Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Questions
As of December 6, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Dennis Albert (S03T) 12/6/02 ..........................................................................................2-3
Fred Bonin (S03T) 12/6/02...............................................................................................4-5
Betty Bonin (S04T) 12/6/02 ............................................................................................6-8
Larry P. Kayoukluk (S03T) 12/6/02.................................................................................9-10
Dave Daniels (S01E) .....................................................................................................11-13
Ed Hansen (S03A) 12/3/02.............................................................................................14-16
Paul Shadura II (S04H) 12/3/02 .....................................................................................17-24
Bill & Hattie Albecker 12/3/02......................................................................................25-27
Bill Lindow (S03E) 12/3/02 ...........................................................................................28-30
Dan Falvey (S15B) 12/2/02 ............................................................................................31-33
Stuart Deal (S03E) 12/2/02.............................................................................................34-35
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Name: Dennis Albert
Address: 3210 Turnagain #B, Anchorage, AK 99517
Phone: (907) 248-6570
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift (S03T)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
As a Bristol Bay fishermen I can talk of that area only. The fish need to be chilled and bled immediately.
Dropped into a bleeding tank to facilitate bleeding and reduce bruising. A limit on brailer size and
delivery time must be set.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
NO, NO, Keep the state out of this.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
NO, NO, The industry can educate their own people.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Mone,y Money, If the quality is brought up in this high quality fish the fishermen Will get more money
and will take care of the fish. I'm not Talking about 5 cents I'm talking about 50cents or more
eventually. Any talk about making quality mandatory is stupid. Chilling and bleeding fish then giving the
fish to Trident to put into a can bones and all is stupid.
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)
I think we should continue to use ASMI in a very limited capacity. Maybe with a budget of no more than
$100,000 to do brochures and printed material. That's all they do now for the fishermen. The remainder
of the 6.5 million could then be directed to fishermen or processors who would directly market their fish
to the public.
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)
Harvester in conjunction with the processor. The key here is we have to get away from the present
system of processor selling the fish for whatever he can get, taking his profit. Then giving tfiefishermen
the remainder which now days isn't much. We need to replace the present processors with processors
owned or controlled by the fishermen who will then have the motivation to market the fish for the
maximun amount of money
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Keep the state out of it. Give the fishermen the money. The fishermen can directly market his species of
fish. Sockeye to the high end, pink in a can etc: This is something ASMI can't do.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
In Summary; If we could accomplish the three steps above the questions about quality would also be
solved.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
I think permit stacking and fractional permits was a excellent idea that was introduced byRep Scalzi
last legislative session. Unfortunately UF A which I'm a member was unanimously opposed to this
excellent idea. This plan would cut the fleet in half in a couple of years. No government help would be
required. The industry would fix itself. When this excellent idea was opposed by UF A I became very
discouraged about change in the fishery . If a good idea is opposed by so many will change ever come?
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
The tax money should be given directly to the fishermen- processors for marketing.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
The state shouldn't be giving loans in the first place. Why should the loans be forgiven? I have a loan
from farm credit do you think they will forgive my loan? This is the problem with the state getting into
the loan business
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 is the one area that the state could be helpful in getting federal funds for permit retirement. Most
fisheries are over capitalized. Permits need to be bought out and the remaining fishermen don't have the
money to do it. We need the same help that farmers get federal money. No incentives needed. If you want
to sell ,sell.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Name: Fred Bonin
Email: Betz@BristolBay.com
Address: PO Box 183, Naknek, AK 99633
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift (S03T)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Less competition, chilled fish.
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 - most of the fleet does not know how to handle fish.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Less competition on the grounds.
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)
Change – ASMI does a very poor 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)
All of the above.]
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Listen to Fishermen, not ASMI.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Less competition.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Change processing system.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Better marketing, value-added products.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Finance Subcommittee
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, pay them off. Permits are cheap, now’s the time.
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?
Don’t need hatcheries in Bristol Bay.
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Teach proper handling of fish.
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 will not be displaced.
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?
Promote more as “Wild Alaskan Salmon”.
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?
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?
Keep Alaska’s fishing communities fishing communities, don’t change them.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Name: Betty J. Bonin
Email: betz@bristolbay.com
Address: PO Box 183, Naknek, AK 99633
Fish Area: Naknek (Bristol Bay)
Gear Type: Setnet (S04T)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Chilled fish, less competition.
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?
More money for good quality, fresh fish. It’s quality, not quantity anymore.
Marketing Subcommittee
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
ASMI has to advertise Wild Alaskan Salmon better. Fishermen feel like we are NOT getting our 1%
worth.
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)
Fishermen are already paying 1%. Everyone else should pay their share too.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, have more grants to the “smaller guy” trying to promote their products.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Not sure.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Not sure.
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. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Not sure.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
(No response)
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
(No response)
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, pay them off while the cost of permits are low. The State issued those permits they can pay so much
of someone wants to retire out.
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 –don’t need them in Bristol Bay.
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Teach proper handling of fish. Show damage that is done from throwing, grabbing by tail, etc.
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 sure.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Too old to change now.
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?
Promote our fish more as “ Wild Alaskan Salmon”.
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?
Yes.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
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?
We need to promote more businesses in our communities so they don’t die – we love our communities
but it is very expensive to live here.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Name: Larry P. Kayoukluk, Jr.
Address: PO Box 5026, Koliganek, AK 99576-5026
Phone: (907) 596-3424
Fish Area: Bristol Bay Drift Salmon
Gear Type: Drift (S03T)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Better management and regulations for fishermen; it should be implemented by both Fishermen and
Fish Processors and enforced by the state.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
These incentives should be worked out by Fishermen and Fish processors and enforced by the State
Department of Fish and Game.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
The quality education program for industry participants should be subject to the Fish Processors and
enacted by both Fishermen and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Fishermen of Alaska and Fish Processors need to work together to enhance the quality of their product
and enforced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Marketing Subcommittee
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
We should enhance the current promotional entities and adopt independent ideas that work towards
improving productivity and sales to the consumer.
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 Fish Processors, with help from the federal government/USDA.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
No, the state should allow individual fishermen to harvest and sell their catch with the federal
government/USDA and ASMI Seal of Approval under their conditions.
(No response on Production and Finance Committee questions.)
Governance Subcommittee
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. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
The State Department of Fish and Game should implement regulations in quality incentives to better
serve the Fisheries and Consumers.
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, they should diligently seek to enhance the quality of Alaska’s Salmon Industry by asking the
Fishermen how to better serve the sustainability of Alaska’s wild salmon.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
Forgive fishermen their tax debts and ask the federal government to meet their amount in forgiving the
tax debt until the dilemma comes to rest in positive quality and sales of salmon products.
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, find out more about other state agency regulations and do away with the regulations that do not
help to resolve the Wild Salmon Dilemma(s).
