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. Over there, monopolies are a way of life.
Base price for Sockeye $1.00 plus .15 run money to run to town, .15 iced, and .25 bled.
Processors want the quality they need to pay for it. Who is going to make them pay?
And don’t forget the egg credit – another $.50.
They buy a chum for 15 cents a pound, sell it for $1 as bait or can it and get $3 per pound plus sell roe
for $12/lb – do the math. Fishermen are getting ripped off. So is the State of Alaska in lost tax revenue.
Coastal communities lose tax revenue also. We are giving away Alaska/s natural reserve. Enough. Are
our politicians being bought off? How much money do processors contribute to campaign funds?
3. Foreign processors need to be allowed in to State waters to bid on salmon. More buyers will help
bidding to raise the price. Why do the shore plants get exclusive processing? Because they buy off our
politicians? I thought this was the age of N.A.F.T.A. Free trade everywhere in North America except
Alaska. The processors claim they can handle the pack. It’s a lie. Last summer, as with most summers,
the processors put fishermen on limit. This is common practice. When shore plants get plugged with
too much fish they put limits on fishermen then limit my fish coming in. The run is peaking and
fishermen have to stop. This is devastating. Usually another week or so and the run will be tapering off.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 29 -
The peak gets stung. It’s not fair. ADF&G finally gives the fleet time to fish then the company puts the
fleet on limit. No wonder the ex-vessel value statewide is way down. The fleet needs as many buyers
on the grounds as possible. Now that the shore plants have virtually eliminated all the cash buyers and
the salmon farms have eliminated markets in America for mom and pop marketing.
4. Allow sports fishing groups to buy out salmon permits and retire them. Eliminate salmon permits
from the fleet. The limited entry commission is still allowing interim permits to fish and some interim
permits are converting to limited entry permits. When is it going to stop? More and more salmon
permits are entering the fleet instead of fewer. These fisheries were designed for a certain number of
harvesters. We have exceeded that in every fishery in the state. You could remove 100 permits in every
fishery and it would help stabilize the fishery. Since 1991 I’ve seen twenty-some permits enter Prince
William Sound. I wonder how many permits have entered the statewide fisheries since limited entry
commission was established in 1975. I have a friend in Area M who had an interim permit since 1975
and his was finally allowed to turn limited entry in 1996. He runs an air taxi business and essentially
paid a lawyer every year to contest the interim ruling until they finally won their appeal.
Sincerely Yours,
Joe Gale, F/V Predator, 3800 McMahon Ave, Anchorage AK 99516, 907-345-6785
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 30 -
November 8, 2002
Joe Faith (S03T)
PO Box 1316
Dillingham, AK 99576
Senator Ben Stevens, Chair
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Forc
716 W. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Senator Stevens:
I am writing in response to the recent Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
information sent me. Briefly, I am a Bristol Bay permit holder and resident of
Dillingham. I crewed here in Bristol Bay for several years, and my wife and I were able
to buy a permit last year. We would like to e able to provide either our young daughter
or son with an opportunity to fish here when they become of age. I also am a lawyer with
a private practice in Dillingham.
Though I would like to make more comments, I am going to limit them at this time. The
most important change I believe needs to be an increase in price. United States Senator
Ted Stevens stated "We have a price problem, and the price comes from competition
overseas."( See Senator Steven's statements in an Anch rage Daily News article titled "Salmon Solution"
dated February 24, 2002, at page E 1). Other changes such as a permit buyback will be meaningless
without an increase in price. It cannot be assumed that salmon prices will remain the same or increase
with other changes. Pink salmon, I understand, sells for 5 cents/lb. in Southeast. Chum salmon in
Bristol Bay sold for 7 cents/lb. ex-vessel in 2002. Red salmon prices could easily be reduced to these
levels for the same reasons purported for the low prices for pink and chum salmon. In my judgment,
Senator Ted Stevens provided the focus for the fishing industry's challenge: price.
The primary method for increasing price is through marketing. Chilean Rodrigo Infante,
general manager of the private Santiago-bas d Association of Chilean Salmon and Trout
Farmers, stated "In terms of growth, the United States has huge potential" in his
discussion of markets. (See Rodrigo Infante's response to a question at pages G-1 and G-2 of the
Anchorage Daily News March 10,2002 article titled "N thing Fishy.") The fish farmers started out with
nothing and now own the markets. We can too. We know we have the best fish in the world and need to
let the people of the Lower 48 and the rest of the world know it too.
Dell Computer, for example, did it with computers last Christmas with the young man dressed as an elf
in green tights saying, "Dude, you're getting a Dell." But also consider
the success of the Copper River fishermen. The Cabela's Catalog sells Alaska salmon.
NewsWeek Magazine, in its October 28, 2002 issue, had an article titled "The Great
Salmon Debate." (See October 28,2002 NewsWeek article "T e Great Salmon Debate", at pages 54-56.)
