Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Salmon Task Force Proposals
From the Public, Volume 2
As of November 1, 2002
1. Finance
a. Salmon Revolving Pack Loan Fund (Scott McAllister)................................................................. 2
b. Capital Construction Funds (CCF's) (UCIDA).............................................................................. 3
c. Incentives Related to Repair / Maintenance (Bob Weinstein) ....................................................... 4
2. Governance
a. Help! (David Cusato).................................................................................................................... 5
b. Salmon Restructuring (Jeff Steele) ................................................................................................ 6-7
c. Permit Loan expansion to allow Native Corporations to loan and hold liens on permits for their
shareholders (Duff W. Mitchell). ................................................................................................... 8
d. Conservation/Allocation Issues (UCIDA) ..................................................................................... 9
e. Serve on the Governance sub-committee (Bob Sanborn) ........................................................... 10
f. How our children are affected in school the cooperative fishing this year in the Chignik Area (Laura
Stepanoff ) .................................................................................................................................. 11
g. Nuisance Regulations (Lloyd Pukis) ........................................................................................... 12
h. Fleet/Permit Reduction (Jim Kallander) ..................................................................................... 13
i. Equity Protection for Fleet Reduction Programs (Victor Smith) ................................................. 14*
3. Marketing
a. Lack of Marketing to the average household in the lower 48 (Renee Claggett) ......................... 15
4. Production
a. Non-finfish Aquaculture Permits (Gail Marshall) ...................................................................... 16
b. Bristol Bay Concerns (Avi J. Friedman) ..................................................................................... 17
c. Producing a product the consumer will buy (Chuck Thompson)................................................. 18
d. Seine Corridor in Bristol Bay (Chuck Thompson) ...................................................................... 19
e. Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) (UCIDA).............................................................................. 20
f. Local/Regional Long-Term Planning (UCIDA).......................................................................... 21
g. Untitled (Paul Harder)................................................................................................................ 22
h. Fish handled too much, held too long (Robert Hall)................................................................... 23
i. Fleet Reduction Programs (Victor Smith) ................................................................................... 24*
5. Quality
a. Owner of F/V Sea Comber, S.E. purse seiner, and cod, rockfish, prawn freezer processor (Robert Hall).
.................................................................................................................................................... 25
b. COLD FISH (Eric Hesselroth) ................................................................................................... 26
c. Quality will improve our industry (Mark A. Niver)..................................................................... 27
d. Untitled (Dale Johnston)............................................................................................................. 28*
e. Recommendation for improving quality for fish caught in any outlying areas-Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet
examples.( Roy M. Smith) .......................................................................................................... 29*
f. Ice barges (Randy Kroeze) .......................................................................................................... 30*
6. Miscellaneous
a. Long Term Stability of Salmon Harvests (UCIDA) .................................................................... 30
b. Access to Salmon Resources (UCIDA) ....................................................................................... 31
c. Are Hatchery's new competition? (Troy Thomassen) ................................................................. 32
d. Representing 35 Area M Driftnetters (Dick Wooding)................................................................ 33-34
* indicates recent additions updated after 10/25/02
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Finance
Title: Alaska Salmon Revolving Pack Loan Fund
Problem: The expense and terms of pack loans let to processors from traditional banking sources often
force short selling of salmon by processors to meat loan obligations instead of holding product for better
prices later. In Today’s buyers market this has increasingly become a problem.
Discussion: I offer this suggestion for consideration by the task force, it combines user friendly pack
loan financing with quality and marketing incentives to reduce the industries interest costs and may also
help to improve quality and the "Alaskan Wild Salmon" label.
Recommendations: Establish the Alaska Salmon Revolving Pack Loan Fund. Using state and any
available federal funds, establish a loan fund available to processors processing salmon in Alaska for the
purpose of purchasing salmon from harvesters.
Loans would be collateralized with the pack and terms tailored to encourage a sellers environment
without the pressures of expensive bank interest rates and inflexible repayment schedules.
For processors to qualify for these loans one would have to meat quality standards and be required to
package and sell using an "Alaskan Wild Salmon" label in conjunction with their own branding
methods. This label will be the same label used in the generic marketing programs of Asmi
and others.
Name: Scott McAllister
Email: scooski@aol.com
Address: 316 Distin Ave., Juneau Alaska, 99801
Phone: 907-463-5831
Fishery/area: Se Alaska
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
Finance
Title: Capital Construction Funds (CCF's)
Problem: Currently there are hundreds of thousands of dollars setting in (CCF's). The industry needs
cash to help finance the revitalization effort.
Discussion: CCF's were created as a method and means of putting aside, before taxes, capital dollars to
replace or upgrade fishing equipment. However, the legal uses for the CCF's are quite restrictive. There
could be large amounts of cash available to help fund some of the solutions if flexibility was created
regarding approved uses of the CCF's. Some of the CCF's could be used to stack permits, buy multiple
fishery permits, IFQ's, and invest in production or product development. The CCF's are federally
controlled and would require federal laws and regulations to be changed. If this is something desirable to
do then let's start working to put flexibility into the legal sues for CCF's.