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
No, Alaska’s Board of Fish process needs to take action in the needs of their fishermen by implementing
corrective regulations that help both fishermen and consumers.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No, the Alaska Board of Fish should engage in corrective measures in their regulations to insure
individual Fishermen and Fish Processors better alternative incentives to serve the Salmon 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?
Negative, the State should listen to Fish processors and their Fishermen and enforce both parties needs
to enhance the product of Alaska’s Wild Salmon.
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 issues should be agile and enhanced to better serve the general public as a
whole; corrective regulations need to be put in place to ensure quality salmon for commercial use and
individual use.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
November 5, 2002
To: Legislative Task Force on Salmon
From: David L. Daniels (S01E)
PO Box 1555
Valdez, AK 99686
Enclosed are my thoughts concerning the Salmon industry in Alaska.
I am a lifelong Alaskan who grew up in the salmon industry. My primary living is made
purse seining in Prince William Sound. My major concern is in the low ex-vessel price
for pink salmon.
My concern with the task force process starts with the make up of the legislation task force itself.
First, there is no seiner from Prince William Sound on the task force. Secondly, those on the task
force have interests that run counter to my interests either due to their business or their constituents.
I don't want to see the task force use an axe to remove a tooth. Each area of Alaska has its own
problems, issues and goals.
Now on to the questionnaire:
Quality Subcommittee Report
The quality horse has been beaten to death at least in the PWS seine fleet. The seiners in PWS
spent $30,000 to $50,000 to refrigerate their boats, which was to end all marketing problems. Seiners
who didn't refrigerate have dropped out of the fishery.
Their reward for the expense is that the ex-vessel price has declined from $.30/lb prior to
refrigeration to $.085/1b for refrigerated fish. The problem is that pinks are
still being put into cans. The emphasis should be to develop a product form that fits
in the American kitchen. All the rest of the world is clamoring to get their products
into the American market. We are Americans and our product doesn't fit. No amount of "quality"
improvement will help if we continue to sell into declining canned markets.
Production Sub Committee Report
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
The removal of fleet is an invalid argument. In PWS we have 255 seine permits issued by the
state. Between 100 and 150 vessels have dropped out of the fishery since 1990. The economics have
created a self-regulating effect. The same scenario occurred in Bristol Bay and the processors reduced
the fleet in Southeast on their own accord last spring. What fishermen really need is a price at which
they can make a living and keep up their equipment.
Fish farming might have been viable in the mid 1980's but now the foreigners are so well
financed and so far head of us that Alaskans would have little opportunity. If Alaska were open to
finfish farming, multinational corporations would own it from stem to stem. Two thoughts: a) let
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
limited entry holders trade their permits for a chance to farm fish and b) let hatcheries farm fish to
cover their debt and operating expenses. They already have the equipment and the expertise.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs d aid the processing sector?
I received a list of suggestions from the production committee dated 9/12/02. There is a lot of
poorly thought out demands from the hatcheries, the fleet gets reduced. But the rest is just a state hand
out to processors. Where is the demand for the processors to develop some new product forms that fit
the American market?
Please remember that the proformas for the hatcheries were predicated on a $.30/1b pink
salmon price, a price that ha remained in effect from the mid-1960s through 1990. If the hatcheries
were still receiving $.30/lb for their cost recovery fish, they would be giving the fishermen 80% of the
runs.
Today, hatcheries are selling 200-300% more cost recovery fish than they had intended. The
elimination of the cost recovery fleet will reduce the budget at the hatcheries by 5-10%. This will not
make up the needed difference. What the elimination of the cost recovery fleet will do is take away the
hatcheries ability to control its revenue stream and its obligation to service its debt payments and
operating cost. The inability of USA to negotiate a reasonable price will then be extended to the
hatcheries as well as the fishermen. Prices will be totally controlled by the processing sector and the
hatcheries will become the fish traps we got rid of with statehood.
Finance Sub Committee Report
1. Are there better ways in which the stat can use existing fish industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
I am in favor of the processor capitalizing value-added process equipment and new product
development. This is not a new idea; it was tried in the early 1980s. There must be an incentive
program so that processors don't build better can lines or convert their existing plants to surimi
production. We need a salmon product that fits in the American microwave kitchen. Further, the value
adding needs to be done in the winter months in the coastal communities. If the $50 million that was
spent on ASI in Anchorage had been spent in 5 coastal communities, there would be 5 viable plants
today helping 5 coastal communities.
2. Does current State of Alaska loan practice address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
The current loan program has worked well. We need to protect the revolving loan funds from
a legislative raid. Secondly, if you want to see the fleet end up in Washington and the coastal
communities dry up, just continue the work to do away with the 58-foot vessel limit. The larger
vessels will not remain in Alaska in the winter.
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 permit system is self-regulating due to economics of the industry. For each permit that is
lost, the commercial fishermen lose a vote. The only positive changes from the fishermen' s
perspective to the industry came because of strong political pressure from the commercial fishermen;
a) banning of fish traps, b) limited entry and c) hatchery programs. If the number and/or influence of
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
fishermen is decreased, the hatcheries will become "fish traps for the processing industry”. The
fishermen who remain will be sharecroppers for the processing industry, taking most of the risk and
obviously not making a livelihood. The coastal communities will be summer camps to harvest and
export salmon as a raw product.
Marketing Sub Committee Report
The salmon industry is not unlike the cranberry industry of the 1960s. The processors told the
farmers how much they could harvest and what they would be paid. Then came the botulism incident
with canned cranberries in the mid 1960s, and suddenly the processors couldn't sell a can of
cranberries. The solution for the cranberry industry was to develop products other than canned
cranberries until the scare blew over. This incident is why we can now buy cranberry products at times
other than Thanksgiving and Christmas. The incident resulted in cranberry juice, cranapple juice,
cranberries in granola bars, etc. The cranberry industry grew its way out of oversupply. The pink
salmon industry is still relying on cans. Where is the product form for the America kitchen?
The state legislature over the past decade has thrown tens of millions of dollars at marketing,
fisheries technology and tax incentives to help the processing portion of the industry. In every case the
state has given the control of these programs to the “existing processing industry”. However, now the
state and the fishermen still find themselves hitched to the same 60-year-old product that hasn't value
added the resources.
The fishermen always seem to get e blame for having their head in the sand concerning the
threat of farmed fish or our markets; however, the fishermen are not the only parties in the fishing
industry. What happened to the billions of dollars made by the processors during the booming 1980's.
Why don't we have a salmon product form for the American kitchen? If the state is going to spend
marketing dollars on salmon, it should be a) with someone who is thinking outside the
traditional markets; b) concentrating on the Alaskan Salmon industry (not ASMI). Of all the Alaskan
fisheries, only salmon (which coincidentally is under limited entry) is in trouble; c) if the farmed
industry can develop 30-40 product forms, Alaska should be able to compete with a product which
costs 1/5 the cost of farmed fish.
