Board of Fish Proposal Comments
Salty
2008-12-28 19:17:34
Board of Fish Proposal Comment: Proposal 321, Add Hatchery kings caught in winter to winter quota.
I have authored this proposal several times over the past few years. It is going nowhere this BOF cycle so I am not going push it. But, eventually when our Chinook quota goes back up and we increase our winter harvest of Alaska hatchery fish we should adopt this proposal.
What it does in practical terms is add about 5,000 kings to the winter guideline harvest range. These fish would be added on to the season in April and if we approached the winter guideline harvest range would give us an extra 5 or so days of fishing in most years. The last couple of years we have fished until May 1 without reaching the quota and this add on would make no difference.
The vehicle we used to get the season extended from April 15th until we reached the guideline harvest range or May 1 was a proposal by Yakutat. ATA supported that proposal even though they had opposed several similar proposals I had offered for several Board cycles. I also spent a great deal of time informing the Department and trollers that our winter harvest had a guideline harvest range that we should be managing to achieve.
The reason why 321 would help Yakutat is that five more days in April when Chinook were abundant could be a nice payday.
But, since this is going nowhere this Board of Fish cycle due to opposition by ATA I don't recommend undue effort spent on it. And it only makes a difference if we approach our guideline harvest quota. With winter catches so low it doesn't look like we will do that this year.
Salty
2008-12-28 20:25:20
Board of Fish Proposal 244.
http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/meetinfo/2008-2009/propbook/se-and-yak-fin-props2.pdf
This proposal would exclude the Private Non-Profit Hatchery's from the SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Sharing Plan. This would include Douglas Island Pink And Chum (DIPAC) Port Armstrong, and Sheldon Jackson, among others. The Joint Regional Planning Team (JRPT) made up of two trollers, two gillnetters, and two seiners recommended unanimously that no action be taken on this proposal based on the Industry Consensus reached on 12/9/2008. The JRPT believes proposal 244 recommendations are inconsistent with the SE Comprehensive Salmon Enhancement Plan, SE Enhanced Allocation Plan, and the duties of the JRPT.
This is one of the most important proposals for trollers before the BOF this year. It is my perspective that this proposal and the next one #245 are the most important proposals for trollers to oppose this year at the Board of Fisheries. The SE enhanced salmon allocation plan, 5AAC 33.364, adopted by the Board of Fisheries in 1994, allocates trollers, gillnetters, and seiners a % range of the value of SE enhanced salmon. It was recommended by consensus agreement by a task force of the commercial gear groups and adopted unanimously by the Board of Fisheries.
Trollers have used this plan to improve investment in Coho and Chinook production, gain better opportunity at hatchery Chinook and Coho, and to gain opportunity at chum hatchery production. Specifically this plan has resulted in protection of troll opportunity on Chinook at Hidden Falls, improved opportunity for trollers at Neets Bay on Chum, Coho, and Chinook over the years, and protection of Chum troll opportunity in Eastern Channel.
Removing the PNP hatcheries, particularly DIPAC which contributes practically nothing to the seine fleet, very little to the troll fleet, and millions of dollars to the gillnet fleet would fracture the hard won fleet consensus. It would also seriously compromise the process of collaboration and consensus the SE commercial fleets have developed through creation and adherence to this plan over the years.
Please include your opposition to this proposal in your comments to the Board of Fisheries.
Carol W
2008-12-29 17:24:11
Eric is right these proposals are very important to the troll fleet, with loss of wild chinook in the treaty hatchery fish are now very important to our economic survival. Trollers need to make sure all three major aquaculture boards understand how important hatchery chinook, coho, and chum are to us and we are no longer going to sit idlely by and watch the other 2 gear groups harvest the lions share of hatchery fish and give lip service to the troll fleets needs.
Removing any of the three aquaculture associations or changing the percentages in the enhanced allocation plan are a non starter and very dangerous to the troll fleet. We as a fleet have done more to correct our inbalance than any of the three aquaculture associations, having a group of chum trollers, and SPC to market our fish at an increase value is the only reason we are not further out.
At the recent RPT meeting it was striking to see how the seine and troll fleet were trying to find a compromise and yet the gillnetters were unwilling to move an inch other than to try and penalize the seine fleet.
I could go on and on this subject I will say that your troll reps on both the SSRAA and NSRAA boards are very vocal and strong in their representation of the troll fleet.
Salty
2008-12-30 03:14:53
I appreciate all you do Tom. Thank you again.
Was going to work on proposals today but the young bucks hauled me out of bed and made me go hunting. Three nice deer hanging now and so I will be busy processing the next couple of days.
Ocean Gold
2008-12-30 15:53:28
The States comments on shellfish are out, read them and you will see what side of the fence the are sitting on! Oh they are neutral?
Salty
2008-12-30 18:42:14
Ed,
Could you post a link to those comments?
Salty
2009-01-04 00:00:06
Proposal # 244 and 245 page 184 & 185 (Exclude PNP’s from SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan).
