Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 1 -

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Questions

As of November 29, 2002

Table of Contents

Responses by…

ATA Response (S15B/S05B) 11/29/02 ............................................................................2-6

Egegik Comments Becharof Corporation (S03T/S04T) 11/29/02 ..................................7-9

Bering Sea Fishermens Association 11/29/02 ................................................................10-16

Stephen Riedel (S03E) 11/29/02 ....................................................................................17-18

Rick Tennyson (S03T) 11/27/02 ....................................................................................19-21

Beaver & Jessie Nelson (S01E) 11/27/02.......................................................................22-25

Fred Turkheimer (S03M) 11/27/02 ................................................................................26-27

Mark Niver (S03T) 11/27/02..........................................................................................28-30

Marty Waters 11/27/02 ...................................................................................................31-33

Glen Carroll (S01A1) 11/27/02 ......................................................................................34-35

James Mykland (S03E) 11/27/02....................................................................................36-38

Tim Mosher (S03A) 11/26/02.........................................................................................39-41

Lake & Peninsula Borough – Fisheries Advisory Committee 11/26/02.........................42-44

Mikal Mathisen (S03T) 11/26/02 ...................................................................................45-47

Mark Saldi (S03A) 11/26/02 ..........................................................................................48

William Evans (S03E) 11/25/02.....................................................................................49-51

North Pacific Fisheries Association 11/25/02 ................................................................52-55

Steve Vanek (S03H) 11/25/02 ........................................................................................56

United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 11/25/02................................................................57-62

David Clemens (S01E) 11/24/02....................................................................................63-65

Cordova District Fishermen United (SO3E, S01E) 11/24/02.........................................66-68

Dan Hull (S03E) 11/23/02..............................................................................................69-72

Walter Kanulie (S03T) 11/23/02 ....................................................................................73-75

Steve Svensson (S03A) Alliance 11/22/02.....................................................................76-78

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 2 -

Alaska Trollers Association

Responses to the Legislative Salmon Task Force

Subcommittee Public Questionnaire

November 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to do to achieve a higher quality product?

• Work with ASMI to develop and implement quality standards suitable for each region

and fishery.

• Processors can positively affect quality through price incentives paid to fishermen.

2. Should the state be involved in setting standards, seal, and commission?

• No. Legislature should not mandate quality standards, because they do not have

adequate time, information and expertise to handle the complexity of this issue.

• Enforcement of mandatory standards would be problematic.

• ASMI is the proper organization to handle quality standards and the state could

assist through budget appropriations. ATA does not support financing a separate

seafood commission for this purpose.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

• No. Lots of educational materials and opportunities exist if people will simply take

advantage of them (e.g. ASMI). Money can be better spent elsewhere.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed

salmon?

• Processors can positively affect quality through price incentives paid to fishermen.

• Tax breaks, grants and low interest loans for vessel and plant improvements.

• Central point of contact within the state to get details about all pertinent statutes,

regulations and information available to fishermen.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 3 -

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 ASMI as primary generic promotional entity. Support ASMI through state

funding.

• Coordinate and utilize all existing structures to complement ASMI and 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)?

• Industry, state and federal governments.

• Congressional delegation should be encouraged to add Alaska seafood to all federal

marketing assistance programs.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so,

how?

• Yes.

o Support grant and loan programs

o Catalogue information and sources of funding for direct marketers.

Production Subcommittee

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows

regional self-determination?

• Question regarding costs is unclear.

• Affected fleets must be fully engaged and allowed a meaningful vote process for any

initiative that substantially changes the current system.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

• Pursue improvements for transportation and distribution of product (e.g. freezers on

Alaska ferries).

• Subsidies

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 4 -

• Any production changes should recognize historic allocation between user groups.

Finance Subcommittee

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist

the salmon industry?

• Capitol improvement tax breaks for processors and others.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If

not, what changes would you suggest?

• Yes. Good comments about the program.

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits

in your fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what

incentives would you suggest for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

• The state should not move to retire permits without a vote of the affected fleet.

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. The Regional Planning Teams should be used for these tasks as they involve

ADFG, hatchery operators, industry and other interests in an open public process.

Such expertise is essential to the success of our hatchery programs. If there are

structural problems that preclude the RPTs from developing such standards then

those issues should be identified and solutions sought.

• Unclear what’s meant by “changing the state’s relationship…”

2. 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?

• Encourage commercial fisheries and marine related curriculum, programs and

events in all grades.

• Fund commercial fishing, seafood processing, and hatchery training programs

through university.

3. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 5 -

educational needs of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you

suggest?

• Alaska could benefit through a closer working relationship with industry and other

entities to develop and coordinate research programs.

• Build up school of fisheries and encourage Alaskan and other students to attend.

4. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to

provide retraining and/or alternative employment?

• While ATA recognizes the need to provide job retraining and educational

opportunities, we have not identified specific needs for our fleet or region and are

concerned about focusing too heavily on relief programs versus rejuvenating the

industry.

• ATA wants the state and federal governments to encourage and enable positive

change and work with industry to develop and promote projects that ensure survival

of the salmon industry and the jobs it provides for Alaskans.

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?

• DEC regulations for direct marketing need some overhaul and must make common

sense.

• Limited entry program and controls for imbalanced growth in harvest long overdue

for the charterboat fleet.

2. Do you support Alaska’s Board of Fish process? If changes are necessary, what

would you suggest?

• Advisory Committee Process

• Adequately funded.

• Re-institute Advisory Councils

• Be involved from the beginning in BOF policy development, to bring regional

perspectives to the table early on.

• Work with BOF to sort, organize, and prioritize proposals prior to meetings.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 6 -

• Regional boards

ATA is interested in the concept of regional boards and requests a committee

to develop a slate of regional board options for industry/state review.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board 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?

• Not interested in another cabinet level division of state personnel.

• Need more information about proposed structure, form, and composition of

Commission in question before commenting further.

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?

• Adequately fund ADFG to attract and maintain well-qualified staff.

• Oppose federal aquaculture program in the EEZ

• Support charterboat limited entry

• Secure and maintain state sovereignty in fishery management

• Maintain commercial fishing access to marine resources (e.g. MPAs; allocation)

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 7 -

Name: Becharof Corporation

Email: becharof@gci.net

Address: 2909 Arctic Blvd #203, Anchorage, AK 99503

Phone: (907) 561-4777

Fish Area: Area T

Gear Type: Drift & Set Gillnet

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Ice readily available for both drift and set net fleets. Less compressed areas to fish in. Secondary

processing infrastructure. Cheaper freight cost.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

If the State is involved in creating quality standards they should be applied to each sector of the industry

in a manner that does not disadvantage low income fisherman and small independent processors.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Improve and use existing education programs.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Stabilized prices at a higher level. A guaranteed market.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

Use the existing entities, however regarding ASMI, improve their funding and change their

charter/regulations to allow for regional marketing differences.

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 legislature should continue to appropriate funding for ASMI and additional Federal funding should

be sought to match funds.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Individual fishermen should take advantage of available materials in promotion of their harvest and

shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to produce and sell value-added products.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Help in getting lower insurance rates and lower fuel rates.

Improve the transportation infrastructure

Lower freight costs.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

The legislature can reduce or remove the additional tax burdens that small processing operators have to

pay for processing their own catch.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 8 -

Funding opportunities where feasible for value-added processing infrastructure.

Lower freight costs.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Make it easier for salmon fishermen to obtain catcher-processor permits.

The State should begin a comprehensive review of the hatchery program to assess the costs and benefits

to the State. If there are negative biological impacts to wild Alaska salmon stocks then it behooves the

State to investigate the matter before further State funding is continued.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

The Fisheries Business Tax program needs to be assessed, so as to benefit locally owned fish processors.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

The state should continue low interest loans for fishermen.

Payments made by fishermen on their loans should be paid against the principle and the interest

forgiven. Currently, the State is subsidizing hatcheries which are conducting cost recovery fisheries

without paying taxes on the cost recovery fish. Now, the hatcheries are asking for loan forgiveness.

Meanwhile, the State has taken several permits from our village when individual fishermen could not

make their payments. Those permits were an important and large contribution to our local economy. If

the hatcheries get loan forgiveness the non-participating individual permit holders will have to compete

with hatcheries that don’t have to pay any debts and will increase output of hatchery salmon.

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 fair retirement program for willing permit-holders. The state and federal government.

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. A review of the hatchery program must be done to insure there are minimum impacts to the

economy in regions of the state that harvest natural wild stocks. A study must be done, also to access

any biological impacts hatchery fish may have on natural wild stocks.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

All aspects of the fishing industry should be part of the educational system and should be part of the

curriculum at all levels.

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?

Not only should the university’s system teach research and science, but included in the educational

system should the production and business management of the industry.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 9 -

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Continue funding the training and re-training programs that are already in place.

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?

Permit-holders who are chronic illegal fishermen should have their permits taken away.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes, the process is going well especially with the new committee process, however, it could help if the

regional committee process were instituted to save time and money.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

No duplication necessary.

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?

The Alaska Seafood Council already does this.

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?

Funding transportation and value-added processing infrastructure where feasible.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 10 -

Name: Karen Gillis

Email: karen@cdqdb.org

Address: Bering Sea Fishermen's Association,

725 Christensen Drive, Suite #3,

Anchorage, AK 99501

Phone: (907) 279-6519

(888) 927-2732 toll free

November 29, 2002

Introductory Comments: Alaska policy towards the commercial salmon industry has consisted of a

mixture of statewide and fishery-by-fishery components. The major driving influence is the Alaska

Constitution, which constrains the State to concentrate fishing rights to a small set of participants and

requires that fisheries be managed on a sustained yield basis. The second major statewide influence is

the limited entry permit system, which while limiting commercial fishing to permit holders, also requires

that the numbers of fishermen participating in each fishery is not too limited. The third major

component of statewide policy is the Alaska Board of Fisheries, which promulgates regulations in all of

the salmon fisheries in Alaska.

The fishery-by-fishery components are typified by the management of ADF&G and fishery regulations

that are by their nature directed to specific regions and fisheries. However, there are other State actions

that have the end result of favoring one region’s fisheries over the interests of another. These include

the funding for hatcheries that compete with other regions, which rely solely on wild stocks; funding for

management and research programs that are not evenly spread throughout the State; and funding for

regional marketing programs that provide a boost to the recipient over competitors in region’s without

such state-funded programs. The state’s high dependency on federal funding for research programs

within the state, whether for marine or freshwater projects is an indicator of the level of interest our

State has in the sustainability of our fisheries. Funding for ADF&G and other organizations that place

stake in the fisheries should be at the highest level. The Task Force goal of improving the fisheries is

mute unless we have fisheries in the first place. Research is the best opportunity the State has to

resuscitate those stocks.

On top of all of this structure is the individual nature of the salmon industry. Each permit holder

operates an independent business. Most fishermen, who rely upon a single processing company to

provide them a market, ultimately rely upon the ability of that entity to produce a good product and

conduct a good marketing and sales campaign. Of course, fishermen can move from one company to

another, but in some cases there are no alternatives and, in others, the alternatives may be no better.

Current market forces make earning a livelihood in the salmon industry difficult at best. Most families

have to take on winter jobs or drop out of the fishery altogether. Some coastal communities that rely

upon the salmon industry are being depopulated. The first question for the Task Force is “Should the

State take any action to change State policy to support an industry that consists exclusively of small and

medium size private businesses?” If the answer to that question is yes, then the Task Force should

consider what could be done on a statewide basis to raise the level of Alaska’s salmon industry.

Another way of stating these same questions is -

1. Given that all State salmon fisheries compete with at least some other State salmon fisheries,

should funding and regulatory decisions continue to be made on a strictly political basis or

should it be State policy that actions not favor one region or one fishery over others?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 11 -

2. Given that all State salmon fisheries are participating in a world market, should the inefficiencies

that have been put in place for social equity reasons be maintained or should they be eliminated

so that those that continue to participate have the opportunity to compete?

3. Given that conservation of the salmon resource is the State’s number one responsibility, should

management be based primarily on harvestable surpluses and traditional opening/closure

authorities or should quality and markets be the second and third priorities?

4. Given that the industry is made up of small and medium sized, independent businesses, should

the State institute mandatory programs for use of the “Alaska” brand or should these decisions be

left to the individual businesses to make?

We believe that, to the extent possible, State policy towards the commercial salmon industry should be

based upon the best interests of the State overall and not favor one fishery over another; should

eliminate inefficiencies so that those that continue to participate can compete successfully in the world

market; should have quality and market conditions as primary elements of the management program;

and should institute mandatory programs that will collectively raise the standard for Alaska salmon.

