Standards – YES. These need to be part of the hatchery policy.
D. Changes Required. The RPT process does work well and needs to be strengthened. Strengthen
the RPT process by providing mediation/arbitration provisions (example: RPT provides for xx $
of cost recovery for the hatchery and the BoF prevents cost recovery in part or in total by
allocating the fish to another user. How does this conflict get resolved? Blend the RPT process
into the regional planning process.
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?
K-12 – NO. The state must not force fisheries education on local school boards.
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 – not sure that the university system meets the needs of the salmon/seafood
industry. We are not sure that the university or anyone has ever determined the educational needs of
the Alaska salmon/seafood industry. The state should provide incentives, but stay out of curriculum
issues.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
No need to get more involvement at the state level, existing programs are sufficient.
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?
State departments and divisions must stop their advocacy activities. Sport fish division must stop
advocating for the guides at the expense of residential fishermen.
Streamline the permitting process among and between the many departments. The myriad of forms,
applications, registrations and permits make it unlikely that smaller groups or companies will be able
to start up operations in Alaska (examples: DEC, ADF & G, USDA, Forest Practices Act, Borough
Permits, City Permits, AK. Dept. of Labor, etc.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you
suggest?
BoF process – NO. We are almost totally opposed to how this present BoF processes information,
public input and prepares regulations. Suggested changes:
A. Adopt the Alaska Court systems for testimony, presenting data and disclosure practices
B. Require by law a 30 day comment period on the actual regulations proposed by BoF. Followed
by public comments and then 30 days before the regulations become effective.
C. By law establish a 5 – 6 year review cycle by the BoF for the eight major regions of the state.
D. By law limit the changes in allocation patterns by the BoF to no more than a 1% change per
hearing cycle. Allocations based on past 30 years of harvesting patterns.
E. By law the commissioner of ADF & G must agree that there is a conservation concern before the
BoF can declare a conservation concern. Amend AS 16.05.040 (HB 216 attached. Also, draft of
Salmon Stocks and Salmon Fishery Act).
F. Strengthen AS 16.05.060 such that the BoF is strictly prohibited from interfering with the
commissioner’s Emergency Order Authority (HB 216 attached. Also, draft of Salmon Stocks and
Salmon Fishery Act).
G. By law prohibit the BoF from adjudicating science. In times of scientific dispute the
commissioner of ADF & G will decide scientific matters that are in dispute. BoF must accept the
commissioner’s rulings on science/biological matters. Alternatively, this function will be
assigned to the Seafood Commission.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
Yes. Either adopt law to reflect the previous concepts or we must ask for a formal legal, procedural
review by a legislative task force concerning the BoF. This BoF legislative review report to be filed
by January 30, 2004.
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?
A. Develop a Seafood Commission – YES. Please create along the lines of the Mining Commission
or Public Utility Commission.
B. Seafood Commission duties:
1. Require annual reports to legislature on the health and needs of seafood industry in
Alaska.
2. By law give the Alaska Seafood Commission grant administration authority.
3. Charge the Seafood Commission with developing long term plans for salmon
management.
4. Charged with coordinating branding and quality issues.
5. Charged with arbitrating science for ADF & G and BoF.
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?
A. Issues: many regions and areas need ice machines and cold storage facilities provide the legal
and financial means for communities, co-ops or cities or boroughs to develop these infrastructure
facilities.
B. Create a Tendering Act. Provide legal means whereby fishermen can pool their catches prior to
delivery to a processor (see copy attached).
C. By law require the development of long term 15 year, with 5 year rolling ahead provision,
salmon management plans for the eight regions. By law require that the BoF follow these
regional plans. We need predictable fisheries so capital investments can be made and have
predictable economic opportunities.
D. Must avoid processor quotas.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Scott Seaton
jsseaton@unicom-alaska.com
box 3173 bethel, ak 99559
907-543-7889
Fish_area: pws/copper river
Gear_type: drift gillnet
November 8, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
iced and bled fish WITH monetary incentives
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
for drift- yes to icing--
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
yes-need legitimacy of a government program
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
no competitive marketing will force changes
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
ice available while fishing hatchery fish in PWS and a price differential to makes it worthwhile
Marketing
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
fishermen (thru ASMI) and supplemental state help since we are so far in the dumps more
taxes don't seem to be the answer
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how? no
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
maybe bid out low value hatchery fish (dogs & reds) on the Chignik model
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
allow for coop harvests even to using other gear types to harvest ie, seiners to harvest dogs when prices
are low
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
industry?
yes—dedicate to fishing-not general fund
Finance
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
yes!!!!! tax on ourselves and hope for Washington (ted's) help insecuring fundsa
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?
for me, hatcheries give at least 50% of income- i think we should be focusing on higher value species
like kings and reds. support a loan forgiveness clause for hatcheries- economics have changed mightily
since first built-probably one of the best things the state could do, repayment money could go into
fishing family's pockets instead
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
seward vo-teck does it now
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
grants
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
somewhat but.. need professional fishermen instead of the current crop who rarely make a living fishingseem
to represent sport interests predominately
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 thougyt thats what you guys are, but 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?
keep fishing local and of benefit to families and communities- don't favor large corporate fishers or
processors
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
November 6, 2002
Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
Dear Senator Stevens, Chair
Title: Permit buy back, stacking or fleet reduction
There has been a lot of talk about this issue. During the 2002 season, the Upper Cook Inlet drift fleet’s
peak day July 15, had 385 boats/permits fishing from a total of 585. The number of permits actively
fished each year is driven by economics. Fisherman predetermine whether it is economically worth the
effort to participate. The same applies to all fisheries. ADF&G, Soldotna office report states the average
UCI drift boat averaged approximately $ 16,000 gross. With a voluntarily fleet reduction by 200
permits, we still had a marginally successful year financially. If the ex-vessel price had been $ 1.10 per
lb. instead of $ .55, our gross would have been $ 32,000. The production costs are fixed except for fuel
and wear and tear on the vessel. We need to manage for MSY and effectively market our product. The
day will come when we have 4 to 7 million fish to harvest in the UCI. Will a reduced fleet have the
capability to prevent over escapement?
Another important aspect of fleet reduction to consider from the state and local government standpoint is
the socio-economical impact on fishing families and communities. The Kenai Peninsula Borough
realized how important commercial salmon fishing is and helped finance the Kenai Branding program.
We all have shore jobs or other supplemental income to help support our salmon fishing enterprise.
Once the number of permits is reduced attrition demographically takes place. When this occurs, property
values decline, the tax base is diminished and some periferial services vanish, etc.
No, we do not need permit reduction or stacking. During the big years everyone was making money and
this idea would have been ludicrous. All biological communities are cyclic. The Alaska Department of
Fish & Game has the responsibility to help mitigate these cycles. One tool is to harvest the surplus so the
biological carrying capacity is maximized and not exceeded. The renewable resources of Alaska needs
to be managed for maximum sustained yield / production. No one can justify managing any enterprise
with the goal of average or below production except the BOF. Our salmon stocks need to be managed
properly by the professionals for maximum sustained yield / production. This, with maximizing our
market potential, is the answer for making our harvesting methods more cost efficient.
