Associations
itchyscratchy
2012-02-09 17:15:19
Sitting here waiting for the Super Bowl to start (as well as the upcoming Troll season), I figured stirring the pot would pass the time and might start a lively conversation; So many stones, so little time.
As all Trollers know, the only way to move up in status is to snivel in a natural and believable way (this is a true story and part of it actually happened). Wasn't the VHF invented for that reason? With that said and before I start, understand the Chum Trollers Association and Trollers Associations are both great organizations and have our best interests at heart. However, here’s the rub –
Last week, I received a newsletter which appears to be from the Alaska Trollers Association (ATA). The mailing highlighted the upcoming Board of fish meeting and ATA’s position on all proposals which might affect Trollers? The reason for the question mark is related to another question I have; who does the ATA claim to represent? Obviously , Trollers, but hold on, who else do they represent and shouldn’t Trollers be the primary beneficiaries of the ATA’s efforts?
At the bottom of the newsletter, the ATA’s mission statement is shown; “ATA’s mission is to preserve, promote, and perpetuate the fishing industry in Alaska. To that end, we work for conservation, sound management, good public policy, and safety at sea for the general welfare and mutual benefit of all” .
Sounds great – Anyone who sport fishes, long lines, crabs or sells rain gear (along with trollers) benefit from the ATA! Yahoo! We all end up winners! Hold on, I’m a Troller, and isn’t the name of the association the “Alaska Trollers Association”? Shouldn’t Trollers be mentioned in the mission statement and be identified as the primary group who should be receiving the benefit of this organizations labor, or was my 400 level organizational theory class a complete waste of time? So many questions so little time. For general examples of missions statements check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_statement.
Another example of misaligned focus was a question I posed to the Chum Trollers association. CTA’s mission statement is “"To Promote and Improve Alaskan Chum Salmon Harvest For All Trollers". This mission statement makes more sense as the statement identifies the organizations goal and who they represent! However, (here comes the pesky sniveling) when the CTA posts they want to start a Hidden Falls Coho sub-committee you have to wonder how the Coho subcommittee fits with their mission statement. Seems the CTA is more interested in promoting hatchery opportunities – which includes Chums.
Since I’m throwing stones and it’s always easy to do that from the sidelines, I am not a member of either the ATA or CTA because of questions like these. However, I would become a member if I had a better feel for how these groups would represent my interests and how I benefit . After all, it’s all about me
John Murray
2012-02-09 20:55:54
I'll bite Ichy..Are you attending the Board of Fish meeting at the end of February in Ketchican?The above mentioned associations will be there to protect and promote your fishery.Its as simple as that and that is just one example.
Might you try visioning a troll fishery with out these groups.I believe things would be much different.Some of those things would be less money in your wallet,less time on the grounds.If the different troll groups were not there organizing and working for a viable future I doubt there would even be a troll fishery.Think University of Washingtons fishery department promotion for years of just having terminal fisheries.We don't need those pesky trollers on those mix stocks.The nets and sports can do the job.
There's reasons trollers have had an organizations for at least 80 years.
Salty
2012-02-10 06:50:51
Been busy helping get chum trollers comments into the Board of Fisheries and celebrating my wife's birthday so this is my first visit today.
The following comments are personal after a great dinner, with some wine, at the local bistro.
I believe a good mission statement is one almost anyone in the organization can repeat and explain without looking it up. I have had the opportunity to help groups craft mission statements over the years starting in 1972. I think the link posted previously spells out the essential ingredients well. I usually try to help the group get it down to 10 words or less. I keep trying to get the Chum Trollers Association (CTA) Board to revise theirs to 10 or less (it is 11). A great example is SW Airlines: "We are the low cost airline."
In their search for ways to improve chum trolling, CTA, in a sub-committee meeting with NSRAA staff, stumbled upon a way to improve troll "coho" opportunity at Hidden Falls. That idea passed the NSRAA Board, has been implemented by Emergency Order by ADF&G, and is now proposed (# 343) by fish and game to the Board of Fish.
This proposal directly benefits chum trolling because it siphons off trollers to Hidden Falls to target coho instead of competing for chums in Sitka.
I don't see the comment as "pesky sniveling".
I just see it as typical troller curiosity as in "how the heck could hatchery opportunity on coho benefit chum trolling?"
Or, conversely, "how the heck could 140 trollers going chum trolling benefit me out here on the Chinook/coho drag?"
