Yakutat Tax? - Forums Archive

JYDPDX

2013-02-01 18:17:53

Upon reviewing the YRAA's site and most of the PDF's I didn't see any estimates on what the installation and implementation of a "Chum or Pink" hatchery would cost. By the way, are chum and pink interchangeable? Nor any estimates for the how much revenue a tax in the area would generate. Perhaps I missed or overlooked something.

Why should I support a tax on trollers for a hypothetical hatchery at an undecided location that produces and undecided species?

I am a little skeptical. Although, I agree that a hatchery in the yakutat area is possibly a very good idea (for net fishermen), I am wondering how it will be payed for and what the expected budget is for the project.

Having looked at the PDF on their website for the definition of the Yakutat area it seems that anyone trolling for Cohos or Kings off of cape fair-weather and North will be subject to this taxation for a "chum or pink" hatchery. I see this as being fundamentally wrong. I understand they need to fund the "chum or pink" hatchery and applaud the efforts, but taxing King and Coho fishermen is out of line in my opinion. The tax does not benefit them in anyway that I can tell. The result may possibly even be a hinderance.

I don't have charting software handy but I am going to have to assume the fairweather grounds is south of that line.

From what I gather, in supporting this tax, we are taking proceeds out of our fish checks on good faith that in the distant future the YRAA MIGHT get the ball rolling on enhanced Coho and/or maybe Kings AFTER the yakutat net guys start padding the pockets with (according to the PDFs) $50k per boat, per year of extra fishing revenue from the proposed/hypothetical "Chum or Pink" hatchery.

Maybe someone can tell me what I am missing here……

yak2you2

2013-02-01 19:06:26

First, the Yakutat area is the only place you don't pay an enhancement tax. What usually happens in fact, is even if fish weren't caught in this area, they often get labeled as such, just to avoid paying the enhancement tax where they were delivered. But lets assume you actually caught some fish on the Fairweather grounds, and let's go ahead and call them kings or cohos. Why should some of your money go towards making chum salmon? Pretty simple really. We can't all survive on the wild kings and cohos anymore. Period.

Chums and pinks are cheap, and fast to make. They are hearty, and have good return numbers. There are essentially no wild chums in this area, so no preponderance of dealing with genetic straying. So why should a Fairweather ground king troller be donating to this effort? Well, how many kings is there really? is there enough for all those guys fishing chums in Icy Straits to come out and join you? Each guy who goes chum fishing, leaves more on the table for the guys still fishing wild kings and cohos.

In Yakutat, we are trying to stay away from the kind of narrowminded, greedy, industry infighting that has plagued S.E. As an outsider, watching the bitter feuding going on between gillnetters and trollers in S.E. at all the meetings it always amazes me. I think to myself, " you guys fish the same fish, your playing on the same team." If your not going to play nice with the other guys on your team, who do you think is going to win? You guessed it, the sport fishermen and charter boats.

So I find the comment about the " Yakutat net guys padding their pockets", a little ridiculous. I have a gillnet permit. Guilty, as charged. I also have a hand troll permit, which I fish very hard, all year around. I am the one and only hand troll representative on the Alaska Trollers Association board of directors, and I am also representing the troll industry on the board of directors of YRAA. I hear this same type of horseshit from some of my lifelong gillnetter buddies. " all you care about is helping out your troller buddies." Whaa, Whaa !! My hope is to see both industries get a fair share, and I hope to see both industries thrive off of the seeds were trying to plant. As a troller, let me assure you, you couldn't ask for better representation of the troll fleet than the guys on the YRAA board.

Lastly, if you havn't been up here before, here's a newsflash, there are very few wild kings and cohos left up here. I'm not talking about a few bad years. I'm talking about a total collapse. We are most definitely at the point where man made salmon is all were going to have.

Salty

2013-02-01 21:10:15

Thanks for coming up Case. Also thanks for all the good work you and the Yakutat trollers have done over the years helping all of us out on improving things for the winter fishery. For those of you who don't know the reason the winter fishery goes until we catch the 45,000 GHL or May 1 (April 15) is because of work of the Yakutat trollers. (I had proposed this for many years but it wasn't until Yakutat and ATA weighed in and supported it that it passed.)

Also, the reason our Alaska Hatchery Kings that we harvest in the winter (4-5,000) will be added on to our winter troll harvest GHL is because Case worked tirelessly on it at the BOF last year. (I and Ralph Guthrie had proposed it for a number of years and John Murray brought it to the Sitka Fish & Game AC last cycle and they sponsored it.) Without Case's hard work our winter season would close on April 15th.

About half the value of Alaska Salmon is hatchery produced salmon. I applaud the effort of the YRAA to get organized and start producing some fish. The value of hachery salmon harvested by the commercial gear groups in SE Alaska last year was over $65 million. The return on the % enchancement tax to fishermen is usually well over 10-1. You want some bang for your buck, invest it in a SE hatchery program.

I just spent an hour this morning meeting with people about improving troll share of SE Alaska hatchery harvest. I am continuing to work on getting new production going in SE. I would love to see Yakutat develop a hatchery program that benefits both the locals and provides another opportunity for SE trollers.

JYDPDX

2013-02-01 21:33:22

You did not answer any of the, more than reasonable, questions I posed. Your defensive rant hasn't swayed me in any way.

There are cohos north of cape fairweather and there are kings on the grounds.

Some of us (a lot of us) do just fine "surviving" without chums and pinks. What you mean is that "you" cant survive without a "chum or Pink" fishery in Yakutat. That doesn't mean that I/we should have to pay for it.

You answered none of my concerns about how the planning of this supposed hatchery has no ground. How much will it cost? How much tax revenue will be created to pay for it? What species? Do your job. My concerns are valid.

Whether or not the fair-weather grounds are included in this tax area is also a very valid concern. You did not address that, you only said that you think the grounds fish (Kings) should be taxed to develop your new fishery (Chums).

I wonder how many of the "trollers" on the YRAA board have gillnet permits as well. Is this truly a viable chum or pink troll fishery for yakutat? I dont buy your argument that having a Chum "troll" fishery in Yakutat bay will take heat off of the boats fishing Kings on the fairweather grounds. I will concede is has happened down south, but I dont believe we are comparing apple to apples in this case.

"Lastly, if you havn't been up here before, here's a newsflash, there are very few wild kings and cohos left up here. I'm not talking about a few bad years. I'm talking about a total collapse. We are most definitely at the point where man made salmon is all were going to have."

This sounds like desperation for the Yakutat fleet and doesn't agree with what you said about wanting what is best for everyone.

There has been absolutely NO so called "collapse" of Kings from the Fairweather Grounds. And there are cohos south of you but you may not know because you cant travel there in your skiff. Don't make this out to be big boat Vs. little boat either, its just a fact. The way I am reading this is that you figure you can generate revenue from the grounds and inner bank boats' Kings and Coho to save your local fishery which is of very minute benefit for any of the aforementioned boats you would be taxing.

It sounds very much like this tax innovative is trying to pull a fast one.

Otherwise move the tax line up to exclude the Grounds and the inner bank. You should not be getting tax revenue from King and Coho boats to create a chum fishery in Yakutat Bay.

I agree about the infighting and I would like to be your ally, I want you to get a hatchery in Yakutat but until you can answer some very reasonable questions and concerns I will have to remain skeptical.

yak2you2

2013-02-01 23:15:34

As you admit, those of you surviving off of the king and cohos, is do at lease in part, to less pressure by way of the guys who are busy fishing chums in S.E. Have you talked to any of these guys lately? These are the guys who are coming up with phrases like, "not so Neets Bay". It's crowded from what I hear. How long is going to be before these guys start coming back out to share with you? So I'll say it again, troll permits are good up here too. Apples CAN be compared to apples in this case, if we get a chum or pink fishery started, there will most definitely be a share allocated to troll.

