Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Salmon Task Force Proposals
From the Public, Volume 4
As of December 6, 2002
Are fish traps the solution to our salmon problems in Cook Inlet? Alan DeGraffenried .............2-5
Comments submitted by Stuart Deal (S03E) ................................................................................6-14
Comments submitted by Jim Calhoun (S01K) ...........................................................................15
Comments submitted by Sid Nelson (S03T) ............................................................................16-17
Comments submitted by Tara Jollie ...........................................................................................18
Letter to Sen. Ben Stevens from Fred Pike (S03T) ..................................................................19
Comments submitted by Harley Black (S03A) .........................................................................20
Comments submitted by Wodyga (S15B) .................................................................................21-23
Quality Subcommittee comments submitted by Adam Jewell (S04H) ......................................24-25
Comments submitted by Rodger Bergquist (S03E/S01E) .........................................................26
Comments submitted by Joe Gale...............................................................................................27-29
Comments submitted by Joe Faith (S03T) ................................................................................30-31
Testimony—The Chilling News submitted by Jana Suchy .......................................................32-35
Alaska Salmon Task Force Issues and Process Analysis and Recommendations submitted by CCTHITA,
Gordon Jackson..........................................................................................................................36-48
Comments submitted by Jim Morrison (S03H) .........................................................................49
Governance Subcommittee comments submitted by Randy Talvi (S03T) ...............................50
Comments submitted by Seining Bristol Bay, Dan Farren (S03T) ............................................51
Comments submitted by Donald Bergquist (S03E/S01E) .........................................................52-53
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
ARE FISH TRAPS THE SOLUTION TO OUR SALMON PROBLEMS IN COOK INLET?
My name is Alan DeGraffenried, and I am presently a licensed Cook Inlet Drift Fisherman. I am 61
years old, and have participated since 1988 in the Cook Inlet Salmon Fishery. After attending two
salmon task force meetings, one in Soldotna, and the other in Homer, I was somewhat alarmed to hear
the discussion of fish traps being again implemented as the most viable harvesting method for the Cook
Inlet Salmon Fishery. My greatest concern over this issue, is that it seems so simple at first glance, but
when more closely scrutinized, it presents some serious questions that must be considered. The
harvesters construct a fish trap at the mouth of each river, select the fish to be harvested, and then
release the appropriate amount of fish for sports fishermen, and subsistence fisherman, and also for
replenishment of the resource. From my perspective, it is not so simple an issue. My greatest concern
over the fish trap issue, is that a number of legislators that are not salmon fisherman, and are not
familiar with the harvesting methods, and problems of the salmon industry, will review the collected
data and testimony that has been collected by the task force, and support returning the fish trap
harvesting method as the best method available.
The Cook Inlet region has at the roots of its problems, the issue of allocation, and an ever growing
demand for resources. This allocation problem exists specifically between three user groups, namely,
the commercial fishing , the sports fishing , and the subsistence sectors. As early as 1970, department
fish managers realized that the fishery resources of the Cook Inlet region were 100% allocated. In
order for the sports fishing and personal use groups to become more satisfied, and receive more
allocation, these allocations must be taken from the previous user groups. As the sport fishing, and
now the subsistence users organizations have matured, and they have developed more political clout,
these user groups have successfully convinced the Board of Fish to allocate more fish for their needs.
The goal of the sport fishing and subsistence sectors were reached in three ways. (1) more in- river
escapement, (2) diminished harvesting opportunity for the commercial sector by eliminating fishing
time, (3) and the implementation of management strategies by using the corridor geographical areas,
along with other new subdivisions of the traditional fishing area for the drift fisherman.
The commercial fishing fleet, including all gear types, (set nets, and drift nets) have suffered irreparable
damage without compensation, because of diminished harvesting opportunities, and diminished
harvestable fish. The results of the new management strategies and re-allocation of resources have
created a great deal of frustration within the commercial sector of the Cook Inlet Salmon fisheries. To
resolve these issues, we are now hearing a rumble from some individuals from all three sectors for the
fish trap harvesting methods to be re-instated. The appeal of the idea of fish traps being deployed again
is that the harvest would be more efficient, and more selective, and much more cost effective. The
theory would be that the sockeye would be harvested, and the other salmon species would be returned
to the system for the benefit of the sports fishing groups. This system has a great deal of appeal to the
sport fishing sector, as this user group would have their interests more assured.
The other appealing benefit of the fish trap system being deployed, again, is that the fish harvested
would be handled more efficiently, producing a better quality product, which in turn would produce a
higher price for the product. It all sounds so simple. However, the fish trap system was and will be in
the future inherently flawed for a number of reasons, and that is why it was discontinued.
I tried to find some older folks, who participated in the fish trap harvesting system, and have to date not
been able to contact people who actually had experience in participating in this system of salmon
harvest. Even though these folks were old folks, they were not old enough. Fish traps were
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
discontinued some 45 plus years ago. I did contact an older gentlemen, Doyle Carlson, presently
residing in Kasilof, Alaska. He and family members have owned some of the most successful fishing
sites in Cook Inlet. These sites are located on the north Salamatoff Beach, north of the mouth of the
Kenai River. Doyle, and his Brother, Ken Carlson have fished these sites since 1960. The purpose for
contacting Doyle was to determine if he fished during the time of fish traps, and what were his ideas of
the fish trap system.
Although he did not fish this system, he seemed somewhat knowledgeable about how they worked.
He made several comments, of which I will attempt to describe. (1) the traps were built, and
deployed at the edge of the water. (2) most of the traps went dry with the tides (3) the traps were
subject to debris destroying them when high water occurred (4) they were not as effective as a tool
for harvesting fish in the larger rivers, as the smaller rivers. (5) when set net sites were developed, and
existed at the same time as the traps, the set nets were just as efficient harvesting systems, and
distributed the wealth of the harvest over a broader base of participants.
He also stated, having had most of his set net experience on the Kenai River system, that to eliminate
the set net systems in favor of the trap system, would have some serious affects. The Kenai River
system has along with other systems been managed for a number of years for maximum sustained yield.
The system has been managed with a minimum and a maximum escapement level, and then the surplus
is harvested. The Kenai River system, along with other systems that are “pumped up” cannot handle
all of the fish returning annually, without serous destruction of the ecosystem. The surplus must be
identified as quickly as possible, and then harvested . Presently, the fish managers of the Cook Inlet
system utilize the catch records of all fishing sectors, the areas where the fish were harvested, an
escapement counting station, along with test fishing to attempt each year to identify the harvestable
surplus, before the fish enter the river systems. If the fish managers are deprived of these tools, and the
harvesting of the fish does not occur until they are entering the river systems, as would be the case with
a fish trap harvesting system, how then can a reasonably accurate determination of the number of fish
in any given season be determined?
Can we remove any of the equation of harvesting without seriously affecting the outcome? This system
now deploys set netters, and drift fisherman to harvest the surplus. The year of the oil spill, the drift
fishermen were removed from the harvesting equation, and all of the set netters, fishing constantly,
were not able to intercept the fish and prevent over-escapement. The rearing capacity of the Kenai,
and Kasilof system suffered severe damage because of over escapement. How then can a trap system be
implemented that would manage the system for maximum sustained yield?
As the salmon began returning to the river, the set netters began to intercept the fish. The fish, when
returning in smaller quantities, traditionally return in the shallow surf of the beaches. The set netters
have developed running lines that allow them to constantly adjust the location of their set nets, in and
out from the beach. An anchor is located with a pulley some distance out from the beach, and a
running line is then attached. Because the most desirable location of the net is in the shallow surf, as
the tide comes in and recedes, a tractor attaches to the running line and adjusts the location of the net.