Summary
Alaska has since statehood endeavored to protect commercial fishermen and the economies of
coastal communities. This effort is illustrated in the limited entry program, the hatchery program and
the state revolving loan fund. The longevity of the small fishing town is now in jeopardy not due to
lack of fish, not due to poor management, not due to lack of effort on the legislators’ part, but because
it is in the interest of some to keep the fishermen powerless. This is the Achilles heel of all the good
intentions.
The industry needs to catch up with the grocery store of America!!! Anyone who is not
working for this goal should not be heard in Juneau and should not be given State funds. To do so will
insure that Alaska will remain a raw product export colony.
David L. Daniels
PO Box 1555
Valdez, AK 99686
907-835-4469
907-831-1433
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Name: Ed Hansen
Email: gillnet@ak.net
Address: 9369 North Douglas Hwy, Juneau AK 99801
Phone: 907-586-6652
Fish_area: SE
Gear_type: gillnet, troll, sport
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
For the fishermen to receive a higher price so they care about how they take care of the fish. We're
getting less now for fish then they use to offer as a price incentive for slush fish.
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?
No, it will cost fishermen money they can't afford.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
No, it will cost fishermen money they can't afford.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed 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?
Yes, Keep ASMI but tax all seafood ASMI promotes such as cod, pollock, crab, halibut, blackcod,etc.
Salmon is paying for these promotions already.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
fishermen, processors, & State (See above #1)
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
By giving incentives to individual fishermen for marketing their own fish.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Allow stacking of permits with incentives such as time, extra gear etc. to be determined in the region by
Board of Fish process.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Is it the processors that need the help or the fishermen?
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Simplify process and make fair the taxing of fishermen who wish to market their own fish.
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
State help with marketing.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Yes, They are doing a great job.
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?
If adopted by a majority of the fleet. The fishermen should pay for a buyback within their region if voted
on by a majority of the permit holders. Also look for State or Federal matching grants.
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! Hatcheries should not be harvesting over 50% of the fish. In Southeast Alaska the regional
associations have contributed a significant number of fish to the fishermen,I would like to see ALL
hatcheries under the control of the fishermen (regional associations).
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
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?
It was my choice to be a fisherman 35 years ago. Most of us have other skills but choose to fish and that
is why we are fishermen. Fishing is a lifestyle that a lot of us enjoy.
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?
Allowing a fisherman to hold multiple salmon permits and be allowed to fish more than one area in a
year with the same boat.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Getting information out to fishermen, Board of Fish proposal books should go to every fishermen in the
fisheries with proposals being considered. ADFG briefing documents and comments should be
available to the fishermen prior to the board meeting so they can comment on the proposals.
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, it would probably cost the fishermen more money and ADFG would probably have to do more cost
recovery fishing such as the herring to pay for 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?
Make sure in the process that you don't mandate the fishermen out of the ability to catch fish.
I fish because I enjoy fishing and do not want someone else catching the fish for me because it is more
cost effective. I want to catch my own fish and be in control of my own business and not have someone
cut me a check.
There are a lot of markets opening up for the direct marketers. We are being penalized for marketing
our own fish. If I take my own fish, smoke it and sell it the raw fish tax 5%, enhancement tax 3% and
ASMI tax 1% is paid on the final selling price where if I was to sell to a processor a lower quality round
fish the raw fish tax is paid on the value paid to me without any of the costs for value added figured in at
a 3% raw fish tax rate. A direct marketer should be encouraged to operate and be taxed at a
substantially lower rate as he is taking all the risks and developing new markets.
The Legislature must realize that any expenses occurred by ADFG or the processors will inevitably
trickle down and be paid by the fishermen.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
Paul A. Shadura II
sabaka@ptialaska.net
P.O. Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99611-1632
Cook Inlet
Set-Net
The answers to the questions are my personal thoughts and not that of any organization that I might be a
member of:
Quality
1) Improving quality is an excellent concept as long as it raises the bar on all grades equally. I
could see a scenario where the highest standards are used to high grade the top sockeye to a
domestic market. The problem is what to do with the 2’s and 3’s. It would leave our other market
(Japan) with an extremely strong position to force the price of the lesser grades down. I am not
sure if this would result in a net gain. Other ways to improve the quality is to decrease handling
and hire more crewmembers. Ice is not a problem for most east side CI set-nets. Most processors
lend us as many totes as necessary and supply us with ice. Since we are mostly road accessible
delivery time is less then six hours as we fish on the peaks of every tide. The buying station I
operate is directly upland from the fishing grounds and fish are placed in totes or brailers in our
dories, hauled out by booms or heavy equipment onto trucks and then immediately delivered.
Most of the time, the slow up is in the processors plant where fish are commonly not processed
for 24 to 120 hours latter. Ice is everywhere here. It is unsafe to cargo tanks or any water in a
dory in CI. We have 7 knot tides and high fresh water content and a very shallow inlet. Coming
ashore in the rolling surf with a loaded vessel takes great skill and is subject to great risk. Trying
to launch into the surf with a loaded vessel is another risky maneuver. Waves are steep rolling
and very close together and errors only happen once. Do to the strength of the tides your window
of opportunity to get the fish out of the nets before they swing or get sucked under is about three
hours on average. The nature of a gill net fishery subjects the fish to inherit flaws in the meat of
the fish. The numbers of fish that get caught during peak tides does not allow us to take time to
handle every fish with care. Forced by regulation to fish in stormy weather and to set and pull at
prescribed times that do not correspond with the peaks of the tide, do not allow for quality. I
would propose that their be more flexibility in opening times and closings, this would allow a
less frantic pace in harvesting that would allow better handling of fish without round hauling.
Lifting restrictions on season openings and closings, allow incidentally caught salmon to be
legally sold, having individual salmon shares or the use of different types of experimental gear to
improve quality are some avenues to consider. A regional plan that could be adopted by a given
fishery should be the driving force behind quality incentives. Abolishing DEC restrictions on
fisherman operated shore based processing would be extremely helpful. Presently, DEC does not
know how to classify set-net operations. The EPA is another agency that has too many
restrictions on small shore based processing. Many restrictions are meant to restrict the large
processor. Unfortunately, the individual fisherman is caught in the quagmire of regulations. Low
interest loans or better grants at a particular limit could facilitate small near shore fisheries the
incentive to be compliant. Chilling should not be a statewide requirement. There are some areas
of the state that the cost of ice and the electricity to run a cooling or ice facility is not practical.
There are places in CI that are remote and tender service is sparse. When the price for the salmon
is sufficient, planes and marine tenders are available. Recent cut backs by most processors in the
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
state have in fact reduced or completely discontinued tender service on the fishing grounds.
Cook Inlet is no exception.
