Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 1 -
Salmon Task Force Proposals
From the Public, Volume 5
As of December 13, 2002
Comments by Payne & Dumm -with Ocean Beauty letters .........................................................2-5
Comments by Michael Mayo........................................................................................................6
Options for Restructuring Alaska's Salmon Fisheries - Options Involving Harvest Allocations by Larry
VanderLind ..................................................................................................................................7-8
Comments by Kotlik Yupik Corp.................................................................................................9
Comments by Jean Peterson (S04T)...........................................................................................10
Comments by Dennis Beam (S15B) ..........................................................................................11-12
Comments by Don Nicholson ....................................................................................................13
Comments by Roger Dewey (S03E) ..........................................................................................14
Comments by George George (S03T) .......................................................................................15
Non Profit Aquaculture Organizations are anything but non-profit by Sigurd Rutter (S05B) ..16
Advance Notice on Salmon Price by Mike Svenson (S01A) ....................................................17
Marketing, Quality, Production comments by Randy Talvi (S03T) .........................................18
Governance comments by Randy Talvi (S03T) ........................................................................19
Comments by Kathy Halgren (S03E) ........................................................................................20-21
Meeting with Representative Drew Scalzi by Tony Prekaski (S04Y) ......................................22-23
Addressing Overcapitalization in our salmon fisheries by Terry Hoefferle ..............................24
Quality Subcommittee Report by Cliff Ward (S03E).................................................................25-27
Hatcheries by Tom Carpenter (S03E) ........................................................................................28
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 2 -
Susan Payne (S02K) November 19, 2002
PO Box 1903
Kodiak, AK 99615
and
Don Dumm (S02K, S04K)
PO Box 1723
Kodiak, AK 99615
To: Ben Stevens
Salmon Industry Task Force
716 W 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Stevens and Taskforce members,
We apologize for such a late letter to the task force; hopefully, you will still consider our comments.
Between us we have two Kodiak salmon beach seine permits and one Kodiak setnet permit.
Collectively, we have been participating in the salmon industry for twenty-seven years.
In light of the recent legislation introduced by Drew Scalzi, we are convinced that the current call for the
"restructuring" of Alaska salmon is coming from the corporate sector. As we are seeing in other
fisheries, the corporations are attempting to take over all fishing resources. And it looks like salmon is
the next to fall. The fisher wants fair prices for their product and reliable markets.
Here are our suggestions to the Task Force, so that the legislature can help the small, independent,
salmon fisher:
1. Stop cutting the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Commercial Fish Division's budget! Until
several years ago, Kodiak had a pre-emergent fry sampling program that had been established and
successful for 30 some years to help predict the strength of the wild salmon runs. The legislature cut that
funding, and now we cannot predict as well our run strength. Without this knowledge base, we cannot
guarantee markets anything. Accurate run strength predictions are essential for pre-season planning by
processors
and fishers alike.
2. Allow salmon fishers to choose their marketing association. ASMI has not succeeded in improving
our markets or our price, and it is time that we are able to put our money where we want it. For
example, Kodiak would like to brand and market our salmon similar to the effort in Cordova. If we, as
Kodiak salmon fishers, could put our 1.5% tax into our own local branding effort, I think we would see
results!
3. Mandate that canneries market and sell their product and conduct their own research and
development. They should be encouraged to buy into a quality assurance program like that of Alaska
Manufacturers Association (AKMA).
4. Promote all the competition you can in the State of Alaska. We need to be able to sell our fish for a
fair price. The canneries have too much power right now as they merge, reducing competition. You
should know that fishermen in Kodiak are being threatened by loss of market if we attempt to withhold
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 3 -
product for any reason, to sell some fish to another visiting processor or if we wish to start our own
niche market with a small quantity of fish. The threats have become reality for some fishermen! We
fished for Ocean Beauty. When the fish run overwhelmed the cannery , we were shut down at least 3
times for a couple of days each time. You can understand the frustration and loss of revenue as fish after
fish went past our tied up nets!
5. Quality has to be maintained from the fisher to the cannery, and from the cannery on out. This
summer Ocean Beauty did not deliver enough ice, reduced tender service, shipped salmon clear across
the state for processing. One reason for this was that the run strength was much larger than predicted.
Another reason was the downsizing and plant closings by Ocean Beauty (they closed the Uganik
cannery which was close to the source of fish and the CIP plant in town); an economic decision that will
cost us all in the long run because of the result; poor fish quality. Please see the two attached letters.
6. The State could provide pack loans to small canneries that cannot obtain them elsewhere. Kodiak
Salmon Packers did not open this summer because they had difficulties getting the needed cash to open.
These small canneries are vital in maintaining quality. They are close to the product source.
7. Treat every voice with respect. United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) does not
speak for us! We belong to and support the efforts of United Salmon Association. It appears that the
legislature only gives an ear to the United Fishermen's Association. They have corporate interests on
their board, and may not have the independent fishers interests at heart.
Good Luck in your efforts. Please keep our best interests in mind.