How much will it cost? no one knows yet. We have to hear from the State what, where, and how big the scope of our operation will be. Be assured that what ever it it takes to build it, your tax dollars will be but a tiny fraction of the total sum. We have applied for Army Corp. grants, State funding, etc.

It sure sounds like you have a burr under your bonnet against gillnetters. Should it matter who all on the board has dual permits? I prefer to be judged by actions and how I vote if you don't mind, guessing most boardmembers would feel that way.

Yes, everything North of Fairweather will be included in the tax area. Would you feel differently if it was included in the NSRAA district? Did you get this upset when NSRAA was initiated? Or do you simply feel like you should have your own private little piece of the ocean where you don't have to pay any tax?

Initially, your taxes dollars would go towards build a facility that produces chums and/or pinks, and yeah, doesn't sound like your personally planning on recouping much money from it. Once it's built though, and should we figure out how to include kings and cohos into the spectrum, what then? Do you think you shouldn't have to pay until there's some high dollar fish made available to you immediately? So if we could somehow exclude you personally from the tax, built the facility, made some kings, how exactly would we go about excluding you from catching any of them since you helped build nothing?

Lastly, the stereotype of thinking that Yakutat's fishermen are just a bunch of skiff driving, gillnetter wolves hiding under troller cloaks is unfounded. There 80- 100 trollers up here, probably 40 of which are power trollers. A couple of doz. of those can, and do travel up and down the coast, and we catch fish just fine. I would guess that puts us at least on average with any other town our size in S.E. of per capita trollers.

Taxes are a funny thing. They are about serving the common good, not individuals. When you pay your federal taxes, some it is earmarked to pay for schools, whether you have kids, or not. Thats just how they have to work. Thats what were trying to do, think about whats good for the fleet as a whole, ALL salmon fishermen that is. You can continue to hold on to the dream of being the last of the buffalo hunters chasing a little pocket of cohos off of Lituya Bay ( how many of which are wild again by the way? NSRAA or SSRAA getting any taxes for the enhanced ones?) , or an ever shrinking quota of treaty kings on the grounds, but whats best for the fleets, both of them, is making some sustainable fish.

Why chums and/or pinks at first? Not simply "because were gillnetters", but because they're a lot more dependable, and it makes good sense to start off a new business, which is essentially what a hatchery will be, with something that is the least risky. After we get some roots planted, then we branch out into the things we all want to see more of.

Salty

2013-02-02 01:55:10

Good questions Joe,

Here is a link to the ADF&G Fishing District Maps. It looks to me like the Fairweather Grounds are south of the areas in District 189 to be taxed. Perhaps Case can clarify that. It looks to me like the Grounds are in District 157 which would not be included in the tax.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=CommercialByFisherySalmon.salmonmaps_districts_yakutat

Hopefully we can all step back and try to shed more light than heat on the issue.

yak2you2

2013-02-02 15:49:48

Some of your questions are reasonable, but you say "you don't like the infighting either". Yet from the way you express your concerns about who has what dual permits though, you are a part of that whole feudal enigma. Nothing pisses me off faster than guys from both sides trying to force me to choose whether I fight for the blue, or the grey. I am not a part of the troller Vs. gillnetter war, and I never will be. I am both. I enjoy doing each equally as much, and I will support both, equally as much. My intention is to see opportunity for both to succeed. I can't speak for the rest of the boardmembers, but I would venture to guess you would hear the rest of them voice a similar desire. If we get this going, whether it's chums, humpies, or other species, there will always be opportunity for gillnetters AND trollers to harvest a share in the catch. To imply that intentions will be for any less, is considered an insult, in my book.

So, I will try again to answer your questions.

It's been more than a year, since the meeting where boundaries were drawn, but I think the Fairweather grounds are excluded from the tax area. That is my personal interpretation.

Upon reviewing the YRAA's site and most of the PDF's I didn't see any estimates on what the installation and implementation of a "Chum or Pink" hatchery would cost. YRAA IS STILL INVESTIGATING LOCATIONS AND THEREFORE DON’T HAVE A SET FIGURE OR BUDGET YET. WATER TESTING/ WATER FLOW WILL BE CONDUCTED THIS SPRING AND SUMMER AS WELL AS TEMPERATURE AND OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT FROM ADFG. YRAA IS LOOKING AT BUT DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK OUT TO USE A BUILDING THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR THE HATCHERY. IF A LEASE CAN BE SECURED IT WILL BE CHEAPER THAN TRYING TO BUILD BRAND NEW.

By the way, are chum and pink interchangeable? Nor any estimates for the how much revenue a tax in the area would generate. Perhaps I missed or overlooked something. DEPENDS UPON HOW THE PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR – FOR EXAMPLE PORT ARMSTRONG HAS A PERMIT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF EGGS, WHICH CAN BE A COMBINATION OF PINK OR CHUM. AGAIN WE NEED MORE INFORMATION BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE WHETHER YRAA WILL APPLY FOR BOTH SPECIES OR JUST ONE TO START.

Why should I support a tax on trollers for a hypothetical hatchery at an undecided location that produces and undecided species? FOR THE SAME REASON SE FISHERMEN SUPPORTED NSRAA AND SSRAA AS THEY WERE JUST GETTING STARTED. THE SSRAA WEBSITE HAS A PAGE TELLING ABOUT THE FIRST 10 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO GET STARTED. AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND AS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE YRAA BOARD MEETINGS AND THE RPT MEETING AS THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT PROCESS.

I am a little skeptical. Although, I agree that a hatchery in the yakutat area is possibly a very good idea (for net fishermen), I am wondering how it will be payed for and what the expected budget is for the project. AS IN THE PLANNING FOR ANY HATCHERY PROJECT/REMOTE RELEASE SITE THERE IS INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE GATHERED TO DETERMINE THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT AND THEN A BUDGET WILL BE DEVELOPED. THE PROJECT WILL BE PAID FOR THE SAME WAY AS THE PROJECTS IN SE ARE BY A COMBINATION OF TAXES, COST RECOVERY AND USE OF THE STATE LOAN PROGRAM.

Having looked at the PDF on their website for the definition of the Yakutat area it seems that anyone trolling for Cohos or Kings off of cape fair-weather and North will be subject to this taxation for a "chum or pink" hatchery. I see this as being fundamentally wrong. I understand they need to fund the "chum or pink" hatchery and applaud the efforts, but taxing King and Coho fishermen is out of line in my opinion. The tax does not benefit them in anyway that I can tell. The result may possibly even be a hinderance. DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT YOUR CURRENT 3% TAX ASSESSMENT TO NSRAA AND SSRAA GOES TO PRODUCE SPECIES OTHER THAN KINGS THAT YOU PAY FOR? A FISHERMAN FISHING A SE TROLL PERMIT WILL NEVER PAY MORE THAN 3% BUT IN SOME AREAS (THE YAKUTAT REGION WILL BE A 2% TAX) A LOT OF TROLLERS LANDING FISH IN SITKA PAY THE 3% ENHANCEMENT TAX THAT TRUTHFULLY CAME FROM THE YAKUTAT REGION. IF THE TAX PASSES, PROCESSORS WILL HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL IN DETERMINING EXACTLY WHERE THE HARVEST WAS CAUGHT AND COLLECTING THE CORRECT FEE. BECAUSE TAXES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ON FISH THAT TECHNICALLY SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN – IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TAX FUNDS THAT WILL BE GENERATED BUT WE ARE ESTIMATED APPROXIMATELY $75K TO $125K. THIS IS BASED ON THE 1% LANDING TAX THAT THE CITY OF YAKUTAT ASSESSES THAT THEY WILL PHASE OUT IF THE ENHANCMENT TAX PASSES.

Hopefully this answers some or all of your questions. You should also note that implementation of this tax was voted on and approved of at the last ATA board meeting.