These are the most important proposals for me before the BOF this year. I oppose these proposals. The SE enhanced salmon allocation plan, 5AAC 33.364, adopted by the Board of Fisheries in 1994, allocates trollers, gillnetters, and seiners a % range of the value of SE enhanced salmon. It was recommended by consensus agreement by a task force of the commercial gear groups and adopted unanimously by the Board of Fisheries.
As noted by the Joint Regional Planning Team and the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008 trollers are out of their target range. In fact trollers have been, are, and will continue to be out of our allocated share unless significant action is taken to improve troll opportunity. While we have been allocated 27-32% of the value of SE enhanced salmon over the last 14 years we have actually harvested 19% of the value according to JRPT figures. This is a difference of $25 million dollars from the low end (27%) of our allocation and $41 million from the high (32%) of our allocation over the 14 years of the plan.
Here are the exact figures from a power point presentation I made to the NSRAA Board last November. No one has disputed these figures.
• The Problem:
• Since 1994 the total commercial value of SE enhanced salmon is $306,475,385.
• Trollers have harvested $56,928,851 or 19%.
• Their minimum share is $82,748,354 @ 27%
• The difference is $25,819,503!
• The trollers share at 29.5% midpoint of their allocation range would be $90,410,239.
• The difference is $33,481,388.
• The trollers share at 32% would be $98,072,123.
• The difference is $41,143,272.
Trollers have used this plan to improve investment in Coho and Chinook production, gain better opportunity at hatchery Chinook and Coho, and to gain opportunity at chum hatchery production. Specifically this plan has resulted in protection of troll opportunity on Chinook at Hidden Falls, improved opportunity for trollers at Neets Bay on Chum, Coho, and Chinook over the years. The existence of this plan helped bring Chum Trollers and NSRAA staff and Board together to collaborate on a proposal to improve both troll and cost recovery opportunity at the last Board of Fisheries SE proposal cycle. Past Board of Fisheries have used this plan to adopt troll proposals to access hatchery chum in Sitka Sound during summer troll Coho closures. Without this plan the trollers harvest value would undoubtedly be less than what it is.
Removing the PNP hatcheries, particularly DIPAC which contributes practically nothing to the seine fleet, very little to the troll fleet, and millions of dollars to the gillnet fleet would fracture the allocation plan. It would also seriously compromise the process of collaboration and consensus the SE commercial fleets have developed through creation and adherence to this plan over the years.
I would like the Board of Fisheries to reiterate their support for the SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan and state their support for the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008.
As a Chum Troller I would like the Board of Fisheries to understand that the only way trollers can move within their allocated share of SE enhanced salmon in any foreseeable near future scenario includes moving more chums into troll harvest. So, while I support the industry consensus statement:
And believe this statement, the rest of the consensus, and the existing allocation plan give facility operators plenty of incentive to improve hatchery salmon harvest opportunity for trollers I would prefer stronger language from the Board of Fisheries such as:
The reason I prefer the stronger language is that encouraging facilities to try and increase production to benefit the group(s) out of their allocation means years of waiting while increased production is planned, permitted, brood stock is developed, and the salmon mature. Meanwhile the salmon already produced and returning are not adequately targeted for the group(s) below their allocation.
This language is why trollers are still out after 14 years. We lose over two million dollars a year that has been allocated to us under current management. Furthermore this language does not recognize the realities of our SE enhancement program which is that our Chinook programs have largely failed to produce troll Chinook harvest goals while our chum hatchery programs are one of the greatest salmon hatchery success stories in history.
I also believe it is important for the Board of Fisheries to leave as much latitude as possible for the facility operators to figure out their own best way to provide those additional harvest opportunities. These opportunities are going to vary from facility to facility, from species to species, and from return to return. But, with the language suggested above, facility operators will have the direction and impetus to work with trollers to figure out how to improve our opportunity.
Salty
2009-01-04 21:22:17
Proposal 273 Support.
I support the Industry Consensus and JRPT recommendation to go to a 1-1 rotation in Deep Inlet. This should help bring the seiners within their allocated range of SE enhanced salmon. While the seiners and gillnetters have competing proposals to deal with the seiners falling out of their allocated share of hatchery fish in SE, it is the trollers who have been consistently below their allocated share and it will take movement of over $2 million worth of enhanced salmon in SE Alaska from net to troll harvest for trollers to move within their allocation.
I have discussed the Industry Consensus with NSRAA staff, SSRAA Board members, NSRAA Board members, JRPT members, and others involved. Industry members are aware that trollers plan to work with NSRAA to improve troll opportunity both for June Chinook and for Chum in the Deep Inlet terminal harvest area in July and August. When I made a power point presentation to the NSRAA Board at their fall meeting Board members repeatedly asked that Chum trollers bring specific proposals back to them at their spring meeting. I believe NSRAA and other SE hatchery operators have sufficient direction from the SE enhancement allocation plan, December 9, 2008 Industry Consensus, and action such as adoption of this proposal by the Board of Fisheries to improve troll opportunity on hatchery Chinook, Coho, and Chum.