Sincerely,
Susan Payne
PO Box 1903
Kodiak, AK 99615
Don Dumm
PO Box 1723
Kodiak, AK 99615
(Referenced letters from Ocean Beauty follow)
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 4 -
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 5 -
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 6 -
Michael J. Mayo
2800 Sawmill Creek Hwy.
Sitka, AK 99835
S03T; S05B Salmon Permits (and other fisheries)
Task Force Comments sent by email:
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 200215:16:59 -0900
From: "michael mayo" <michaeljmayo@hotmail.com>
To: Cheryl-Sutton @Legis.state.ak.us
Hi Cheryl, well, looks like I'll have to email you some comments. I would like some feedback on these
from the highest source in your task force.
There are three major things wrong with the salmon industry.
1. The Name
2 . ASMI
3. The hibernating bear attitude of the fisherman and the processors.
1. The name. What do you think of when the salmon is mentioned? I think of a king salmon steak on a
plate. Other people may think of humpies going up a creek. But most people think of Atlantic salmon.
Get rid of the name. Economics is the problem, economics is the answer. Differentiate each species to
live on its own. Value each species on its own worth.
The buyback program -stupid. How can you buyback when you do not have a value to work with.
value of each fishery
(divided by) = number of permits
sustainable economic level
This is your starting point. Sustainable economic level is not exact, can range from $12,000 to $100,000;
does not presuppose a profit each year. A family of three in Anchorage can be greatly different from a
family of 4 in Dillingham or someone living by themselves.
Bristol Bay number of reds times market value = value of fishery.
Market is more nebulous but somewhat definable. But first marketing has
to kick in.
2. ASMI or should I say, asshole salmon marketing institute. And if you doubt my statement, look at the
price of salmon. Two friends of mine were on an ASMI jaunt in the Midwest giving away samples of
Alaskan salmon trying to get people to buy Alaskan salmon. What were they giving them? Chums.
Water marked chums. No.2 salmon. Poor salmon to begin with and not even the best of a poor grade.
Some ethnic tastes may like chum salmon, however if you gave me a chum salmon, I would never eat an
Alaskan salmon again. In Atlanta they were talking about inconsistencies of Alaskan salmon. What was
happening ? They were getting two different types of salmon. No help from
ASMI. "Don't confuse them". Or the famous or infamous ASMI Alaskan salmon
dinner in Chicago. They couldn't get Alaskan salmon. Guess what they used.
Farmed raised salmon. Unbelievable! Salmon can ASMI or better yet shit can them.
Well, gotta go to my tai chi course.
Please fax a copy of this to me at (907) 747-3744.
Bye for now, Michael J Mayo
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 7 -
Name: Larry VanderLind
Email: rvanderlind@hotmail.com
Address: 353 Courtland, Ashland, OR 97520
Phone:
Fish Area: Bristol Bay
Gear Type: S03T (Driftnet)
Title: Options for Restructuring Alaska's Salmon Fisheries - Options Involving Harvest Allocations
Problem:
Twenty-two seasons a Bristol Bay Driftnetter during which time I would conservatively estimate that
I've converted over 300,000 number l' s sockeye into number 2' s and 3' s. I have probably lost another
25,000 fish (dropouts). I've spent thousands of dollars on boats, gear and fuel with no benefit to the
consumer, in fact, just the opposite.
Discussion / Proposal:
My personal goal is getting some jingle in the pockets of the Bristol Bay fishermen and
specifically the residents of the Bristol Bay watershed.
Catches and ex-vessel prices are both down, yet I'm sure that our collective bottom line can be
greatly improved by doing four things:
- Lower the per unit cost of harvest
- More fully preserve the intrinsic quality and value of the fish
- Greatly reduce waste in terms of lost fish (primarily drop outs which can run to
5% and higher)
- Niche market to the high end markets when our overall quality improves.
We get a finite amount of fish to harvest which would limit our profitability under any system of
harvest. In spite of that we sit on a huge unrealized economic potential. This potential will not be
realized by any system of harvest based on internal competition for the fish.
In 1998 Norquest polled their fleet for costs other than debt service, crew share, maintenance and
repair . The average figure for respondents was $14,000. Assuming expenses at $9,000 (due to tough
times) for the 1,171 drifters that fished during the 2002 season, then $10.5 million was spent just to
launch, operate and victual the much reduced fleet. The fishery grossed 27 million. Taking away eleven
percent for setnetters, this
results in a gross of 24 million for the drift fleet. It took 40 percent of the
gross just to put the boats out on the water .
Now deduct 25% for crew share after expenses (or four million) This leaves 12.5 million left for
the fleet for debt service, maintenance and repair. Anyone who made money in the fishery likely did so
because someone else lost money. Much of this expense was unnecessary especially when one looks at
the average harvest per boat of about 40,000 pounds.