On November 7, 2002, CNN reported on the benefits wild salmon has
over farmed salmon. (Go to
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/11/07/otsc.farmed.salmon/index.html)
Marketing should be done by the state, processors, communities, CDQ corporations,
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 31 -
brokers, exporters, transportation companies, and fishermen. Federal and state tax credits
should be given as an incentive to those involved in marketing, similar to the Winn Brindle Scholarship
fund and qualified educational institution credits provided by the
state (Governor-elect Frank Murkowski, during t recent gubernatorial campaign, expressed that
marketing and quality improvement were needed for the fishing industry . It seems that marketing and
quality improvement projects could be started relatively soon for the purpose of resource development in
the state). A commission should be created to encourage and promote direct marketing by fishermen and
control the quality of their product. Quality can also be improved considerably in Bristol Bay, at least,
with slush ice bag systems. Because salmon likely appear fungible to many consumers, the state should
create a label to make consumers aware they are buying a quality wild salmon product.
I would also like to note that an increase in price might possibly occur rather quickly.
Mad cow disease, West Niles virus, and chronic wasting disease are serious concerns,
especially in the Lower 48. It is my understanding that all three affect the central nervous
system. All affect livestock such as cows or horses, or wild game such as deer or elk. It
is possible that people will want to switch to safer foods such as our salmon in the near
future.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
I thank you for your time and this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Joe Faith
Cc: Senator Kim Elton
Robin Samuelson
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 32 -
Testimony—The Chilling News
to the Alaska Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
submitted by Jana M. Suchy
760 Beech St., Port Townsend, Wash. 98368
ph: 360.379.9227 fax: 360.385.0455
jms@MotherNaturesPRfirm.com
2 December 2002
To the Honorable Sen. Ben Stevens, Chair, and Members of the Task Force,
I recently testified at Fish Expo in Seattle, November 14th, on behalf of the need to chill the Alaska
salmon catch, and was asked to submit my remarks in written testimony as well. Thank you for your
interest. Here is a recap, with references cited at your request:
My name is Jana Suchy and I came to listen today, but after 31/2 hours I’m compelled to put in my two
cents worth. I lived in Sitka during the ‘80s, first as a fisherman—trolling salmon and longlining halibut,
black cod, and rockfish—then as a writer/photographer covering the fish industry for Pacific Fishing
magazine and Alaska Fisherman’s Journal. Some of you may know my work if you’ve eaten in
Chinook’s restaurant at Fishermen’s Terminal; half those color photos on the walls are mine. I mention
this only to lend myself some credibility as I have been out of the industry for 14 years, but did have my
fingers on the pulse of Alaska fishing at one time. I speak today to chilling the catch, as it relates to
product quality and shelf life. I leave the How of it to those stakeholders still involved and affected,
whether it’s by processor standards, market incentives, or government mandate.
I would also mention that I’m back in fish and at Expo again after so long because I’ve been doing some
research and writing as newsletter editor for a marine refrigeration company, Integrated Marine
Systems. It is only short-term contract work and I have no stake in the company—I’m a writer by
profession. But I did take the project because I believe in refrigeration as pivotal to the salvation of the
Alaska salmon industry—and it sounds to me like fishing’s in dire straits. This fall I researched a few
topics that seem relevant here, and as a gatherer of information, I would like to share some of my
observations with you.
A lot has changed in the last 14 years. It’s a different world now. Like watching kids grow everyday,
incremental change is often hard to detect, but I see stark differences in Alaska fishing between then and
now. We have cell phones now—everyone’s connected to everybody, but I don’t know why they can’t
turn those puppies off in a meeting room. It’s truly a global marketplace today. We have the Internet.
Anyone can find a better anything on the Internet—including a better salmon. And did you take a look
out there at Fish Expo? Mine isn’t the only hair to turn silver, and there aren’t a lot of young up-andcomers
out there. Fishing is incredibly hard work; who’s going to work that hard for no money? Who’s
going to take over the fleet in the next 10 or 20 years?
If fishermen want to make money on their fish, if they want to continue to make a living fishing, you
gotta chill. If you want commercial salmon fishing to survive, if you want there to be an Alaska salmon
industry down the road, you gotta chill.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 33 -
I did a newsletter on Newfoundland snow crab couple months ago. Their snow is our tanner crab, and
they’re bringing the crab in on ice. Newfoundland crab fishermen still deliver—and shore-based seafood
plants still process a live product—on ice. They get a mortality loss from dead and critically weak crab
as high as 20-30%. I talked to Joe Kennedy, Western Region director of the DFA1—the provincial Dept.
of Fisheries and Aquaculture—who told me he’s spent a half-million dollars (Canadian) trying to
convince crabbers to put in RSW systems (refrigerated seawater) to improve quality. Mr. Kennedy says
if there was a new motor or winch on the market those fishermen wouldn’t hesitate to spend $50,000 on
it, but somehow they resist investing in RSW systems and are “in denial” about the high losses incurred.
If it goes overboard, What dead-loss problem? It’s important to note that Newfoundland processors
typically do not pay a premium price for top-quality snow crab—lively or almost dead pays the same—
lending little incentive for fishermen to convert.
In 1987 I wrote a Pacific Fishing feature story 2 on the benefits of the “new wave” of RSW in the
Southeast Alaska fleet—that’s 15 years ago! The Navigator, Canada’s Atlantic counterpart to Pacific
Fishing, ran a column last year “Revisiting the RSW Debate.” 3 In it they refer to RSW as the “new
technology” of 2000. They are lagging way behind here. In the competitive and highly connected world
marketplace, whose crab do you think is going to win—the Alaska catch that comes in lively on tanked
boats, or Newfoundland crab that comes in weak on ice? Clearly Alaska has the edge on this one.
