Chum Trollers Association News
Salty
2009-12-11 20:21:42
In response to a comment I have decided that most of our chum troll posts actually are more appropriate in the Fishery Politics section. So I have started this new thread. Perhaps Jon can figure out how to move the previous thread here.
Salty
2009-12-11 20:25:20
Here are the motions and the ideas our Chair, Linda Danner, presented yesterday at the SE hatchery allocation workshop in Juneau.
The ideas for helping bring trollers within our allocation share have not been prioritized or sorted or developed into proposals. They are the ideas that came out of the chum trollers solicitation in e-mails, dock conversations, and on the commercial salmon trollers forum.
Linda will have a full report early next week. In brief it looks like the gillnetters want a new regional plan that removes the DiPac harvest values from the Regional allocation formula and that there is some possibility of a chum troll fishery again at Neets Bay. It will depend on SSRAA finances, return predictions, and other factors.
We welcome your good ideas and comments on any of this.
Our mission is:
To promote and improve Alaska chum salmon harvest for all trollers.
Our immediate focus is on finding answers from Hatchery Operators, ADF&G, RPT, and gear groups the answer to the following question.
What is your plan to help bring trollers within their allocation (27-32%) of the value of SE hatchery harvest starting in 2010?
As a long term policy chum trollers would rather not see salmon taken from one or another gear group but rather the creation of new opportunities for the troll fleet. In the short term however every effort should be made to share existing hatchery sites (production) as equitably as possible. We must be assured of our share of the pie (on the table) while the other one is in the oven.
Chum trollers support opportunity for all three gear groups at Deep Inlet.
If hatchery salmon come from one gear group behind in its allocation to help make up the shortfall for another gear group behind in its allocation then an equivalent value of hatchery salmon needs to go to that group from the gear group that is ahead in its allocation. Ex. If trollers take 100 thousand chums from the seiners at HF then 100 thousand chums need to go from the gillnetters to the seiners somewhere else in SE.
Since trollers have the capability to effectively harvest chum salmon and are most effective when not mixed with seine or gillnet fisheries we suggest bringing new chum projects on line in new areas and designating them troll only.
Ideas for moving trollers within their allocation (27-32%) of SE hatchery salmon harvest values starting in 2010.
· (SSRAA)Retain Chum Troll opportunity at Neets Bay.
· (NSRAA)Convert HF stock chums released at Deep Inlet to MV chums.
· (NSRAA, ADF&G) Develop alternate remote release sites for MV chums, Chinook, and coho. (Cascade Creek, Crescent Harbor?)
· (NSRAA) Go over Chip Blair proposal and support or propose alternative to DI re-opening plan.
· (NSRAA, ADF&G) Work on making sure Brood Stock closure losses to trollers in Eastern Channel are made up before CR or Net fisheries benefit from those closures.
· (NSRAA, RPT)Invest some of NSRAA 3% in coho production at SSRAA.
· (NSRAA, ADF&G) Release HF stock not working at Deep Inlet to Remote release site elsewhere and provide troll access. Replace 18 million HF stock at Deep Inlet with MV stock.
· (NSRAA)Split the opening of the terminal harvest area at HF to allow trollers to target chums at either Takatz or Kanaku without interference from CR or Seine fisheries in that sub-area until July 1. (Last Sunday in June, June 28, or until a certain % of the expected return was harvested by trollers were also discussed.)
· (NSRAA) Establish viable troll coho fishery at Hidden Falls (HF) by eliminating or greatly reducing cost recovery on coho at this site.
· (NSRAA, ADF&G) Develop additional remote release sites for HF and Medevejie (MV) Chinook.
· (BOF) Open parts of District 11 to trolling for hatchery salmon. Process to draft Agenda Change Request (ACR) to the Board of Fisheries for experimental openings in 11 to find where chums/sockeye are biting. To minimize by-catch, and impact (if any) on Juneau sport fisheries. Full proposal for BOF consideration in 2012.