I experienced the ultimate "buyback" this past season, being among the 35 boats legal for the
second Ugashik opening. I finally had the chance, after a $5,600 refrigeration repair, to sell some fish to
Leader Creek Fisheries. Unfortunately, the last set was a frantic round haul, resulting in bruised and
crushed fish. If I could have just had the time to carefully harvest the same amount of fish, the processor
and I both would have come out much better. This happened to many other fishermen during these short
openings.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 8 -
Preserving the intrinsic high values of our fish can only be done in an orderly cooperative
environment. That means determining allocation of the catch before the opening and then insuring an
opening of adequate duration to carefully harvest and bleed the fish as well as make multiple deliveries.
Once the catch is divided then the embedded numbers game that has dictated most of our
"business" decisions would go away. The new game could quickly change to a group contest to raise
quality and lower costs. Ancillary benefits would be many: Fishermen would likely exchange helpful
information, fish safer, be-easier on their equipment; reduce pollution, and be able to have longer less
stressful fishing careers.
I've chosen the term "floating quota" for the harvest system that I propose. Here follow some
basic assumptions for the sake of illustration:
-1,000 permit holders
- Permit holders are present when harvesting the fish
- Each permit holder would have an equal share (1% )
- A 48 hour district transfer time would remain in place
Example: Assume that 250 boats are legal for an Egegik Opening.
Therefore each permit holder would be able to harvest 1/250 or .4 percent of the catch. Let us assume
that the biologist for the river deems that it would be prudent to harvest 100,000 fish. Therefore .004
(.4%) X 100,000 = 400 fish. Assuming a 6 pound average, this would be 2,400 pounds per permit
holder.
The individual harvest for an opening would vary according to the estimated number of fish
available for harvest and the number of permit holders legal to fish, hence the term "floating quota."
Permit holders could decide by simple majority the protocols for harvesting and gear type(s) and such
other rules that would not have adverse
impacts. Multiple permit holders could fish on one vessel.
(Just trying to give everyone a place to start – I’ve seen very little in the way of details as to how many
proposals might work – it’s time to fill in some blanks for the various proposals.)
Larry VanderLind
F/V Alia
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 9 -
Kotlik Yupik Corporation
P.O. Box 20207
Kotlik, AK 99620
Telephone (907) 899-4014 or 899-4634
Fax (907) 899-4528
November 25, 2002
Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
716 W. 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attn: Ben Stevens, Chairman
Re: Comments; Salmon Industry
Dear Ben Stevens;
First comment is about Fleet reductions. We need to reduce the number of Fleets that are fishing out on
deep sea region. People in the coastal and river areas (Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers) are not getting
much fish, and fish come back less every year. The
Community Development Quota have Fleets out here fishing and it's probably affecting the fisheries
Eco-System. Individual Fishermen are not getting any kind of share from CDQ. If each fishermen gets
around $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 each fishing season, each fishermen would benefit. As it is right now
each fishermen is not getting any kind of income from fishing. Reduce Fleet both processors and catcher
boats.
Second comment is employment tax credits. When we employ someone to be our helper, we don't even
get any kind of credit.
Third comment would be to help out the villages that are trying to put up fish buying stations and adding
value added processing equipment for the village people. Not on processing fleets. State and CDQ
groups should both help out.
Fourth comment would be to start Fishermen Cooperative.
Fifth comment, we need to change State statutes in which State Fish & Game are the only ones
regulating commercial fishing. It need to be regulated from local region first and then the state, not viceversa.
Thank you for letting us comment.
Sincerely,
KOTLIK YUPIK CORPORATION
Martin P. Okitkun
General Manager
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 10 -
Committees: Quality, Production
Jean Peterson
PO Box 70145
South Naknek, AK 94670
907-246-6525
Fishery: S04T (Naknek / Qvichak)
Title: Production
Problem:
No Beach pickup provided anymore for South Naknek Beach
Discussion:
The local setnetters in South Naknek are left with no beach truck service now that Wards Cove no
longer exists. They were the only company providing it. The beach is about fifteen miles long. Hardly
anybody can fish down there now because we cannot deliver our own fish.
Recommendations:
Keep the Naknek special harvest area open to local setnetters so we can deliver our fish to tenders in the
river (a lot of times it is too rough on the outside to do that). If they open only the outside district there
are a lot of people who will be unable to fish. The Naknek special harvest area is absolutely the end of
the line (terminal fishery) so there shouldn’t be a problem with interception or anything else. The
quality would suffer greatly if you couldn’t deliver quickly because of rough seas.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 11 -
Dennis Beam
35628 Whitnah, Ln.
Richland, OR 97870
541-893-6570
(S15B Permit)
To: Salmon Industry Task Force
Without being too repetitious I would like to briefly state my views on some of the points the Task
Force and Sub- committees ate dealing with.
1.The wild card is our ace in the hole and Alaska should never ever consider farm raising salmon,
halibut, or black cod. I’m confident that Alaskan wild fish will find its niche in the market place and
will increasingly be a sought after product.
2......The quality issue is being used as scapegoat for certain marketing agency failures. Namely ASMI’s.
Fishermen and processors are working together on this issue and have vastly improved the overall
quality of fish from delivery to the dock to the finished processed product. The processors and their
graders know better than anyone else what a good quality product is, and they have been very strict. The
fishermen are penalized for bringing anything less than perfect to the dock and so most are striving for
excellence. If the State or some marketing agency wants to spend their money they should put it into
marketing, not hiring someone to oversee what someone else already knows much more about.