Don N. Bunker
PO Box 604
Anchor Point, AK 99556
bunker@xyz.net
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
November 6, 2002
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Dear Senator Stevens, Chair
Title: Finance
Predatory Japanese Salmon Cartel
The US is consuming more seafood per capitia today that at any other time. The farmed salmon industry
has filled a void in the US market that we ignored. Now we are blaming the salmon farmers for our
dilemma. The US consumer cannot buy Alaska salmon because it is simply not available to them.
At one time, Japan did not buy one Alaska salmon. During the 70’s and 80’s their economy became very
strong and our salmon industry flourished as a result. We thought the bubble would never break. When
our market in Japan increased, our sales in the US declined until we all but lost this market. We are in a
situation where the salmon price is controlled by the Japanese economy and their business practices.
Keep in mind that monopolies and price fixing is not illegal in Japan.
Most of the salmon processors have a cash flow problem. They have capitol investments, taxes, annual
start up expenses, cost of operation during the harvest season, cold storage after the season, etc. Most
fishermen require payment at least weekly for their product. Where does this money come from? Many
times it is cash advanced from Japan. When this takes place the processor is obligated for his pack. Also
as soon as some processors fill a van or two it must be sold immediately. The predatory nature of the
wholesaler takes advantage of the situation by paying lower prices that establishes the benchmark.
Solution
The state of Alaska needs to establish a short term revolving loan program for the salmon industry under
the Department of Community and Economic Development. It would be available to help finance
processors, co-ops and fisherman. After the salmon is stabilized in proper storage, a chattel mortgage
would be placed on the product. The salmon industry now has an alternative means to meet functional
obligations and the flexibility to market salmon more prudently. We must break the strangle hold the
Japanese salmon cartel has on our industry.
Don N. Bunker
P. O. Box 604
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
November 6, 2002
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Dear Senator Stevens, Chair
Title: Marketing
Marketing / Advertising
The marketing/advertising scheme currently in place today is simply not cost effective or doing it’s job.
The US consumer eats salmon for taste or health reasons. They are intelligent and in the middle to upper
income bracket. We have been fortunate that some of the world-renowned chefs have lauded the
superior quality of Alaskan wild salmon. Most of our potential customers do not know the salmon they
consume are farmed. They do not know we have 5 different species of wild salmon, each with it’s own
unique quality, appearance and taste. We need to educate the US public about Alaska Wild Salmon.
Then they will demand their supplier stock and sell our product too. Country of origin and Alaska Wild
labeling is an important first step. We must also include the species on the label.
We have a very motivated and capable sales/education force, the commercial salmon fisherman. The
salmon ASMI tax could be used more effectively than it is now. This tax would fund a Salmon
Marketing/Education Force. The force would be mostly salmon fisherman traveling to strategic
marketing centers through out the lower 48. They would present seminars, be on radio and TV talk
shows, meet with health groups, etc. Once the potential customer is educated, our salmon sales will
increase. Maybe we need to push “Buy American”. That is how the US auto makers dealt with the same
problem several years ago. We need to capture our share of the US market. We need to be proactive and
sell our product with “gusto”.
Don N. Bunker
P.O. Box 604
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
Individual Fishing Allocation Plan
The following plan takes into consideration the many elements including the socio-economic effect of
regions surrounding salmon fisheries in the State of Alaska.
I.F.A.’s to harvest groups or catch history based co-ops could be the most cost effective method to
reviving the salmon industry. The idea is to help all of those in proportion to there standing.
By Dean Anderson
E-mail: sierragale@ak.net
Recommendation:
Amend the limited entry laws to accommodate or allow one to convert limited entry permits into
Individual Fishing Allocations (I.F.A.’s.) based on recent catch history, under the condition they
only are valid under a Harvester Group setting. Or, enable the B.O.F with the tools that would
provide a similar effect, again allocate to groups or co-ops based on recent collective catch history
in a salmon fishery.
Requirements, Terms and Conditions:
1. Required to currently own a limited entry permit in a salmon fishery.
2. Term: “Individual Fishing Allocation” (I.F.A.) is a percentage of the harvestable surplus of salmon
for given specie in a given area.
a. One can hold I.F.A’s in up to two areas in the state as long as their history in the fishery falls
into the proper time window.
b. Determination of an I.F.A. for each specie would be the average historical catch of each
specie of salmon over a period of time.
3. Term: “Harvesting Group” is an organized group of fisherman with the sole intent to harvest the
available surplus of salmon in a management area in direct accordance to the group’s total allocation.
The total of the Individual Fishing Allocations with in a group would be the Harvester Groups
allocation.
a. Harvester Group must consist of a minimum of 20 percent or more of the currently active
permits in a specific gear type in that area. Thus limiting the number of allocations within a
specific gear type within that area.
b. Limit number of harvest groups to no more than four in an area within one gear type.
c. There is no limit to who may or may not be in a harvest group as long as they have history in
the qualifying years.
d. All those in a group can decide individually on where they wish to sell their I.F.A. of salmon
unless that permit holder chooses to relinquish that right. However, if an I.F.A. holder specifies a
market different from the majority that market must be practical in locality and capacity.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
e. The I.F.A.’s to the permit holders shall not be compromised by any majority vote amongst
permit holders in the group. However, permit holders in the group who choose not to participate,
will leave the harvesting of that I.F.A. up to the remaining, they must arrive at harvesting fee
relevant to the duties performed. Therefore all members in the group through a majority vote
must decide on the harvest fee.
f. All harvest groups will be bound to work with A.D.F.G to effectively manage the allocations
among groups and the open fishery, keeping in mind that subsistence will be of priority relevant
to run timing.
4. Require each fishing region to initiate there own buy back program.
5. Any permit holder not in a “Harvesting Group” will be deemed to be in the open fishery. “Open
fishery” meaning traditional or competitive fishery.
6. The sum of allocations to groups shall be neutral in respect to the history in the open fishery.
7. The people that have been running the permits for those with medical transfers or for special
circumstances need to be compensated in some manner.
8. All long-standing processors need to be given a chance to make adjustments relative to the changed
(controlled harvest) playing field. They seem to share the fear that allocations to fisherman could
disenfranchise processors. Considering the large amount of seascape, landscape or escape that
processors seem to have invested, I think it is only right to somehow include them in at least part of the
equation. There’s certainly a host of options for both groups to explore.
9. If permanent permit holder does not have significant history that justifies holding a permit, they
may have a one-time opportunity to sell their permit back to the majority (buy back program) at fair
market value. An independent appraisal would decide the sale price of permits in each area based on
recent permit sales and any changes to the salmon market that would normally affect the price of permits
between now and when the new regulation is put in place. There would be no accommodation for
interim use permits because they cannot be sold.
10. Allow regional or village Community Development Allocation (C.D.A.’s) programs to be
developed. Regional meaning all villages in that fishing region and village meaning one village in that
region. Regions, villages or communities may purchase an I.F.A. from a permit holder providing they
choose to sell. This would in effect convert the I.F.A. into a C.D.A.
