Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Questions
As of December 13, 2002
Table of Contents
Responses by…
Larry VanderLind (S03T) 12/13/02..................................................................................2-4
Kenny Wilson (S03T) 12/12/02........................................................................................5-6
Mark Edminister (S03M) 12/11/02...................................................................................7-8
Peter Togiak (S03T) 12/11/02 .........................................................................................9-11
Hjalmar Olson (S03T) 12/11/02 ....................................................................................12-13
Patrick Kosbruk 12/11/02 ...............................................................................................14-16
Robert Henrichs (S03E) 12/11/02 ..................................................................................17-19
Tom Panamaroff (S01K) 12/11/02 .................................................................................20-22
Emil Christiansen (S01K) 12/11/02................................................................................23-24
Mike Saunders (S03A) 12/10/02 ....................................................................................25-31
Amelia Christensen (S04T) 12/6/02 ...............................................................................32-33
Blanche Murphy (S04T) 12/6/02....................................................................................35
Mark and Alma Angasan (S03T/S04T) 12/6/02.............................................................36-38
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Name: Larry VanderLind
Email: rvanderlind@hotmail.com
Address: 353 Courtland, Ashland, OR 97520
Phone:
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: S03T (Driftnet)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
The Alaska Salmon industry needs to give harvesters the time they need to harvest carefully without loss
of quality or product. Derby fisheries result in poor quality. Chilling, bag limits, cleanliness standards,
etc., should all be mandatory…but they become moot when applied to a number two. When we compete
within our fisheries then we will not compete in the marketplace. The catch must be divided before we
harvest to get the most of our potential value.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes, the state should set uniform, understandable quality standards. But then it should allow a system of
harvest that would enable us to attain the highest standards. To make us compete for the fish by way of
allocating who gets what will yield a poor quality product. The seal of approval of some sort of
standard being met will not work with a fish that has been fought over.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
The state should have a mandatory education program for all who are privileged to harvest. No one
should be allowed to degrade the products that the state of Alaska relies on for much of its economic
wealth.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
I do not need any sort of incentive to do good work. It is self-evident that my reward will result from
placing the best possible products before the consumer.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
The biggest things that can be done to reduce cost from the harvesting sector is to eliminate the race for
fish which is the cause of our overcapitalization, and higher operating expenses. It is actually cheaper
to produce a #1 fish than a #2 fish. Competition ruins quality while raising costs. Let us harvest slowly
and in cooperation with one another so we can make some money so the state can tax us.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Processor costs can be greatly reduced by dividing the catch before we harvest. Once the race is
eliminated then harvesters can deliver whenever the harvest needs product to make for a smooth flow
through the processing line. This would give them time to do quality work and do value-added
processing. More time to process would mean more efficient use of the equipment and therefore less in
equipment requirements.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Regulations that hamper us from operating efficiently or preserving the intrinsic value of the fish for the
customer to pay maximum bucks for must go. Let us not BS ourselves: either the wheels on the
shopping cart stop in front of our product or we starve. We have five seconds to make a sale so we
better be looking good compared to all other protein around our product. Good price, good quality and
good consistency. If state regs prevent that then they must be changed. Please let me do good work for
the people of Alaska. Give me the latitude to do what is best for the business.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
(1 – 2 Combined response)
Everything we do has to be centered around quality, cost, and conservation. Do not loan state money
for speed (excess H.P.). Do loan money for RSW and other quality-enhancing improvements. Fix the
business by wringing out the loss of quality, excess costs and loss of product then you can repatriate
permits. It’s a cruel joke to loan people money for the fool’s errand of trying to make a living in a
“business” which ruins its product while adding unnecessary costs. Give them a chance to compete in
the larger world by eliminating the crazy competition within the fishery.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
(See above)
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
No, there is no need for a buyback. No one can say how many people the fishery can support. Instead
allow multiple permits (shareholders) on one boat. Before we see how few people the fishery can
support let’s first see how many people it can support by doing the right thing by the customer. There
are a finite number of wild salmon available for harvest in the world. As number 1s they would be in
short supply. As number 2s they are a low-priced commodity.
General comments:
You must start somewhere and stand for something. The dysfunctional “game” regs of
yesteryear are more suitable for the days of the sail and the can.
Design a system which will give the best product to the customer and a lot of other things will
fall into place. The high risk path is to continue to produce a low quality, high cost product. The safer
path is to work together to be a business…a real business. It will take a lot of effort (read JOBS) to put
our “made by God” product in front of the customer with its full intrinsic value intact. When you and
the rest of the powers that be allow us to produce a fish that you would like to eat then the harvesters of
salmon in Alaska will realize their fullest financial potential. Be brave.
Thank you for reading this.