Responding to the subcommittee reports is made easier by developing an overall philosophy towards the

Alaska salmon industry. Point-by-point comments follow:

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Once a State quality standard, seal, and enforcement mechanism is established (under #2, below), how

the industry achieves the standard is a business-by-business decision. The only added ingredient is a

policy that the Alaska Board of Fisheries and ADF&G should manage the fisheries with the goal of

assisting the industry to meet the standards. The major impact of this policy will be that ADF&G will

not be able to rely upon its traditional management tools that are based in large part on a static

management regime. The department will have to become much more time sensitive in making

management decisions.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Yes, yes, and yes. This is one of only a few areas where the State should step in as a partner in the

industry as it provides one of the best tools to improve the perception of Alaska salmon in the

marketplace. High energy costs within Western Alaskan communities are a concern, but this could be

the State’s area, to make sure that whatever the standard is the communities are “set up” to commence

with the follow-through with little to no impact on individual fishermen. One other aspect that could be

added is support for companies that want to produce a kosher product. This branding program would be

an added tool in improving the perception of the Alaska product in the marketplace.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes again. Educational and training programs are important tools to inform the industry about the ways

to improve quality. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. There should be off-the-shelf reference

booklets for all of the different segments of the industry. Just as the processing industry has to receive a

HACCP certification to be able to process, so anyone wanting to be a part of the State-branding program

should have to receive a quality program certificate.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 12 -

Qualifying for the State brand should be incentive enough for the industry. Sooner or later, not having

the brand identification will reduce the competitiveness of the business. The State does not have to be

involved in any other incentives. If a company or a group of fishermen want to create their own

incentives that is up to them.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

Currently, there are four separate promotional venues for Alaska salmon: State of Alaska programs

(e.g., ASMI and DITMD); regional programs; processing company specific programs; and individual

fishermen programs. What should the State be supporting? This is a very difficult question. Funding

for the various programs comes from different sources. While the industry, State, and federal

government support the generic State programs, federal funds have been used to support some regional

programs. Some regions receive no money at all. There is no government or industry support for

individual programs. Is it fair for one region to receive federal funding for a marketing program that

competes against other fishing regions that receives no support? The one thing that the State could do is

to make sure that when one region is receiving funds for promotional activities, any State funds

available for regional programs go to regions not currently being supported. Of course, it is up to that

region to develop a program for funding.

In regard to a statewide program, it is difficult to envision a program very much different from ASMI’s.

The promotion of an “Alaska” identity that can be filled by the regional programs and individual

companies seems to be the only fair way to spend ASMI funds. By creating a demand for wild Alaska

product, the onus should then be on the companies and the regions to show why their products should be

used to fill the demand. In the end, no company and no region can expect the State to do the job for

them of producing well-received products and bringing those products to the marketplace. The major

questions are whether ASMI should make a frontal assault on farmed salmon or try to encourage all

salmon use with the added benefits of wild fish highlighted. This will be an ongoing dilemma as more

information on the problems with farmed salmon comes to light.

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)

Certainly this industry should be primarily responsible for paying the costs of a promotion program.

The State should contribute to the program as well since it is so important to the future of coastal

communities. Any other sources of funding that can be tapped should be. The industry has only so

much that it can contribute to a marketing program. If the future of the salmon industry is important to

the State, then the State should use a portion of its general fund revenues to support the industry.

Placing money in marketing, which will increase the demand for Alaska’s products, is a good use of

State funding.

3. Should the State help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Not directly. There are simply too many individual fishermen to create a fair program. Anytime the

State supports one company or one individual, it puts everyone else at a disadvantage. By their nature,

individual fishermen only are able to support very small, niche markets. Unfortunately, for individual

fishermen, it should be their responsibility to develop their own marketing programs if they decide to go

it alone.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 13 -

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

The first thing that the State can do is to determine the fewest number of fishing permits that have to be

allowed to participate under the State Constitution. Then, tools should be identified as to how to reduce

the effort to that number. To some extent, the marketplace has reduced the numbers. The State should

not be in the business of resuscitating those permits. People have made their choices. However, to the

extent that there is still too much participation limiting the ability of the serious fishermen to make a

living, each fishery should review the tools available and come up with a plan or plans to implement.

What happens if there is not fishery-wide consensus? Then the Board of Fisheries and the Limited

Entry Commission should take regulatory action to impose a solution

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

The major way that the State can assist the processing sector in reducing costs is to manage the fisheries

so that they can operate more efficiently. Given that the industry is not going to be exempted from

environmental regulation, other cost reduction ideas amount to subsidizing the industry. Sure, the State

could reduce seafood airfreight costs by making payments to the airline industry (there are many such

programs currently being implemented by the federal government – e.g., essential air service; bypass

mail, etc.). However, the goal of the Task Force should be to recommend actions that can be taken

without a direct subsidy.

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 needs to manage its commercial salmon fisheries so that it can compete in the 21st Century.

The ultimate efficient system would be to reinstate the fish trap. This could be accomplished through

fishermen-owned fish trap cooperatives. While the State may not be ready to take this drastic an action,

things that could be accomplished, including removal of restrictions on vessel size, gear, etc., should be

investigated. In the offshore pollock fishery, for example, there are few limitations on the efficiency

that each individual boat can institute. And, the pollock industry is making money. The State should

not hamstring the serious fishermen by a series of regulations aimed solely at social equity.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

As stated earlier the fishery-by-fishery components are typified by the management of ADF&G and

fishery regulations that are by their nature directed to specific regions and fisheries. Industry taxes

should be pooled within ADF&G and be disbursed equally into management regions. The Federal

Government has been affording this state with invaluable research dollars in response to fisheries

disasters. When is the state going to step up their involvement and make a financial statement to resolve

regional disasters?

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?

Many limited entry permit holders have spoken by no longer participating in the salmon fisheries.

Others have gotten involved in other fisheries to support their salmon participation. Those who continue

to make a go of it should not have to pay for the buy-out of those who have “walked”. If the only way

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 14 -

to permanently retire permits is through a buy-out and if the only way of doing is a buy-out with the

remaining fishermen paying, then it is probably better to just let the permits languish.

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?

Currently, hatcheries are governed by hatchery plans that are reviewed and approved by ADF&G.

However, hatchery production has an impact on other fisheries statewide, whether because of

competition in the marketplace or competition in the marine environment. While the fact that hatcheries

exist and provide an important source of salmon to many commercial fishermen means that they are not

going to go away, they are a subsidy for some commercial fishermen that give some regions a

significant advantage over those without such State support. All of these issues need to be taken into

account when regulating hatchery operations. The best entity to accomplish this is the Board of

Fisheries.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

The State could develop curricula for a fisheries education unit to be used by the local school districts.

With all of the subject areas currently being mandated, especially so that students can pass the exit

exams, such programs should be given on an elective basis.

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?

Fisheries education appears to have a high priority within the University of Alaska system.

Undergraduate and graduate programs are available. There is the Fisheries Industrial Training Center in

Kodiak. There are Marine Advisory Program agents stationed in various coastal communities. The

Institute of Social and Economic Research conducts studies of fisheries issues. The federal government

supports the Auke Bay laboratory and the staff of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

There appears to be sufficient emphasis on education at this time.

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 cannot do very much to find alternative employment, as job creation is not a direct State

responsibility. On the other hand, the State can target training dollars towards displaced commercial

salmon fishermen. For the most part, commercial salmon fishermen are independent small businessmen

and women. This makes the job of targeting training programs to this group more difficult. One

suggestion is to look at the local economy in a coastal area and target training to the types of jobs

available or could be created in that area. The STEP program uses this technique to target training

programs for support.

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?

By harvesting a common property resource and producing a food product, government involvement in

the salmon industry is unavoidable. Permitting fishermen and processors, ensuring that processing

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 15 -

plants are clean and can produce a healthy product, and collecting tax payments are all necessary

functions. The State bureaucracy does not seem to be overly burdensome on the system.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

The Board of Fisheries has instituted measures over the years to deal with discrete commercial fisheries

as a unit rather than dealing with individual regulation proposal by regulation proposal. This is done

through a committee system. As a result, the board is able to take a look at the overall conservation and

regulation of a fishery when making its decisions. This process also provides the industry with an

understanding of the goals of the board and strategies to implement those goals. It also makes it easier

to suggest changes to the goals and the management measures. This process has been working well and

should be supported.

The one area that might be looked at concerns the workload of the board. Given its responsibilities for

habitat, resource conservation, sport, subsistence, personal use, and commercial fisheries, the workload

results in review of discrete fisheries on a three-year cycle. Given the changes in the commercial

salmon fisheries, this cycle is too long. One suggestion has been to regionalize the board so that each

region could consider its fisheries on a more regular basis. A major problem with this change is that

many fisheries affect other fisheries. In the case of hatcheries, production in Southeast can affect

directly fishermen in Western Alaska. Rather than splitting up the state into regions, another approach

would be to place the development and update of fishery management plans with the board staff rather

than relying on the board itself. Then, the board could review the work of the staff and make its policy

calls at board meetings during the season. In this way, the board would continue to take a statewide

approach to fisheries management, but would free up its time to concentrate on the major policy issues.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Yes. The board has been operating in its present form since the mid-70’s. During that time, fisheries

have undergone major changes. While the board has done a good job with the resources at its disposal,

a review of the board’s methodology would be beneficial. The board has a lot of power to affect the

success of the commercial fisheries, which mean so much to the State, and should undergo periodic

review to make sure it is operating for the maximum benefit of the State, its seafood industry, and the

coastal communities that rely upon the industry.

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. The seafood industry has had very little political power in the legislature over the past decade.

While it is the major part of the economy in coastal communities, because it is not the major employer in

Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Mat-Su, it does not get the attention that it deserves. A Seafood

Commission, reporting to the legislature, would provide some added political attention to the issues

involving the industry.

Economic Development

1. As Alaska’s salmon industry changes, what are the economic development issues, community and

individual concerns that should be addressed by the State Legislature?

Economic development – Improving infrastructure so that the industry can reduce its operating costs and

better compete in the world salmon markets. Develop lower cost transportation alternatives to reduce

costs.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 16 -

Community – Many communities will lose population as displaced salmon fishermen move to where the

jobs are located. Directing state and federal funds towards those communities will enable residents to

remain at home as they transition to other employment.

Individual – Target training and educational programs towards job and career opportunities that can be

used within home communities.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 17 -

Name: Stephen Riedel

Email: sriedel@gci.net

Address: 12300 rock ridge drive, Anchorage,Ak

Fish_area: area E PWS and Copper River

Gear_type: seine and gill net

November 29, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

I believe that a small amount of poor quality product in the market drags down the overall value of the

entire harvest of Alaska salmon. Until that small percentage of bad product is eliminated from the

marketplace we will never realize the full potential value of our resource. Because of this I have to

support the development of minimum quality standards. That being said, I still have reservations about

the details of any statewide minimum quality standards. These include funding, enforcement, and setting

standards that are effective in addressing the problems in each unique fishery. This is something that

needs to be carefully developed and can not be properly accomplished overnight. However, there is

something that can be done this legislative session. That would be to change the wanton waste laws that

now make it mandatory to wholly utilize all salmon harvested. I support change! To this law that would

establish quality standards for wholly utilizing fish and allow those fish that do not meet those standards

to be disposed of. This would reduce the amount of poor quality product in the market and increase

profitability to both processors and fishermen. This is one of the things the legislature can do that will

have a significant positive effect in time for this next season.

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?

I beleive that any fish held longer than six hours should be chilled.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

As an industry and as a state, we have to realize that with the development of farmed fish our markets

for salmon have changed for ever. To survive we have to be able to address the overcapitalization and

inefficiencies in this industry. I supported HB286 last winter and believe that it will be an effective tool

for some fisheries to address their problems and move forward. I need to point out, however, that it will

not work in fisheries that have a large number of latent permits, In the PWS seine fishery there are 270

total permits out of which 120 were fished this last season. With this ratio of active to inactive permits, it

is economically impossible to make any real changes under HB286 .To address this I support the

development of additional tools. Two legislative alternatives would be 1. To institute a mandatory buy

back of inactive permits at fai! r market value, or 2. To develop Individual Fishing Allocations for use in

a harvest group Without some way of effectively dealing with the issue of latent permits, fisheries like

PWS seine will be increasingly marginalized as other areas move forward with buybacks,

co-ops or other forms of restructuring.