Or, why CTA might want to oppose proposal 312 by SE gillnetters (USAG) to have a 10 day "troll coho" closure which would also close chum and pink trolling in most of SE during those 10 days.
Fortunately, at most CTA meetings, there are a couple of engineers and retired educators, capable of advanced analytic thinking, to help explain things to the rest of us.
I am not an engineer or retired educator.
The preceding comments do not reflect the positions of any of the numerous fishing, social, family, ethnic, religious, political, or governmental groups I am or have been affiliated with.
Hooker
2012-03-13 01:27:42
Itchyscratchy........step up and join at least one association. Start there. Get off the sidelines and I must correct you about one thing.........it's all about me! Gouge you later
itchyscratchy
2012-03-14 03:56:19
Ha...good post.
You've got a good point, I should step up and join a group...which do you suggest, and why? Since we're talking associations, what ever happened with the board of fish meeting and the chum groups proposals. I've heard several interesting rumors, but nothing seems to be written. I don't want to get into what I heard as this is a nice family site and as much fun it would be, and trouble I'd stir, I'll leave that alone. By the way, what good deeds did the ATA and CTA do for our industry at the BOF meetings??
Since this thread is about associations, one observation....
The old saying - to many cooks ruin the dish seems to fit. How can any good work get done with so many differing ideas and agenda's, as the fighting between like groups causes the focus to become fuzzy.
The list of associations claiming to represent fisherman's interests in alaska is long...off the top of my head
UFA
Bering Sea Crab fisherman
Deep water longliners
Trawlers association
ATA
Southeast Fishermans Alience
Southeast Seiners Association
Chum Trollers
Gillneters association
Since these don't appeal to me, I was thinking about starting one. Cant you see the beauty in that logic. I'd get a seat at all the meetings! But, what should I call the new trollers association?
How about -" Lead Weight association", or "Troller and it's all about me" either of those would work as the short name, but the long name for my association would be - I'm a troller and tired of getting the short end, so get ready rumble.
Who's with me?
I approved this message
I think one novel way to get to know about the various organisations is to get to know a person who works for one of them. After you get to know them a little, it should become very obvious how much they work and how committed they are. I am think of people like Dale (ATA) and Linda B. (ALFA) and Jeff F. (ALFA and Citizens Advisory Committe). These people commit an incredible amount of time and energy to keeping our hooks in the water and keeping it all "legit". Finally, it then should become perceptible who they are working for.
That said Itchy, I am a skeptical person, too, when it comes to "clubs" and organisations. But there are some good people out there doing honest work. Especially for us trollers and longliners.
Salty
2012-03-16 23:07:37
Busy writing up the Chum Trollers Association newsletter to our members detailing BOF and NSRAA activities concluded recently and how they affect trollers.
In the meantime, here is the link to the raw data from the BOF meeting.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.meetinginfo
ATA was so helpful to CTA in so many ways at this last BOF meeting that I, for one, will be forever thankful.
I happen to be a member of a lot of groups, including, most years, Alaska Longliners Association, even though I don't longline, because I see how important they are to my (and your) fishing business.
If you are an Alaska Troller and are reading this then I highly recommend you join the Alaska Trollers Association.
yak2you2
2012-03-19 15:43:38
Definitely. Without organizations we'd get ran over. We are fishermen, so we're bound to have little disagreements, but when the chips are down, it's the organizations that keep us in the game. Without ATA representing us at Treaty, you wouldn't get to fish for wild King Salmon, if the down south folks had their way, and thats a fact. You'd have a VMS tracking you where ever you went, you'd be grinding all of your guts down to so many microns before gently releasing them into the sea, and you'd be catching and filtering the rain water that runs off of your decks.
Organizations like United Fishermen of Alaska, Alaska Trollers Assoc., Southeast Fisherman's Alliance, Alaska Longliners Assoc., Petersburg Vessel Owners Assoc., Chum Trollers Assoc., and Yakutat Fisherman's Alliance were in the trenches for you at the Board of Fisheries, and you owe it to yourself to help them, help you.
Make no mistake, those who would take away from you all your rights to fish, are very well organized and represented, so you must be too.
One more thing, were all busy, I know, but take the time to attend meetings, find out whats going on, and be sure and stand up and say something. RPT meetings, port meetings, and Advisory Committee meetings are examples of this. If you don't speak, you won't be heard.
Hand trollers, I am especially talking to you. When I look at the rolls of ATA membership and see just a handful of us, it shames us. We benefit from ATA's actions too, there's more of us, and they could use our help, time to get off of the fence and join up.
