ata
2008-04-07 02:17:02
Today I turned on my computer to work on Board of Fisheries proposals and several other ATA things that are sorely in need of doing. There in my inbox was an email telling me that HCR 29 could scream through the legislature in its final week. This, and it's double (SCR 21) have both been on the scene only since March 31!
So, what is it? It's yet another disappointing Board of Fish/ADFG bashing and task force idea from Cook Inlet, which is expected to result in recommendations about how to remedy the situation in that region to the benefit of one user group. Pasted below are the comments I fired off today. My writing should be in blue - the complete resolution in black. I apologize in advance for any glitches and typos, and for the length of this post, but thought it was worth showing you, as there will likely be a lot more of these bills next year.
Why should this issue bother trollers? First, the legislature has no business making management recommendations - that's why they empowered the Board of Fish, to distance the politics. And, because the push for sport priority and reallocation through fish initiatives in Alaska was spawned in Cook Inlet and has spread around the state like a disease. In the face of 'fair use', the promoters of these concepts want to take anyone down who stands between them and their target species. We will continue to confront this in Southeast and, when we can, we must band together with others similarly challenged. If you allow the fleet in front of you to go down - you're next.
ATA knows that it's not all sport interests on the attack - and it's mostly NOT resident anglers. It's not even everyone in the guided sportfishing industry. It's just those loud and monied few and their followers who love to keep the pot stirred. This resolution is part of a suite of proposed legislation that was introduced this second half of the legislative session. I suspect NEXT session will be full of these things and we must be prepared. By the way, "WE" includes YOU.
Fishermen, of all types, need to start focusing on their common ground and work to defeat this small way of thinking. We need to work as neighbors on Alaska's economic plan - and there should be room for all. In the meantime, ATA and others in our industry will work to try and keep these sport priority campaigns at bay, but the war includes many pitched battles. I hope you'll work with us, and join your groups and contribute extra for your issue of concern, so we have the resources to continue this fight, among all the many others.
Here's hoping we can get to a place of cooperation with those who are chronically fighting us, but in the meantime, please let the legislature know that this approach to fisheries management just doesn't fly! You can find committee information and email addresses here:
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Dear Legislators:
I am sorry for a rather ‘off the cuff’ response below to HCR 29 and SCR 21, but the makers left the public little choice. Imagine my surprise to find that a resolution as controversial as HCR 29 moved so quickly through Resources Committee and on to Rules. Ironically, I got on the computer this morning specifically to work on Alaska Trollers Association’s proposals for the Board of Fisheries, a forum held in high regard, along with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, by people in my industry.
HCR 29 and SCR 21 are ill-thought out resolutions that seek, yet again, to undermine the public process on behalf of a special interest. I encourage you to vote ‘no’ to the formation of the requested task force and speak against these resolutions in total.
I have detailed within the resolution text below a few of the concerns of myself and Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) with the specific issues and proposed actions as outlined in both resolutions. Hopefully the legislature will turn its attention to more pressing state matters next week. I will be traveling and have an extremely full schedule, so will likely not testify at any hearing on these resolutions, but did not want to let them get by without some form of comment on the record.
Hopefully you will agree with our concerns about the resolution itself, and oppose its passage. Initiatives of this nature do nothing but pit citizens against one another, while demoralizing the many fine people who willingly serve on the Boards of Fish and Game and work for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Instead of taking the bait hidden in these resolutions, the legislature could provide strong leadership by supporting the state’s excellent system of fisheries management and encouraging fishermen of all types to work together on their many common issues.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 29
01 Establishing the Cook Inlet Salmon Task Force as a joint legislative task force.
02 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
03 WHEREAS art. VIII, sec. 2, Constitution of the State of Alaska, mandates that
04 Alaska's resources be managed for the maximum benefit of its people; and
05 WHEREAS Southcentral Alaska has the highest concentration of population in the
06 state and Cook Inlet is located in Southcentral Alaska; and
07 WHEREAS the sport fishing community is a vital part of the local and statewide
08 tourism industry and the Cook Inlet region sustains 55 percent of the statewide sport and
09 personal use fishing effort; and
10 WHEREAS the economic contribution to the state of the in-river sport and personal
11 use fisheries in Cook Inlet far exceed the ex-vessel value of the Cook Inlet commercial fishing
12 harvests; and
13 WHEREAS the Department of Fish and Game has repeatedly failed to successfully
14 manage the competing goals of maximizing the commercial fishing harvest of Central District
15 salmon stocks and meeting minimum escapement goals in the Northern District; and
ADFG is world renown for its commitment and ability to manage a resource to achieve biological goals - when it is possible to do so. As any of us involved with fisheries resources know, there are sometimes things in nature beyond our control. Despite that fact, ADFG has been exceptional in its implementation of risk management through its inseason actions, including fishery closures for conservation when necessary, regardless the cost to industry.
It is also well known that problems have erupted in the Cook Inlet management program for many years, not because of the failings of ADFG, but due to political pressures on the Board of Fisheries and/or lawmakers to placate one user group.
This resolution, for instance, comes on the heels of Board of Fisheries decisions that some did not like. There has been no time to allow these decisions to be implemented and analyzed. Just what will the legislature be able to glean by Feb. 2009, which is more meaningful than all that the Board of Fish considered, with regard to evaluating the impact of the new regulations?
