Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Salmon Task Force Proposals
From the Public, Volume 3
As of December 3, 2002
1. Finance
a. Preservation of Bristol Bay Resident Owned Permits (Art Woinowsky) ..............2
b. Combine Private Non-Profit hatcheries (PNPs) into Regional Aquaculture Corporations
(Hap Symmonds)...................................................................................................3
c. A Plan to Help Alaskan Salmon Fishermen Trapped in Debt (Bruce Hendrickson (S03M))
...............................................................................................................................4-6
d. Win / Win permit reductions (John Fulton) .........................................................7
2. Governance
a. To: Governance Subcommittee of the Salmon Task Force (A. J. Friedman).......8
b. Equity Protection for Fleet Reduction Programs(Victor Smith) ...........................9
c. Crew member license fees (Bob Widmann (S01E))............................................10-11
3. Production
a. Financial hardship of prince william sound salmon seiners .(Ed) ......................12
b. Fleet Reduction and the effects of permit stacking and fractional permits (Stuart Deal
(S03E) ...............................................................................................................13*
c. Legalize fishing more than one salmon area (John Crosbie). ............................14*
4. Quantity
a. Strides for higher quality salmon (R.I. Eliason Jr.)............................................15*
5. Marketing
a. Dennis Watson Mayor Craig Alaska ..................................................................16-18
6. Miscellaneous
a. The Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association...................................................19-20
b. Fair Trade Plan (Bruce Hendrickson (S03M)) ....................................................21-23
c. All Sea foods (Walter Togiak) ............................................................................24
d. Northern Keta & Elisabeth Babich .....................................................................25-26*
e. Comments In Defence of the Hatcheries of Area E (Ken Adams (S03E)).........27-28*
f. Do I support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would I
suggest? (Brad Underwood (S04K))...................................................................29-30*
g. Al Bauman Kvichak Setnetters' Association (S04T) ........................................31-32*
h. Steven D Bruno...................................................................................................33-35*
i. Feryll Blanc (S04K) 11/25/02............................................................................36-37*
j. Stephen Taufen, founder Groundswell Fisheries Movement .............................38-41*
*recent submissions from November 22, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Finance
Title: Preservation of Bristol Bay Resident Owned Permits
Problem: A certain segment of the population are purchasing commercial fishing permits, in hopes that
permit stacking be allowed and that their permits will be favored.
Discussion: Permits have to be renewed at least every other year as to not jeopardize losing them.
Because the past three years have been an economic disaster many village fishermen have not been able
to afford to gear up for the fishing seasons, therefore they are in jeopardy of losing their permits.
Entrepreneurs have been purchasing those permits in hopes to use them should permit stacking be
allowed
Recommendations: If a permit holder can not afford to gear up for a fishing season, he/she should be
allowed to sign a notarized agreement that the permit will not be fished for a year. The fee should be
reduced to fifty ($50) dollars and the permit stay dormant for a year. This would help the permit holder
who could not afford to gear up for a fishing season and keep permits in local villages.
Name: Art Woinowsky
Address: Lot 2, Ugashik, AK 99613
Phone: (907) 797-2221
Fishery/Area T Bristol Bay Drift Gillnet
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
Finance
Title: Combine Private Non-Profit hatcheries (PNPs) into Regional Aquaculture Corporations
Problem: High-cost PNPs do not give the maximum amount of benefit to the common property fisheries.
Discussion: The economy of scale of a larger number of hatcheries under one umbrella operation is a
known fact. The purpose of the hatcheries is to give as much fish back to the common property fisheries
as possible.
Recommendations: Bring all PNPs under the jurisdiction of the regional
aquaculture corporations.
Name: Hap Symmonds
Email: Hap.Symmonds@oceanbeauty.com
Address: P.O. Box 548, Cordova, AK 99574
Phone: 908.424.7171
Fishery_area: PWS seine fisheries
November 5, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Bruce Hendrickson (S03M), PO Box 1439
Homer, AK 99603-1439
Fishes Alaska peninsula, driftnet
A Plan to Help Alaskan Salmon Fishermen Trapped in Debt
The IRS offers a program called “Payment in Compromise” for those whose earning power has
ebbed to a point that full payment is impossible. This program allows the IRS to write down the debt to
a level that the debtor can afford to pay off in a short time.
For salmon fishermen whose payments to the Division of Investments exceed any net profit in
excess of the total of cost of living and cost of fishing, and whose permits are valued at less than 1/3 the
of original purchase price, the State may offer a refinancing alternative:
1) The value of the permit loan is written down to 1.25 times the 2-year average value of the
most recent permit sales or current offer price if no sales have been made in the past 2 years.
2) The debtor agrees to pay a mortgage on the permit amortized over 10 years at 6% (prime+1
with 9% cap), plus 10% of all fishing income in excess of $60,000 gross stock from all
fisheries combined. After 10 performing years, the permit belongs to the debtor.
3) The debtor may chose to fish or not to fish as long as he meets the above payment
obligations. Loan Extensions are possible for areas impacted by Board of Fish decisions,
with interest suspended, but an extended year is not a performing year.
4) If the fisherman chooses to liquidate rather than make the above payment obligations, the
state may retire the permit from the fishery.
5) If CFAB adopts this debt reduction plan, the State of Alaska pledges to seek reimbursement
of the sum of all debts written down since 1994 plus interest at 9% through the Alaska Office
of Fair Trade Investigation.
6) The Director of the State Division of Investments is instructed to provide the Alaska Office
of Fair Trade Investigation with a year by year account of all debt written down since 1994
with interest calculated at 9% in order to seek restitution from countervailing duties levied
against countries dumping salmon into US markets at prices “Less Than Fair Value.”
Why Provide Payment in Compromise Options for Alaskan Salmon Debtors?
Precedent in Agriculture
When farmers were impacted by cheap commodity imports in the 1980’s, the Federal Land Bank
used the Payment in Compromise principle to write down farm loans to a level that could be supported
by the new low crop prices. Land had fallen in value to about 1/3 of purchase value in many cases. Our
salmon permit prices, in contrast, are worth only about 7% of purchase price.
By the time terms of NAFTA were hammered out in 1994, farm bills protected the US farm
industry from growth in imports exceeding 3 % per year for some commodities to prevent the chaotic
disintegration of markets we experienced for salmon. Farmers are allowed to file for restitution if rapid
changes in trade cause economic losses under terms of NAFTA.
A State Office of Fair Trade Investigation should be charged with the responsibility of providing
a plan that our Congressional delegation, the USITC, and the USDOC can use to provide restitution to
the State, CFAB, and the fishermen under terms similar to those of NAFTA.
Being Fair to the State
The above program is fair to the State because it provides a mechanism whereby the State
collects 25% more principal with interest than it would by simply foreclosing and auctioning the permit.
The State Revolving Loan Program can get income from Alaskan fisherman that it would not get if the
permit were simply foreclosed and retired.
Furthermore, more stability in the fisheries could help CFAB. The program seeks to assist
CFAB in obtaining restitution for principal and interest losses associated with write downs done by
CFAB. CFAB can decide if they want to write down the loans and retire their collateral or if they would
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
like to salvage some of present loan portfolios for distressed fisheries. The provision for freedom to fish
or not to fish, to use terms coined by Ed Crane, leaves the gate of the pasture is open so cows can go
find more feed and the pasture is not overgrazed.