As a 52 year old man (~30 years a fisherman), I do not look forward to mentally girding myself to “kick
ass and take names” just to eek out debt service and pocket change in Bristol Bay next year.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
L.R. VanderLind
353 Courtney St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Name: Kenny J. Wilson
Address: Dillingham, AK
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Drift Gillnet – S03T
December 12, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Fillets are the biggest boom. If we fillet our fish we won’t need the Japanese market anymore.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
The DEC are already having us meet a clean standard.
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?
Ice – more easier methods to get the ice to our boats. Bigger boats in Bristol Bay. 32’ is too small for
value-added because of the ice.
Marketing Subcommittee
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)
Do marketing yourself. I do.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Marketing is cheap. Less than 5% of your gross, it may be around 1% of your gross.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Having villages provide us with storage out here in Bristol Bay. And have our own plants to process
value-added.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Less Taxes.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Most people can’t even buy oil. How can they pay back taxes if they can’t even help themselves.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Low interest rates.
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
No.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
I don’t support any hatchery.
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?
They should help every value-added processor and only help them, not the big processors.
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?
I had to close my business three years ago because of falling prices. I am willing to retrain.
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?
Set up a big seafood store in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Seattle.
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?
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?
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 should be able to be allowed to have extensions on all our loans, like SBA bank-State loans.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Name: Mark Edminster
Email: medmnster@xyz.net
Address: 662275 Fireweed Ave. Homer 99603
Phone: (907) – 235-2972
Fish Area: Area M
Gear Type: Gillnet (S03M)
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Total Revamp of fishing & tendering methods – out law gillnetting/ seine only. Mandatory refrigeration
or icing, develop way to measure bacteria contamination on board vessels, can’t hold fish alone than 6
hrs. – No drift sets over 1 hr.
Change tendering methods: Mother ship processor for H&G or round fish – each tender mother ship
has 10-15 fishing boats, I have red brailers, you have blue brailers, john has yellow brailers, etc. Don’t
wait for weights of fish tickets, just exchange full for empty brailers at processor – tabulations at end of
period- No night fishing (drifts are too long) all fish should be frozen at sea as per cod long liners –
Preferably filet machine on board so value added can be done before flash freezing – No fish in the
round past the processor (should be boneless filets) farm fish not only brought about cheap high quality
(if not somewhat contaminated) product but finally gave the average cook a product that didn’t need to
be butchered on the kitchen counter before cooking.
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?
Improved price but more importantly, knowing that at the consumers end that they’ve actually received
a better more tasteful & appearance improved product – If I raise my standards, then let’s raise them
across the board. Also, more careful handling, possibly bleeding, quicker tender deliveries, quicker soak
times on nets all lead to a slower fishery more concerned with quality not quantity – The transition is
going to be costly monetarily so permit holders who owe on their commercial loans need some
assurance that note will not be called due to inability to pay, etc.. *(possibly even lower interest rates)
Marketing Subcommittee
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Only if they comply with rigorous market standards for quality and value added.
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?
Fishing vessel hold bacteria count & if too high regulations to shut down operation til contamination
lowered.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Begin a new with a comprehensive & studied approach that makes sense.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Interest rates on loans should reflect the emergency state of our industry. State’s value for permits
should be more in line of business sectors ie., when I bought my permit, brokerage & individuals felt
300k was value but state of Alaska’s value was 321k, so you tend to borrow more than is warranted.
Also, why as a 1yr. resident with military background & meeting all necessary criteria can I borrow at a
rate of 3.5 to 4% five star energy for a home when lifelong resident can only get 7% on a commercial
fishing 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?
Persons who owe debts on existing Division of Investment loans could be given the option of continued
payments or retirement of their permit for the remaining balance – possibly a significant number of
permits would be retired at no up front expense to the state or its fishing persons other than remaining
loan balances would not be recovered! Secondly, the fisherman / or state could offer up capital sums to
further buy out more permit holders – the one notion we need to get away from is being fair to everyone
(if we’re fair to the majority there is always some one who falls through the cracks & gets screwed. But
can we use this criterion to stop change – it’s never going to settle out fair for everyone(look at halibut
Quotas or crab rights for examples. It’s going to be hard, it’s going to be costly & it’s going to be
devastating to some and just plain sad to others but the wall’s got to crack somewhere.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Name: Peter Togiak
Address: Box 235 Togiak, AK 99678
Phone: 907 493-5671
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: Salmon drift (S03T)
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Good price
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?
Clean fish
Marketing Subcommittee
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development, other)
Market development
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)
Federal government USDA
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Don’t know
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Don’t know
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Fair price
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Get federal government
Finance Subcommittee
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Don’t know
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Don’t know
3. Should the State of Alaska provide for the permanent retirement of limited entry permits in your
fishery? If salmon limited entry permits were retired in your fishery, what incentives would you suggest
for retirement? If funding is needed, who should pay?
State of Alaska
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
Yes
Education
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12, post-secondary, and voc/tech)
in order to promote Alaskans in the fishing and seafood industry?
Voc/tech
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?
Don’t know
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?
