Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force
As of November 22, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance 11/21/02 ............................................................2-14
Edgar Smith (S04M) 11/21/02........................................................................................15-17
Dan Pauk (S03T) 11/21/02 .............................................................................................18-20
Eddie Clark (S04T) 11/21/02..........................................................................................21-23
Walter Tukaya (S03T) 11/21/02....................................................................................24-25
Gig & Julie Decker (S03A) 11/21/02 ............................................................................26-28
Roy Matsuno (S04T) 11/21/02 ......................................................................................29-31
Harsila Testimony 11/20/02............................................................................................32
Gusty Chythlook (S03T) 11/20/02..................................................................................33-35
Brad Angasan (S03T) 11/20/02 ......................................................................................36-38
Robert Hall (S01A) 11/20/02..........................................................................................39-41
Morris Jones (S01L) 11/20/02........................................................................................42-43
John Fulton (S04T) 11/20/02 ..........................................................................................44-47
Sandra Fraits (S04T) 11/19/02........................................................................................48-50
Daniel Kingsley (S03T) 11/19/02...................................................................................51-55
Glen Palm 11/17/02 ........................................................................................................56-60
Paula Keohane (S03H) 11/16/02 ....................................................................................61-64
Thea Thomas 11/15/02 ...................................................................................................65-67
Tamara Shrader 11/12/02................................................................................................68-70
Mike Bowen 11/12/02.....................................................................................................71-72
Eugene Farley10/29/02 ...................................................................................................73-75
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance
9369 North Douglas Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone 907-586-6652 Fax 907-586-5648 E-mail: seafa@gci.net
November 20, 2002
Dear Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force,
The following answers are being provided by the Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s
Alliance. We are an association representing our members involved in the SE Alaska
salmon, crab, shrimp and longline fisheries. Within our salmon division we have
gillnetters, trollers and a couple of seiners. The majority of the salmon members are
gillnet drift fishermen.
Quality
1. A.) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Southeast Alaska overall has a fairly high quality product already. The fishermen need the ex-vessel
price to reflect efforts made in taking care of the fish properly. They need to know that the fish they
handle as a quality product is treated that way for the whole chain from harvester, tender, processor,
to consumer. Fishermen intend to do everything right and then see the price of fish, overloading of
the tenders and lack of ice provided, other fishermen handling the fish improperly receiving the same
price and decide that there is no reason for them to bother handling the fish correctly. A joint
commitment on the part of fishermen, tenders and processors needs to be made to treat the fish in the
best manner possible. We must switch to providing products and product forms that the consumer
wants. Until we switch to these types of products it will be one more constraint to raising the value
of the resource.
The low ex-vessel value price paid to fishermen is reflected in the processors need to deal with low
quality carcasses (mainly chums) harvested for the high value roe. These carcasses cost the
companies money to handle and in some cases dispose of and are not really suited for the
marketplace. If the carcasses could be disposed of in a more economical fashion (possibly discarding
the carcass at sea after removing the roe) we believe the ex-vessel value would rise. These low value
carcasses would not be sold to the consumer as a way to deal with the carcass. A fisherman or a
processor is not going to by-pass any opportunity to make a profit on a product so if there were any
markets available, the carcass would be utilized. You can’t make some of these carcasses at the point
of harvest into any type of quality product.
Product inconsistency has been a problem in the marketplace with Alaska salmon. Inconsistency
should not be confused with quality issues.
B.) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
Yes all salmon should be chilled upon harvest. We believe that mandatory chilling standards need to
be enacted in order for the Alaska salmon quality to improve as nothing much has changed under
voluntary suggestions. A lot will depend on the details of how a mandatory chilling program is set
up. The majority of Southeast Alaska salmon fishermen do currently chill their salmon unless the
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
fishermen’s processor does not provide enough ice for the quantity of fish being harvested or length
of opening.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal and a state
quality commission?
Not at this time. What concerns fishermen about quality standards is how much damage would be
done to the marketplace that would further lower the ex-vessel price when the majority of the state’s
fish does not meet the top standards. (i.e. end consumer looks at Alaska’s statistics and says only
10% of the fish meet top quality standards so I’ll buy fish but not at the price you are asking and
also the processor telling the fleet we only got 8% of the fish meeting standards so we need to pay
you a lower price.) Perhaps as the future unfolds itself this might be appropriate.
The problem with a quality seal program is the cost for 3rd party verification. Without the
verification process, any sub-par fish sent with the seal attached to it will ruin the seal’s
effectiveness for everyone else. Instituting a quality seal program would lower the price paid to
fishermen in order to pay for the program.
We do not see at this time how a state quality commission would help the industry and would take
funds away from programs such as ASMI who’s funds have been reduced to the point that they are
barely able to function or be effective. Development of a State quality commission would result in
higher taxes paid by the fishermen to pay for such a program. If a State quality commission is to
ever be developed the commission should be a part of ASMI as the most appropriate agency and
not develop the bureaucracy for a new entity.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
We already have a quality education program for industry participants through ASMI. Encourage
the use of the program and fund ASMI so that they can more effectively present the information
around the state and provide the materials. Encourage processors to set up a meeting preseason
with their fishermen, tender and processing crews where the materials can be presented. Do not
reinvent something that will end up lowering ex-vessel price. Mandatory chilling at the point of
harvest will probably force more fishermen to use the educational resources that ASMI has so well
developed. Currently, the literature and quality seminars are under-utilized because there is no
mandate to improve quality.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed
salmon?
Price paid that reflects the quality delivered.
Simply maintaining what market share we have left might be incentive enough to improve quality.
Eventually, we need to see our grounds prices reflect our quality improvements, but this might not
be an overnight process. The market demands consistent quality. If we don’t provide it, our
earnings and market share will continue to erode.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional
self-determination?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Make sure that this process (Salmon Industry Task Force) does not increase the costs to
fishermen. Also see answers to other questions.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Processors are best able to answer this question and submitted a report to the production subcommittee
with some ideas. We agree with their one recommendation that tax rates need to be
equalized and fair. This recommendation would help the fishermen who process and market their
own products.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that
can help the harvesters and/or processors?
Develop a new regulatory framework (statutes and regulations/applications and forms) separate for
the direct marketer (fishermen who sells and processes their own catch) appropriate to the activities
they are involved in. This would involve ADFG, Dept of Revenue and DEC. Fair tax structure for the
direct marketer/catcher-processor. The State of Alaska should consistently and fairly administer
regulations the same from region to region of the State.
Have a discussion about the pro and cons of the current State of Alaska wanton waste law and full
retention laws. This is an issue that needs to be reviewed. It might be that the current statute is
determined to be in the best interests of the State and it might not.
Allow a fisherman to hold a permit for more than one salmon area and to be able to fish in multiple
regions in the same year and use the same vessel in multiple fisheries. This allows the fisherman
who wishes to diversify additional opportunities.
Change the labor laws so that a fisherman can once again legally take out a high school student in
the summer as crew.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the
salmon industry?
Provide consistent and sufficient funding for ASMI from the State general fund.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not,
what changes would you suggest?
Yes, the current practices overall are well set up. Allow the State the flexibility to consolidate
several loans and reissue one loan in its place. Take away the 1.5% refinance fee. The Product
Quality Improvement program and the tax program that are managed by the Division of Investments
are very good programs for fishermen.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in
your fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives
would you suggest for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
We do not necessarily subscribe to the idea that Alaska needs fewer processors and fewer
fishermen. In some fisheries this may be the case, but in others it may not. That being said, some of
our members are interested in the permanent retirement of limited entry permits. The incentive for
retirement is the price paid to the fishermen for giving up the permit. For the fishermen who remain
in the fishery, the incentive to pay a buy-back tax on their current earnings is to see the permanent
retirement of those permits. If an assessment is put in place and at a later date additional permits
need to be entered back into the fishery there must be some mechanism to pay back the fishermen
who were assessed fees and originally bought back the permits.