Importantly, this Program provides an inherent insurance that the State will get a much larger
payment in the event prices actually improve during the next 10 years. If gross stocks go up as the
effects of improved trade laws are felt, the 10% provision compensates the State accordingly. If CFAB
adopts this approach for its distressed loans, it can recover much more than it would if it simply retired
its distressed permits.
Finally, the Office of Fair Trade Investigation is charged with the responsibility of finding
methods of obtaining restitution for the State, CFAB, and the fishermen funded by Antidumping Duties
on aquaculture imports, so that the goal of no net losses can be realized in the long term.
This plan provides much more value to the State than any other alternative.
Coastal Communities
Schools need a minimum number of students. Consider those living in villages of the Nushagak,
Kvichak, Egegik, and Ugashik drainages, for example. Allowing fishermen a means to survive through
this time of upheaval could save their schools, their families, and the stores that service them.
Giving fishermen a chance to overcome these hard times is a life and death issue for coastal
communities. Please make sure Robin Samuelson gets a look at the above plan, as well as the plan for
an Office of Fair Trade Investigation.
State Responsibility
In the case of areas like Area M and Cook Inlet, the State Board of Fish drastically cut fishing
opportunity in the 1990’s. When such a cut helps to push fishermen into default, the State should be
willing to take responsibility for that consequence and provide for a write down that takes the loss of
fishing area into account. The above program does not actually compensate the fishermen for such
losses, but it gives them a chance to fish. Probably for Area M and Cook Inlet the existing loan
extension policy should continue for years when ends may not meet due to Board rules changes made
after the original loan was made.
Is It Fair to the Debt Free Fisherman?
For the fisherman who stayed debt free after 1992 or who bought after the crash was complete,
there may be a feeling that they deserve some kind of special treatment, a chance to be the “last man
standing.”
If being able to provide adequately for your family while avoiding mounting interest expenses is
not enough, please bear in mind that you will be the main beneficiaries of the Fair Trade restitution
being justified by those of us who have lost much more.
I feel that most fishermen are simply too honorable to accept restitution for themselves while
denying assistance to others.
The above program is needs based. Nobody is going to drive around in a fancy new boat paid
for by the above program. Fishermen whose fisheries gain more gross stock make a bigger payment.
The above program recovers the maximum possible for each permit written down.
In contrast, foreclosure and permit retirement actually maximizes the cost to the Alaska Division
of Investments and CFAB (if CFAB were to live under the same standard that they want to force on the
State).
Regarding Fairness
“Life is not always fair” is not a good philosophy for the legislature to use as a basis for plans to
help the salmon industry. Good government seeks a fair standard.
Being Fair to the Fishermen
In my case, I rode a freight train from North Dakota to Seattle in 1973 in order to land my first
job on a boat bound for Alaska. I was Quality Control at Icicle Seafoods in Petersburg from 1978-1980,
and Production Supervisor for Marine Resources Company’s Russian Joint Venture from 1980-1985. In
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
1985 I parlayed my life’s savings into an area M Setnet permit. In 1988 I was debt free. In 1995 I
traded the area M setnet operation for an area M drift operation, which promptly tanked.
My family has suffered plenty of nasty consequences for my mistake: more time apart for
herring, cod, crab fisheries, and odd jobs to try to fill the fiscal gap, trading the suburban for an old
truck, and living on austerity budgets including cutting out lattes and Thanksgiving with our college
children to name a few. I have a friend who is a 3rd generation Aleut fisherman who is faring no better.
He stands to lose what remains of the permit he bought from his father. My crab skipper stands to lose a
quarter of a century of work for the same reasons.
A fisherman from the Anacortes, Washington has suggested that the State “help” us by taking
back our permits and distributing our share of the resource among himself and the remainder of the fleet.
After having more than a quarter of a century of hard work in the Seafood Industry already standing at 7
cents on the dollar, does that seem fair to me? Is it fair to my buddies? How would you feel if you went
to the hospital in great pain and your Doctor offered to “help” you by summary execution so that your
hospital room could be made available for “more worthy” patients?
In the case of our area, the fleet has been reduced by over 1/3 due to fishermen finding other
work and retiring, without help.
A Fair Fleet Reduction Program
A buyback program must be fair to all, not coercive. National Marine Fisheries Service has a
program to assist buyback programs. Maybe the State could loan matching funds at low interest rates to
groups of fishermen who seek to access the NMFS Buyback program.
It is not possible to “voluntarily” give back a permit from a fishery where the full payment is
more than 50-100% of gross stock, the value of the permit is 7 cents on the dollar, and the fisherman is
short of living costs, because the circumstances do not permit freedom of choice.
The State can and should change these circumstances to be fair to the fisherman. This plan is
the right thing to do.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Finance
Title: Win / Win permit reductions
Problem: Too many harvesters in many of the Salmon fisheries
Discussion: Limited Entry officials contend that permit reduction will cause lengthy court battles and
jeopardize the entire limited entry program currently used by the State of Alaska. We are also above the
optimum number of harvesters in many Alaskan fisheries. The value of salmon continues to decline
exacerbating the current situation with no end in sight.
Recommendations: I recommend permit reductions to a number / level that is 10% below the optimum
level in each salmon fishery. Then in an effort to avoid lengthy court battles, I propose a lottery style
right to fish for a fixed number of non-permit holders to produce the optimum number of harvesters for
each salmon fishery. Every year the optimum number of harvesters for each fishery would be
established by the preseason projected harvest and further modified by in-season adjustments to the
actual run size. By doing this I suggest that permit values will stabilize at reasonable levels (not too
high and not too low) and anyone who wishes to participate in a fishery will have an opportunity to do
so thus eliminating the “too exclusive argument” that is often heard by those afraid to think out of the
box on this issue.
The incentives for permit holders to sell permits back to the state should be multi-layered to achieve the
highest initial results (permits removed from each fishery). There should be two phases of a buy back
considered to achieve desired results. The first phase would be an outright cash value paid for the first
wave of permits, which would be established by the total number of permits issued by the state less the
optimum number for each separate fishery. During a second phase of the buy-back, the remaining
permits should not be allowed to transfer other than to direct family members until the desired results
(90% of optimum number) are achieved in permit reduction, no matter how long it takes to achieve. The
state and the fishermen of each area should pay half of the cost of permit reduction. The lottery could
also help pay a portion of these management costs on a long-term basis.
Name John Fulton
Email planning@nushtel.com
Address P.O. Box 522
Phone 907 842-1074
Fishery/Area Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Governance
Title: To: Governance Subcommittee of the Salmon Task Force
Re: Permit Proposals
I am scared that I and my family may no longer be able to fish and process our salmon if current
proposals requiring me to buy more permits go into effect. I entered legally into the salmon fishery in
1986, and in 1995 I brought to completion a small processing building on land I bought near my setnet
site at Ekuk Beach, Nushagak Bay. I am American, I catch American fish, I process and bring to market
and sell myself my own salmon into the American market, specifically my neighbors and friends who
want to be able to obtain wild salmon that are otherwise unavailable in any store. I am doing what I am
supposed to be doing, right? I simply cannot afford to be required to buy more permits merely to
maintain my right to fish and obtain product, which I already have legally obtained. If you want to
change the rules for new entrants into the fishery, that is one thing, but to change the rules for me and all
current fishermen who have already invested into the fishery with our lives, is grossly unfair and
unethical. I make my living by fishing, and processing my own salmon in my own processing facility,
and selling them myself to individuals who appreciate the quality of wild Alaska salmon. I have brought
my fishing operation to the highest level, and I need my government to protect me, not run me out of
business. What proposals are there to protect small processors like myself who bring our American
salmon to the American market single-handedly? Throwing an insurmountable obstacle in my (our)
way by requiring small processors to come up with who knows how much money is not the way to
encourage American utilization of the American resource! If processor shares go through, will small
processors such as myself be allowed to process our usual and customary amount? Is any thought being
given to encouragement of small and family business, as opposed to multi-national corporations taking
control of our resource? Please, I implore the committee to consider the plight of small processors who
process their own fish, and devise a way to ensure they are able to stay in business and continue
providing quality food for their loyal customers who have no other way to obtain wild salmon. It would
be a travesty to force small processors out of business after they have worked so hard to build up their
businesses.