Salty

2013-02-02 18:52:03

Thanks Joe and Case. After re-thinking this question I am still voting for it. Got my ballot on the yellow sheet right here.

An interesting side story here. In 1977 I was hired to help organize NSRAA and encourage fishermen around Northern SE to vote for an enhancement tax. We won that vote in 1978. The interesting history is that the ardent supporters were trollers, seiners mostly ended up coming on board, and Northern SE Gillnetters, particularly in Haines and Juneau were the most skeptical and in some cases adamantly opposed. I conducted tense meetings in both Juneau and Haines. In Juneau I physically separated a gillnetter and seiner who had squared off in front of the room as the meeting started.

Now years later, after gillnetters sued to get their share, a task force which developed an allocation plan endorsed by the gear groups and unanimously passed by the BOF, the value of enhanced salmon harvest in SE by the commercial salmon gear groups was over $65 million in 2012. Gillnetters are way above their allocated share, seiners are barely within their's and trollers were $12 million short of the mid range of their allocated share in 2012. Interesting how the group most opposed is now benefiting the most and the group that lead the organizing in Northern SE, trollers, are relatively left behind. But, over 7 million worth of enhanced salmon to trollers and the ability to fish in May and June because of SE enhanced Chinook are definitely helpful.

So, my point is that we don't really know how the Yakutat hatchery program will evolve. Based on the experience in Prince William Sound and SE though we can be relatively confident millions of dollars of salmon will eventually be generated for the commercial fisheries.

While I am unlikely to harvest those fish, I have benefited greatly from the investment fishermen in SE made in the hatchery program even when some of them realized that by the time the returns developed they would most likely be retired.

yak2you2

2013-02-03 05:46:19

How this differs from S.E. is this. There is not a relativly even number of gillnet permits vs. Troll permits who will vote on this. S.E. gillnet permits are not good here, only troll permits. So there's a possible 3,120 combined troll permits, and 157 gillnet permits that are eligble to vote. The issue of whether or not were going have a hatchery program in this area is very much in the hands of the troll fleet. It comes down to whether or not the troll fleet wants to take a chance of having more fish available, more room to fish for them, and whether not or they will have faith in our newly created YRAA. We've gotten it started, but it very much is your organization, as much as it is anyone elses. Any troller is eligible to run for a seat on the board, vote for who fills what seats, and attend any board meeting or regional planning meeting to have their say.

It will be important to vote if your interested, we'll need all the positive votes we can get.

Salty

2013-02-03 07:15:28

Case, are the seats allocated like they are at SSRAA and NSRAA?

yak2you2

2013-02-03 07:22:40

I'm not sure how SSRAA and NSRAA seats are allocated, but we generally tried to model ourselves the same. The allocative breakdown of representaion is posted on the website.

yak2you2

2013-02-06 04:43:20

The Yakutat 2% tax is not added onto the 3% tax already paid in Southeast Alaska. They are separate taxes and depending upon where you fish is what tax rate you will be charged. If you fish NW of the latitude of Cape Fairweather you will be charged 2% paid to YRAA, if you fish below Cape Fairweather inside of 3 miles you will be charged 3% which will go to NSRAA or SSRAA if you fish Southern SE.

Kingbonker

2013-02-11 02:16:30

I live and fish out of yak, and I don't support any chum or other hatchery . Personally I don't think its needed!

Those of us who really fish for a living here don't .

Yak is what I would call a weekend warrior , not necessarily on weekends but on his days off from his job, if he didn't fish at all in a season not much would change for him.

You can tell from previous post that he really is anti-big boat" phallic powertrollers" is what he has said in past posts .

Just wanted to clear up some stuff , yak has always been known for off the wall ideas , he means good , but remember he doesnt represent me or my running buddies, because we are phallic powertrollers.

Salty

2013-02-11 02:43:29

So, Kingbonker, you are going to tie your boat up the 15th of April or after we catch 45,000 winter kings while the rest of us get to fish to the first of May or we catch 45,000 plus the 4-5,000 Alaska Hatchery Kings that will be added on? Actually the number would be a lot less if some of us hadn't fought like hell for the winter fishery 20 years ago. If you go trolling between April 14 and May 1 then you are fishing because the Yakutat AC and most importantly, Yak, has fought like hell for you and the rest of SE trollers to be able to fish during this time. The added on hatchery kings, which in some years might get you as much as a week the end of April, to the winter fishery is one way Yakutat trollers can benefit directly from our 3% investment in hatcheries, that you don't pay when you fish locally.

Perhaps I am coming on a little strong, and I have heard the resentment from Yakutat fishermen because Yak has a good job, but I try to be informed about the hands that are feeding me and try not to bite them.

Kingbonker

2013-02-11 02:56:32

Hey salty don't get me going !

I like yak don't get me wrong , you act like yak saved the fishery.

All I'm saying is he doesn't represent the people he claims to , in my opinion , but opinions are like buttholes , everybody has one , and everyone stinks. This will be my last post , don't won't to be part of this little bitch club anyways.

Salty

2013-02-11 03:51:54

Didn't save it, didn't need saving. Just made it better.

Abundance

2013-02-11 05:28:34

Hey, kingbonker, I seems to me you must have seen something that you liked on here, or else you wouldn't have joined up. Look behind you on this thread. You have people who have the same opinion as you, who are still on here. I don't know much about the Yakutat area, so I am keeping my opinions on this issue to the minimum. I can say, I just got my list from ADF&G of hatchery fish I caught. I don't know what we would do without them. We probably would survive, but not as well, that's for sure. I didn't like the idea of chum fishing either. Then I gave it a try, and boy is it a blast when it works. Well worth the meager tax, even if I don't personally fish at every hatchery I help pay for. It does seem like a number of people up your way don't think it would. Maybe you are right, but I don't know of anyplace that has a hatchery and fishermen who regret it.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 05:21:20

A couple of points to clear up for you "king bonker". First you've attempted to make this out me by saying "I have off the wall ideas." This isn't about me. YRAA is an organization, not jist one man. All of the people on the board, and most of the people in Yakutat support the concept of hatcheies and what tjey can potentially do for all fisheries involved. That means mamy of your friends, family, even your processor support YRAA. I am the chairman of the Yakutat regional advisory committee, but I have never once put in a proposal to the board of fisheries on my own. Every proposal I've ever gone and represented, was put for by a majority of the a.c. board. There are many members of Yakutat on both boards, so the off the wall ideas as you call them, are actually the work of many people, not just one.

State statistics will show that the average Yakutat gillnetter made around 10,000 dollars a year for quite some time, and I only know of one guy, who makes close to what could be called a living trolling out of Yakutat, and even he has a wife with a good job. So, finding very many "real fisherman" who agree with you, is going to be tough.

In the past, I was player of the handtroller vs. Powertroller game, but I've long since aclnowledged the error of dividing the troll fleet in this fashion. Since then I've sent 4 years on the ATA board of directors, and met and worked with trollers of all types. Freezers, icers, hand and power, all for the common good of

Salty

2013-02-13 05:56:45

Yak works well with me with can be quite a challenge.

tkbluefin

2013-02-13 06:08:48

A question: Would hatchery pinks and chums in the Yakutat area "out-compete" or "crowd-out" the native cohos?

Is it possible that the end result would be a downgrading of the value chain?? Why shouldn't those funds be targeted

to the species that are being taxed??

yak2you2

2013-02-13 07:32:32

Dang, my computer died before I could spell check, or finish my last post. Anyway, I like power trollers, and the older I get the more I want one myself. I encourage all trollers to work with each other, gillnetters and trollers to work together, there just is no room any more in today's economy for petty bicker within the fleet. Were all commercial fishermen and there's damn few of us left. Were out numbered by those who are all to ready to take things from us. We have to work together. There is one more old stereotype that is ready for the grave too, a permit holder has paid his dues, whether he has a job, or not. Would you be jealous of someone who is old, and doesn't get out much? Plenty of semi-retired fisherman out there too. Hopefully that clears some things up for you kingbonker, good fishin' to you.