11. Allow I.F.A.’s to be sold to people that have previous fishing history in that area. Those would
consist of existing permit holders, individuals that own tenders and crewman that have fished in the area
for a given length of time. There should be allocation caps imposed or restrictions of sort that would
lend to the needs of many as opposed to a few.
12. Permit holders may only be in fishing groups for as long as they were in the open fishery. This will
keep an open fishery in place for the future and also allow those that have little or no fishing history to
harvest salmon in the open fishery. This could discourage the investor as opposed to the fisher from
investing in the fishery.
13. Community Development Allocations would be exempt from required participation in the
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
competitive fishery.
a. Each community could contract out C.D.A.’s to whom ever they wished.
Similar in effect to C.D.Q.’s., but not be limited to hiring existing I.F.A. holders.
b. Each community or region would have a cap of how much allocation they could purchase
dependent on the number of villages and number of permit holders in those areas.
Comment on C.D.A.’s:
By allowing the regions to buy allocations could have a net effect to bring the resource back to
Alaskans.
Frequently asked Questions to the I.F.A. Proposal.
1. Why not go solely with fleet reduction by invoking buy back or permit stacking?
Answer: First of all, fleet reduction does not address the race to fish issue, which is a major defect in the
Alaska salmon industry. Secondly the I.F.A. program will have to address a buy back and or permit
reduction anyway but in a much smaller scale.
2. How do we arrive at the average historical catch of each specie?
Answer: Each Fishing district would vote on the number of years to use with a limit of no more than
ten years to find historical catch.
3. Why would allocations to permit holders be restricted to harvest the salmon under a group setting as
opposed to how it’s done in the I.F.Q. halibut and blackcod fishery?
Answer: I.F.Q. related fisheries are different in the fact those fishers harvest a quota in which the
product is waiting to be harvested as opposed to a somewhat unpredictable salmon run.
Pg.3
4. Why limit the number of harvest groups?
Answer: Managing the harvest of a salmon run with 5 different allocations (four to groups and one to
open fishery) would be a pretty bold start as it is.
5. What kind of depth are you talking about as far as a buy back program is concerned, this looks like
another layer of capital that we don’t need?
Answer: This is the launching pad to the whole program; the main intent in this buy back program is to
give permit holders with no participation or little recent catch history a way out. Other permit holders
with more significant catch history could be bought out by the private sector and not need the injection
of government funds.
6. Why limit the amount of time a permit holder may be in a harvesters group?
Answer: This keeps an open fishery in place for the future, more so it keeps the investor from buying in
and collecting a check from a controlled fishery similar to what could happen in Chignik right now.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
7. Why not go solely with fleet reduction as opposed to this proposed I.F.A. program?
Answer: The I.F.A. is like a multivitamin (potential help in all areas) compared to just fleet reduction.
Besides, do you think the banks would have a better chance of collecting on delinquent permit loans
(privilege only) or allocation shares of a salmon resource.
There are many other issues to be raised and I believe I have some answers to those concerns but lets not
throw rocks in the road to a better future.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Robin Thomas rcthom@gci.net
http://www.home.gci.net/~rcthom
P.O. Box 397
Nome, AK 99762
907-443-5729
November 6, 2002
In response to your questionnaire on Salmon Industry Crisis: Firstly I find that all things are relative. I
am a commercial crab and halibut fisherman from Nome , Ak. Norton Sound Salmon are so few that
finding a market for them is now less of a concern than finding a fish to sell. Perhaps I may provide
some useful insight on marketing Alaskan Seafood that could prove useful in the Salmon crisis.
The only quick fix for Norton Sound 's lack of Salmon would be a hatchery ( we prefer to call it a
central incubation facility). Currently there is a steering committee working on a plan for research
and restoration. Research is fine but that is not going to put salmon back on the table any time soon.
Restoration needs to take precedence. Salmon hatcheries have shown historical returns, yet no institution
seems to want the job in Norton Sound. Who will take the bull by the horns and accept responsibility
for inseminating these dead streams with incubated fry? Who will identify the distinction between
indigenous species and artificially inseminated stocks? At this point, there are many who say “if it looks
like a fish and swims like a fish then it is a fish.", and that is better than no fish. So the answer is, yes,
the State needs to play a role in consoling those that fear the extinction of "indigenous fish " from their
already dead streams and encouraging the immediate insemination of said streams with incubated fry.
Only then will Norton Sound be able to address the need for markets for its wild salmon.
As I mentioned earlier, all things are relative. Norton Sound is isolated from the road system and air
freight eats up profits, thusly it is difficult if not ridiculous to assume that Norton Sound can compete
with larger fish markets in the State. This is true for Norton Sound Herring, Salmon, crab and halibut.
Some individuals have been successful in finding niche markets for their products, as long as fish is
fresh and handled properly. This right to market your own product should be preserved, however, the
trend is to commit to shore based processors. Larger operations that handle quantities of fish with
cheap/inexperianced labor , end up with an undesirable , bruised product or tend to freeze in the round,
with minimal value added technique in order to get the volume of fish processed before it begins to
deteriorate. Also these larger facilities may not have a value added arena in which to further process or
package a more desirable/consumable product .
Currently Norton Sound has two large fish processing facilities, one of which is newly operational and
state of the art cook and freeze facility for crab and halibut. Unfortunately the plant is forced to compete
with larger Alaskan markets and faces high shipping costs as it ships most of product out of the region.
When considering the impacts of marketing and economic development, six important players come to
mind. Harvester-Processor-value added facility-retail outlet-consumer -coordinators. The harvester,
small business man, faced with high fuel and insurance costs, port and storage taxes, vessel upgrades
and safety equipment upgrades, the lack of dependable help.. The fish company, responsible for quality
products and finding new markets in order to pay the fisherman a premium price.. the value added
facility, the retail outlet , the consumer and the coordinators.
The consumer is the largest factor as we all need to eat. Seafood has traditionally been pricey and only
and occasional treat for many. Strangely, Alaskans pay a hefty price for seafood(and oil). The highest
priority of the State should be to feed the residence of Alaska their own seafood at an economical price.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
Of equal priority the harvester needs to be able to go into the season knowing that he stands a chance to
put some money in the bank for off season expenses. Excessive costs of fuel , insurance and low
grounds prices due to archaic marketing strategies need to be addressed. Value added programs need to
be established. Fish needs to be turned into a readily consumable food product. State fish tax and CDQ
funds need to be allocated for value added research and development facilities. Partnerships between
regional retailers and Value added facilities need to be established. And then there is the processor. The
processor needs to develop strong bonds with harvesters. Quality can only be insured through careful
coordinated efforts and communications between fishermen and dock bosses. Fishermen need be able to
head out onto the grounds, knowing that his extra efforts to keep the product fresh will be matched
at the dock. Then there are the fishery coordinators and this is where the State can play a significant role
by rewarding those processors that work hand in hand with harvesters and value added programs to get
an economical source of protein to the Alaskan consumer and out to high end specialty markets abroad.