3.A wider variety of products needs to be produced, processed and presented to the consumer, from all
seafood that is delivered. This is where Alaska is really missing the boat. The market is untapped. The
sky’s the limit. The possibilities and products that could be made with our Alaskan seafood is literally
endless. And that is where we as an industry and the State of Alaska should be focusing our efforts, and
finances.
4......... Hatchery operations should continue pretty much as they are. I don’t believe there is any need for
growth. I believe that pink salmon production should be discontinued.
5.A retirement incentive program should be considered in some of the more depressed fisheries. This
should involve a buy-back of the permit, at its uppermost value and not at today’s depressed markets.
Also in some instances vessel buy-backs may be in order.
6...... There are instances in some fisheries when it would make good economic sense to change. For
instance a few seiners in Bristol Bay would be able to harvest the resource more efficiently, cost
effectively, and expediently, and with better quality than what the fill net fleet does. This of course
would open up a giant can of worms. Another fishery that could be harvested in a less wasteful manner,
are the back cod fisheries. A few pot boats could harvest the entire quota. This would eliminate the
problems with the sperm and killer whales. Which seem to have voracious appetites. I know this would
be very unpopular at this time, but someday down the road I believe it may be our only course of action.
In the meantime though pot fishing with smaller pots on smaller vessels should be considered.
7........ Bottom line. We need to change. We need to produce the hundreds of products that the consumers
desire, from fertilizer, to halibut cheeks, to crab cakes, whatever. The State of Alaska, processors, Native
Corporations, fishermen, and communities throughout the State should work together, and pool their
resources to achieve that end. Processors and fishermen alike should play a more active role in
marketing these products. There are fishermen who hail from just about every State. For a few bucks
and a little information most of us would be willing to spread the word through all the methods of
modern media. And that would be pretty darn cheap and effective advertising.
8.ASMI’s funding is down, but does that mean anyone employed there is getting laid off or making less
money? I doubt it. As far as I’m concerned we are not getting our moneys worth. Not even close. I’d
like to know what the payroll is, what the expense accounts are, and what the hell everyone does. I’m
sorry I just think it’s an agency that is simply out of control. And it is my feeling that we would be better
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 12 -
off if the processors and the fishermen themselves took control of the lion’s share of the marketing of
the products that we produce.
Dennis Beam
Richland, Oregon
D. Beam
35628 Whitnah, Ln.
Richland, Or. 97870
541-893-6570
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 13 -
Don Nicholson
Canoe Lagoon Oyster co.
P.O Box 18062
Coffman Cove, AK 99918
To: Joint legislative Salmon Industry Task Force Ben Stevens
During the past 22 years that I have lived in Southeast Alaska it has been clear to me that
eventually our salmon industry would reach this point. It has also been obvious that mariculture would
and has become a reliable source of quality seafood much as beef, pork, and poultry have developed into
a low cost staple for consumers. It is these products along with farmed seafood that Alaska’s salmon
must now compete with.
Unfortunately by and of itself Alaska salmon cannot meet the requirements of this market place,
namely: reliability, quality and price.
One way to begin to deter this problem is to develop a farmed fish industry not only for salmon
but other species as well. Then the wild catch could slip neatly into the market stream created by having
a year around supply – otherwise our salmon may become fish food for the worlds farm industry.
Thank you
- Don Nicholson
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 14 -
Roger Dewey November 19, 2002
Anchorage
(S03E Permit)
Salmon Task Force:
I am a Copper River Commercial Gill-netter.
A main concern is to keep our traditional fishing times = 2x 24hrs/week and quotas. The #’s of fish seem
to be continually seeping up river. The restrictions on our area hurt a lot.
Our prices for fresh fish were extremely low last year. We need to do all we can to combat farmed fish
from taking over our markets, such as tax on farmed fish.
We are working through a group called CRSPA to set a price for our fish to combat price fixing by the
major fish buyers. (That is not working effectively).
Prices go up on everything related but the price of fresh fish, what’s a guy to do?
Thanks for the chance to comment
Roger Dewey
Anchorage
(S03E Permit)
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 15 -
October 16, 2002
George W. George
13650 23rd St
Dade City, FL 33525-4521
(S03T Permit)
Senator Ben Stevens Chair
Joint Legislative Salmon industry Task Force
716 W. 4th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Senator Ben Stevens:
Sounds to me the plan to reduce entry permits is going to affect me being able to go back to
Alaska and visit my family in Nelson Island, Nightmute, AK and go back to fishing I have enjoyed
doing for over twenty years.
Last past few years have not been profitable for me and my brothers (my crew); but, I go back up
there each season and fish the best I can. There are some Alaskan natives that gave up on commercial
salmon fishing, but I stuck to it even though the price of fish has gone down.
I have been fishing ever since I was a child. Not all commercially. Fishing was what I grew up
on; and, I hope to keep going back up there to fish each year as long as I’m able.