Recommendation: Work toward flexibility in use of CCF's.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Finance
Title: Incentives Related to Repair / Maintenance
Problem: many vessels involved in the Alaska fishing industry and based out of state and use out of
state ship repair facilities to the exclusion of Alaska shipyards.
Discussion: This situation encourages ship repair to occur out of state, further harming the economies of
Alaska coastal economies.
Recommendations: That the Task Force develop incentives which provide some priorities / benefits /
access to capital / access to product to companies whose fleets are maintained in state to the extent that
capacity for such maintenance / repair exists.
Name: Bob Weinstein
Address: 344 Front St. Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 907-247-8103
October 17, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Governance
Title: HELP!
Problem: The value of our salmon catch has fallen over the last few years while our operating costs have
risen. This is not a good combination.
Discussion: Alaska fishers must be given the latitude to reduce costs yet be able increase product quality
which would allow their fishing operations to become profitable and be able to compete with farmed
salmon in the market place.
Recommendations: Allow Alaska fishers to co-op so that costs can be reduced. Change state law to
allow the reintroduction of fish traps. Give ADF&G biologists more flexibility when managing the fish
runs so a more orderly harvest can take place.
Name: David Cusato
Email: www.kbeach1977@aol.com
Address: 600 W. 76th Ave., Apt. 508, Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Phone: (907) 522-4037
Fishery/area: Set Net - Cook Inlet
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Governance
Title: Salmon Restructuring
Problem Statement
1) Erosion of markets due to low cost and availability of farmed salmon
2) Interstate user group battles over the state of dwindling resource supplies between commercial -sports
and subsistence
Groups intensify
3) Serious economic problems with the commercial salmon fleet and the costal communities
Discussion
The future of the salmon industry as a whole for the state of Alaska is not a pretty picture. We are
getting are ass kicked and liable to be put out of business-this is a state of war and aggressive measures
are needed.
Southeastern Alaska seems to be holding its own and should be looked at for a model to redevelop
around. They have an optimum number of fishermen whose success so far is based on volume and
strong diversified runs.
The reason for there success seems to be a well developed hatchery program (ocean ranching). The
hatcheries are targeting the sweet spots in the markets and helping the commercial groups out. They are
also developing strong king and coho returns for the sports groups.
This seems to have eliminated a lot of the user group bickering and fighting between sports commercial
and subsistence users. If there is plenty to go around and it benefits all groups, what’s there to fight
over?
The killer for the commercial fleet is low returns coupled with low prices
Recommendations
1) Develop the hatchery program (ocean ranching) even further in Key spots around the state to promote
and develop strong diversified runs. This will help the coastal communities with salmon based canneries
and businesses that still need volume to survive.
The hatchery in Juneau has contributed to the economic stability of the community also. Tourist traffic,
sports fisherman work the docks nearby as the runs return. The hatchery is coupled with some
production of eggs for the caviar market and could be doing more also to stimulate some niche market
through its own involvement of salmon processing also.
2) Optimum number of fisherman with the ability to harvest volumes at the most efficient way.
a) Buy back program with state money based by regions on a reverse auction bid
3) Quit pussyfooting around with the ad campaigns against farmed salmon. As our industry ramps up
with there quality reforms there is enough good info available that truth is on our side with the issues to
do significant damage to there marketing.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
4) Senator Stevens have offered to take the money from the ANWR and use it to help and develop our
renewable resources (salmon).
UFA should get involved and help him with ANWAR so he can help us!
5) Kodiak has an opportunity to use the Cook Inlet plant, which is on city property to develop a modern
multiuse hatchery.
Problems that need further discussions
1) obstacles to ramping up hatchery production
a) reduced limits on egg takes from AYK pressure
2) canned pink market-industry has gotten too weak to hold inventory to prop up prices
a) canned salmon marketing cartel
b) government subsides and purchases for redistribution to underdeveloped and 3rd world
countries with food and protein source problems
Name: Jeff Steele
Email: j.t.steele@worldnet.att.net
Address: PO Box 1732, Kodiak, AK 99615-1732
Phone: (907) 487-2248
Fishery/Area: Kodiak seine
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Governance
Title: Permit Loan expansion to allow Native Corporations to loan and hold liens on permits for their
shareholders.
Problem: Rural Alaskan villages are losing permits and their economic base as permits migrate from
Native Alaskans and are sold. This migration eliminates deck hand jobs and the traditional
apprenticeship program that exists in Native villages. Permit holders are usually a large part of the rural
economy because they buy gear, groceries and marine services in their home community. Once a permit
is sold and leaves the community, it shrinks the economic base of the rural community. If there were
more lending sources available to buy permits, there would be more demand for permits. If there is more
demand for permits, permit prices stabilize and increase in value.