Now, hopefully we can stay on a positive track. I will try to answer your questions bluefin, but the truth is, I have only just begun my journey to learn more about the world of hatcheries myself. I've never sat on a board that has set one up, or run one before. I've never fished around them, and have only a rudimentary knowledge of how they work. I'll do my best, so if anyone sees that I've gotten something wrong, please feel free to jump in and provide the correct information.

Regarding the question about whether or not hatchery chums or pinks would crowd out native species. That was one of the first questions asked by our new board when the state hatchery managers came to help us set up. It was explained to us by the experts that they have never felt that it does affect wild species. Most of the feeding goes on far away where ever it is that salmon travel to. Consider this, there are dozens of hatcheries in existence, most nearby wild stocks that as far as I know are quite healthy.

Regarding why the funds should be used to enhance the the species the tax came from. All hatchery areas operate this way. Money is collected into a common pot, and then distributed wherever the need for increases in various species will allow. Meaning I think of it like this. Some years you might have a banner year on chums lets say, bring in x amount of money, but only be able to allocate say 80% of that money back to chums, before your capped out. After that, the remaining money goes toward helping out other species. In this way, all species are able to help each other out during lean years. Not to mention, that all species are interconnected in the fashion that making more chums with coho troller taxes helps a coho troller in the long run by way of creating another fishery to take some of the pressure off of the fishery your in, and allowing you a bigger piece of the pie.

In Yakutat's case where we have no hatchery fish of any kind, there's a whole new set of factors involved. The state has very specific rules for releasing hatchery fish near existing wild stocks of the same species. We have no wild chums near by where the hatcheries sites are proposed, so this makes them an easy place to start. Later, when there is some capital built up to work with, and the facility is established, then we can look at studies to determine the feasibility of a coho program, or chinook. Releasing chums and pinks, is pennies, where cohos are dollars, and, they have much better return rates, so there is a lot better odds of success for a fledgling program with the safer chums and pinks. We will be securing a loan with the commitment of your tax dollars, money will be stretched at first with having to start the whole program from the ground up, we have to give it a while to build it's self up a bank account to be able to branch out and taker bigger risks with later.

Here's another to thing to consider, from what I see of how it is in S.E., the concern is always that the troll fleet has a hard time catching their allocated share. I can see where this would make guys hesitant to want to invest in a species that their user group isn't taking full advantage of. Seems like the reason for troll not getting their share caught is usually center around nets and hooks don't mix well together. The areas where the fish are the thickest are usually pretty crowded, and trollers have a tough time getting into the fish. Again I'll say it, this is speculation on my part, I've never been there, this is just how it's been explained to me. Well, I envision a lot less of these kinds of problems in the Yakutat area. S.E. gillnet permits are not valid up here, only troll. So, the only competition would be between a handful of local setnetters and trollers. It would be apples and oranges compared to the current competition between the equally sized drift fleet of S.E. and trollers. I think trollers would be able to access much better up here, and be able to fulfill their allocation. That is my personal way of understanding why we are starting with chums, and/or pinks. Hope that answers your questions.

JYDPDX

2013-02-13 08:17:00

" helps a coho troller in the long run by way of creating another fishery to take some of the pressure off of the fishery your in, and allowing you a bigger piece of the pie. "

Again with this argument. I said before you are comparing apples to oranges and you ignore that aspect and continue with this. You should know better than anyone, Its a very very long run on the OUTSIDE to get up there. Who is going to travel that far for a new and experimental chum or pink hatchery run? Why shouldn't you build the hatchery in a location that trollers actually have access to?

The more you talk about this less inclined I am to vote for it.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 08:46:09

You apparently didn't read everything wrote. YOU, should know better than anyone, that it's crowded down there. How many drifters you share with? We don't have those up here.

So, I envision trollers coming here who want to get away from the crowds. Personally, I don't know how you guys can stand the merry-go-round. I grate my teeth when I see some of the pictures posted on here.

There's a half dozen or so guys now, and more every year who leave here, and travel down to S.E. to partake in the chum fisheries. Takes them less than a day to run, weather providing. Lots of runs in S.E. are farther than that, and, lots of guys fish on the OUTSIDE for a lot longer than that.

If you don't want to be a chum fisherman, thats cool, but you can't deny that trollers will fish them, and it will have a positive impact on your fishery. If we get a million chums coming back here, and only a handful of gillnetters in skiffs to share them with, are you really going to tell me with a straight face you don't think the heavy duty new chum trollers of S.E. aren't going to come get in on it?

yak2you2

2013-02-13 08:49:06

Salty is already plotting a course.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 09:00:07

I know what your thinking, so before you even say it, i'll answer it for you. Million fish? I don't know how many we'll get back, hell I don't even know how many they're going to let us start with yet. All fishing is gambling and dreaming though isn't it?

JYDPDX

2013-02-13 15:44:54

Yeah, maybe in your 40 knot skiff on a "light winds" forecast, with some fuel barrels on board. Everyone knows that's a long unprotected run, no where to hide and you can get you ass stuck up there for a very long time. Way different that any other passage in SE. Very few boats will do that for any number of projected chum run and it is distinctly different from Icy strait or Neats Bay in that regard.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 16:46:51

When I was a kid, back when we had coho here, I mean really had some coho, there would be 200 out of town trollers anchored up in Yakutat most of the season. Every once in a while we still get flurry of 30 or so boats run up here. Find someone who's done it a few times to run with and it will make you more comfortable. One kid just left here early yesterday morning, he made Icy straights last night. 40 ft.,not 40 knots. Chums equal money to chum trollers, simple as that. They'll run as far for money as you would for cohos. Some guys talk of wishing we could go even farther West than Suckling.

Not fair to call it to small to atract anybody yet, we don't yet even know the scope of what were going to be allowed for a first batch.

It sounds to me like you had your opinions formed before you ever asked any questions, and arent really interested in hearing any reason.

Kelper

2013-02-13 16:54:33

From a trollers perspective who relies on hand powered cranking to get the fish up, I'm a little curious about the pinks being released... why? I can see chums, but a bunch of humpies starting showing up where I like to crank cohos, it'd be my worst nightmare.

How many humpies are we talking, and are they going to clog up drags that normally were good for kings/cohos?

JYDPDX

2013-02-13 17:13:25

Well, Im not going back and fourth any more on the issue. So maybe you'll get a couple big freezer boats checking it out or a couple outlier bold smaller boat guys. My point is the location is very remote and I think your visions of creating a hatchery fishery to restore the glory days are far fetched and I while it may benefit some I do not believe it will benefit most.

Couldnt agree with that last post more. If never saw another humpy as long as I lived it would be a wonderful world.

Wouldnt that be nice to have a new swarm or pink hitting the coast and heading up the line, making more difficult the harvest of quality fish.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 18:07:23

Kelper, chums is our main focus, we are mearly considering pinkd at this point. Being a cranker myself, I also don't see me cranking to many pinks, but I don't know that they'll have that huge of an impact. Most of the sights considered are well away from the main drags. I dont know why but I have never had a problem with them as a by-catch. Wr have alot of wild ones here, Situk gets 750,000 pinks some years, and I am 5 miles away trolling cohos. Rare that I get very many. I can see them on the meter, but they don't bite me.

yak2you2

2013-02-13 18:14:08

Pinks are a quality fish, and there's a lot of them. Just have to work harder.

John Murray

2013-02-13 18:16:10

Kingbonker give credit where credit is do.For the folks who fish in April having access to Alaska hatchery fish add-on can help in certain areas since the hatchery fish do start showing then.Also adding the Alaska hatchery fish to our winter catch can really help.The numbers we are talking about average around 3 to 6k.If that adds a few or seven days it help bring in some fresh money for the mostly resident trollers who are out during the winter.You can thank Yak for getting that proposal thru the BOF.Most of us left the meeting but he hit the homerun for the suppoters of the hatchery add-on proposal.