However, when a large run hits the beach, the fish come in massive quantities, and the location of the
net in order to be successful is not nearly as important. The fish in large quantities fill the adjacent
water and the mouth of the river in mass. The set nets are not capable of intercepting all of the fish.
Even though they catch large numbers of fish, many more escape.
If a fish trap system is deployed, and the drift fleet is removed from the harvesting equation, what kind
of trap system would be designed in order to provide adequate harvesting capability of the system?
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Are we ready to build a trap system to completely intercept the run of sockeye and block off the mouth
of the entire Kenai River and Kasilof River? What type of trap system could be designed to include in
the design, the capability of handling tide fluctuations as much as 20 to 25 feet of water movement
when large tides occur, twice a day? Who is going to pay for such a system? Will the public allow
such a system to be built?
The Chignik Co-op system produced an interesting side affect scenario that seems to have a lot of appeal
to some people. One might call this the “no work, but get paid” syndrome”. At least, under the
present harvesting system, the individual harvesters do work. Each harvester, must keep their
equipment in repair,and then each permit holder must be physically present during the harvesting
operation. Each drift boat must have the licensed permit holder on the vessel. Just considering the
harvester’s effort, the numbers of individuals working at any given fish period opener, amounts to
providing a work opportunity for hundreds of people. Most boats require two individuals to run the
vessel operation, and set net sites require more. When an opener occurs, upwards of 2000 harvesters
can and are upon the waters. Shall we do away with the work opportunities of that many individuals?
If these 2000 plus workers are not working, each summer, who’s jobs are they going to secure? They
will be working somewhere else, and the irony of the situation, is that theoretically, they will be getting
their share of trap caught fish revenue, as shareholders.
One of the characteristics that proved to be most undesirable of the trap system, was that the wealth
produced from the resource, was very confining. This will occur again. Who will own the traps, and
who will determine where the trap sites will be? Will we have a number of small co-ops develop and
attempt to secure their trap sites based on shore set net site leases that presently exist? Will the
Salamatoff beach set net site owners co-op and maintain control over the potential trap sites as a co-op?
Where does this leave the drift fleet? They have no site leases. Set net sites traditionally vary
considerably in value. This is based on the location of the sites, as some sites are more strategically
located than others, and simply catch more fish. How can the owners of these sites be adequately
compensated when it comes to issuing shares in a fish trap operation? Do we base shares on past
catch records, as the halibut IFQ system did. In theory, the only way that the trap system can be
deployed again, and incorporate the vested interests of the all present harvesters is to distribute shares to
each individual fish permit holder on an equal basis. How do these vested interests transfer, when the
harvester either dies, or desires to divest his investment? Who ends up with it? Do we slowly start to
see a migration of ownership of the salmon resources back to a few individuals, as before?
How does the trap system incorporate into the system and maintain the present diversity and individual
company efforts of the processors? We now are seeing new marketing efforts and the benefit of our
capitalistic business system. The processors that are diversifying, more innovative in marketing,
working harder, with more determination, are more successful. Each processor competes with each
other for the product of the individual harvesters, The trap system would not allow this to occur as
well. The only way that a processor would be able to acquire fish would be to become involved in a
competitive bid for the product. Individual financial opportunity and the viability of small processors
with limited financial capability would be diminished, or eliminated, because they would not have equal
access to buying and obtaining fish.
Conclusion: I do not support returning to a trap system in any degree. The present harvesting system
that is deployed in the Cook Inlet Salmon fishery is adequate, and efficient. Product quality can and
will improve as the market demands. The distribution of the wealth of the salmon fishery is as broad as
it can be at this time. As long as the habitat of the various salmon producing river systems is safe
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
guarded, we can and will have a valuable renewable resource continue. It will continue as long as rain
and snow falls, and water runs down hill, and fills our wonderful rivers with clean pure water.
Thank You, Alan DeGraffenried alga@xyz.net
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Name: Stuart Deal
Email: stuart493@earthlink.net
Address: 7314 11th NW, Seattle, Wa. 98117
Phone: 206 390 6353
Fish Area: Prince William Sound
Gear Type: Drift Gillnet
Read This
• PROPOSAL 49 CAN LEAD TO CHANGES
• THESE CHANGES CAN SAVE YOUR LIVELYHOOD
AN EXPERIMENTAL FISHERY IS PROPOSED THAT CAN
• increase the value of salmon
• Reduce operating costs
• Expand Promotion
• Improve quality
• YOU CAN HAVE AN INFLUENCE
Email questions or comments to stuart493@earthlink.net
An Overview of Proposal 49.
The problem in our industry is that the price of salmon is too low to return an adequate profit for
the participants. The fisherman in particular, has means for little beyond the bare necessities of fishing.
Most of us have little to spend, and little prospect for which to invest. This proposal addresses this loss
of value through different measures in a unified way. The various changes proposed are linked through
their dependence on a shift to quota-based management. That is to say, without quota management, the
related measures are not feasible. As a whole these changes are meant to enable the fisherman and the
industry around him to compete more effectively in a market dominated by farmed salmon.
QUOTA HAS IMPROVED QUALITY AND PRICES IN OTHER FISHERIES
Quota based management has many advantages in itself. The most important is that it allows a
fisherman’s focus and decision making to step away from a volume orientation toward a value
orientation. On board, when fish are being caught, attention can be given to handling the product
carefully, or in whatever way maximizes its value. In our current management system, with shorter
and shorter fishing periods, the need to give proper care to fish becomes secondary to the need to
catch every fish we can while we are open. Quality and quantity are not always at odds in the course
of fishing, but any fish whose quality suffers from less than optimal handling has a negative effect
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
on the value of the pack as a whole. Too much bad product is a disaster. Another area of advantage
of a quota system has to do with the industry around us, and the bid for our catch. Relationships
between fishermen and those who buy their product also benefit from eliminating the volume race.
Processors, and others in the distribution system can benefit from easier planning based on a more
stable, reliable flow of product. The result is better prices for product that will find its way to
fishermen.
What the experimental fishery would look like
The terms of this proposal intend that the allocation of harvest is the same to all permits.
Although this may seem hard to swallow, this is what can be allowed under limited entry. A weekly trip
limit for a permit holder is based on the average catch of the entire working fleet. Initially the trip limit
can be based on a pre-season projection. As fishing progresses the in season cumulative harvest
becomes the basis for keeping the quota fishery at parity with the customary fleet. The trip limits will
increase and decrease with the passage of the salmon runs. This share of harvest is meager in the eyes
of most ambitious fishermen, and so other provisions are added to compensate. Up to five quotas can be
fished on one boat. This can provide significant savings in operating costs for those who chose to take
advantage of it. Two permits could be stacked and both quotas fished by one operator. Because trip
limits achieve the harvest restraint needed by managers, and because the opportunity of other fishermen
is not affected extensive gear regulation is not necessary. Allowing the elimination of some, or all gear
restriction could further reduce expenses, and improve the quality of the catch. Time when quota fishing
is closed should be relatively short.
FLEET REDUCTION
Fleet consolidation is generally recognized as necessary in some form throughout the salmon
fisheries in the state. Ours is not different. The provision for stacking two permits can become the
basis of a fleet reduction which does not have to depend on outside funding, or the retirement of permits
altogether. It can avoid a negative impact on product quality. Within the provisions of a contained
experimental fishery, a significant reduction in gear would not be seen. Criticism of this proposal often
sites the distribution of harvest on an equal basis as absurd or worse, in light of the range in abilities of
different fishermen. This observation is better justified in the context of awarding harvest rights in
fisheries converting to quota management from open access. In fact, as an opportunity for one
fisherman to buy out another, the abilities that have advantaged a fisherman under limited entry should
make him better positioned to buy out his less able competitor. Permits themselves all have the same
trading value. The end result of a fleet reduction structured in this way will be to favor mainly those
fishermen who pursue value in their product. They in turn will benefit all those who are dependant on
the salmon industry. Higher value floats everyone higher.