The 1-1 time ratio in Deep Inlet for the net fisheries will give more opportunity for NSRAA to cycle trollers into the inlet for improved Chinook and Chum harvest opportunity. Gillnet, seine, cost recovery, and troll days could be worked out over the seasons and during preseason in response to predictions, allocation percentages, etc. Trollers lost a significant opportunity in 2008 when after cost recovery was completed on a Thursday, Deep Inlet was not opened to them on their scheduled day, Saturday. Chum trollers, the NSRAA Board and staff, and net fishermen have had numerous discussions about the possibility of giving trollers an opportunity in the Inlet after cost recovery is completed in the future. I am confident the NSRAA Board will improve troll harvest opportunity beginning in 2009.
While the gear groups have worked well together within NSRAA to try and elevate troll catch to their allocated share it is clear from all the data presented to you that trollers remain well below their minimum allocation. More needs to be done immediately. Adopting a 1-1 gillnet-seine rotation in Deep Inlet will help.
John Murray
2009-01-05 06:27:11
Why are the gillneters over here anyways?Some of their fleet don't want us over on"their"DIPAC fish and they don't want us to have the time and area in the Taku and Stikine so we can catch our share of those kings we helped rebuild.
What happened Eric when chum trollers tried to get access to some of those DIPAC chums a couple of BOF meetings ago?
I supported giving the gillneters some time in Sitka for hatchery kings,but now I'm wondering if that was a good idea.They hard asses us at BOF 3 years ago on transboundary kings,now some of same guys are floating proposal 245.Yeah lets toss the 94 allocation plan to get the gillnetters back in their percentage on allocation fish ,what a concept.
I'm hoping some of the moderate gillnet fleet show up in Sitka next month.
Salty
2009-01-08 23:08:34
286 and 287 page 220 and 221 of the proposal book.
These amend the definition of possession limit for fish in SE Alaska to delete [Unpreserved] and add
Proposal 286 and 287. Redefine sport limits to include “preserved fish until returning to domicile.”
I helped write the ATA proposal several years ago and thought the Board of Fisheries appointed a Board task force to work on this issue between the last SE finfish meeting and this one. I thought we would see a proposal from the Board of Fisheries on this issue for this Board cycle. This is one of the most important issues before the Board of Fisheries this year because it involves what I see as the most serious SE fisheries conservation problem; the inability of our State and Federal fisheries management systems to recognize, adequately account for, and manage the guided sport fishery.
The failure of our management system to deal with this problem led us to initiate a successful local collaboration in Sitka a number of years ago to deal with localized depletion of halibut. While ATA, a commercial interest group, and I, a commercial salmon troller, have initiated these proposals this year the problem transcends guided sport fish/commercial allocation disputes. The disappointment in Sitka and other SE communities with the failure of our Federal and State fishery managers to address the guided sport fish growth and circumventing of sport fish “possession” limits and other management efforts like the National Marine Fisheries Service regulation to manage the guided sport halibut catch in SE Alaska has led to a social attitude problem toward the guided sport fish industry.
Bumper stickers like Charter Fishing is an Organized Crime have become popular in Sitka. Others have been seen that are more hostile. The Alaska Longline Fisherman’s Association, Sitka Marine Stewardship Roundtable, and Sitka Trollers organized a forum with representatives from enforcement, coast guard, and fish & game to try and minimize problems on the fishing grounds in 2007. While conflicts were less noticeable in 2007 there are still deep seated resentments in Sitka as fishing guides continue to resist halibut conservation measures and a local fish box export tax.
I reported a local charter operator to enforcement after he maliciously ran over my starboard float bag with his 24 foot fiberglass guided sport fishing boat at about 25 knots. In addition to endangering himself and his clients he endangered my crew and damaged my equipment. When I cautiously trolled by him later in the day thinking an apology might be forthcoming my crew and I were assaulted with a barrage of foul language that impressed even this salty Alaskan fisherman.
From my perspective as a marine conservationist, a successful leader of numerous community and fishing group collaborative efforts, and a lifelong resident of SE Alaska with grandchildren growing up here, it is critical to the health of our resources and our communities that the Board of Fisheries send a clear message that you are going to manage the guided sport fishery. Other states have changed their possession limits to include preserved fish.
Please adopt this proposal so guides and clients will understand that “possession” limit in SE Alaska actually mean something.
Ocean Gold
2009-01-08 23:52:11
We need more people to write comments to NMFS on the OFR if you need help ask salty he wrote one of the best letters we have read. Thanks Eric, we need more folks that are effected by the "absence" or "lack of" the subsistance fish around the towns and villages. Here is a little help that you can use that the Halibut Coalition has put together, get friend and family to write in also or sign on to your letter. Thanks Ed
The National Marine Fisheries Service has reissued the Proposed Rule to implement a one halibut daily limit for charter clients in Area 2C. Your comments are essential to ensure the Rule is implemented and legal challenges to the Rule are defeated. Only you can build the necessary record to protect the halibut resource and your fishery. Each and every 2C/Southeast quota share holder, sport and subsistence fishermen should write and submit comments. Comments from 3A fishermen will also be extremely helpful. And please do not wait to get started! Comments are due by January 21st, 2009.