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 18 -

I do not support developing a statewide hatchery policy. The present RPT process is working well to

address the major concerns. I have heard people proposing the reduction or elimination of hatchery

production as a means of addressing the economic woes of their region. I have to strongly disagree with

this. The problem with the salmon industry in Alaska is not in the number of fish produced, but rather in

the way they are harvested, processed, transported and marketed. Global demand for salmon has

increased dramatically. With hatcheries in Siberia and Japan as well as fish farms worldwide, the effect

of reducing hatchery production would bring little or no long term benefit to fishermen in regions with

out hatcheries, and would be a disaster for the communities and families that do depend on them. I

would hope that as individuals and as a state we would focus on solutions that helped everyone.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 19 -

Name: Rick Tennyson

Email: tenrical@nushtel.com

Address: PO Box 167, Dillingham, Alaska 99576

Phone: 907-842-1291

Fish Area: Bristol Bay

Gear Type: Gill net

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

We as harvesters and processors need to have the goal of producing a quality product vs. producing

volume. We need to work towards this in a team effort and not point fingers at each other. Both sides

need to up date their equipment.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

NO! I feel the state should create handling standards. The market should set the quality standards that

they are willing to buy.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

NO! The state should have handling education programs for the industry to participant.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

I feel that initially that there should be a price incentive but in the long term a method of grading each

delivery and a price paid on the quality of product delivered will bring the quality up on its own.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

My problem with ASMI is that they are so under funded, so I do not really know if they have the

potential to do the job right or not. My analogy on this if you are going to lift a hundred pound weight

and you only use ten pounds of force you not going to do any thing.

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)

I feel that this should be a team effort between all user groups, however the US government sets the

stage on allowing other products into the country so they should take the majority of the responsibility

for the funding

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

No I feel that the government’s role is to help all the people not just a select group. One has to take into

account that some of our fishermen English is there second language. This would put them at a

disadvantage at acquiring this funding.

Production

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 20 -

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

If you truly want to reduce cost a fish wheel attach to a state of the art processor would solve all but one

problem how to disburse the funds. IFQ would defiantly be a step in the right direction as far as quality

is concerned but I feel that if it were based on past production it would put the local people at a

disadvantage.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Processors need to up date their equipment.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Management can manage the fishery for quality product harvested. The state can give tax breaks to the

processors for up dating their equipment.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Tax incentives to fishermen and processors in up grading their equipment. Currently the state

financially subsidies the hatcheries, our managers could sure use this funding to better manage their

fisheries. With the addition of farmed fish we have an over supply of fish and hatcheries are depressing

some of our markets through out the state.

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?

I feel that the state should bring the number back down to the original number it had intended.

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?

We have an over supply of salmon and the money that the state is putting into hatcheries should be put

into our management but for out wild stocks.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

I feel that fisheries should be taught in the schools. Currently the kids thing that the only way to make a

living in the fishery is to fish.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Families will need income and education for a few years to get back on their feet again.

Agency Oversight

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 21 -

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

We have a good system, leave it alone.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

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 this would give a avenue to commutate to the legislature.

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?

In a lot of our communities fishing is the only source of cash income.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 22 -

Name: Beaver & Jessie Nelson

Email: bjnelson@alaska.net

Address: Box 130, Homer, AK 99603

Phone: 907-235-8778

Fish_area: PWS & CI

Gear_type: Seine

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product? Financial

incentives - one way to encourage better quality is through tax credits to processors for new product

development. The processors would then require RSW/iced/bled fish be delivered.

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 - it is a worthy goal but each fishing area is different. In Area H, small seine jitneys are used that

have no RSW ability. This should be between catcher and buyer.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

On a limited basis- No. 1 fresh/frozen fish or fillets can and should be done.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

There are already several good booklets on quality.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Financial incentives - We already RSW and are paid for it.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Use ASMI - it has a good framework of promotional material. Allow it to expand into some test

marketing. One change would be to allow fishermen to vote for representatives from each major area.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

All entities possible including any grants.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

No, use ASMI - pooled money goes farther than small individual grants.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Fleet reduction programs - is reducing a fleet that has already been cut in half going to do any good?

We think our goal is to keep as many units as possible in the fishery making a decent living. At .08 / lb

for pinks you could chop the fleet down to 20% of the original size and have a handful of financial

survivors but at what cost to the communities that had 5 times that many fishermen who paid taxes, sent

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 23 -

their kids to school and made up the fabric of Alaskan life? Until a product form is developed for pinks

that rebuild the ex-vessel price into $.20/lb area, we see no way that fleet reduction would be much

help. We hope enough of us can hang on until that day comes.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Currently not a processor but they are overburdened with regulations from DEC, OSHA, EPA, etc

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Since the Chignik Coop, there is a lot of talk in other areas regarding coops. Under any scheme, latent

permits should not determine any plan. Only the active permits should have a say and 80% of them

should agree. These are the people who have endured. Any coop must be based on history.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

The fish tax should continue to have a portion distributed to municipalities – this helps to keep support

for the fishing industry and a benefit from the natural resource.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Have never had a state 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?

To some degree as too many permits were originally issued in some areas. If the state has to foreclose,

that permit should be permanently retired. If federal grant money was available ( say, in lieu of disaster

relief) a one- time retirement offer could be made at say 50% higher than the going market rate; i. e. a

$20,000 permit would go for $30,000.

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?

We don't like the idea of the legislature providing guidance for state hatchery policy. Alaska politics are

way too unstable to provide consistent sensible oversight. In Area E, PWSAC's annual production plans

are reviewed by a standing committee of ADFG staff and stakeholders and approved by the

commissioner. The budget is developed and approved by a 41 member board that includes

representatives from cities, processors and sport and commercial fishermen. PWSAC's importance to

Area E can't be overstated. Without them, the economies of Cordova, Seward and Homer would take a

heavy hit. PWSAC production has infused $134 million worth of ex-vessel value into the economy over

the past 6 years. On average, 66% of production value has gone to the commercial fishery. It sounds

like there are concerns in other areas over the value of hatchery production. For the state to draw

conclusions over the benefits of the system based on the non-performing trouble spots would be a

mistake. We think that if a majority of fishermen in a specific area think their hatchery is of no benefit

to them, there should be a way for them to demand production or phase out the facility. Also, the

regional aquaculture associations are much more responsive to their fleets than PNP's. We would

support having PNP's placed under the governance of regional aquaculture corporations.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 24 -

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?

All levels of education should have a yearly 2 week segment about ALL our fisheries and their

importance to Alaska. Biology, marketing, water quality, transportation, harvesting, geographic fishing

areas, processing, net mending, vessels, safety, etc should all be taught at appropriate levels with

frequent industry guests. I bet many kids graduate from school not knowing the industry exists.

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?

Seems adequate

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

We intend to be survivors.

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 - DEC regulations need to be simplified so it is easier for individual fishermen to handle their own

fish. Regarding ADFG, the biologists need more support for using E.O. authority to open fisheries to

maximize catches. The whole current attitude is "NO" probably because of so intense sport and

environmental pressure.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes. The conflict of interest provisions should be eased to allow knowledgeable fishermen to be on the

board and still be effective. A stable regulatory environment is best for business so changing the

regulations less frequently is best. Have proposals submitted by non-permit holders to close the fishery

and saying "no one would be hurt" is wrong. These frivolous but gut-wrenching proposals should be

weeded out. The board should be expanded by several members to allow for a broader representation.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Only if politics are not a part of the review.

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 but the legislators themselves need to spend 2 days in extensive, intensive fisheries education. (With

a quiz at the end!)

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?

Fisheries are the life blood of coastal Alaska which in turn feeds into Anchorage and the rest of the

state. Anything that facilitates the health of the industry is good be it harbors and docks, ice plants,

transportation improvements or boat repair facilities. We also need supportive community attitudes to

allow projects to go forward without undo negative forces.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 25 -

As a final comment, We think it will be ironic that the fish farmers, though bringing us to our knees with

low prices, established nationwide markets that we are now in a position to assume with our new highquality

Alaska salmon.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 26 -

Name: Fred Turkheimer

Email: kamenfredt@aol.com

Address: 6089 Crystalsprings Dr, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Phone: 206-842-9491

Fish_area: Area M

Gear_type: Drift

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Fisherman need the ability to deliver a live fish to a buyer for pre rigor processing. This would be the

ultimate statement in quality

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?

This should be a market driven issue. I feel chilling should never be a point of law. I do feel that

markets should have the right to buy only RSW fish for instance.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

yes.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

yes.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

a price difference

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

I am a beliver in ASMI. I generally feel they are under funded. I believe this idea of try to get S-K

funds to help supplement the ASMI budget

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

The industry thought the 1%landing tax. As mentioned above the S-K funds should be made avaiable.

Also the State of Alaska should be contributors and ASMI should continue to look for

grants

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Promotion of infrastructure. Better airports to so larger aircraft could fly to more remote sites.

Subsidized freight, it is cheaper to ship to Asia from our processing sites than to Seattle

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 27 -

I feel the processing sector is about as efficient as possible given the product they have to work with. If

we could get to a point where we were able to deliver live fish to the processor, they would be able to

produce a higher value pack. For instance the percentage of %1 would dramatically rise. There would

be substanially less waste processing live fish

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

as above

Finance

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

I am an out of state fisherman. I am designated as a second class citizen in the eyes of the state of

Alaska.

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?

I am supportive of buyback or retirement of permits. I think that the cost should be shared by the

specific fishery and government at a state or federal level.

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?

this could be elective education

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 28 -

Name: Mark A. Niver

Email: kniver@gci.net

Address: 955 loch ness ct Wasilla, alaska 99654

Phone: 907-376-3210

Fish_area: Bristol Bay

Gear_type: Drift Gill

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Reduce competition. Permit buy back . No permit stacking. State to loan monies for buy back, 1% tax to

pay it off.

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?

Not manditory. Higher quality will drive this incentive

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

No, let business do it

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

No, let business

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Higher salmon price.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Wild is gaining ground in a nitch market. We have a better product, make the product better and they

will come. Television!!!

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

Hell I don't know. We already chip in for that as fishermen. Get some monies elsewhere

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?

Fish openings that promote good product.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Hard to please all the people.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 29 -

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Not sure

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Buy back permits,

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Ask the guys that going bankrupt,

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?

State loans the money, we pay back through 1% tax

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?

Common sense

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?

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?

Get the politics out of the fish board.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

See above

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

No

Seafood Commission

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 30 -

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?

Promote business

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 31 -

Name: Marty Waters

Email: waters_marty@hotmail.com, marty_waters@tws.org

Address: 1360 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage AK 99501

Phone: 907 258 4985

Fish_area: herring, salmon

Gear_type: gillnet

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Bigger boats to allow for chilling of Salmon as they are caught. The 32' limitation on boat lenght in

Bristol Bay is a bit odd since we already have a gear limitation. But I also think that there should be

some requirement to link boat and permit to the region being harvested ie.. reduce the nuber of nonalaskan

permit-holders.

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?

Not at this time, but it should be encouraged. I think that requiring it at this time would cause either the

fishermen to have to buy more equipment, or for the processors to find an added expense to pass on to

the fishermen and reduce the price. But I think that it should be strongly encouraged with incentives for

fishermen and processors.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

I'm not sure

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 better price. Maybe fuel subsidies. Incentives of some sort to processors and outside permit holders to

hire locals.

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 more could be done with direct marketing to resteraunts, locally, nationally, and internationally.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

I think the state has a big responsibility as it is good for the states economy.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes, the state should help individual fishermen maybe by paying for airtime on radio or television at

local and national levels highlighting individual and community efforts that produce high quality

products.

Production

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 32 -

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Fuel subsidies for fishermen.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Partnering with air and sea shipping for reduced costs to bring salmon to market, especially for those

community efforts that are working to add value to there product by processing, smoking and packaging

for the end user. Likewise, grants could be made to rural communities or rural organizations that would

like to package for the end user.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Remove the non-Alaskan permit holders. Give tax brakes and infustructure grants and incentives to

local/Alaskan processors.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Not for the Commercial fishermen who bought Boats and gear when Alaska Salmon was King. I think a

forgiveness of debt should be allowed for locals of some sort.

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

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

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

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

I am displaced because of changes in the salmon industry. And to learn new skills to support myself and

my family I have had to take out about 35,000.oo in Alaska Student Loans. I could use forgiveness of

this debt.

Agency Oversight

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

No. There needs to be a bigger voice from the communities this is not allowable when the meetings are

held in anchorage and the people who need to speak and be heard live in Sitka, Kotzebue, Port Heiden,

Ugashik, Togiak. We can’t afford the airfare to only have a possible opportunity to be heard if there is

enough time.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 33 -

Yes. It should include representation by permitholds and boat owners and even the crewmembers of

rural permit holders and have more than an advisory role.

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

I think that they should have more than an advisory role.