MARKET AND PROMOTION
Many think that the failure of Alaska salmon in the market is due to the lack of product
promotion. In the face of overwhelming volumes of farmed salmon some say that the public needs to
be educated about the advantages of wild vs. farmed salmon. These include nutritional and
environmental benefits, and others, as they may appeal to customers. ASMI has been cautious about
carrying this message. In the same way, they have been reluctant to use the word ‘wild’ to promote
salmon before it was done by Copper River fishermen. Their research had shown that it was not a good
idea. Large scale marketing campaigns are not innovative, nor do they adapt quickly enough. In the
mid 1990s, Copper River salmon began to have a higher profile in the domestic market. This came
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
about largely as result of efforts of individuals and small groups of fishermen, trying to get attention,
and a better price for their catch. The arrival in Cordova, at that time, of custom processing made it
possible for these fishermen to sell their catch directly into end markets. It also helped that these direct
marketers made many contacts and explanations acquainting those markets with Copper River product.
These efforts were intended to benefit their own price, but also had a good influence on everyone else’s
price very quickly. Most important to note is that this cost the fleet nothing. There was no organization,
or assessment for promotion. In the current fishery a permit holder needs to always get ready for the
next opening, wherever and whenever it may fall. Fishing periods continue to get shorter. The cost of
custom processing has doubled since the mid 90s. These are real obstacles for the direct market efforts.
The efficiencies of processing, distribution, and the ease of planning for known production that can
benefit the industry at large with better returns, can also make the efforts of direct marketers easier.
What they might spend to interest some new market in their catch comes free for the remainder of the
industry. Also, it is followed by product, and not just a list of names and phone numbers. Contact with
fishermen improves the reception for Alaska salmon with chefs and retailers. On the other hand broad
based relatively generic promotion might end up serving middlemen more than it would salmon
fishermen. Quota management can do now, for self-marketing groups, or individuals, what custom
processing did in the mid 90s. Any innovation, or development in their relationship to the market that
might arise will be followed by the more mainstream distributor’s mimicry. This will bring along a
higher bid for the rest of the pack. The California wine industry thrives, largely due to the ability of
many small vineyards working independently to improve their own prospects. Harvest rights in the
hands of permit holders can set the stage for a rapid expansion of marketing efforts, as well as
adaptations that are responsive to the our customers’ wishes. We have seen it happen before.
Reinvigorate Limited Entry Principals
Discussion of the problems in the salmon industry has lead some to call into question the
effectiveness of limited entry regulation and whether its goals are still viable. This proposal is not meant
to abandon L.E. It is intended as an adjustment of the regulations that can enable them to better achieve
the principal of returning the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people. There is a notion that
surfaces now and then that the fisherman is becoming irrelevant. The experiment proposed can reaffirm
very plainly the importance of the producer and his interests. Fishermen are the essential link in gaining
value for the state from this resource. Whether the industry needs to adapt to a new market is not the
question. We should be exploring ways to foster its evolution, and choosing the direction to point it in.
It is notable that this proposal looks at a way that addresses a range of the most significant problems, and
does so without the industry having to seek funding assistance through the legislature. In the current
fiscal climate that is appealing.
An Experiment Worth Trying
Some like to point out that fisheries go in cycles and that we will eventually come out of this. A
similar view is that nothing is actually wrong. The system works. When prospects are marginal
some fishermen stay home. In that way others have more fish to work on, and all is well in the end.
Cordova recently reaffirmed its desire to be a fishing community first, even though fishing is
providing less and less for the community’s needs. At current pries for fish, few are profiting and
businesses are closing. The outlook is bleak enough that almost no fisherman is spending anything
that he does not absolutely have to, let alone investing with confidence. This has a very bad effect
on Cordova as a whole. It is not just the fleet that is having a hard time. As the state’s resource,
managed for the benefit of as many as possible, the current situation is not acceptable. The state
wants to see improvement in the utilization of its assets. Quota management explored under an
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
experimental heading can enable individual fishermen to be efficient enough to survive, and
profitable enough to spend. Permits can regain considerable value, and a fleet of prospering
fishermen will be an improvement for Cordova. No other participant in the industry has an interest
focused in the value like the permit holder. A quota can both empower, and motivate him to develop
it. If this shift in management can be shown to be workable to biologists, and to reliably produce
more consistent quality, then that would be a success. For the fishermen who are unsure whether
quota management would benefit them, or are fearful of it, a demonstration fishery could address
their misgivings. Permit holders in support of the proposal have acknowledged that it should start at
a lower level of production, say five percent. This could lessen anxieties for the doubters. Allowing
the experiment to expand can produce volumes that would be more meaningful to processors and
can have more impact in the market. It could be that this plan alone is enough for the fishermen to
fix their own industry.
Email questions or comments to – stuart493@earthlink.net
PROPOSAL 49 - 5 AAC 24.XXX. PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND GILLNET FISHERY
MANAGEMENT PLAN. Create a new regulation to provide the following:
I. Drift gillnet permit holders will be allowed to transfer their limited entry fishing privileges for a
quota of salmon harvest which is based on the average catch per permit of all the runs fished in the
Prince William Sound drift gillnet districts. Registration for such a transfer will be made before the
beginning of the season and extend for the duration of the season.
II. Weekly trip limits for transferees will be determined by ADF&G as the season progresses
and will be kept in proportion with the cumulative harvest of the rest of fleet.
III. There will be as little as possible restriction on the kind of gear, or methods of harvest used by
the transferees.
IV. This will be an experimental fishery and will be limited to 25 percent of the harvest until the
Board of Fisheries meets again to consider revisions to Prince William Sound regulations.
V. Transferees will be allowed to stack two permits and therefore harvest a double quota.
VI. Transferees will be allowed to fish for their quota on boats together, with up to five quotas
totaled per boat.
PROBLEM: Salmon fishermen, the communities they operate out of, and their industry are in
trouble. They are becoming insolvent due to the falling price of salmon in world markets. The value
of the resource is not great enough to support all of those who at one time relied on it either mostly or
entirely. The product quality of Alaska salmon often compares poorly with competing product from
salmon farms. Limited entry regulation, which is in place to stabilize the industry, needs to evolve to
enable this industry to adapt to the shifting market. The changes needed are such that they could be
painful to the parties involved. Therefore a solution needs to be found that will minimize the stress of
the process, while allowing for redevelopment of the industry.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If these problems are not addressed the
industry will continue to degenerate. Permit values will keep falling. The product will remain
uncompetitive. Without profit, the participants will not invest in facilities, gear, or boats. The revenues that
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
contribute to those coastal communities both through taxes, or trickle down will dwindle. The state and the
community will fail to recover the real value from a resource that has been the basis for a hallmark industry.
Many of Alaska’s coastal communities become unable to address the needs of their populations. It will be a
sad waste.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? The quality of salmon produced will certainly be improved by the measures
outlined in this proposal. Quota fisheries on other stocks such as pollock, halibut, and black cod, have
demonstrated their ability to yield better quality product. Being able to use something other than gillnets will
prevent a lot of blemishes on fish. Net scars and scale loss that are visible on a large proportion of gillnet
caught fish are not seen on farmed salmon. Middlemen who buy and sell salmon expect to pay less for net
marked fish. If we are able to regain lost ground in the market place we do not need to be handicapped by the
kind of gear we use.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? As an experimental fishery with a small number of fishermen
participating, the benefits will come gradually to those who opt to transfer for a quota, and the
processors who deal with them. Outside of these groups the changes might not be noticed. With
more operators choosing to fish quota, the differences arising will be more visible.