CDQ funded processors should be allowed to subsidize fishermen by paying substantial grounds prices
(at a loss) until established feasable/acceptable /desired markets have been developed. Privately owned
processors should be given financial credit for complying with established economic development
strategies. Lastly, more active commercial fishermen need to sit on the boards and committees and task
forces that ultimately determine the quality of life of the Alaskan fisherman and the fishing economy.
Even with a past history of being a fishermen, the memory of how it was grows faded with time ; and
things change and so will fishing.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Robert Moss
moss@xyz.net
P.O. Box 3428
907-235-8304
Fish Area: KODIAK/ COOKINLET
Gear Type: Seine
November 5, 2002
Quality
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Consistent quality prior to processing would help. That is, not mixing poorer quality i.e. dry fish with
refrigerated fish and in the case of canning, ending up with a product rated by the lowest common
denominator in terms of quality. Seperating the fish by hold on the tender so that better quality fish
could be kept track of through out processing and graded as such. In multi-specie fisheries where fish
are pumped out of the fishing boat, sorting often entails tossing the less numerous specie into standing
brailers. These fish often are the “money” fish and they invariably bounce off the sides of the metal
hoop and lifting chains into the standing brailer causing bruising. Chutes to the brailers in cases where
they are not present would definitely increase the quality of these fish. I realize this is probably beneath
the scope of what you are looking for. c.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Difficult to administer.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, perhaps incorporating high-end quality product handling. This could include the outlining of
techniques used in the handling of product in successful programs such as Copper River, and updating
that with the different approaches used in the branding projects in C.I. and Kodiak and others as they
come on line. I think there will be new techniques and procedures evolving to accommodate differences
in logistics and end markets. In addition combine that with a compilation of requirements for the
various stages of processing and the sources for the necessary permits for each stage. All of this could
be put, on and maintained on, a web page.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Price and the impression that extra care will eventually lead to a better overall end product and not fall
prey to the lowest common denominator. Mixing the poorest quality with the best and processing them
together, whether dry and refrigerated or Ocean harvested and terminal such as hatchery, guarantees
low quality.
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)
Keep the status quo.
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 November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
I believe the state should help. In the long run their investment will be returned plus some in taxes.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
I don’t believe so directly. Only in the context of education, in terms of quality, logistics in moving
product, and exposure to, and availability of, alternate markets.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Removing taxes where applicable, as in marketing and fuel taxes.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Tax incentives, for quality improving equipment. Some mechanism should be in place so that the
harvesters share in any increase in profits generated as a result of the improvements.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Streamlining of onboard processing regulations.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Continued market outreach and wild fish promotion.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Overcapitalization is arguably one of the key factors causing the problems we face today. . Loan
forgiving either at a hatchery or harvester level will only increase the problem. I believe any relief given
by the state to hatcheries or individuals should be given in kind to all the respective entities. Subsidizing
the industry will only help its viability if applied equitability across the spectrum of all those involved.
Any other scheme will pit region against region in competition for markets and artificially set the bottom
line viability of individual harvesters.
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?
Method and means of retiring permits is of concern to me. A program to retire permits in an area like
Kodiak, where less than half the permits are presently being fished could conceivably be voted in by the
majority of the permit holders, further taxing those still fishing without actually relieving, but in fact
increasing pressure on economic viability. All of this coming from a majority vote.
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
I believe that a viable option to the cost recovery system used by most hatcheries today would be to have
all fish harvested as common property. Funding for the hatcheries would come from a tax levied on the
common property fishery. This could be set up as a revolving fund where the operating costs were
collected a year ahead of time. The initial funding could be loaned by the state and paid back
incrementally over a period of years, always leaving more than enough money in the fund to operate the
next year. This method of funding the respective hatcheries would have the advantage of eliminating the
cost of the actual fish recovery itself. These savings would theoretically be distributed back throughout
the common property fishery. In addition the quality of the fish would be higher, being harvested earlier
in the cycle. It would also eliminate the problems created with selling up to twenty five percent of the
states pink salmon production early in the year effectively establishing the market price, prior to the
season without any harvester input. Any loan forgiving of hatchery obligations to the state or lowering
of interest rates for hatchery loans has to be applied equitably to all hatcheries statewide. I believe any
other course of action will continue to contribute to the artificial fiscal horizon that we currently find
ourselves trying to operate under.
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’m not sure at what level the state participates now? Its important that the state portray the commercial
fishing industry as participating in the harvest of a renewable resource and is doing so in conjunction
with not at the expense of other industries.
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’m sure it could be argued that more research is always helpful and would indeed help management. I
think one of the most serious problems is the salary discrepancy between the federal and state fish and
game managers. We need the best talent to manage our fisheries, loosing their expertise will come back
to haunt us in the future.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
There are alternative training options now. I want to concentrate our resources on saving and
revitalizing the industry.
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?
On board processing regulations need to be streamlined, clarified and made available at one readily
accessible central location.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
I support the process. Bringing the local advisory committees back into the loop is a necessity. With out
the advisory committees support the Board process looses credibility and public support.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
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?
I would hope that somehow we as commercial fisherman could be represented and accessed in a manner
similar in scope to that which the processing portion of the industry is recognized. I don’t know what
that vehicle might be. I do know that eliminating harvesters and consolidating processing will not help
the costal communities and their fight for survival nor will it help the State of Alaska in its quest for
fiscal solvency.
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?
I don’t believe things will ever be like they used to be. I believe that to survive the industry needs to
eliminate any fixes aimed at individual regions. Many of the problems we now have, seem to stem from
overcapitalization and under collateralization. We need to promote a diversity of markets and
processors and streamline hatchery funding in a manner that allows commercial fishermen to more
actively participate in the harvest of their fish. Thank you for this opportunity to respond and
participate.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
To: Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
From: Sea Hunter Fisheries
Subject: Meeting with Representative Drew Scalzi
Date: November 5, 2002
I have been commercially fishing for salmon in Alaska for the last twenty years. I started my
career in the Bay, and Norton Sound. I purchased a Lower Yukon Salmon Drift permit in 96’ which
entitled me to fish the Commercial Salmon Seasons.
The facts are not eluding! Protection of the Resources is a rural - priority. I have not had the
right to commercially fish in over two years. This year ADF&G opened the fishery for a four hour
commercial – period.I didn’t b other to go…
The last time I went to Emmonak to harvest Salmon, we all had to wait it out for almost a month.
All to be given the thumbs up by ADF&G field agents who intentionally let most of the pulses of the run
pass. The Industry knows how to resolve the issues at hand. So did the State of Alaska.
Having the Federal Government take over harvesting guide-lines brought a greater understanding
to those in Government. But left all those in Rural Alaska dumbfounded, and struggling ever more…
I have been at a cross roads with all the hype that this issue has created. If Subsistence by Law is
for “Personnel Community Use” then why allow it to be sold?
It doesn’t take a Fisheries Biologist to tell you; that Commercial / Subsistence, Fish-wheels, and
upriver egging for “Chums” for profit? Or Dog Food? Certainly is not a priority.