Thank you for your understanding
Sincerely,
George W. George
Commercial Fisherman
George W. George
13650 23rd Street
Dade City, FL 33525-4521
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 16 -
Governance Committee
Title: Non Profit Aquaculture Organizations are anything but non-profit.
From: Sigurd D. Rutter
PO Box 8124
Port Alexander, AK 99836
S05B Permit
To: Ben Stevens, Chair, Legislative Salmon Task Force
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Problem:
I believe the place to start unraveling problems in salmon marketing is recognition that non-profit and
regional hatchery associations are anything but non-profit.
Discussion:
In Sitka we have seen the number two man at NSSRA build the second most expensive home ever built
in the community. We watched in horror as the association paid a $100,000.00 sexual harassment suit
against the same individual. Smaller “non-profits” are an economic world unto themselves.
Monopolistic interest in Roe stripping, and millions of pounds dedicated for “cost-recovery” have
sparked commercial consumption unrivaled since the cost-plus hey-days of the Trans-AK pipeline.
The cost of these new players in the salmon economy is born on the backs of traditional users. In the
end, Japanese processors can simply get their product from the hatchery spigot, as support failing
economies in west Alaska and more recent southeast failures in Pelican and Yakutat.
In my opinion, aquaculture associations should be forced to repay the two decades of 3% aquaculture
tax paid by commercial fishers, and used to cut the throat of those fisheries, their families, allied
processing workers, and their communities.
It is worth noting that Ward Cove Packing once offered to build a plant in Sitka; only if NSSRA would
guarantee minimum levels of cost-recovery fish. The proposed merger of supply and demand would
have left no role to independent harvesters. Today aquaculture association is the modern equivalent of
fish-traps. Monopolistic processors can’t wait to limit fleets, or abandon them altogether.
Proposal:
End the pretense of non-profit and common property benefits. Pay the founders back their 3% through
dividends based upon historic production.
Sigurd D. Rutter
PO Box 8124
Port Alexander, AK 99836
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 17 -
Submission to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force - Production Subcommittee
Mike Svenson
104 Sharon Dr
Sitka, AK 99835
Fishery – S01A
Title: Advance Notice on Salmon Price
Senator Ben Stevens,
My name is Mike Svenson and I am a salmon seiner here in southeast. I have also fished salmon
in Bristol Bay. I really don’t think there is a whole lot Government can do short of giving every
fisherman a bucket of money. There is one thing that could help us take care of ourselves. And that is if
it’s possible in anyway to have processors give us a price at least three weeks before the season. Here is
why, this year seiners here in S.E. went and spent a lot of money preparing their boats under the
impression from the cannery that prices were probably going to be around 2001 price. Then after the
first opening come to find out the price was pennies. But its too late you already spent a lot of money
getting ready. If guys had known the price was going to be that low lots probably would not have come
fishing and done something else to protect them. But instead the cannery was not up front about the
price and so guys are now in trouble because after spending lots of money getting ready they had to fish.
Now processors may say they don’t know what the price will be three weeks out but why let them drag
us down with them. This would make processors compete for fishermen. And if a processor wants to
post a low price three weeks out he just might not get very many fishermen. And if the price is too low
fishermen may choose not to go fishing and do something else for the summer. We cannot win under
this arrangement. Not letting us know the price until after the first opening has the fishermen at a big
disadvantage. This could help a lot of guys out. If you know the price three weeks out you can make
informed decisions.
Thanks
Mike Svenson
104 Sharon Dr
Sitka, AK 99835
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 18 -
December 10, 2002
Marketing
Quality
Production
Title: In order for the average fisherman to begin effectively marketing their sockeye salmon in Bristol
bay, we will need to have some form of community use processing/storage facilities in Naknek,
Dillingham, and Egegik. This way fisherman will share the cost of some of the more expensive
infrastructure which is necessary to offer a Quality product to markets.
Name: Randy Talvi
Phone: 907-376-0401
Fishery_area: salmon/Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 19 -
December 9, 2002
Governance
Title: I suggest we pay someone to start sampling salmon that is sold in the different markets of Japan,
especially salmon from the Russian zone, which we suspect may have been intercepted. Gathering data
through the Japanese market place should be relatively inexpensive compared to chasing vessels on the
high seas.
Name: Randy Talvi
Phone: 907-376-0401
Fishery_area: salmon/Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 20 -
Kathy Halgren
FVLunaSea@AOL.com
Box 784
Cordova, Alaska
99574
Fish Area: E
Gear: Drift
November 30, 2002
Dear Salmon Task Force Member,
The value of salmon fisheries to rural economies is unquestionable. The state should fund efforts that
are critical to the survival of the salmon industry. Adequate funding for the Fish & Game budget should
be a top priority of the legislature.
The price is the problem, not the number of boats. I oppose pursuing fleet reduction and the type of Coop
that pays people for not fishing. Receiving fishing income without paying any money back into the
economy is wrong for rural Alaska. Increasing individual production never initiates increased quality.