Casey Mapes - ATA Hand troll Representative, Yakutat Area Advisory Committee Chair, SEAFA member, Yakutat Aquaculture Assoc. boardmember, Yakutat Salmon Boardmember, Yakutat Fishermen's alliance member, gillnetter, husband and father, full time job, if I can find the time, so can you.
itchyscratchy
2012-03-21 18:55:06
Excellent post.
If you where running for any board, you'd have my vote.
mydona
2012-04-02 16:26:27
Postby itchyscratchy on Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:48 am
Thanks to everyone on this board it's become a great resouce.
OK itchy This form is an association you already use. After reviewing Salty's tips (and
k.bates
2012-04-09 02:56:23
Trollers, the discussion concerning associations in AK is unbelievably important . fishermen always lose without full time representation . California is a case in point. i was born in a fishing family in San Pedro , (1949), and by the end of high school watched the industry begin to disappear . i joined Humboldt Fishermens Marketing Assoc in 1974. two years later the assoc board helped me get paid for my winter herring season sold to lazio fish co. that alone was enough to convince me of the value of organization. i have been a board member for over 20 years and in spite of loss of membership both here and all other calif ports , fishermens associations have been the only thing keeping us in the public and political eye . our assoc. worked for 18 years to reverse the direction of city of Eureka waterfront planning ( tee shirt shops and hotels) and now have a state of the art fish unloading and processing facility , a 5 million dollar dock , 4 hoists and truck ramps. in the meantime our board shows up at meetings most of us would rather miss, unpaid at that . things are not good , but would be far worse without representation . my wife Linda and i trolled in southeast last summer . we joined ATA and Chum Trollers before we arrived. thanks for the gracious reception we received while fishing in your area and the opportunity to post here . ken bates , F/V IRONIC , eureka ca
Salty
2012-04-12 16:25:44
[attachment=0]Ironic, anchored at Home Shore.jpg[/attachment]
itchyscratchy
2012-04-30 15:36:13
oh hum. Aren't all fisherman's associations the best! aren't all the fisherman who are members also the best!!
NOT. You're getting off track on what my point is regarding associations that claim to represent trollers interests.
When we where kids, do you remember the story about the Emperor's new cloths? Yes, we are all thankful ....we're all bowing down to thank each and every one of the groups fighting for TROLLER issues.
But, my question has been ....are they fighting the correct battles, and are they standing to close to the forrest to see the trees, are the groups doing what they are saying they are supposed to be doing? I mean, who really cares ? For example, if your an ATA member, you pay your dues, hear what the people in power say, and WOW, everything is wonderful. Granted, most people don't read the newpapers, I"m thinking most people don't pay attention to the ATA or any other of the association they belong to, and they hope things work out for the best.
Specifically, can anyone name 3 things the ATA has done, passed or achieved that put more fish in my boat, saved me money, or made my life better...anyone?
As you can tell, i'm a bit of a 60's child - question establishment.
SilverT
2012-05-05 00:38:53
Here's #1 - from the thread, "I don't like it" in Troller Talk
Salty -
"Good thread, actually we dealt with the possibilities of a full fledged observer program with cameras for the Icy Strait chum troll fishery this year. Fortunately Dale Kelley of ATA and Howard Pendell of our treaty team were on the job and halted it. Not so much because we were worried about by-catch in the chum troll fishery, statistically the cleanest salmon fishery, but because of the precedents for other troll and salmon fisheries and, as has been expressed so well here, the general intrusiveness of a camera on board."
Even if a guy doesn't fish there, at least they are fighting a bad program that could eventually touch everyone. Having often wondered myself what each association does, I do believe that most of the associations could be more vocal to non-members about what they do and have done for the industry. It could be in the form of an abbreviated member's letter to non-member license holders. Highlight the major accomplishments and existing battles. It would certainly help to encourage participation. The above example is great. I doubt most folks even knew this was an issue, so how would they know an association was fighting against it if they were not already a member?
Lane
Salty
2012-05-05 02:34:43
Nice softball!
And a nice hit by Silver T.
2. ATA organized trollers to help defeat a proposal by SE Gillnetters for an extended coho closure in August.
3. Recent past ATA president Dave Otte, with ATA support helped other trollers on the SSRAA board gain better troll access to Neets Bay Chums.
4. ATA Supported Sitka legislator, and troller, Dick Eliason's
efforts to prohibit finfish farming in Alaska.