Don’t know
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
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
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 know
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
Name: Hjalmar Olson
Email: heolson@hotmail.com
Address: Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: 907 842 5532
Fish Area: AreaT
Gear Type: S03T
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
-Reexamine the effects of the in-river fisheries. I initially supported for the preservation of early Coho’s
in the Nushagak, but in the long term it is not good, the fish harvested is only good for canning.
-Quicker harvester delivery time.
-Faster tender turnarounds
-Slush icing of salmon
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Maybe a state quality seal
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
(no response)
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
If I deliver a quality product, I expect a higher price.
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)
Both could be used.
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)
Tramper boats from Japan have eliminated the need for large processors to market fish other than
Japan now that farm salmon is competing processors want everyone to pay for their early marketing
mistakes.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Through ASMI and other entities
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Horsepower regulation for Bristol Bay fish boats, Mesh size restrictionm (Return run strength). Restrict
registration to one river.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Amend the law so processors can transport their own fish by boat to lower 48.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
-32’ boat limit should remain in Bristol Bay.
-48 hour transfer waiting should remain in Bristol Bay.
-I do not support processor shares, nor IFQs in the Bristol Bay fishery.
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?
Yes
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?
Market determines price of salmon.
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?
Fishery courses in areas where there are schools in fishing communities.
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?
Longer airports, cold storage or ice machines, docks
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Name: Patrick Kosbruk
Address: PO Box 115, Perryville, Alaska 99648
Phone: 907-853-2244
Fish Area: Chignik
Gear Type: Seine (S01L)
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Processing plants need to modify equipment as to preserve quality of fish before and during processing.
Holding tanks with too much fish when water drained out causing weight damage by crushing fish
product.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Have quality inspectors at processing plants during operations, possibly once a week or stationed at
plants for duration of salmon season.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
A video explaining precisely what is required in processing, for quality product for all plant processing
employees..
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
Processors problem after harvested to maintain quality.
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)
Small sampling kits with labeling sent to markets.
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. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
All
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
Not individual fisherman. This would create diversity which in turn would be more costly than
marketing as a group.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Do what coop or CSPA did in Chignik in summer of 2002.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
N/A
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Long term low interest loans. Recognize disasters when they occur and are declared by Governor for
loan purposes, extensions, modification, etc.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
Find ways to utilize more of salmon ie: head, spawn, meat of backbone, etc.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No, threatening or harrassing from loan officers when payments have a reasonable extension or
ammendment request.
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?
Do not understand, need clarification for this lanuage.
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?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Leave our natural salmon resources our of hatcheries before they are completely destroyed, more studies
for current salmon ( natural) resources.
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?
Students choice
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 one to date can explain the poor fish runs occurring in some areas of Alaska. Need more intense
studies of wild salmon runs and reason or reasons for decline or run failures.
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?
Chignik area is controlled from Kodiak where there exists a problem of fishery openings for the Kodiak
and Chignik area fisherman.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
Name: Robert Henrichs
Email: rhenrichs@tribalnet.org
Address: PO Box 1388, Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 907-424-3604
Fish Area: Prince William Sound / Cordova
Gear Type: Driftnet (S03E)
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Better care of fish from time they are caught, more value added.
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?
To avoid bankruptcy.
Marketing Subcommittee
1. Do we use existing state salmon promotional entities or do we change the entities? If changed, what
changes should be made? (e.g. ASMI; Division of International Trade & Market Development,
other)
Use existing one.
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?
YES – not sure.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
Co-OP harvest. Buy Back? Cut down number of fisherman.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
In Cordova, we need to lower power costs.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Yes, but I am not sure what they are.
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
YES, plow them back into promotion.
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
No. Not sure.
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, funding would be a combination of federal, state and private. Maybe some environmental
organizations would be interested in this.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
YES
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?
They should, but not sure what.
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. 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?
I don’t know.
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.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
YES. Less sport and more commercial. Fishing Reps.
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?
Keeping rural communities economy healthy. Phase out new residents.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Name: Tom Panamaroff
Email: Tpanamaroff@koniag.com
Address: 4300 B. St., Suite 407, Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 907-561-2668
Fish Area: Kodiak
Gear Type: Seine (S01K)
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Value added processing. Fisheries are doing their part delivering a higher quality of product than in the
past. Simply putting in into a can is prehistoric. Processors need to figure out how to make a product
consumers can prepare for table quickly and easily.
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
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)
Current ones are fine – we need a product people know how to prepare that also tastes good.
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?
NO- should be statewide.
Production Subcommittee
1. How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvesting sector in a way that allows regional selfdetermination?
I think fishermen are pretty good at finding ways to operate as effectively as possible. Insurance costs
are soaring, so any help with that would be beneficial.
2. How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Reduce or eliminate the state’s share of the fisheries business top or allow a tax credit for development /
installation of value added processing equipment like the state did during the development of the
groundfish/pollock industry.
3. In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there statutory/regulatory changes that can help
the harvesters and/or the processors?