Discussion: Currently only CFAB and State of Alaska, Division of Investments can make permit loans
and hold liens against permits. Native Corporations and their respective communities have a vested
interest in maintaining strong rural economies. The State of Alaska has a vested interest in keeping rural
community economies strong as well. No jobs means higher unemployment rates, social problems, and
more money spent from State coffers to mitigate the effect of poor economies.
Many Native Corporations would like to assist and expand the fish harvesting capability among their
shareholders for the obvious economic reasons. At present they are precluded from doing so because
they cannot legally lien a permit and protect their investment in the case of a default.
Allowing Native Corporations to lien permits either on their own or through a State regulated financial
institution would start the process whereby Native communities could invest into their own future.
This change would cost the State nothing, but would have the following benefits:
1. It would increase the ability and opportunity for rural Native Alaskans to finance permits and
enter this trade.
2. It would assist rural communities in stabilizing and expanding their economic base.
3. It would assist all permit holders in that it would stabilize and over time increase their permit
value because now there is a new demand to buy permits.
4. It would lessen and mitigate some State assistance that is rendered to communities that have poor
economies i.e. high unemployment, low job opportunities etc.
5. It is good public policy to allow people to support themselves through self- financing, education
and development. This allows Native Corporations the opportunity to assist their communities
that are dependent on fishery resources for their economic livelihood.
Recommendations:
Change the current State laws and policies to allow Native Corporations and their wholly owned
subsidiaries the ability to finance and lien limited entry permits for their shareholders and descendents.
Name: Duff W. Mitchell
Email: duff@alaskafoods.com
Address: Box 23000 Juneau, AK 99802
Phone (907) 586-3333
Fishery/Area: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Governance
Title: Conservation/Allocation Issues
Problem: It is our view that the ADF & G and BoF mask salmon allocation issues by calling them
conservation issues. The precautionary rule in concert with conservation is used as a means of
allocation.
Discussion: Currently the BoF has conservation listed as a duty and responsibility. However, on several
occasions the BoF has used conservation or the precautionary rule to achieve allocations. By achieving
allocations through a conservation agenda the BoF never has to use the legislative mandated allocation
criteria as outlined in AS 16.05.251 (e)(5) & (6). The practical effects of using conservation in place of
allocation as the reason for regulatory changes makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the decision
or its affects. The level of proof needed to overturn such an event is almost impossible to prove in a
court.
Recommendations:
1) Have conservation a clear mandate of the ADF & G.
2) The commissioner must agree on the existence of true conservation issues. Both the BoF and
ADF & G must agree that a conservation issue exists before the BoF can conduct hearings to
amend or create conservation regulations.
3) Apply allocation criteria as found in AS 16.05.251 (e)(5) & (6) for other species that are or may
be associated with the species that has a conservation concern.
4) BoF must look at the indirect consequences of a conservation concern e.g. effect on other
species.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
Governance
8-21-02
To: United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
From: Bob Sanborn
6916 South Inland Empire Way
Spokane, WA 99224
Re: Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
I would like to serve on the Governance sub-committee.
The only thing I would propose at this time is that licensed fisherman be
allowed by legislative mandate to form non-profit co-ops for the purpose of
buying and selling Salmon. Right now it is difficult for fishermen to secure
grants/financing for the purchase of processing facilities (i.e. canneries in
Bristol Bay).
Thank you,
Bob Sanborn
Pennit#SO4T58931P
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
Governance
Title: How our children are affected in school the the cooperative fishing this year in the Chignik Area.
Problem: Every year local fishermen fish in the Chignik Area fish more then 7 days a week and 20 miles
or less from their homes. So fishermen travel days way from their villages. Our local school districts
receive funds from the government for Migrant Ed for our children that fish each summer. This year our
school district will not receive any funds because our local regular fishermen didn't get to fish enough.
There was never a 7 day opening in a row for Migrant Ed to give funding to our school children. The
cooperative never hire our school children because they were liabilities. Now our children will suffer
twice, once by taking way their way of life and taking the funding way from their education.
Discussion: The Task Force need to make sure that whatever their decisions are for the cooperative fleet
and the regular fleet that is does not effect the local schools and the school districts. Most of the boats in
the cooperative fishery don't live in the Chignik Area. Only 17 boats in the cooperative fishery our from
the Chignik Area.
Recommendations: Make sure that local school and school districts get their funding through other
programs like Migrate Ed. Our school district are having trouble keeping school open and this
cooperative fishery and regular fishery is going to affect them also.
Thank You for your time.
Name: Laura Stepanoff
Email: clvc101@aol.com
Address: P.O. Box 11 Chignik Lagoon, Alaska 99565
Phone: 907-840-2211
Fishery_area: Chignik Area
October 5, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
Governance
Title: NUISANCE REGULATIONS
Problem: REGULATIONS THAT CREATE INEFFICIENCY IN ALL FISHERIES-- NOT
JUST SALMON 32' LIMIT, 48 HR TRANSFER, 2 HAND GURDYS, 4 POWER GURDIES,
NO POT STACKING, CAN'T FISH 2 SIMILAR PERMITS SAME YR, CAN'T USE SAME
BOAT IN 2 GILLNET FISHERIES. MOST NEW PROPOSALS BY F&G TO BOARD IMPOSE
MORE RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE DISGUISE OF BETTER MANAGEMENT BUT REALLY
JUST CREATE MORE INEFFICIENCY.