Neither is the sale of Subsistence caught Salmon! But it has always historically happened since the early
50’s.
Where the Fed’s / State are going in the wronged direction would be to allow Subsistence fishing
efforts to compete with the historical commercial catches. We developed this Industry! Rural Alaska
needs the summer work. What better first jobs for students are available in the villages?
Commercial Fishermen and Salmon Processors, invested time and money into the resources. In
an endeavor to promote the mighty Yukon King salmon.
Why change what Industry has developed? Why did we wait for this Disaster to occur? With all
the demands on the resources you’d think the State of Alaska could step up to the plate and settle the
issues at hand.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
1 November 2002
Dear Representatives and Senators:
My name is Kenneth E. Tarbox and I am a fish biologist who has worked in the State of Alaska for 26
years, 20 of those years as the Research Project Leader for Upper Cook Inlet (UCI), Commercial
Fisheries Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). I have a Master of Science degree
from Louisiana State University in Fisheries Science and a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries
Science from the University of Washington. I have attended over 20 Board of Fish meetings on UCI
issues and published over 50 papers on fishery topics.
I am testifying today because I feel that Alaska fisheries management is in need of some modifications
that the legislature can accomplish, without significant cost, which will improve the status of all
fisheries in the State. Specifically, I would like to address the Board of Fisheries structure and function.
As a quasi-legislative branch of government the Board of Fish is faced with finding complex solutions to
ever-increasing complex problems. They are overworked, understaffed, and unqualified to deal with the
present level of complexity. Seven members of the public, who volunteer their time, are controlling a
billion-dollar industry. I know of no corporation that has this level of assets and responsibility and runs
under this type of structure.
Therefore, I support a total review of the Board of Fish process. However, I also have some specific
recommendations that should be implemented quickly. These are:
1) Increase the present Board of Fish from 7 to 11 members.
The present Board of Fish is lacking in several areas of expertise. Historically, user groups have fought
for seats on the Board. These usually fall along commercial, sport, personal use, or subsistence lines.
However, today the Board must deal with community values and needs. In addition, restructuring
fisheries will have impacts on the social and economic foundations of the State, coastal communities,
and individuals. The Board should be examining and exploring the consequences of their regulatory
actions in these areas. They are not doing it adequately. Therefore, increasing the number of Board
members allows for more expertise on the Board and a wider range of views to be represented.
In addition to lack of expertise, the workload of the present Board is more than they can handle. In UCI,
reports from ADF&G alone can number hundreds of pages of technical data and findings. In addition,
industry is bringing experts to the Board of Fish meetings with volumes of written information. The
Board of Fish members just cannot digest this information in a rationale manner without more time and
personnel. Increasing the Board to 11 members will allow more time to divest work tasks to more
members, allow work sessions to explore issues in more depth, and provide more individuals for the
public to talk to about their concerns and regulatory actions.
2) Provide an independent scientific review staff to the Board of Fisheries.
The Board of Fish has found itself in the position of deciding who’s science is correct – ADF&G
biologist, consultants to user groups, or individual scientist testifying,. In a number of cases, ADF&G
has been incorrect or misleading in their testimony before the Board. This has led to distrust in the
public of both the Board and ADF&G. More importantly, ADF&G cannot assess or evaluate technical
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
data in social and economic findings. In fact, ADF&G typically does not provide data to the Board of
Fish in these areas.
The Board needs an independent scientific review staff to reduce information into useful summary form,
validate data provided by different parties, point out the uncertainty in the data, and provide
recommendations on needs for future information.
Once established, an independent scientific review board can establish how information will be
submitted to the Board, the timelines for submittal, and the scientific standards that must be met for
inclusion in the proceedings.
3) Require that the Board of Fish publish their regulations, in regulation format, for a 30-day
comment period before passage.
Under the present Board of Fish process the Board can pass regulations with intent language only.
Therefore, ADF&G staff, one or two Board of Fish members outside the meeting time, and in some
cases the public decide how the regulatory language will be written. I have been part of this process and
it is not in the best public interest. In the last Board of Fish meeting for UCI it took months of backroom
discussions to get intent language into regulation format. A number of decisions were made outside the
Board of Fish meeting that changed how the regulations would be implemented.
Forcing the Board to write regulations, in regulatory language, would allow the public to see exactly
how the regulation will look. Allowing a 30-day comment period allows for differences of opinion on
intent to be fully discussed. It would also force the Board to take more time in their discussion to define
exactly what they mean. In the present format, ADF&G personnel are often puzzled by what happened
in the meeting.
4) Provide the Board of Fish guidelines on the rate of change allowed in allocation decisions.
In UCI millions of dollars have been allocated away from the commercial fishing industry in a relative
short period of time. Some of this money has been reallocated to sport fishing and personal use interest.
However, the majority of this money, represented in lost harvest, has been allowed to swim upstream to
die underutilized on the banks of the river.
These allocation decisions have been made with little regard for the long-term consequences on the
industry and the State public good. While change is always going to take place, the regulatory decisions
of the Board of Fish should be done in a slow and deliberate manner. Unfortunately, that has not been
the case in UCI and the commercial fishing industry finds itself unable to predict the rate of change in
the allocation framework. Investment opportunities are stifled because an investment made today with a
return plan of 5-15 years is not certain because of regulatory actions. The Board of Fish can reallocate
that investment to zero net return or even a loss in a single year. I would suggest that allocation of
resources from one industry should not occur at more than 1 percent per year. With a Board of Fish
cycle of every 3 years this would allow some predictability in the fishery. Underutilized stocks of
salmon can be allocated at a greater rate.
5) Reorganize the ADF&G to create a new Division of Research.
The ADF&G is presently organized along user groups and this unfortunately leads to advocacy for those
user groups. This is a result of funding sources (e.g. Sport Fish Division funds come partially from user
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
fees and taxes) and day to day relationships with powerful political user groups because of management
actions.
Within the Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries, science can be and often is compromised
because of allocative pressure on decision-makers. In addition, priorities of research are often made on
allocate outcomes rather than resource knowledge priorities.
Creation of a Division of Research accomplishes five major goals. It would allow prioritization of
research based on resource information needs. It consolidates research personnel under common
standards of performance and neutrality. It should result in the possibility of long term research being
maintained in the priority of projects. A separate Division should result in more cost-effective research
and staff utilization (duplication in each Division can be reduced). Finally, it maintains management
staff within the historical Divisions while reducing the advocacy roles inherent in those Divisions.
6) Take time to only confirm good Board of Fish members and the Commissioner of ADF&G.
The Board of Fish and ADF&G needs people that represent the best of the State. The legislature should
define the qualities they seek in a Board member and adhere to those qualities in the confirmation
process. Board members should be knowledgeable, civil, have a sense of ethical behavior, be able to
work with others, provide a commitment to the process, be open to change, and be good communicators.
If the State chooses to have a lay board they need to define professional behavior for those who serve.