As far as the enhancement in Yatatat I'd suggest your fleet up there pony up.You guys have skated by not paying the enhancement tax.It was said you don't catch hatchery fish up there.Well its known you are on the salmon high way.Alot of fish pass by the area whether wild or hatchery.I don't know if the gillnet catch hatchery fish but the trollers certainly do.I'd suggest the group up there come up with a accessment that contributes to the the Yakatat project as well as NSRAA/SSRAA.I'd support something like that.

JYDPDX

2013-02-13 18:32:18

Pinks are a quality fish, and there's a lot of them. Just have to work harder.

I actually agree with 2 or the 3 points above.

This statement encompasses your self interest philosophy, or possibly egocentricity is a better word. I dont know ONE SINGLE troller that does not shake pink while targeting king and coho. If you are doing a trip longer than 1 day pinks are a complete an utter nuisance and hinderance in salmon fishing, especially when they are thick which happens way more than the overwhelming vast majority wants already. Tenders will rarely take them and furthermore they are NOT a quality fish. They might have a place in grand scheme of things if products were labeled properly but they are most certainly the lowest quality of the salmon species in AK.

Abundance

2013-02-13 21:20:50

I personally find the idea of a pink hatchery kind of strange. Quality issues aside (and I find peoples contempt for them aggravating), they are a hard fish to justify trolling for. I got paid roughly seven to ten dollars a fish chumming and two dollars a fish for pinks. Sure, I could have had thousand pink days, but that was too much work for me. If you have such a massive local pink run, why would you need a hatchery? I have never heard of pink hatchery for trollers. I guess you would see a quicker return of money to the hatchery, but it doesnt seem like the best choice of fish to me.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 00:25:46

Abundance. Were only considering pinks at this point.750 k is a big year here, but they don't go far. Takes LOTS of them. I imagine it would probably be fished more by gillnet, but like you say it would put money into hatchery.

They are difficult to work with do to the current prices, but I too get aggravated by some peoples contempt of them.

JYDPDX, to me what is self seving, and egocentric is people who condescend towards fishermen who are involved in other species of salmon. You really think kings and cohos are a better quality fish? Your wrong, they are just a different market. Some people want to eat their salmon off of a white table cloth, others want to make spread out of a can. Both taste good, to each their own. Ever heard of Ikira? How does it hurt the fleet to have more eggs in it's basket than just kings and cohos?

One thing for sure, you get a lot further in a coversation if you took the snottyness out of tour tone, there's just no need for words like self serving, egocentric, etc. Several times now youv'e refered to "our little salmon skiffs" with contempt. Fact is, there perfect for what theyre used for. Many guys troll and gillnet out of them, they cost nothing to operate, and theyre easy to maintain. There's no point in talking down to people, it doesn't make your point any clearer.

JYDPDX

2013-02-14 00:49:57

Nice "I know you are but what am I" response. Same thing with farmed fish, right? Just a different market. Until there are proper labels on salmon, I can not support or promote the lesser quality species as equal, especially one that is not viable and detrimental to the troll fishery.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 01:01:45

John, the thing is, we can't just tax ourselves and have our own fishery, trolling is good in this area, therefore, the state says it has to be this way. Do we catch other people's fish? Yup, but skating by the tax is a stretch, I sold 2 S.E. hatchey cohos last fall. We all catch more fish than that, that are headed further south, and none of us pay their hatchery tax. You have to define an area, and have the tax end somewhere right? Thats all were trying to do. We are asking about the particulars of some sort of combination with NSRAA and SSRAA. Not sure exactly how it would work.

Salty

2013-02-14 04:04:09

Great discussion. Thanks to all of you, great questions, good answers. Reminds me of when I was hired by NSRAA to run the campaign to get a positive vote from the commercial salmon fishermen in northern SE to tax themselves and gain control of ocean ranching technology in the region. The year was 1977.

I hope the tax passes. I voted for it but I am unlikely to ever harvest a fish in that area, or pay the tax, which is only applied in the Yakutat Area.

But, lets consider the history of SE salmon enhancement and the benefits of fishermen investment by a 3% tax. In SE Alaska last year the common property commercial harvest value of SE hatchery salmon was approximately $65 million. Here is the report. http://www.nsraa.org/_pdfs/2012%20Fall%20Bd%20Mtg/2012_NSRAA_Recap_2013_Forecast.pdf

When SE fishermen voted to assess themselves 3% to invest in a hatchery program in 1977, many of those voting for it knew they would most likely not ever personally harvest any of the eventual returns, and many did not. The first significant returns would be more than a decade in the future. But, since 1994 over $470 million dollars worth of SE enhanced salmon have been harvested by the SE commercial salmon gear groups. Over $82 million by trollers. Talk about a great investment, this was/is one. Thank you to all those fishermen who had the vision and magnanimity to invest in the future of our industry.

As far as trolling chums go, I agree with gumpucky on another thread that it has become a crowded fishery un-natural and unsavory for many trollers. But, it has become extremely important to the troll fishery. Think of this, hatchery chums are now more important to the troll fishery in harvest value than SE Alaska hatchery coho and Chinook combined. As far as troll values of SE Alaska Hatchery Salmon here they are: Chinook $1,320,472, Coho $2,300,621, Chum $4,010,103.

As we can easily see, the combined value of Chinook and coho, $3,621,093, is less than the chum value, $4,010,103. And 2012 is not the first year this has been the case.

And finally, thank you fellow trollers for re-electing me to the NSRAA Board. I worked several hours today crunching numbers and talking to fishermen about how to improve the troll share of SE enhanced salmon toward our allocated share of 27-32% from the 12% it was last year. The difference was a loss of $12 million to our fleet. When the time is right I might be asking for your support.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 05:15:05

Do you have any idea what the troll pink total is Salty? Curious.

Salty

2013-02-14 06:23:36

They don't list the hatchery pink values for SE because they are so small.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 07:06:23

Time for me to ask some questions. I know the gillnetters do real well on pinks, at least in THA areas, the roe has to be pretty valuable. Plus, there's so darn many of them. Using some of Abundance's figures, if a troller could produce a 1000 a day @ 2 bucks per fish, thats a 2000 dollar day. Chums may be worth 5 times as much, but if your having a hard time accessing, or getting them to bite, why wouldn't a person cross over? I mean, I know, lots of work, but if there is money in it , better than nothing. Hire an extra crewman and go to work on them. Just seems like a troller would add it all up and go where the odds are of making the most money. Whats your take Eric, are pinks a viable option for trollers to have around? Maybe not for a first choice, but as an option? What does NSRAA think about them?

Given the option, I think going with what I know about it so far, I'm inclined to support pinks, if for no other reason, the gillnetters will get them, and help pay for the hatchery, but I want to know about them as a troll option too.

Sounds like trollers have no problem catching them near hatcheries. In the wild, ive always been just far enough away to avoid getting buried, and, if I rotate the gear it helps too. Point is, they sound easier to catch than chums, at least at times. Why don't they get better utilized?

Kelper

2013-02-14 16:24:57

I'm pretty sure the $2 a humpie requires cleaning. Which 1k a day isn't realistic. Even if you can stick them, and toss them in bags, 1k a day isn't realistic. 2-300 a day average for a 14 days stretch maybe?

I understand the appeal of the dog fishery.. You catch a lot of them, you don't have to clean them, and you don't have to jump down in the hold. For the older gents in the fleet it's probably perfect. But at the same time it's sure moving us further away from what's defined us as trollers. As you can see by Salty's figures, the lions share of the money on AK hatchery fish comes from dogs. Perhaps we need to bump up king and coho production to even things out a bit? We all pay the 3% tax.