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?

Relocation of fishermen from rural communities to urban centers and the cost and hardship it places on

families. What are the challenges that will be faced by people who move from the rural communities?

Where will they find themselves in the job market with the skills they have. Will they be better off?

Increased substance abuse and domestic violence due to the hardship of families who cannot provide for

themeselves in the manner, many of them have for generations. If the economies of the fishing

communities change from fishing to say oil development, will the community be able to provide the

workforce for the new industry or will they be further marginalized. What will the new industry do to

the subsistence way of life of hunting, fishing, and gathering?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 34 -

Glen Carroll

gcarroll@xyz.net

Box 551

Homer, Alaska 99603

Fishery/Area: Salmon Southeast, purse seine

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to do to achieve a higher quality product?

I don’t believe we can answer this first and most important of the questions without some other

observations.

1. The marketing of Alaska salmon, of necessity, has been done by processors. They wind up with the

product, in whatever form, and must sell it to the user.

2. The standard of quality is set by the processor as well. One would expect the quality standard to be

related to the market and then passed on to the harvester. This has been exactly what has happened. If

they want a particular grade of chum salmon they pass the standard on to the fishermen and it happens.

If they want only RSW fish they say so, that that becomes the standard.

3. Now having made these basic observations, lets observe that in the past 10 years (in which we knew

what was coming at us because of the predictions of Gunnar Knapp) there has been virtually no change

in the way we do business.

Particularly in the area of quality, absolutely nothing changed in that 10 year period to improve quality

to meet the coming challenge of Farm fish. In fact, the record will even show that in this same 10 year

period the major can processors consistently voted down ASMI quality standards on the AMSI board.

You’ve got to ask yourself why these things are so. The point of these observations is not to criticize

canners. That’s not my aim. The canned market is a very important segment of our industry. But my

point is this: we have hoped and expected to see real quality improvement and changes that would meet

the farm fish challenge – and we expected and hoped they would come from the major processors - and

for 10 years nothing has happened and we are now in a real fix. For us to continue in this direction is

very foolish. We don’t have 10 more years. The clock is about to run out and we have wasted a lot of

time and yardage.

If you ask yourself, “What is working?” the answer is no mystery. That segment outside the canned

market, such as Bruce Gore, Leader Creed, Copper River, and numerous other niche market people, has

raised quality and value.

Quality Question 2 and Marketing Question 1,2, and 3: Should the state be involved in creating

quality standards? Do we use existing state entities? What changes should be made? Should the state

help individual fishermen promote and market wild salmon?

Think how tragic it is that 10 years into this struggle we are still asking the question, “Do you think

we need a state quality standard?” That’s pathetic! We’re on our one yard line, last down, can’t even tie

our shoes strings or find the ball!

The ASMI staff, Surefish, and Alaska Manufacturing are all telling us the same thing. Everyone

else in the world has quality standards: the apple industry, poultry, seafood processors in Japan and

Europe. But in Alaska – no standard. Those on the front lines are all telling us buyers from around the

world have been turned away from Alaska fish because they never know what they will get in the box.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 35 -

The stories are endless. We’ll never stop this until we get serious and make the Alaska brand something

consistent and meaningful.

The industry has failed to do this. Therefore, I believe ASMI must. I propose several changes that

would address all 3 marketing questions.

1. Change the ASMI commission and make them a real marketing board that sells high quality fresh and

frozen salmon. Use the same talented and dedicated people to actually sell. They could also receive a

commission and take in finances to fund themselves.

2. Set up a voluntary/mandatory quality seal.

--Voluntary in that if you don’t want the Alaska Premium Quality seal, you don’t have to apply for it.

Lower quality roe and canned fish may not want the seal.

--Mandatory in that if you want the Alaska Brand Seal you participate in a very real

and very enforceable quality standard program. This would take care of the question of chilling at the

point of harvest. It would be mandatory if you want the High Quality Alaska Brand Seal.

3. Restructure ASMI board. For ASMI to function in this new capacity they must be free from

processor control or dominance. The purpose of the new structure would be to help and benefit the

small niche markets and fresh-frozen processors of the quality program. So the board would need to be

structured in that direction.

Production Question 3: In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory

changes that can help the harvester and/or the processors?

Yes. I propose a change to state policy to allow DEC and Fish and Game to issue permits to make it

legal to dispose of salmon carcasses in deep water. Rational – I’m not advocating indiscriminate

dumping of any carcasses in just any area, but by a thoughtful permit process. 3 years ago in Southeast

there was 15 million pink salmon wasted because they were totally unwanted by processors and also by

fish and game for escapement. It’s expensive to have a fishmeal plant and it would not hurt to spread

these carcasses and feed crab and halibut. It would provide many small boats the opportunity to harvest

the roe in 2 or 3 boat groups with a tender. This is a small regulation change that would cost the state

very little and could add substantially to many people’s seasons. A WIN-WIN.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 36 -

Name:James L Mykland

Email: jlmykland@hotmail.com

Address:PO Box 1241 Cordova,AK 99574

Phone:907-424-7115

Fish Area:PWS

Gear Type:Drift Gillnet & Purse Seine

November 27, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

I have always bled and iced my gillnet caught salmon. Processors should not buy product from

fishermen who do not follow these simple procedures. Mandatory guide lines are imperative.. We

should reward fishermen who sell their fish as often as they can.(every twelve

hours)

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

As long as the bureaucractic paperwork can be kept to a minimum.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes. It should be mandatory that limited permit holders be educated on quality guidelines and

procedures.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

How about having a market for our fish for the next few years. Go into any Costco in the lower 48 and

see the beautiful fillets of farmed raised salmon. The average consumer looks for appearance and price.

I went into an Albertson’s grocery two years ago and they had frozen Copper River Reds in H/G and

they looked horrible. They were yellow around the belly area and brown along the gill plate. No

wonder the Chileans are having great success. It is time Alaskan fishermen quit whinning and start

taking better care of their product.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade &

Market Development, other)

. Yes. Let us use the existing entities that are there. Let us fund them with sufficient dollars,so they can

do their job.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon? (e.g. salmon harvesters, processors, federal government/USDA; state general fund; other

federal funds; other sources)

The State of Alaska needs to realize that the salmon fishing industry will not survive without financial

help on the state level. We need to convince our representatives that marketing dollars will equate into

higher fish prices for Alaskan fishermen. We also need help on the federal level. The farmers in the

lower have price support and subsidies to help. We need to convince Washington that we are an

important part of the export system. The fishing industry actually is one of the only industry that exports

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 37 -

more than it imports. We are an integral part of the balance of trade. This needs to be expounded upon.

Does George W. Bush even know how important we are to his balance of trade?

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Quality is the number one concern. After we raise the bar of the average fish sold then marketing our

high quality salmon will not be a problem. The average US consumer is eating more salmon everyday.

If a good quality product is produced then selling it is not the problem. We should use ASMI to do our

marketing for us. We should change the regulations so that we can have geographic origin marketing

tools.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

The Cooperative model that was implemented in Chiknik was a good start. I was involved in the gillnet

fishery at Esther sub-district in PWS in 2002. 300-350 fishermen all had their nets out running

individual vessels and burning lots of fuel. We received $.15 per lb. We could have used 4-5 seine boats

and caught all the fish at a lot lower production cost.

Finance

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

I have been receiving about the same price per lb. for my gillnet salmon as I was in 1980. My fixed

costs have at least tripled in the last twenty years. I would like to see a buyback of permits. The

incentive would take a five year average selling market price on permits and offer that to fishermen that

want to retire. I do not know the solution for funding. The fishermen do not have the money to fund

such a program.

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?

I do not want the State of Alaska to implement a statewide hatchery policy. Prince William Sound

Aquaculture Corporation has been raising and releasing salmon for over thirty years. PWSAC’s budget

is planned,developed,reviewed,and approved on an annual basis by a 41 member Board of Directors.

At least 50% of my fishing income has come from PWSAC raised fish over the last 10 years. The 3% in

fish taxes I pay each year to help fund PWSAC and ASMI is nothing compared to the results I get from

these two entities.

I do not want a statewide policy that makes hatcheries conform to the same dictates. Each area in

Alaska is different and what might work in SE may not work in PWS. PWSAC is working just fine, so do

not try to fix it because it is not broken.

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 38 -

When I was in high school I had wood,auto,and metal shop. Have a fisheries shop. That is the extent

that I want the state to go.

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 it does.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

If I want to get out of the fishing industry I can sell my operation and go get a job. I have been involved

in different occupations during my offseason months. I have never had a problem in securing

employment. Pick yourself up by the bootstraps and move on.

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 comment

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

I have attended and participated in numerous board of fish meetings concerning PWS finfish. It is a

well structured process that has been working since I have been involved in fishing industry over the last

twenty six years. The only change I would make is that you get the politics out of the board appointment

process. A nomination committee made up of different user groups of each fishing area could come up

with a list of potential candidates that could then be voted on by the voters.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

No I do not. We have enough beaucratic oversight has it is. The Alaska Board of Fisheries process

does work. Do not try to fix something that works. Just get the politics out.

Seafood Commission

1. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the legislature

on the needs of the seafood industry?

I would support that this. We need to have the legislature become aware of how they can support us.

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 Alaska salmon industry employs the largest amount of workers in the state. Granted that most of

the jobs are barely above minimum. They are still jobs that feed a lot of Alaskan families. I would like

the state to recognize this and do whatever they can do to support our industry and the communites

around the state that derive most of their revenues from commercial fishing. In Cordova over fifty

percent of the households derive their income from commercial fishing. When fishing is in a slump the

entire community is affected. I would think that the State of Alaska would do whatever they could the

help our industry sustain itself.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 39 -

Name: Tim Mosher

Email: none

Address: 11985 Mendenhall Loop Rd, Juneau AK 99801

Phone: 907-789-7588

Fish_area: Southeast

Gear_type: salmon gillnet (S03A)

November 26, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

The problem lies with the processors after delivery. Inferior fish can be refused at time of delivery. The

discard of inferior fish at sea needs to be legal.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

No, quality issues are best set by the individual processor buying the fish based upon their individual

needs.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

There is no need to teach fishermen how to produce a quality product they already know how. (See

above)

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

SHOW ME THE MONEY! I am already delivering a superior quality product. My buyer demands that,

and pays a little extra for it.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Promotional entities and their employees should be paid on a performance basis, State & Federal

Government should foot the bill along with processors and retailers. When was the last time you saw a

corn farmer pay for a cornflake ad?

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

(Please see above) It's ridiculous to ask me as a producer of a raw product to help market it at the

wholesale or retail level!

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

No, The way to help is to reduce the licensing fees and the paperwork bureaucracy involved and

eliminate the taxation. These things stagnate incentive for trying to market your catch for a small

increase in profits. The state is very unfriendly to catcher/marketers.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Please, don't help us into brankruptcy with extra regulations, taxation and giveaways

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 40 -

Ask them! Simplify self marketing. Give incentives to self marketers such as fair taxation, removal of

paperwork & fees for self marketers.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

(Please see above) Also allow disposal of inferior fish. Why are fishermen & processors being forced to

put inferior fish into a glutted marketplace in the name of wanton waste. As businessmen anything

worth a penny profit will be sold. Inferior fish cost everybody money to put on the market and thus ruin

the market.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Performance based funding! Make raw fish taxes be used to improve fish hauling ability in towns they

are given to.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Yes, the Division of Investments works well. They have helped me immensely

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?

Maybe! The State could retire permits it forecloses on and buy back permits for what the owner paid or

owes whichever is less, provided they are never allowed to own any kind of salmon permit again, The

State should pay, they issued them.

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?

Ye, Please get involved! The private non-profit hatcheries are out of control (DIPAC). Cost Recovery is

out of control in some hatcheries (DIPAC). When they take over 50% of the fish they are in my opinion

a fish farm & they are slitting my throat in the marketplace.

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?

NONE. This is a hands on industry. No one will ever understand it from books.

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. We've been

researched and studied to death. Where are the Alaska educated biologists? They should have to intern

for 2 years fishing in the fishery they manage.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Nothing. There have been people dropping out of the industry in both good times and bad since the

dawn of man. Not everybody that fishes is a fisherman!

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 41 -

Agency Oversight

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

Get rid of DEC. They have no understanding at all of catcher/marketers

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes, it seems to work fairly well except more commercial fishermen should be on the board.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

NO! Help for the salmon industry won't come by wasting more money on studies or from law makers.

Put commercial fishermen on the board and use the study money for marketing!

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 Legislature will act on the advice of fishermen. I will say once again we have been studied

to death and the money wasted could go to marketing.

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?