Thank you for your consideration. A. J. Friedman,
President and Owner of Friedman Family Fisheries
Address: 6109 Pimlico Rd. Baltimore, MD 21209
Phone: 410-358-3008
Fishery_area: Ekuk Beach, Nushagak Bay, Bristol Bay
November 1, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
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. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
Governance
Title: Crew member license fees
Problem: With the reduced financial rewards for crew persons it is difficult to hire qualified crew. It is
difficult to have only one crew for the entire season. The composition of the crews of many boats in
the last few seasons have often changed many times over past fishing seasons. The costs of crew license
is prohibitive for many potential crew persons.
Discussion: The era of returning professional fishing boats crews has come to an end. It seems like the
only people available for most crews are young inexperienced people who are either college or high
school students. Their school schedules often make them unavailable for parts of each fishing season.
This makes it necessary for boat skippers to hire multipal crews if they want to fish entire seasons.
Because the potential financial rewards are so low and costs to get to the fishing grounds and crew
licenses are so high good crew persons are difficult to obtain. Running a boat in a fishery is difficult
enough without the problem of keeping or hiring replacement crew. Something needs to be done to
make it easier to deal with the crew problem which exists in many of the Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Recommendations: As it now exists each crew person must buy an individual commercial fishing
license. If they fish for 2 weeks or 2 months the cost is the same and for most this cost is prohibitive.
The thought of having to come up with a sizable fee just to participate as a crew person on a commercial
is discouraging to potential crew.
This problem could could be solved if the crew licenses were issued to the limited entry permit holder.
The permit holder could buy 3 or 4 licenses and then make them available to the crew that works on his
boat. If the crew leaves before the season is over the license stays with the skipper to be available to the
replacement crew person. This would make it easier for a skipper to recruit crew and it would also make
it easier for him to find replacement crew from the pool of individuals who are currently available for
work in the commercial salmon fishery. I know of few boats who have had the same crew start the
season and end up seeing the conculsion of the fishery.
If the skipper had the option to buy the crew licenses himself then he could either make them available
to his rotating crew free of charge or he could prorate the cost of the license to the crew dependent on
the number of days served on his boat. This could be handled must the same way that fuel and food is
charged to crew persons.
I believe that this would have little or no financial inpact to the State. They State would get the same
crew person license revenue because basically the same number of licenses would be issued each
season. There might have to be some factor figured for the difference between resident and non resident
license fees but I am sure that this wouldn't be difficult to overcome. As skipper could purchase all
:"non-resident" licenses if he anticipated have a crew made up of nonresidents. The same could be
employed if a skipper was anticipating hiring only residents and he would have a lower crew license fee
to pay.
I think that this would have significant administrative value to boat skippers and make their crew
problem that much simplier.
Name: Bob Widmann
Email: bwidmann@cruzers.com
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
Address: 4195 Old San Jose Rd., Soquel, CA 95073
Phone: 831-462-5409
Fishery_area: Salmon Seine Area E (S01E)
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
Production
Title: Financial hardship of prince william sound salmon seiners .
Problem: The problem is supply and demand and the fact that there is cheap readily available salmon in
the world . Hatheries that were built on a 35 cent @ pound pink salmon .
Discussion: I am not sure what can be done about it . But I am totally against the idea of a co-op. I do
not believe that it is fair to those who have struggled through the tough times . Those of us that are true
fisherman keep fishing year around to make a living .
Recommendations: I wish there was a way to get rid of hatchery debt . Most of the seine operations were
built on the same 35 cent model . We need our share too met our budgets . We need a more fair division
of the value of the catch . There needs to be a cap on how much fish they can take .
Name: Ed
Email: pwsco@gci.net
Fishery_area: Prince William Sound
November 13, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
Production
Title: Fleet Reduction and the effects of permit stacking and fractional permits
Problem:
Fleet reduction through permit stacking and fractional entry permits could be very helpful to fishermen,
but not if it occurs without complimentary measures to deal with the negative effects that would result
from even more intense competition.
Discussion:
If provisions for permit stacking, and fractional permits are accompanied by a quota based management
structure, these together can have a very positive influence on the salmon fisheries. Simply thinning
fleets would most likely perpetuate over-capitalization, and product quality problems that our industry
struggles with already. Regulation can be revised to allow a shift to quota-based management that can
maintain limited entry principles. Such changes are outlined as an experimental fishery in PWS
Proposal 49, which will be heard by the Board of Fish this winter. Under an experimental heading this
plan could enable fishermen to make adjustments to become more efficient, and produce better quality,
while consolidating the fleet as well. Solvency, efficiency, and quality problems cannot be solved
through measures that are isolated from one another. If the experiment did not bring about acceptable
results, or was unmanageable, the changes could be reversed.
Recommendations:
1. Special authority for the Board of Fish to allow for revision of regulation under experimental
headings could be put to good use. Test tube fisheries could develop real solutions for our industries
problems. 2. Consider the plan outlined in the proposal, and how the general idea can be applied to other
salmon fisheries. This is an integrated approach to our core problems, and it sets the stage for an
evolution of our methods that can make our industry stable, and our product competitive.
Name: Stuart Deal
Address: 7314 11th NW, Seattle, WA. 98117
Phone: 206 390 6353
Fishery/Area:Prince William Sound
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Production
Title: Legalize fishing more than one salmon area.
Problem: The problem is that it unfairly restricts fishermen.
Discussion: The law is already being usurped by some and its original
intent of spreading money to more people is now hurting people with its
restriction.
Recommendations: Times change and allowing people to fish more than one
area gives them diversification.Change the law.
Name: John Crosbie
Address: PO Box 1987 Homer AK 99603
Fishery_area: SO3T
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Quality
Title: Strides for higher quality salmon
Problem: Alaska's Wanton Waste laws.
Discussion: Alaska's Wanton Waste laws force processors into processing a less desired food grade
product. Egg driven markets have forced fisherman into catching the fish that contain high quality roe
with low quality flesh. This forcing processors into putting up very high volumes of lower quality fish.
This all at high cost of processing, leaving little value to both fisherman and processors. By taking low
quality fish off the market it leaves room for processors to buy more fish to supply their markets with a
higher quality of fish.
Recommendations: Rewrite the State of Alaska's Wanton Waste Laws.
Name: R.I. Eliason Jr.
Email: salmo@gci.net
Address: 709 Sirstad, Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 907-747-8111
Fishery_area: SO3A
November 23, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Marketing
Problem:
• Alaska salmon are marketed has a whole, rather than in a manner that emphasizes sellable qualities
by region, by species by capture method…
• Many Alaska seafood processors are unwilling to adjust to currant market conditions.
• Alaska seafoods are often distributed in an inefficient fashion that does not provide necessary
oversight.