Salmon quality will be improved and the cost of getting it to market in good condition will be reduced. This
will make the producers more profitable and able to reinvest those profits. Reinvestment willbenefit the
community. The opportunities are at hand for collaborations between fishermen and with processors, and
they can be extended to marketing ventures in a stable and more sustained way. This will enable recovery of
the greatest value from the resource. An economy will emerge out of the process of transition. As quota
fishermen experiment with methods of harvest, they will be continually reinventing their gear, and this will
bring revenue into the community as well. This plan as proposed will provide for incremental shift, an
evolution of methods and relationships,based on sensible choices. It does not impose an autocratic redivision
of benefits. It allows the industry to redistribute its investments where they can be most beneficial. A smooth
transition is a desirable path for all those with a stake at any level.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? In time, if this experiment were seen as being successful, with the
result that a significant portion of the fleet opts for quota, there would be a burden on the permit
holders themselves. Although their permits would probably increase in value, their boats would
certainly lose value. These two factors might cancel each other, and they might not. Tendermen
would probably be less in demand, and the fuel dock would sell less fuel. There is a real concern that
highliners will be deprived under this plan of their opportunity to enjoy higher than average catches.
In fact, the provision for stacking permits allows them to harvest twice the average share. Because of
their better production in the past they should be in a better financial position to acquire a second
permit.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
Buy Back Programs – Fleet reduction through buybacks of permits will fail to revitalize the industry
because it will perpetuate the volume orientation of the producers. It will not improve the value of the
product in the market because quality will remain a secondary concern. It is a bad choice.
Co-op Harvests – A cooperative harvest in the form of the Chignik plan could address some of the
problems. Product quality and operating efficiency should improve as long as the cooperative is
well-managed. The allocation of a harvest share is common to both the Chignik plan and this Prince
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
William Sound proposal. The difference is that in this proposal the share is in the hands of the
individual permit holder. This provision allows for reinventing the fishery in an incremental way,
rather than in one leap. It is important for the industry and the community to maintain some continuity as
major changes come about. It is less stressful on the community. It is healthier.
Another significant drawback to the Chignik model is that the gains go entirely to the permit holders,
almost entirely at the expense of non-permit holding participants. What is the value of a fishery if it
cannot support the community.
A Rationalization Act – An AFA-model rationalization has problems that are similar to those of the
co-op fishery. Worst is that it would abandon the grass roots economic benefits that are a fundamental
part of the limited entry system. It is open to absentee ownership. In allocating quota on the basis of
production it ignores the intention of limited entry to provide equal access to the fishery for permit
holders.
PROPOSED BY: Stuart L. Deal (HQ-02-F-081)
PWS Proposal 49 vs The Chignik Coop
PWS Proposal 49 has similarities to the Chignik Coop, but it has significant differences that address
the worst shortcomings of that form of rationalization
Absentee ownership
This proposal puts a harvest share as quota in the hands of an individual permit holder. The
share is determined by, and follows the current harvest of the active fleet as a whole, on a weekly basis
in season. As in the competitive fishery, those who are not present do not share in the harvest. Checks
don’t get mailed out of town.
Local Economy
The local economy dependant on the fishery including processors and workers, are not
disenfranchised by the formation of a single cooperative. Existing relationships in the fishing economy
would be more likely to evolve, rather than be disrupted. Individual permit holders or small groups
would tend to continue delivering to the processors with whom they have dealt with in the past. Greater
efficiency for the fleet, and its expected profitability, would allow more income to be spent and even
reinvested in the local economy.
Highliners
Permit stacking options for individual permit holders provides for some fleet consolidation and
enables highliners to retain a larger share of the harvest. Instead of being assessed for a buyback, they
invest to buy out another permit holder. This sort of fleet reduction will not have a negative impact on
quality, or perpetuate over capitalization problems. Permits as shares, will not need to be retired.
1. Why should we change something that’s not broken?
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
It has been said that we are really not in bad shape in Cordova, and that our quality and
marketing efforts are held up as a model to the rest of the state. I would not dispute that our quality can
be good, and marketing efforts have been fruitful. However, being better than the rest of the state, is not
necessarily winning against the competition, which is farmed salmon. We have a very good price for a
short time in the early season. During most of the remaining season we get a better price than the rest of
the state, but it’s still not a good price. Consider some of the advantages we have that put this in
perspective. In Cordova there is an airport with jet service to Seattle or Anchorage, which makes it
easy to ship fish out. We have a fish that arrives earlier than any other run of significant volume. Our
Copper River salmon enjoys a lot of fanfare from companies that promote themselves by getting on the
Copper River bandwagon. They want to offer our product because it is a hot item and has an image they
want to be associated with. The hype sort of feeds itself. Although the salmon is known to have more
fat, and receives better than average care often, these qualities might not be as widely noticed if not for
the other circumstances, jet service and run timing, that improve our position in the market. This is
largely our good fortune as permit holders, but it does not mean that we are not in the same trouble that
the salmon fisheries are experiencing around us in other parts of the state. When other runs come on
line our price is undermined.
Farmed salmon has won a considerable following in markets that once offered Alaskan salmon.
Their product has set a standard for freshness, quality, availability, and unfortunately price also, that we
did not have to compete with in the past. While other fishing areas are generally more hard pressed, and
have little to look forward to, their misfortune is also ours. When their prices are bad, ours are not much
better. Our fisheries in Prince William Sound are bringing very little value, and with the volumes of
product that are there, ten or fifteen cents more per pound would be a significant increase in income to
the industry. Since we are still marginally solvent we may be in a better position to recover faster if we
are given the means to change. That’s what this proposal is about and it is as applicable to Cordova as
anywhere. Standing back and hoping for fishermen to stay home to clear the field while the price dives
is not a recovery plan.
2. Will quotas actually encourage fishermen to work harder to improve or innovate?
Hard work, innovation, equipment and market improvements would not be made pointless.
Quota fishermen will need to improve their profitability through whatever means are available. These
would include being more efficient, producing better quality, and even finding a better market. You
could say that the things that we as a fleet need to work on most, in order to be competitive with farmed
salmon, are made even more necessary to people who would fish a quota. In a competitive fishery we
try to make up for the poor prices we are paid with greater volume. That’s not an option for a quota
fisherman.
The pound fishery for herring spawn on kelp in PWS is an example of how a quota can increase
the producer’s concern for quality and efficiency. Fishermen don’t try less to get better quality kelp
product because they have a fixed quota of leaves. In fact, they try very hard. In the process of selling
their graded product on the dock, better quality is rewarded substantially. The auction of salmon would
be easier under a quota system. The opportunity arises for groups of fisherman to make their product
available regularly, under the same name, thus building a reputation for quality in the way some kelp
pound groups have done. Our current catch and deliver fishery makes this sort of thing much more
difficult. Halibut and black cod are sold at an auction in Homer, and elsewhere possibly. Some credit
this with helping keep prices up in those fisheries for everyone.
In the customary fishery the need to produce volume, especially during short openings, is the
concern that always comes first. In spite of the commitment that some might make to careful handling,
or how good one’s attitude is, passing up volume to attend to the other concerns is not something that
people can do consistently. Unfortunately for those who make the kind of efforts that keep quality up
with the hope of improving markets, those who don’t make the effort have a corresponding negative
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
effect on price. Other than minor bonuses, or incentives, a nickel here and a nickel there, the difference
in price between good fish and not as good fish is too little to convince fishermen of the importance of
quality. The product that is making ours less competitive in the market is handled very carefully. With
out a significant difference in price between poorly handled fish, and that which is handled well,
fishermen’s attention will stay turned, for the most part toward volume. Evenly paced fishing and
delivering are both a real possibility under quota management. With time to inspect product buyers
should be able to pay a fair premium for properly handled fish, or pay significantly less for product that
is below an acceptable minimum standard.