2) The state should not be involved in the enforcement of a quality seal. ASMI and AKMA and
USDA and others have already established sufficient ground work to supply anyone in the
fishing industry with quality guidelines. Most foreign buyers have there own quality standards
that are applicable to their markets. Likewise, if the market they are selling to likes a lower then
premium standard, what business is it of the government to control the product quality standard.
I have found that a hatchery pink salmon that is concealed in plastic bag sells fine in parts of the
world and bones and head on are a delicacy. If the state finds that it has to control a required
standard I think they will find themselves in constant consternation with different regional
particulars and different types of harvesting methods. In essence, the state will create
competition and add additional costs to each region of the state.
3) In any seafood based economies all over the world, education is offered or required in order to
work in the industry. High schools should offer both harvesting and processing education.
Industry could support this through a portion of the raw fish tax that is distributed back in to the
coastal communities. Programs that are supported by the Marine Advisory Program or UAA
should be extending an outreach program to teach marketing and advertising as well as HAACP
and ISO 9000+ to processors and direct and vertical marketers. Their should be food science or
culinary experts that are developing ways to preserve or re-fresh the salmon or to prepare it in a
new way that will develop a new and different taste to a new and developing target markets.
4) Incentives are in the continuation of there chosen livelihoods by establishing new transects
of consumers who will pay for the product. Forcing changes on the harvesting sector will not
result in consistent improvement. An axiom of the free market system that we profit in is; work
harder, do it better than the next guy and you will reap the financial reward. The free market
enterprise system in our country that supports the small business concept is what makes the idea
of competition so unique. Through failure there are always those ideas that ultimately become
successful and they become the guiding path for others to follow. Commercial fishermen are
fierce individualists who will as any good business person is innovative in their will to succeed.
Government should not artificially supply incentive that stifles creativity.
Marketing
1) The DCED division that administers the funds for ASMI and IT&MD is in place.
Improvements to ASMI’s structure are necessary in that we are dealing with a
salmon crisis and therefore this marketing entity should deal with only salmon.
The structure of 25 is too large of a board to make expedient decisions and the
members should be elected by the interest group not appointed by the governor.
2) The staff at ASMI have an excellent track record in acquiring alternative funding
but if necessary all salmon industry participants should increase their contributions.
3) The state should use the DCED to distribute mini-grants and loans to entities with
innovative business plans. Funding should come through increased tariffs on foreign importation
of salmon into the US. SK would then have sufficient money to promote wild salmon marketing
on a fair and equal basis. Every other country in the world protects their home grown industries
first before they allow imports. Even Chile restricts exports of beef and other commodities into
their country. The EU establishes a quota and a minimum price barrier. Regional marketing is
extremely important for Alaska. It is a pre-requisite for niche marketing to establish a unique
concept for an otherwise general commodity. It is a companion to the overall marketing of ASMI
and allows community ownership. Fishermen’s marketing associations should be formed that
will allow groups to vertically market their commodity. Processors should become custom
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
processors and by competition establish a competitive handling charge. Harvesters should be the
ones who receive state supported/bonding of product loans. They are after all the initial owners
of the food source. They should have the freedom to join with foreign secondary processors to
develop a commodity exchange through the finished product. A fishermen’s exchange for small
salmon producers should be established in the Cook Inlet area. Patterned after the Homer
Exchange, small orders could be filled and sold in a timely manner. A discussion with Northern
District Set-Netters has resulted in a need for a seafood market in Anchorage at the port facility.
The Port of Anchorage would be an excellent location except that they need official approval by
governing agencies. Included also in this plan would require some variance in municipal and
state laws. ND set-netters have been successful in selling to the largest population center in the
state and the potential for other seafood other than salmon is excellent. There is a seafood market
in most coastal cities around the world and this could be considered a mini
Pike’s Market. The Stevens International Airport has one of the busiest air cargo facilities in the
world. Products going around the world. Just how difficult is it to load a LDW with a preserved
salmon product destined for some far away market. Especially if the airport based ASI had a
compartmentalized cold storage to distribute distinct products?
Production
1) I am adamantly opposed to processor shares. Buyouts in Cook Inlet might be an
alternative but who will get to harvest the remaining surplus stocks? There are no two set-net
sites or locations that are alike in Cook Inlet. Co-ops will not work
without some kind of individual allocation. An example would be a site near shore next to the
Kenai River might have been purchased for 750k. A site on the north beach might sell for 1.5k .
The operators hold the same SO4H permit and maybe have the same historical attendance, yet
the economies of scale are quite different. Using the 1934 Fishermen’s Marketing Act, fishermen
should form marketing associations in order to form a union to better control their product.
Obviously, this would require some assistance in forming a working group and legal and
marketing expertise to facilitate this incorporation. The Marine Advisory Program and the UAA
have the tools to assist the set-net fishermen in CI with co-coordinated meetings. I truly believe
that it is a priority to engage the fishing communities in the state with regional professionally
mediated/facilitated meetings. The community needs to understand in detail all the information
that is available before the legislature or the administration attempt to direct a new course. I
estimate the CI regional meetings including a directed survey of Set-netters and a final analysis
to range in the 250k range. The concept of long range planning is essential to the Cook Inlet
watershed in order to establish harmony. A thorough long range plan that incorporates the will
of the legislature, the administration and the resource users that will guide the BOF and the
AK.Dept. of Fish and Game. In order to create stability and high sustainability there must be a
direction that all can use as a framework to design economic growth for our greater Kenai
Peninsula communities. The CI area has always been the “proving grounds” for allocative issues.
We have a representative sampling of all Alaska here, what better place to implement a test for
regional plans then here. KPFA and concerned individuals have held two meetings and have
planned a third in early December (2002). For lack of a better term it is being called the CSRP
(Cook Inlet Set-Net Revitalization Plan – SERRP) meetings. This as a grass roots effort in an
attempt to develop the beginnings of an industry supported future. Without funding, this effort
will not continue nor have enough participants to gather credibility. There are roughly 750 Set-
Net permit holders in CI. The majority of established sites in Cook Inlet work as co-operatives.
They started as family units and as the family grew so did the permit ownership. Is not
uncommon to see extended families and third generation children working at a CI site. Many of
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
us grew up on the beach and our families homesteaded the uplands. Set-net sites operate
efficiently this way. It takes a minimum amount of gear to run a fishing site and therefore the
concept of overcapitalization is not applicable here. If
your individual costs are high you join with others to reduce your costs. There are currently only
10 permits registered for sale on the CFEC website out of 750.
Many fishermen do not have large vessel payments so they do not carry hull and machinery. P&I
are reserved for non family crewmembers and health insurance is expensive for self-employed
commercial fishermen. If the state wanted to underwrite insurance with the permanent fund hey
that would save a lot.