As fishermen we need to be able to deliver whatever product form our buyers want. I'm sure the same

goes for processors. The State needs to stay out of the way and even promote this evolution and

inovation.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 42 -

Name: Lake & Peninsula Borough – Fisheries Advisory Committee

Email: lpboro@bristolbay.com

Address: P. O Box 395 King Salmon, AK 99613

Phone: 246-3421

Fish Area: Area T & Area L

Gear Type: Gillnet and Seine

November, 26, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Improve freight/transportation infrastructure, ice barges in each major river system.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

The consumers will ultimately define the quality standards through the competitive

marketplace. Although quality standards need to improve they should be industry imposed because

state imposed quality standards will become tools that could disadvantage lower income commercial

fishermen. Once salmon are delivered to a processor there is no guarantee that quality will be

maintained. Therefore unless quality standards are guaranteed to be continued through the entire chain

of harvesting, processing and delivery, the lower income fishermen should not be sacrificed through

State created quality standards. A quality seal would be a good additional incentive. A commission will

be too political, Alaska has too many differing regions, and fisheries to impose one size fits all

standards.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

No, we already have the Marine Advisory Program.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

A stable fish price and people appreciate having the recognition of a quality product.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

Use existing entities with some changes to the way they market regional differences and products.

Marketing funds should also be redirected to new markets with updated cachet.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon? (e.g. salmon harvesters, processors, federal government/USDA; state general fund; other

federal funds; other sources)

ASMI promotions and marketing costs should be supplemented with general fund dollars that raw fish

tax currently goes to and also Federal/USDA funding. Harvesters shouldn’t have to pay for additional

promotional funding unless it’s for their own individual marketing efforts.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

The state could help by easing the process to allow salmon fishermen to become catcher-sellers. If a

fishermen markets his/her product, they should not have to pay the State 1% market tax. The state could

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 43 -

help by working on improving the transportation infrastructure and that would help individual

fishermen.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Fishermen need new avenues to reduce costs of; fuel, groceries, insurance, licenses, gear upgrades and

crew shares. Consolidated fleet insurance, consolidated grocery orders, lower license fees, lessen fuel

costs, lower travel fares and freight costs and ways to keep the money in the coastal communities.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Unless the processors change their marketing strategy nothing should be done to aid the processing

sector. Processors have the capability and flexibility to expand their markets and become more

competitive without state assistance.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Statutory and regulations changes should be made to make it easier for individual fishermen to obtain

Catcher/Seller Permits. State subsidized hatchery fisheries need to be reviewed for the costs and

benefits from a statewide perspective. There are biological implications, competition factors and

fairness in subsidies being spread evenly among communities that need to be factored in to the decisionmaking.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

The States income on raw fish tax needs to be directed towards improving the transportation

infrastructure; lower seafood freight costs and new product development/marketing opportunities for

independent Alaskan fishermen.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

The state must fully address the concerns of hatchery stocks impacts to wild stocks first. This issue is a

growing concern and the state needs to assess the impacts of continued funding for an activity that

undermines wild stock populations and the health of wild stock fisheries. If there is loan forgiveness for

the hatcheries, a review of the hatcheries impact on other regions of the state needs to be done,

hatcheries should be required to be financially independent without undermining other wild stock

salmon fisheries.

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, we want permanent retirement of limited entry permits. Compensate fishers for their years of

service in the fisheries by implementing a fair retirement program. The State and Federal Government.

Governance

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 44 -

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 State

needs to address the impacts current hatcheries are having on wild stock populations and other regional

fisheries in the State.

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)

in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

It should be required curriculum in all levels. It would be beneficial to include the history for each

individual region as part of the curriculum.

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 may be other programs in the lower 48 Universities that we can use as examples for expanding

research and post secondary options. We shouldn’t limit the opportunities to offer students who want to

pursue this line of study.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

The Workforce and Development program is a good program however, alternative employment

opportunities could be secured through additional state emphasis of construction projects that will build

and strengthen the rural economy of Alaska.

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?

Make it easier to allow foreign processors to come in to state waters to buy salmon. This may be the

only competition for our local fishermen as the processing industry consolidates or pulls out of buying

salmon in our districts.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes, the Board process works well. The recent Board has streamlined the process.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

No, what does it accomplish to have one political body review another political body? The legislature

does its review by approving or disapproving Board appointees and should not waste the public money

by creating another body to do their homework.

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, the industry should take on this responsibility itself just like the oil and railroad industry has. The

Alaska Seafood Council was formed to accomplish this task already.

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?

Proper infrastructure for continued development of fresh value-added seafood.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 45 -

Name: Mikal Mathisen

Email:edared@att.net

Address:11753 Sunrise Dr NE; Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Phone: 206-842-5154

Fish Area: Bristol Bay

Gear Type: Drift Gillnet

November 26, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

We need to convince everyone that a higher quality product will result in a higher price at the dock. I

am not convinced of that myself though as percentage of wholesale price back to the fisherman seems to

be shrinking while quality knowledge has been increasing.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Yes. If we want the state to help us market our product they should be able to put in some area specific

demand.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes. At a minimum some quality information should be returned with peoples permit cards as they

renew them.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Higher price.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

Price to the fisherman has only gone down in recenet years we need an organization serious about

domestic marketing and one willing to take on farmed fish.

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 persons harvesting, processing and selling the product should pay for its marketing

And any assistance from the state or federals would be appreciated. Any thing given to farmers should

also be given to fisherman

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

The state should be involved with the fishing areas as a whole but should not get involved with

individuals

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 46 -

We need a permit buyback to increase harvesting ability. I would assume that a federal loan could be

obtained with a landing tax to pay for it. The permit number in Bristol Bay is considerably higher now

than it was when limited entry started we need to get back to a reasonable number of fisherman. With

modern vessels and gear a much smaller fleet can harvest an equal number of fish.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Tax incentives should be given to get the processors to invest capital in new technology that will make

the product more marketable to Americans.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Any thing to ensure a future return of salmon I am in favor of . Without the fish none of this other stuff

will matter.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Tax incentives should be given for improvement of quality and marketability to Americans.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

The idea of the state forgiving loans is upsetting to me. I borrowed money to pay for my operation in

1996 and made the necessary sacrifices and work to pay it off. It would be looked at as a handout and if

your going to forgive $x,ooo to someone fishing along side of me I expect the same charity.

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. Anything to reduce the number of permits is great. I am willing to pay with a landing tax.

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?

Some form of regulation should be in effect but I know very little about hatchery policy fishing in an

area with none.

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?

It would be nice to see it at least make the curriculum with more schooling available for those

interested.

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 what is currently available but it seems as if most biologist and fish people that I meet were

educated elsewhere.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 47 -

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 provide training and funding for all displaced fisherman in their home areas. At this

point I certainly get the feeling that you don’t care all that much about me as a non-resident and assume

that everything is fine because I live elsewhere.

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?

Probably.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes. More harvesters should be represented on the board.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

No there is enough opportunity at the Board of Fish meetings that we don’t need to spend more time and

money on them after the fact.

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 these issues and people are not going away overnight and it would be good to look at things on at

least an annual basis.

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?

Just make sure the we keep a sustainable fishery that persons can make a fair living at.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 48 -

Name: Mark Saldi

Email: marksaldi@mail.com

Address: PO Box 287, Skagway AK 99840

Phone: 907 983 2986

Fish_area: southeast alaska

Gear_type: drift gillnet

November 26, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

I would like to make just a few comments. I belong to seafa and have read and agree with their

responses to all your questions. There are three points that I would like to emprise that would help me

continue being a commercial fisherman. First I think the state should abolish the current wanton waste

law. That would reduce the fishermans and processors costs by tossing unmarketable carcasses

overboard at point of harvest. Then the fisherman isn’t wasting precious ice, tenders will have more

capacity and canneries won’t have the extra expense of grinding and disposing of the unmarketable

carcass. Who wants to see a black yellow chum with no meat color on display at the market? Also, once

the fish are in my fish hold they are not going to reproduce and why cant I sell them for what will pay

me the most? Second point I would like to make is how cost recovery is done. Their should be a better

way than the current system. Its seems that we are competing against ourselves. Take this past season

for example, I was paid .15 to.17 cents for hatcheries chums this summer. My market was wards cove

and they took 11,000,000 (rumored) pounds of cost recovery in my area. The other major buyers paid

.21 and .22 cents per pound but they didn’t get any cost recovery. It would be benefital to the fleet if we

could restructure cost recovery and somehow let the fisherman catch it or co-op it. Also it should be

public information on what the price was for these cost recovery fish. Third point that would help out is

denali kid care. One of my single biggest expenses each year is health insurance. Blue cross costs me

and my family (wife &2 small kids) $660.00 per month. That almost $8000.00 per year. If the state

would change the rules for eligibility all allow all fisherman’s kids to be eligible then I could take the

kids off my policy and save some more money. I have gillnetted for 18 years in southeast and 2002 was

the worst year by far. I’m 46 years old and was hoping to fish for another 20 years but its getting harder

to make ends meet. I would like to thank the task force for trying to solve the industry's problems and

hope you come up with some solutions that will help in the short term as well as long term fixes. Thanks

mark saldi

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 49 -

Name: William Evans

Email: bswose@chugach.net

Address: 3411 Willow Place Spenard, Alaska 99517

Phone: 277-4985

Fish_area: Area E

Gear_type: Salmon Drift

November 25, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product? Evidently

incentive, I know in my fishery we have made great strides in producing a higher quality product yet

there are those in the fishery who do not take the extra effort yet they are paid the same as those of us

who do.

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?

Only if you can make it mandatory the consumer pays for it, otherwise it seems to me that ultimately the

fisherman pays for anything mandatory. If the result is higher prices to compensate for costs, yes.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

The state should be involved in getting our markets on a level playing field with the rest of the world we

have outstanding product and if it were allowed to compete fairly the consumer would surely choose

Alaskan. If this can be accomplished with a standard, seal and commission, yes.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Yes, and for end consumer. If the people eating farmed fish knew the facts I believe an Alaskan product

would be selected over anything farmed.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

A fair price for a qulity product. More pay then those who do not produce as quality product.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

ASMI does real good with the monies it recieves.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

The industry and if what few salmon brokers we have are not taxed to sell our product then perhaps one

should be considered on a slide scale as to product and to whom. If there is one group that needs an

incentive to sell salmon its the brokers who buy low and sell high.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and

market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes, by educating the world on the difference between farm salmon and alaskan salmon and by lobbying

hard to change trade practices so we can compete at a more fair level.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 50 -

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

I don't know. perhaps Alaskan permits.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Perhaps schedule openings so there is a steady flow of quality fish rather then derby style catch all you

can at once.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

If you have rules you need enforcement to slow down the cheaters.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Get matching federal grants? Other industries are subsidized.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

Include all segments of the industry eg Tender operators. The State does not make available loans to

tender experienced people because they are not considered part of industry.

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?

Just retire permits not being used or being used illegally with medical transfers. No costs except

housekeeping.

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 cost recovery process needs help. In my fishery it has often been the hatcheries setting chum

price by flooding market and/or competeing directly with fisherman who pay for it with SET.

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?

Not anymore then other states would in educating youth about state history and resource development.

Yes on voc/tech. Very important to have place to learn trade.

2. Does Alaska’s university system adequately meet the research and post secondary educational needs

of the Alaska salmon industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Don’t' know

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 51 -

Get whatever monies the Feds give away to other states for similar occurrences and retraining. Anyway

whatever the state or feds do Fishing is a way of life. I personally do not want to be retrained unless its

to help me become a better fisherman

Agency Oversight

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes. Not familiar enough.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

If they make stupid decisions about my fishery, 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?

Don't know enough to make comment, but working on it.

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?

Become more aware how big a part the fishing industry plays in Alaska's economic well being.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 52 -

Name: North Pacific Fisheries Association (NPFA) (UFA Member Group) from 11-22-02 meeting

Email: magicfish@xyz.net

Phone:907-235-1091

Fish Area: statewide fishing, but group is in Homer

November 25, 2002

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product? Quality is seen as

the key component to fresh and frozen salmon product sales. Members question whether processors are

more interested in protecting the canned market than in promoting quality fresh/frozen products.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission? We would like to see a mandatory and verifiable state quality seal implemented for our

highest quality fresh or frozen salmon. The program would be voluntary to participate in, but to receive

the quality seal all fish would have to pass mandatory quality criteria.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants? There was a suggestion

to maintain a web site containing quality standards, processing regulations, branding marketing results,

the Alaska Manufacturing Association’s specifications, etc.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Higher ex-vessel prices

Marketing

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon? (e.g. salmon harvesters, processors, federal government/USDA; state general fund; other

federal funds; other sources)ASMI needs a stable and consistent funding source.