Recommendations: RESEARCH REGULATIONS & LAWS AND IF THEY DO NOT DEAL
WITH CONSERVATION DO AWAY WITH THEM.
Name: LLOYD PUKIS
Email: QASJUN@HOTMAIL.COM
Fishery_area: SOUTHEAST
October 23, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
Governance
Title: Fleet/Permit Reduction
Problem: Due to low price competion from salmon farms, most areas are no longer economic with the
original number of permits allocated to the area.
Discussion: There are many ways to reduce fleet size in a given area. As a fisherman, I can say a state or
federal buy out is the most preferred. I beleive some sort of industry financed scheme would be more
desirable from a public point of view. The permit stacking bill passed last session is a good start but I
dont believe we will ever achieve optimum numbers without going further. We need to permit some
sort of organization to be assembled that can hold permits and cooperate with fisherman in obtaining
funding to retire a more significant number of permits.
Recommendations: Regional aquaculters have the ability to collect tax and conduct cost recovery to
cover ther operating cost and make payment on debt. With a vote of the permit holders in a region, I
would like to be able to collect cost recovery [and or] borrow money and pay back with cost recovery, to
puchase permits to reduce fleet size.
Name: Jim Kallander
Email: jkall@ctcak.net
Address: PO Box 2272, Cordova AK 99574
Phone: 907 424 7603
Fishery_area: seine/gillnet area E
October 25, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Governance
Title: Equity Protection for Fleet Reduction Programs
Problem: Fishing associations, lenders, and taxed fishermen, have no assurance that permits won't be
reissued in a fishery that they wish to reduce.
Discussion: It will be dificult to get funding, and support for a reduction program, unless those that are
being asked to invest in the program are confident that their investment is safe. This requirement of the
fishery needs to be balanced by the need to prevent a fishery from becoming too exclusive.
Recommendations: Establish that:
A permit re-issued by CFEC in a fishery that was reduced by a fishermen's association, should first be
from the pool of permits reduced by the association, and the accociation reimbursed their cost of
reduction of the reissued permit.
Name: Victor Smith
Email: sawmillcreek@rockisland.com
Address: PO Box 2477 Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Phone: 360-378-3639
Fishery_area: Southeast salmon seine
October 31, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Marketing
Problem: Lack of Marketing to the average household in the lower 48.
Discussion: After fishing in Alaska for 13 years I moved South. It is amazing to me that in the depths of
our struggling industry that the word is not being put out to the general public. In an age of celebrity
support for everyone's cause why aren't we jumping on the band wagon? As the reports of health risk
and/or no health benefits of farmed salmon why isn't our industry pouncing on the advantage? In a time
of crisis in our country and the resulting world wide donations where was our industry sending surplus
salmon to feed the firemen and other rescue workers of 911? These all missed opportunities to enlighten
the average household of our product, our struggle and our dedication.
Recommendations: I recommend that the task force look into a complete marketing promotion that
includes commercials, convenience products, and celebrity endorsements. After nearly 3 years of living
in the lower 48 and still traveling to Alaska to fish I have taken many opportunities to educate the people
I meet. They are amazed at our economic struggle and they are surprised to know what they buy from
the grocer as 'farmed fish' is truly different from wild salmon. I have taught several people how to know
the difference and how to request a change in their local stores, and THEY do! If we can just get off our
"Oh Woe is Me Attitude" and do something aggressive and productive the people who shop will buy. It
is no longer a time of cramming the salmon in a can, storing it for who knows how long and then
complain. It hasn't worked it won't work and it can't work. The only way many of see a future in this
industry is to shake it up and tell everyone that we are shaking it up because it is worth saving and
passing on.
Name: Renee Claggett
Email: brettandrenee@claggetts.com
Address: P.O. Box 287, Metlakatla AK 99926
Phone: 949-249-2483
Fishery/area: Southeast Salmon, Herring, Shrimp
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Production
Title: Non-finfish Aquaculture Permits
Problem: Legal barriers in the state that preclude and/or significantly hinder development of non-finfish
aquatic species.
Discussion: Alaska has a tremendous opportunity to culture crustaceans, molluscs, seaweeds, aquatic
invertebrates, etc. in the many miles of coastline. Many barriers [seem] to exist re exploring these
opportunities, that could provide additional jobs and income to coastal communities. Would also enable
production of very HIGH VALUE PRODUCTS for US markets and international trade.
When the wrinkles in the salmon industry in AK are ironed out, there will likely be quite a number of
coastal communities and fishers without jobs and income.