If you are a serious Alaska troller each of the above sgould have or will make you more than your dues.
Salty
2012-11-08 18:54:57
On the 13th and 14th NSRAA will be conducting its annual board meeting http://nsraa.org/_pdfs/AgendaNov2012.pdf.
If you have any comments or concerns about NSRAA please let me know and I will print them out or otherwise relay them to the Board and Staff.
Of special interest to trollers might be the following agenda items:
Tuesday, the 13th.
10:00 a.m. 2012 Salmon Season & 2013 Forecast – Chip Blair
Wednesday November 14, 2012
9:00 a.m. Pelican & Excursion Inlet -
Ω Chum Salmon –
9:30 a.m. Deep Inlet Chum – Summer vs. Fall Run Performance
11:30 a.m. Hidden Falls Coho Survival
4:20 p.m. Hidden Falls – Sport & Hand Trolling in Inner Bay Discussion (Don Byrd)
It has been a real pleasure to serve on the NSRAA Board as a troll representative the last three years. Thank you.
Salty
2012-11-18 23:17:49
NSRAA Board Meeting report from Eric Jordan, power troll representative.
Fellow trollers,
I just spent two days at the Northern Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) Board of Directors meeting. Then I spent a couple of hours at the Alaska Department of Fish & Game office in Sitka meeting with Troll Biologists Grant Hagerman and Patty Skannes. Here is a synopsis:
NSRAA has an excellent web site where you can read nearly all of the reports @ http://www.nsraa.org/Board_Meetings.html. I particularly recommend the presentation by Chip Blair on the 2012 returns and predictions for 2013 @ http://www.nsraa.org/_pdfs/2012%20Fall%20Bd%20Mtg/2012_NSRAA_Recap_2013_Forecast.pdf
In brief from the report in italics;
Southeast Enhanced Salmon Value 2012: A new record – by far $65M ex-vessel value (previous record $45M in 2011) SSRAA & DIPAC had huge years; NSRAA improved from 2011.
Since 1994 total value of SE enhanced salmon totals $472,603,923, troll value totals $82,830,000 (18%)
Troll target by Board of Fisheries regulation is 27-32%.
Troll (12%) Gillnet (39%) Seine (49%) Total
2012 $ 7,654,083 $ 25,494,376 $ 31,692,051 $ 64,840,511
My analysis:
Doing a quick bit of calculation you can see that trollers are way behind in our allocated share and getting further behind. It costs the fleet millions of dollars every year. In 2012 the difference between 30% of $65 million (19.5) and the 12% we harvested (7.5) is approximately $12 million.
We actually went down in both % (19 to 12) and value ($8,355,111 to $7,654,083) from 2011 to 2012.
Back to the NSRAA report: 2012- $11.4 M in Commercial Value ($4.7 in 2011) Troll share about 8%.
Chums improving, Chinook about average, coho were poor except for Deer Lake.
2013 Forecast: Deep Inlet chum – projection is double 2012 return @ 1,370,000.
Hidden Falls chum – similar to 2012 return @ 1,315,000.
Medvejie Chinook – projection is about 4,000 fish above 2012 return @ 30,000 fish.
Hidden Falls Chinook – projection is about 3,000 fish above 2012 return @ 12,300 fish.
Deer Lake Coho – projection is about 3x 2012 return @ 124,000.
Hidden Falls Coho – projection is about 4.5x 2012 return @ 154,000.
Medvejie/Deep Inlet Coho – projection is about 10K (2012 return was 6,100)
My analysis: Chip does a wonderful job and his forecasts are worth paying attention to. Things are looking better for next year.
In other NSRAA business of interest:
We appointed William Bergman, retired ADF&G management biologist from Petersburg to the Conservation Seat, Wade Martin to the Native Corporation Seat, Mike Forbush, of Ocean Beauty, to the Processor seat, and Karl Wolfe to the interested persons seat.
The tax assessment on chums caught in the Hidden Falls Special Harvest Area for the seine fleet, and inadvertently for the troll fleet, worked very well and the NSRAA Board recommended continuing it and attempting to modify it to a flat rate per pound instead of a %.
NSRAA is doing well financially and is likely not to be liable for additional taxes on Cost Recovery values per pending IRS decision.