• Inadequate transportation infrastructure, exististing shipping options are often not user friendly.
Discussion: Alaska salmon fisheries differ dramatically from region to region, and many time’s
significant differences exist within a given district. Southeast for instances has seine, troll, gillnet and
setnet gear types in use. Each of these capture methods has it’s own degree of impact on the quality of
the harvested product, and certainly it’s applicability determined by species, harvest area, and the
management requirements of a given fishery.
Also in Southeast size, quality and species and other marketable features of salmon vary from one
harvest area to the next. This is chiefly a result of which drainage the targeted stock originates from, the
time of year it’s harvested.
On the issue of processors consider this. Through ASMI and various other entities Alaskan’s have
traveled through out the US and numerous foreign countries to identify markets for our seafood
products. Time and again the contacts generated through these efforts have complained that Alaska
seafood processors, particularly the larger corporations, have been unwilling to do business with them.
These complaints range from not returning phone calls, to unwillingness to size shipments or to modify
products to meet the requirements of their markets.
The processor rebuttal as been, we have an established customer base and a way of doing business that
works for us. This manner of doing business as best I can ascertain, consists of filling large orders with
inconsistent quality product. In addition, I have talked with representatives from these same fish
companies that basically blow-off the issue of value added seafood processing. They claim that the
additional effort and expense is not in their company’s best interest.
Thankfully not all Alaska processors embrace this attitude. Unfortunately it is pervasive enough to
create a stigma that is not helping our sagging industry, and frankly has played right into the hands of
the market and service oriented farmed salmon industry.
Also at issue is a distribution system that uses sometimes several layers of middlemen (brokers, agents)
between the point of processing and the consumer. The result of this practice is the inability to
effectively track product in an industry that demands close scrutiny. Without hands-on control of
seafood products it is impossible to insure quality and limit misuse of company packaging and labels.
This mode of doing business also generates significant unnecessary costs that ultimately come out of the
catcher’s pocket.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
Because of the limited market in this state one large air carrier flies most of the specialty and fresh
seafood out of Alaska. Through my own experiences and those related to me by both large and small
processors, the relationship with the airline is not one that is responsive to the needs of the fishing
industry. The primary complaint is lack of available space to ship fresh product in a timely manner, and
frequency of service.
Because I am not familiar with the surface transportation needs of the northern reaches of the state my
focus is on Southeast. Currently Southeast has two hard-links to the mainland BC road system. The most
well used road is through Haines and to a lesser degree and on a more seasonal basis the Skagway route.
Easy access to the mainland road system has enabled area seafood processors to ship fresh and frozen
product to market via truck and trailer. The benefits of road access are efficient and cost effective
movement of goods. This has translated into good dock prices to fishermen. Southern Southeast’s access
to the road system is through the Port of Prince Rupert. Currently the only means to reach Prince Rupert
is through the Alaska Marine Highway System. This presents some problems. Only vessels qualified to
land in foreign ports can be used, AMHS seems to have fewer of these each year. It is slow, expensive
and lacks in the frequency of service, and consistency in scheduling necessary to meet the needs of the
seafood industry.
Recommendations; Develop a salmon marketing program that allows different regions of the state to
individually focus on the unique marketable qualities of the product harvested in that area. Such as,
Chilkat Sockeye, Taku Coho or Southeast Troll caught winter king…
This effort in many respects would mimic the Copper River program, with a local spin on it. ASMI
would be an exelent vehicle to organize this effort. But, ultimately the motivation, energy and local
knowledge necessary for it to secede must come from an experienced group of industry representatives
from each region. Similar ideas have been discussed for years with little progress on implementation.
Now, with a new state administration coming into office and a federal delegation standing ready to
support legitiment efforts to revitalize the salmon industry, the opportunity to move on this issue could
not be any better.
I know is not possible for the state to require seafood processors to diversify or to mandate that they
address the needs of currant market trends. But possibly, the state could reward those that do with tax
considerations or other meaningful incentives. A visit to a fish market or a large supermarket is a virtual
showcase of what other seafood producing states and countries can offer if they are willing to go the
extra yard. Alaska should be a leader in this effort, instead of being conspicuously missing.
In order to assure product quality and timely shipment of Alaska seafood the industry needs to embark
on a wholesale streamlining of the distribution process. Focusing on direct shipments of seafood from
processor to market will provide the necessary control to insure a premium product reaches the
consumer. Trimming down the number of middlemen involved in marketing will also transfer money
from undeserving hands back to fishermen and coastal communities.
Encouraging competition in the airfreight business is the best way to facilitate more frequent and less
expensive air transport, and should be pursued. A daily freight only air route that services coastal Alaska
is a must. Aircraft used on this rote must be able to land at large and small airports. The southbound
flight would allow Alaska seafood better access to markets in Canada and the lower 48, and provide a
more frequent and direct means of connecting with foreign bound flights. The northbound run would
provide easy access to Anchorage markets and to connecting flights to Pacific Rim countries via
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
Anchorage International. To address the immediate situation, the state and the seafood industry need to
come to an understanding with Alaska Airlines. That would satisfy the needs of the industry, in a
reasonable and consistent manner.
Both Chile and Norway have made a fine art of coordinating the needs of their seafood industries with
air transportation. There is no reason why Alaska can not do the same.
Step up the effort to design and construct the Bradfield Canal Road. The Inter-Island Ferry Authority,
with it’s present route between southern Prince of Wales Island and Ketchikan, and it’s soon to be route
connecting northern Prince of Wales, Wrangell and Petersburg, would with the completion of the
Bradfield Canal Road provide the benefits mainland highway access to all of these communities.
I offer these comments for the task force’s consideration. It may seem like I have singled out a just a few
guilty parties as responsible for the industries present condition. The fact is there is plenty of
circumstance and blame to go around for all. Alaska’s wild salmon industry can get back on its feet.
This task force is an excellent means to jump-start that process.
Thank you,
Dennis Watson
Mayor Craig Alaska
Box 725
Craig Alaska 99921
mayor@aptalaska.net (907)826-3275 fax 826-3278
Salmon Power Troller/Southeast
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
October 31, 2002
The Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association appreciates the efforts of Senator Austerman and others
in attempting to define the needs of the commercial fishing community. This Joint Legislative Salmon
Industry Task Force is necessary to enlighten our elected officials on the complexities of the salmon
industry.
It is unfortunate that to this date the legislature has failed to counter act the negative forces that are
attacking the fiber of our states fishing communities. We are in a global war with other forms of protein
throughout the world. Our country touts the principles of free market enterprise that allows the sale of
big ticket items abroad but ignores the effects of cheaper imported goods sold here in America. The
backbone of our economy is predicated on the small independent business, they allow our rural
communities to survive. When it comes to the pressure of big business integrating in to a foreign market
and strategic defense initiatives, our current administration will sacrifice Alaskan small businesses.
Recent trade negotiations with Chile have resulted in a green light for the salmon farming industry to
continue to export salmon into our country. The onslaught of large scale aquaculture industries will
continue to grow. In Chile the hourly wage is about $1.30 per hour. There is no unemployment benefit
and the government works with industry on all levels of regulations. The investors flock to take
advantage of the areas of the world that will allow them to reap huge benefits without worry of
government intervention. The Chileans are the force today but tomorrow it will be China and Russia.
They are funded by American and European investors with huge investment pools. They will not only
finance the operations from the start but they will facilitate sales to other associates within the
investment pool. A closed circle that stifles competition and chokes the small entrepreneur. This is the
future of the seafood global economy and it is one reason why the Alaska Salmon Industry will not
survive without governmental involvement.