Recommendations: Legislature should change regulations and allow development of aquaculture
opportunities, be it ground, raft, or pen based.
Name: Gail Marshall
Email: phoenixak2000@aol.com
Address: 15600 Bridgeview Dr
Phone: 907-345-9912
Fishery/area: Fisheries Biology and Food Product Development
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
Production
Title: Bristol Bay Concerns
I don't know how to break down my comments to fit your outline here so I'll just make my comments as
brief as possible. I am a Bristol Bay set-net fisherman. In the early 90's it was easy to see what the
future would bring. I built a small processing facility on land I bought near my fishsite. I worked within
the system set up by the State of Alaska DEC and DOR. I process a portion of my catch and bring them
to market myself at home. I do not sell into any public markets, I only sell to individual people. So I'm
doing the right thing, is this not correct?
My concern is that I will now be forced to spend more money to maintain my already permitted right to
participate in the fishery and obtain enough salmon to support myself. Now that the fishery is in
turmoil, I fear that certain elements will seek control of the resource. Isn't this what processor shares are
all about? If that scheme comes to fruition, am I going to be guaranteed the opportunity to obtain my
usual amount of salmon? I have already paid dearly to enter the system of commerce legally. What
about permit stacking? Why should anyone currently holding a permit have to buy another one? It's not
fair to change the rules after someone has worked very hard to follow what he thought were the rules
then in effect.
Perhaps the rules should be changed for new entrants into the fishery, but not for those who have already
paid with the sweat of many years hard and dedicated work - you can't make them start all over again!
Thank you for your consideration, Avi J. Friedman
Address: 6109 Pimlico Rd. Baltimore, MD 21209
Phone: 410-358-3008
Fishery/area: Bristol Bay Set-Net
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
Production
Title: Producing a product the consumer will buy.
Problem: Alaskan salmon processors have ignored the American consumer and market.
Discussion: Americans are a grab and eat society. If it can't be prepared in 20 minutes, they won't buy it.
The Chilean's took one look at the American market and made the decision to give the consumer what
they wanted; a pin-bone out fillet ready to cook. We were not undersold. Our product wasn't ever
presented in and acceptable form.
Recommendations: Pay attention to Gail Marshal of Phoenix Food. If the fisherman is required to bring
Quality to the dock, a percentage of pack should be required to leave processing plant in a consumer
acceptable form.
Name: Chuck Thompson
Email: dsfisheries@yahoo.com
Address: box 2193 Kodiak Ak 99615
Phone: 907 486 3034
Fishery/area: Kodiak, Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
Production
Title: Seine Corridor in Bristol Bay
Problem: Over capitalation. It takes 10,000$ to put a gillnetter in the water and participate in one
salmon season. Allow fisherman to consolidate and restructure.
Discussion:
1. Create a seine corridor outside of each district.
a. this would allow participants to produce an ocean quality product.
b. pump live fish into tenders and deliver superior quality to processors.
2. Allow fishermen to form co-ops and sign up with the seine corridor
group, instead of participating with a gillnetter.
The quality and efficiency with this type of consolidation would eliminate a
vast number of problems in all arenas; catching, processing, and marketing.
Recommendations: Bounce this idea around.
Name: Chuck Thompson
Email: dsfisheries@yahoo.com
Address: Box 2193 Kodiak Ak. 99615
Phone: 907 486 3034
Fishery/area: Kodiak, Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Production
Title: Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY)
Problem: Currently the various statutes, regulations and policies are crafted and interpreted that
"sustained" yield is perfectly acceptable. Sustained yield can be a fraction of maximum sustained yields
(MSY) or optimum, biological, social or economic yields. In other words the BoF can decide to set
"yields" at 10%, 25%, 40%, 60% or at MSY (100%) for just about any reason. As a state and a matter to
public policy why would we encourage any yield other than MSY on a renewable resource?
Recommendation: Establish in statute that salmon resources of the state shall be managed at or above
90% of the maximum sustained yield. Of course considerations will have to be given where two or more
salmon species have interlocking events that prevent both to be at the 90% or greater of MSY.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Production
Title: Local/Regional Long-Term Planning
Problem: There are few one-size-fits-all salmon restructuring solutions. The current legislative task
force process is good. However, there is still an ongoing need for regional long-term revitalization plans.
Discussion: All the information collected, organized and presented by the legislative task force will
ultimately have to be applied on a region-by-region basis. Because each region has slightly different
applications based on socio-economic-historical-biological uniqueness slightly different applications
will be required in each of the eight regions.
Recommendation: Build into the process a place for and facilitate long-range revitalization planning.
This most appropriately needs state coordination, support and approval by the legislature. Once these
plans are created these also form a set of controls on the ADF & G and BoF.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
Production
Title: I think if you want to make the task force site easier and faster to navigate, you need to have
proposals and reponses for each separate fishery under a different link. It takes for ever to scroll down
to find the subject of interest. It's simple to do.