Finance Subcommittee
1. Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry taxes to assist the salmon
industry?
See #2 on Production Subcommittee questions
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Suspension of investment payments until industry comes back.
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 could buy them back at current market values and hold them for sale when /if industry turns
around. If have only a few permits and things come back, those permit values would skyrocket and no
one could get into or back into the industry without a lot of money.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state’s relationship with all hatchery owners?
YES- No more production of pinks and chums, only sockeye, coho and king production.
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?
More information as to what the industry opportunities for careers are. State already has underutilized
Winn Bindle Memorial Scholarship program. But, people don’t know about it and don’t know what
they should go on to study.
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 – Marine Science courses should be available at outlying campuses (ie Kodiak, Dillingham, Kenai
Pen.) not just Juneau. School of fisheries and ocean sciences should be at either UAA or UAS –
definitely not Fairbanks.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
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?
?
2. Do you support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
Yes, but it is getting too demanding for board members. Board should be expanded by at least 2
members.
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?
Would anyone in the legislature pay attention? I doubt it. My experience is that other than legislators
from fishing areas legislators generally look at the fishing industry as employing non-residents and
being a drain on the state treasury. Until, legislators are educated on the postives of the industry to the
state any report generated by this commission will simply collect dust on legislators shelves.
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?
People are going to be hard pressed to hold on to boats and permits. In addition, people could lose
homes too. Lots will try to get into sport fish charter business. Smaller fishing communities may
become abandoned and village populations will decline as people move to urban areas to seek work.
Economic strain on families may cause increases in alcohol/ drug abuse &/or domestic problems.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Name: Emil Christiansen Sr. (S01K)
Email: Echris3260@aol.com
Address: 8211 Debarr Rd., Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Phone: 907-333-5778
Fish Area: Kodiak
Gear Type: seiner, longliner and pots
December 11, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
Good Chilling system and early deliveries.
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
3. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
I need to know that everyone is doing the same as I am in keeping good quality.
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 are doing fine. But, we need to do more of it.
Finance Subcommittee
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
YES
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
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
Agency Oversight
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
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
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry T ask Force
716 W. 4th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
To Task Force Members:
As input from the industry as been asked for I would at this time like to submit mine on the work
you have done thus far; and, answer, as best as I can the questions posed by your various
subcommittees.
First, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mike Saunders and I am, and have been for six
years now, President of Lynn Canal Gillnetters Association. We are Haines fishermen, for the most part,
although we have members from Juneau and Sitka, and we are affiliated both with SEAFA and USAG,
and in that respect, also UFA. That is to say some of our members are SEAFA members, and some
USAG members and both are umbrella organizations supporting UFA. We have a seat on the DIPAC
board of directors, and I also represent Haines Gillnetters on the board of directors of NSRAA.
So, without any general comments on the problems facing the salmon industry at
this time, (as those are common as sand fleas) I will get right to the point of the matter and attempt to
give my answer to the questions posed by your subcommittees in their reports, starting with the Quality
Subcommittee Report. I guess I will say, though, that in reviewing all the questions posed by your
various subcommittees, that, I see none of you asking the real question that I think should be asked.
Which, is, "How do we drive up the ex-vessel price of fish so that everyone can make a living again?"
That's probably a question all of you should think about. "How are we going to compete with the
Chileans and Norwegians?" That's two questions, and if George Bush loved us as much as he did steel
workers in Pittsburgh, he'd have one answer called tariffs that would answer both questions at a stroke.
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force Quality Subcommittee Questions:
And my, (Mike Saunders) answers. (for what they're worth)
1.) What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher quality
product?
I guess what you mean by this is raw fish, at least, that's my reading of what you are discussing
given the comments on the mailer your sent me under the question, you are not talking about making
any user friendly, value added product here, just raw fish.
Slush ice as been the standard here in Southeast for the gill net fleet for as long as
I've been fishing, and that's going on twenty years. I fished two years up in Bristol Bay in
the late eighties and was amazed to see dry fish holds and fish stacked in piles on barges in the open air.
There is really no reason for that to continue.
Many of us here in the gill net fleet are now doing roe recovery on board and we've all been
inspected by DEC and many of us by the FDA which I won't say leads to higher quality per se, but
we've passed some pretty stringent guidelines doing that. Doing roe makes one quality conscious real
fast though, as #2 roe is about half the price of #1. And that comes in keeping it clean and cold. Good
ice, lots of it. That's good for both the roe and the fish. A good buyer will have the ice, and the tender
service that moves the raw product off the boat and on to primary and secondary processing in a short
amount of time.
Now there is a road link out of Haines that gets product to Seattle overland in a
fraction of the time it takes to get it there via sea routes. There's a real advantage there,
quality wise. Everything has to stay cold and get to the consumer as fast as possible
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
unless you go to the steady shelf life format of canned or frozen. But it has to get to that
format quickly as well. We all know these things. If there are to be quality incentives
though, they have to come from the buyers.