3. Will this proposal have enforcement problems?
An observation made is that this program has enforcement problems, and that we will have
armed guards policing our fishery. The efforts of enforcement will, no doubt, take a new form; in order
to make sure that quota fishermen do not take more than their share. As for the armed officers, they
already police our fishery. The new burden on enforcement will be watching over the accounting of
catches, the way NMFS officers do in the longline IFQ fisheries. This will be a concern for the
biologists as well. It’s conceivable that quota fishermen will be issued a different kind of permit card,
with a magnetic stripe encoded for communication with a catch-monitoring computer that serves both
ADF&G and the Department of Public Safety. Technology that is applicable should be available, or
could be adapted to serve this purpose quite easily. As for cheating on the part of fishermen, there are
stiff penalties in effect now. Similar penalties should apply for over-harvesting, but the officer can wait
at the dock.
4. Equal shares sounds like communism.
Some point out that equal share for different fishermen is unfair to highliners, or maybe a
giveaway to lowliners who don’t deserve it. There are two main reasons for its being put this way. The
first is the limited authority of the Board of Fish. This proposal for an experimental fishery has to be
framed as much as possible within the range of their authority. The Board cannot allocate different
shares. This plan is already a bit of a stretch. The courts or the legislature would end up having to be
involved to grant different shares to different permit holders, and that takes a lot more time than getting
an okay for an experiment. The second has to do with the consolidation of effort that many agree we
need for fishermen to survive financially. While it may seem too simple or unconnected to the way
things work now, equal share is not meant to be the final word on who gets how much quota. It is
intended to be a starting point. Provisions are included for permit stacking by individuals and on boats.
Allowing fishermen to buy one another out in this way can reduce the fleet while eliminating the
pressure to compete for volume, which has a negative effect on product quality. The general aim of the
plan is to improve profitability by giving fishermen the ability to evolve more efficient, quality
conscious methods. Those who are able to recover a better profit by getting better value from their
product will be imitated by other fishermen, in the same way that boats flock to where there are reports
of good catches. As better methods evolve profits can improve and the permit values can recover.
Management and enforcement problems can be sorted out, and the stage could be set for a gradual
transformation of the fishery.
A debate over the distribution of shares would not be worthwhile. The added complexity is not
likely to make the proposal more acceptable to the Board of Fish. Just the same, within the
framework of the experimental regulation, it could be that fishermen with production histories that
are better than double average, or some relevant mark should be allowed to stack more permits than
the limit of two outlined in the proposal language. Fractional permits with corresponding quota
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
share could also have a place. These issues can and should be considered as the experiment
progresses.
5. Why not just buy back some of the permits?
It is generally recognized that gear reduction would help make fishermen more viable, but there
are some very real drawbacks. The proposed experimental regulations open an alternative path that
avoids those problems effectively.
Most expectations are that fleet reduction will be accomplished through buying back permits.
The problem with a simple thinning of the fleet is that it perpetuates, or even increases the quality and
over capitalization problems of a competitive fishery. While there is a view that allocation of quota on
an equal basis to permit holders is inequitable it may not be so unappealing when considered in the
context of the option for fishermen to buy one another out in order to fish a second quota.
A buyback would most likely be funded through assessment, with the burden of funding being
carried by fishermen in proportion to their production. Consider for example a case where a fleet
reduction program is intended to reduce the number of operators by 50%. An average operator who
remains in the fleet will in effect buyout one other fisherman over time. A double average fisherman
will pay assessments providing for the buy out of two others and so on. Those most likely to sell out
over time will be the lower level producers, therefore increasing the competition among those
remaining. This will reduce the distribution of harvest among the remaining fishermen, causing about
half of the formerly above average producers to now be below average. Although it is unlikely that a
fleet reduction would be planned for an elimination of half the fleet, and other assumptions of this
example are oversimplified, the example serves to illustrate some of the impact that a buyback is likely
to have. Also it demonstrates that there is a potentially large burden on highliners, with questionable
returns.
In a case where fishermen are allowed to fish a quota, and have the option to buy one another out
to fish additional quota, the burden would be proportional to the potential gain. Those who chose to
invest to have access to more product volume will gain their best return by attending to quality and
efficiency issues. The ability to bid for quota will be greater for those who are most effective. In this
way the competition amongst quota fishermen can lead to the evolution of methods, and raise the level
of quality and efficiency to where we as an industry are competitive in world markets.
Without this opportunity being made available to fishermen, it will be difficult for the industry to
have a product base with which to meet our challenges together. We all need a better price for our catch
so that we don’t allow ourselves as an industry and a community to become irrelevant. Our present path
leads nowhere. The survival or a few fishermen, while others stay home and take a job is not good longterm
survival plan. We need salmon to have value for the state, so that our industry is to be taken
seriously in the political arena, the legislature, and at the Board of Fish.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
Comments from Jim Calhoun (S01K)
Salmon Task Force,
I appreciate the opportunity to put forth a few ideas concerning some of the problems affecting the
Alaskan salmon industry. I fish in the Kodiak salmon seine fishery. I have also fished in Cook Inlet and
Prince William Sound as a salmon seiner.
Simply put, we produce plenty of fish; the problem is the price we receive for them. Consistent high
quality throughout all fisheries in the state needs to be achieved. One small step in that direction would
be to provide a financial incentive for fishermen in terms of a fuel tax rebate. One of the major expenses
in chilling fish is the energy used to run RSW systems and Ice machines. Perhaps some or all the
monies now being generated by the State fuel tax (.05 / gallon) on fuel used in the salmon industry,
(tenders, harvesters, processors, etc.) be applied to defray some of the fuel expense to chill salmon. The
amount of rebate could be figured out based on pounds of chilled fish delivered to the processor. While
I believe that higher quality will lead to better prices; this will provide a financial incentive on the front
end. After development of better markets; the fuel tax rebate can be phased out. One problem
associated with this is that enforceable standards have to be implemented to make sure that the quality
goals are met. It is my understanding that the fuel tax revenues go into the general fund and cannot be
earmarked for specific uses, perhaps an estimate of revenues garnered could be applied to the program.
I support the Board of Fish; however I think that there needs to be guidelines on the allocation of
resources from one user group to another. Wholesale reduction of fisheries by board decisions creates
extreme financial hardship for fishermen, processors, processor workers, and coastal communities in
general. Regulatory stability based on maximum sustained yield is necessary for the salmon industry.
When re-allocation is deemed necessary, it should be done slowly; small percentages at a time.
I support the idea of a statewide hatchery policy. Hatcheries should be required to operate so that
substantial percentages (60-70%?) of the value/ numbers produced should benefit the common property
fishery. I would also like to see an option available where funding for hatcheries can be derived from
increased taxes on common property caught fish instead of cost recovery.
I am not in favor of permit buyback or stacking. Participation levels are already down due to the
econonmics; if the overall economic situation improves, more permits will become viable. The idea of
trying to arrive at a number of permits that a fishery will support when stock abundance and price
fluctuates, is, in my opinion, impossible.
I support the idea of better funding for ASMI by the state in conjunction with eliminating any Board
members conflict of interest regarding farmed salmon.
Thank you,
Jim Calhoun
Box 3805
Homer, Alaska
99603
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Comments from Sid Nelson (S03T)
October 25, 2002
Sid Nelson
PO Box 564
Homer, AK 99603
Dear Salmon Task Force,
Thanks for inviting input on the various problems affecting our salmon industry. I am sending a letter
I wrote to the Alaska Legislature about March 2002 concerning the ASMI problem. I would like to have
the letter included in your task force study.