You can read the proposed rule by clicking on this link. Comments should be submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, NMFS Alaska Region, PO Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, fax (907) 586-7557, or on line at www.regulations.gov Be sure to identify your comments as RIN-0648-AX17. Please send a copy to the Halibut Coalition (halibutcoalition@gmail.com). To submit your comments on line: (1) go to www.regulations.gov (2) Search on: RIN-0648-AX17 , (3) Click on "Send a Comment or Submission", (4) enter your information [Suggest you write your comments a head of time so you can just copy/paste into the webform]
Please use the letter writing guide below to help focus your comments.
Quota share holders
State your name, the size of your boat, and the nature of your fishing business—i.e., do you fish with family? Do you live on your boat? Do you live in and/or deliver fish to a coastal fishing town in Alaska?
State your support for immediate implementation of the one halibut daily limit for charter clients fishing in Area 2C.
If you fish in area 3A, state the importance of managing the 2C charter sector to its allocation so that the conservation and management problems in 2C do not occur in 3A in the future.
Describe your dependence and investments in the halibut fishery. If you received an initial allocation, was it less than what you were catching in the years before IFQs were issued? Did you borrow money to buy shares? Did you use your home or boat as collateral? Are you still paying for shares?
Describe the economic impact of the 2C quota reductions in the past three years. How have you economized to survive with half the halibut quota you owned and fished three years ago? How would you be affected by the additional 20% cut that will be imposed if the one halibut daily limit is not implemented for 2C charter clients?
State your commitment to resource conservation, but also your conviction that both commercial fleets—setline and charter—should share the burden of conservation. Emphasize that the GHL awarded the charter sector 125% of their historic harvest. The allocation is fair and equitable; allowing them to exceed the GHL has compromised the halibut resource and been unfair and inequitable to all halibut harvesters.
Sport and subsistence fishermen
State your name and the importance of halibut fishing to you and your family.
State your support for immediate implementation of the one halibut daily limit for charter clients fishing in Area 2C.
Remind the Secretary that the 2C halibut charter fishery has exceeded its allocation, or Guideline Harvest Level (GHL), every year starting in 2004. In 2008 the 2C charter fishery approximately doubled its GHL, over harvesting the resource by approximately one million pounds. Emphasize that the one halibut daily limit is essential to protect the resource and the harvesting opportunities for everyone who depends on the halibut resource.
Describe the impact of the charter fishery on the resource and on your access to the halibut resource. Have you observed local depletion? Is that depletion worsening? If you fish in 3A, have you also experienced local depletion from charter fishing near 3A towns?
State your commitment to conservation. Is it fair, in your mind, that the 2C charter sector has ignored resource declines and continues to over harvest halibut at the expense of subsistence, sport and setline fishermen?? Is it fair and equitable to limit the charter sector to a GHL that reflects current halibut abundance?
PLEASE START AND END BY CLEARLY STATING YOUR SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ONE HALIBUT DAILY LIMIT FOR 2C CHARTER CLIENTS.
Questions? Call (907) 747-3400 or (HALIBUT Coalition (425) 949-1810). Please write your letter today and do not forget to send a copy to the Halibut Coalition, PO Box 22073, Juneau, AK 99801-2073. We will need a complete file of all comments if/when this issue goes to court.
Salty
2009-01-09 20:52:54
Fellow trollers and halibut fishermen. Here is a copy of my comments on the proposed halibut rule. I recommend you make a comment also. I have included the message from the halibut coalition and using the online form for comments was easy duty.
Eric Jordan
My name is Eric Jordan. I am a lifelong halibut fisherman in SE Alaska. I fished halibut commercially out of Petersburg starting with my father and grandfather in the 1950's. I quit fishing halibut commercially both as crew and as an owner skipper when IFQ's came in the 1990's. I do not own halibut quota.
I have subsistence halibut fished since I started dropping baited hooks over the side of our family fishing boats in the early 50's. I still take 4 or 5 halibut home to eat each year that I catch on rod and reel subsistence fishing. Halibut are an important part of my culture going back to halibut fishing in Norway. My sons regularly take subsistence halibut home to feed my grandchildren.
I have worked as a sport fish guide with my father in the early 60's and as a licensed six-pack saltwater charter guide out of Sitka in the 1990's. I have given up my six-pack license and do not guide any more.
I have been honored to asked to facilitate several halibut sharing and conservation task forces in Sitka as our community has struggled to deal with localized depletion and difficulty for local subsistence and sport halibut fishermen to catch halibut out of relatively small skiffs in the traditional halibut holes near Sitka. Every one of our task forces has collaboratively and unanimously recommended management measures to reduce commercial, guided, and subsistence effort in Sitka sound to better conserve and share the halibut resource. Two of these plans called Local Area Management Plans have been adopted for the Sitka area by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and have served as models for other communities.