I also just did a newsletter on seafood freezing, for instance what happens on the cellular level with a
fast freeze vs. a slow freeze. I talked to Dr. Edward Kolbe of Alaska and Oregon Sea Grant and Oregon
State University, 4 one of the foremost authorities on seafood freezing and refrigeration research. He did
a study on albacore tuna. Albacore are not salmon—they come from warmer waters and their core
temperatures rise significantly with the struggle during capture—so these same numbers don’t hold for
salmon. But research shows that for every hour on deck before chilling, albacore lose a day of shelf life.
5
Again, albacore are not salmon, but clearly for quality product to compete in the global marketplace, for
the survival of the Alaska salmon industry, the catch must be chilled onboard and chilled quickly.
Almost 20 years ago I trolled salmon on ice boats and thought I took real good care of my fish. Now that
I know what I do about quick chilling and its effect on quality I sure wish I’d put those kings and cohos
down on ice immediately, like right away, before having another cup of coffee or breakfast or waiting
for a few more or running the lines again. Covering kings on deck with wet burlap just isn’t an option
anymore.
I talked to a Bristol Bay fisherman yesterday who estimated maybe 70% of the boats in the Bay were
dry boats. I thought he meant they weren’t tanked, they were ice boats, but he told me they were DRY.
I’ve never been to Bristol Bay, but I was as stunned to learn they still fished dry boats as I was to learn
Newfoundland brings in their crab trips on ice. In the competitive world market today, with so many
consumers unaware of the natural superiority of wild fish and facing an attractive low-cost alternative of
fresh-fresh-fresh refrigerated farmed salmon, whose fish do you think is going to win?
A fisherman testified earlier today about eating a salmon after it sat on a dry boat for about 18 hours,
and said that fish tasted fine. When you sell a fish it might look fine, and it might even taste fine, but this
is about quality at the end of the line, when the consumer eats that fish. What’s happened to the taste,
texture, color, drip loss, thaw loss? What’s the product quality and shelf life looking like at that end,
when it counts? It’s called the Cold Chain, keeping that fish sufficiently and consistently chilled or
frozen from harvester to processor to cold storage to trucks and planes and tarmacs to retail-store display
cases. That fish is only as good as the weakest link in the Cold Chain. How can we totally ignore that
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 34 -
until the fish hits the dock? How can this be a high-tech society of computers and satellite dishes and
we’re even debating whether to require putting perishable food on ice?
What John Lowrance is doing out in Naknek with Leader Creek Fisheries is commendable. By raising
the bar with an all-RSW fleet and requiring proper onboard handling from his boats he’s demonstrated
the success of a market-driven quality standard. I understand ice is the most efficient chilling system in
terms of BTUs and heat transfer, but that distance, circumstance, and expense often preclude
availability. John saw the writing on the wall and did the math and drew a line in the sand. Alaska
should be so bold.
The cold, hard truth is that Alaska fishermen must chill or freeze the salmon catch—onboard,
adequately, and quickly. It’s not just the dry Bristol Bay boats at issue here, but also those trollers and
seiners who don’t handle their catch to the highest standards—the sum total of all boats determines the
quality of the Alaska brand. It’s simply not a question If chilling should be required, but How. My
concern is for the small operators who will find it difficult and prohibitively expensive to convert, and I
would ask that a generous state-funded assistance program accompany any new rules and regs. As part
of the small-boat fleet back when the Coast Guard set mandatory rules for safety equipment, it was hard
for a lot of us to come up with the extra cash. But few today would argue the benefit or wisdom of
requiring survival suits, rafts, and E-PIRBS.
Some of us old dogs need help learning these new tricks, so some appropriate education about onboardhandling
techniques aimed at fishermen is in order, and just putting out another handbook isn’t it.
You’ve got a two-pronged public-awareness campaign going here—convincing fishermen that better
quality pays, and convincing consumers that quality wild Alaska salmon merits a premium price. I wish
you luck.
It is a different world today. Sadly, that fact stretches to affect aspects of fishing lifestyles even on the
dwindling frontier, further roping in and taming the last of the cowboys. Gotta buck up. To those
fishermen who resist the change to different fish-handling techniques and higher-quality standards, I say
Go ahead and fish like you used to. Give up your cell phone, your GPS, your laptop, survival suit, and
all the other bells and whistles, and go out there with a fathometer and fish like you used to. Then let’s
see who’s going to buy your fish, and for how much.
In my experience, Alaska fishing has always been about quantity—catching the biggest and the most the
fastest. To distinguish wild Alaska salmon in the market and command the price it deserves—the price
fishermen deserve—it’s time to think in terms of quality over raw quantity.
Thank you.
References:
1. Joe Kennedy, Director, DFA Western Region, P.O. Box 29, Port Saunders, Newfoundland 40K
4H0 ph: 709.861.3537; fax: 709.861.3556;
“Snow Crab Quality Workshop 2001-2002” handbook, partially sponsored by DFA.