2) Reduction in costs to the processor would be in the state underwriting the insurance
costs. Having the processor work as a custom processor or be part of a marketing
group would decrease their exposure. Deducting food and housing costs is not
applicable here as most process workers pitch tents and go to Carrs, Safeway or Big
K to shop for food. The biggest handicap to the processing industry is the unfair
competition from foreign labor. The only way to compete in the ONE WORLD
economy of the WTO and NAFTA is to either allow foreign labor to come to Alaska
and work as contract labor exempt from US wage and tax laws; or treat our food
industry as a commodity and exchange it with other goods or foreign currency. We
can do like the “Chicken of the Sea” brand and have all their pouched pink salmon
processed in Thailand at $4 or less per day, or utilize the other Pacific Rim emerging
countries cheap labor.
3) It is a universally accepted statement in CI that the BOF and it’s biased and unethical
governing has destroyed the investment incentive for salmon processors.
Finance
1) I would be cautious in the state creating any more ASI’s. There are no machines out
there that will perform dependably through all the different sizes, species and portions
at present. Money to develop practical models is warranted. A seafood technology
department at UAA is an interesting concept. In Chile, the universities work closely
with industry and they are funded by industry.
2) Cook Inlet Set-Net Permit holders are held by 84% Alaskan residents. In fact Set-Nets
are the largest limited entry group in the state and represent more regions and
communities then any other permit holder group. More participants, more
crewmembers, more families, more small local community residents. No super
exclusive group here. In contrast, south-east seiners are well over 50% non-residents.
I think the state should encourage repatriation. Permit consolidation is senseless in
CI. Allowing Set-Net Permit holders to hold more than one permit and fish twice the
gear would reduce the individual permit holders but do nothing to limit the harvest.
Or in reverse, a reduction in Set-Net fishing gear in the water in strong winds and
abundant runs would result in massive over escapement. A recipe for dismal future
returns. It would seem reasonable that before any permit reduction is implemented
an optimization study should be completed and the afore mentioned comprehensive
long range plan should be in effect.
2) Retired permits that have no home due to no surviving heirs should be deleted.
Permits that are in financial distress should be offered on a lottery basis to
Alaskan residents for the remaining balance at current interest rates. The state
should attempt to re- coupe it’s capitol expenditures.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Governance
1) Our aquaculture association ,CIAA, operates with a low capital to debt ratio. We
service the entire Cook Inlet and Resurrection Bay and the Outer Kenai
Peninsula coastline. We have been very active with the RPT when it was still
funded. The association is currently operated in the red due to the price of salmon the
operations area. We contribute 2% to the general fund to finance operations. Our main source of
revenue is currently cost recovery harvesting. Many of our programs benefit all user groups but
unfortunately the financial burden is predominately funded by the commercial fishing industry. At
present, we have a hatchery that is vacant that is located between Anchorage and Palmer/Wasilla.
While state hatcheries at Elmendorf and Ft. Rich are operating at near capacity, the facility at
Eklutna is only used as a release site. It has always been my view that the commercial fishing
industry in CI has been sensitive to the recreational interests. It is the reason that we developed this
facility to mitigate the effects of incidentally caught King and Cohoes. The current laws are quite
complete and I do not believe the state should implement performance standards. I do believe that
loans should be monitored for a degree of performance and that money for hatchery production and
capitol investments should be more equally proportioned among the various regions. The state
should change its relationship with the hatcheries. The state should be more involved with funding
projects on a yearly basis that benefits the common property. In CI the remote facilities we have
could save the state considerable money on hatchery production and transport costs. As a private
non-profit association, CIAA has completed several internal audits in the past that shows that we
operate the same facilities at less cost than the state had previously the same facility. The regional
planning team for CI is not sufficiently funded at present and should include sport and commercial
managers and interest groups. The philosophy in CI has always been to augment the current stocks
to achieve a strong consistent yield there by buffering the affects of negative biological anomalies.
We also believe that we should be active in habitat enhancement and mitigation. The state should
find ways to utilize this entity to further reduce conflicts in a fully utilized high density multy
species region.
Education
1) The state should have a role in education for processing and harvesting and international trade,
marketing and food processing. Please review previous comments.
2) The university system does address the education of fisheries managers and research . It needs to
be a higher priority. Please review previous comments.
3) I am currently being displace by the current policy of the promotion of the non-resident tourist
industry. We have been regulated away from harvesting the major returns (maximizing) to allow
for over harvesting by the in river guide industry on lesser stocks of salmon. I would be for
alternative training but to be fair it must have an equitable financial return if it is going to be
viable. Some previous BOF members have suggested that we should turn in our Limited Entry
Permits for dip nets. This is not reasonable and shows a real lack of knowledge of the amount of
investment and the financial returns that is possible in our fishery. In my particular situation, the
only way that I could give up my fishing operation is if I could be funded for 5 years at my current
average gross income and receive training at a professional occupation that would continue my
present lifestyle support my home and my family. Even then, who would pay for the capital
losses? What would become of the investment in permits, gear and equipment?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
Agency Oversight
1) Current DEC, DOR and ADF&G agencies are not commercial fish friendly. They
are extremely slow in facilitating permitting and many times the information is
inconsistent depending on who you are in contact with. A task force should be
formed to deal just with this issue! Federal agencies need to be streamlined with
state regulatory bodies so that the fishing communities can be accommodated by
a one stop shopping facility, hey it works for FM or BK or Walmart. The
ADF&G needs a thorough overhaul. The lack of morale and leadership has taken
its toll on the department. Funding cuts have severally hampered its ability to
acquire clean data. The constant friction between the sports division and
and commercial division results in constant in fighting and destroys the
professional atmosphere. Credibility is constantly challenged by members of the
BOF and the public which has resulted in the hiring of biostitutes to discredit
the information presented by the department. Typically, if you want to stay out of
inter department political turmoil, and you are a com-fish staff person, you do not
offer expertise on how Cook Inlet commercial fisheries should be prosecuted. It
apparent that the funding mechanism for the two divisions should be restructured.
All proceeds whether they be tax supported, receipt supported or general funds
should be placed in to one budget pool. A management division should be
separated into three divisions. Sport, commercial fishing (includes guiding and
charters) and personal use/subsistence. A second division should have autonomy
and thus neutrality in its operations. It should include habitat, permitting and
scientific research and planning.