Any buyback or permit reduction program should be implemented only after some of the court cases relating to optimum numbers have been clearly
resolved and we get opinions from the courts that will ensure that permits will be permanently retired. Also before any buyback in an area is instituted,
the fishermen in that region must agree by a significant majority that is in the best interests of the fishery.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Other members of our association did not feel that there were too many permits in our fisheries at
the time when we were paid a good price for the fish and hope that through that the price of fish is
increased back to the point that it is economically feasible for all fishermen to once again fish.
When you reduce the number of permits in the State you hurt communities and the numerous
businesses in the support sector that depend on a robust fishing industry, but the same effect is felt
when the fishermen leave their permit idle for the year and don’t fish.
Any permits foreclosed on by Division of Investments should not be returned to the fishery. The
current system of selling the foreclosed permits by auction tends to lower the price of the permits in
the open marketplace and likely any of the permits foreclosed on will be in a fishery that could do
with a small reduction in the number of permits.
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 and
Market Development, other)
The problem with the current salmon promotional entities is the lack of consistent and sufficient
funding in order to successfully do their job. This is one of the critical areas that the State can
provide short and long term help.
While it is possible to slightly tweak some of the programs overall it has worked with ASMI doing the
generic promotions and DCED helping with the mini grants for regional branding and marketing.
There does need to be coordination between the entities so that there is not any duplication in
efforts.
Also there should be joint coordination and oversight of regional branding programs so the regional
message does not conflict with the generic marketing message of ASMI but builds upon and
enhances the foundation of Alaska’s salmon marketing program.
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
of Alaska general fund, other federal funds or other sources)
Fishermen (current 1%), Processors, State and Federal Government should help fund marketing
programs. State must help fund ASMI’s marketing efforts at this time.
If no cost recovery performance standards are enacted then hatcheries that take over 50% of their
production for cost recovery should contribute to marketing efforts as at that level of cost recovery
they are significantly impacting the markets and the price paid to fishermen.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so,
how?
a.) By correcting the direct market regulations as suggested in Production question #3.
b.) The State is already helping in the following ways: ASMI helps the individual fishermen
marketing their own catch with information. This is appropriate and very appreciated by the
fishermen who use their services. Individual fishermen can also get help through DCED mini grant
programs.
Governance
Hatcheries:
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or
performance standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the State’s relationship with all
hatchery owners?
Yes, the State should develop some performance standards for hatcheries. Hatchery production is
very important to the SE Alaska commercial fishermen but standards need to be developed. A good
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
place to start is to look at the Board of Fish Finding #94-02 FB (attached at the end of the testimony)
that goes with the SE Enhanced Allocation Plan (5AAC 33.364). Cost Recovery must be capped at
40% or under on a 5 year rolling average monitored by the Regional planning teams and when
appropriate, production changes suggested to the Commissioner of Fish and Game. As with the SE
Enhanced allocation plan this provides some flexibility for a hatchery that develops a plan with the
fishermen to harvest a higher % and to pay off debts. Hatchery programs must be reviewed by the
RPT after a cycle of returns has come back in order to review if the program is meeting the
objectives of significant public benefit and a review that the program is not impacting wild common
property fisheries (biological issues and economic issues – Are fishermen being given less time in a
fishery to protect hatchery fish returning to a release site.) Significant public benefit needs to be
defined by the amount of fish contributed to common property uses (commercial, sport, charter,
personal use and subsistence) and not jobs provided in the community.
When hatcheries do cost recovery over the guidelines suggested (principal #1 of the Board of
Fish finding#94-02FB) the money should be disbursed as followed:
If the hatchery owes the State Division of Investment money the operating expenses should be kept
under 30% and debt paid with any $ over the operating expenses.
If the hatchery does not have any debt, then the hatchery association should be allowed to
develop operational and capital reserves. These should possibly have an upper limit of 2 years
operational expenses and the capital account should have an upper limit also.
If the hatchery has paid all debt and the reserves are fully funded money earned for taking cost
recovery over the %’s enacted would be reimbursed to the fishermen.
While we believe that the it is appropriate for the Commissioner of Fish and Game to regulate
production and Board of Fish to work on allocation, there does need to be a way for a fisherman to
question hatchery issues and clear guidelines on what is appropriate.
Hatchery programs that have over 51% of elected commercial fishermen on the board of directors
provide more benefits to the commercial and common property uses and less impact on the market
or relationship between fishermen and processors. When 51% of the board is elected by commercial
fishermen, if the fleet does not like the direction an association is taking they vote in new
representatives and change the direction. They are also in control of operating budgets and keep
them from becoming inflated because they are trying to get as much fish to the common property
fishery as possible.
If debt forgiveness, a lowered interest rate, or forgiving of deferred interest was pursued, it must be
tied to hatchery standards that limits or reduces the amount of cost recovery taken and benefits the
commercial fishermen in additional common property fish.
Education:
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (k-12, post-secondary, and
voc/tech) in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary
educational needs of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
There are current programs set up to help displaced fishermen if they wish to take advantage of
them. (Such as the Sea Link program in Ketchikan and Department of Labor programs to help
workers in the fishing industry get training through AVTEC and a variety of other programs.)
Agency Oversight:
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could
be changed to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Consistent application of regulations should be administered by the State. (i.e. DEC has a
regulation that states that for a fishermen to take roe out of a fish for human consumption they must
have a processing permit. While the State applies this regulation to the Southeast Alaska Gillnet
fleet and promise to shut down any processor in SE who buys roe from a gillnetter that is not
correctly permitted they ignored the same process being done in fisheries in the AYK – when asked
they stated that the AYK region could not meet the standards. Either the regulation needs to be
met by everyone or if it truly is not a food health issue the regulation needs to be removed.)
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes were necessary, what would you
suggest?
Yes, we support the current Alaska Board of Fish process. It is a good public process overall.
Petersburg Vessel Owners suggested a couple of possibilities in their testimony that are worthy of
consideration. These include methods to reduce the number of proposals submitted in a year and
reorganization of the meeting structure so one subject at a time is dealt with. Only the more
controversial subjects/proposals go to the committee process. We also suggest adequate funding for
the advisory committee system and more weight put on their recommendations.
Change the conflict of interest statute so that it is more relaxed and allows a fisherman on the
Board to provide the board with his insight and knowledge of the fishery during deliberations.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Most likely we would not support a task force to review the Alaska Board of Fish. Would a review of
the Board of Fish produce any new information that has not been suggested before? If a review is
undertaken it must be a one-time review and follow up on the suggestions provided. We don’t need
the cost of another study sitting on the shelf. More appropriate would be a one time public panel to
work with the Board of Fish on ways to streamline the process.
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? (e.g. such as the Alaska Minerals
Commission)
As the task force ends it’s process, an Alaska Seafood Commission designed after the Alaska
Mineral Commission would be nice to have in place. This would allow the commission to take a
broad look at the future and current industry once a year at not much cost to the State and to
provide the follow through on suggestions for changes. Had a commission been in place 10 years
ago maybe actions would have been taken sooner.
Economic Development:
1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues,
community and individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Transportation and infrastructure needs around the State are major issues to be addressed.
Developing airports, cold storages, roads, ferries and shipping terminals would provide tremendous
benefits not only to salmon fishermen, but to the commercial fishing industry and the economy and
society as a whole.
As a multi-gear group we would like to remind the salmon task force that as they work on these
issues for the salmon industry they make sure that the solution does not hurt a different segment of
the commercial fishing industry or that any generic type of tools provided to the salmon industry be
considered for use in all fisheries if appropriate.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
FINDINGS OF THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
Southeastern Alaska Area Enhanced Salmon
Allocation Management Plan (5 AAC 33.364)
Finding #94-02-FB
BACKGROUND: In March 1991 Mike Martin, Chairman of the Board of Fisheries, asked the
Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) and the Southern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) to coordinate the development of a southeast wide allocation plan for
all enhanced salmon.