2. “Tanking Down,” cover story & photos on REFRIGERATION—PROS & CONS by Jana M. Suchy,
Pacific Fishing June ’87.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 35 -
3. “The Right Gear” column by Paul Pinhorn, The Navigator Nov. 2001
4. Dr. Edward Kolbe, www.seagrant.orst.edu/extension/fisheng.html OSU Food Innovation Center,
1207 NW Naito Pkwy, Ste. 154, Portland, Ore. 97209-2834; ph: 503.872.6676; fax:
503.872.6648.
5. “Onboard Factors Affecting Chilling and Freezing Rates, and Quality of Albacore Tuna—a
report to the American Fishermen’s Research Foundation” by Cormac Craven, Edward Kolbe,
Michael Morrissey, & Gil Sylvia; OSU Nov. 1997 (not yet published).
Pg. 2: “A California Sea Grant publication (1994) reports that one day of shelf life is lost for
each hour an albacore is left on deck before chilling.”
Executive Summary excerpt: “The analysis of quality scores indicated that product quality
significantly decreases as time between capture and onset of chilling increases.”
“Recommendations for On Board Handling of Albacore Tuna” by Bob Price & Ed Melvin,
California Sea Grant Pub. # UCSGEP 94-4, 1994.
"Planning Seafood Cold Storage" by Edward Kolbe & Donald Kramer, Marine Advisory
Bulletin No. 46, 2nd edition 1997, Alaska Sea Grant.
“Seafood Shelf Life as a Function of Temperature” by John P. Doyle, University of Alaska
Marine Advisory Program, Alaska Sea-Gram No. 30, Feb. 1989.
Mr. Doyle also gave expert testimony to the Task Force in Anchorage, and his information re.
early onboard chilling is more relevant to salmon;
ph: 907.274.9691, fax 907.277.5242, email: afdek@uaa.alaska.edu
“Chilled and Refrigerated Sea Water—Easier and faster cooling of fish” by Dr. Donald E.
Kramer, University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program, Alaska Seas and Coasts Vol. 8 No. 4,
Oct.–Nov. 1980.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 36 -
Alaska Salmon Task Force
Issues and Process
Analysis and Recommendations
By: Gordon Jackson, Manager Business and Economic Development
&
Don Bremner,
Staff Fisheries Assistant
10/11/02
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 37 -
Table of Contents
1. Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force & Resolution pg- 3&4
2. T&HCC Comment on Resolution pg-4
3. Legislative Salmon Task Force Subcommittees pg-5
4. T&HCC Analysis of the Wild Salmon Industry in World Markets pg-5
5. It’s All About Prices pg-5
6. Who and What is a Commercial Fishermen or Women? Pg-5&6
7. Salmon Processors pg-6&7
8. Distribution Channels to Salmon Markets pg-7
9. International Distribution Channels pg-8
10. What Can We Do to Help Improve Distribution Channels pg-8&9
11. Alaskan Fisheries Dependent Communities pg-9
12. Fisheries Economics pg-9
13. Our Recommendation pg-10
14. We Have Only Two Options pg-10
15. How? Pg-10
16. What Does This Mean to our Distribution Channels? Pg-11
17. Benefits of Marketing pg-11&12
18. The Solution isn't cutting out Fishermen & Harvesting pg-12
19. Conclusion pg-12&13
20. Our Weaknesses pg-13
21. Threats to our Salmon Industry pg-13
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 38 -
Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
&
Resolution
1. RESOLUTION ADDRESSES
a. Global Salmon Market Changes
b. Farmed Salmon Market Imports
c. Harvesters without Markets
d. Closed Processors and Lack of Loans
2. RESOLVED TO
a. Address elements of the crisis in the Alaska Salmon Industry that can be solved
through action on the part of the Industry.
b. Develop a long-term vision for the Alaska Salmon Industry as a critical element
of the State's economic future.
3. STATE TASK FORCE DUTIES
a. State assistance to help industry adapt to changing economics in most
efficient and effective way possible.
b. Recommend public policy options regarding communities affected by the
salmon industry.
c. Find areas of potential improvement to the seafood transportation
Infrastructure.
d. Recommend improvements for the coordination of harvesting, processing,
and marketing of wild Alaska salmon.
e. Encourage development of new product forms.
f. Investigate feasibility of regional and statewide cooperatives for fishing,
marketing, and transportation for Alaska wild salmon and products.
3. STATE TASK FORCE DUTIES (Cont’d)
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 39 -
g. Improve marketing of Alaska wild salmon and ensure distinction of
Alaska wild salmon from farmed salmon.
h. Research methods to improve the quality of Alaska salmon products.
i. Encourage Alaska hatcheries to tailor their programs to market dynamics
and provide maximum possible percentages of their production to
common property fisheries.
j. Contracting and cooperating with appropriate private and public agencies
in order to provide sound economic social and environmental data to the
decision-making process.
k. Contracting for research, consultants, and staff.
l. Benefit and costs commensurate with state funding.
m. Reviewing previous salmon summits and incorporating data in report.
n. Exploring the potential of regional solutions and not just statewide results.
4. FURTHER RESOLVED
a. That, the Task Force shall develop a long-term vision for the Alaska
Salmon Industry as a critical element of the State economic Future.