2) I absolutely and unequivocally do not support the current BOF process. As a 25 year veteran of
the BOF Wars the process has lost all credibility in Cook Inlet. It becomes painfully obvious
when you see anti-commercial fishing interest groups massaging BOF members backs in a hotel
room at a BOF meeting that your commercial fishing viewpoint might be not accepted in a
positive manner. The problem is that for most regions of the state the BOF does not have the
contentious highly publicized debate that is common in CI. The problem that we find is that
there is always a pre-conceived agenda when it comes to CI and with a lopsided board, there is
no fair and impartial review and debate process. This subject deserves more attention than this
TF is willing to give it. I have several thoughts on changes but I will remind the committee that
at a UFA facilitated meeting in Petersburg over a year ago, commercial fisherman from across
the state believe that the process is broken and one of the primary fixes was to implement
designated seats. I agree that representation is a key element and that the current criteria restricts
considerations of region and user type. Some have suggested that we add more board members. I
would consider this if there was
some way to ensure that one area or one particular user group was not in control of the boards
voting. I believe that some kind of regional review of proposals would help to eliminate the work
load. A professional board was considered before and this concept should be reviewed. It should
be noted that even up to one wk before our states constitutional delegates signed the final draft of
the Ak. State Constitution, their was still the debate on whether their should be a split in the
BOF&G (one board). Some felt that their should be a sports board and a separate commercial
board. I believe that this concept should be explored. A separate board just for salmon is another
suggestion that should be revisited. The board should not be able to generate their own
proposals. BGP’s are a great injustice to the public and due process. The board should be only
able to modify a proposal to a small degree, that is not to change the intent. Unfortunately, this
current board modifies the proposal to the point where it is unrecognizable by the author and
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
frequently reverses the intent. When the board is ready to deliberate and vote on a specific
regulation or policy, the exact language should be available to the public prior to the vote. Public
comments should be allowed on the specific language to the proposal and the board should then
vote on the current language. Currently, the board passes a conceptual regulation and then six
months latter after internal ADF&G re-writes and interpretations after the fact by BOF members
the regulation is published. Many times this final format is not what many in the public
understood to be the original motion’s language. I agree that any and all public testimony both
written and oral, RC’s and staff reports should be subject to review and a comment period before
the board deliberates on final language. I would propose a 30 day period after the closing of new
data. I would also suggest that their be a 60 day review on the final language. Board of Fish
meetings should be on a longer cycle, I would suggest 4 years between regions. I would support
a more stringent criteria for ACR’s but I also realize that it is important to allow flexibility for
change. I would also recommend that the confirmation process for BOF members take place at
the beginning of the legislative session instead of the end. As I have explained before in this
testimony, if there were long range regional plans such as the ADF&G attempt in 1975 titled
Salmon Fisheries Plan, available to the BOF, it would go a long way into reducing the
controversy at present. I am opposed to allocative decisions that profess to support historical
analysis on such discrete percentages such as 1%. I do not believe that current or historical data
can stand the test of such rigid scrutiny and in fact current data formulated from the Statewide
Harvest Survey is typically toleranced by a plus or minus 30% accuracy.
3) I have been calling for this review for several years. The last formal review was
1988. Their was a legislative review on the committee process, and they found it
to be acceptable. Recent discussions now from some legal advisors suggest that
the process is in fact flawed. I also believe that is a circumnavigation of the
public process and have testified to that continually since its inception in 1999.
Seafood Commission
1) I believe that their should be a position and an office in the administration where
they gather TF type information and then disseminate out to the relevant parties. I
am not so sure that we need another layer of bureaucracy that a commission might
generate.
Economic Development
1) I have stated in my testimony from my CI commercial fishing advocacy group that
it is extremely important that we hold grass roots facilitated meetings to inform
and identify the direction commercial fisherman wish to travel. It is my opinion
that you have to build consensus one block at time before you can build a structure
that will withstand the forces of nature. We must develop a long range plan, a
script we can all read. Without a unified effort, we will not be able to hold our own
in this global economic salmon war that we find ourselves in.
I wish to thank the Alaska Salmon Industry Task Force for allowing the public to submit comments
to these industry questions. They have been well thought out and they will obviously stimulate good
discussion. Please be aware that no one answer fits all and that fisherman are suspicious to change. I
hope that any legislation that is developed from this task force will be explained in detail to the
affected parties and that there will be flexibility built in to allow for modifications and application.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
Thank You
Paul A. Shadura II
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Name: William G. Albecker & Hattie C. Albecker
Email: bg574@hotmail.com
Address: 101 Olga Lane, Ugashik, Alaska 99613
Phone: 907) 797-2280
Fish_area: Bill fishes Ugashik& Egegik, Hattie- Ugashik only
Gear_type: Bill- BB Drift, Hattie-BB Setnet
Quality
1. A) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Refrigeration or ice on board fishing vessels. Use nomar brailers only. BAN OF WEB TYPE
BRAILERS!!
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, if ice is available!
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
No! Quality standards should be done on a regional level.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes!
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon? :
Better markets and higher prices to the fisherman.
Marketing
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional structures or do we change the structures? If changed,
what changes should be made?
Promotional structures should be more regionalized.
2. Who or what entity or entities should be paying for the promotion and/or marketing of Alaska’s wild
salmon?
The State of Alaska should be the largest promoter, and financial support of Alaska's Wild Salmon.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Yes, by providing market options.
Production
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
FLEET REDUCTION!!
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Reduction of 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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
I don't know!
Finance
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Yes, Start the buy back process of Bristol Bay Drift and Set-net permits.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
I don't know I have not borrowed funds from the State lately. I would like to have available a loan
program from the State that would allow the use of the fishing permit and fishing vessel as collateral.
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, PERMANNENT RETIREMENT OF LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS IN BRISTOL BAY
IS A MUST!
An incentive to retire ones permit would be a nice chunk of change for ones permit!
The State of Alaska should pay for the retirement of permits since they put the excess in the system!
(Especially as far as the interim permits---"white cards")
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?
K-12 should be taught the importance of proper harvesting and handling procedures to produce a
quality salmon that they would like to eat and also be proud enough of to serve it to someone else!
Voc/Tech level should be reenforced the proper handling procedures and marketing skills.
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?
Provide funding to the regional training facilities.
Agency Oversight
1. Apart from the Board of Fish decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be changed
to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
I believe that the Board of Fish does ok...........?? We don't need ant more bureacy in our fisheries!
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes, more regionalization of the process.
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?
That would be ok only if there would be EQUAL representation from EACH REGION!
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 Bristol Bay, We see the decline in population in our communities since there is less money
in the fisheries and less jobs. There is a need of funding for priority projects in the communities to
create jobs to carry the fisherman through the hard times until a time the State working with the regional
organinizations can come up with a solution to provide a livable wage to the fisherman.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
SALMON INDUSTRY TASK FORCE QUESTIONS
QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE
1) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
I believe that more and more fishers are unhappy about their well cared for fish being mingled on
tenders or at the dock with inferior product, and they want to be compensated for their higher quality.
Concurrently, most of these people are willing to accept lower payment if they deliver a sub-standard
load. However, unless the processors develop a workable and enforced system of reward for higher
quality (or penalty for lower quality) delivered product, there is little or no direct incentive for fishermen
to improve their quality. Only the fear that they will continue to lose ground to farmed fish, or that
higher quality is simply the right thing to do, currently motivates some fishermen to improve quality.
I predict that more of these quality-minded fishermen, in an effort to increase the value of their product,
will:
a) Try to work with small buyers who limit their fleets to fishermen who are known to deliver high
quality product and /or who have enforced quality standards. b) Look to form co-ops of like-minded
fishers. c) Become involved in direct marketing of their product.