KPFA has attended several different organized attempts from various entities in this state to understand
the issues. To date, we have not found any answers that would allow us to set a course to stabilization.
We believe that this task force has inherent flaws within its conception. This committee’s premise
believes that it can fashion a solution that will work as a framework for the entire state. At the same time
it concedes that there is no one solution fits all scheme. KPFA has argued that you must first attempt to
review each region of the state as a separate and distinct entity. You must understand the cultures and
the history of an area. Analyze the economics and speculate the future. Imperative to the
process is to facilitate in whatever fashion that is necessary discussions and commitments from the
fishermen, the communities they live in, the local businesses and the local governments. In order to
devise change you must build consensus and thus direction from the smallest unit. Then you build on the
common concepts in to a community plan, a regional plan and finally a statewide plan.
The fishing community in Cook Inlet has suffered severely from government intervention. Each year
there is a new set of rules that must be complied with before ever entering the water. The inconsistency
in policy has resulted in stagnation of the Inlet’s processing industry. It is our greatest concern and it
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
denies us the ability to evaluate solutions for industry revitalization. There is not one commercial
fisherman in the state that is not aware of the political turmoil in Cook Inlet. Yet many of the task force
participants have publicly stated that they will not take up regulatory issues or boards in this committee.
This lack of consideration of our most poignant issue has many of us believing that this task force is
dead on arrival.
KPFA is predominately a set-net fishing group and is concerned that the states largest Commercial
Salmon Fishing Limited Entry Permit group is so poorly represented on this panel. The majority of the
solutions presented by many involve mobile fleets. We are not invested in only a boat and a permit, but
in Cook Inlet we have invested in real property or have acquired leases from the state. Set-net sites are
site specific; this means that location is more of an indicator of economic success and equal opportunity
to harvest
is not a practical way to evaluate this fishery.
A limited discussion with other set-net fishermen within the state is that they are confused at how
revitalization will help them? Some want to discuss change but feel threatened from the obvious mobile
fleet representation on this board. What processing industry representative speaks for Cook Inlet set-net
fisherman?
In conclusion, we believe that Cook Inlet needs a comprehensive review of its own. It needs to have
funding to facilitate analysis. It needs to gather a vision by incorporating the views of the set-net
commercial fishing families. We need a long range plan that will allow consistency in regulations and
sustainability in the resource. Any other actions that do not include these concepts will result in useless
dialogue and will collapse the commercial fishing economy in Cook Inlet.
Sincerely,
The Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Bruce Hendrickson (S03M), PO Box 1439
Homer, AK 99603-1439
Fishes Alaska peninsula, driftnet
November 20, 2002
Alaska needs an Office of Fair Trade:
The legislature should direct the Governor to set up an Office of Fair Trade to sift through the
rubble of the Maine salmon farmers’ case and Trade Laws at the US International Trade Commission
(USITC) and the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in Washington, DC. The general objective is
to obtain restitution for those who suffered enormous losses through the ‘90’s, to obtain fair pricing for
salmon in the future, and to head off a similar downward spiral in black cod and halibut prices as
aquaculture takes root for those species. In order to achieve these objectives, the Office should be
charged with the following responsibilities:
1) Determine what the State should be testifying in these investigations and how best to form an
alliance with the salmon farmers of Maine and Washington. Are there any applications of existing trade
law that can help Alaska?
2) Seek restitution for the State of Alaska, its salmon fishermen, and the boat builders, gear retailers,
and coastal enterprises suffering “material injury” from imports of aquaculture salmon sold at prices
“Less Than Fair Value”.
3) Inform and direct the Congressional delegation how best to enact laws that:
a) Close loopholes in GATT and other laws that allow Chile to ship duty-free 10 times as much
salmon (round basis) to the US as in 1990, when any other food or agricultural commodity would have
been regulated to an increase of only about 3 % a year duty-free under NAFTA.
b) Prevent Japan and other nations from using internal transfer pricing to purchase salmon from
subsidiaries in Alaska without fair market bids.
c) Prevent internal transfer price structures from being used as a means of tax evasion for foreign
firms operating in the US.
d) Determine whether a foreign firm that owns subsidiaries in other countries that compete
directly with the products of a US subsidiary should be allowed to own the US Subsidiary.
e) Prevent foreign parent companies, such as those of Japan, from using the favorable status of a
different country that hosts a subsidiary, such as Chile, to gain more favorable terms of trade than they
would get on their own.
4) Report to the Governor, the legislature, and the salmon industry an annual report on the State of Fair
Trade Investigations.
5) Assist ASMI with the job of assuring the National Restaurant Association that supplies of salmon
will remain readily available and that their advocacy for the Chileans against Alaskans is contrary to
mutual long term interests.
6) Identify emerging threats of material injury to black cod and halibut fishermen and initiate
antidumping or countervailing duty actions at USITC and USDC before it is too late.
Why Do We Need an Office of Fair Trade?
Price is the problem.
This is going to require a Legislature and a Governor who care deeply about whether the salmon
fishermen live or die, who want to do more than band-aid our industry with programs that divide the
leftovers among fewer industry participants. The problem is not too many boats, nor is the problem the
list of quality improvements yet to be made, nor is it too few advertising dollars. The problem is too few
dollars for our salmon. Price is the problem.
USITC and the Maine salmon farmers:
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
The US International Trade Commission (USITC) has issued a final determination in July, 1998,
that Chilean salmon imports caused "material injury" to Maine salmon farmers due to sales in the US at
"Less Than Fair Value" (LTFV). Conspicuously absent from the legal depositions in the case was the
State of Alaska and any other victims from the Alaskan salmon industry. I have no idea why. One
possibility is that vigorous advocacy for Chilean imports came from the National Restaurant
Association, Miami Chamber of Commerce, and numerous US seafood distributors, whose testimony
revealed their misconception that they would be unable to import or buy salmon if an Antidumping Duty
or Countervailing Duty Order (AD/CVD) was to be ordered by USDOC.
USDOC and the Chileans
Almost every year since 1997, the US Department of Commerce’s Import Administration has
been reviewing USITC findings to determine whether the Chileans were selling at Less Than Fair Value
due to "Dumping" or due to a "Countervailable Subsidy" as defined in the Tariff Act of 1930. From
July 1, 1999 to June 30, for example, they could find only negligible evidence of a countervailable
subsidy. The determination was not made until spring of 2002. There were delays and exemptions that
showed the fruits of lobbying done by the attorneys enlisted by Chile.
Pressure of USITC and USDOC investigations on Chile may have improved price in 1999 and 2000.
During 1999 and 2000 both the USDOC and the USITC were examining Chile’s salmon trade
practices. The Chileans were pressing an appeal of the USITC Final Ruling at the US Court of
International Trade from August of 1998 through October of 2000.
It may be no coincidence that my salmon earnings in 1999 and 2000 were about double the salmon
income for 2001 and nearly triple that for 2002. Maybe the Chileans were wearing halos during the
1999 & 2000 seasons, in order to evade an Antidumping Duty Order. The Chileans have been playing a
game of stall and evade, while the cause of the unfair pricing goes undiscovered.
A puzzling set of results emerged from the investigations: USITC was able to show that “Less
than Fair Value” pricing was causing “Material Injury” to the salmon farmers from Maine. The
USDOC was unable to conclusively prove “Dumping” or “Countervailable Subsidies” by the salmon
farmers of Chile or their government. Yet reports from Chile indicate that even some Chilean salmon
farmers were going bust due to the extremely low prices of the last 2 years.