I am a marine conservationist and helped found the Alaska Marine Conservation Council in the early 90's. I worked as an outreach coordinator for the Conservation Council for 5 years in the late 90's. I am on the water 150-200 days a year pursuing my livelihood as a commercial salmon troller. I have been on the water in SE Alaska every summer since 1950. I have a fisheries science certificate from Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka. I have served on fisheries conservation and management bodies from the Sitka Advisory Committee to the Advisory Panel to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and on the Alaska Board of Fisheries. I have been recognized by National Fisherman Magazine as one of their national "Highliners" for my work helping to conserve and share Alaska fishery resources.
I state all of the above in the hope that someone reading this will understand that my comments come from a long history of depending on, observing, and caring about the SE Alaska halibut resource even though I don't make any money from halibut harvest. I strongly support immediate implementation of the one halibut a day rule for the guided sport fishery in SE Alaska. It is clear to me that the halibut resource is a fraction of what it was in the 90's near Sitka. My by-catch of halibut on my troll gear has declined to the point that we are able to drag herring behind flashers within feet of the bottom for days without ever seeing a halibut. In the 90's we could not even think about using that gear for salmon as a halibut would be on it immediately.
It is clear to me that both the IFQ system with commercial longline gear being set from March to mid November and the growth of the guided sport fish harvest are responsible for this depletion near Sitka. But, the longliners have a quota and are managed to stay within it. The guides have a guideline harvest level but they are not required to live within it. This is making a travesty of management and resource conservation.
The failure of our management systems to adequately regulate and enforce existing regulations on the guided sport halibut fishery near Sitka has led to social unrest in the community of Sitka and increasing conflicts on the grounds. Subsistence, unguided sport, commercial, conservation, and community interests are all disgusted with the failure of our fishery management systems to regulate the guided sport halibut harvest.
Please adopt, implement, and enforce the proposed one fish per day for guided sport clients in the SE Alaska halibut fishery.
Sincerely,
Eric Jordan
John Murray
2009-01-11 23:44:31
Yak to You 2 do you any thoughts on proposal 248 and proposal 329.It would be good to hear the Yakatat perspective.
yak2you2
2009-01-12 03:16:48
Thanks for asking. Proposals 248, and 329 were adopted, and submitted by the Yakutat fish & game advisory committee. First, 248. In the early 80's there were no protective corridors in place to limit the percentage of fish being taken that were destined for the Situk river. There were a large number of boats that would troll back and forth right outside the mouth of the Situk 7 days a week that were having a significant impact on the Situk stocks at the time, and it was felt by the local gillnet fleet that the percentage of fish being taken in this manner was uneven. Other than years of unusually high abundance, the gillnet fleet is open from Sunday noon through Wednesday noon, and closed the rest of the week to allow escapement up the river. A proposal was sent in and approved by the board of fish to make it so when gillnet fishing is closed to meet weekly escapement goals, trolling would be closed in state waters from the Dangerous River( approximately 10 miles east of the mouth of the Situk) to Pt. Mamby( approximately 30 miles west of the mouth of the Situk.) Since that time the state has determined that having boats trolling in front of the river was a bad idea at any time when the cohos are running, and implemented permanent no trolling corridors that extent approximately 5 miles on either side of the river, and out to the 3 mile line. Over time the overall changes in prices of fish, fuel, etc., have made a lot of changes to Yakutat's fleet. Rivers that once were accessible and produced significant catches of fish for the gillnet fleet, have become cost prohibitive to fish any more. This has caused a condensing of the gillnet fleet on the only river in the district you can drive to, the Situk. With so many gillnet permits on the river, per capita catches have decreased, and caused many to look for other ways of producing cohos. There are now approximately 60 to 70 handtroll permits that are being fished out of converted gillnet skiffs and pleasure boats by people who aren't interested in participating in the already over crowded gillnet fishery on the Situk. There are two main problems with the current law as it is. 1) It's redundant. The state already has a permanent protective corridor in place around the mouth of the Situk, the existing 40 mile corridor that denies access to all of Yakutat bay during times of gillnet closures is excessive. 2) In late August and all of September the weather is such that there are many days when the handtroll fleet, comprised of mostly small boats, is forced to go 3 miles out into the open ocean in order to fish, at great personal risk. 248 basically just states that the Yakutat advisory committee, which originally implemented the current law, no longer sees it as necessary, needlessly prohibitive to the troll fleet, and requests that it be rescinded.
yak2you2
2009-01-12 04:42:48
Proposal 329- Up until about 1980 power trollers were allowed to use 6 lines and hand trollers 4 lines in federal waters west of cape Spencer. At that time both user groups were reduced by 2 lines in the interests of conservation. Since that time, power trollers right to use 6 lines has been reinstated, while hand trollers has not. The prevailing feeling on this amongst those who troll in this area is that if the rights to the extra 2 lines is going to be restored for one user group, then it should be restored for the other. 329 asks simply for that. There may be some who feel that this might cause hand trollers state wide to want 4 lines in the area they fish in. The simple answer to that question is; do they power troll with 6 lines in your area? The answer, of course, is no. The cape Spenser to cape Suckling area is unique in this fashion. In an earlier post someone mentioned that mathematically speaking, 3 lines should be allowed for hand trolling here where 6 power troll lines are allowed. While I can't argue against the math of this, I invite everyone to consider how hard it would be for a small hand troll vessel to drag 3 lines without driving around in a circle all day. I bet if you asked anyone who power trolls in this area, they would much rather see the hand trollers get 4 lines so they troll in straight line, rather than have a bunch of boats trolling in circles all over the drag.