1) Board Make-up

A) Independent Board members:

ASMI’s Board is made up of 12 fishermen and 12 processors. The State and the industry

would be better served by having equal numbers of fishermen, processors and what could be

considered “independent” board members. Independent directors would be those persons

with success in marketing products other than seafood, persons who successfully manage

companies outside of the seafood industry, or persons who direct non-profit organizations,

etc. The intent is to have representation by well qualified individuals who are independent of

the Alaska seafood industry in order to bring a new set of views, tools and experiences. A

representative who markets California red wine, or Florida oranges, organic food products,

luxury health products, etc could bring fresh ideas as well as valuable experience to bear on

the Board’s decisions. ASMI’s Board could be made up of equal parts fishermen, processors

and independent directors.

B) Elect Fishermen Directors by region:

Under the above Board makeup, fishermen/directors would have perhaps 7 seats. Each seat

would correspond to geographical regions as follows: Southeast; Prince William Sound;

Cook Inlet/ South Central; Kodiak, Alaska Peninsula/ Chignik, Bristol Bay, and AYK.

Directors would be elected by permit holders. (If representation for whitefish, or crab is

needed they also would be elected by their respective fellow fishermen.) Fishermen are

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 53 -

taxing themselves to pay for ASMI. It makes sense that fishermen are allowed to elect

Directors to represent their regions.

C) Processor Disclosures:

Processor Directors would be required to sign a disclosure stating that they do not sell farmed

salmon, halibut or blackcod. If selling farmed salmon, etc is part of that company’s business

strategy, it is really no business of the State’s, however, persons directly working for that

processor should not be responsible for making marketing decisions regarding our wild

Alaskan seafood. We have heard this criticism more than any other – there is an inherent

conflict of interest by processors who sell farmed salmon and also serve on ASMI’s Board.

D) We do not support including halibut or sablefish assessments unless the above structural

changes are made to ASMI.

2) Alaskan Seafood Flagship Marketing Centers:

A) It was recently reported that Alaska only supplies 11 days worth of salmon fillets to the

domestic salmon fillet market. We need to figure out how to get Alaska’s best fishery

products into the U.S. market. We need to allow ASMI to do more than just promote

generic Alaska seafood. ASMI’s traditional role has been to “talk up” our seafood.

ASMI’s statutory charge should be changed.

What about the idea of having ASMI construct Flagship Marketing Centers in select US

cities where all of our Alaskan seafood is featured and promoted, where buyers can come to

find suppliers, where fishermen could market their own catch, where large vanloads could be

brokered into small lots, etc. There would be promotional functions, clearing house

functions, fishermen direct sales, etc. It would be necessary to change ASMI’s charter to

allow such activities.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Allowing ASMI to function as a clearinghouse for small self-directed salmon sales would help.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Any fleet reduction plans must be approved by a super majority of ACTIVE fishermen.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector? If tax incentives are considered for

processors, fishermen need guarantees that we see benefits in our ex-vessel prices. We would like to see

any tax incentives directed toward the fresh/frozen, value-added, and niche market product forms.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors? Allow fishermen to consolidate their catch on tenders. Relax the

roe extraction and carcass removal regulations to allow fishermen to process roe that they catch with

poundage limits, oversight, standards, etc. We do not support open ended roe stripping.

Finance

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 54 -

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry? Round deliveries (halibut) that leave the state are not taxed. We need to tighten this up so that

some tax benefits come into the port of landing.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest? We support the current state loan program. Should consider retiring any

foreclosed on permits.

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay? Active fishermen must be able to determine any

buybacks – which is not the case with current legislation. Bankrupt fisheries and fisheries where the

BOF have made major reallocations (Cook Inlet and Area M) would require assistance for a buyback to

work.

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? If loan

forgiveness is considered, the benefits need to be spread over the state – including areas with no

aquaculture programs. In Kodiak, turn the hatchery fish into common property and tax fishermen to

support the program. There is a feeling the hatchery cost recovery harvest undermines fishermen’s

negotiations for a fair price on the 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? Continue fisheries education

throughout K-12.

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?

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? Streamline and simplify small processor and self-processor

regulations and tax collection.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

YES, Allow less ACR proposals and have more commercial fishing representation.

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

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 55 -

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 56 -

Dear Cheryl,

Here are my comments for the task force. Please see that they are included. Thanks

Quality:

Absolutely no legislation regarding Quality. All fishermen know already what produces quality. If the

legislature gets involved in quality control it will end up costing fishermen to meet the requirements of

the legislation.

Processor can control quality by paying less for #2’s and#3’s. There have been so many brochures from

the University and ASMI that we know what needs to be done to maintain quality.

Marketing:

A good vehicle for marketing could be the regional Aquaculture assoc. They are non-profit and locally

controlled by fishermen so they could receive state funds.

Finance:

I oppose any buy back program that would require me to finance the buy back. When the industry is

depressed, adding another bill or taking another percentage of my gross income is ridiculous.

I also oppose any permit stacking or adding gear to those who would want to own more that one permit

in an area. When out of state permit holders can’t make enough money they don’t show up. This has

already happened. Thus permits ore out of the fishery without anyone having to buy them out.

I do support being able to fish more than one permit a year. If someone could fish a permit somewhere

else as well as here, when they left to fish somewhere else there would then be one less permit fishing

here.

Production:

The biggest problem that smaller and maybe larger processors face is the fact that they have to pre-sell

their catch before the season at whatever price buyers offer. They can’t get a pack loan any more. The

State could either loan them money or else use the pack as collateral so that processors could hold the

product for a better market. If the pack was held there would then be the possibility for processors to try

to find other markets instead of having to take the existing markets before the season.

There should not be harvester co-ops like the BOF set up in Chignik. If fishermen want to form a coop

they should do so without the idea that they should then be entitled to a certain percentage of the catch.

This goes against the very tenant of the limited entry system.

Seafood Commission:

I think this would be a good idea. Right now UFA is the only adviser that the Legislature has and they

do not adequately represent all areas of the State and are processor controlled. A Seafood Commission

has the potential to be unbiased and more representative since there wouldn’t be fees involved.

Steve Vanek, P.O. Box 103 Ninilchik, Ak, 99639 907-567-347 (S03H)

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 57 -

United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters

PO Box 23378 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 247-2471 Fax (907) 225-0241 Email: usag@gci.net

Dear Salmon Task Force Member,

The United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters is an association of fishermen whose livelihood is drift

gillnetting for salmon in Southeast Alaska. Many of our members are also involved in shrimp, crab,

and dive fisheries during the remainder of the year. We thank the Task Force for this chance to

comment on these questions of vital importance to the future of commercial fishing in Alaska.

Quality

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Fishermen know that a quality product starts with his proper handling of the salmon, then quick

handling and processing by the processor. Chilling the fish as quickly as possible after capture is

critical. While handling standards must be regionalized based on the infrastructure available to the

area, minimum standards should be established for all areas. For those vessels that cannot meet those

minimum standards, low interest loans must be made available to enable the fisherman to upgrade

their boats to meet the standard established.

Two issues influence the fisherman who produces high quality product for his processor. The

fisherman who takes pride in his fish and then watches them go in the hold of a tender where they

are mixed with fish he knows are from boats that are not handling their fish according to quality

standards, gets discouraged and may reduce his level of effort. To prevent this, processors must train

their tendermen and give them the authority and responsibility to accept only correctly handled fish.

Finally, the fisherman who is producing a consistent, high quality product must be paid for the

quality product he/she is producing.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

The establishment of quality standards on which the consumer can rely, is critical to any successful

marketing effort. A state quality seal is a good idea as it should help develop consumer confidence in

our products. The idea of developing another state bureaucracy to look over everyone’s shoulder is

not very attractive. A small group to spot check for adherence to standards with a penalty of

withdrawal of the quality seal may be a workable solution.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

We already have a good part of that in the information that ASMI distributes. We do not know if it

should be a more formalized process.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 58 -

Everyone is interested in being compensated for the effort they expend to produce a quality product.

Access to low interest loans is necessary so we can develop the infrastructure we need to allow us to

self-market a portion of our product.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market development, other)

All government funds, grant funds, and tax (1% marketing tax) monies should be channeled through

one organization. The funding should not be split up and diluted by distributing to several different

agencies. ASMI is probably the best entity. The marketing effort funded with public monies must

continue to be used for statewide Alaska salmon promotion. Just as we do not care where in Florida

the Florida orange juice comes from, neither do most lower 48 consumers care where in Alaska their

salmon came from. They care that its good quality, tastes good and is in a form that is easy to

prepare. Our marketing program must focus on the positive: wild salmon from a pristine

environment that supports strong and growing salmon stocks. Do not advertise against farm salmon.

(Let the environmentalists and others publicize the problems with antibiotics and feed lot fish

farms.) The funding for marketing must increase or at least be a steady amount so a consistent

program can be maintained from year to year. Regional marketing is the job of the processor or

distributor. Grants or cooperative projects with regional and local processors should be a part of the

program run by the responsible entity.

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)

Many of the above entities already pay for some or all of the ASMI funding. Given current market

conditions, additional tax cannot be taken from the fishermen. Remember a 1% tax on a fishermen’s

gross income may represent a 10 percent or more tax on his net income. Alaska and Alaska’s

fishermen should get at least what the agriculture industry receives from the federal government for

marketing its products on a proportional basis. It also seems reasonable to take some oil income,

which comes from a nonrenewable resource and use it to promote and market a renewable resource.

Economic studies show that the commercial fishing and processing industry is a major contributor to

the economic health of the state.

Some have suggested that the marketing tax be applied to hatchery cost recovery programs. This

would be fine, but we must remember that every dollar that a hatchery must have in cost recovery, is

a dollar’s worth of fish that fishermen will not be permitted to catch. It is really just another way to

tax the fisherman. The same applies to increasing taxes on processors. In the long run, all costs have

to come out of the price of fish. By increasing the cost structure of our processors, we reduce the

price they are able to pay for fish.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes, the state should help as much as possible. The first way is not to require or place unnecessary

regulations on the catcher-processor. The second is to support local infrastructure that will allow the

individual fishermen or small groups to market their own product. Examples of this might be ice

machines that are community based and not controlled by processors; local public cold storage’s

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 59 -

where fishermen could have their catch custom processed and stored; and we should promote a

transportation system that can move both fishermen and processors products to market efficiently

and economically.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Create an environment that will permit fishermen more market involvement. The Seafood Producers

Coop has performed well for its fishermen and many who cannot participate in the co-op wish they

could. It is a good example to follow. Permit stacking may be a good idea but could and probably

would create two classes of fishermen. Fishermen should not be required to increase their

capitalization (i.e. buy another permit) to participate in their fishery.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Make low interest loans available to upgrade and modernize existing plants. Where it makes sense,

facilitate the development of community cold storage facilities.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help the

harvesters and/or the processors?

Minimize the regulatory requirements to become a catcher processor.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Continue to fund the Commercial Fisherman’s Revolving Loan Fund and keep interest rates for

loans as low as possible. Channel the raw fish tax into local infrastructure projects. Provide tax

credits for processors that purchase equipment to produce value-added products.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what changes

would you suggest?

Keep lending practices as flexible as possible and interest rates low. From the recent experience of a

fishermen in our association, the following was necessary to get a loan from the Department of

Commerce for quality improvement equipment:

--Complete a DCED loan application form and submit to department. Supply additional information as

requested.

--Be told to go to a commercial bank and complete a loan application and have the bank refuse to grant the

loan at terms offered by DCED so DCED could approve the loan.

--Be told that the fisherman was approved for the loan.

--Start shopping for equipment and making arrangements for installation. Call DCED and find out procedure

for obtaining funds. At this point the fisherman was told that he could not get the funds directly but would

have to get an interim financing from a commercial bank and then have a survey of the work performed and

then DCED would grant the loan on the basis of the funds expended.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 60 -

--Return home, go to a commercial bank and arrange for an interim construction loan at a much higher interest

rate than the DCED loan.

--Purchase and install the equipment.

--Have a survey done on boat and submit survey to DCED.

--Receive loan amount and settle construction loan.

It would seem that this procedure could and should be simplified.

Forgive state loans made to hatcheries thereby allowing those hatcheries with loans to reduce their

cost recovery requirements and put more fish in the hands of 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?

Our Association does not have a position on this issue.

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?