If the Chileans are selling well below their own cost of production year after year without help
from their own government, then who is absorbing their cost of 'buying' the US market?"
We are our own enemy.
The Alaskan salmon industry absorbed the Chileans' cost of selling below production
expenditures, at least in the case of firms owned by the Japanese.
The problem of having some of our best buyers owning Alaska processors, aquaculture farms in Chile,
and being allowed to dictate internal transfer price for Alaskan salmon:
For example, Nichiro owns Peter Pan as well as some large Chilean aquaculture firms.
Nichiro's subsidiaries in Chile, or rival Chilean aquaculture firms acted to torpedo markets by dumping
salmon in Seattle in June of 2001 for 1.05/ lb. Nichiro had the resulting opportunity to make a large
profit by buying their share of Alaska's production of all 5 salmon species at a huge discount. For the
entire Alaskan industry, low prices saved Alaska's entire customer base a total in excess of 200 million
dollars a year in each of the last 2 years. The ex-vessel values of our Alaska salmon plummeted from
500 million dollars a year in the late '80's to less than or around the 200 million dollar range now.
Chile's aquaculture can continue to grow beyond its own means due to subsidies that are coming right
out of, well, my own pocket. Since much of the 200 million dollars saved by Alaska's customers was
what was once was our net fishing income, we also show no taxable income for the last 2 years. This
means that the USDOC has been trying to find subsidies from the Government of Chile while the real
subsidy is coming from the USA, through Japan.
A handful of very powerful Japanese companies have found a technique of business jiu jitsu,
where Alaskan salmon dollar losses can be turned against us and used them to fund the Chilean takeover
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
of the US market instead. They can manipulate profits from the US or Chile as needed. If they want to
expand the aquaculture market share, they can dump the price on aquaculture salmon and take the
profits on cheap Alaskan salmon at the distribution level in Japan. If they want to expand profit level on
Chilean sales, they can increase prices for Chilean salmon and raise Alaskan salmon prices. Heads they
win, tails we lose.
.
The Hazard of Unregulated Trade:
It is like a stock option hedge fund in that it was designed to protect the investor (Nichiro); and,
in that it exacerbates market meltdowns, as the cycle of price cuts spirals out of control. Alaska and
Chile raced to the bottom in prices in the mid 90’s and the first years of the new millennium. An
epidemic of bankruptcies plagues both Alaska and Chile.
Furthermore, the stress on Chilean-owned salmon farms in Chile could leave Nichiro as one of
the last Sumo wrestlers standing in the shrinking ring of salmon suppliers.
We have given the Japanese plenty of reasons to take advantage of us: (strikes, the Bristol Bay
price fixing lawsuit, some avoidable bruised salmon, and some salmon that had inadequate chilling).
However, the main reason they are taking advantage of us is because they can. Also, it pays extremely
well. Only a well-crafted set of laws can prevent this from continuing to destroy our industry.
Decisive Government Action Justified
Despite our longstanding good relationship with Japan and their status as our best market, the
time has come when the Japanese abuse of our trust must be confronted. It would be best if this
confrontation and investigation is carried out by the US government with guidance from the state of
Alaska, rather than the Alaska salmon industry, which loses any remaining good will when fishermen
directly confront our long standing Japanese customers. Nichiro has done much to improve the quality
of Alaska salmon products.
The State and Federal governments have a substantial stake in this due to the costs of lost taxes,
remedies, and increased demands for financial aid caused by the failure of Alaska’s salmon industry.
The Alaska Division of Investments stands to lose about 20% of its portfolio, as does CFAB. Repeated
emergency declarations and dramatic increases in the number of fishermen applying for public
assistance added costs to our State’s social service agencies such as Denali Kid Care.
Furthermore, the State and Federal governments provide for due process and have the resources
for a protracted investigation, so that a solution carries the force of informed judgement, rule of law, and
the perception of fairness. Obviously, the Japanese, the Chileans, and the American Restaurant
Association are not going to give us back our 200 million dollars a year unless they are forced to.
Fishermen alone cannot make this happen.
Paychecks will keep coming for the employees at USDC, whether we get remedy or not. Only
our elected legislature and Congress can get things rolling in the right direction. This Legislative Task
Force is the ideal place to start.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
Miscellaneous
Title: All Sea foods
Problem: Hazardous waste, disasters, must get involved with clean up, to begin with the start of high
quality oceans, rivers, bays, districts, etc…
Discussion: All oceans, navigable water users or developers of any type of water use must be, try to be
as close as possible as waste free.
Recommendations: Let all that use sea foods be aware of any contaminated or health hazard to human
consumptions, be dated.
Name Walter W. Tukayak Email
Address PO Box 158 Togiak, AK 99678
Phone 907-493-5120 (not connected)
Fishery/Area Bristol Bay salmon
November 21, 2002
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
November 29, 2002
Northern Keta
Elisabeth Babich
2601 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
To the Salmon Task Force,
It seems ironic that while fishermen are encouraged to direct market their fish and ASMI tries hard to
help fishermen with its publications and advice, our government actually discourages it by taxing them
higher than a traditional processor.
There is not much incentive for a fisherman to try this as long as they have to deal with the way the fish
tax regulations are interpreted.
On way to increase the quality of our wild salmon in the market place is by making it worthwhile to the
fisherman or direct marketer to do something about it.
The current system does not encourage this.
A fisherman who decides he cannot survive by selling his salmon in the round will try to cut out one or
two middlemen and look into direct marketing his salmon.
It takes a lot of extra work and money, both on board (processing) and often on shore
(Unloading, boxing, trucking). He has to hire a deckhand just to keep up, he has to make many phone
calls to market his fish and arrange the transport.
The fish he sells is usually of high quality since it was bled, dressed and chilled immediately after it was
caught. So he get a better price for his fish and as an added bonus he can sell the by-products like roe or
milt. Still, he has to pay wages to the extra deckhand, cover ice, packaging and transport costs and pay
the applicable taxes.
And here is where the inequity comes in:
Example 1:
For some reason, his tax (Enhancement & Marketing Tax) are based on the value added price of the
processed, head on, fish (price he receives) and separately again on the by- products like roe.
In essence, he gets penalized for trying to realize more of the value of his fish and trying to bring a better
product to market.
Example 2:
Let’s say he has an order for processed, head off fish.
He now has to write a fish ticket himself, pay the Enhancement & Marketing Tax AND he then has to
pay 5% “raw fish tax” because is a “floating processor”.
Example 3:
In the mean time, had he stuck to the old system where he sells his fish in the round and this fish gets
tendered to a shore based plant, we now have a fish that is several days old and still not dressed, bad for
the fish and the roe. He gets a low price for his fish and can’t make any money.
Now the raw fish tax paid by the buyer for this product is 3% based on the round price NOT the value
added price of fish and roe.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
Confused yet?
Well, it is time to change these regulations and give the direct marketer fishermen some fair and equal
treatment. I you want high quality wild salmon to hit the market; you have to give them some incentives.
These regulations where made a long time ago and the fisheries and the market place have changed
drastically since then
Suggestions:
1) 3% “Raw Fish Tax” plus Enhancement and Marketing Tax for the all salmon in the round based on
the grounds price across the board for everybody!
2) Get rid of the head on and head off distinction, it is confusing and unnecessary.