The last devil's advocate question that gets bounced off of this proposal is, how many more fish would be taken if it passes. Remember, 6 or 4 lines can only be fished in federal waters, 3 miles offshore. Out of the 60 to 70 handtroll permits in this area, approximately 50 to 60 of them are being fished out of a 19 ft. open skiff, or small converted pleasure craft. the numbers of days that the handtroll fleet can even go out an fish this area is limited to flat calm days, so realistically the catches are not likely to be that significant.
Salty
2009-01-12 07:31:21
I wish the power troll fleet was only running four lines in Federal waters off of SE Alaska including west of Spencer.
How about handtrollers leaving Yakutat, delivering in Yakutat, and fishing three miles off shore be allowed to use power on two lines?
Yak is right on the history. I was involved in the meetings and at the Board of Fisheries meeting when the deal to restrict handtrollers to two lines was done. The trade off was that handtrollers were allowed to fish outside the surf line and most of the area restrictions were lifted. While I know there are still some hard feelings and I personally walked out of the meeting before it ended the deal was probably good for the troll industry.
Being prohibited from fishing outside of the surf line and having to deal with area closures was not good for the future of the handtrollers. Hand and power trollers spending all kinds of energy and resources battling internally while threats from gillnetters, guided sport, treat issues etc. loomed was also not a good scenario.
yak2you2
2009-01-12 08:37:42
Salty,
If your referring to 2 power lines in the Yakutat area as a trade off, it's hard to say what the local fleet or a.c. board would feel about it. There would be some who would be legitimately concerned that it would pack every hand troller in the state into this area if this was the only place they could run power gear. My thought on it is, this is the only place in the state you can powertroll with 6 lines, and you don't see the whole power fleet up here do you? The guys who have upgraded to a powertroll permit and a bigger boat have moved away from here, that should tell you how hot it is here.There's also talk of possibly cutting the proposal back to west of the Dangerous river, which would eliminate 4 handtroll lines on the Fairweather Grounds, but ultimately your still looking at one user group having something that another doesn't, and I think that there would still be hard feelings for some. Personally, I would be content with either of these. Being a handtroller myself, I really don't understand what anyone is worried about. I really doubt that a boat with 4 lines is going to catch double what a boat with 2 lines would. I don't know how you would keep up. With cohos it's usually all I can do to keep up with 2 lines, or else it's so dead that 10 lines wouldn't matter. If the proposal passes I honestly don't know if I will rig up for it, or not. However, If it makes people feel like their being treated more fairly, or if they have enough ambition to give it a try, I say let them, their not going to hurt anything.
Proposal 328, which wasn't submitted by Yakutat, asks for 2 powerlines for all handtrollers statewide. If it were modified to make it available as an option so those who didn't have boat enough to support a power set up or expensive change over weren't forced to, I would personally support this proposal as well.
There's other guys who fish this area reading this forum, now would be a good time for them to speak up.
sixlines
2009-01-12 09:39:22
Salty
I thought you fought for the sitka handtrollers for the 80%-20% power to handtroll split onthe king and coho troll catch.I believe that split is nolonger in afect and was never ever met.
I powertrolled west of spencer the past few years you could say,The couple of different boats I fished were 32 footers.I,ll tell I fished the same drags the handtrolls fished for the most part and you know them smaller boat in the 19 to 24 foot boats dont even get but a little over onetherd the fishing time I got.West winds stops them southeast ,Northeast.Most of the bites where the money is made is offshore.I think as trollers we all should stand together Because I feel that oneday there going to be comming after my #5and6 and I need those extera lines where I live because the weather is a facter for me and you and all the powertrollers in the state.I dont believe that the trollfleet dosnot know the potential of the yakutat coho bites,But I also know that the weather is the big facter and cost to operate here is to high food and fuel. Fuel$5 Milk$9.4 lines will also keep a few nets out of the rivers with somany multipermitholders here.
Salty
2009-01-12 19:10:34
I can't remember the 80/20 % split fight. I think giving it up was part of the deal because it has not come up since but I can't remember.
I just went through a bunch of my old basketball coaching plans, I still have them, from over 10 years ago and it was amazing how different my memory of my practices is from what I had planned. I imagine it is the same way with the memories of the troll politics of 30 years ago. While my memories are interesting to a very few, because I was there, I am sure they bear very little resemblance to the written record or other peoples memories.