T &HCC COMMENT ON RESOLUTION
The Alaska legislators have made a firm statement to take action to guarantee that the Alaska salmon
industry continues to be an economic element of Alaska's economy.
The legislators first cited a number of factors that have added to the economic decline of the wild
salmon industry in Alaska and gave direction on how the State may assist in developing a long term
vision for developing successful economic programs for Alaska's wild salmon industry.
The resolution and factors cited regarding the decline of Alaska wild salmon in the market, and
recommended action are only the beginning of our determination to counterattack our wild salmon
competitors in the world food market.
The resolution is the first step in a long process of reclaiming our Historical Share of the world salmon
markets. The resolution and recommended actions are only the "thought stage" or "concept stage" of
addressing the sale of Alaska wild salmon.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 40 -
LEGISLATIVE SALMON TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEES
T&HCC views the subcommittees as only one of many participants in the process of working towards
establishing a long term vision for the Alaska wild salmon industry.
. The job of the subcommittees is to take the first step in a long process of directing
a plan that will ensure the future of a sustainable fishing economy in Alaska. . The subcommittees should be directing research that covers the historical trends
of fishermen, communities, and processors that survive from commercial fishing
economies, including the State role in marketing and economics of the salmon
industry.
. Once the State has the historical data we can have economists assess the data and
compile economic and econometric models, trends, and assist with forecasting
trends based upon our agreed upon goals.
T&HCC Analysis of the Wild Salmon Industry in the World Markets
IT'S ALL ABOUT PRICES . Prices of product are the only clear factors that we can measure in terms of
impacts and lifestyle changes in the commercial fishing industry.
. Prices are attached to all participants of the Alaska wild salmon industry from
fishermen to consumer. . Prices mean food, clothing, fuel, shelter, transportation, medical, and disposable
income for savings, travel, and entertainment.
. Prices mean ex-vessel prices of Alaska wild salmon caught by the fishermen and
women of Alaska.
. T &HCC has recommended to the marketing subcommittee to set goals for
achieving minimum average prices for all species of wild salmon in Southeast
Alaska.
Who and What is a Commercial Fishermen or Women?
It may seem elementary to ask the question, but, it is the position of T &HCC that we are representing
real people that live in our communities. They have families, children that attend our schools and are
community and organizational leaders. They are our grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, which have
made and continue to make a living from commercial fishing. Many of them are also friends that live in
other states.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 41 -
The real issue is about prices, but, the beneficiaries are real people that live in our communities. We
need to ask throughout this process what do real people and fishermen need?
. Access to sustained yield fishery openings compatible to wild salmon markets.
. Immediate and consistent access to markets for point of sale directly or indirectly.
This means a steady buyer of salmon products. . Recipients of minimum and stable fish prices as recommended to the marketing
committee. These are minimum average prices for all species of Alaska wild
salmon. . Access to consistent and stable financial resources for start-up, maintenance, and
operations of fishing permits.
. Operate within fair and consistent fishing regulatory systems, rules, and policy . Be recognized as an important factor in the commercial fishing industry in
Alaska, U.S. and foreign markets.
. Be recognized as an important party to be at the center of planning when the State
and federal governments plan for fisheries policy, financial programs, and
regulations.
. Recognized as people making a living that is affected by State, Federal, and
International economies and subject to all of the factors that regulate and affect
their success or failure.
. All of these factors support making Ex-vessel prices to fishermen our number one
priority.
Salmon Processors
Salmon processors in Alaska are companies that receive, buy, process, and resell salmon. This is a
simple version of what the processors actually accomplish as fish buyers in our communities.
Processors are a combination of off-shore, land based, and air transport systems. Off shore today is most
likely a fish buying station or partial processor. A land based processing plant is an extensive system of
processing machinery used to convert raw salmon product to open market specifications. Most
processing plants are near airports where charted space can be purchased to get product to fresh fish
markets.
Fish processors attempt to buy fish from fishermen at the lowest prices, convert raw salmon and other
seafood at the least cost, and sell in the open market at the highest price. Fish processors have certain
needs in order to operate in Alaska and succeed in the fish business.
. For salmon processors it's all about profit and profit margins.
. Access to a stable and quality product from fishermen. . Ability to operate in communities and State waters in a consistent and fair
environment.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 42 -
. Access to economical and stable water, sewer, power, and fuel systems.
. Access to a stable and reliable labor market.
. Access to operating loans, funds, or programs. . Access to open markets to sell their finished product.
. Processors succeed only when they are able to buy products at a low price,
process with least costs, and sell high in order to achieve their required profits and
profit margins.
This means we should also be working to ensure Alaskan Salmon and Seafood processors are able to
make a profit. It is important that they continue to market wild salmon so our product is not replaced by
alternative products.
Distribution Channels to Salmon Markets
From experience and published materials we know all past and current National and International
markets for our wild salmon products. What we have not addressed in depth or detail are the
distribution Channels to the market. The distribution channels are business systems that handle the
product while enroute to the market and final consumers.
There are short channels from fishermen to retailer and consumer, and there are many multilayered long
channels. Depending upon the product and level of conversion the long channel may go from a
processor to direct export; processor to an agent; processor by- pass direct to a wholesaler; wholesaler to
retailer; or from an agent to a retailer or smoker, and all finally to an end consumer.