2.) Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal,
and state quality commission?
I don't know the answer to this one, It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Branding is always a recognized way of getting consumer loyalty. Witness Copper River
fisheries success with their branding efforts. That's their quality seal. Brand name
recognition.
Who are you going to approve, fishing boats? Or processing facilities? You can
sell a great fish and if the processor doesn't take care of it there isn't any point having a
"Best Boat” sticker on the mast. And who is being sold on and how is it to be advertised to the consumer
in Burbank that this state seal means anything so that that end user will pay a few cents more than the
competition is asking. (farmed fish)
3.) Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
These programs are currently available.
4.)What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or
processed salmon?
I've always delivered a quality product, and it's bothered me from time to time that the people
that don't deliver a quality product get paid the same when the delivery is to a major packer where there
is too big a volume to grade the fish or take core temperature samples. I tried bleeding sockeye for Ward
Cove on an experimental basis but they didn't pay any extra for the experiment, and in fact I lost money
because when that blood was washing out the scupper, that was money, and then they dropped the
experiment and said that they couldn't qualify a difference in product. But: other buyers pay more for
bled fish and that's good, the best incentive is money. Another good incentive is survival, and I think the
processing sector is going to work very hard in this area, because survival is their ultimate goal.
I will always deliver the best fish I can. I'll take all the ice a buyer will give me. I'll do roe
recovery , and baby that product all the way from the belly of the fish to the tender, with every
precaution I can take to make it good. I'll bleed fish if that is what the buyer asks for. If you give me a
sticker to put on my Best Boat and Ward Cove Packing recognizes that means my fish are better and
pays me a couple cents more for them I'll fly that flag. I, and most fishermen I know will do whatever it
takes to make more money. I know there are people out there delivering bad fish. I believe that dealing
with them is up to the buyers and I believe that they will be dealt with. Survival will be their incentive.
Production Subcommittee Report questions:
1.) How can we remove or reduce costs from the harvester sector in a way that
allows regional self determination.
You can remove or reduce my costs by reducing fees and licensing hassles for me. I shouldn't
need to get a DEC license to sell roe. I shouldn't have to get a Dept of
Revenue business license. The quality guidelines mandated by DEC I approve of and
live by but all those extra fees and paper work don't make sense. If you want salmon
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
fishermen to be able to make enough money to survive in this century, then you should be looking at
ways that make it easier for fishermen to sell roe, rather than making it harder. How about some
exemptions for fuel taxes for fishing boats. My diesel bill is twice what it was back in the eighties.
Your committee talks about permit stacking and fractional permits, (whatever they are). That
doesn't answer the question you're asking here. Owning two permits isn't going to reduce my costs a
penny. It might mean there's one other guy not on the water to
compete with, but fishing costs will not change. Are you making an answer to a question
you didn't ask here? Fractional permit! What is that? Another way to make mine worth
less?
I'm going to tell you something, I've been reducing my costs, myself. I just finished paying off
my state loan, which I've been paying on for fourteen years, along with the loan to old Ed Strand from
Blaine Washington from whom I bought the old "Lady Helen". I used to have twenty grand a year just in
loan payments, now it's zero. But: if I still had a loan, you could reduce my costs by reducing my
interest, or if I needed a new loan offering lower interest loans.
I'll tell you one thing for sure, You are not going to remove or reduce costs from the harvesting
sector in a way that allows regional self determination by doing a white paper on the viability of fish
farming! What the hell is that! Seeing that in this process makes me suspicious of the motives of this
committee. You're not helping us with this. It's going to just give ammunition to the enemy. As our
president says, "You're either with us, or against us, right?" If you're doing a white paper on fish
farming, you're not with us. You're with the other guys.
2.) How can we remove or reduce costs and aid the processing sector?
Let’s see, you tried that last year by making legislation that would require cannery
workers to pay rent in their bunk houses. I don't know how much help that was. Processors need R&D
(research and development). Loans and tax credits might help with that. Access to markets. I'm not sure
where you're coming from when you mention
hatcheries. I sit on the board of directors of one of the hatcheries and it's our job to
maximize our revenue from processors. Just like fishermen. That's how we survive.
3.) In addition to the removal or reduction of costs, are there
statutory/regulatory changes that can help the harvesters and/or processors?
Yes, Make the wanton waste law more reasonable. Why make the processors buy
a load of black dog salmon? Why prevent a fisherman from dumping a load of bad fish
overboard? Why make fishermen doing roe recovery get DEC licenses and Dept of
Revenue business licenses when they are selling their roe to a secondary processor the
same as raw fish ?
Finance Committee Report: questions coming out of that committee.
1.) Are there better ways in which the state can use existing fishing industry
taxes to assist the salmon industry?
Of course, there are. Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for this question.