Late season halibut prices have recently reached $3.20 per lb. We only have ourselves to blame.
Barbara Belknap warned us.
Thanks,
Sid Nelson
Attached letter follows:
Dear Legislature,
Should the 1% ASMI tax on fishermen be extended to cover halibut as well as salmon? Well,
count me among the 93% of Bristol Bay salmon fishermen who feel that ASMI does no good at all. That
number came from a 1998 poll of all permit holders conducted by AIFMA, Bristol Bay's largest
fisherman's organization. We were getting 80 cents per lb. for our reds then, so ASMI's support has
probably slipped a bit since.
I have watched my red salmon price go from over $2.00 per lb. to 40 cents per lb.and all the
while ASMI is supposedly doing their darndest to make the price go up. How are they helping me sell
my salmon? Well they write newspaper articles that
viciously attack the quality of my fish. Look at these ASMI quotes from the Sept. 2001 Alaska
Fisherman's Journal. "30% bruised", "throwing those fish", "the one that fell 20 feet in the plant after
being tossed in a tote", "buying bruised fish."
In the April 10, 2000 Anchorage Daily News they resume the attack. They hire a real Japanese,
who speaks the language, and they send her to Japan to ruin our reputation over there. This hired gun
describes our fish as "bad reds","offending the Japanese market", "crush of fish", "fish got roughed up",
"bruise problems", "inconsistant sizes", "all bruises".
You don't sell food by running it down this way. It's a competitive world. The National Pork
Producers Council and the National Cattlemans Beef Association don't run down their products this
way. They could show pictures of overweight school kids or mention the 26 million pounds of
antibiotics that gets fed to American livestock each year, but they don't. They say nice things about
their products and that strategy gets positive results.
What can Barbara Belknap and the gang at ASMI possibly be thinking? Maybe she is mad at
Bristol Bay because we don't all rush out and spend $20,000 or more on boat refrigeration systems like
she wants us to. This might increase overall fish prices a little, so she could tax us some more, but right
now refrigeration doesn't pencil out, and making the move now would bankrupt a lot of people who are
close to the edge.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
I think ASMI has now joined forces with other elements in state government who want to
rationalize us into one big state-run co-op with fish traps. The first step in that plan is to utterly destroy
our existing markets, and ASMI is doing their part. We can't let them do the same for halibut.
If we want to hire an advertising agency, we can do it ourselves. The ASMI deal is not working.
We have the only check-off program in the country that you can't vote on.
The National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemans Beef Association, the National Corn
Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, all these check-off programs have elections.
First the farmers can vote if the check-off program should continue or not, and second the farmers elect
delegates and these delegates run the program.
ASMI is always thinking up some catchy slogan to sell fish with. Well I have a new one for
them. "Those who pay should have the say".
Thank you,
Sid Nelson, F/V Teal
PO Box 564
Homer, AK 99603
907-235-4021
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
Marketing Governance
Title: Concerned citizen.
Problem: It is more of a question: Any economic activity on a big scale, negative or positive, will impact
the social fabric of the families living in the coastal communities. We just have to look at the Exxon
valdez oil spill and aftermath to know this. Are the social impacts on people and communities in the
region included in the scope of the task force's assignment?
Recommendations: Bring social workers, or other experts, in the field into the discussion if they are not
already there.
Name: Tara Jollie
Alaska Department of Labor
(907) 269-4660
tara_jollie@labor.state.ak.us
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
To: Sen. Ben Stevens, Chair Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
From: Fred Pike, Box 5, Naknek, AK. 99633
November 20, 2002
The problem with the Alaska salmon fishery is the fish price. We have to develop new markets and
divert fish away from the present multi-national companies and their present way of doing business in
Alaska. Aside from that:
I support the continued effort to improve product quality but do not favor a mandatory quality standard
created by the state.
I am opposed to any changes in the salmon fishery that would reduce my opportunity to harvest salmon.
This includes IFQ's, permit stacking, A&B permitting, or any other fractionalization of our present
permits.
All Alaska permitted fishermen and processors should be assessed to support ASMI, not just salmon
fishermen and processors, or remove the one percent tax on salmon fishermen.
I am opposed to fish farming all over the world, not just in Alaska. The Legislature should pay close
attention to the NMFS and the studies they are presently doing concerning fish farming in the Gulf of
Alaska’s EEZ.
I am opposed to the state of Alaska financing hatcheries that are in direct competition with our salmon
markets or reduce our opportunity to-harvest under utilized wild stocks in our region.
I am opposed to any loan forgiveness for hatcheries.
I recognize the need to reduce the number of permits in our region but it must be done as an option, not
forced.
I support the reduction of permits through defaulted state loans.
I support the Board of Fish process as it is presently set up and its proper funding by the Legislature.
The upcoming Bristol Bay price fixing lawsuit, which is scheduled for Feb. 3, 2003 may bring some
new developments to the forefront and the Task Force should take that into consideration.
It is important for the Task Force not to take any action until all the information that is being compiled is
complete, such as the optimum number survey by CFEC.
Thank r the opportunity to respond,
Fred Pike
PO Box 5
Naknek, AK 99633
Phone (907) 246-4457
email fvspike@yahoo.com
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
November 1,2002
Dear Sir,
Humpy salmon in schools?
Public schools still have home economic classes don't they? Why can't we teach our children in schools
how to buy a whole headed and gutted salmon? How to buy wonderful salmon protein with omega 3 fat
in the cheapest possible way. Home economic students, each with a headed and gutted humpy. Learning
how to cut steaks and how to fillet. Teach them that filleted tail sections have no bones, a great piece to
feed children so they won't have a bad bone experience. We can teach them about back bones, rib bones
and pin bones. How to chew and pick bones from your mouth before
you swallow. Teach them there are 5 species of salmon to cook for dinner. Teach them a half dozen
dinner recipes. Teach them how to enjoy the leftovers in sandwich spreads for lunches, salmon cheese
balls with crackers for snacks or salmon loaf for another dinner. Teach them about 'Little Chief'
smokers. How to brine and about wood chips for flavors. Everybody likes smoked salmon.
I think one key thing to focus on here is that we are promoting salmon to teenagers. I think we can
much more quickly teach the U.S. population the great benefits of eating salmon through our young
people than through adults.
Is it possible that there could be a federal grant to put pink salmon into the hands of students in our
public schools? To teach them how to save money by buying a whole headed and gutted salmon. This
would help relieve the humpy glut in Alaska and also make Alaska salmon less expensive to process.
H.D. Black
F/V Whisper
PO Box 19103
Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
Nov 19, 2002
Patrick A. Wodyga
To whom it may concern in the UFA,
It makes me fighting mad as to what has happened to our salmon fisheries. We as Americans have Big
interest groups about put us out of business as we know it as fishermen. A good life was to be had just
in the salmon trolling alone. Halibut and Black Cod were worth very little in the early sixties when I
first started fishing. Look at what is worth the time and money now –Halibut and Black Cod because so
far there is not much competition from farm raised fish. But Salmon we’ve allowed everybody to get in
on the bandwagon. Look at the Chilean Farmed Cohos. We’ve even provided the eggs for them to get
started. Then we allow them to flood our markets with second or even third class fish. You can bet
nobody in Alaska profited by the start up of these farmed fish which we allow to be imported into the
USA. We must be the stupidest race in the world to allow other countries to put us out of business.
1. First, any fish we allow to be sold imported into the United States should come after we take care of
our own Salmon Sales. They can harvest their fish anytime not like Alaskan wild Salmon.
2. Next, fishermen should get a break on all fuel used commercially. Oil companies are getting rich off
of us alone but Salmon prices don’t even match the raises in the last forty years I’ve been involved in the
fishing industry. You used to buy a pack of 12 hoochies for the same price that one costs now.