Canner distribution systems follow a similar system. The canned product follows either a short or long
channel. The short route means the canned product goes direct to multiple food retailers on to final
consumers. Another route in this channel is direct from canners to export.
The long channel may include paks to agent/brokers; or to wholesalers who sell to retailers and on to
final consumers.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 43 -
International Distribution Channels
Our salmon products have competition in the U.S. and foreign markets. Shipping to foreign markets
means operating within an export system that costs money. There are export costs to shipping to these
markets that add to the price of the product. By having competition in foreign markets means two things;
. Our products must meet the price of the lowest competitive products
. Or, be lower in price in order to gain market share
The final demand for our products will be set by the Per capita income of the consumer and their ability to pay.
Once the salmon product is committed to a foreign market the distribution system is similar to what
takes place in the U.S. market system. There are short and long channels to the final consumer. On a
short channel the product may go direct from International agents to retailers and on to final consumers.
The long channel may go to agents and importer/wholesalers to local wholesalers or direct to retailers
and smokers, and finally all to end consumers.
What are some of the things we need to know about distribution channels that can help the economic
future of the Alaska salmon industry?
. That it is a very competitive market in the distribution channels. . To stay alive in the channel requires quality and competitive products in terms of
price and consistent supply. . Those distributors in the channel have a stake in not only receiving a quality
product, but, in promoting advertising and marketing of a product that is in
demand.
. Distributors need quality, low priced, and a consistent supply of products in order
to compete with the lowest price product in the market. This is especially true due
to the substitute nature of wild salmon/farmed salmon in the market.
. Forward and on demand ordering is important to the distribution channels.
. Marketing salmon within existing distribution systems is a volatile business and
changing consumer demand is directly felt by final distributors.
What can we do to help Improve Distribution Channels?
. Work with the State Fish & Game managers to have fisheries openings and
regulations that help produce consistent, timely, and quality raw fish products.
. Work with fishermen and processors to ensure harvested wild salmon meets high
standards of care, handling, and preservation. . Work with processors to modernize, upgrade, and diversify their manufacturing
equipment to accommodate specific markets and distribution channels.
. Have fishermen and processors participate jointly with advertising, promotions,
and marketing partnerships with members of the distribution channels.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 44 -
. We know that salmon consumers demand a common and consistent value to their
product and this especially means fair prices that suppliers need to accommodate
in order to compete.
. From fishermen to consumer in any market there needs to be consistent and stable
price information. There should be a price information network within the Alaska
salmon industry that the consumer can access on a year-round basis. If this is not
available there will always be a gap between advertised value of salmon and
reality of which consumers will accept.
Alaskan Fisheries Dependent Communities
Above all else, we need to emphasize that there are real communities in Alaska that depend on the successful
commercial fishing industry economy. In every region of Alaska there are communities whose governments,
schools, and organizations that depend upon successful fishermen, and processors to operate within their
communities.
Fishermen and processors provide money and jobs to the economy. The money circulated in each community
benefits schools, nonprofit organizations, stores, and many of the needed service organizations in each
community. This includes water, sewer, power, police protection, and transportation.
The fishermen and processor dollars spent in each community is significant enough to warrant State and Federal
participation in addressing the economics of the salmon industry in Alaska.
Fisheries Economics
One thing we can all agree on is that our raw fish products, fishermen, processors, distribution channels, and
communities do not operate in an economic vacuum. All of these entities operate in an economic environment
where theories of money, finances, and economics have real applicability. There is annual State of the Economy
conditions that have been documented by the State of Alaska and national organizations that we should be using
to assist in our research and marketing efforts on a yearly basis. These economic systems show market conditions
from fishermen to consumer and show the economic conditions that favor our salmon products.
Our Recommendations
. T&HCC recommends there be a thorough historical economic and financial analysis of
the salmon industry from 1970- to date. . The analysis will show the State of the Economy and trends at every level from
fishermen to consumer in all of our wild salmon markets.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 45 -
. The economic and financial analysis will show the ideal economic environments based
upon real data . The information will show when, how, and why our salmon was replaced in all of our
markets, and how we allowed competitors of our wild salmon products to take the lead.
We Have Only Two Options
We have only two options for final action regarding the sale of our wild salmon.
. We can work to reduce the world supply of salmon to increase overall demand
. Or, we can expand demand for all salmon products in all markets
HOW
We all have to understand that in order to expand the demand for Alaska wild salmon we need to
accept the fact that there are substitutes for our products that can be ordered directly by retailers
on demand or with forward ordering. This includes setting quantity, quality, and size specifications.
This is a current practice in all retail and wholesale markets and will continue into the future at larger
and more efficient scales.
. To counter this trend we need a system of long term prices from fishermen to
final consumer in all of our markets. The way to accomplish this is by agreeing on
the use of and setting (10) year average ex-vessel prices.
. Processors need to modernize and streamline their systems to specific markets. To
accomplish these processors need to maintain a level of effectiveness and
efficiency to a level of cost per unit of operation that is standard Statewide. . Final consumers are demanding shorter distribution channels with a variety of quality
value-added products. In order to succeed with consumers it will need to be quality
and efficient process.
What does this mean to our Distribution Channels?
