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