01 during six of the last nine years, despite the Department of Fish and Game's and the Board of
02 Fisheries' lowering the minimum escapement goals on two separate occasions; and
03 WHEREAS the Board of Fisheries, in accordance with the sustainable salmon
04 management policy, declared Susitna drainage sockeye salmon a yield stock of concern, but
05 failed to take action to reduce the commercial harvest of those stocks; and
The Board has a difficult job, at best, as it tries to balance conservation and the competing interests of its citizens with the non-residents served by an a few in the tourism industry who often show no mercy for the people who live here. Chronic political pressure in the Cook Inlet region has at times prevented the Board from doing its best work. Worse, politicizing the appointment process in past years has led to management programs in need of course corrections, in order to maintain fair access and provide a healthier economic balance in Cook Inlet. During those years, commercial fisheries were nearly dismantled, which has meant a significant loss to the state.
More recent decisions by the Board may simply be an attempt to better balance the needs of coastal communities with the onslaught of non-resident tourism. However, given the rush of some legislators to move this resolution, nearly in the dark of night, many of us do not have adequate time to research the matter and provide meaningful examples of the situation in Cook Inlet. Do you who are voting have sufficient information to judge? And, do you really want to take time away from the matters of state within your jurisdiction to make such determinations? Isn’t that why we have a Board of Fisheries and separation of powers and responsibilities?
06 WHEREAS the Department of Fish and Game has failed to provide a comprehensive
07 management and research strategy to reduce allocative conflict within Cook Inlet;
08 BE IT RESOLVED that the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature forms the Cook
09 Inlet Salmon Task Force composed of 10 legislators: five members from the senate appointed
10 by the president of the senate and five members from the house of representatives appointed
11 by the speaker of the house of representatives; and be it
12 FURTHER RESOLVED that the president of the senate and the speaker of the house
13 of representatives shall jointly appoint the chair and vice-chair of the task force; and be it
14 FURTHER RESOLVED that the task force shall examine the conservation and
15 allocation issues within fisheries management of Cook Inlet; and be it
16 FURTHER RESOLVED that the task force shall examine the economic effect of
17 Cook Inlet salmon and the maximum benefit of those salmon to the people of Alaska; and be
18 it
19 FURTHER RESOLVED that the task force shall examine the legal and
20 constitutional issues of a buy-back program, reducing the number of commercial fishing
21 permits in Cook Inlet; and be it
But the bigger question is why should the Cook Inlet fleet be bought out? Do they even want to be bought out? The only rationale I could possibly think of is if the state has unfairly regulated them to death, so perhaps owes them. That said my guess is they just want the opportunity to fish. Loss of those fleets would be a huge loss for our state, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, and would make our residents even more vulnerable to the nation’s tenuous economic state.
And what about when people can’t afford to come to Alaska, due to the rising cost of travel? What about the impact of Alaska reducing its seafood exports? Combine those two impacts…
This proposal suggests social engineering of the worst kind and will do away the very best of the unique spirit of the Great Land, reduce our resident’s and state’s economic options, and deeply affect fishing communities and families. Shame on those who don’t really care about all that – kinda makes you wonder where those folks live most of the year, doesn’t it?
22 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cook Inlet Salmon Task Force shall submit a
23 report of its findings to the legislature on the first day of the First Regular Session of the
24 Twenty-Sixth Alaska State Legislature, which must include
25 (1) the short term and long term uses of Cook Inlet salmon consistent with the
26 maximum benefit principle contained within art. VIII, sec. 2, Constitution of the State of
27 Alaska;
28 (2) specific proposals to address the conservation issues in the Northern
29 District; and
30 (3) options to reduce allocative conflict in Cook Inlet, which may include a
31 buy-back program; and be it
Last I actually counted, the Board of Fisheries considered about 1300 proposals a year. With few exceptions, their decisions have been accepted and supported by the public. Of those acrimonious issues that have been challenged in court, including questions of ‘maximum benefit’ and ‘fair use’, the Board of Fisheries has prevailed.
Does ATA support every decision made by the Board of Fisheries? No. However, we usually accept those decisions and recognize the value in being able to make our case on issues of concern to our fleet and industry. Sometimes we have to raise the issue at more than one meeting, but the point is that there is a proper forum, already established, to make requests and lodge any concerns. In fact, it’s frustrating to have to drop and take time from drafting ATA’s 2009 Board of Fish proposals to write this note to you today.
For all the acrimony a Board of Fish meeting can bring on select topics, it is the best arena in the business - a dynamic process, made better by the public’s direct involvement. If the legislature thinks they can improve on the model, let’s move to give you the whole shebang.
01 FURTHER RESOLVED that the task force is terminated on February 1, 2009.
Please DO appoint upstanding, hardworking, responsible, Board of Fisheries members who are not on a mission to do anything but solid analysis and problem solving.
Please DO make sure ADFG has the resources to maintain a staff of unbiased professionals and then leave them alone to do what they do best – manage the resource for conservation and maximum sustained yield, based on solid, balanced, Board of Fisheries management plans developed with all affected stakeholders.
I think you will find that in the overall, this TO DO list is in the best interest of Alaska, and provides ‘maximum benefits’ to its people.
Sincerely,
Dale Kelley
Executive Director