The New Facilities and Development Committee, which I have spearheaded, met and recommended that the NSRAA Board pursue a co-operative project with DIPAC to release up to 30 million chum smolt at Excursion Inlet, or elsewhere in Northern SE; to continue to explore possibilities at Pelican while we focus on the co-operative project with DIPAC; and to continue to aggressively explore additional hatchery and remote release possibilities throughout the region. The whole board adopted these recommendations. The board also approved a policy and funding for New Facilities and Production with a fund of 1.85 million.
We heard from a handtroller who was unhappy with being asked to stop fishing coho at the hatchery outlet in Hidden Falls. We will discuss solutions at the Spring Board meeting.
Richie Davis, who has been fighting for the fishing industry and trollers for a long time, and I, have both decided to run for re-election to the NSRAA Board. It has been a great privilege to serve the troll fleet on the NSRAA Board. I would appreciate your vote and continued support. My email is chumtroller@gmail.com and my phone is 907-738-2486.
My basic philosophy toward working for trollers on NSRAA was articulated better than I could say it by fellow board member and troller James Moore:
“As a long term policy I would rather not see salmon taken from one or another gear group but rather the creation of new opportunities for the troll fleet. In the short term however every effort should be made to share existing hatchery sites (production) as equitably as possible. We must be assured of our share of the pie (on the table) while the other one is in the oven.”
The next NSRAA Board meeting is scheduled for March 5&6 in Sitka.
I also met with the troll biologists on Wednesday and learned a couple of things of note:
• The Icy Strait chum troll data collection facilitated and funded by DIPAC went very well;
• The new Goddard hatchery Chinook area south of Sitka, which I proposed, produced 450 hatchery Chinook. I recommended an expanded area which will be discussed this spring.
itchyscratchy
2012-11-29 16:23:05
Are you kidding me? You want us to believe the forecast numbers?
I about spit my coffee out laughing.
Salty
2012-11-29 18:13:01
Itchy, That was the nickname of my high school basketball coach. I don't ask you to believe anything, particularly what I post, not all of it being the whole truth. Just posting the information shared with me as a troll representative and longtime activist. I highly recommend two things:
1. Read the information at the link; and,
2. Visit or call the guy that makes the predictions.
Of course I am an information junkie, another good way of deciding what is going on is to go out and put your gear in and your binoculars to your eyes.
akfisher78
2012-11-30 02:46:18
I agree with these numbers that Salty posted. I stood on the float at Mist Cove(Deer Lake) and spoke to one of the biologist there and he said next year they were expecting 3 times the return of 2012 which was strong was also a strong year. I also spoke on the dock to the guys at Hidden Falls and they also confirmed the numbers which will be actually back to average for them. This year was bad there. Normally there are fish all over there and this year was hard to even see a few except back in the very back at the Chute
itchyscratchy
2013-01-11 19:37:20
Would have responded earlier but I just got out of jail...
I was framed I am innocent!!
Salty, you said your a data junky. That's interesting because
information is data used in a meaningful way. Data is simply a number while information is generally data accumulated and presented in some meaningful way. I'm guessing you're into information and not data.
Also, I have no doubt Chip or the biologist on the dock are giving precise numbers. I'm not interested in the precision of these numbers. I'm positive these numbers are added and subtracted correctly. I'm more interested in the accuracy of these forecast-ed numbers. For example, at 100 yards you can shoot three rounds from your favorite 30-06 at a paper target and have each round positioned within 1 inch of each other. Good shooting!...not if you are aiming at the center of the target and your group lands 8 inches to the right. Are these forecast numbers hitting the mark accurately, and who defines these “marks”.
Data driven predictions can succeed and they can fail. It is when we deny our role in the process that odds of failure increase. Before we demand more of our data, we need to demand more of ourselves. Meaning, as a leader, you need to make sure we as the consumers of these numbers are safe guarded because many of us rely on this information as a basis of planning, and thus forecasts have a significant impact on our economic fortunes. We hope the proof needed to support these forecast appears as the end results of the run tabulations. Yet, when these forecast-ed numbers are not close to the actual “truth” we seem to show a low tolerance for dissenting opinions and look for simple answers as to why the projections did not fall within range. We look for proof why nature didn't hold up it's part of the forecast agreement, instead of asking why our forecasting models were not able to correctly capture and account for risk so as to move closer to the truth.
In the last few years, how often have we heard NSRAA not understanding the cause of low chum returns. Why where the low return numbers such a shock? Easy answer, the forecast models failed to correctly assess each real world risk factor and correctly assess the impact of these risk factors.