The existing hatchery system is working well and should not be modified or changed. The Board of

Directors of the Regional Hatchery Associations has a preponderance of seats designated for

commercial fishermen who are elected by their respective gear groups. These elected fishermen

representatives control the programs and budgets of the Regional Hatchery Associations. The

programs and production goals that the fishermen approve are reviewed and approved or modified

by Regional Planning Teams composed of ADF&G and Association representatives. Budgets that

are approved by the fishermen on the associations’ boards determine the amount of cost recovery

required to fund the respective programs. If the Association has outstanding loans, their budgets are

reviewed by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. The system works and

works well by keeping grass roots control in the hands of the fishermen who use and partly rely on

the fish produced by the hatcheries while having the responsibility to pay for the programs they

approve and implement.

By far the greatest influence on our industry today is the increase in the production of farmed

salmon, which has exceeded world demand and subsequently driven down domestic and overseas

prices. To partly compensate for those falling prices, fishermen have had to catch proportionally

more fish to earn a living. The reason that an increased volume of fish was available to fishermen

and processors is due to Alaska’s proper management of its wild stocks and its successful hatchery

program. If hatchery production is reduced, that reduction in volume will not result in higher prices

to fishermen, it will mean a loss of retail market space for Alaska salmon. That loss of market space

will be immediately filled by farmed salmon and Alaska will continue to loose market share. In the

war to keep our fisheries economically viable, volume is a weapon. Once today’s markets are lost

due to poor wild runs or reductions in hatchery production it will be very difficult to get them back.

The only thing worse than low prices and good volume is low prices and low volume. If the Task

Force is considering recommending changes to the existing system, they must analyze in advance

the potential impacts of those changes and where those changes would place responsibility and

control.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 61 -

Education

1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech) in

order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?

The fisheries technology program which has just started at the University of Alaska Southeast,

Ketchikan Campus is a step it the right direction. It gives local young people the chance to learn the

technical aspects of fisheries management and to become eligible for jobs with ADF&G. Also taught

are skills that would be helpful for a career in Alaska’s hatchery system. Other programs should be

developed so that our children learn about the great resource we have in our marine environment and

in our commercial seafood industry. The university system might want to develop a course or

courses on fish quality, marketing, state regulations, etc., for processors, tendermen and fishermen as

appropriate.

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, the system should get more involved and develop programs similar to what they have done for

the tourism industry.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Develop a grant and/or low interest loan program to assist in a retraining program. The program

could be modeled after those used in Sitka and Ketchikan after the pulp mills closed in these areas.

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?

Simplify and consolidate permits required for fishermen to do self-marketing.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

As awkward as the Board of Fish (BoF) system is, it is a much better system than anyone else has.

We believe the board system is one of the reasons we have strong wild stocks and a viable fishing

industry. A quick look at salmon stock strength in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest shows

that just having ‘professional management’ is not enough. The users who depend on the resource

must have an active roll in the resources’ management. We all dislike the hassle and the commitment

of time and energy that is required every three years to participate in this public process; but we also

know it is our chance to protect and influence the resource that is the basis of our livelihoods. The

board should continue to be composed of laymen who depend on and are knowledgeable about the

fishing industry and the fisheries resource. The board of fish should not be “professionalized”.

The idea of regionalizing the BoF should be looked into. It might also be a good idea to have

subcommittees of the board screen proposals prior to or during an early phase of the board meeting.

These committees could be composed of selected representatives from the public who are associated

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 62 -

with or affected by the issue and a BoF member or two. The size of the committees should be limited

to the minimum required to represent all prominent viewpoints.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

We do not favor any radical change in the Board of Fish. The process should be streamlined to

increase efficiency by utilizing committees to develop recommendations on specific issues. A

procedure should be considered where the BoF would take department input and public testimony on

a specific proposal or group of similar proposals and make a determination on those items before

moving on to other proposals. Most items such as this are within the present authority of the BoF

and would not require legislative action.

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?

The Legislative Task Force has raised a series of issues critical to the commercial salmon fishing

industry. The Task Forces’ work should be continued until some stability is present in the industry.

The best way to implement this continued presence may be to establish such a Commission. If

established, it should be kept small and be provided with a 5-year sunset provision to test its

relevance at that time.

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?

In our answers to other items we have referred to various development items of value to fishermen.

These items include independent ice and cold storage facilities; development of affordable

transportation infrastructure; simplifying laws and regulations that apply to small catcher processors;

adequate funding of marketing initiatives and programs; and continuation of the state revolving loan

programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input on these issues of importance to our industry. If

you have questions about any of the information presented, please contact us.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kenneth Duckett

Kenneth Duckett

Executive Director

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 63 -

Name: David Clemens

Email: dclemens@alaska.net

Address: 1311 W. 79th Ave.,Anchorage, Ak. 99518

Phone: 907-349-5986

Fish_area: Prince William Sound

Gear_type: Purse Seine

November 24, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Properly chilled fish. Markets that require good handling techniques. This would include loading

techniques and tenders with reserve holding capacity to handle heavy fishing during peak runs.

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--the situation is market driven. If the market demands cold fish and it is properly handled quality

will be assured. Canned fish quality is not as demanding as fresh/frozen product.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

I can see a quality standard. But to create a quality commission/bureocracy would hinder an already

over-managed fishery.

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?

Stable markets with the potential of increased prices due to better quality.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Yes...Allow it to grow as the markets are better defined.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

I (as a fisherman) am already contributing 2% of my gross sales toward marketing of Alaska salmon. I

would like to see the processors in the State contribute some funds to increase the working capital.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes--through a grant process geared toward individual/regional focus.

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 64 -

Back off on the ADEC regulations dealing with dark fish carcasses.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Allow fishing in front of salmon runs to insure quality. Terminal fisheries tend to accumulate dark fish

which become mixed with the brights and reduce quality of overall catch.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Regional determination on how to deal with dark fish carcasses which are caught and sold primarily for

eggs.

Finance

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

Yes...As industry earnings increase latent permits become active depressing overall earnings. An

optimum number would allow the fleet to be productive, healthy financially and provide a return to

investment. The industry should fund the program. The State isn't going to and would have too much

say. Just buy back the permits that want to be sold at fair market value. Retire them. Over time the fleet

would be reduced to a more profitable, viable, manageable entity.

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?

Awareness of the renewable resource. Some history pertaining to growth and management. This would

allow those people interested to pursue more focused activities if they so desire.

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?

AVTEC in Seward is more focused on maritime education which included fishing.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Help fund education once the individual has chosed another vocation.

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?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 65 -

At this time the salmon industry is heavily regulated. Streamlining regulations would help.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

Yes

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Not at this time.

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--Input is necessary but creating another bureocratic empire wouldn't fix the situation, only make it

more costly.

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?

As a renewable resource salmon is sold into a niche market. Improving quality and production will help

hold Alaskas' market share. If the market place is shorted something else will fill the void.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 66 -

Name: Cordova District Fishermen United

Email: cdfu@ptialaska.net

Address: P.O. Box 939, Cordova, AK 99574

Phone: 907.424.3447

Fish_area: Area E

Gear_type: gillnet & seine

November 24, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Under existing law, all fish harvested must be wholly utilized without regard for its quality. The lowest

quality product sets the benchmark in the marketplace. CDFU supports amendment of wanton waste

laws such that fish below a minimum quality standard can be ground or otherwise disposed of and not

processed as food. Current law takes profit out of the operations of both fishermen and processors by

requiring utilization of sub-standard products. Fish below a certain skin and/or flesh color standard

should not be sold.

The issue of quality along the entire chain of custody needs to be examined. Quality improvement is of

primary importance, and is determined by how fish is handled across the entire chain of custody. This

issue should be addressed regionally as each has different concerns. Price incentives for good quality

and disincentives for poor quality may be one way to address it at the fishermen/processor level.

Minimum delivery times may be another. In our region, a "dock delivery bonus" is a big issue as

tendermen will bid up the price on the grounds in order to get the fish, while the dock delivery bonus is

intended to assure better quality by decreasing the amount of handling.

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. This issues needs to be addressed regionally due to differences in management of each fishery, as

well as related infrastructures.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

Education may help, but a number of excellent programs already exist.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

A direct relationship in the price for the quality of the fish delivered.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

A 1% assessment for ASMI should NOT be charged on cost recovery fish.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

The State should help to the extent that it streamlines existing laws and regulations related to direct

marketers. The current system is complex, confusing, and has conflicting regulatory parameters. A

thorough examination of this program is needed.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 67 -

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

Under existing law, all fish harvested must be wholly utilized without regard for its quality. The lowest

quality product sets the benchmark in the marketplace. CDFU supports amendment of wanton waste

laws such that fish below a minimum quality standard can be ground or otherwise disposed of. Current

law takes profit out of the operations of both fishermen and processors by requiring utilization of substandard

product. Fish below a certain skin and/or flesh color standard should not be sold. This costs

the entire industry money!

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

See comments above on amending wanton waste laws. This issue applies to both harvesting and

processing sectors.

Statutes and regulations need to be examined relative to the processing sector to evaluate whether or not

they make sense in today's environment. Duplicative and conflicting State and Federal laws and

regulations cost all of the industry money and need to be evaluated. We particularly support

examination of State laws relative to fish waste discharge.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

We must address the issue of latency, fishery by fishery. Working to make changes resulting in

increased viability will likely attract latent effort back into our salmon fisheries and negate any gains

made to participants. We believe that latency is a critical issue but have no consensus as to how, except

that it needs to be done regionally and examined for value, fairness, impacts to communities, etc.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

CDFU supports hatchery loan forgiveness and/or interest rate reductions, along with loan payment

deferrals in years of unexpected run failures. PWSAC has provided millions of dollars of benefit to all

users of salmon resources in PWS, Cook Inlet and to urban Alaskans using the Copper River Basin, as

well as to State and community coffers. Examination of the hatchery loan structure is warranted since

commercial fishermen took on the burdens of the State hatchery system back when destruction/disposal

of them would've been cost prohibitive to the State. The hatchery system has been one of the most

effective economic development projects in the history of our State.

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?

CDFU does not support development of a statewide hatchery policy and/or performance standards.

Each fishery and each region is so diverse and the needs so different that it makes no sense to move

away from the very successful model of Regional Planning Teams that now exist to regulate the

hatcheries.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 68 -

The State already has a wealth of effective functioning policies that govern the hatchery systems: the

genetics policy, hatchery sitting, the taking of broodstock, and other management plans.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

CDFU supports clarification of the BOF's authority relative to restructure options. We support there

being a high bar of support by affected fleets required prior to action (such as that required in HB 286

last session).

We support amendment of statutory language relative to BOF members' conflict of interest (as in HB

283 last session), and we support clarification of the Commissioner's EO authority and the concurrence

of ADF&G as to conservation purpose or reason when granting an ACR on those grounds (HB 216 from

last session).

We agree with the Legislative Audit finding of two years ago that the Advisory Committee structure be

strengthened and valued by the BOF. We urge this Task Force to seek input from the Joint Boards' own

AC Task Force and encourage that its work product be made available for review, comment, and

perhaps, implementation.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

CDFU strongly supports a one-time public panel to review the BOF process.

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?: CDFU supports administrative or

DCED evaluation of potential impacts to fleets and communities prior to implementation of restructure

options. A process for socio-economic impact analysis similar to that of the NPFMC's would be

effective, and could become part of the "bar" for the BOF's consideration of restructure proposals.

Communities have a huge stake in these issues.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 69 -

Name: Dan Hull

Email: dnhull@alaska.net

Address: 19300 Villages Scenic Pkwy, Anchorage AK 99516

Phone: 907-345-8738

Fish Area: Area E

Gear Type: Drift gillnet

Quality Subcommittee

1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Better fish handling practices by fishermen, tenders and processors. This includes bleeding and chilling

fish or more frequent deliveries by fishermen; and better handling practices by tenders and processors.

The definition of “better fish handling” has been thoroughly discussed by the industry over time and

although there are some disagreements about the details, they can best be achieved through price

incentives and disincentives at different levels of the market (eg., fisherman-processor, processorwholesaler).

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

I am supportive of quality standards that recognize regional differences in fisheries (eg., availability of

ice), but I am not sure whether the standards should be voluntary or mandatory. The cost of enforcing

mandatory quality standards (including a quality seal and a commission), may be too high. Initially, I

would prefer to let the market determine compliance.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

No. A lot of information about quality has been provided to the industry from ASMI, and other sources

over the years. Because this information is readily available, I don’t think any formal education

program would be particularly effective. And the resources could probably be better used elsewhere.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

I try to keep my sets short, I bleed all live fish, and I hold them in slush ice. I don’t throw or drop them.