Raw fish taxes paid by processors go into the general fund and are portioned out to the
Borough's according to formula. That’s a good thing. The Borough's, particularly the one I live in need
these monies. The three percent enhancement tax that we salmon fishermen
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
pay goes to support operations at our private non-profit aquaculture associations such as
NSRAA, of which I am both a board member, and a participant in hatchery derived
fisheries, such as those at Boat Harbor in Lynn Canal and Deep Inlet near Sitka. These
hatchery projects entailing the rearing and releasing to remolt sites chum salmon fry , in
combination with the projects run by DIPAC in Lynn Canal and lower Stephen's Passage
are the only reason my business has been successful throughout the tough times the
industry has been experiencing. Because, to tell the truth. I haven't been having that tough
a time. Two years ago I had my best season ever. Why? Hatchery fish provided by
NSRAA and DIPAC and the switchover to the selling of chum roe off the boat to roe
buyers.
I didn't do as well this year because the price of roe off the boat was down from
$6.00 a pound to $4.00 but I still did OK. Whatever comes out of this Salmon Industry
Task force has to be good for hatcheries, or it won't be good for us.
The one percent marketing assessment that goes to ASMI, many people say is not
money well spent, I don't think that way, but I get a little mad when I see them waste
money on adds in the Fisherman's Journal when they should be in Bon Apetite.
2.) Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon
industry? If not, what changes would you suggest?
I think they do. The only thing, that I think should be done is to make the application process
easier. That and maybe finance a bigger chunk of what is being bought. I got into the industry as a
Southeast Gill net Permit Holder through the state loan program, and I couldn't have done it any other
way. CFAB turned me down. I bought in for a $100,000 permit in 1988, that and a $35,000 boat. That
permit is only worth $25,000 today, and the boat sunk in 1996 and I had to buy another one for cash. But
I never missed a payment and was never late for one either. And I've seen low prices before, and I've
always made up for them in volume of fish. Perhaps that won't be possible some day. As I get older it
gets harder to out highline the young highliners. But I'm paid off now. I made my 14th and last payment
to Div. of Investments this year. I think people should pay their debts.
I don't believe in loan forgiveness. The president of CFAB has already made
attacks on Division of Investments in a summer issue of the Fisherman's Journal, complaining that they
are not on a level playing field, and loan forgiveness would just give the people who have the revolving
loan fund in their sights a reason to use in attempts to Shanghai the fund for their own purposes.
Refinancing is another matter, and restructuring of loans happens all the time in
business. I think, though that if an individual, who reneges on his loan without attempt to
refinance or restructure (for example a Bristol Bay fisherman who paid $250,000 for a
permit that is only worth $15,000 and the guy just says he "ain't paying anymore" and
hasn't made a payment in three or four years) should loose his collateral. And there is no
point in the state selling that permit for what it is worth now. It would be better to retire that permit
under those sort of circumstances. The boat could be sold at auction, however. I cannot comment on
"repatriation" as you haven't defined it.
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'm going to answer the last part of this question first, as it's the simplest. The
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
answer to who should pay for any permit retirement schemes in my fishery is, "NOT ME!" I hope you
understand what I'm saying here. I would prefer the survival of the fittest to that approach. I'll tell you
why. We're in a marginal business as it is, even those of us that are still relatively successful in it, mainly
through the time honored method of working harder than the other guys that are failing. We've got our
expenses trimmed to the bone. Our profit margin is very slim. If you try to make the successful guys
pay, who at this time think they can stay in the business, an assessment of some amount of money, to
retire the permits of the guys that for the most part are unsuccessful in this business, so that they can be
rewarded for their failure with some amount of money over and above what they can sell their permits
for on the open market, then you are going to reduce us to their levels. You’ll bring us down. We can't
pay. I'm saying that for me, and for Lynn Canal Gillnetters Assn. I don't think I need to call a meeting to
make that decision. I'll do it right now. We don't want to pay.
Now would I accept permit retirement if someone else wanted to pay for it? Like
my fairy god mother, or the state of Alaska? Yes, I guess I would. Would that solve the
problems in my industry? No. The problem is not too many boats out there fishing in my
area. The problem is the low price of fish. Would I be able to make a little more money if
some of the other boats were gone? Maybe a little. But: the guys that are going to be
gone aren't the guys that are the real competition. The real competition is still going to be
there.
So, what incentives would I suggest for retirement? Being assured by the state of
Alaska that it involves no costs to me and the rest of the Southeast gill net fleet, and that the state or our
fairy god mother or the federal government or Bill Gates or some other entity other than fishermen
would pay for it; then writing letters to every permit holder offering substantially more than what the
current market value for a permit is, would probably retire plenty of them. Assuming that retiring them
happens to them after
they have been bought.
Governance Subcommittee Report; questions derived thereof:
Topic: 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?