Run data should be straight forward and without much mystery. The models used to produce next years run forecast must use this data as a basis but the models should also try to incorporate uncertainty. I am not familiar with how NSRAA or ADF&G create their models but most likely you plug as much current (prior year data) data as you have and out pops the forecast for the coming year. I'm really not interested in the process they go thru, but rather output. As run information is produced the data is been manipulated into useful information but as we use this information, we impart our own bias. We use raw data in self serving ways to produce information which has an inherit spin. To denie this happens is naive because the numbers have no way of speaking for themselves. We speak for them. We imbue them with meaning. We construe them in self serving ways that are detached from their objective reality.
As a board member of NSRAA, wouldn't it be wise to understand a segment of the organization (forecasting) which has such a far reaching impact on fisherman? I don't doubt that you are reporting the numbers issued by ADF&G, or NSRAA precisely. I am more interested in how much truth is held within the forecasts. Are the forecasting models used producing good information or do these forecasts try to serve other purposes. I suggest spending a little of our money and hire a few really smart guys to analyze how forecasts are created or maybe that is to scary for everyone involved.
Salty, in your relelection post you made several other points. You mentioned Hidden Falls and last years tax assessed on fish caught within the terminal harvest area plus your suggesting a change in how this tax is structured. Salty, a flat tax is a regressive tax. You should know how flat taxes works or do we have to discuss that issue as well. You should be looking out for the little guy as a flat tax takes a bigger bite and has more of an impact on us rather then the big guys. Comparied with Seiners, a Troller doesn't have a chance. Shouldn't you be looking out for Trollers? aren't you suppose to represent that gear group or, are you looking at the larger NSRAA picture?
Speaking of taxes, I heard DIPAC (which is under the umbrella of NSRAA) offered to pay NSRAA and SSRAA cost recovery. DIPAC has completely paid off it's loans and will have excess funds. Why didn't you accept this offer and thus doing away with all hidden falls tax as well as letting the fisherman harvest fish allocated as cost recovery?
Riddle me that Bat Boy.
Salty
2013-01-12 02:35:40
Wow,
A really detailed, thoughtful, and creative analysis of using data and information. Plus an intriguing question or two.
So, without taking too much time away from my task of preparing my taxes and refinancing the house so I continue my expensive trolling habit, I will answer them.
1.
DIPAC is not under the umbrella of NSRAA other than being in our region and the groups have a long history of cooperation. While I am not on the JRPT, Alan Anderson is the NSRAA troll representative, I listened to their December meeting via teleconference. It sounded like I was the only troller in attendance. The possibility of DIPAC funding some CR at NSRAA did come up. Here is the discussion from those draft minutes:
Introduction: Southeastern Alaska Area Enhanced Salmon Allocation Management Plan (5 AAC 33.364), Alaska Board of Fisheries Finding #94-02-FB, lists fourteen guiding principles which includes: 1(A) Performance Goals: Hatchery program plans and performance, over time, should provide a 70% contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries. Out of recognition for those hatcheries not receiving any salmon enhancement tax revenues, a 60% contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries is an acceptable goal. This goal should be expanded to 70% when these non-association hatcheries retire their existing debt obligation to the State of Alaska.
Discussion: The NSRAA interpretation of the guideline is that once the cost recovery and broodstock goals are met, the rest of the production goes to common property, as opposed to operating under 30% of revenue. SSRAA’s corporate goal is 75% common property and 25% cost recovery. The guideline in the BOF findings was created as reasonable goals given the prices at the time and was not meant to limit contribution to the common property. The current price of fish has allowed some producers to surpass those contribution goals.
DIPAC’s debt peaked at $30 million, but with better marine survivals as well as increased prices should allow debt to be paid off this year. Funds in excess of cost have been aggressively applied to the debt. The DIPAC board is looking at what to do next including; giving the University money, creating a research program, and contributing to other organizations to pay for cost recovery. DIPAC is using one million dollars of the reserve fund as an endowment fund for scholarships. DIPAC had a 63% contribution to common property this year, which is the first time they broke the 60% guideline. The two Amalga Harbor SHA seine openings helped to contribute to the common property. Nine million chum salmon have been shifted from Amalga Harbor to Boat Harbor which will also help to contribute to common property when those fish return. The JSERPT would like to hear some ideas from DIPAC as to what they will do with their surplus money once all debts are paid off.