Thank you for your time and commitment to this process.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Tarbox
Box 3507
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
907-262-7767
tarbox@ptialaska.net
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Dario Notti
dnotti@avcp.org
Box 219 Bethel, AK 99559
543-7342
Fish_area: yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers
Gear_type: drift net
October 31, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Keep it wet and cold and ship it fast. One quick disclaimer these are my personal comments not my
organization.
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?
maybe
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?
money to upgrade and a market to sell to
Marketing
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
proccessors, fishermen and the state.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
The state should be more generic and the fishermen and proccessors should market the stock or
branded name
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Remove barriers to coops like chignik and consider changing the constitution to allow fish traps but the
traps should not belong to a proccessor.
Finance
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
yes and I don't know
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 are a mixed blessing. By putting more fish in the market they drive down the prices further.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
Carey Farmer
Eagle River, AK
Bristol Bay Salmon Fisherman
19 October 02
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Production Subcommittee
716 W. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
RE: Fleet Reduction
Esteemed Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the key issue facing the Alaska salmon industry: fleet
reduction.
There are a number of fleet reduction proposals being considered which would achieve short-term
improvement in the economics of salmon fishing, but which would not hold up for the long haul. I urge
the Task Force to put in place a measure which would allow Alaska's salmon fishermen to achieve the
same gradual productivity increase that the rest of our nation achieves - about 3% per year .
The arithmetic for increasing fisherman productivity is, unfortunately, counter to some of the objectives
of Alaska public policy. Total production in most fisheries is fixed at whatever number of fish Mother
Nature can provide. For fishermen to improve their productivity there must be fewer fishermen.
This same cold calculus has been experienced by nearly every industry in the us. Agriculture is a good
example: a hundred years ago, nearly half the US labor force was employed in agriculture. Today, that
figure is about 1%.
We must enable a reduction in the number of participants in Alaska's salmon fisheries. There is no other
way to make salmon fishing a viable occupation for the long haul. If individual fishermen have no
means of improving their productivity, then their incomes won't keep pace with the rest of the country.
Public policy objectives of spreading the available fish around to as many fishermen as possible will
only result in all fishermen being impoverished.
Look at the last thirty years! Wages and income in most occupations have tripled. But salmon fishermen
are stuck at a 1970's gross catch value, and on top of that, they are facing a 21st century cost of doing
business.
The simplest solution for our gillnet fisheries would be to amend our limited entry legislation to allow
individual fishermen to acquire and deploy gear associated with multiple permits, as needed to match
national trends for increased productivity and wages. The Board of Fish could also reduce the amount of
gear allowed for each permit, or not, depending on the needs of each fishery.
Barriers to entry in this approach will remain about the same as entry barriers in the current fisheries.
Since the number of permits doesn't change, permit prices should rise only modestly. Fishermen who
(presumably temporarily, for lack of capital) have only one permit will catch about as much fish as
current fishermen do.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 36 -
Because the increased concentration of permit ownership in this scheme only matches national income
and productivity trends, it would be difficult for critics to claim that the few are being enriched at the
expense of the many. No State dollars will be required to implement this fleet reduction. No one will be
forced to fish any differently than they do now. Fleet reduction will be driven by individual fisherman
decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Carey Farmer
Bristol Bay Salmon Fisherman
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 37 -
October 12, 2002
Steve. Gillman
PO Box 832
Craig, AK 99921
We bought our first power vessel in 1971 and have fished in Alaska ever since that time. We
have seen it all, the good the bad and now the ugly.
The only way we can save out fishery is to get a lot more of our fish on the fresh market. We
have the transportation and the ability to do this. To do this we must have a much longer season which
means a much smaller fleet. There are a great many out here in our 60s and over who would like to
retire but because our boats and licenses are worthless, we can’t. Buyback has worked from California
to British Columbia.
Here is the problem. 80% of the fish are caught by 40% of the fleet and that fleet are based down
south. The last thing they want is a longer season. The boats from the lower 48 want things status quo.
Start fishing July 1st and be back down south September 1st and they are the big voice of our power troll
fleet. As long as our big producers are fishing six days and delivering on the 7th day and their fish are
taken care of very well, it makes no difference they are too old to get on the fresh market.
The trips have to be cut way back perhaps three days and the fleet has to be cut back and the
season has to be way longer. As long as the power fish are frozen and put in cold storage we will have
bad prices. I haven’t talked about fish farms because that would be silly, we all know about that
problem.
Thanks,
Steven Gillman
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 38 -
Chris White
3705 Arctic. Suite 3009
Anchorage, AK 99503
10/08/02
RE: Ice Barges
Dear Salmon Industry Task Force:
I think we all know the critical need to salmon quality if we have any chance of competing in the world
marketplace. Considering the state of the industry, few have the capital to upgrade their boats with
RSW systems. However, an excellent alternative are floating ice barges that would be easily accessible
to the boats. Whether it be ice filled holds or special brailers surrounded by an envelope of ice, this
would be the quickest, cheapest way to instantly up the quality of our fish, and thus our position in the
marketplace.
Considering the important stake the State of Alaska has in the commercial fishing industry, it would
now seem unreasonable for the state to pick up the tab for these barges.
Thanks for your consideration and efforts to affect change.
Sincerely,
Chris White
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 39 -
Dean Anderson 9/16/02
PO Box 41
Chignik Lagoon, AK 99565
To Whom it May Concern in the Salmon Industry
Title: Sink or Swim
Problems:
1. We as fisherman are stuck in our old ways because we still desire to race for the fish. This
makes it difficult to implement the needed changes that could help us through this crisis.
2. Fishermen do not agree on how to fix the problem because too many think if my neighbor
goes out of business I can catch his fish too.
3. The salmon industry is grossly overcapitalized as it is and for fisherman to spend money they
don't have on something that will only bring pennies/lb is senseless.
4. In reference to house bill 286, the fleet reduction and/or buyout program in it's soul form just
adds another large of capital to the already high cost of doing business. This is certainly help but
it's far from the answer. Besides, how do we fund this program? Do we wait for more handouts
from the federal government, and how long will that take?
5. Fisherman spend too much time working on their fishing equipment to fish competitively.
Their efforts should be directed at when to catch the fish, how to handle the fish, and under what
weather conditions, logistical locations, processing conditions or market conditions. Would a
controlled harvest help the picture?
6. Fishing is fun, we love what we do and don't want to do anything else. However, we need to
understand the world market could care less about tradition. Have we hit many home runs lately,
as far as the world salmon market is concerned?
7. The viability of salmon is making it increasingly difficult to get an experienced crew interested.
They can make a better living at a day job or get a job on a halibut or black cod I.F.Q. boat and
make 3-5 times as much money. How do we compete with those kind of crew shares?
8. Processors in general, lack the profit from salmon that would justify spending money to
successfully market wild salmon.