We just went through that at the Fish & Game Advisory Committee with Sitka herring. It is absolutely amazing how different our memories are from what the historical record shows. Humbling, sobering, and revealing all at the same time.
It tends to make me much more tolerant of people who have a different view of history that we both experienced than I do. I must admit to a little contempt for some of those views in my younger past. Anyway, I have learned that it is more important to focus on where we want to go than trying to reconcile our different perspectives of how things happened years ago.
What do you really want in Yakutat as far as handtroll changes. What do you vision will happen with the changes?
yak2you2
2009-01-12 20:48:43
The 2 proposals listed above are pretty important, but other than that, getting some kind of a spring king fishery would sure be nice. Kind of a bummer to be sidelined while everybody else gets to fish. I know it's a complicated process, it's just hard to see bunches of fish around in May and June, watch the charter boats smacking fat toads daily, and not being able to do anything accept put them in the smokehouse. Preserving or maybe even increasing our winter king quota, is paramount for me personally.
sixlines
2009-01-12 21:02:02
Salty
What i would like to see, is the handtroll fleet remain a commercial fishery. For one, the sport charter fleet is in a big take over of the handtroll permits. When the charter fleet offsets the sport commercial catch from people who make their living from handtrolling to a charter fishery, the powertrollers may be up against one of the stongest organizations in the state; stop and think about if charter boat operators hold high interest in handtroll fleet and they decide the powertroller is taking more than their share. Im sure you can see it happening around Sitka and other southeast communities. As far as listening to the ATA and Southeast trollers saying they aren't getting their share of the hatchery kings of the southeast, you kind of know how the Yakutat trollers feel about you hatchery king fishermen catching our treaty kings, now i feel that you should not be able to keep treaty kings during a hatchery opening, your areas should be shrunk down, hatchery should have to produce clip-fin kings salmon and a troller engaged in a hatchery opening should only be able to keep clip-fin kings. Alaska Sportfish Association would most likely agree with me. I am a troller and I feel that you now by reading this don't like me very much, now you know how I feel about all of you. I am a commercial fishermen in Yakutat and as a matter of fact, Im a third generation troller; I have experienced three hundered king salmon days on the Fairweather grounds and one the W-grounds and even south of corrination. We all have history in these waters and I would love to back you in any way I could but I don't believe that we should turn our backs on any of our fellow trollers.
Salty
2009-01-12 21:20:26
Being able to fish until we get the guideline harvest range for the winter or May 1st must help as it gives you another 15 days in late April in most recent years and most likely again this year. Extending the winter season until we get to the guideline harvest range plus the Alaska Hatchery harvest in the winter, another 5 thousand or so, would help you guys. It would probably add another week or so this year and maybe even get us until May 15th.
I don't see it as a proposal but I suppose you could append it to 321.
The other idea I have floated around is to view these spring openings as Alaska Hatchery and
sixlines
2009-01-12 21:42:22
Salty
I thank all of you for fighting to add the hatchery kings to winter quota but in March and April some days we have a 20-30% kings caught with clip-fins. I reveiw hatchery troll catch records, and you don't have that high of hatchery kings catch percentage against treaty fish and the number I just said is most deffinately an unofficial number, we can't even get a spring fishery in place to test these numbers; but one thing is for certain we do catch hatchery kings. With all that in play, Yakutat should not be deprived of participating in a spring fishery at least a 2-3 week opener for two years. If Yakutat didn't fall within the guidelines of what the trollers of southeast fall in, I wouldn't argue about it anymore. I believe that we should no longer be deprived of making a living trolling in Yakutat when fellow trollers 250 miles south reap as you say, "a lions share."
yak2you2
2009-01-13 01:11:04
Adding kings to the winter quota, and having a spring opening in the Yakutat area are two completely different issues, both of which I always have and will continue to endorse. Do you feel any better for announcing that I have a job? It's nothing that everybody on this board hasn't already heard me say. Having a job doesn't mean that a person is any less passionate about garnering good things for their community or their fishery, there's just a right way and a wrong way of doing things. My way is to try to be diplomatic and get a full understanding of the issues. Your way is.....well, becoming more obvious every time you post.
kingquota
2009-01-13 03:28:33
As a Yakutat troller, I must say that with all the talk here about trollers sticking together and having something like a united front, I feel a little bit like some trollers do not feel that the 67 hand trollers and the 18 power trollers of Yakutat are not part of the group suggesting trollers are together. It is very difficult trying to get our trollers to participate in the Spring King Trolling season when we meet opposition from the ATA.