Name: Paul Harder
Email: harderpaul@hotmail.com
Phone: 360 344 3429
Fishery_area: salmon seine PWS
October 12, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Production
Title: Robert Hall, owner/operator f/v Sea Comber, Sitka.
Problem: Fish handled too much, held too long.
Discussion: Most salmon leaving the State would not go on my mothers plate or would you serve it to
yours? I have done my share of delivering quality i.e., daily deliveries in rsw ect., however pumping
them two or three times from my vessel to a tender to sometimes another tender, then to the plant is
compromising quality, plus you have the sorting table that fish get tossed from into a tote that is seven
feet below just bruises them even more.
Recommendations: I have a freezer/seiner that may be used next year as an alternate method of
marketing, however the current 58 foot limit does not allow sufficient space for getting the job done as it
should. The fish should leave the sea by live silkstream pump to either a live tank for further bleeding or
into an r.s.w. tank for pre-chilling. The vessel could take the small catch to calmer waters for processing
into supreme quality wild salmon whole, h&g, or portions. A larger vessel would also have a freezer
hold for keeping. Plus space for packaging, crew and so forth. Lift the 58 foot limit for frozen-at-sea and
live delivery vessels only.
Name: Robert Hall
Address: Box 1284
Phone: 907-738-3263 cell, or 907-747-3262 home
Fishery_area: S.E. Seine
October 19, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
Production
Title: Fleet Reduction Programs
Problem:
1) There are too many boats. Most of the time, a good portion of the fleet if waiting to set or fishing in
less productive areas just to spread out. Less boats can catch just as many fish as too many boats.
2) The total “pie” that the fleet is splitting has shrunk due to lower prices, yet all our costs continue to
rise. Fewer boats would increase earnings per boat.
3) There are not enough markets for the number of boats we presently have. This has contributed to
artificially low prices, further reducing the overall value of the catch.
Discussion: Even prior to the ruinous ’02 season there was general agreement that many of Alaska’s
fishing fleets are overcapitalized. A fleet reduction program would make the fleet as a whole, more
productive by reducing some of the following problems.
Recommendations: The key elements of any fleet reduction program should be:
1) Each boat in the resultant fishery should have equal access to the resource as every other boat.
Any other result would be a radical departure from our present system, which seems to be
holding up well legally. There is no demand, or mandate from fisherman to embark on a
different system.
2) The target number for the remaining fleet should not be chosen arbitrarily. There should be an
optimal numbers study, or there should be some strong justification for the target number chosen
to avoid legal challenges.
3) The plan should not trigger creating Processor Quota Shares in the fishery.
4) The plan should just reduce the fleet. If other changes are desired, say like longer
boats, they should be talked about separately, by the remaining fleet.
Fisherman should insist that programs used for fleet reduction preserve and protect their present rights to
harvest the recsurse. This can best be done by sticking to the same permitting plan we presently have.
This plan is standing the test of time.
Name:Victor Smith
Email sawmillcreek@rockisland.com
Address: PO Box 2477 Friday Harbor, WA 98250
October 23, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Quality
Title: Owner of F/V Sea Comber, S.E. purse seiner, and cod, rockfish, prawn freezer processor.
Problem: Access to buyers, buyers access to fishers.
Discussion: With Knowles recent rejection of allowing Russian buyers in, "APPROVED" processors
(75% Japanese owned) were taking Alaskan salmon for pennys. And steering F&G on openings, along
with terminating small independent businesses and some giving individual quotas for pinks.
Recommendations: Allow small independent businesses with quality products new opportunity, by
building a road to Wrangell, and other coastal communities. The fishers need access to markets, this
would give buyers access to our products, new revenue, new products, new business. There are many
buyers who would prefer buying direct from harvesters, however most Alaskan seafood is leaving the
State as it did 50 years ago. Live and frozen-at-sea salmon products could compete, fish handled too
many times and held too long cannot. Vessel size limits should be lifted, allowing smaller for harvests
and better quality.
Name: Robert Hall
Address: P.O. Box 1284 Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 907-738-3262 c. 907-747-3262 h.
Fishery/area: Southeast salmon seine/ Kodiak jig cod
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
Quality
Title: COLD FISH
Problem: A big portion of the fleet does not have RSW.. It is too expensive at today’s fish prices...
Require fish to be delivered at min. of 36 degrees and that would force all buyers to provide slush ice to
it's fleet,, thus improving quality..
Discussion: In order to compete with farmed salmon,,, we must put out a better product..
Recommendations: The task force should put into law that all fish delivered to buyers be no warmer
than 36 degrees....
Name: Eric Hesselroth
Email: erichesselroth@hotmail.com
Address: 1001 Duchess Road Bothell Washington 98012
Phone: (425) 483-4295
Fishery/area: Bristol Bay Drift
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
Quality
Title: Quality will improve our industry.