The issue concerned the benefits commercial fishermen received from the enhancement activities,
especially in relation to the amount of the 3% Salmon Enhancement Tax (SET) paid. The issue was
different between the Regional Associations and could not be resolved. Numerous proposals have been
submitted to the Board of Fisheries to resolve the issue but none were acted upon. Chairman Martin
requested that the two Regional Associations consider an all Southeast Alaska Allocation Plan to
include all enhancement activities: Fish and Game FRED division, Independent Non-profit Aquaculture
corporations; and Regional Aquaculture Associations.
The Boards of Directors of NSRAA and SSRAA agreed to accept the challenge. They formed a group
that first met on March 29, 1991 in Ketchikan. The group called itself the Southeast Allocation Task
Force (SATF). The SATF is composed of six voting members, three each from NSRAA and SSRAA,
and each association provided one seiner, one troller, and one gillnetter for a total of two people from
each gear type on SATF. All decisions were by consensus. No meeting was held without six voting
members present.
There were two non-voting members on the SATF, one each from the FRED Division and a
representative from the independent non-profit aquaculture corporations. DIPAC represented the
independent seat. Also, each Regional Association provided one staff member, Pete Esquiro
represented NSRAA and Don Amend represented SSRAA. The staff and non-voting members are
resource people who provided technical input and comments when appropriate. The SATF also has had
technical input from the NMFS at Auke Bay, the limited entry commission, and other people as needed.
All meetings were publicly held. Announcements were made southeast wide in newspapers and radios.
Public attendance was minimal, but a few showed up at each meeting. These people were allowed to
address the SATF as recognized by the chair. There was no appointed sport representative, but these
interests were present at a few meetings. There was a total of five meetings.
The SATF developed the number of fish caught and this was reviewed by scientists at the Auke Bay
Laboratory. The value of the fish was provided by the Limited Entry Commission. The data does not
include enhancement activities by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Metlakatla Indian
Community (MIC) on Annette Island, or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The production at NMFS is
small and experimental. Although the production by the MIC is significant and they also harvest Alaska
enhanced fish, this was not included because their harvest and production cannot be controlled by the
State.
The USFS conducts many habitat enhancement activities, but the numbers cannot be verified or
evaluated. All of S.E. Alaska was included (Districts 1-15), but the Yakutat area was excluded.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
The base period for data analysis was 1985. Production prior to 1985 was not significant and most
projects were just coming on line. The data was evaluated through 1990 and will be updated annually as
it becomes available. Averages were based on this period when production was still increasing and
changing. Estimates were made based upon all currently permitted capacity when at full production.
Future production was based on planned increases in capacity, but not yet permitted or operational.
The development of the agreement was based on catches by power and hand trollers, purse seiners, and
drift gillnetters. Set nets were not included and are not used in the areas analyzed. Sport, sport charter,
subsistence, and personal use were not included. The agreement was based only upon those who pay the
3% SET. No allocation was suggested for these other groups. The belief was that they are restricted by
bag limits and an allocation of enhanced fish is inappropriate.
The guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Fisheries and may be set in regulation, or developed
into policy. The guidelines will be used by the Regional Planning Teams (RPTs) as one element in the
evaluation of permit requests and proposed production changes. The Commissioner of Fish and Game
will consider the guidelines when evaluating permits or establishing special harvest areas. The
Commissioner of Commerce of Economic Development will consider them in determining salmon
enhancement loans for changes in production. The Board of Fisheries will use it to make decisions
concerning gear group disagreements that involve enhanced fish production. The guidelines are viewed
as goals to achieve and remain flexible for changing conditions, such as management changes, treaty
changes, gear changes, legislative changes, etc. It was not intended for Fish and Game management to
use in managing the common property fishery, except in a very few special instances.
REPORT OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA ALLOCATION TASK FORCE (SATF) FOR
ENHANCED SALMON
Following are the fourteen (14) guiding principles which were developed along with rationale
statements for each:
1. The primary goal of the Southeast Alaska salmon enhancement program is to provide additional
fishing opportunities and revenue to traditional common property fisheries.
(A) Performance Goals: Hatchery program plans and performance, over time, should provide a
70% contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries. Out of recognition for
those hatcheries not receiving any salmon enhancement tax (SET) revenues, a 60%
contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries is an acceptable goal. This goal
should be expanded to 70% when these non-association hatcheries retire their existing debt
obligation to the State of Alaska.
(B) Operators of hatcheries and other enhancement projects will use these performance goals in
designing the annual management plans they submit to the joint Regional Planning Team
(RPT) for review prior to approval by the Commissioner.
(C) It is recommended that enhancement programs that achieve these performance goals be given
priority from the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development on the requests for funding
from the Fisheries Enhancement Revolving Loan Fund.
(D) Common property fisheries means those fisheries available to the people for common use.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
Rationale: The enhancement programs are primarily for the benefit of the common property fishery and
not for the benefit of private or state ownership. To assure the emphasis is on the common property
fisheries, the 70% and 60% performance goals specified in 1A shall be used in evaluating projects.
Although contributions to the common property fisheries will vary from year to year depending on run
strength, survival rates and management, the long term benefit must be to the common property
fisheries. No penalty for failure is suggested. However, hatchery proformas should include these
production goals and, if not achieved over time, it is intended that management changes be made to
assure these goals.
Broodstock are not included because they were viewed the same as escapement goals. Broodstock do
not financially benefit anyone directly and are essential for continued production (see number 3).
2. Management of traditional "wildstock" fisheries are not to be restricted by cost recovery needs
(economic escapement) of hatcheries.
Rationale: This concept is embodied in Alaska Statutes (AS 16.05.730). The SATF could not envision
any circumstance where a wildstock fishery should be interrupted to assure a cost recovery harvest.
3. Restrictions on conduct of traditional "wildstock" fisheries to meet broodstock needs should be
absolutely minimal and should be clearly documented by adequate production and harvest data.
Protection of broodstock should only occur in close proximity to terminal areas. (Consistent with AS
16.05.730, and regulations 5 AAC 40.005 and 5AAC 40.220).
Rationale: The SATF recognizes the importance of broodstock. However, broodstock alone should not
drive a common property fishery. Protection of broodstock should only occur in close proximity to
terminal areas and only when the wildstocks can be adequately harvested in another area. The need for
protection of broodstock in any area must be documented by showing that broodstock goals are
adversely affected and the area contains significant broodstock. However, it is not intended that an
operator manipulate activities just to ask for broodstock protection. For example, by conducting cost
recovery harvest without taking proper steps to assure broodstock collection.
4. Enhancement projects should include tagging or marking that will allow determination of the amount
of production harvested in the various fisheries.
Rationale: It is recommended that adequate tagging programs be required under the Commissioner's
authority (AS 16.10.400). Operator estimates are not adequate for estimating contribution to common
property fisheries. Tagging or marking programs are essential; however, because the technology for
marking fish is still evolving, no method is recommended. It is assumed that the most reliable and cost
effective method will be used.
5. The State of Alaska should commit to an adequate mark recovery program for all enhanced salmon to
provide harvest and production data.
Rationale: It is recommended that those responsible for enhancing fish should pay for the marking, but
only the state has the resources to conduct the tag recovery program. The allocation agreement will not
work unless the state commits to a mark recovery program. Also, there was evidence that the tag
recovery program was not being conducted equally among the gear types or species harvested. For
example, troll chinook fisheries have been more intensively sampled, while the seine harvest has been
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
sampled the least of the gear groups. The tag recovery program should be designed to provide an equal
level of confidence in the contribution of enhanced salmon to each gear type.
6. Habitat enhancement and restoration projects where marking is not feasible will not be counted.
Other field projects where marking is feasible and economically acceptable will be counted.