9. Processors pay the fisherman for their salmon by betting on what the market will bare. Much
is directly related to the previous buying season, but not limited to run.timing, volume purchased,
specie, size and quality. The following season they have to make adjustments in the ex-vessel
price or maybe not even buy fish depending on what the future holds and sales in the previous
year.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 40 -
Sink or Swim Dean Anderson (continued)
Discussion:
History and Present:
The spiraling price of salmon started about 13 years ago, it was the beginning of the end of
premium salmon prices as we know it today. Today, we are looking at 40 to 60 cent/lb grounds
price for sockeye and next to nothing for other species. Imagine the price of salmon falling even
more. The problem of low x-vessel prices is compounded by what farm salmon offers and what
Alaska wild salmon lacks, not to mention the low cost of wild salmon from Russia. If we wanted
to actually compete with the average wholesale price of farm salmon today, we would have to put
fish traps in tomorrow. However, there's still a little room in the market for sockeye and other
value added products but things are getting obviously questionable for other salmon species. How
much more time do we have to salvage what we have left?
Salmon is a Commodity:
Supply and demand, is what drives the market. When it gets over saturated the price drops and
so on. In some cases, it's not cost effective for agriculturists to plant and for some in the salmon
industry it's getting less cost effective to put the gear in the water. Like agricultural products
much of what we do is directly related to the inability to compete with production costs of other
countries. The commodities world is a numbers game and high costs are our problem.
The posted price by many of the major buyers including R.S. W. was 8.5 cents for Pinks,
10 cents for Chums and 13 for Silvers. We made more money on them thirty-five years ago not
counting inflation. In fact, the eggs are worth more than the carcass. That's if they have eggs.
The farm salmon industry is now producing salmon roe with some success making one think
there's no end in sight. Can we get more money for our fish and cut costs at the same time?
Protein Share:
Salmon in general, is expensive compared to other protein products. There is an oversupply of
protein on the world market and the bottom line is we are competing for stomach share. If that be
the case, how can we lower our production cost or spend more on marketing so we can prevent
the huge inventory carryover's that have such crippling effect on the processing sector which
trickles down to low ex-vessel prices?
Farm Salmon, is it healthy or not?
Slam that farm salmon because it makes you feel good. The average consumer doesn't hear
you because even if it's not as healthy as wild salmon the price difference outweighs in their
favor. Besides, how many people care about all the ingredients that go into the feed pellets that
farm salmon consume. If you were to stop and think for a minute about the agricultural industry,
do they use all natural ingredients in raising their crop or livestock? Maybe about 1% of them, if
that. That 1% (natural foods) cost the public about twice as much as the run of the mill
production. There are large portions of the public who are willing to pay the difference for wild
salmon, as long as it's fresh. What about the other 9 months? The sales of frozen wild salmon
fillets seem to be growing but not fast enough.
Environmental issues with raising farm salmon: Concerns throughout the world, have
pushed the issue of using land based facilities for farm salmon production. They are already
using it for a number of other seafood items with proven success. Most of the environmental
population lives in the United States and Europe, not Chile or China and other third world
countries. China produces aquaculture products in epic proportions and Chile is Alaska's
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 41 -
reoccurring nightmare. These two countries along with Norway are a big part of why there's an
overabundance of seafood on the world market. Are the kelp huggers going to have significant
impact on the overall production of farm salmon?
Environmental Issues with Wild Salmon:
How much fossil fuel do we burn just to harvest the salmon? How much raw material do we use?
Does wild salmon really deserve a better grade than farm salmon when it comes to environmental
impact? Can we half the impact?
Sink or Swim Dean Anderson (continued)
Profit from Salmon:
Cutting costs equals more profits for fisherman and processor alike. This will only come by
making drastic changes in the current way we do business. Some feel that more profit from
salmon will come through survival of the fittest approach. This attitude that seems to be
apparent among some fisherman is unacceptable behavior in the road to progress. Why watch
more of your friends relatives or neighbor struggle needlessly, well knowing the other options.
People need to remove themselves from the picture, then look back and ask what would make it
better. Proportional profit for most everyone comes through small sacrifices for those that resist
sacrificing anything. Creativity is what will set an example for future generations. Being stuck
in the same old ideology is the reason why many successful corporations have gone broke. Is
that what's happening in this industry?
Other Fisheries:
We need to diversify into other fisheries other than salmon. We might want to venture into the
possibilities of raising other aquatic products. After looking at the coastline of Alaska, one thinks
of the much potential. Inshore operations deserve some serious attention. (Not salmon farming)
Creating fisheries resources that don't require big boats with expensive equipment and all the
costs that go with them could provide almost perfect opportunities for jobs closer to home. Are
we going to create any new jobs by driving down the same road?
Higher quality standards:
Can we simulate frozen at sea product as opposed to the current run of the mill production?
Fisherman and processors need to work together to become a driving force in the market place.
We need to start at the market place and work backwards and not produce a product we don't
have a place for. This will help us sell more salmon in a timelier manner. If we stop the race to
fish could it help the quality?
Perfect solution does not exist:
We must pull together if we want something that will lend itself to the needs of the many longstanding
fisherman, surrounding communities, and processors. There is financial pain on both
sides of the coin so we need to place ourselves in someone else's shoes and try out the view.
The world market doesn't care about tradition, way of life, our harvest costs, processors costs,
transportation costs or any other internal issues that negatively affects us. It would be nice to
preserve a way of life but it's starting to look like a wav to go broke.
Management of Individual Fishing Allocations (I.F.A’s) to harvesting groups:
The question of, how to manage the fishery with an allocation to a co-op was raised at the B.O.F .
this winter. The answer is taking place as we speak. With the formation of Chignik Area
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 42 -
Salmon Management, there is no reason why the department can't manage three or more
groups. Keep in mind; it would be in the co-ops or fishing group's best interest to harvest the
harvestable surplus of salmon in the most efficient and easiest manor for all user groups.
Whether there are one or more groups in addition to the open fishery it should make for little
difference from a management standpoint. Those groups would be sanctioned to work together
as far as the harvest of their respected allocations in relation to escapement. The management
of these allocations to groups would be very similar to what is happening now in Chignik.
Therefore, those that argue the point that more than one allocation would be hard to manage is
simply not true.
Socio-Economic issues that concern villages that rely on salmon:
This is certainly one of the hardest issues to deal with but is of great importance
especially for the people that live in the villages. There is much concern for the loss of jobs and
the family lifestyles that surround commercial fishing. Considering the course we are on, does
anyone actually think it's going to get better?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 43 -
Sink or Swim Dean Anderson (continued)
Non-competitive Harvesting of a salmon Run as opposed to a Quota
There's certainly a big difference but it's not as big as some think. The main reason
some criticize the issue so often is because of a knee-jerk reaction to change. The real issue
here is how to harvest salmon according to escapement needs. Chignik's co-op is early proving
grounds for the positive aspects of controlled harvest. By controlling the harvest level, this
enables the department to open the fishery much earlier as opposed to opening it to everyone in
the competitive fishery, which could require a build up of salmon. In other words, fishing groups
would be ordered to harvest the resource subordinate to escapement. This could increase the
number of fishing days in a season, which in effect provide a longer processing window,
especially during peak times of each run.
Is everyone created equal in a fishery?