Problem: Our Bristol Bay salmon is of pour quality
Discussion: I fished for Leader Creek Fisheries last summer and I liked what I saw. It's a start, so let's
keep the ball rolling
Recommendations: I like the idea of ice barges in river systems. We could make it manditory if the
system was a smooth operation. We have to start treating our fish like it was our home pack.
Name: Mark A. Niver
Email: kniver@gci.net
Address: 955 Loch Ness Ct.
Phone: 907-376-3210
Fishery_area: Naknek/Kvichak/Egegik/Ugashik/Nushagak
October 16, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
Quality
Let’s provide mechanisms for salmon fishermen to separate the wheat from the chaff on the grounds,
whenever possible. Select for the roe and pinbone free tail sections of lower value salmon. (Frame bone
only roast, or FBR.)I feel that pink salmon FBRs, marketed in the meat case in a styro tray like chicken
thighs, would sell with STATE OF ALASKA QUALITY assurance labeling. Should the state have a
quality education program for industry participants? NO. DEC inspections patterned after the USCG’s
vessel safety inspection program, YES.
ALLOW DRUM SEINING, with no permit stacking required. Society should quickly make every effort
to insure that the Alaskan salmon industry is economically viable, from a national security perspective.
Dale Johnston
PO Box 33982
Juneau AK 99803
Fishery: SE Salmon Drift
October 25, 2003
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
Quality
Title: Recommendation for improving quality for fish caught in any outlying areas-Bristol Bay, Cook
Inlet examples.
Problem: Fisherman are catching a potentially awesome product in Bristol Bay. The whole mind set in
the Bay for years has been-catch as much as you can as quickly as you can. Delivering a quality product
is not for most in the minds of most fisherman especially when refrigeration equipment is so expensive
and just not a possibility for most fisherman. Now if ice was made available in the major river systems
we could just possibly turn this whole quility problem on its ear. Every fisherman could deliver a cold
fish and Bristol Bay Sockeye would take some huge strides forward in quality and thus new marketing
ideas.
Recommendations: Figure out away to finance and operate some ice machines in major remote fishing
areas. Are their any grants in this area?
Roy M. Smith
roymsmith49@hotmail.com
P.O. Box 20481 Juneau A.K. 99802
907 586-1889
Fishery_area: Bristol Bay&
October 26, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
Quality
Title: Ice barges
Problem: In order for wild salmon to compete in today's market we need to better the quality of are
salmon. The only way of doing this is to have only rsw systems,or more practical ice barges available to
fisherman so we can ice slush are fish to better the quality. Having a ice barge in each river system in
Bristol Bay will improve quality tremendously.
Name: Randy Kroeze
Email: rnmkro@safeaccess.com
Address: 939 n. James Way Camano Is. Wa. 98282
Phone: (360) 387-2548
Fishery_area: Bristol Bay
October 27, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
Miscellaneous
Production, Governance, Finance
Title: Long Term Stability of Salmon Harvests
Problem: The BoF has too much authority to determine the long-term stability of salmon fisheries of the
state. By a 4/7 majority vote of non-elected individuals the BoF can allocate a fishery out of existence or
create an entirely new fishery.
Discussion: The executive and legislative branches, which are elected by the will of the people, are in a
far better position to decide the long-term future existence of a commercial salmon industry in any of the
eight regions of the state. As the statutes and regulations exist the BoF has total allocative discretion and
hence control of the stability of a region's salmon industry. In any one year the BoF can allocate any
fishery out of existence and thereby causing massive economic disruptions and instability.
Recommendation: Put sideboards on the BoF such that some incremental changes can be made,
however over a 10 year period historic catches must be maintained. It is very difficult to maintain capitol
or attract new capitol need for revitalization of a salmon fishery when the BoF can decide that a
particular fishery no longer exists. Example if drift gillnets harvest 30% and seine harvests 40% of the
total catch on average at various run strength then the BoF would be required to honor these harvest
rates when making regulations. The current BoF have paid only lip service to the allocation criteria
contained in AS 16.05.251 (e)(5) & (6).
It may be possible to also attach to the 10-year allocations certain secondary processing requirements.
Secondary processing could include battering portions, breading, smoking, nuggets and other new
salmon products. These secondary products diversify and provide year-round employment for Alaskans.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Miscellaneous
Production, Governance, Finance
Title: Access to Salmon Resources
Problem: There is no long term commitment by the State Executive or BoF that limited entry permit
holders will have a reasonable access to the state's salmon resources.
Discussion: How can any industry maintain operating and capital dollars needed to remain healthy
when the regulators (BoF) can withhold access to those natural resources? Our salmon industry is like
oil and gas in that there are large up front capital outlays in order to get into production. I don't think it
would be good public policy to ask an oil company to invest millions of dollars on finding, developing,
marketing and creating thousands of jobs only to say sorry we are going to give the oil to the company
down the street just because we can or want to do that. Yet, every year, every time the BoF holds
hearings they have unilateral authority to give the salmon to the other guy down the street.