But I don’t get any higher price than a fisherman who just puts a few shovels of ice on top of his fish at

the end of a period and calls it good. Price incentives (or disincentives for poor quality) are the main

thing fishermen need to improve quality throughout the state.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what

changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)

At this time, I don’t believe changing promotional entities will lead to significant improvements in

marketing. However, I do believe that other fundamental industry changes (see Production Committee

comments below) may lead to future changes in the way that marketing is conducted, and that these

changes will be a part of a natural progression for the 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)

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 70 -

Fishermen and processors already pay their way, and the State of Alaska should also contribute to

marketing Alaska’s salmon. And if we can convince any other agencies or government entities that they

should also contribute, I can support that as well.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Streamline the permitting process for direct marketers.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

The most significant change that the industry must first make in order to become economically viable

again is to reduce the number of permits in each fishery. And the greatest contribution that the Task

Force could make is to identify the different ways that each region and gear group could accomplish

this. The decision to reduce the number of permits in a fishery should be determined by the permit

holders in the fishery, because the problems and goals of each fishery vary. For example, the problems

facing the drift gillnet fishery in PWS (where virtually all permits are active) are not exactly the same as

the problems facing the PWS seine fishery (where perhaps 50% of the permits are active, and the issue

of latent effort has a significant impact on the profitability of the fleet).

A variety of ways to reduce the number of permits in each fishery have already been identified and

pursued by fishing organizations and are at various stages of development. I strongly encourage the

Production Subcommittee and the Task Force to focus on these and any other viable alternatives, and

how applicable they may be to the problems facing each fishery. For example, are some fisheries better

candidates than others for a buyback program?

Here’s one tentative suggestion for reducing the number of permits: Change the federal tax code to

allow fishermen to retire limited entry permits and use the value of the permit as a tax credit. While I

generally support simplifying and not complicating the tax code, there may be justification on a national

level to establish a program to retire permits in limited entry fisheries in other states throughout the

country for reasons of conservation and economic efficiency. The program would be voluntary and the

permits would be retired by the state of Alaska. There are a number of complications to consider, such

as how to determine the value of the permit for purposes of calculating a tax credit. It would require

changes to state legislation as well. This isn’t a fully developed idea; perhaps there are others who can

say whether it is worth pursuing.

In some fisheries, a reduction in the number of permits may provide an opportunity to resolve or make

progress on industry problems that is not currently possible with larger numbers of permit holders. For

example, the probability of changing harvest methods to improve quality and reduce fleet harvest costs

may be greater in a fishery where the number of permit holders has been reduced and where the

remaining permit holders are all truly active.

Regardless of whether this is actually the case, it will be critical for the Task Force, and the rest of the

industry, to think carefully about how one set of decisions to change the industry may affect another set

of decisions. If the Task Force decided to focus its efforts on identifying ways to reduce the number of

permits in each fishery, how would that effect efforts in later years to form coops, or develop different

harvest methods? Would it make it easier or harder? Would the outcome improve the economic

condition of coastal communities or make them worse?

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 71 -

In the end, I think that reducing harvest costs only addresses part of the problem, and reducing the

number of permits, while critical, is still a first step. More generally, fishermen need to consider ways

to also reduce risk and uncertainty in the fisheries. Even after reducing the number of permits in a

fishery, fishermen are still left with much of the same risk and uncertainty associated with salmon

returns as before.

Current permit area and vessel registration requirements prevent fishermen from spreading risk across

multiple salmon fisheries, so they have to maximize the return on their investment in a single area.

When prices and fish returns are unstable or declining, as they are now, this risk increases.

It is also important to note that in contrast, processors are able to reduce at least some of their business

risk by operating in multiple salmon management areas. And I would argue that this disparity between

fishermen and processors in their ability to spread risk has a negative impact on the business

relationship between the two sectors, and constrains opportunities to work together.

I recognize that proposing to remove area and vessel registration requirements, and allowing fishermen

to own and use permits for multiple salmon fisheries, would be a dramatic change for the industry and

for coastal communities. And there are some very important conditions that should be met before any

such changes take place. I would be happy to elaborate on this idea for anyone on the Task Force who

is interested. I am not suggesting that the Task Force try to implement this particular suggestion. I am

only asking that the Task Force think about the kinds of step-wise changes that may be necessary to take

over a number of years. While I am open to other ideas, I hope that the Task Force will consider this

one.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

One way to reduce costs to processors as well as fishermen is to improve ADF&G’s ability to forecast

salmon returns. While it would require a significant investment and could not be accomplished in a

short period of time, it should be a longer term goal. I believe that this may fit within the goals of the

NPRB, the EVOS Trustee Council’s GEM program, and the Sustainable Salmon Fund, so why not

encourage these entities to pursue it in concert with ADF&G as a part of their larger research

programs?

Finance

3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your

fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest

for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?

See Production Committee comments.

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?

I believe that there are already numerous statewide policies governing the private non-profit hatchery

system, and that these are adequate. These include genetic policies, management policies, policies that

govern where hatcheries are cited, and how broodstock are selected and initially taken. The State of

Alaska’s PNP hatchery system has been called a model for salmon enhancement programs because of

the care taken to avoid the problems and pitfalls that have occurred in the Pacific Northwest states.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 72 -

Alaska’s salmon enhancement program has provided valuable information and insight to salmon

research in the near-shore and open ocean waters. Some of what we know about the life history of

salmon would not have been possible without the enhancement program. As we continue to learn more

about the life history and biology of salmon, the entities that currently oversee the PNP system are the

appropriate forums for addressing valid and credible questions about salmon enhancement that may

arise.

In particular, I do not support establishing statewide policies to control hatchery salmon production in

one in order to increase demand or prices for salmon in another area. These attempts will fail to

achieve the desired result. Our ability to forecast salmon returns is too inaccurate, and our ability to

direct salmon markets and consumer preferences is too ineffective to ever achieve statewide or regional

economic goals through centralized production and harvest planning efforts. We cannot control enough

of the factors that influence demand and prices for salmon in different parts of the state to micromanage

production and harvest successfully.

Agency Oversight

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

If it were properly conducted I could support the process. As it is, the process is too destabilizing. For

example, the Board cycle should be increased to 5 years for each region. And the lack of a professional

staff to properly review the consequences of the more contentious proposals (in contrast with the

NPFMC process) is extremely costly to stakeholders and introduces significant risk and uncertainty to

the industry.

3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?

Yes, I support a limited one-time review of 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?

I am not sure I support establishment of a Seafood Commission, but I strongly support continuation of

the Legislative Task Force in some form for several more years because I think it will take that long to

deliberate on and begin to implement change in the industry. Please do not consider this the one and

only opportunity to for the industry to change. Instead, consider it the beginning of the process.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 73 -

Name: Walter Kanulie

Email: totwguy@att.net

Address: PO Box 133, Togiak, Ak 99678

Phone: 907-493-5510

Fish_area: Togiak

Gear_type: Gillnet

November 23, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

Better freighting system. Long-term fresh frozen barge system-quick freeze. Lesser quantity fish bags

so fish is not squished. Get a large airport in Bristol Bay to accommodate express shipping to market in

a few hours.

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. Any mandatory requests in such a diverse form of harvest will not be adequate.

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Quality should be worked on with the local fisherman. Remember there is a big coastline where very

different fishermen fish.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

With the universities of Alaska.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

Price of fish. Company cooperation with fisherman.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

Find markets elsewhere and not focus on Japan. Change the laws so other countries have the same

leverage as Japan.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

Company and fisherman unions and private entrepenuars.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes. By grants, marketing strategy, freighting exemptions(some)Help meet potential buyers.

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 Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 74 -

Keep the money in the local areas.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Lower taxes, local and state if any. Work with freighting costs to lower them. Express freight at lower

costs.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Processors must be able to pay fisherman and not fold after the first season.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

Change countries law so Japan does not have too much leverage. Sell organic fish to countries who

farm their fish.

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

It should flucuate with market every season. Make allowances for districts that have bad season.

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. How I don't know. Take it from their PFD?

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 more 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?

Marketing strategy. Teach them it is our harvest food and market food. We need to have fish for them

and their offsprings.

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.

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

Just enough to help fisherman, fisherman must learn to save money on their own as well. Teach

fisherman good business, good money management, good retirement plan.

Agency Oversight

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 75 -

1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed

to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?

Guiding industry should be looked at very thoroughly. They are in the rivers and they are growing, what

impact they will have on the spawning salmon. I.E. Chum, Kings and Silvers which don't necessarily go

up to the lakes and spawn. Beavers? They take the money and go to Arizona and not help locally.

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If

changes are necessary, what would you suggest?: I don't know.

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.

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?

Don't be too ready to have people depend on government. Economy must come from the people

educating themselves on making money on their own and surviving if they want to live on the same

standards they live now. People are too dependant on government handouts, which makes them lazy.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 76 -

Name: Steve Svensson

Email: shanbre@att.net

Address: po box 1207 Marysville wa 98270

Phone: (360) 652-9222

Fish_area: SE Alaska

Gear_type: gillnet

November 22, 2002

Quality

1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?

In our fishery all our fish are iced, daily deliveries are the norm. These fish are generaly fine quality

when delivered to tender. I think a new level of trust and co-operation needs to be developed between

harvester and buyer. I would like to have the option of bleeding & dressing fish on board, selling at

grounds price, placing fish in slushed totes on tender (reduce handling) and sharing in profits these

select fish will fetch in niche markets. The demand is there I have a small smoked salmon business and

travel through the midwest. The plum is ready for the picking, we need a partnership with the

proccesors. First we have to overcome a distrust that has developed as we in SE have improved our fish

quality for 10 years and every year our price is secret till the first delivery, and lower than the year

before.

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?

yes

2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality

commission?

Not needed, the consumer is inundated by all kinds of certification. The best program is to deliver a

good product, make the distinction between farmed and wild salmon, backed up with promotional items

stressing wild, healthy and sustainable.

3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?

When we have a plan for the future, a program for explaining goals and means to get there should be

spelled out to all industry members.

4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?

We have to break the cycle. Processors have to look at new markets, deal in smaller lots to fresh

markets, join in a partnership with the harvesters. In short as a harvester I need to make a profit, not

loose money every year. I believe we have gone as far as we can with quality, and until we see rewards

for maintaining our quality we won’t improve it.

Marketing

1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,

what changes should be made?

We need to support individual fishermen outside of Alaska in their marketing efforts. Often they are

promoting Alaskan wild salmon around the country, but are limited by lack of support from the

industry. Hard to take the next step when you don’t have the means. This would be another benefit to

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 77 -

harvester / processor partnership in locating fresh market leads in US markets.

2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild

salmon?

Remember you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. The Feds can help; after all it is they that allow

Chilean farmed salmon to be dumped in this country.

3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?

Yes, I have been marketing smoked salmon for 9 years, mostly in the midwest. We have a nice product

line, demand is there, and it is well received. I need funding to get ahead of the curve. By dealing in

larger quantities of salmon, being able to get above the 5000 portion price break in retorts, and giving 30

days as is norm in wholesale industry I can get out salmon out there. Without a safety net taking the

next step is risky.

Production

1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?

If fishermen could purchase as a group nets, vessel insurance, parts etc. this would save us hard to come

by money. I approached our buyer about this but they ignored our concerns. a program such as this

wouldn't cost anyone anything but sure would help out the cash straped harvesters.

2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?

Let them work together with oversight. In some cases the plant is too small to handle all species at once.

3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help

the harvesters and/or the processors?

Keep an open mind about fishing areas, geat type and depth of gear.

Finance

1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon

industry?

I have to ship all my fish to Seattle for processing. I would prefer to have it done in Alaska, I get no

support, are they trying to protect their own "rice bowl"?

2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what

changes would you suggest?

We in the lower 48 are part of the salmon industry, we are working to save the industry and are located

in regions that can really help. Why are we excluded?

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?

This whole issue escapes me, are we trying to reduce the harvest? If not then those remaining should be

allowed to use longer deeper nets in my case. Many permits are not fishing now because economics.

Remember, there is a short window to harvest these fish. We are a cape fishery, the fish aren't lingering

they are traveling.

Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 8 November 29, 2002

Compiled by UFA

- 78 -

Hatcheries

1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance

standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?

A hatchery policy would be helpful

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?

promote Alaska's natural resource as the treasure it is. last place in the world of sustainable wild

salmon, with many opportunities.

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?

dont know

3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining

and/or alternative employment?

that's the hard part, fishing is a way of life and the fleet operators are aging, are you going to make a 50

year old a computer whiz?

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?

tax incentives for the processing industry to modernize, zoning laws, shipping incentives

2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?

I believe in the regional approach

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?

Protect us during our vulnerable time from the radical environmentalists