Rationale: Lake fry plants, stream bioenhancement, stream rehabilitation, and other enhancement
strategies are frequently conducted with small numbers of fish in remote areas. It may not be practical
or economically feasible to mark the fish. These enhancement and restoration projects are encouraged
and it is recognized that they contribute to the common property fisheries, but they will not be counted
in the allocation percentages. However, where feasible, marking should be conducted.
7. The allocation percentage goals will be used to provide a fixed target for production.
Rationale: Enhancement projects and production goals have frequently been established based on
political expediency or the economic viability of the operator. However, whenever fish are released and
the returning adults harvested, an allocation is made. The allocation can become disproportionate based
on the number of fish and where they are released.
It is desirable that new production, or revised existing production contribute to achieving the allocation
percentage goals established. This however, should not be the only criteria used to judge the desirability
of new or revised production. If such new or revised production is "projected" to unbalance the
distribution of enhanced salmon, and the change in production is otherwise considered desirable, the
RPT will evaluate the overall enhancement program to determine what adjustments may be necessary to
bring distribution of the harvest into compliance with the allocation percentage goals and make
recommendations to the Commissioner.
8. Allocation percentage goals will be long term.
Rationale: It is recognized that survival rates can vary considerably within and among enhancement
projects throughout S.E. Alaska. Also, variations in the management of the common property fisheries
influence the harvest rates. The allocation percentage goals are not expected to be attained each year,
but should be attained over the long term. Any change in production takes two to five years to impact a
fishery. Therefore, allocation percentage goals should be based on a minimum of five year increments
(see number 9).
9. Overall contribution of revenue from salmon enhancement projects should be evaluated using the
most recent five year average. Adjustments should be implemented only after discrepancies are
determined to exist in the five year average for three consecutive years.
Rationale: See number 8 above. The distribution of enhanced fish is expected to vary widely from year
to year. A five year rolling average was used because it constitutes a production cycle and levels year to
year variation. It is recognized that a single abnormal year can change the five year average outside the
range of the allocation percentage goals; therefore, the guidelines establish a three year period of
consistent discrepancy before any change is made.
10. The joint RPT will evaluate current enhanced salmon production and the distribution of harvest
revenues and update this on an annual basis.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
(A) Each facility should be evaluated after a minimum five years of operation to determine
whether the 70% or 60% common property contribution, referred to in guiding principle 1A,
is being achieved or to determine the realistic production and common property contribution
for the facility.
(B) The joint RPT will conduct an evaluation to determine when the allocation percentages are
not being achieved and adjustments are necessary.
(C) The joint RPT will recommend to the Commissioner adjustments to facilities' annual
operating plans as necessary to accomplish the desired allocation goal.
Rationale: The SATF believes the joint RPT is the appropriate body to review the contribution data.
The joint RPT is responsible for establishing and maintaining the comprehensive salmon plan, under the
Commissioner's authority, and is responsible for recommending permit changes for production to the
Commissioner.
11. Achieving these allocation percentage goals should not result in any modifications, in time or area,
to the traditional "wildstock" fisheries. Minor modification may be considered to allow experimental or
test fisheries that would not adversely impact wildstocks.
Rationale: The SATF strongly believed that the common property fisheries for wildstocks should not be
manipulated in order to achieve the allocation percentage goals. However, this is not intended to
preclude experimental or test fisheries, special hatchery access fisheries, or the establishment of new
special harvest areas in order to access enhanced fish. For example, this could include the June troll
fisheries for chinook, or late season openings, or other special openings used to target enhanced fish as
long as wildstocks are not adversely impacted. It is recommended that the department allow targeted
fisheries on enhanced stocks when they will not adversely impact sustained yield of wildstocks. The
department should work closely with hatchery operators in establishing these fisheries, keeping in mind
the 70% and 60% contribution goals. The harvest of enhanced salmon in a targeted wildstock fishery is
considered incidental to the harvest of wild stocks.
12. There should be no inseason changes in management of enhanced salmon in or out of the special
harvest areas to achieve the allocation percentage goals.
Rationale: These guidelines are established to reach long term allocation percentages. Inseason
common property fisheries adjustments should not be considered to meet allocation goals. No
adjustment of wildstock fisheries should be allowed in order to meet the allocation percentage goals.
13. When adjustments are deemed necessary to the distribution of the harvest to meet allocation
percentage goals, the following tools should be used: (1) special harvest area management adjustments;
(2) new enhanced salmon production; and (3) modification of enhancement projects production,
including remote releases. Hidden Falls shall remain a seine/troll terminal harvest area (Consistent with
5 AAC 33.374).
(A) The joint RPT will make appropriate recommendations through the Commissioner to
facility(s) annual operating plan(s) to attain allocation goals.
(B) Facilities may request changes in operating plans to meet allocation requirements.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Rationale: New production and facility modifications to meet the allocation percentage goals are long
term changes and will take five to ten years to have an impact. Changes in special harvest areas can be
used in the short term to help modify any imbalances that occur.
For example, special harvest areas can be designated to only one gear group or the fishing time allowed
to different gear groups could be adjusted. The effectiveness of this will also be contingent on the gear
type and the targeted species. The SATF expects these adjustments will be reviewed by the joint RPT,
and the joint RPT will make recommendations to the Commissioner as to the most appropriate action
needed to achieve the allocation percentage goals. It is anticipated that short term solutions such as
special harvest area management adjustments will only be used until decisions concerning long term
adjustments can take effect. The allocation percentage goals will also be considered when reviewing
permit alteration requests. If new production is not feasible or desirable, changes in remote releases can
include new sites, change in species composition, change in the numbers of salmon released, or a
combination of these.
14. The allocative percentages will be:
Note: The following percentages refer to the total value (nominal dollars) of enhanced salmon.
These percentages are not intended to apply to wildstock allocations.
Seine - 44% to 49%
Troll - 27% to 32%
Gillnet - 24% to 29%
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Edgar Smith
smith5@alaska.net
6554 Mcgill Way Anchorage Alaska 99502
907-245-0035
Fish_area: Area M
Gear_type: Set Net
November 21, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Reduce the handling of the fish, value add as much as possable on the vessal, gut Head Ice the salmon.
Change the law where the Head has to stay on the salmon till it reaches a processor.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide? If the
ice is available, should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory
statewide?
No and No. The state should be involved with mandatory requirments, the markets and incentives
should drive the need to ice the fish.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No. All these programs create overhead as in taxes, the salmon fishermen are already paying in some
areas 10% in taxes on the raw product.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, a program similar to HAACP, but with less overhead for standardization could help.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
More money for the raw product, any other incentive is not going to work, it takes cold hard cash to
operate and mantain a salmon fleet.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
Regional changes, this would create competition between regions to improve the quality of their
salmon. If we had regional changes, the state program could be stopped.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
With in the region a regional incentive tax on there salmon, as the fishermen sea fit, granted it might
take more incentive dollars in one region to market the salmon than the other, it isn't fair to have on
salmon fishery subsidize for the other.
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Reduce the yearly cost to renew the permit, shore lease and crew member liscense.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Reduce the raw fish tax to the processor, is about all the state could do.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
None
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
An incentive program to value add the seafood here in Alaska. Washington State and Japan are reaping
the benefits of Alaskas tax system. Increase the tax of the raw product, but if value added here in Alaska
the taxes are forgiven or reduced to reflect the loss Alaska is taking in the salmon industry.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No they don't. The loan program is geared for the harvestor, which goes to boats, gear, and permits.
What needs to be done is, have loan programs that focus on the product, where fillets, H&G, smoked,
pickeled, or a raw product is the focus of the loan.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
No the state shouldn't retire any permits. No incentive whatsoever for the permit. And no taxes to fund
the 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?
I don't know much about hatcheries and the politics with them.
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?