Our arguement that it is not fair nor is it reasonable to expect us to do one of two options. One is to sit out the Spring King Season for two months and then expect to pay our bills when they finally open the summer season or two; travel with our 16 to 21 foot skiffs the two hundred miles to the nearest hatchery season for kings. Then find a place to stay buy our food and try to send money home to our families so they can survive while we are in the hatchery area. What hurts the worse is not only do we have to fight with the state dep't of commercial fisheries but with the powerful ATA sitting right alongside the Department on the same table and spouting the same words to keep us from fishing our right to the Pacific Salmon Treaty King Salmon.. Our Area D has the Alsek River which is the main River in the Yakutat area that is or should be the one under consideration for the Pacific Salmon Treaty for the Alsek River goes into Canada. The DCF doesn't use the Alsek River for the King Salmon Quota, It uses the in state river as an excuse to keep our area d closed
To us trollers in Yakutat, The Hatchery fishery is a joke and it should be named as it is, namely the North Pacific King Salmon Treaty Quota season. The most hatchery Kings Caught is 39 % . The most ever caught. that means that the wild kings are 61 %. It is a joke but none of us yakutat trollers are laughing.
I also remember when the State Board of Fish and Game asked all of us to give up a FEW SEASONS and two of our troll lines (Both power and hand) until such times the kings are back to an acceptable level. As we all know the hand trollers are still trying to get their two lines back. The Yakutat trollers have not been open since 1981 for the 75 days until the last few years where the state extended the winter troll for five, ten and fifteen days. That still leaves us with out a fishing season for sixty days. We trollers of Yakutat CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT even troll for humpies, chums sockeye or coho's during the Hatchery seasons.
Yakutat has a proposal and a petition signed by 126 people with families asking the state to cease this illegal practice of excluding Yakutat from fishing.It has come to a emergency for Yakutat. between 2000 and 2007 the population of Yakutat fell from 808 to 606 and this year alone five separate families have moved to the larger cities. How can the State of Alaska allow the Department of Commercial Fisheries to exclude a total community from their livelyhood?? I guess what I am asking is for support from the trolling community to help us to survive this Hatchery Crisis we have at our doorstep!!
sixlines
2009-01-13 03:31:35
TO:yak2you2
Well,just to let know I'm understanding what ATA is trying to do,there trying to increase the winter troll quota so when april 30 comes they can take the remainder of the winter quota that was not caught and add it to their spring quota and even have more fish to catch.If they want to extend the winter fishery to May 15 Im on board,But without more time for Yakutat fishermen to fish past april 30 I myself would not even think about backing ATA or southeast on a increase in quota.If ATA and the rest of the troll fleet in alaska would help a small group of fishermen get back whats rightfully ours..I Believe they would get 50 to 60 new members.You know all these hatchery kings that are released from hatcheries freequent yak-bay and feed on our local herring because we catch them and you know it. ps:with out fishing time added to any winter quota yakutat gets nothing.
farmed fish eater
2009-01-13 18:44:04
Look both of you, there is a right and wrong way. I suppport both of you on many issue's. But dont support you two on hiding behind some screen names on community issues where both of you two crybabies were voted into position. And you two are only creating entertainment for the people who read these blogs. I mean the people/some fisherman/ and maybe a few blog readers that the two of you show up in Sitka with some of this energy, and do what you were elected to do and not what you want to do. I would assume the community is going to be embarrased to know that when you get to the board of fish meeting everyone will be done laughing out loud at the Yakutat fleet . I would only wonder if it is Yakutat's best intrest to send either of you to bickering men. As far as the pettion being a joke the only joke is a grown men hiding behind a screen name talking about eachother. Yakutat should get back what is their's or was their's the rest of the fleet has got back their's, those are the issue's I wish two board members would hash out. For any of the blog readers on here that will be attending the board of fish meeting take a min. to find these two yahoo's and meet the guy's that are carring the torch for Yakutat I'm going to. On a closing to this post I would like to say these two need to find better ways to construct themselves. The whales will be back in a month hold on yak2you it will be sureal, I have read. And for sixlines I can see that you have wide range of the facts on these such issue's and a great passion for trolling and the trollers of Yakutat but would recommend to do it in a profesional way. The board of fish wont be doing a back ground check on either of you two seeing how you were voted to represent the community.But the community after reading these should take a different stance next time. These meetings are serious issue's that will determine a community's outlook on many game issue's over the next couple years. You guy's should get together your antimosity and take it at these orginazations and I guarantee you will get some place. But for now I am out I also have a job.sorry sixlines , I know you discourage work and fisherman.
John Murray
2009-01-13 19:27:32
sixlines, ATA DOESN'T support pro320 or 321.There has been some support for 321 in the past(minimal),for this board cycle from ATA there was no support.It was felt with low king numbers it wouldn't be wise to further reduce the summer quota.I have supported 321 in past but there was little support from the fleet or the board.I still hope we can gather that support in the future.
Is supporting ATA (menbership wise)a good idea?To use pro321 for an example if more ATA members spoke to Dale and the board members about their concerns it might change the the vote someday.One of the most effective ways is to work within the system.Become a member,nominate a Yak fisherman to be on the board.Call up,write the board.
I for one appreciate hearing differing points of view.It can help one gauge the support or lack of.Also one with concerns can learn some of the reasons and backround on why the ATA board went the way we did.
On a positive note it sounds like a YAK handtroller is trying to become the handtroll rep on the ATA board.It a good move to have someone from your village get on the board .