But really, is that where we are headed as a fleet? Mass harvesting of dogs and humpies, to be sold in the round to make enough money to survive? My fear would be as the fleet goes more and more to the "in the round" fish, we wont' be any different than the gillnetters or seiners. Lord help us if the dog market goes south. The word "troll caught" won't mean a thing. And, when it comes time to divide up the kings and cohos, they'll point towards dogs and humpies and tell us we don't need as many kings and cohos.

Yak, as the HT Rep for the ATA, I'd think you'd be looking out for the low volume, high quality, high dollar fish.. and for us HT guys who only have so many cranks in us a day, that's Kings and cohos.

Abundance

2013-02-14 17:07:16

I have never actually targeted pinks except for one trip last summer out in front of Craig. We dressed and slushed, my deckhand cleaning and myself pulling. Our peak day was about 700, and both of us could barely move the next day. If a guy was set up for it, had a crew large enough to rotate around so nobody had to do one job for the day, then thousand fish days would be occasionally possible. Maybe with a hatchery, they would be more common. I agree, we are focusing way to hard on selling less quality fish, although we are all just reacting to external forces. Chums and pinks have gone up and up in value, kings and cohos stagnated. I don't know why. I have to go do some work, but there a lot to be discussed about where the market is going.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 17:11:18

Belive me, I am Kelper. I dearly love my king trolling, and when we looked at what to do with the mitigation funds, I wanted to throw a big peice at Chinook enhancement. Then, the education began. Chinook enhancement works, but you can only release certain amounts, and there's only so many places to release from. They're the most expensive, and they have by far the worst return rate. It just is not as easy as piling all your chips on the kings because theyre the biggest, and worth the most. I wish it was. I fully support putting all the effort possible into making as many chinook and cohos as is possible.

In Yakutat's case, we just have to start with the insurance of the most dependable and cheapesy to buid. Once esablished, I certainly hope to expand into these other species as quickly as possible.

The fear is very valid kelper of worrying about the chum market tanking, and I share your concern over losing our identity. Your right, handtrollers are going to have the hardest time making money in a high volume low value fishery. To me, all we can do is think about keeping the fleet and the processors healthy, and hope to figure it out.

To me, it's a good reason to support a hatchery up here, if we get established and start a chinook program, now there's another chunk of coastline for remote release site.

I wish we could have just kept fishing forever on wild stock, and always had big years, unfortunately whats real is far different. We continue to get slowly phased out of fishing wild Chinooks. Wild isn't the right word, fishing for chinooks in wild areas is better. The treaty is not very easy to have much faith in. I fear soon We'll only be allowed to fish Alaska THA areas, on Alaska made Chinook. Wild cohos, whether anybody wants to admit it or not, at least on this end have been in steady decline, and the curve appears to be steepining. Sure, we heard from a couple of lone wolfs who have been able to go out and find a few pockets, but over all, wild cohos are declining. The stats prove me right. Is this just a phenomena, and someday it will turn around? I dearly hope so. In the mean time, we need something to do to keep us in the grub. You don't have to like chum or pink fishing, for me the worst part will be that it will feel alot more like punching a clock, and a lot less like the dream of fishing, but we have to do whatever we have to do as a fleet to stay afloat. This starts with an honest look at what cards we have in front of us.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 17:25:25

Abumdance has brought up a key point. Our economy as a country has tanked. There still is some fancy restaurant eaters, but there's a lot less. There's a lot more peanut butter and canned tuna eaters, it's all they can afford. Doesn't matter which side of the political fence your on, you must reconize that this isn't going to get better anytime soon. There still are some markets for coho and chinook, it's just that I don't know how much room there is to expand into it. Will making more coho and chinook simply lower the price? Seems to be the way it works with the July opener.

JYDPDX

2013-02-14 18:45:42

Wild cohos, whether anybody wants to admit it or not, at least on this end have been in steady decline, and the curve appears to be steepining. Sure, we heard from a couple of lone wolfs who have been able to go out and find a few pockets, but over all, wild cohos are declining. The stats prove me right.

Page 67 Figure 4

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidpdfs/FMR12-02.pdf

The curve does NOT appear to be steepening. Fish abundance is cyclical.

You are absolutely and completely mistaken in implying that King salmon and Coho consumers turn to peanut butter and canned tuna as an alternative because of hard economic times. In a perfect world a King consumer may turn to Coho in an economic crunch but that is assuming he knows the difference. What likely is happening is everything is labeled as Wild Alaska Salmon and people are purchasing the products at the lower price and getting LESSER QUALITY fish like chum or sockeye or talapia or generic cod, other seafood, etc. and getting turned off from "salmon" or fish in general and going to substitute products like poultry or beef. Now in order to ascertain information and certainties about this would require a MARKET RESEARCH STUDY. That would be conducted by market research professionals from a firm that specializes in market research and advertising ,who would compile sample data and make determinations based off of facts.

A lot more people would splurge on going to those restaurants if they knew for sure what a king or coho was or if they know they could be confident what they're getting is one and it is wild. You must increase awareness and knowledge in order to increase demand for top quality salmon products.

"Will making more coho and chinook simply lower the price? Seems to be the way it works with the July opener."----------

Wrong again, The coho price starts out in the tank in early july while there is scarcely any coho on the market and the into Aug and late Aug as a tremendous of fish flood the market the price goes up, a lot. Why, size and QUALITY of product.

Abundance did not say ANYTHING about the national or global economy.

What you are saying is based off pure and utter personal speculation.

Quit screaming that the sky is falling until you know what you are talking about.

Kelper

2013-02-14 19:33:08

yak2you2

2013-02-14 19:33:35

I am not screaming the sky is falling, I am just being honest. Things change, and you have to be willing to change with them. Farmed fish appear to be here to stay. Gillnetters have dramatically improved quality. Both have taken a big bite out of our market share. We are being paid 1978 prices for our coho. Fuel and grub cost more, we HAVE to produce more, if were going to be a player. There is only so much kings and cohos can do. Take a look at permit values if you want to find out who's really controlling the markets. Cheap fish is NOT going to go away, the sooner we gear up to produce accordingly, the better. There will always be a specialty market for the very best product, but there wont be room for the whole fleet there.

Do you see GE modified fish coming? I dearly hope congress listens to us and stops the madness, but if they do, I will be pleasently surprised. So if this happens, now they'll be able to crank out farmed fish twice as fast.

Consumers are not stupid. They know what a troll caught king is, and what a farm fish is. They buy based on what they can afford. So, 10% are willing to shell out for quality, we have to convince the other 90% that our cheap chums are a healthier option than cheap farm fish.

You say stop screaming the sky is falling, I say burying your head in the sand ostrich style isn't going to help.

Kelper

2013-02-14 20:05:24

Thanks for the link on the 2011 troll report. I love my calculator.

Here's some interesting facts:

In 1979, power trollers averaged 341 kings per permit. Hand trollers averaged 26 kings per permit. 813 power trollers fished, and 2195 hand troll permits fished.

In 2011, power trollers averaged 198 kings per permit, and hand trollers averaged 60 kings per permit. 1133 Power trollers fished, and 374 hand trollers fished.

In 1979 Power trollers harvested 277,274 kings. Hand trollers harvested 57,722 kings. Power trollers harvested 82.7% of the kings. 17.3% by HT.

In 2011 Power trollers harvested 223,957 kings. Hand trollers harvested 18,166 kings. Powertrollers harvested 92.4% of the kings. 7.5% harvested by the HT.

In 2011, 25% of the permits that fished were HT. 75% were PT. In 1979 73% of the permits were HT, and 27% were PT.

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing! But I do love my calculator. Always interesting to look at the history of anything.

JYDPDX

2013-02-14 20:22:10

I

Consumers are not stupid. They know what a troll caught king is, and what a farm fish is.