If the salmon fleet downsizes by permit stacking and buy back programs, I hope the state has plans to
educate these people in these salmon communittes to do something else.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
Yes
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Help, teach, fund, force, trick the primary taker(fishing boat and Operator)to be more vertically
integrated in the salmon industry.
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Change the law where the salmon harvestor can remove the head of the salmon on the vessal.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
No! politics in the board process at all. How could a political fisheries board, be effective in making
decisions for the salmon industry, when it is a market driven industry.
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?
Only if the Commision isn't political, any thing less and it would be disastorous for regions with low
population numbers.
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?
Low interest loan packages for value adding. Force the secondary processing of the salmon to be done
here in Alaska. Review the transportation industry to move product, people, easier, faster and cheeper in
the remote regions of Alaska.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
Dan Pauk
PO Box 82, Manokotak, AK 99628
907-289-1085
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Halibut, Salmon (S03T) , herring roe
November 21, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
6 hr. delivery time and slush bags in every boat with ice
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, every district should be included.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, and they should fund for the training.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
I need help in finding funding for processing equipment so I can process my own catch.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
ASMI should be eliminated from the program and promote for my own catch.
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)
Salmon harvesters shouldn’t have to pay for promotion or marketing thru taxes.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Look more into domestic markets in lower 48 states, and help find cheaper transportation costs.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Permit buy back programs for outside interests from lower 48 states and allow only local Alaskans to
fish.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Have all harvesters process and market their own products ad eliminate the canneries..
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
Have or adopt less stringent regulations for harvesters to process their own catches, because the
harvester knows the best quality of his own catch.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Yes, provide fillet machines, vacuum sealers to 4-10 harvesters per group of fishermen.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No, state of AK seems to not care about individual fishermen, but only about canneries and ASMI.
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?
Federal government should pay for it, since state of AK is always saying their out of money.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
All hatcheries should be shut down because it’s only wasting money to operate them. The fish that they
incubate are fed antibiotics which can be harmful to the wild stocks in the future.
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?
Teach them how to process their own products right at home and how to market own catch.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
Yes, provide more training in villages, because that’s where the industry really is.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
None
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?
Yes, allow less stringent regulations for individuals to process high quality fish.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
No, Board of fish needs to listen to the best interests of the fishermen.
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 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Yes, also eliminate ASMI, because they only seem to provide best interests of canneries for International
Trade.
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
Yes!
Economic Development
1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and
individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?
Develop only Local Alaskan harvesters and remove lower 48 fishermen out of each fishing district.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Eddie Clark
flyinged@bristolbay.com
PO Box 167 Naknek, AK 99633
907-246-3383 call 439-3383
Fish Area: Egegik Dist. Bristol Bay
Gear Type: set net
November 21, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
We have come a long way in quality lets work on getting a better price from our fish
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Not yet, we still need a good price
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?
We are self regulated, we are doing our part.
Marketing Subcommittee
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
We need one on wild salmon all by its self
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)
Everyone even us
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
That’s a tough one – I don’t believe this approach will work.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
A road to Bristol Bay.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
If we had a road, possibly tourism would be in some of the Borough’s money problems and we could
lower taxes and mill rates
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
Make it for a small person to be able to powers fish like the old day when everyone salted fish they must
still market for that.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
One salmon tax should go toward salmon advertising.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
They seem to be fine.
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?
Everyone and there seem to be too many permits. Buy them now the price is low.
Governance Subcommittee
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?
The hatcheries and the roe stripping that the state does is like shooting our selves in the foot. We don’t
need hatcheries, we have plenty of pinks& dogs not even being harvested. Naknek-Kvicak the state roe
strips then gives the body to the (remainder un-readable)
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?
Summer hire programs, running boats counting fish, work on the weirs, scale samplers.
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?
Let the bush high schools know about state job available in the Fisheries dept.
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?
Fund and install a job employment office in all the bush hub villages and let them know about what jobs
are open
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
It seems to be working and representatives from each fishing district is good
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
I probably would. That way we would have a direct link to the legislative office.
Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
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?
We need a road to Bristol Bay-- Possible tourism,(unreadable) our fish product direct to market. Help
the high cost of living in the Bush.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
Walter W. Tukaya
PO Box158, Togiak, AK 99678
1 907-493-5130 (not connected)
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Salmon (S03T) , long line, etc.
November 21, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Separate the new and old, they are both eatable.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, keep the oceans, bays, coasts, rivers clean from human or environment waste.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, all the inhabitants of their county.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Open and closures of commercial fishing periods, not exceeding the standards of quality time and
districts tides. . .
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
No changes, unless other wise, if better ideas come correct the existing ones, or go for the better for the
long run.
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)
Fish-n-Game, they are the ones opening and closing the districts.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, all fishermen around the globe, enemies or friendly alike
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?
Introduce the fish and sea foods area part of all diet we consume and natures.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
I don’t know them. They don’t send me their inquiry of AK salmon industry.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
To meet the needs of each individual train for alternative employment, encouraged highly
demanded.
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?
Making sure all agencies establish business on of around salmon industries, does not harm the fishing
environment.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
I support them, as long as they get input form fishermen who fish or collect sea food for livelihood or for
themselves.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
As long as they don’t interfere with those that harvest for their commercial use or livelihood for
themselves
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
Yes, many depend on it for many centuries. Would have been better if left to the first people who
managed it, but for in the beginning.
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?
If there is changes, everyone is involved especially those depending on sea foods to survive if not
qualified, meet their needs on their demands.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
From: Gig & Julie Decker
Box 2138, Wrangell, AK 99929
Ph: 907-874-3110; Fax: 907-874-3110
gigjulie@aptalaska.net
November 21, 2002
To: Salmon Task Force
RE: Comments to the Salmon Task Force: Quality, Efficiency & Marketing
We believe the three most important things to address in revitalizing the salmon industry are Quality, Efficiency
& Marketing. Other ideas outside of these three categories are much less important for correcting the Alaska
salmon industry’s problems and implementing permanent, positive change in the industry.
Quality
One positive aspect of the farmed salmon industry is that it raised the standard for salmon quality. Alaska must
now meet and exceed that standard. If Wild Alaska Salmon is to command a premium price, it must also be a
premium quality. Consumers want to get what they pay for. Alaska salmon has a premium primary quality (due
to the fact that it is wild), however, the secondary quality is where the product currently falls behind. Higher
quality must permeate all products forms, from canned to fresh salmon.
Voluntary quality standards have been tried, but have not worked when talking about the entire industry.
Now the industry is desperate to make changes. Desperate times demand desperate measures – mandatory
quality standards. (The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) has developed a set of
recommendations for mandatory standards for fishermen and processors, which is an excellent starting
point.) Mandatory quality should start with immediate chilling of fish.
Many fishermen, especially in areas like Bristol Bay, are afraid mandatory standards will put them out of
business. The opposite is true. Mandatory standards will force the State, communities, fishermen and processors
to get the infrastructure improvements necessary (ice machines, refrigeration, freezers, etc.) in order to help
fishermen and processors meet the mandatory standards.
Funding and enforcement of mandatory quality standards will initially need to come from the State. After the
industry is back on its feet, it may be possible to tax the industry to pay for these services. We do not believe
ASMI is the correct agency to deal with enforcement. They are a marketing group and should focus their efforts
there. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) seems the likely current department to handle
enforcement. However, with DEC’s current attitude and track record (see more below), it is hard to believe DEC
could properly implement the new standards. A state quality commission may be the agency to educate and
enforce new standards. It may be also possible to hire a private contractor to enforce the standards throughout the
State.