When fishing was profitable, fishermen utilized more of the area permits. On poor years, permit holders
from within the rural community are most apt to participate.
With the industry suffering from low prices and lack of markets, some fishermen cannot afford to fish.
The price of permits drop and young rural Alaskans can afford to buy in. Cutting the number of permits
eliminates opportunities for young people growing up in fishing communities. Cutting the number of
fishermen, boats, and crew has many negative consequences for the communities whose economy
depends on salmon fisheries.
If I could change the salmon industry, an ever-increasing amount of salmon leaving Alaska would be in
a product form that is consumer friendly. The salmon would be ready to barbecue, bake, microwave, or
in an easy open pouch that could compliment crackers or make a meal when added to pasta. Consistent
quality would develop repeat customers assured of having a healthy snack or entrée that is foolproof,
even for the worst cook. The salmon that fail to meet the quality standards for these products would be
used to make pet food, fishmeal, oil, and fertilizer.
The reputation of Alaska salmon is only as good as the poorest quality salmon reaching the market. I
support minimum quality standards for salmon products using the ASMI label and ASMI promotions. I
support funding for ASMI to continue marketing. The product information distributed to customers and
the media about Alaska’s seafood is critical.
The Legislature needs to understand that some fish are not suited for marketing but wanton waste is like
fingernails on the blackboard. The regulations prohibiting waste are legitimate and reflect the values of
Alaska fishermen and consumers worldwide. The State needs to encourage salmon rendering equipment
to stop poor quality salmon from going into the fresh and frozen markets. Rendering fish waste would
also help with water quality issues. Fish that are sexually mature maybe a good protein but when
watermarked fish with pale meat sit in a freezer case representing Alaska Salmon, the entire Alaska
salmon industry suffers. Mature hatchery fish should not be left in the water to rot wasting the roe.
I would support tax incentives, credits, grants, and/or low interest loans to acquire cold storage facilities,
secondary processing equipment, and/or fish rendering plants. I would support incentives for canneries
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 21 -
adding pin-bone out machines, pouched processing capacity, or other processing technologies for
products with customer demand. I support tax breaks for research and development of salmon products
and new equipment technologies to produce those products. This type of investment in fishing
communities would help local economic development and eventually increase taxes to the state.
The strongest growth segment in Alaska’s salmon industry is the catcher/processor or direct market
vessels. The state of Alaska should encourage these fishermen who have done more for quality and
marketing than any other processor in the state.
Tax rates tend to be higher for those harvesters who add more value to their product. Allow direct
marketers of salmon to pay tax based on grounds price rather than first wholesale price, or maybe the
raw fish tax should have a lower percentage for higher quality and higher valued product form.
Catcher processors are taxed at a 5% rate because large self-sufficient catcher/processor vessels add
minimally to local coastal economies. The higher tax rate also applies to smaller often locally owned
fishing boats. I would support looking at a method to distinguish the two different types of processor
vessels and believe the tax should be at a lower rate for smaller vessels that contribute to the local
economy.
High energy costs are common obstacles for everyone in rural Alaska. I would support tax incentives to
encourage participation in research for more efficient energy. I hope the state will make improvements
to the transportation infrastructure.
I would like to see crew licenses that are graduated similar to sport fishing licenses. This would help
with local kids stepping in as crew for just an opener. It would help me encourage media, trade liaisons,
a tourist, a local, or a legislator who wants to experience fishing for a day.
Fishing is not just a livelihood; it is a lifestyle some families have enjoyed for generations. Options for
employment demand moving away from the rural community a fisherman calls home. The economies
of towns, which are dependant on a fishing economy are further weakened with an exodus of fishing
families moving to cities for employment and less expensive living. I would support programs that
encouraged economic development for the rural communities and education that returns students with
skills valuable to rural communities. Classes for the fishermen and locals interested in processing or
marketing. The education for city Alaskans should include how fishing stimulates the Alaskan
economy. Fishing was valuable to the state before oil and will continue after the oil is gone.
I support the board process, but believe the local Advisory Committees should have the credibility and
influence that they had in decades past.
I think hatcheries should continue their development locally through Regional Planning Teams under the
supervision of the Fish & Game Commissioner.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and all the time you have dedicated to this process.
Sincerely, Kathy Halgren
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 22 -
To: Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
From: Tony Prekaski (S04Y)
Subject: Meeting with Representative Drew Scalzi
Date: November 5,2002
I have been commercially fishing for salmon in Alaska for the last twenty years. I started my career in
the Bay, and Norton Sound. I purchase a Lower Yukon Salmon Drift permit in ‘96 which entitled me to
fish the Commercial Salmon Seasons.
The facts are not eluding! Protection of the resources is a rural-priority. I have not had the right to
commercially fish in over two years. This year ADF&G opened the fishery for a four hour commercialperiod.
I didn't bother to go...
The last time I went to Emmonak to harvest Salmon; we all had to wait it out for almost a month. All to
be given the thumbs up by ADF&G field agents who intentionally let most of the pulses of the run pass.
The Industry knows how to resolve the issues at hand. So did the State of
Alaska.