We have not seen the offer from DIPAC as a board yet. Here is the latest on that from our Executive Director in a monthly report I got today:
More later
Salty
2013-01-12 03:07:40
Great question, and since I have spent hours in discussions with the Association forecasters, Susan Dougherty, and Chip Blair, I am probably a good troller source for the answer. It is my opinion that both of these individuals are exceptional at what they do. But, forecasting salmon returns is not a precise science, and errors will be made. I fondly remember an ADF&G management biologist telling me years ago that the Department would have been as close on their SE Pink predictions if they had been blindfolded throwing darts at possible returns on a dart board across the room. Things have undoubtedly improved since then but salmon survival still remains a relative mystery.
Nevertheless, I pay a lot of attention to ADF&G, NMFS, and SE hatchery predictions. I also talk to the individuals involved to get a feeling of their judgement beyond the data and official printed interpretations. I also usually talk to area managers in SE to get their feeling. Then I talk to other fishermen who annually observe fry and smolt emigrations around SE. Finally, I consider what I see emigrating in terms of fry and smolt each spring, what I saw the fall before, and what came up in coho stomachs the summer before.
So, "how much truth" is in these forecasts? My feeling is that the more information you gather, combined with some understanding of statistics and models, but most important an interpretation of the all the individuals involved "gut feeling" gives you your own truth of the most likely future returns. Then you truth test that with what is happening in season.
I think the forecasting produces good information and I don't think the forecasters are serving other purposes. I don't think hiring outside experts to analyze the predictions would help. But, I don't think you are going to get a foolproof answer on what the salmon return will be to a specific site every year. Intelligent people will weigh all the information and come up with different conclusions.
Salty
2013-01-12 03:29:39
Good question again.
Here is my thinking on why the "Assessment" should be a flat rate of so many cents per pound rather than a % of the sales price. A little history here, I was involved in the first discussions of Cost Recovery to pay for the hatcheries way back in 76 when I was one of the founders of NSRAA, it's first Board Secretary, and when I worked for the Association in 77-78. I was uncomfortable with Cost Recovery by the hatchery operators then because I felt, and still feel, we were creating another de-facto salmon harvest gear group. My feeling was that all the fish harvested for sale should go through the common property fisheries.
So, I have been an interested follower of the Seiners initiative to develop legislation and implement an assessment method for paying for hatchery expenses. I attended the meeting at NSRAA with Dept. of Law etc. to set up the program. Unfortunately, I did not see the problem with an assessment based on a % of the sales price while the legislation was being worked up. I saw it at the meeting with fishermen, NSRAA, ADF&G, and Revenue. I immediately pointed out the problem which is that trollers in particular, but others also, may have different markets that pay at different rates.
For example, because of our handling practices, trollers commonly get at least a nickle a pound more for round chums in hatchery fisheries than the net harvesters. So if the Assessment is a percentage of the price paid then trollers will be paying more for each fish. Whereas if it is a flat rate of so many cents per pound everyone pays the same per fish. Also, it is much easier to manage for the Association. They can set what they think they need in cents per pound in March and don't have to worry about how the price fluctuates between then and the harvest.
Seiners and NSRAA staff saw the sense in this immediately and recommended to the Board that we try to get it changed. Unfortunately, that means changing the legislation etc. and dealing with Revenue and Dept. of Law.
I would contend that my position on this issue reflects troll interests in that we don't want to pay more in Assessment than the net groups for the same fish.
SE AK
2013-01-15 23:46:38
Maybe if the proposed Pelican hatchery were approved it would help us to get closer to our allocated share of hatchery fish. Approval of the Excursion Inlet hatchery wouldn't hurt either. I'm sure that the seiners wouldn't mind, though I wouldn't think that the gillnetters would like their fish tax money going to runs that they never get a shot at. Could this be part of the problem that these projects are facing? I know that conflilcts with wild runs are stated as a problem with the Pelican hatchery, however many of the locals who have been there a long time have told me that the Lisianski Inlet runs have been mostly dead since seiners bluestoned all of the streams in the area decades ago. Besides, this is Southeast Alaska. Where is there not a wild run?
Salty
2013-01-16 00:47:42
I spent time talking to both Paul Johnson and Steve Reifenstuhl about Pelican and Excursion today. I am not giving up on Pelican as either a hatchery or release site. Discussions are ongoing.
SE AK
2013-01-16 04:28:25
Thanks for your work on behalf of those projects. If there is anything that I could do to help the odds of either of them, especially Pelican let me know.