Efficiency
The Alaska Salmon industry needs to efficiently compete on the world market. There is much inefficiency in
Alaska that cannot be changed: size of the State, small and remote communities, lack of labor, high cost of labor,
etc. However, there is much inefficiency that can be changed through infrastructure development. Infrastructure
development will allow the state to help the industry while still allowing the industry to independently step
forward and making the changes it needs to make. That is where we should focus our efforts – Efficiency
through Infrastructure Development.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
Projects that will make a positive difference are transportation (roads, ferries, airports, etc.), networks of seafood
freight consolidation facilities, state-of-the-art conveyor belt flash freezers, public cold storages, new processing
equipment (including laser portioning, pin-boning, and vacuum sealing machines), new product development, and
total utilization of the resource from caviar to cat food.
For example, the City of Wrangell, in partnership with the local industry, is conducting a feasibility study on
building a public facility, which would house a high volume flash freezer, a cold storage and reprocessing
equipment. The facility would be leased to its users, from individual fishermen to larger companies. The facility
would allow the private sector to increase the quality of its products through the flash freezer, to increase
efficiency by storing products inside Alaska instead of in the Seattle area, and to develop many different types of
product forms. (For more information about the Bellingham Cold Storage see www.bellcold.com).
The City of Wrangell is also attempting to get a road built which will provide a hard link to the Lower Forty-Eight
from Southeast Alaska.
Through a seed planted by the Marine Advisory Program, regional seafood freight consolidation facilities are also
beginning to get attention in Southeast. These facilities would enable live, fresh and frozen air shipments of
seafood to fly out of Alaska on a regular, consistent basis with proper handling and cheaper bulk rates.
How will these projects be funded? This is the difficult question. Tax incentives for fishermen and
processors who invest in this type of development is a great idea, however, it will take more than that. The
industry has been too depressed for too long to rely totally on industry investment. It will also take
investment by local, State and Federal governments. Currently, there are some Federal grant programs
for the Alaska seafood industry being set up with $100 million via Senators Stevens and Murkowski, which
could be used for these projects. However, a State grant program should also be initiated, which would be
specifically designated for seafood industry infrastructure projects, with several categories designated and
administered by the Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED).
A smaller, but still very important, part of increasing the efficiency of the salmon industry in Alaska is having
State department personnel with a “can-do” attitude. In our experience with the seafood industry, the department
that most lacks this attitude is the DEC. DEC’s current function seems to be finding reasons why the industry
cannot do something (could be called a “can’t do” attitude), instead of finding solutions to the industry’s
problems. This needs to change.
Marketing
With mandatory quality standards in place and infrastructure projects underway to enable production and
delivery of products, Alaska will be poised to market a new, better, healthier salmon to the world. Alaska
salmon will be a superior product; the only challenge left will be to tell the world. A five-year marketing
campaign to launch Alaska’s higher quality salmon will be essential in completing the revitalization of the
industry.
ASMI is the appropriate agency to market our salmon. ASMI may need to be tweaked in order to deal with the
changes the industry is going through, but that is just a part of the evolution the industry is in. In many cases,
ASMI has done a very good job marketing Alaska’s salmon with the little resources it has. Just turning $1-2
million of ASMI’s tax revenue into a $10-12 ASMI budget each year is great. It is unfair to say ASMI is the
reason the Alaska industry is having problems.
Again, there will be some federal funds available to help with this. For example, there is discussion of Alaska
receiving $20 million of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to help market Alaska seafood. The industry also currently
pays 1% to fund ASMI. However, it will be essential for the State to also play a role in making sure there is
adequate funding to market Alaska salmon during this transition period. The State should invest an additional
$20 million in ASMI over a five-year period. This should be enough time to get the industry on its feet so it can
pay its own way once again.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
In closing, we believe all beneficiaries of the salmon resource (fishermen, processors, and local, State and
Federal governments) need to invest in a plan which focuses on Quality, Efficiency & Marketing to solve the
problems of this industry.
Thank you for your time and efforts in helping us all create a new era for the salmon industry in Alaska.
Gig & Julie Decker
Cc: Senator Ted Stevens
Representative Don Young
Governor Elect Frank Murkowski
Lt. Governor Elect Loren Leman
Jim Clark, Murkowski Chief of Staff
Senator Robin Taylor
Representative Peggy Wilson
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
Roy Matsuno
ugashik@gci.net
206 E. Fireweed Lane, # 204, Anchorage, Alaska 99503
907-338-7611
Fish_area: Bristol Bay
Gear_type: set gill net
November 21, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?: I know in my
experience, that the processors need to take a big part in it, since I have notified them that certain people
have had bad salmon, but they still buy the fish. I think that a lot of the individual fishermen need to
take pride in the quality of their fish and present it that way to the consumer, with the use of RSW or ice
to the fishermen in the BB river systems. I think that a lot of local people are going to do their own
processing to provide the higher quality fish that the consumer wants, the current processors do not
provide that, especially with the way that their canneries work. The state needs to improve the freight
and transportation infrastructure out in the rural areas of Alaska.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide? If the
ice is available, should
chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide?
No, but I think that there should be time limits on delivery for the fishermen to make the quality of the
fish better. Ice would be very helpful in the quality of salmon.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No, I think that it should be left up to the individual processors to provide their quality seal, the State can
set a standard, but how are they going to monitor quality, unless someone is hired on each processor, or
tender.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, I think that they should, maybe send the posters and information to the tenders and fishermen.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Better prices from the processors or canneries. We do provide quality fish in Ugashik during most of
the season, but the fish do turn a little red later on in the season, but they are still good for canning. WE
deliver our fish within 4-6 hours of catching them.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
I think that we use the existing ASMI, but with more towards salmon, since halibut, crab and shrimp
have their prices up. The individual processors will market their quality themselves.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
All the fishermen as we do now with the percentage taken out for ASMI, along with some
from the processors.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, the State should give out the grants to people who are interested in selling and marketing their own
wild salmon, rather than giving it to folks who are already selling their own fish. Such as the last grants
that were out, only the people who had already been selling their fish could apply for the marketing
grants, not start up businesses. Improve the transportation infrastructure to make it easier to move fish
out of Bristol Bay.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
It will workout in its own way. The local people will market their own product and the funds taken from
that area should stay within that area for ASMI. The state should look at interim permits buybacks.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
The processors already make enough money, otherwise they wouldn't be in the business. They can
afford to change or market their own fish.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
The State should not be subsidizing hatcheries and the regulations need to be changed to make it easier
for individual fishermen to obtain Catcher/Seller Permits.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Improve the transportation infrastructure and provide grants for new product development/marketing for
fishermen.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
We should be able to access funding from the federal government and also a certain amount from the
fishermen, if permit retirement is done.
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
No.
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Provide loan forgiveness for people who attend fisheries related education to start up businesses that
provide jobs for the region or community.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
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?
Yes, allow foreign processors to come into State waters to purchase our salmon, to give the local
fishermen an arena to sell their salmon to someone else besides the processors.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
The only thing that I suggest is that the Board of Fish listen and use the local advisory committee's
knowledge more, such as with the Federal Subsistence Board.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?: No.
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
No.
Economic Development
1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and
individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?
The only thing is the needed transportation infrastructure for the future development of our salmon in
Bristol Bay.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Harsila Testimony
November 20, 2002
I am the President of the Alaska Independent Fishermen’s Marketing Association (AIFMA). AIFMA
was incorporated in 1966 in Alaska and have represented fishers in Bristol Bay since that time. AIFMA
owns property in Naknek for the purpose to one day operate and base a fishermen’s cooperative there.
I would like to make several remarks—first, we are supporters of the limited entry commission and the
current permit system we operate under. We feel it has served the fishermen and Alaska well. We do not
feel that this system or the fishery, for that matter, are broken.
Over time we have observed that run sizes and prices have fluctuated a great deal. We currently are
experiencing, the downturn of both. This has led to the situation of much greater economic hardship than
in the recent past. However, we had similar hardships in the early seventies.
Our association was the first to suggest a permanent retirement, or a buy out of permits based, on an
optimum number study to help mitigate these economic circumstances. We think a joint Federal and
State program could be implemented in a timely fashion.