If this is not possible, then, to be fair, maybe we have to look at assessing all processors based on the
value added price for both fish and by-products like roe.
We have to realize the days when the salmon fisheries were the big money makers are long gone and
maybe it is time to look at the new “money making industries” a little closer when it comes to taxing
them and dishing out subsidies.
Best regards
Elisabeth Babich
Ex-gill-netter and “direct marketer”
Small processor
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
November 27, 2002
Alaska Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Dear Sir: Please accept my comments relevant to your discussions of the state hatchery program. I am a
resident of Cordova and will limit my comments to the hatcheries of Area E, Prince William Sound and
the Copper River.
Title: Comments In Defence of the Hatcheries of Area E
Problem:
The very existence of the legislative Task Force underlines the precarious status of the state’s
commercial salmon fisheries. In general, market conditions for most species have plummeted and much
of problem can be traced to impacts of farmed fish in the marketplace. However, hatchery production
successes may be viewed by some as a contributor to decline in value of our salmon as well.
The question of implementation of a statewide hatchery policy and related issues suggest that a change
from the status quo may be needed to address some aspect of the salmon industry’s dilemma.
Since I’ve been a fisherman that has benefited mainly by the area’s pink salmon hatchery production,
I’ll direct my comments to that species.
Discussion:
The hatcheries of Prince William Sound are predominately, by number of fry released, pink salmon
hatcheries. For example, combined annual releases from Valdez Fisheries Development Association
(VFDA) and Prince William Sound Aquaculture Association (PWSAC) are in excess of six hundred
million pink salmon fry.
There are good historical reasons why the focus of this region’s production is directed to pink salmon.
Prince William Sound was the first region statewide to experience total season fishing closures due to
poor adult pink salmon returns. This was the case in years ’54,’55’59’ 74’and ’75. The hatchery
programs were created to address the fact that wild pink production in this area can be extremely erratic.
The hatcheries provided the means to achieve much needed stability for the fishery. However, there may
be some that would argue that our production success only adds to the processing problems created by
bounteous wild stock harvests of the past decade which have resulted in low ex-vessel prices. The
canned salmon industry has been swamped by years of consistently high pink harvests.
With respect to this problem and in defence of hatcheries in area E, somewhere between 25% to 50% of
our total pink harvest goes into products other than the can. This development was in response to an
effort made in the mid ‘90’s that successfully involved Bering sea Pollock processors in our pink
fishery. Alternate product forms are predominately frozen fillet blocks, mince, and fish meal. These
products don’t compete in the marketplace with canned salmon.
Secondly, salmon production is not consistent when viewed over long periods of time. Production was
low statewide from the ‘50’s up to the end of the ‘70’s. From that time up to near present years,
favorable environmental conditions allowed high production levels of salmon in Alaska. It now appears
we may be embarking upon a “regime shift” and possibly returning to years less favorable to salmon
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
production . If that is the case, hatchery contributions to declining wild stocks are likely to offer much
needed sustainability as we re-visit the conditions for which the hatcheries were designed back in the
mid ‘70’s. The ultimate benefit to be derived from hatchery production may be yet to be seen.
Recommendation:
Due to the differences in hatchery production in the state by species and area, the attempts by hatchery
operators to relieve abyssmal market conditions by encouraging salmon product forms other that canned
salmon, and the need for hatcheries to maintain maximum flexibility for response to changing
environmental and market conditions, it is unwise and unnecessary to form a uniform statewide hatchery
policy or alter the status quo for relationships between the state and hatcheries. The hatcheries have
made major contributions to the state’s salmon production and they are an integral part in the state’s
fishing economy. The Regional Planning Teams adequately maintain surveillance of hatchery operations
on a regional basis and on a regional basis hatchery oversight should remain.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
Do I support Alaska’s board of fish process? If changes are necessary, what would I suggest?
The local advisory committees need to be given a more important role in the decision making process.
Currently, they are often ignored completely. Many of these committees are thoroughly knowledgeable
with the local issues and have a much greater understanding than the BOF ever will. I don’t know how
to work this balance out but in the recent past, advisory committees have been pretty much left out of the
process. They need to be worked back in somehow. Maybe when the local committee votes on
proposals, this tally would count on some sort of weighted basis with that of the BOF. From my
experience with the BOF I think that what I’m suggesting might be a direction that could be considered.
I know that the BOF has a tremendous workload and it’s amazing that they can get through it all but that
brings me to another area that needs to be reviewed. What I am referring to is the committee process.
As a means of streamlining the decision making this idea has merit and is successful but it also has a
serious downside. It takes the decision making process out of the hands of seven people and delegates it
to the 2 members that run the committee. When these 2 members get back to the board, they present
their findings and suggestions which are usually rubber stamped. Decisions made on important fisheries
issues should not be entrusted to the evaluations of 2 individuals. This is a breakdown in the democratic
process. Yes, going through all 7 members is cumbersome but it opens up the opportunities to discuss
the issues within a larger framework and is a lot less susceptible to vested interests which can lobby 2
board members a lot more effectively that 7. Special interest groups would find it more difficult to
manipulate the BOF than under the current system. This leads back to the point of giving the local
committees more say. They already do much of the legwork of the BOF by going over proposals and
deciding on their merits. It would be a tremendous saving of time if these committee recommendations
were given more importance as opposed to being ignored.
Another weak link with the BOF process is that they have tremendous statutory authority and they
answer only unto themselves. The BOF is supposedly made up of members that have great expertise but
often times that is far from the truth. How many commercial fishermen have we seen on the BOF
lately? Not many. If you truly want expertise, these are the people that have it. The make up of the
BOF needs to have a greater representation from commercial fishermen. In addition, I would like to see
the creation of some sort of overseeing body to which the BOF would have to answer. In particular,
whether or not it followed due process, etc. It just seems irresponsible to give a body so much unbridled
authority without the slightest checks and balances.
Here is a summation of my main points:
1) Give more power to the local advisory committees.
2) Get rid of the committee process on the BOF. Make all 7 members part of the decision making
process.
3) Give commercial fishermen more representation on the
BOF.
4) Form an (ethics?) committee that could field grievances and assure that the BOF is functioning as
intended. There needs to be some form of checks and balances.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
I would like to say that I support the BOF process but feel that it needs to be adjusted if it is to work
fairly and effectively. I think that a task force would be warranted at this point.
On the subject of quality I don’t know what the solution is. A standard that could be recognized by the
state, sounds like a good idea. I’m reluctant to have the state take on this role but the industry simply is
not responding fast enough to deal with this most pressing of issues. The traditional canneries, in
particular, seem reluctant to move in this direction. There is no question in anyone’s mind as to the
importance of quality if we are going to survive in the marketplace. Dealing with this issue should be at
the top of the priority list. Fish should be carefully handled, bled, slush iced, and delivered within 12
hours of harvesting to qualify for recognition by the state for meeting quality criteria.
On the subject of fish farms a saying commonly attributed to the wiseguys comes to mind –
“fuggeddaboudit”! I think it’s a waste of paper and time to spend money on a white paper study.
On the subject of state buy back of permits and boats that gets another “fuggeddaboudit”! If you can’t
make it then the door is that a way.
Thank you for giving me the time to carry on about issues relevant to the state and my family. My wife
and I have been involved in commercial fishing in Alaska for most of our life and we would like our
children to have the same wonderful opportunity.