Salty
2013-03-05 03:47:41
Fellow trollers,
Here is the link to the NSRAA agenda for tomorrow and Wednesday, March 5 and 6.
Here is the agenda:
NSRAA Annual Board of Director’s Meeting
March 5 & 6, 2013
Sitka, Alaska
Agenda
Tuesday March 5, 2013
Full Board Convenes at 9 a.m.
9:00 a.m. Ω Call to Order
Ω Roll Call
Ω Establish Quorum
Ω Approve Agenda
Ω Approve Minutes of November 13 & 14, 2012 Meeting
Ω Election Committee Report
Ω Certify Election Results & Seat New Board Members
Ω Election of Officers- President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer
Ω Conflict of Interest Statements
9:30 a.m. General Manager’s Report
9:45 a.m. Operations Manager’s Report
10:00 a.m. Operation Plans & Project Update
Ω Hidden Falls Hatchery – Adam Olson, Hatchery Manager (Tab 5)
10:15 a.m. to 10:30 Break
Ω Coho Lake Rearing – Carrington Gorman, Project Leader (Tab 6)
Ω Medvejie Hatchery – Scott Wagner, (Tab 4)
Ω Haines Projects – Scott Wagner (Tab 7)
11:15 a.m. Hidden Falls & Mist Cove Closure Lines for Broodstock & Economic Harvest
11:30 a.m. Electronic Board meetings – Cost, Convenience, Efficiency
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:30 p.m. DIPAC Funding – Eric Prestegard, Executive Director
2:00 p.m. Deep Inlet Harvest Plan
4:30 p.m. Sitka Sound Science Center – Lisa Busch
4:45 p.m. Harvest & Cost Recovery Plans –
Ω Hidden Falls Chum – Tax Assessment 20%
Ω Deep Inlet/Medvejie Chum – Bid April ’13; Chinook – Need Bid for ‘13
Ω Mist Cove & Hidden Falls Coho Trident Multi-year
Ω Carcasses All Facilities – Trident/HF & Silver Bay/Medvejie Multi-year
5:00 p.m. Adjourn until Wednesday @ 9 a.m.
5:10 p.m. Budget Committee Meeting
5:30 p.m. Allocation Plan Meeting Wednesday March 6, 2013
9:00 a.m. Reserve Accounts & Financial Snapshot – Update & Review
9:15 a.m. Budget & Income Plan for FY’14 – General Manager
9:30 a.m. Budget Committee Report and Recommendation – Deborah Lyons
Ω FY’14 Operational Budget Approval $5,897,186.00
Ω FY’14 Capital Budget Approval $389,454.00
$6,286,640.00
10:30 a.m. Break
11:00 a.m. General Manager Evaluation – Kevin McDougall
11:15 a.m. Pelican Representative – Norm Carson
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:30 a.m. Benefit Cost Analysis – Chip Blair
2:00 p.m NSRAA Scholarship
2:15 p.m. Committee Vacancies – Investment & New Facilities
3:30 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m UFA Report – Richie Davis
4:45 p.m. Set Fall Meeting Date
5:00 p.m Adjourn
dilligaf
2013-03-05 19:41:27
I'm still waiting for an apology from ATA for trying to cut the hand troller out in the late seventies and early eighties. I remember taking one of my gurdies off because of their input to the board. Fortunately before the season started, that one line decision was reversed and we were allowed 2 lines. As a hand troller in those days, I remember ATA hating on us and trying to ruin us. I realize that the association has done wonderful things for all trollers since, but my memory is long. Two high mucky mucks in the association once explained to me that every fish I caught was one less THEY would catch. Hard to forget that.
Now that I've said this, I will perhaps join both associations but it needed to be said. Long live the putt putt fisherman.
Salty
2013-03-07 02:53:39
dilligaf,
I represented the Sitka Handtrollers during the battles with the power trollers in the late 70's. I made my peace with ATA a long time ago, served two terms on the ATA Board, during which I fought hard for ATA to extend its membership to include handtrollers. They do now and SE troll groups CTA and ATA work well together.
I just heard a lot about how every chum trollers catch is one less than the net groups catch. Recuperating from a tough NSRAA Board meeting where the net groups and some troll reps were not interested in trollers improving their harvest of NSRAA chums. I may post a report here later in the week. On the other hand folks, there are some wonderful trollers out there who are rising to the challenge and fighting for our whole industry. Some young, some old, some with 40 plus years of experience and some only a couple of years into the fishery. It is inspiring and rejuvenating.
Eric