We have recommended this action after careful review of the fishery over time. Even without the
economic hardships we currently face Bristol Bay was in deep trouble from our perspective. The
overcapitalization and overcrowding fishing regime has had a very detrimental affect on our fishery. In
other words, fishermen and women cannot do a good job as harvesters under these conditions. By a
good job I mean handling gear and fish to promote quality and promote cooperation in the fleet, both on
the water and on the beach.
This season approximately 1100 permits were actually fished in Bristol Bay. The clear message I heard
last season was how much the fleet enjoyed and appreciated that number of participants in the fishery.
The key ingredients to an orderly, progressive and productive fishery emerged at this 1100 participant
level. Fishermen were given the opportunity to do a good job of harvesting under these conditions.
We ask ourselves—is the permit system broken? The answer is no. Could we all benefit from an
adjustment in the number of permits on the water? The answer is yes. We feel a buyback will be the
least complicated and most defendable adjustment in the Bristol Bay fishery. We understand that there
are complications involved in instituting this option. We think they are all solvable.
We also note that changes in the structure and design of the harvest sector will not solve the underlying
problems that have created this situation in the first place. I would humbly suggest that the State of
Alaska help new companies emerge that have new sources of financing and promote wholly US owned
local companies. Bristol Bay needs committed capital to invest in infrastructure in the region to create
the economic engine that is required to really fix the problems we face today. Our 25-year-old model of
foreign ownership and or financing is impeding regional investment in the Bay and has grown stale
indeed.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Gusty R. Chythlook, Sr.
Gustyc@bbna.com
P.O. Box 986 Dillingham, AK 99576
907-842-5960
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift
November 20, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
We need to harvest our salmon out in the bay, not in the river “special harvest area”.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, State need to recognize our wild salmon and consider them the higher, of highest quality product of
in comparison to farmed fish.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
If It’s not done at the fishermen’s expense, yes.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
If we get more for our salmon, that would be incentive enough.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
Use existing promotional structure and improve when needed.
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)
State and Federal government.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
If possible, provide funding for value added products, ect.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Lower the cost of fuel, allow lower retail outlets to sell local fishermen cheaper gear.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Maybe government subsides would help, like some foreign fish are doing shile for example.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
Direct marketing could be an option. Governmental State provide the needed permit to allow foreign
markets to come in.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
The state could help promote wild salmon products.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
The State provide the loan program. They have such a high interest rates for a loan. Interest rates
should be dropped, or lowered.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
No
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
No
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Voc-ed fishermen related program need to be taught.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
State could provide funds available for the job training, or higher ed.
Agency Oversight
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
No
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes continue funding
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
I really don’t see the need for it.
Seafood Commission
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
NO, It might become additional cost to the fishermen.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 36 -
Brad Angasan
brad@bbna.com
P.O. Box 1243
907-842-1071
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift
November 20, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Congressional delegation needs to pursue legislation to restrict the growth of farmed fishing industry by
restriction of importation of such products. Environmental impact studies need to be determined to
assess the welfare of salmon migration both domestic and internationally.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, with input from wild salmon fisheries, not from exploiters of formed fisheries.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Only upon the development of economic incentives for those choosing to comply.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Economic such as higher price per pound.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
Marketing efforts are grossly underdeveloped. I think the State should restructure the correct matrix.
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)
Those choosing to process and market.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, by providing resources to assist in the exportation of such products.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
By creating resources for better access to transportation of product to markets lorated in domestic and
international areas.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Should not be constitute as processors already have access to such resources.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 37 -
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Gear restrictions, and limited entry might assist in creating greater demand, by reducing the level of
competition and excess product.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Redirect those faxes for the development of community based incentives for diverse economic
opportunities such as value added processing plants.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Tolerance of economic disasters should be developed to reduce the risk of loss of property in extreme
trends.
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?
Taxes collected through state should be divided to purchase excess number of permits.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
I would support elimination of all hatcheries.
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?
Emphasis should be made on the significance of the fishing industry throughout our educational system.
2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs
of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
No, I think an international environment impact study needs to be pursued to determine the case of poor
salmon returns.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Not an option.
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?
Greater emphasis on exclusive local economic stability.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 38 -
I believe the board or fish should be managed be regions, which would be held by unilateral regulations
that create a cohesive bond, enabling relationship building and resource shoring.
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?
Yes, direct would be better.
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?
Little or no economic growth and sustainment based on processor controlled fisheries.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 39 -
Robert Hall
1805 Alderway Condos/Box 1284 Sitka
907-747-3262 or 738-3263
Fish Area: Southeastern
Gear Type: Purse Seine
November 20, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Allow frozen-at-sea and live seiners larger than 58 feet. Salmon leave the water as good a quality as
farmed, however, too much handling (pumping, sorting, grading) and inconsistent periods of delivery
times, I feel, are where the quality slides below original quality,
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
A larger vessel would be better, I could deliver live or frozen. For quality alone, the 58 foot limit should
be lifted for those who are willing to offer a better fish.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
T.V ads that show a quality operation. A pure presentation from the harvest to the finished product. We
need frozen at sea and live vessels who deliver live salmon to plants who are ready to receive them.
Show the products more and get interest flowing.
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)
The sellers and the perm. Fund on a loaner.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, as first handlers, this could trigger huge benefits to both processor and harvester. The fisher would
create a boom on a new quality product and than sell the recipe to the processor.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Get fuel price breaks, harvesters get it done at below world standards now, what else do you want?
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 40 -
Burn em down, build mobile fleets of processors, they need to go to the fish, not the other way around.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
As first handlers we need a reasonable opportunity to showcase salmon as we know it. Lift the limit on
vessel size. With an r.s.w., tank, one freezer hold, and one deck freezer at-60F., I would be in a new
market, harvesting a lot less fish and making more money.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
We need outlet stores for the s.i.b.s, (small independent businesses) who are doing it alone, waiting for
the road, and the co-ops which will start popping up.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
A new quality loan for silk stream pumps, larger vessels, floating processors, and net pens for holding
live.
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, 250,000, for permit only. Feds and state.
Governance Subcommittee
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, we need to to-op the dogs, fishermen and hatcheries should BOTH be able to bid them out.
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?
offer them a piece of the action.
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?
There could be a closer relationship, more students and teachers getting hands on info., so we need
bigger ships.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Pay for schooling or training and/or offer low interest loans for restructuring.
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 41 -
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Yes, make it a mandate for processors to move closer to the fish.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Regional boards required and more data required when new changes are requested.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
No
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?
That each vessel and its owner/s are small independent businesses. Each contributes 10’s of thousands
of dollars back into our coastal communities, and therefore supports them greatly. The State should try
to keep the s.i.b.s, strong and vibrant.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 42 -
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
716 W. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
November 20, 2002
I would like to make some comments on the Salmon Task Force findings or Questions.
I would like to state that I have fished in the Chignik area for the last 37 years, 32 years I have owned
my own boat and permit. I am also part Alaska Native. After reading the questions that the Task Force
has put forth for us to consider, I have the following comments to make:
On Quality:
Yes quality can be improved on a higher scale, but even the Troller Fleet can’t compete in
today’s market with farmed fish. What in the wild stock do we have any fresher than Troll caught
Salmon?
No incentives are needed for quality, and over regulation for an already depressed industry
could very well make the situation worse instead of better.
There is no way to make quality better in this “Wild” industry, no way can anyone compete with
just taking a fish out of a pen at a certain size and weight.
According to NorQuest this past summer there was no difference in quality between Co-Op
fishers and Traditional fishers; of course that had a lot to do with the way the run of fish came in this
year, a steady dribble, and I do mean a dribble, if we had had a normal season no way would the quality
had been as good as it was.