Sincerely,
Brad and Kay Underwood
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
To: Senator Ben Stevens
Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
From: Al Bauman
Kvichak Setnetters' Association
Box 911118
Anchorage, AK. 99509
Dear Sir,
Comments will be predominately limited to the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery. Its quite obvious questions
from the various committees are inter-linked to a degree as are our replies.
Quality
The standards of quality should come from the processor along with incentives. However, some
processors still offer production bonuses rather than quality bonuses. Several years ago we approached a
couple of processors seeking a way to increase the value of our raw fish product. We volunteered to ice
our set net fish if they would provide ice. Both processors one, which was on ASMI's board, stated the
cost of providing ice made icing unfeasible. They went on to say our set net fish had a high percentage
of # 1s because we delivered early and often due to the minimal holding capacity of skiffs making it
unnecessary to ice. What standards are necessary and who should set them? An "Alaska State quality
seal" might spur the processors on. Unfortunately, Japanese owned or controlled processors control most
of our Bristol Bay fish. Do we ask the Japanese to set the standards? Where would the incentive come
from?
Marketing and Governance
We had great hopes that ASMI would open the U.S. domestic to our Bristol Bay sockeye. That is what
we thought we were getting and why we supported ASMI to begin with. During the early 90's the 1%
ASMI tax accessed Bristol Bay fishermen accounted for up to 75% of the total fishermen generated
funds. Yet, the processor controlled Board (by influence not number) chose to push the low-end cheaper
fish. After all, sockeye went to Japan and weren't made available. So essentially what Bristol Bay has
done is to subsidize the processors' promotion of other's low-end fish. It isn't the employees of ASMI
we question it's the Board. We've lost faith.
In the Bay we need alternate markets not just one dictating what they will pay. Possibly a tax incentive
could be offered to new global markets. By this we mean anywhere other than Japan. The drawback
would be how to monitor the movement of "tax incentive" fish. Possibly the next year's processing
license issuance could depend on the proof of sales of these "tax incentive" fish in the new markets.
Circumvention of this requirement by operating under a new name would have to be somehow
blocked. In the past a processor would burn the fisherman then operate under a new name the next year.
For example in 1981 Martin Seafoods operated in the Naknek-Kvichak district and failed to pay
fishermen at season's end. The next year Martin operated as Homer Seafoods in Egegik and stung the
fishermen there the next two years. Severe penalties need to be dealt these white-collar criminals. This is
one area the Legislature could help.
More common sense need be applied by ADF&G. Last year the Kvichak River, the most prolific
sockeye producing river system in the world, was closed to fishing out of fear of a spawning shortfall.
ADF&G took conservation steps in the Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik and Ugashik districts of Bristol Bay to
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
promote the return of Kvichak stocks. Fishermen supported the actions it made sense. Yet, knowing
there was to be a questionable run of Kvichak stocks ADF&G allowed the Area M's June intercept
sockeye harvest to happen. 250,000-300,000 Bristol Bay bound sockeye were harvested. ADF&G have
no idea where these fish were destined. Run timings differ annually so claims as to where they were
bound can't intelligently be made. Where is the conservation in that? The Area M June sockeye intercept
fishery should not exist. Furthermore, managers in area M do not freely pass information to Bristol Bay
managers. This is fact! The Legislature cannot legislate common sense but can require performance of
its Department heads.
We support the Board of Fish process as it is. It brings the State to the people.
Hatcheries
We question the wisdom of hatcheries. Why produce more fish for an already flooded market? It
doesn't make sense throwing good money after bad. Nobody knows what the strain of hundreds of
millions of hatchery fish is doing to the ecosystem. Annually the State begs the federal government to
buy excess pinks.
Production
We feel a big part of Bristol Bay's problems are caused by processor shortsightedness, greed and
Japanese influence. Attrition isn't always a bad thing. Until we get new honest buyers willing to work
with the fishermen sharing rewards as well as losses things won't change.
Some of us are in situations where families have operated multiple permits for years putting profits back
into the operation thinking it was an investment. Family members move on finding more gainful
employment rather than trying to survive fishing. Now being able to fish less permits cuts our producing
power which starts a chain of negative situations less income to upgrade gear, sites and methods. The
number of operating permits won't decrease because those leaving will sell. We would like to see a set
net operator in Bristol Bay be able to own and fish up to three permits. That would give us the same
amount of net overall as a drift fisherman. This would give us a chance of surviving without increasing
the amount of web in the water. Since setnetters are predominately Alaska residents it would allow nonresidents
an opportunity to leave a fishery that is fast becoming cost prohibitive.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
Steven D Bruno
PO Box 925, Pebble Beach, CA 93953
November 26, 2002
Comments presented on 15 November 2002 in Seattle at the Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
Meeting.
My name is Steven D. Bruno and I have gillnetted for salmon since 1956. I began fishing in
Bristol Bay in 1965. I have also seined in California for herring, squid, and sardines. I count myself as
part of the historical fleet having grandfathers that came to Alaska with the Alaska Packers Assoc before
the turn of the century. My experience and therefore my comments pertain only to the Bristol Bay
fishery which is a high production gillnet fishery.
I believe that it is imperative that any solution adopted be adapted to the particular fishing area
and type of gear. The standards for a low production fishery such as trolling should not be forced upon
the Bristol Bay fleet. Where the product is going (canned and frozen), the infrastructure in place, and
the limits of the price for that product are the parameters that cannot be ignored. If individuals or certain
packers want to treat Bristol Bay salmon like troll caught fish and market it accordingly, I think the state
should support them in their efforts. But the state would be very foolish to mandate this type of
handling destined for very particular markets for the Bay as a whole. Bristol Bay has to move a great
deal of production and the quality measures have to face a reality check. I also believe that most of the
quality measures suggested for the Bay do not address the fundamental problems of why the Bristol Bay
fish has quality problems when it enters the fresh or frozen markets. There are seven topics that I wish
to cover.
1. Buyback or Common Harvest. Bristol Bay needs to decide if it is going to buy back permits
to an optimum number such as 1200 for the drift fleet or whether we are going to give an increased
value to the inactive permits by having permits such as drift allowed only some length under 150
fathoms or by having all permits take part in a common harvest be it by traps or seines. If the goal is to
buy back permits, then the inactive permits must not be given a value outside of their use. The buy back
means that the active fleet must pay for it and the active fleet will never be able to pay for it if an active
fisherman needs three permits to operate 150 fathoms.
If the state wants a common harvest, don’t talk about a buy back. No one will sell at a buy back
price. The permit will become a passive investment. This topic is fundamental and needs to be
addressed before we get too far down the road. I personally prefer the Buy Back with appropriate
changes in the Alaska constitution or statutes that guarantees the fleet reduction.
2. Quality in the Bristol Bay Drift fishery is brought about by the following methods.
a. We need to have Bristol Bay Management focused on harvesting for quality.
1. We need short openings followed by closures so that the fish can be immersed
in brine on the tenders after each tide. These tenders then leave on the following tide to deliver the fish
to the processor.
2. Short openings followed by closures keep fish distributed throughout the
district which eliminates the line fishery. Line fishing brutalizes the fish and a mangled fish caught in a
line battle is not restored by spraying it with RSW in the hold of a gillnetter.
3. Curtailment of ebb fishing near lines where the boat is not drifting but towing
the net to keep it legal within the district will also enhance quality.
4. We must restore the fishery to a Drift Fishery and prohibit massive towing and
dragging of nets.
b. Regulation of buyers.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 3 December 3, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
1. Fish caught and delivered at the end of the tide will have been on the boat for at most a few