These results could all be beneficial to the industry, but they do little to increase the product quality of
the majority of the fleet.
Processors in Cordova, and maybe statewide, have been very reluctant to institute a price differential for
delivered quality for a couple reasons. First, they worry that if they penalize for lower quality,
fishermen who have a pattern of delivering to them will switch to another processor who doesn't
penalize. Secondly, dock workers, and especially tender operators, have always been very reluctant to
reprimand any fisherman for delivering poor quality because these operators are often long-time friends
or acquaintances of the fisherman. This is compounded by some tenders being paid on a delivered
pounds rate.
. If processors institute an enforced system of differential pricing for quality, it will effect the biggest
improvement in salmon quality of any potential change in the industry. We will see more fishermen
taking the extra time to bleed fish, deliver more often, fill their fish bags less full, and ice/chill more
thoroughly. Some will upgrade their boats to accommodate more ice and give themselves more fish
hold space. I think it necessary for the state to somehow push processors to begin differential pricing,
whether it be through law, regulation, legislative resolution or some other means (perhaps with a sunset
clause) in order to effect this change.
2) Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, seal, and commission?
I believe that quality standards should be regional, whether or not they are developed under the
guidance of, or mandated by the state. State guidance could be good, to ensure the standards are as
consistent among regions as is reasonable, and to help prevent the adoption of any poorly conceived
standards. I don't think that a permanent commission would be necessary to accomplish this mission.
3) Should the state have a quality education program?
Yes, especially if regional or statewide standards are adopted. Past efforts by ASMI to educate
fishermen and tender operators have produced some good materials, but that effort could be improved
by updating the materials and mailing them to all permit holders, as well as processors and tender
operators.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
4) Incentives. See #1
FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
1) Are there better ways the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon industry?
I encourage the state to re-institute the investment tax credit for processors with strict limits on the
types of investments that would be eligible. Eligible capital investments should be limited to items
substantially improving product quality or allowing production of new product forms.
2) No reply
3) Should the state provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your fishery?
I feel that retirement of permits and other fleet consolidation measures should be at the bottom of the
list of measures to help revive the salmon industry. At times of heavy harvest, the product quality here
in the PWS/Copper River gillnet fishery declines, due to things like deeper stacking of fish in holds,
inadequate icing/chilling, less bleeding of fish and rougher handling. With fewer permits fishing, the
quality is likely to decline further as fewer boats catch more fish. This could be offset to a degree by the
fleet investing in larger boats, capable of carrying more ice and spreading the fish out in the hold over a
greater area.
Production Subcommittee
No Response
Marketing Subcommittee
1) Do we use existing state promotional entities or do we change?
I feel that ASMI and it's existing salmon promotional structure and efforts should undergo a thorough
review by independent experts together with processor and fisherman representatives. This group would
report to the legislature and make recommendations on changes/improvements.
2) Who or what entities should be paying for the promotion and or marketing of Alaska's wild salmon?
Fishermen and processors should continue to pay as before, but it is necessary for the state to
contribute directly as well. From all I know, it is going to take a much larger investment in marketing to
significantly help our industry.
I feel there should be at least 25% of state/ASMI marketing dollars available to approved groups for
regional marketing efforts.
GENERAL COMMENTS
I strongly feel that the state should focus its restructure efforts on improving quality and marketing.
These are things that will increase the value of our salmon fisheries to the whole state. Fleet
consolidation measures may help the remaining fishermen remain profitable, but will do little to increase
the value of our resource to the state, and particularly the coastal communities that depend on the salmon
industry.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
Additionally, the state must limit the expansion of the sport fishing industry as it grows at the expense of
the commercial industry through reallocations of fish by the Board of Fisheries. Similarly, the
subsistence issue must be put before the voters of Alaska. If the state guarantees all residents a
subsistence priority, eventually we will say goodbye to all commercial salmon fisheries based on roadaccessible
river systems, especially those for the high value species (reds, kings, silvers).
My sincere thanks to all Task Force members for their time and effort,
Bill Lindow
P.O. Box 1612
Cordova, AK 99574
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
Dan Falvey
F/V Myriad
123 Anna Dr
Sitka, AK 99835
October 25, 2002
Dear Task Force Members,
I have been a commercial fishermen in Southeast Alaska for the past 21 years. I participate in the king,
coho, and chum troll salmon fisheries as well as the halibut, sablefish and rockfish longline fisheries,
and the sea cucumber dive fishery. I recently installed a freezer on my vessel to improve quality and
access new markets.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the Task Force. In general, I believe the Task Force
can best serve the needs of the salmon industry by sanctioning a process where-by each fishery can
identify and develop changes which will lead to better markets and higher ex-vessel prices. This process
would consist of three steps:
- Seed money grants for the development of new markets and product forms.
- Pilot programs to evaluate the feasibility of potential quality standards or regulatory changes
(including legislative changes to allow the pilot programs if necessary).
- Follow-up legislative action to implement successful programs.
I realize that State funding for the grants and pilot programs will be difficult. However, official
sanctioning of this process will provide a framework for federal funding opportunities and assist
interested parties with outside funding.
The remainder of my comments address specific question developed by the subcommittees.
Quality Subcommittee.
1. A) What does the Alaskan Salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Incentives in the form of higher ex-vessel prices for high quality fish. Most fishermen
know what steps to take to achieve a higher quality fish. Currently, there is no system in
place to pay fishermen willing to deliver high quality fish a premium. Processors must also be included
in the program as a fisherman has no control over the quality of their fish after it is delivered to the
plant.
B) Should chilling at point of harvest be mandatory statewide?
Many fisheries already chill their product onboard the vessel. Before making this mandatory in
fisheries that do not, develop pilot projects to determine what the cost of chilling onboard would be and
see if the ex-vessel price for a chilled product increases enough to offset this cost.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Inconsistent grading practices have long been an issue at the dock. If state sanctioned grading
standards would address this problem then they would be beneficial. However, quality standards must
be directly tied to factors the market is willing to pay for. Quality standards that do not translate
directly into a higher ex-vessel price, will only impose costs on a struggling industry and the state
without any benefit.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Pilot programs should be developed to demonstrate which quality standards or grading standards result
in higher prices before making them mandatory. An excellent example of this approach is a recent
project initiated by the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF) for setnetters on the Alaskan
Peninsula. As I understand it, AFDF secured a pool of funds to pay fishermen willing to meet certain
quality standards a higher price ($. 95/lb). These fish were then given to marketing experts and sold to
determine what the actual ex-vessel price for the quality improvements could have been. If the market is
willing to pay enough of a premium to justify the increased cost of producing the high quality fish, then
these quality standards would seem to make sense for this fishery and could become regulation. If not,
then other standards could be tested in a similar manner.