Having the Federal Government take over harvesting guide-lines brought a greater understanding to
those in Government. But left all those in Rural Alaska dumbfounded, and struggling ever more....
I have been at a cross roads with all the hype that this issue has created. If Subsistence by Law is for
"Personal Community Use" then why allow it to be sold?
It doesn't take a Fisheries Biologist to tell you that Commercial/Subsistence, Fish- Wheels, and upriver
egging for "Chums" for profit? Or Dog food? Certainly is not a priority.
Nether is the sale of Subsistence caught Salmon!
But it has always historically happened since the early 50's.
Where the Fed's/State are going in the wrong direction would be to allow Subsistence fishing efforts to
compete with the historical Commercial Catches.
We developed this Industry! Rural Alaska needs the summer work.
What better first jobs for students are available in the villages?
Commercial Fisherman, and Salmon Processors, invested time and money into
the resources. In an endeavor to promote the Mighty Yukon King Salmon.
Why change what Industry has developed? Why did we wait for this Disaster to occur? With all the
demands on the resources you'd think the State of Alaska could step up to the plate and settle the issues
at hand.
Industry, on its own has dictated the market price. Not just by competition by foreign farmed salmon.
But by the influences of Sea Food Wholesalers across the Nation!
This is the time to settle our differences. Unite as an Industry!
Or allow the "Old Sour Dough" attitude to have a death grip on what's left of
our resources.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 23 -
If it's possible to change the infrastructure, harvest guidelines; and lessen the control by the outside
special interest groups. Then possibly there would be Real Fisheries Management solutions.
As it stands now, this stale-mate over rural priority vs. economic development will only tarnish our
freedom of Independence, and send rural communities into deeper economic-recession, perhaps
collapse.
I want the legislature to do its job.
Our State will not allow me to do mine!
Settle this Subsistence issue once and for all!
Respectfully,
Tony Prekaski, PO Box 240502, Anchorage, AK 99524
Lower Yukon Commercial Salmon Fisherman
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 24 -
December 8, 2002
Title: Addressing Overcapitaliztion in our salmon fisheries.
Problem: Too many limited entry permits. They require too much investment capital to secure them.
Too many pieces of the pie result in too small a piece for individual fishermen. Outmigration of limited
entry permits from our coastal communities out of state.
Discussion: Limited entry was designed to aid in conservation of our fisheries, support financial status
of Alaskan fishermen, and stabilize the economies of our fishing communities. It has failed in
producing these results. There are more, and more productive, boats in the water today than at the
inception of limited entry. Fishermen are struggling for their survival. Permits have fled our fishing
communities and are held by outside interests, and our local economies are drying up.
The reason for this failure was the establishment (in regulation, not in the Constitution, nor in Statute) of
the premise that limited entry permits were individually transferrable by their holders. This "legal"
construct inhibits State control over the ownership (and proliferation) of permits. It requires an
incredible amount of capital from fishermen to buy a permit, maintain debt service, and as interest and
other 'cost of capital'. The flight of limited entry permits from our local communities is just one effect
of the speculation in permits created when we made them marketable commodities.
Recommendations: The simplest method of addressing this problem is to eliminate the transferability of
permits by individuals. This could be done by the Commissioner of ADF&G and would not even need
to be done by the Legislature.
Issues such as the "illegal taking" of private property could be addressed by making the effective date 10
years into the future. Speculators would have 10 years to recover their investments. However the
speculation would cease immediately. For most real fishermen the permits have no value anyway, they
will never sell, and would prefer to will them to a family member.
Name: Terry Hoefferle
Email: nonnie@nushtel.net
Address: Box 825, Dillingham 99576
Fishery_area: Bristol Bay
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 25 -
Cliff Ward
Cordova
S03E
To: Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force
Quality Subcommittee Report
1. A) What does the industry need to achieve a higher quality product?
First and foremost all permit holders must become aware of the parameters within which to handle fish
to produce the highest quality end product, whether it be troll dressed, frozen fillets, or lox.
I recently took the sanitation and HACCP courses offered by the state and came out with a much greater
appreciation of what makes quality attainable, it’s knowledge put into practice! Without industry-wide
knowledge put in practice we will see no improvement in quality. Fishermen will not have the
necessary tools to convince them to change the way they do business aboard their boats without
mandatory certification in sanitation and standardized handling practices.
Sanitation is where it all begins…You wouldn’t serve yourself dinner from dirty plates would you?
Well, maybe you would. But after taking a look at material presented in both courses one will take a
closer look at personal practices and be more likely to incorporate them into business practices. I really
believe this and feel it is the core of the solution.
Mandating certification in at least sanitation coupled with an overview of HACCP is a must to begin
getting the whole industry standardized. Processors are mandated to, why aren’t harvesters? Courses
could be given in any state where more than 5(?) permit holders reside way in advance of salmon
season.
Letting buyers set the standards for THEIR fishermen have brought us to where we are now. Salmon
and the rest of the seafood resources are what bring into the state much in taxes, employment and trade.