How do you know this? Because you know the difference does not mean your market does. Set foot outside of you own perspective for a minute. This is probably the most ignorant, unfounded and speculative statement I have ever heard. I take offense to your propagating this myth.

10%…..90% percent? Where do you get these numbers from?

I'll tell you what I say, I'd eat a farmed coho before eating a chum. Period, the end.

Another post coming…..

JYDPDX

2013-02-14 20:25:29

I'

But really, is that where we are headed as a fleet? Mass harvesting of dogs and humpies, to be sold in the round to make enough money to survive? My fear would be as the fleet goes more and more to the "in the round" fish, we wont' be any different than the gillnetters or seiners. Lord help us if the dog market goes south. The word "troll caught" won't mean a thing.

.

This is a crucial point. I would like to augment it by reiterating the gravity of this phenomenon with its regard to stealing market share and demand from the high quality (King and Coho) salmon market. I believe it is having a cannibalizing effect. I made this point to a friend the other day. I don't want your dogs (no offense) getting sold as wild alaska salmon unless there is a label on it and every consumer knows when they get home, eat it and taste the flavor and texture that they know that they chose chum tonight, then they can make their own mind up whether or not they want to buy it next time at that price. I don't want dogs, pinks, chums, or sockeyes getting passed off as generic Wild Alaska Salmon because it sabotages MY market, Wild Troll Caught King and Coho. Thats the crux of the matter. You have a market and I have a market and your market is stealing market share from my market and sabotaging a certain amount of prestige for my product. It is no different than what farmed fish does to trollers. I respect everyone trying to make a living, but that's my agenda. I know a lot of people think that we're at a terminal point on the supply demand curve for the high end species. I don't believe that at all. I believe with proper information demand would increase and with the already limited amount of supply, the price would go up substantially.

There's is money being left on the table and our allowance of consumer ignorance is shooting us in the foot. You guys can run around and chase your dogs, collect your check and laugh all the way to the bank. I just want you to consider the possible repercussions.

I would like to caveat this by saying it is speculation. I am not a market research expert, I have not compiled consumer survey data or statistics. What I am saying is based on a small sample of observations of consumers ive meet down south, visits to the seafood counters (I've been to at least 10 different states in the last 3 years) and restaurant visits.

From the staggering statistics that Salty listed above I have a couple of questions:

Those numbers are listed in dollar value. I would like to know how they compare based on Lbs. and then more specifically would like to know what percentage of chum lbs goes into a can or for halibut bait and what percentage is shipped off to retailers. Then I would like to compare the dressed fresh King/Coho lbs. to the round Chum lbs, going on the market. I think that would be very telling of whether or not I have a valid concern. We could also take it a step further and compare the fresh dressed KingCoho lbs to the other group of salmon (anything hitting the cooler or counter as wild alaska salmon). Then we would know if we are cannibalizing ourselves of if the true enemy were the other gear groups flooding the market with low quality salmon, stealing our market share and ruining our prestige.

The table (if it made it on as an attachment) shows that trollers harvested 15,841K lbs of King and Coho. We harvested 98,494K lbs of Chum. Thats roughly 6-1. I'd like to know how much of that chum gets labeled and sold as "wild alaska salmon"

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=CommercialByFisherySalmon.exvesselquery

yak2you2

2013-02-14 20:57:56

Bristol bay. 20-50 million sockeye every year. Most now put into RSW immediately. Hatcheries all over the state pumping out all flavors. Farm fish ever present. The debate over whether or not it will cannabalize wild troll is academic. The fight is over. Cheap salmon is real, and its here to stay. In the long run, one good thing has come of it. People now eat more salmon than ever, and have aquired an increasing taste for it. So with more consumers to pick from, the chances of selling a high dollar specialty fish have also increased.

The trick is to be able to do both. Bang out volume and make 80% of your yearly income, then fill in the other 20% filling high end markets.

The bulk of the troll fleet's income used to be cohos. A very high quality product to be sure, but an RSW sockeye is too. They have an inexhaustable supply, we don't.

We just have to be able to tap both ends of the market, not just the high end.

yak2you2

2013-02-14 21:37:10

Plenty of chum trollers just got pissed off. "I'd eat a farmed coho before a wild chum". Have you forgotten about the steroids, artificial coloring, and the fact that they swim in their own dung? I'd eat a seined pink, before I ate a farmed fish.

I agree that there is plenty of room for education in this department. Farmed fish is insidious, you could maybe convince the consumer that farmed is no good, because it's true, but telling them yours is better than an RSW sockeye is a matter of opinion and will be much harder to do.

Our fight is with other quality willd fish, and like I said, their quality has improved, they are a real competitor, with volumes more at their disposal. Because of it, I don't see the 1978 prices going away soon. So what now? Keep pounding on the few wild fish we have and giving them away? How is a troller supposed to make it 2013, with 1978 prices? All you can do is come in with more fish, which mother nature doesn't have to give. So, you make more fish, or someone eats your lunch.

SilverT

2013-02-15 01:55:36

I really appreciate this discussion. Thanks to everyone. Got to make this quick, as the admiral reminded me it's Valentine's Day.

In favor of new hatcheries for a long time because I've seen what it's like without them.

It's flat wrong that poor harvesters have to pay to generate a product that belongs to the public. We get paid to harvest.

Consumers are uneducated, not stupid.

Almost no one I sell to knows of our harvest methods until I explain them.

Almost no one knows there is a difference in species.

Fish from one hatchery will have a positive effect on a limited number of local trollers.

Fish from one hatchery are not intended to save the whole troll fleet.

A 10-20% increase in dock price for all species could.

Every partner's concerns need to be clearly heard and given serious consideration if you're going to have unity and like it or not, trollers are business partners.

I love it when the calculators come out & thanks for the links. Give your sweetie a smooch.

Lane

Abundance

2013-02-15 03:00:13

Well said Lane. I don't really see how this this argument is going to be resolved to either sides satisfaction. We can argue until summer rolls around, and yet the situation will be the same. As I mentioned earlier, we are largely reacting to things that are out of our hands. I saw in Ketchikan and Craig the number of pinks and chums being brought in and sold by gillnet and seine tenders. Whatever we caught, whatever Yakutat might toss into the mix, We are nothing but a pimple on the bears butt in our ability to influence the markets. Chums would be where they are in the mass market whether a troller ever caught one or not. The stores that I went to down south,? They were selling chums at just slightly more than farmed fish. The couple of cohos and sockeyes I saw were priced much higher, and none of the poor people walking into the grocery store could have afforded to buy them. Heck, I couldn't have. If the chums weren't on the rack, there would have been only farmed fish. At least this way, some of the money went to a fisherman. I agree wholeheartedly that our kings and cohos should be dominant in our fishery, but considering the trollers that made or want to make a shot of money selling chums to that mass market as enemies seems an overreaction. Nobody is trying to sabotage the industry, they are just trying to make their next payment the best way they can. I think that our troll kings and cohos should be marketed separately, how I don't know. Discussing this before in marketing didn't go so well. Yak, is the hatchery a sure thing that is going to happen? If so we should focus on how to make it beneficial for everybody. Maybe you should fast track at least a small amount of coho and king production. Getting broad support from the Fairweather fleet for pinks and chums isn't going to happen. My personal opinion, a pink hatchery is only worth making for PWS seiners, and will make your area borderline unfishable for people that don't want to catch pinks, I'm talking from personal experience fishing during pink blooms trying to get a coho. I think that dinner is served, so enough for now.

khaos

2013-02-15 03:19:19

700 pinks a day - did you save the roe? I never do on pinks, but with those kinds of numbers, it had to add up to a few buckets!

yak2you2

2013-02-15 04:05:32

Abundance, this town like most small towns in Alaska is in tough shape, economically. Logging is over, the crab are gone, not much tourism. Salmon is what it was built for, and salmon is what were set up for, we just don't have enough. No fish, no economy, it's as simple as that. So yes, I see no going back. The hatchery has to happen, period. If the tax doesn't pass, I don't know if the state will give us our start up loan. Without the loan, I don't know how we'll do it, but we will, if it means bake sales, we'll get it done.