3. We’ve already got more people with their finger in the pie than we can afford. The fishermen are the
modern time slaves for other Corporate and Big Business gain.
4. I believe the IFQ is unconstitutional in my case because I lost my boat and couldn’t get back into
fishing until the last few years when it was too late to qualify for shares of either Halibut or Black Cod,
etc. I delivered more Halibut than most of the people who have shares now. Just because I couldn’t get
back fishing until too late.
We’ve allowed what’s happened to us in the Salmon Industries and the only way to fix it is to
regulate foreign imports.
Just like prime Beef we’ve got to let the public know Alaskan Salmon are the prime Salmon of
the world and the most healthy to eat. I see lots of mushy Atlantic Salmon in the store here in
Washington. Where are the Alaskan wild Salmon but what we have sitting in cold storage and in cans in
warehouses while foreign fish are being sold in our markets.
5. We need to educate the public on how they are getting cheated by buying Atlantic Salmon and farm
raised fish. Washington grown chicken are advertised as the best over Alaska chickens because they are
better quality which is true.
6. We need to legally advertise that Alaskan Salmon are the best vitamin-wise, taste-wise, and healthwise.
No antibiotics or any harmful ingredients injected into Wild Salmon.
7. Look at Copper River fish, how they sell in the Springs as the Best King to ever be sold. That’s a
crock. King Salmon caught anyplace in the wild are just as good as the next one caught in the wild. But
you see what advertising has done for those Spring run Kings so can be done for all wild Salmon.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
8. The Dog Salmon aren’t the top of the line Salmon but good eating if prepared right. The Japanese
want the eggs only. B.S. They should be made to take the fish as a premium price along with the eggs.
Who allows that to happen that we let them tell us what to do. We kicked their ass once and we can do
it again and not be made to do what they want. There again a few people in Japan profiting from the
buying of Chum Salmon eggs. Lots of people in Japan would love to have the fish also. All or none is
my policy.
9. Before we had all this Quality nonsense as the problem we sold fish through Co-op with the scales
lose and got more for what we label #2 than we get for our so-called Extra Large which is another farce.
A large Salmon was from 11 lbs. up not as today. That’s not being done in our Foreign market, it might
be here at home. Somebody is lining their pocket someplace along the line.
10. Look what happened to the Coho – a different price for small, medium and large – another rip-off.
11. The average troller doesn’t even make as much as a Cold Storage worker and he’s producing the
product. What the hell is wrong? Without other fish shares it is just about a poverty wage after
expenses. We need a co-op to buy our fishing gear so we can realize a little profit from our Salmon
catch. Nobody on the dock works seven days a week 14 or 16 hours a day. Something is definitely
wrong and it’s probably too many fingers in the pie. Legalized stealing from the fishermen from here to
the foreign markets.
When you play a ballgame you play to win as it should be in the Alaskan Wild Salmon Fisheries.
Us first them second. They’ll buy if we set the rules down by whatever legal means it takes to eliminate
the competition. America for Americans as it should be in Alaskan Wild Salmon. Fishermen for
themselves. That’s also including anybody who fishes for wild salmon wherever in the Good Ole USA.
I may sound like a radical but that’s what it’s going to take, not all these committees you’re
trying to organize and just spread the money around in more pockets of people whose only interest is in
lining their pockets. Most people know they only live a short while so most only care for what I can
gain not what I can do for my fellow fishermen. Take a survey and see how many people are profiting
off the back of the small salmon fisherman who barely is able to meet his bills. Again, too many fingers
in the pie.
12. Again get rid of the competition and Salmon Fishing will get back to where it used to be. All of
Alaska will make money and profit, even the people who shouldn’t be getting a living off the backs of
the fishermen.
13. If fishermen went on strike for a decent share of the sales you’d bet Alaskan Legislation would
jump in and fix the situation. Thank God for Alaskan oil as Alaskans are getting a smidgen of the profit.
Most of the dollars leave Alaska and they’re trying to take that away from the few.
I usually don’t get involved in this kind of crap that is happening but it is affecting me also. I’d
like to be in some kind of position as I’d change some laws in favor of the fishermen and our wild
Salmon as it would be in the fishermen’s favor.
14. What the hell is our donating 4% if it isn’t doing us any good. Who’s got their fingers in that pie?
Politics has been what’s happened to the Alaskan Wild Salmon. Rules need to be set down and
everybody should be made to abide by them. Alaskan Wild Salmon first and no farmed fish allowed in
Alaska. Any foreign Salmon found on our shelves should have such a high tariff they couldn’t compete
with us.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
Hope this doesn’t upset anybody but this old man has spoken and probably far too late in life. I’ll keep
fishing until my body quits then the ocean can have me back from where I’ve made most of my living
the majority of my life.
Patrick A. Wodyga
F/V Invictus (S15B)
5051 SW Paradise Ln.
Port Orchard WA 98367
(Spring and Summer)
PO Box 64
Pelican, AK 99832
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
November 26, 2002
Dear Task Force,
I would like to express my thanks for your soliciting of comments on eminent issues regarding the future
of the Alaska salmon industry. I have never before had the opportunity to comment to a group of people
planning to take action on such key issues. If there are other matters I can assist or be involved in please
let me know. I do not want to stand by and watch this industry crash.
Quality Subcommittee
I would like to preface these comments on issues about quality by saying that I disagree with your
statement that fish quality is the number one issue that the U.S. consumer looks at to determine whether
or not to buy. The average U.S. consumer is not aware of the obvious differences in fish quality that we
recognize, like chalkiness, bruising, gaping, or even how to tell if fish is old. Quality to them is
determined largely by how good is the value of the product. This value is weighed by considering price
and packaging and portion control (I will address this to the marketing subcommittee). Yes, the farmed
fish industry has a more uniform quality product than the wild salmon industry, but the halibut industry
does not and halibut sells well in U.S. grocery chains. I recently spotted some bruised and rather poor
looking halibut steaks at an Albertson’s grocery store outside of L.A., and people were buying it. I find
it very significant that the halibut fishery with its varying grades of quality still sells well in the U.S.
Proponents who say that quality is the main issue have failed to examine the success of our next door
neighbor, the halibut fishery. I believe that the halibut market is proof that quality is a secondary issue
to marketing.
Even as a secondary issue, I feel there is still room for improvements in quality in the Alaska salmon
industry, primarily with the fishermen and the fish processors.
I have tried to improve quality in my own sockeye setnet operation, but there is always a glass ceiling
imposed by cost. With sockeye prices at $.53/ lb in 2002 I couldn’t afford to pay for the extra crew to
do the extra work to improve quality, because there is no reward for improved quality. We asked
processors if they would pay more for bleeding fish and they said “no”. If I bleed fish to improve
quality, I lose weight and no processor is willing to compensate me for the improved quality or loss of
weight. What incentive then is there to bleed fish? Or what incentive is there to try transporting fish in
slushed totes? Either of these quality improvements requires more effort, which means more crew,
which leads to more expenses.
Secondly, there is no elasticity in finances to allow upgrades in equipment because of a decade decline
in ex-vessel prices. I suspect the biggest improvement on quality across the board in the Alaska salmon
industry would be to implement RSW systems on drift gillnetters in Bristol Bay. Remote setnet
fishermen could benefit by having an ice machine. But both RSW systems and ice machines cost
thousands of dollars. Fifteen years ago, during the peak of salmon prices and productivity, fishermen
could have afforded to make upgrades like these, but we can’t now (poor planning on our part). So in
addition to having no reward for improving quality, there are no funds left to upgrade equipment and no
prudent fishermen is going to go into debt to upgrade considering the instability of the market.