On Production:
I think for a Salmon Task to even ”White Paper” or address Fish Farming in Alaska is a slap in
the face to everyone that is in the fishing industry. Alaska may be 20 years behind the rest of the world
as far as farmed salmon but the “wild” Product is at Alaska’s door-step, so to speak: so tell me why
would Alaska want to farm fish, when the product has always been for the industry.
Fishermen have a very small voice in the industry as a whole, to reduce the fleet size is just
another step towards going back to Fish Traps and eliminating more of the state’s work force.
On Finances;
First, I feel that everyone that owns an Alaska Permit should be given financial aid if they need
it, there are programs backed by the federal government, that money should be given to all permit
holders regardless of their residency.
Offer free financial Advisors to help educate fishermen on how to handle their money: this is a
hard issue, because a lot of the problem is that two many fishermen have not handled their money in a
responsible manner and then those of us that have are now being put a position where we are facing
maybe losing our business as well. This isn’t fair to those of us that have been good managers all these
years, I do feel sorry for those that can’t make it in the industry now days, but it isn’t my fault that I was
careful with the way I managed my finances and they didn’t. Like any business if a person can afford to
be in it and build it up so be it, but if any business is not managed properly it will go under, no one was
worried about all the little Mom and Pop stores when K Mart and Wal Mart came to town.
Some times the best way for government to help is to just LEAVE THINGS ALONE!!! In Chignik
area those that can afford to fish will continue fish, those that can’t won’t. The state should have been
doing something years ago to help this industry, now it’s like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery.
On Marketing:
Marketing has been one of the industries problems all along, we should have been exploring
American Domestic Markets for years, put our money in our own country instead of Japan. Japan and
Alaskans know we have an excellent product, what about the rest of the lower 49 states? I have been
talking to Alaska Seafood marketing Institute for years on this, but then I don’t feel that they have been
doing their job for the fisherman’s best interest anyway, and I have talked to countless fishermen who
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 43 -
feel the same way. Alaska Salmon (Seafood) should be on the TV commercials like Eggs, Chicken and
Beef, Milk, etc.
Marketing is more the key than quality. I was told by NorQuest that there was no difference in
quality this year between Co-Op and Independent fishermen in Chignik
It’s hard to stop a Freight Train going at full speed and this one has been picking up sped for a
lot of years, for the government to step in and think that they can make a difference without causing
more damage, putting even more people out of work, it’s not going to happen. I’m not sure that things
are going for the better either.
Mori Jones
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 44 -
John Fulton
planning@nushtel.com
P.O. Box 522
842-1074 H 842-5211 W
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift Net
November 30, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Institute a uniform RSW / icing of fish standard industry wide for salmon fishers. No dry boats should
be allowed to participate in any fishery including Bristol Bay if we want to improve the quality of the
end product. In addition, consider gear type changes such as gillnet to seine to provide an unblemished
premium product for processing.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, but not to the point of stifling the industry. Input for such a program should be solicited from
processors and fishing groups representing the harvesters; I believe a happy medium can be achieved
with a minimum of government involvement.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes, I am HACCP certified & trained. I think all harvesters should do the same and provide the best
care for the product (public perception and quality control).
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Pricing incentives that cover the cost of producing a premium product for the end customer. Realistic
tax incentives and/or loan discounts for upgrades to vessels for equipment that will help to produce a
premium product.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
There should be a statewide organization that coordinates with each sub-region (ie: Bristol Bay,
Cordova, Cook Inlet, Southeast…) in an effort similar to the Cattle growers, the Orange growers,
Chicken, Pork, etc. etc. Each sub-region could market their own area and the larger statewide
organization would market the entire salmon industry.
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)
Yes, all of the above; however, fishermen & harvesters should pay the majority of this expense once the
industry is back on its feet.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 45 -
No, the state should be working to provide a level field for all Alaska fishermen by working actively with
the agricultural industry (and lobby) and Washington D.C. to place tariffs on non-USA fish & fish
products. Let us enjoy the protection and benefits that all other agricultural industries already have.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Government cannot fix this and I do not have any suggestions for this dilemma. In all aspects of
business market forces, dictate profit margins and business viability.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Tax incentives for equipment upgrades that improve the quality/value of salmon processed.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
A reduction in the number of harvesters through permit buy-back over a pre-determined fixed period of
time. After this action the implementation of a floating adjustable IFQ to maximize quality & stabilize
processing volumes.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
If the state could invest more effort (rather than Knowles lip service) into making the industry more
competitive, then the state would realize gains in tax revenues, employment, and the multiplier effect
from a healthier industry. Take real actions, think business, not politics as usual.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
From my experience, they are great people to work with. Fishermen need to be able to borrow money;
they also need to be able to repay their incurred debt. I would recommend lower interest rates for any
who qualify for a loan at any bank especially if the loan is for fisheries related business. Quality
products produced efficiently should be the focus of loan incentives.
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, a 50/50, fishermen/state cost sharing for the buy-back of permits that are considered above the
optimum level. The incentives to sell permits back should be multi-layered to achieve the highest initial
results (permits removed from each fishery). During a second phase of the buy-back, the remaining
permits should not be allowed to transfer other than to direct family until the desired results are
achieved in permit reduction. Furthermore in an effort to avoid lengthy court battles, I propose a
lottery style right to fish for a fixed number of non-permit holders each year based upon the preseason
projected harvest & in-season adjustments to the actual run size while considering the optimum number
of harvesters for each fishery. By doing this I suggest that permit values will stabilize at reasonable
levels and all will have an opportunity to fish eliminating the “too exclusive argument” that is often
heard.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 46 -
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
Yes, the state should dramatically increase the oversight of hatcheries. No state funding should be
directed at subsidizing the hatcheries. In fact, the existing hatcheries should pay the state back all they
have received in past years. Unfair subsidies similar to foreign fish farming that have us in this
dilemma.
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?
What, another un-funded mandate? Most communities cannot afford the schools now you want
more? Not necessary, waste of time.
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?
People need to get involved, if there is a demand, the university will respond. The marine advisory
program is an outreach program, how many people take advantage of this useful service?
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
The state could pay for all tuition and necessary expenses for an “in state” degree of my choice (ie:
master’s phd).
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?
Yes, the overall attitude of the legislature, Governor, and state administration could all change for the
better. I have hope with the new Governor, he unlike his predecessor, is focused on the State of Alaska,
not becoming a U.S. Senator.
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Any changes made in regulations should be done using a weighted criteria/scoring process to remove
the politics from the process.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
Not the Board itself, but the decisions made by the Board.
Seafood Commission
1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature
on the needs of the seafood industry?
Yes, and emphatically, the attendance of all legislators should be mandatory! Any absences from such
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 47 -
presentations should result in the immediate removal from office and two months service in the belly of
a factory trawler, working on the freezer line, somewhere off the Russian coast!
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?
This needs to be done on a community-by-community basis, as one size does not fit all.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 48 -
Sandra fraits
frwi@aol.com
PO Box 23 naknek ak 99633
Fish_area: naknek
Gear_type: set net
November 19, 2002
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Less permit fishing at the same time. Stagger openings by district, gear type and #s, ie, odd fish tue,
even wed.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory statewide? If the
ice is available, should chilling at point of harvest of commercially harvested salmon be mandatory
statewide?
should be up to processors, ice should be available if fish not delivered to refridgerated tenders hourly.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
no
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
no
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
processors to offer monetary incentive for chilled fish or fish delivered hourly.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
dont know
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
taxes paid should finance advertising and marketing both for processors and harvesters
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?
dont know
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force November 22, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 49 -
stagger opening by districts, gear type and odd and even permit numbers...less fish at a time to process,
consistant work load for processors with fewer employees needed per season. also buy back permits, too
many issued
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
yes, staggering as above, less permits, less compition, and if openers were every other day, or every 12
hrs then it would be easier for both groups to plan ahead and cut costs.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
yes, use it for buy backs and advertizing
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
don’t know
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, use taxes paid by harvesters for buy backs
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or