A 2% commitment towards the cause from the troll fleet, will go a long way.

I don't think you'll find anybody opposed to fast tracking a small king program, we've been wanting a spring hatchery opener forever. Just have to figure out where to release that the state will feel comfortable with. Same with cohos, I don't think anybody is opposed to more high end fish, it's just a matter of getting ourselves established financially first, so we have the funds to branch out, and meeting state requirements with where we could release from.

I appreciate the incite from all of you regarding pinks, it's helpful to hear views from all sides.

akfisher1978

2013-02-15 05:29:25

Yak2you Has the gillnet fleet been asked to pitch in on this since chums are targeted by them also? With the few amount of trollers you have there is 2% out of that area enough to make a difference? How about a federal grant, they seem to be throwing plenty of money around these days!

yak2you2

2013-02-15 05:46:36

The gillnet fleet will pay the same tax. 2% on all salmon deliveries. With the current salmon harvested, you could never make payments. I assume the state hopes the payback comes with the returning hatchery fish.

We have secured some grant money, and are actively persuing more, the purse strings are pretty tight though, and so are the stipulations. Most of whats out there is good for studies and things, but infarstructure and actual eggs, will mostly be state loan.

Salty

2013-02-15 06:30:28

Yak, you are doing a great job explaining. I hope you win the vote. If you don't let's get together via correspondence and plan an information campaign for the next vote.

Abundance

2013-02-15 07:17:21

@khaos, the Craig troll buyers don't have the facilities to handle salmon roe, so no. It is somewhat saddening to see something that goes for thirty dollars a pound go to fattening crabs, but that's the way it is.

I don't mean to demean what anybody is saying on here when I say that arguments aren't getting us anywhere. It just seems like nobody is changing their minds, and the mood is getting a bit strident. Everybody's viewpoint makes sense to themselves, and there comes a point that fighting each other just becomes pointless. A bit more respect and bit more of a humble approach to a conflict would be good advice for all of us.

Salty

2013-02-15 18:25:05

Well said Garrett. I wrote two long stories yesterday detailing the importance of diversity in troll ideas and fishing. I also wrote a history of the SE troll pink fishery moving to a round troll fishery in Sitka and Cross Sound. For some reason I lost both of them before posting.

I got a call this morning from a reader here experienced in serving on a hatchery board asking me to post that Cost Recovery will most likely be needed to help pay for loans, operation, etc. in Yakutat. That he couldn't see the assessment, grants, etc. being enough to pay for a hatchery program. I agree.

The one incontrovertible fact of history is that it has been a good idea for fishermen to form hatchery associations and invest in ocean ranching technology in SE and PWS. The biggest problem we have is the ensuing internal conflict between fishermen in sharing the bounty. But, let me tell you, having lived through the scarcities of Alaska salmon in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, fighting over the bounty is much better than fighting over the remains of the devastation caused by the fish traps and high seas gillnetting.

JYDPDX

2013-02-15 18:40:17

This application comes with any mac but here is a download for PCs. MS word would work to.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-tools/Text-editors/TextEdit.shtml

If you construct your long posts with a word processing program, you will never lose one again. Browser windows are bad for word processing because if you lose your internet connection or accidentally hit a key that closes the window or a link that takes you to another page, you will lose what you have written. It will also prevent accidentally posting anything unintended.

You also get much more room to work with rather than that tiny text box in the browser.

Almost forgot so say, you will have to select, copy and paste your text into the browser. Its really easy and there are keyboard shortcuts that are helpful.

Abundance

2013-02-15 19:16:06

Thank you, Joe. I sometimes use Microsoft Word and paste when I am writing a long post, after a few bad experiances. Whats really bad is when I use my glichty od phon witout spllchek.

Salty

2013-02-15 22:33:33

Thanks Joe, really appreciate that advice and link. Would have those two stories now for sharing later if I had followed that advice. Going to that link now.

Eric

akfisher1978

2013-02-21 04:25:46

Yak2 my question is this. What infrastructure is set in place for the hatchery? Also is there already a REAL plan? President, secretary, treasurer? Support from the state? Asking for 2% is big deal when it has an an effect on peoples livelihood. Hopefully it would not end up being some way to employee a few people but not benefit the fisherman!

yak2you2

2013-02-21 05:38:26

Quite a bit of progress already actually. We have a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, all named on the YRAA website. We have a director /advisor hired, there is an RPT board formed, and we have in the neighborhood of 200,000 dollars worth of grants secured to proceed with planning and studies. We are applying for more monies currently. The local area salmon management plan is being updated. This spring water flow testing will take place, and we will proceed with zeroing in on where the facility will be located. Release sights will be identified shortly there after. There is a couple of existing structures that could potentially be utilized that are being considered in order to skip the expense and time of this step. The state hatchery team is fully involved with helping us set up, developing a plan, and will be overseeing implementation. We've had the directors of NSRAA, and DIPAC in to advise us on a course of action. Once the tax is in place and the loan secured, the actual infarstructure will be put in place, eggs purchased,and employees hired.

Keep in mind that this will be operated just like any other regional hatchery that you may be a part of. All boardmembers will be subject to elections that you will be voting on. Regular RPT meetings will take place that you will have the opportunity to participate in.

We are all trying our hardest to help it succeed. A 2% tax on the current wild fish caught in the region wouldn't get us very far. The community, and anyone imterested in fishing in the region are depending on this to work. There is a tremenous sense of responsibility in the air at every board meeting we've held.

Akdreamlures

2013-02-21 07:36:19

Yak,

There were a lot of questions about this tax at the fisherman's coffee klatch I sometimes drop in on. I did my best and referred them to this thread.

Salty

2013-02-21 07:39:00

Yak,

There were quite a few questions today about this tax and why SE trollers were asked to vote on it at the morning trollers coffee klatch I sometimes drop in on. I did my best to explain and referred them to this thread.

ata

2013-02-24 04:15:37

Hi All:

This week I received a number of calls with questions about the enhancement tax that's been proposed by Yakutat Regional Aquaculture Association (YRAA), so thought I'd share ATA's position on the matter.

ATA wrote in support of YRAA's application to form the aquaculture association and subsequently voted to support a 2% aquaculture assessment for fish landed in the Yakutat Borough.

ATA has no current position on the mix of stocks that will be raised or specific hatchery projects that YRAA might choose to pursue.

My understanding with regard to the ATA Board's intent when voting in support was that they believe:

1. any area of the state should have the opportunity to pursue a hatchery program; and,

2. those who would be affected by the proposed hatchery program have every right to comment; and,

3. those who would be taxed will weight the risks/costs against the benefits, and then vote the hatchery tax up or down.

ATA understands that the Yakutat folks are looking for ways to develop and sustain their fisheries. However, ATA's vote in support of forming this aquaculture association does not mean that we will support any and all projects that YRAA suggests in the future. ATA will review proposals as they are submitted and decide at that time whether or not to issue support.

The first hurdle that any proposal has to clear will be whether or not wild stocks are protected. ATA has a specific in-house policy that favors wild over hatchery - we don't want to compromise local salmon stocks. Enhancement proposals are studied as they are submitted, and ATA relies heavily on ADFG's advice with regard to the conservation aspects. There are many other aspects to consider and each proposal will have its unique features to evaluate.

It's my hope that fishermen will respect the Yakutat folks request to seriously consider the YRAA proposal. And before you cast your vote, be sure to call someone on the YRAA Board with any specific questions you might have about their program goals and objectives. ~~[url=~~http://www.yraa.org/Page_2.html][url]http://www.yraa.org/Page_2.html

Ballots must be postmarked by March 7th.

Don't forget to vote!

Dale

ATA