This is a difficult question to answer. As I said, in my introduction, I have a seat on the Board of
Directors of one of the private non-profits, Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association. I have occupied that board seat for over five years. NSRAA is
probably the most successful of the Alaska hatchery operators. We've paid off our state
loans. We currently are a model for how hatcheries should be run. I haven't had a chance to talk to staff
on this question, but; I would hesitate to burden them with more government regulation and oversight
than is currently being adhered to. We already have to comply with state and federal water quality
standards and other environmental standards. We do a good job of compliance, I don't think more
regulation on that front is going to be of any help to our operation.
As far as performance standards goes, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean
how many fish we get to the common property users as opposed to what we take for cost
recovery , we currently are leading the state in that regard with almost 90% of production
going to the common property user. Other hatcheries aren't doing as well, and the current
regulation calls for a 60/40 split to the common property/cost recovery . That's a goal. I
don't know if the state wants to hold a hammer over hatcheries on this issue or if that is even advisable.
If you are talking about how hatchery fish are performing as regards to returning adults compared to
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
juvenile releases, a lot of that depends on ocean conditions year to year and it changes dramatically with
temperature changes out in the ocean. El Nino years in the mid nineties brought phenomenal returns and
today’s ocean regime isn't performing to that level.
The state's relationship with hatcheries went from owning them to getting out of the hatchery
business and letting private non profits take it over for the benefit of the common property users (All
Alaskans). I doubt the state wants to go back into owning hatcheries. The state should, however;
support hatcheries in any way that it can, because hatcheries are returning to the state an amount of raw
fish tax that in my region anyway exceeds the amount of revenue from wild fish. Hatcheries are
generating money for the state and boroughs with a cash flow from raw fish taxes. Our Haines Borough
would suffer dramatically without NSRAA and DIPAC hatchery fish being processed at Excursion Inlet
(XIP is a Ward Cove facility).
I don’t know if I answered this question to your satisfaction, but in a nutshell, I don’t support a
policing body for hatcheries, or a hatchery board, or a hatchery commission or any new bureaucracy. I
do, and think the state should support hatcheries.
Education:
1. What role should the State play in providing fisheries education (K-12) and post secondary, and
voc/tech in order to promote Alaskan’s in the fishing and seafood industry?
I’m not sure. We (the State) need fisheries biologists. A lot of good ones have been sucked
away by the Federal Subsistence Takeover. The federal government pays more. We, (the people of the
State of Alaska) need fisheries biologists to effectively run our salmon, crab, and ground fish fisheries
and other fisheries. We will continue to need them on into the future, indefinitely. God science
programs in our schools is what we need for that. That’s starting with K-12.
In addition to science, voc/tech is also critical. Fisheries businesses need skilled artisans.
Welders, Mechanics, Fabricators, Electricians, and Electronics Technicians, Refrigeration specialists.
Support services are invaluable to both the fishing fleet and processing sector.
But: mostly what the industry needs is young people willing to stay in Alaska and work during
the fishing season. The state could help in that respect by having schools good enough to keep those
young people interested in staying here.
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 think the University generally does a good job in this respect. I’m not familiar enough with
their programs to make suggestions. I went to U of O.
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide
retraining and/or alternative employment?
It is my understanding that the state is already sitting on a couple of million dollars provided by
the federal government for just that purpose. So you need to quit sitting on that money and match it
with some more for this sort of program, I would guess.
I’m hoping I never have to quit fishing for the sole reason I can’t make it pay, but, I’ve only been
able to do so by catching more and more fish at lower and lower prices.
That and taking advantage of the market for chum salmon roe, which the state seems perversely to try to
make it difficult for gillnetters such as myself to take advantage of. But: if I have to quit. It could
happen. I’m going to be a 50 year old man with no job and no modern computer skills, nothing to make
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
me stand out in the job market, not to mention I’ve been used to being my own boss for twenty years.
Do you really think anyone but McDonalds would want to hire me? I, personally would need training,
and loan startup to start my own business. We are small businessmen just the same as the guy that runs
the laundry or computer store, or tourist business down the street. You have to think small business
loans. Low interest. That’s probably what would be the most helpful to me in addition to training. You
can’t throw fifty year old men and women onto today’s market with just a little training and help wanted
ads in their hands and say you really helped. We wouldn’t be able to compete with the twentysomethings
in the same market.
Agency Oversight
1. Apart from Board of Fisheries decisions, are there other state agency regulations that could be
changed to benefit Alaska’s salmon industry?
Yes, get rid of requirements for me, as a gillnetter, to have to get a processors license (DEC,
DOR, ADF&G) in order to sell chum salmon roe to a roe buyer. It’s ridiculous to the absurd to call
taking eggs out of a fish, which are coming out anyway when you gut it, and call it processing if you put
the roe in a bucket and sell it and call it troll dressing a fish when you throw the eggs overboard with the
rest of the guts.
Let’s get something straight. And I’m just speaking from the frame of reference of a Southeast
Gillnetter. The best way you can keep me and guys like me from going broke in the short term is to
make it easier for us to do roe recovery. Up to now all state agencies have done is to try to make it
harder and harder on guys wanting to do roe recovery. You get people cpomplaining about roe
“strippers” and you get Board of Fish proposals like the one last year requiring full retention of all fish
on a gill net boat, not required on a seiner or troller. So, the ugliest, blackest, spawned out, downstream
humpy with his fins rotting off has to stay on the boat under penalty of law.