This is an important time for our distribution channels. Fishermen and processors need to partner in
deciding on the long term affects and benefits of using short or long channels. At face value, using short
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 46 -
channels that get the product into homes of consumers offers opportunities for cost savings and a diverse
product.
Fishermen and processors need to have a say in the purpose and type of marketing, advertising,
promotions of Alaska's wild salmon.
Fishermen and processors need to decide if it is their best economic interest of the final consumer to
benefit from marketing of generic salmon promotions or brands of Alaska wild salmon.
Benefits of Marketing
The question of marketing benefits is an important factor to fishermen and processors. There are two
options of marketing Alaska's wild salmon.
. First, generic marketing will benefit all salmon fishermen in Alaska.
. Marketing strategies like branding can help promote higher value conscious
consumers in niche markets.
. The two options raise the question of our overall marketing focus. Should we
concentrate on generic markets or niche markets? . The T &HCC position is that there is value to marketing to high end niche
markets, but, not at the expense of surrendering our current market share in
existing markets.
. Our position is that the Alaska salmon industry needs to go head-to-head with our
competitors in all existing markets. Do we do this with a goal of attempting to
achieve the highest prices or market share?
. In the short term fishermen, processors and the distribution channels need to
stabilize price.
. In the long term it is their best interest to gain market share.
. We can gain market share in the long term by re-energizing the salmon industry to
meet consumer demands in all of our markets. Like other industries there are
market disciplines that we need to adopt to become market leaders in the seafood
industry.
. Marketing and branding for their own sake may have worked when wild salmon
dominated the market, but, now that consumers have substitute products our
marketing and branding must be accomplished with goals of controlling target
markets in a manner that we can measure success through market share
calculations.
The Solution isn’t in cutting out Fishermen and Harvesting of Wild Salmon
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 47 -
By now it should be obvious that it is old industry and State politics to say there are too many fishermen
chasing to few fish in Alaska as the reason our salmon prices are low and we need to cut out fishermen
with buy-out programs, and through the use of other industry cut back schemes. The fact is:
. The State of Alaska and salmon industry has been asleep at the wheel of an
outdated salmon industry and it is easier to take the quick way out by pointing
blame instead of addressing the industry in a systematic manner that will result in
the common good from fishermen to consumer.
. Along with re-engineering the salmon industry to modern consumers we should
be doing everything to promote growth and development of the fishery through
our salmon enhancement programs. This will allow entry by new fishermen and
processors to our communities' economic base and not eliminate them through the
Salmon Task Force process.
Conclusion
We have set the ground rules for establishing a Long Term Vision for the Alaska wild salmon industry.
We can succeed in regaining our market share of current markets.
. We have strengths that we can use to our advantage. . We have specific volumes of salmon coming to our beaches every year that we
can manage on a sustained yield basis and enhance with applicable salmon
enhancement programs.
. We have existing fisheries regulations that can be reviewed to improve our
salmon markets.
. We have fishermen with experience in making a living from our fisheries
resources.
. We have processors with existing assets that can be modernized to accommodate
21st century consumers.
. We have distribution channels that are familiar with our wild salmon products.
. We have consumers that are familiar with the high value of our salmon products.
Our Weaknesses
We have a number of weaknesses in the salmon industry that can be addressed:
. Overall the one weakness is an outdated salmon industry system from fishermen
to consumer.
. Through many of the suggestions and comments from others we can turn this
industry around to a level of competitiveness where we have a share of the world
salmon markets that will support a sustained fishery in Alaska.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 48 -
Threats to our Salmon Industry
There are a number of threats to our wild salmon products that we need to address;
. Farmed salmon growth and development can be forecasted and matched with wild
salmon products.
. Substitute products need to be matched head on in markets where we are
challenged.
. Self-complacency and lack of vigilance in implementing necessary changes in the
Alaska salmon industry to meet consumer demands in all markets.
. The largest threat to the Alaska salmon industry is biotechnology and authorized
production of genetically engineered salmon that can be grown at an accelerated
rate.
. Biotechnology is prone to use by the fanned salmon industry and should be
addressed by the fishing industry in Alaska and by the Salmon Task Force. No
genetically produced food products should be allowed in Alaskan markets.
We believe that the comments and recommendations in this document warrant action by the Alaska
Salmon Task Force. With these and similar recommendations from other parties in the industry it is
obvious this current Task Force can only be the first step in an ongoing process. The State and Industry
will need to adopt permanent systems and organizations to address the modernization of our wild
salmon industry.
We can recapture our wild salmon markets and develop plans to sustain our market shares. Our goal
should be to have these systems in place by a given date and always operating to keep ahead of the
consumer demands of the day in all of our markets.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 49 -
Fishing Task Force,
I’d like you to consider the idea of an A & B permit system for the Cook Inlet. Briefly what I mean by
this is that the current legislation by Drew Scalsy would allow the stacking of permits but I believe this
legislation should have gone a step further and designated the second permit a B permit. Once the
second permit is purchased and automatically becomes a B permit it should forever remain a B permit
unless eliminated by some other form of reduction.