Some feel that due to the price of permits, all permit holders are entitled to an equal
share of the resource, however the limited entry system was not formed to provide equal shares
of the resource, only equal access. When an individual purchases a permit they are betting on
harvesting a percentage of the available resource based on the amount of participation,
investment in equipment, knowledge, experience and effort put forth. It doesn't seem fair to be
presented with an allocation less than ones recent past. The long-standing limited entry system
for salmon has demonstrated that you seldom find two fish tickets alike. This runs contrary to the
current co-op in Chignik, which encourages the investor as opposed to fisher to purchase a
permit and effectively grab an equal share of the resource. Due to the states structure of the coop
and the majority within the co-op it discriminates against those that would like to enjoy the
benefits proportional to their past history. Do all those Years of hard Work and Investment
mean anything?
RECOMMENDATION:
Amend the limited entry laws to accommodate or allow one to convert limited entry
permits into Individual Fishing Allocations. (I.F .A.'s.) Under the condition, they only are
valid under a Harvester Group setting. Or through B.O.F process, allow groups of
fisherman to receive an allocation of a salmon resource based on the recent average catch
history of those involved.
Requirements, Terms and Conditions:
1. Required to currently own a limited entry permit in a salmon fishery.
2. Term: "Individual Fishing Allocation" (I.F .A.) is a percentage of the harvestable surplus of
salmon for a given specie in a given area.
a. One can hold I.F .A's in up to two areas in the state as long as their history in the
fishery falls into the proper time window.
b. Determination of an I.F.A. for each specie would be the average historical catch of
each specie of salmon over a period of time.
3. Term: "Harvesting Group" is an organized group of fisherman with the sole intent to harvest the
available surplus of salmon in a management area in direct accordance to the group's total
allocation. The total of the Individual Fishing Allocations with in a group would be the Harvesters
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 44 -
Groups allocation.
a. Harvester Group must consist of a minimum of 20 percent or more of the currently
active permits in a specific gear type in that area. Thus limiting the number of allocations
within a specific gear type within that area.
Sink or Swim Dean Anderson (continued)
b. Limit number of harvest groups to no more than four in an area within one gear type.
c. There is no limit to who mayor may not be in a harvest group as long as they have
history in the qualifying years.
d. All those in a group can decide individually on where they wish to sell their I.F .A. of
salmon unless that permit holder chooses to relinquish that right. However, if an I.F.A.
holder specifies a market different from the majority that market must be practical in
locality and capacity.
e. The I.F.A.'s to the permit holders shall not be compromised by any majority vote
amongst permit holders in the group. However, permit holders in the group who choose
not to participate, will leave the harvesting of that I.F.A. up to the remaining, they must
arrive at harvesting fee relevant to the duties performed. Therefore all members in the
group through a majority vote must decide on the harvest fee.
f. All harvest groups will be bound to work with A.D.F .G to effectively manage the
allocations among groups and the open fishery, keeping in mind that subsistence will be
of priority relevant to run timing.
4. Require each fishing region to initiate their own buy back program.
5. Any permit holder not in a "Harvesting Group" will be deemed to be in the open fishery.
"Open fishery" meaning traditional or competitive fishery.
6. The sum of allocations to groups shall be neutral in respect to the history in the open fishery.
7. The people that have been running the permits for those with medical transfers or for special
circumstances need to be compensated in some manner.
8. All long-standing shore base processors must be given first right of refusal on the product
harvested in those regions throughout the state. When new regulations take place it's important
to give the processor a chance to make needed adjustments to their business.
9. If permanent permit holder does not have significant history that justifies holding a permit,
they may have a one-time opportunity to sell their permit back to the majority (permit stacking or
buy back program) at fair market value. An independent appraisal would decide the sale price of
permits in each area based on recent permit sales and any changes to the salmon market that
would normally effect the price of permits between now and when the new regulation is put in
place. There would be no accommodation for interim use permits because they cannot be sold.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 45 -
10. Allow regional or village Community Development Allocation (C.D.A.'s) programs to be
developed. Regional meaning all villages or communities in that fishing region and village
meaning one village in that region. They may purchase a permit holders I.F.A~ that would in
effect convert to a Community Development Allocation.
11. Allow I.F.A.'s to be sold to people that have previous fishing history in that area. Those
would consist of existing permit holders, individuals that own tenders and crewman that have
fished in the area for a given length of time. Their should be allocation caps imposed or
restrictions of sort that would lend to the needs of many as opposed to a few.
Sink or Swim Dean Anderson (continued)
12. Permit holders may only be in fishing groups for as long as they were in the open fishery.
This will keep an open fishery in place for the future and also allow those that have little or no
fishing history to harvest salmon in the open fishery . This could discourage the investor as
opposed to the fisher from investing in the fishery .
13. Community Development Allocations would be exempt from required participation in the
competitive fishery.
a. Each community could contract out C.D.A.'s to whom ever they wished.
Similar in effect to C.D.O.'s. but not be limited to hiring existing I.F.A. holders.
b. Each community or region would have a cap of how much allocation they could
purchase dependent on the number of villages and number of permit holders in those
areas.
c. The effect of allowing the regions to buy allocations would bring the resource back to
the people that live there.
Frequently Asked Questions to the I.F.A Proposal:
1. Why not go solely with fleet reduction by invokin9- buy back or permit stacking?
Answer: First of all, fleet reduction does not address the race to fish issue, which is a major
defect in the Alaska salmon industry. Secondly the I.F.A. program will have to address a buy
back and or permit reduction anyway but in a much smaller scale.
2. How do we arrive at the average historical catch of each specie?
Answer: Each Fishing district would vote on the number of years to use with a limit of no more
than ten years to find historical catch.
3. Why would allocations to permit holders be restlicted to harvest the salmon under a group
setting as opposed to how it's done in the I.F .0. halibut and black cod fishery?
Answer: I.F.Q. related fishelies are different in the fact those fishers harvest a quota in which the
product is waiting to be harvested as opposed to a somewhat unpredictable salmon run.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 11, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 46 -
4. Why limit the number of harvest groups?
Answer: Managing the harvest of a salmon run with 5 different allocations (four to groups and
one to open fishery) would be a pretty bold start considering the knee jerks that come from the
department.
5. What kind of depth are you talking about as far as a buy back program is concerned, this looks
like another layer of capital that we don't need?
Answer: This is the launching pad to the whole program; the main intent in this buy back
program is to give permit holders with no participation or little recent catch history a way out.
Other permit holders with more significant catch history could be bought out by the plivate sector
and not need the injection of government funds.
6. Why limit the amount of time a permit holder may be in a harvesters group?
Answer: This keeps an open fishery in place for the future, more so it keeps the investor from
buying in and collecting a check from a controlled fishery similar to what could happen in Chignik
right now.
7. Why not go solely with fleet reduction as opposed to this proposed I.F .A. program?
Answer: The I.F.A. is like a multivitamin (potential help in all areas) compared to just fleet
reduction. Besides, do you think the banks would have a better chance of collecting on delinquent
permit loans (privilege only) or allocative shares of a salmon resource?
There are many other issues to be raised and I believe I have some answers to those concerns
but lets not throw rocks in the road to a better future.
Dean Anderson