For years, the power of quality control has mainly been in the hands of the fish processors. They could
refuse fish or deduct/increase price based on the quality of the fish delivered. Rather than change that
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
hierarchy, I think it best to work within that order. The quality standards for fishermen’s fish should be
controlled through the fish processors and the processors should be held accountable to the state. I don’t
think the state should get between fishermen and processors as the “quality cop”. In order to do so, the
state of Alaska would have to develop another bureaucracy to implement what the processors already
can do; regulate quality. I believe the processor, not the state is the one who has the mandate to create
an “A” list of fishermen producing higher quality fish and “B” list of fishermen producing sub standard
quality fish. An already existing example is the two-tier price for RSW and non-RSW pinks in
southeast.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on these issues.
Sincerely,
Adam Jewell
Owner/operator of East Forelands Fisheries
jewellal@masters.edu
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
November 18, 2002
Rodger Bergquist
PO Box 2205
Cordova, AK 99574
S03E, S01E permits
Re: Salmon Task Force (Hatcheries)
Comments on Prince William Sound Hatchery operations
Sirs,
I have fished area E for 35 years, both gillnetting and seining. I am in support of our regionally
operating hatchery systems and do not want to see our regional authority diminished.
During the 1970s Alaska had exceedingly poor wild salmon returns. In 1972 and 1974 there
were no seine seasons in PWS. A group of fishermen worked toward sustained salmon returns and out
hatchery operations were begun.
Since, we have always had seine seasons. In more than one year without our hatcheries we
would have had complete seine failures – including 2002.
Some in the State feel that with hatchery shutdowns the price of salmon could be higher and in
years of heavy wild and hatchery returns this can be partially true (though Federal import policies have
much to do with low salmon value), also – consolidation in the grocery business and foreign ownership
profit transfer.
But a couple of things must be remembered. Though wild runs have been good for pinks for the
last few years, wild pink runs historically have failed and will fail again. Without hatchery output both
fishermen and processors would be in dire straits money-wise. Also, though salmon value is low now,
that can change in the future as it has in the past.
Salmon are Alaska’s most valuable renewable resource and have been managed well.
We have three daughters who worked their way through college on my seine boat – two who
have UAF degrees. I still employ college students.
Don’t change hatchery operations that work for the Prince William Sound fishing fleet. Our
regional concept works for us. Without our hatchery returns my operation, much of the rest of the fleet
and probably processors would be out of business.
Thanks,
Rodger Bergquist
PO Box 2205
Cordova, AK 99574
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
October 10, 2002
Joe Gale
F/V Predator -S03E
3800 McMahon Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99516
907-345-6785
Hello,
1. First of all the Alaska fishing industry needs to get tariffs or similar legislation onto Chilean and
other imported farmed salmon. They are “dumping” on American salmon markets. I have been
marketing my own salmon for eight years now and brokers in Chicago tell me the Chileans now market
in premium meat distributors etc where fish never moved before. They are stealing our American
markets. We can’t compete with subsidized farms.
Also, Alaskan wild fish needs the “Natural” marketing approval. Whereas the farmed fish is
dyed, fed antibiotics, hormones, etc. Their waste pollutes the water. Also the Atlantic Salmon is
actually a trout. It’s about time it is marketed as a trout. They dump on markets until they get market
share then they control. It is the classic Japanese dominating marketing strategy that conquered our steel
industry, TVs, automobiles and electronics. They also spend a lot of money lobbying our politicians.
2. (Most important) The Salmon fleet needs help establishing a base price for sockeye or Red Salmon.
All species actually, but sockeye is our benchmark species. One dollar per pound would be reasonable.
As you know the Japanese control shore plant processing of salmon in Alaska. Since 1976
magnuson act put our fisheries out to 200 miles they have slowly squeezed out or bought out American
processing competitiors. When I used to fish near False Pass in 1979 there were 7-8 processors
competing to buy fish in the False Pass fishery in June. Now there are none. Peter Pan has complete
control. Cook inlet processors was bought out by Ocean Beauty last year. What this does is allow the 6
or 7 main processors left control prices and basically price fix. No one but a few mom & pop processors
are left to bid the prices up and they don’t want to anyway because they can just follow along and get
the cheaper fish anyway. The processors claim “Farm fish and world glut” and yada yada BS but does
the price of salmon go down at the retail store? Or is it still in the $7-8 plus range. The price to
fishermen goes down to 50 cents and the retail price stays up. The wholesale price is still way up too by
the way. That’s because the processors can and do reap substantial profits. Another substantial profit
processors reap is from Salmon Roe. Suppose processors get the sockeye at 50 cents per pound.
Suppose ½ of all the sockeye they get are female. Suppose the roe fetches $12. per pound wholesale.
They made at least $6 per pound right there without any money for the carcass. Processors have been
doing it for years. That’s why the processors spend millions of dollars lobbying our legislature in
January to keep foreign processors out of Alaska (more on that later). $12 per pound for salmon roe was
realistic last year. Then the processors can get $2-4 per pound for the carcasses on the fresh market.
What do the fishermen get -50 cents? Fishermen can’t make it on 50 cents per pound. The cost of
Insurance has skyrocketed. Fuel keeps going up. Everything keeps going up. Costs go up. Especially in
Alaska. Fishermen have tried to negotiate a fair price. But that doesn’t work in the Salmon world.
Salmon run up the rivers. The processors merely wait a few weeks and fishermen will fold and buckle
because the fish are running up the river. They’re not bottom fish or crab that are always on the bottom.
They have an optimum harvest when you can intercept them then they are gone. Processors know this
all too well. That is why fishermen need a base price. A price that is a “floor” and can’t be dropped
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
below. Peninsula Marketing Association used to negotiate a base price with Peter Pan in King Cove in
the 80s. And it sort of worked until Peter Pan provided seed money to “Concerned Area M Fishermen
another group, to split the fleet and provide a touch of dissension. Peter Pan helped start another group
of fishermen to oppose PMA. Because PMA was succeeding in getting a base price for a few years. By
1988 the price of sockeye was quite high and negotiating went by the wayside. Why can’t the State set
standards for a base price for each specie. It won’t hurt processors. The farm salmon is a smoke screen.
The retail price of wild salmon, which is a gourmet food and the roe is gourmet, hasn’t changed in over
ten years. Actually the processors can charge whatever they want and get any price they want on the
market. I’ve marketed salmon myself in Chicago and Los Angeles on the fresh market. And my costs
are way more that a big shore plant. I can make .50-.75 more per pound and I have to give my roe to the
custom processor. All this whining by the processors about poor me and poor markets and changing
Japanese tastes etc. is pure BS. The Japanese seem to consume our suckeye production every year.
Even the record years when this state produced 44 million fish in Bristol Bay alone, the next Spring
most of it had sold. The want it and they have traditions for sockeye consumption.
$1 base price for Sockeye.
$.40 for Chum (excellent Roe). They sell the chum carcasses to longliners for bait for $1/lb on our
coast.
$.60 for Coho.
$.18 for Pinks
$2.50 for King.
Or we need some kind of egg credit. Also hatcheries bid for or pre-sell their chum and pink hatchery fish
and get a certain price. Then the fishermen should be getting the same price. Statewide across the board.
It’s not fair when there are different prices here and there for the same fish. We need equity. Can the
State track this? Also the #1 fish should be getting 50 cents or so more than the #2. Processors
complain about quality. But when they get it they don’t pay much. A nickel .05 doesn’t cover the
refrigeration or the layered ice. Cordova has an excellent ice program for their sockeye. And they get
$.05. BS. They are also bleeding the fish now. How about $.25 for bleeding. A nickel doesn’t cover
that either. Some State standards to compensate fishermen would be welcome. The processors are
united and so few now that fishermen can’t control them. They can easily price fix because it is so hard
to prove because the mother companies are in Japan.