To allow buyers (most being multinational or foreign owned corporations or subsidiaries) dictate what is
and what isn’t allowed sets the industry up for a long walk off a short plank…and under the status quo
we are rapidly nearing that plank’s end.
Enforcement of the sanitation practices should include:
Non issuance of permit card should certification not be obtained.
Fines for non-compliance in practice of sanitation aboard fishing and tender vessels.
Brailer bags must not be hung in harbor water. Fines or confiscation should result.
QUALITY PRODUCT FROM SALMON INDUSTRY
The previously mentioned courses spell out what creates a quality product in lieu of sanitary handling
procedures. However, it all starts at one point, clean water from which the fish come from, swim
through during their life, and return to in the spawning cycle. Watershed protection is most important in
protection of salmon’s sustainability/ Relaxing environmental standards in the mining and logging
practices is not an option. If we want to remain on the SUSTAINABLE list the environment our
product lives in must be protected.
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 26 -
Next is fishing practices and handling fish once they are caught.
Sure Fish coupled with an organization like the Marine Stewardship Council has guidelines that are
being weighed by consumers in greater proportion as these programs develop. From retailers (mostly in
the health food industry) to restaurants, and end users, more and more are becoming aware of
environmental issues associated with what they buy and consume. Sustainability, wholeness, and
quality are now being considered more than ever and it is something that the Alaska salmon industry
must encourage and nurture. We have to put a human face on our product, tie Alaska salmon to all that
is good in nature and America.
Many consumers I’ve talked with think anything coming from a farm must be good because most
everything consumed by the masses is raised in mass (poultry, meat and vegetables). Little do they
know otherwise because the policy of ASMI has been to lay low and not draw attention to the possibility
of PARASITES in our product. Well, as we are told now, there are so many bad things relating to
salmon aquaculture as is industry standard that it’s time to go on the offensive big time…but only after
our industry quality and consistency is under control.
Some of what must be done is:
Mandatory chilling at point of harvest is most important. All boats MUST have SUFFICIENT ICE,
SLUSH, OR RSW TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF FISH HARVESTED.
Mandatory bleeding of fish is also imperative for product appearance and prolonged shelf life.
Gentle handling of fish is also important to minimize bruising and vertebrae separation. Padding the
deck where fish will fall, be piled, or struggle is also very important.
Not throwing the fish into the hold for gillnetters is very important to further minimize bruising.
The only mechanism to police this is processor supervision. The state may have to set standards by
which processors must abide, including a mandatory written policy statement and information meeting
with their prospective fleets to inform them what will and will not be accepted practices when catching
fish to delivery to their company. To monitor properly, tendermen must watch who delivers what; look
for obvious bruising practices by fishermen and report their actions for notification, chilling practices,
and sanitary practices.
Tendermen should have a brailer bag dip tank or buckets to aid in sanitizing the materials used to
transfer product.
Up to this point the practices that have been entrusted to buyers have helped put the industry where it is.
The state will probably have to step into the supervisory role to supplement what processors monitor.
A quality seal is a good idea as long as it is one that would be recognized by someone like the MSC or
USDA.
A state quality commission may be needed but should not be comprised of processors or anyone with a
personal agenda sword to bear.
Clearly, money talks. Non Compliance with quality standards should be penalized via substantial
reduction (33%) in resource purchase price. That reduction in price will help buyers compensate extra
effort to accommodate separate handling of questionable fish. At that rate it wouldn’t pay to be lax in
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 27 -
following the new rules from the get go. It’s late in the game and the industry MUST CHANGE NOW!
NOT TOMORROW, WHEN YOU CAN AFFORD TO! NOW!
Proposals Submitted to Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force Vol. 5 December 13, 2002
Compiled by UFA
- 28 -
November 18, 2002
Tom Carpenter (S03E)
PO Box 1663
Cordova, Alaska
99574
907-424-3101
To: Ben Stevens, Chairman
Alaska Legislative Salmon
Industry Task Force
RE: Hatcheries
I am a resident of Cordova, Business owner, and Salmon permit holder in Area E. I previously
testified at your Task Force meeting you held in Cordova. I was quite amazed at the questions asked by
some of the members of your task force in regards to the hatchery system. I got the impression that there
was a less than favorable impression of the hatchery system, and was led to believe they were
questioning the integrity of the hatcheries as a whole.
I would like to give my perspective so that the entire task force might hear what the hatchery
system really means to the residents of Prince William Sound. The Prince William Sound Aquaculture
Corporation is guided by the 41- member Board of directors who bring hundreds of years of fishing
industry experience to the table. They are tasked with planning, developing and approving the annual
budget. Since 1997, PWSAC has
adopted a balanced budget policy that has resulted in a stable cost-effective operation. PSWAC's
production plans are reviewed by a standing committee of ADF&G staff, stakeholders and approved by
the Commissioner of Fish and Game. But the point that stands out most in my mind is the ex-vessel
production of the past six years has been 134 million dollars, of which 90 million has been harvested by
Area E fisherman. Without the hatchery program that PSW AC has built would be devastating to the
residents of Prince
William Sound.
Tom Carpenter