Why not make it simple? Eggs are just part of the fish like the fins. All I should need to sell
them is my limited entry permit. Period. There you go. You just saved the salmon industry. My little
piece of it.
2. Do you support the Board of Fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
I support the BOF process but it should be de-politicized. Sometimes I think the commercial fisheries
are under-represented. That said, I was really disgusted with what the legislature did the last term to the
governoir’s appointees, which further politicizes the Board of Fish process. It’s bad enough already. I’d
like also to have some way to weed out crackpot ideas.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish?
No. See above answer.
4. Should the State of Alaska develop an Alaska Seafood Commission to annually advise the
legislature on the needs of the seafood industry?
It probably couldn’t hurt if it was comprised of equal representation from both the catcher and
processor sectors.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Name: Amelia Christensen (S04T)
Email: ameliac@bbna.com
Address: P.O. Box 203 Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Fish Area: Igushik section of the Nushagak District
Gear Type: Set-Net
December 6, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
1. What does the Alaska salmon industry need to achieve a higher
quality product? A better way of having fish delivered to buyers, shorter fishing periods. Purchase only
high quality fish, maybe a inspection of fishing boats to ensure quality and cleanliness.
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
I'm not sure if another agency needs to be developed.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
A educational program in high school may be appropriate for the majority already in the industry a
manual should work if they are serious about what they do.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
I deliver a fresh product still alive if the tender is close enough. Provide an ice machine free of charge in
the Igushik section and fast buyer/tender service.
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 the existing entities, there is no $$$ to create additional entities.
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)
Use the fish tax money for advertising.
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
I hate to see additional paper work required, we should work together to make it easiest as possible and
not chase the local fishermen out of the business.
Finance Subcommittee
2. Do current State of Alaska loan practices address the needs of the salmon industry? If not, what
changes would you suggest?
Current loan practices are hard to access and interest rates are too high.
Governance Subcommittee
Hatcheries
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
1. Would you support legislative development of a State of Alaska hatchery policy and/or performance
standards for hatcheries, and/or changes to the state's relationship with all hatchery owners?
I would support the State developing policies for hatcheries.
Education
3. If you are displaced by changes in the salmon industry, what could the state do to provide retraining
and/or alternative employment?
For people over the age of fifty I'm not sure if funding agencies would accept and train and for those not
having a GED or high school diploma it would be impossible to train individuals most vocational
schools require high school diplomas or GEDs.
Agency Oversight
2. Do you support Alaska's board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would you suggest?
I support the Board Of Fish process but members sitting on the board need equal representation and not
certain user groups, I feel we need a set net representative.
3. Do you support a task force created by the legislature to review the Alaska Board of Fish? No, where
will the funding come from? I think if there was money it should be used in other ways.
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?
This is a complicated form to fill out, but I feel the State is already leaning towards getting rid of the
whole fishing industry. I feel we don't need to create a Commission to advise legislators.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
Name: Blanche Murphy (S04T)
Email: Blanchem@bbna.com
Address: Box 57 Dillingham, AK
Phone: (907) 842-4059
Fish Area: Nushagak
Gear Type: Set Gill
December 6, 2002
Quality Subcommittee
2. Should the state be involved in creating a quality standard, state quality seal, and a state quality
commission?
Yes. Fishing is a Statewide industry, and better quality statewide means better product, better market,
better prices.
3. Should the state have a quality education program for industry participants?
Yes. The canneries and processors should also be required to attend and implement quality standards.
Now, we, the fishermen, deliver a fresh quality fish to the cannery, and it get abused and sits around for
several hours. The quality education should focus on what is doable, and not necessarily on the ideal.
4. What incentives do you need to improve the quality of your harvested and/or processed salmon?
I deliver a fresh product to the cannery. The way I could improve my product would be if there were a
readily available source of ice to put the fish in. The ice would have to be provided free--we cannot
afford to pay for it. It would have to be available on site, not at the cannery.
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)
[Please insert your comments here]
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 Harvesters, Processors, USDA,)
3. Should the state help individual fishermen promote and market their wild salmon? If so, how?
I think this would be nice, but I am not sure how to go about it.
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?
I believe there are too many limited entry permits available. If a person holds two permits (set and gill)
he should be required to fish one and retire the other permit permanently. I believe a person who does
not depend on the fishery for his or her livelihood, and who gets two major infractions within five years
should have their permit retired permanently.
Public Responses to Salmon Task Force Vol. 11 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
If a person fishes for their livelihood, then maybe three infractions within six years would mean the
permit is retired. I don't know--I have not had time to think this through well. The survey was just
now given to me and I do feel these issues are important enough that I should respond so I am trying!
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?