Marketing subcommittee
1. Do we use existing salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities?
Regional branding is a necessity if the salmon industry is to survive. The quality standards being
discussed will differ by region and fishery , and it is vital to take these differences into the marketplace. I
strongly believe that ASMI should be changed to allow a portion of their work to focus on promoting the
unique features of each region and fishery. If ASMI cannot be changed, then regional entities capable of
promoting the unique aspects of their fisheries should be allowed to compete for a part of ASMI' s
funding.
2. Who or what entities should be paying for the promotion and marketing of Alaska's
wild salmon?
Money spent by the State and matched by the federal government has the potential to provide the best
return to fishermen and their communities. Any funds given to ASMI should be subject to performance
reviews to quantitatively evaluate the bang for the buck they are generating. Other sources of funding
could include using a portion of the raw fish tax to fund regional marketing programs. These programs
should also be performance based and evaluated over time to determine weather they increased the total
raw fish taxes collected in a region enough to compensate for the marketing program.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon?
Absolutely! Seed money grants should be a cornerstone of the Task Forces'
Recommendation. The greatest potential for developing new markets, quality standards, and product
forms that the fisheries can adapt to, lies in the ideas of willing fishermen. My personal experience has
been that this is one tool that can make a measurable difference and help transition our industry into the
future.
help transition our industry into the future.
One example is a small grant given to two Sitka brothers in the early 1980's to develop
rockfish markets. Prior to the grant, processors bought these rockfish for 10 to 15 cents/lbs. By 1984,
rockfish were selling for 60 cents/lb and a new fishery harvesting over 1.5 million lbs/yr. was developed.
After the new markets were established by individual
fishermen, the established processors realized the opportunities and moved in to supply
these markets so both fishermen and processors benefited by this small seed grant.
Currently these rockfish are worth more that $1/lb.
A second example occurred more recently. In 2000, a seed grant was awarded to a Sitka
fisher-woman to develop new salmon markets for her fish and others. This year, 10 vessels sold fish
through her into these new high paying markets which never before existed.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Experience has shown that once these changes are proven to be successful, other fishermen and
processors quickly adapt to participate in the new opportunities so the fleet as a whole benefits. Seed
money grants have the greatest potential for providing new, innovative solutions for a small amount of
initial investment.
The Task Force could further enhance the potential of this type of program by recommending a State
position to assist direct marketers in developing business plans and securing the necessary permits.
Business incubators are a commonly accepted form of support for small start-up businesses. A similar
program for individual fishermen interested in marketing would assist diversification of markets and
allow fishermen to develop region specific solutions to the salmon problem.
Production Subcommittee
3. Are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help the harvesters and/or the
processors?
The current limited entry laws are more that 30 years old. They need to be
revised to provide additional flexibility in the type and character of limited entry programs. One tenant
that must be preserved, however, is the current requirement that entry permits be owned and fished by
individuals, not corporations. Absentee ownership is not a viable solution to any of the problems
currently facing the salmon industry.
Also, some communities restrict the unloading of product at State owned docks. If direct
marketing programs are to prosper, then docks and harbor infrastructure must be available for
unloading and packaging.
Finance Subcommittee
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry?
More incentive-based loan packages, such as the current low interest quality improvement loans, need
to be developed. Future loan programs could include direct marketing program development loans, and
community infrastructure loans for unloading, storage, and shipping facilities.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Dan Falvey
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
Name: Stuart Deal
Email: stuart493@earthlink.net
Address: 7314 11th NW, Seattle, Wa. 98117
Phone: 206 390 6353
Fish Area: Prince William Sound
Gear Type: Drift Gillnet
December 2, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
The quality of Alaskan Salmon definitely needs to improve to make the product competitive and the
industry viable. Labels, education and price incentives can all help. Requirements for chilling would
have some good effect. However the policing of such requirements would be an uphill struggle against
the pressure for volume on participants in competitive fisheries. Processors also have to make
comprises in quality to get their share of the volume. Everyone lives with it. Those who pass on
volume fishing to attend to quality concerns are politely dismissed as not being with it because they are
only dealing with “niche” markets.
The problem that undermines our product quality and most efforts to improve it significantly is the
competitive fishing that we are locked into. Limited entry principals are valid and should be maintained,
but the regulations that were put in place to protect traditional practices are making our industry and
product uncompetitive. Quota based management has enabled other fisheries to improve quality. We
should consider an adaptation of it for our industry.
An experimental fishery under quota-based management is outlined in PWS Proposal 49. It is to be
heard by the Board of Fish this winter. It bears similarities to the Chignik coop, but it asks the Board of
Fish to push the envelope of restructuring a bit further. In short this proposal would allow fishermen to
make adjustments to their harvest methods to address quality concerns, out from under the pressure to
compete for volume. Other core problems of the industry are addressed as well, while social impacts
are balanced with the need for efficiencies. The difficulties we are having are complex, and not easily
dealt with through isolated measures. Quality is not an isolated problem.
This subcommittee should recommend special authority for the Board of Fish to allow for revision of
regulation under experimental headings. Limited numbers of fishermen could operate in test tube
fisheries. The results could be very beneficial. Also, please consider the plan outlined in the proposal
itself. This is a path that could lead to an evolution of our methods. Our product can become
competitive, and our industry can stabilize.
Production Subcommittee
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Changes of regulations could be helpful to the producing and processing sectors. Such revisions are
outlined in PWS Proposal 49, which is to be heard by the Board of Fish this winter. In brief, the plan is
for a quota-based management system to be adapted for a portion of the drift gillnet fleet in Prince
William Sound. Fleet consolidation, and quality can coexist, as well as a balance of efficiency and
consideration for social impacts. As an experimental fishery this proposal asks the Board of Fish to step
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 10 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
even beyond the model of the Chignik coop. Because of the possible statutory hurdles it might be
simpler for the Board to be granted a special authority to allow experimental fisheries. Test tube
fisheries could explore regulatory changes without the burden of being irreversible. Please give this
plan your consideration. It is most likely, too far to try to take the salmon industry in a single step.
However, under an experimental heading with a limited number of permits involved, it could be very
constructive.
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? Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are
necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes, the Board of Fish has shown a willingness to act in support of the industry’s need to make
changes. I commend them for doing so. They should be given special authority to allow experimental
fisheries under restructured regulation. This can facilitate the changes we need to make to become
competitive with farmed salmon. PWS Proposal 49 will go before the Board this winter. It is worthy
of consideration by the Governance Subcommittee because it addresses the fundamental problems of our
industry. Revisions that can make limited entry principals viable again are outlined in this plan. Fleet
consolidation, quality, efficiency, and social impacts are addressed in balance with one another, through
an experimental shift to quota-based management. Please give it your consideration. It may not be a
plan that the Task Force would see fit to act upon at this time. However, the Board of Fish may have
use for a special authority to allow experimental fisheries to explore regulation that can help the industry
help itself.