Salty
2009-02-03 02:15:21
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 and NSRAA 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.
And while I believe these statements, 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, more concise, and more detailed language from the Board of Fisheries by rolling the 3 points
1) Encourage facility operators to try to increase production in a way that will provide additional opportunities to harvest fish by the seine fleet and troll fleet.
2) Encourage facility operators and ADF&G to identify additional times and areas where enhanced coho and Chinook could be harvested by trollers without affecting wild stocks.
3) Request regional associations to look at the possibility of otolith marking of all Coho and Chinook towards the goal of getting additional information about migration patterns and run timing.
into one statement such as:
1) Direct SE facility operators to work together to develop a regional plan to provide the gear group(s) below their allocation range additional opportunities to harvest SE enhanced salmon without affecting wild stocks toward the goal of each gear group achieving enhanced salmon harvest values within their allocated range as soon as possible.
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 below their allocated range after 14 years. We lose over two million dollars a year that has been allocated to us. 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, our coho enhancement programs, while successful, provide little foreseeable additional opportunity for trollers, and that our chum hatchery programs are one of the greatest salmon hatchery success stories in history.
The hard truth is that if you look into the models developed by Chip Blair and Steve Reifenstuhl of NSRAA for the JRPT for trying to move trollers within their allocated range the only way to do it in the near term is to include chums. For the Industry task force to leave out chums in statements 2) and 3) is baffling to me.
While I believe the best way to improve the industry consensus statement by the Board of Fisheries is to adopt the single statement I suggest here I also see that an alternative would be to add chums to statements 2 and 3 as listed below.
2) Encourage facility operators and ADF&G to identify additional times and areas where enhanced coho, chum, and Chinook could be harvested by trollers without affecting wild stocks.
3) Request regional associations to look at the possibility of otolith marking of all coho, chum, and Chinook towards the goal of getting additional information about migration patterns and run timing.
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. So I don’t recommend that the Board step in and adjust fisheries as specified in c of 5 AAC 33.364; (c) If the value of the harvest of enhanced salmon stocks by a gear group listed in (a) of this section is outside of its allocation percentage for three consecutive years, the board will, in its discretion, adjust fisheries within special harvest areas to bring the gear group within its allocation percentage.
With the amended language suggested above, facility operators will have clear direction from the Board of Fisheries to get the job accomplished.
I helped pioneer troll chum harvesting starting when I was still handtrolling at Excursion Inlet in 1980. I have trolled hatchery chums successfully at Neets Bay, Hidden Falls, and in Sitka Sound. We have successfully figured out the gear, the system, and how to get them to bite at every hatchery facility where we have had sufficient opportunity.
I am absolutely certain that if the Board of Fisheries provides clear direction to facility operators in SE that they want the trollers given better opportunity to move within their allocated share as soon as possible we could do it. Please provide this direction.