B permits would only fish during those times when fish runs are strong. They could be bought and sold
on their own with or without the holder having an A card. This A&B permit system would be an
incentive for individual fishers to buy a second permit in the hopes that some years they would be
allowed more fishing time than A only permit holders. This also might work as an entry level or
apprenticeship opportunity for those just learning and entering into the fishing industry.
I prefer the elimination of second permits myself but I don’t see enough or any incentive for the
individual fisher to buy a second permit on his own while others would not have to buy one. Others
would benefit from someone else buying and stacking a permit but I don’t think there are many buyers
of second permits without more incentive.
Currently there is the strong possibility that if a second permit (stacked) goes up in value and is allowed
to be sold again back into the fishery it would then defeat the purpose of the buy back stacking and set
up a value cycle. When permits had sufficient value they would likely be sold for a profit and we would
be right back where we started with to many permits fishing to make a profit and the values would go
down again. Having the second permit designated a B permit would allow some control of this value
cycle.
Well this idea can be further elaborated during your considerations I’m sure, but if permits are not
eliminated in a buyback effort what will prevent them from working their way back to the fishing
grounds and what is the incentive for individuals to too spend their own money to stack one?
Good luck, and don’t give up on trying to do what’s best for the industry. We all know somethings have
to change.
Sincerely Yours
Jim Morrison
PO Box 2524
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 50 -
Governance
Title: Fishery is a term that means action or work is going to take place. I do not feel that Co-ops
represent anything more than a socialistic band-aid. If we have to many harvesters in a area make the
rules of the game advantageous for those interested in maintaining their lifestyle to gobble up those
ready to quit. By allowing permits to be stacked on a boat (seperate crew members own permits) both
the boat owner and the working crew recieves greater income.
Name: Randy Talvi
Address: P.O. 873168 Wasilla, Ak 99687
Phone: 907-376-0401
Fishery_area: Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 51 -
Tom, Here is an idea for allowing Salmon Seining in Bristol Bay. 12/5/02
• Salmon Seiners would get a seperate allocation of the projected harvest.
• Seiners would have to register to seine by April 15 of each year.
• Seiners would have seperate openings.
• Seine fishermen would be required to hold two permits to operate a seine.
• Each permit would be the equivalent of ( 75 % of a Drift permit share ) in other words the
seine fleet would be allowed to harvest 1.5 times more ( per operation ) than the gillnet fleet.
• The allocation split would be based on the # of participants of the previous year.( ie; Seine /
Gillnet.)
• This new system would establish a new permit classification, The origional Drift permit that
continued to operate a drift operation would remain unchanged. The permits required to operate
a Seine ( ie; Reduction Permits ) would have less harvest potetial per permit and presumeadly
less value.
• Potetial benefits:
• Fleet reduction
• Quality,Quality,Quality
• The Processers would like it
• The Banks would like it
• Unused seine equiptment in B.Bay ( Herring ) would get put to use
• Traditional Gillnetters would not be displaced
Dan Farren, Homer 907- 235 6612
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 52 -
November 30, 2002
Donald Bergquist
4922 S Smugglers Cove Rd
Freeland, WA 98249
Fisheries: S01E, S03E, (PWS Drift & Seine)
Title: Establishing a fair price for Fish.
Problem:
From a fisherman’s point of view, the main problem with our regional and statewide aquaculture
corporations is that the are forced to sell their fish at too low prices. Much below what is required to
sustain a living in the fishing community as a whole.
Discussion:
This is not to say that it’s the fault of our aquaculture corporations since they’re at the present
dependent on the price that fishermen will accept. The result of this is that the price is set by the lowest
price fishermen will set their nets for. This past year Kodiak accepted 5.5 cents base price for pinks and
Prince William Sound went along with it. Chums were delivered from 12-15 cents.
A fishing industry that employs thousands of people which in turn creates a healthy economy in
their respective communities can’t be sustained at these prices.
So far most of what I’ve heard that purports to save the industry is based on fewer fishermen
catching greater volume so a few can make a living.
Do we really want this to happen? Do many of us that supported the aquaculture corporations
really want to be driven out of business so that a few can survive? Will our fishing communities and
their related businesses be able to continue with fewer and fewer fishermen?
If this trend continues aquaculture corporations will be forced to sell the vast majority of their
production for cost recovery.
I don’t think that the processing industry, with its international roots, cares in the least whether
fish are delivered to them by fishermen or hatcheries just so long as they get the product for as low a
price as they can get.
Proposal
Since fishermen haven’t been able to demand a fair price for one of the greatest protein sources
in the world, I recommend that the aquaculture corporations set a minimum price for the fish they
produce that can sustain a healthy economy for the fishing industry. I believe 20 cents a pound is the
minimum for pinks and 35 cents for chums.
If the processing industry doesn’t accept these bare minimum prices what is the point in raising
fish!
I remember all the arguments against setting a minimum wage. It was going too ruin the
economy and drive companies out of business. It didn’t happen and that argument has been replayed for
decades. I believe we need a minimum price for our fish and it won’t drive the processors, brokers, or
retailers out of business. It would only shift a little of the profit down to the people that produce the
product.
Sincerely,
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 4 December 6, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 53 -
Donald Bergquist
4922 S Smugglers Cove Rd
Freeland, WA 98249
Fisheries: S01E, S03E, (PWS Drift & Seine)