Recommendation: Put controls on the BoF and limit the latitude they exercise in dividing up the salmon
resources of the state. Otherwise how do fishermen, processors or markets develop the confidence to put
at risk millions of dollars to revitalize our industry.
Name: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Email: ucida@kenai.net
Address: 43961 K-Beach Road, Suite E
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (906) 260-9436
Fishery: Statewide
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Miscellaneous
Title: Are Hatchery's new competition?
Problem: Hatchery's receiving better price from cannery's for cost recovery fish. And the fishermen get
less price for common property, and its the same fish!
Discussion: Hatchery's paid for from the fish tax should help fishermen, not compete against them.
If hatcheries bid their cost recovery fish out for a higher price shouldn’t the fishermen get the same
price.
Recommendations: Don't let are hatcheries compete against the fishermen who paid for them.
Have the fish put out to bid as a whole and each cannery compete to get them. Lets turn hatchery
programs into all cost recovery projects, and let a few fishermen fish (Those w/o markets)while the rest
of the permit holders receive dividends.
I think something like this would provide better quality, and spread the wealth that hatchery fish could
provide.
Name: Troy Thomassen
Email: troy@aptalaska.net
Address: p.o.box 152 petersburg ak 99833
Phone: (907)-=772-2320
Fishery_area: Southeast
October 4, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
Miscellaneous
From, Dick Wooding, president of Alaska Peninsula Fishermans Cooperative, representing 35 area M
driftnetters all of which have RSW systems.
In response to your recent mailing I offer some of my personal opinions based on 28 years of fishing
experience, over 20 years of attending board meetings and five years of direct marketing (almost
exclusively to Japan) while serving as president of APFC.
We believe that the quality of our fish is close to being "as good as it is going to get" with the present
methods and regulations imposed on our fishery. In the years we have been operating we have been
very selective and fortunate in choosing processors who share our concern for quality. We have
developed markets and have high demand for our "ocean run" false pass sockeye. While we have been
able to sell these fish at a premium over our local Port Moller sockeye, the reality is the glut of farmed
salmon has kept the price very low. Because of this the only success we have had in raising the grounds
price to our fisherman is to lower our overhead. In order to raise quality and lower overhead we have
eliminated tenders by delivering directly to our processor on the fishing grounds. In some cases our fish
are processed and frozen within two hours of being caught. This has significantly raised our percentage
of No. 1's
Quality is the key to having a market, getting a higher price is a slower process and is frustrating to our
fishermen when they are not immediately rewarded when an extra effort is made to produce a top
quality product. The future of the Alaska Peninsula Fishermans Coopertive is dependent upon our
delivering consistent quantities of high quality salmon. Japan's acceptance of farm salmon has been
enhanced by Alaska's failure to meet this criteria.
Farmed salmon is our biggest problem and one that we have little control, however, the board of fish is
also contributing to our decline. I cannot speak for other areas but for the past twenty years I cannot
recall one board of fish ruling that gave any consideration to the economics of the industry.
Board members refuse to look at fishing as a business and have openly stated that quality, efficiency and
cost of operation are of little or no concern to them. Lower prices to the fisherman means less taxes to
the state and ASMI. Without elaborating recent rulings have been very detrimental in conducting a
viable fishery in Area M. False Pass sockeye is one of, if not the best Alaska has to offer. We need to
go head to head with the farm guys and it makes no sense to take our best player off the field.
As far as other means of reducing overhead one can do the math. Divide the value of the fishery by the
number of fisherman and subtract the overhead and you have an ugly picture. Fleet reduction through
attrition is taking place at this time as is testimony that a smaller fleet has a better chance of surviving.
Additional reduction through stacking of permits (I believe that fisherman and boats with stacked
permits should be given additional benefits such as additional gear and time, otherwise once conditions
improve those permits will be more fully utilized) or fleet by back may be helpful. With the price of
permits at an all time low such a project may not be that expensive. Also permits seized through
foreclosure or other means should be retired. Both fishermen and processors pay taxes. Some of this
tax money should be reinvested back to their respective fishing areas in some form such as a buy back
program for the benefit of the fishemen and incentives for the processors to improve operations and
reduce overhead by reevaluating questionable regulations.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 2 November 1, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
I strongly oppose the "Chignik" style of cooperative. While this may give some compensation to
someone who really does not want to compete in the fishery or to those who cannot sell their boats and
permits, it does little for the guy who wants to make a full time living as a fisherman. It again goes back
to the math. In addition, individuals with permits in multiple areas should be allowed to move from area
to area in any given year. Considering that it is impossible to be in two areas at the same time, owing
two or more permits in different areas would lesson the impact of that permit and allow those who fish
exclusively in a given area more access.
I fully support the task force as long as they leave the politics out and take the position that commercial
fishing is a business and processors and fisherman need to make money. Like all businesses tough
decisions have to be made that may eliminate some of the participants.
I have additional thoughts on some other issues that I will pass on later
Thank all of you for the time and effort
Dick Wooding
October 11, 2002