· (BOF, NSRAA) Redo lines in Deep Inlet to reduce net harvest of MV Chinook.
· (BOF) Require troll access at all SE hatchery terminal harvest areas.
· ((BOF) Board of Fisheries) Shift lines in Lynn Canal for gillnet/troll areas.
· (BOF)Repeal 1 chum/1 Chinook regulation in the HF terminal harvest area after July 1.
· (BOF) Open Hidden Falls Stat weeks (June 10 –Aug) for trolling.
· (HO, Regional Planning Team (RPT)) Request each Hatchery Operator (HO) to share what percent of the gear group harvest value of their production is going to trollers.
· (HO, RPT, BOF)Request each HO to explain their plan for bringing trollers up to 32% starting in 2010.
· (RPT, HO) Dedicate Port Armstrong and Kake chum production to troll harvest until we are within our harvest allocation value range.
ashadu
2009-12-24 10:14:13
thats a very ambitious wish list. my appreciation and admiration for those of you in the political side of this extremely political business. happy holidays to all ,ashadu fred
Salty
2009-12-25 03:47:17
Report on Dec. 15th meeting of Chum Trollers. (This is an excerpt from an e-mail to our members)
11 members showed up to hear a report from Linda Danner on her trip to Juneau for the Joint Regional Planning Team for SE enhanced salmon, and a SE Enhanced salmon allocation workshop,
Eric and Karl Jordan also gave reports on the Young Fisherman's Summit in Anchorage which included meeting with lots of Alaska Fisheries leaders including Laura Fleming of Alaska Seafood Marketing and a top seafood buyer from England.
Carl Peterson reported that we are approaching 30 paid members now.
Everyone helped put addresses and a short message from Eric on Postcards for Power Troll Permit holders likely to vote in the NSRAA Board election.
Linda might type up her own report and I will be forwarding minutes of the hatchery allocation workshop in Juneau when they come available later in the week or early next week.
In summary.
It was great to have Linda at the meeting as fog in Juneau kept Eric's plane from landing and may have contributed to the NSRAA troll rep not making the meeting. Linda met with numerous SE gear group and salmon enhancement leaders including lunch with Dave Otte and Dale Kelly of ATA. While the meeting was scheduled to discuss ways the groups could co-operate to bring respective groups within their allocation by making adjustment within the terminal hatchery areas (or at least that is what we thought) SE gillnetters used the meetings to present and force discussion of their plan to re-open the SE allocation formula adopted in 1994 and reaffirmed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries in 2009. (Details of this plan should be in the minutes of the meeting that I will forward as soon as we get them.) Dale Kelly of the Alaska Trollers Association and John Peckham, SSRAA RPT seine representative, tried to re-focus the discussion on how to make the existing regulatory allocation plan work.
John Burke, General Manager of SSRAA, presented preliminary data showing the harvest % values of SE enhanced salmon by the gear groups in 2009 (attached). What is really interesting here, and I have not really analyzed the numbers in detail yet, is that the troll % went down from 18% in 2008 to 14.6% in 2009. If you look at the SSRAA report I attached you can see that we went up to 26% of the Common Property (CP) value of their harvest. A big part of the problem is that we only harvested 11.4 % of the CP value of NSRAA production. (attached) I have not got the DiPac values yet but the troll share is also a very low% of their production based on the numbers of fish caught, which I do have and is available on the DiPac website. http://dipac.net/2009%20CONTRIBUTIONS.pdf
Linda presented the Chum Troller's positions and 19 ideas for helping move trollers within their allocation. While everyone at the allocation workshop was happy to see some ideas there was varying degree of enthusiasm for the specifics. She reported that the political dynamics are very interesting. That John Peckham, Dave Ott, Dale Kelly, and John Burke were very helpful to her. That we need to stand solid with ATA and Southeast Seiners against the gillnet plan to re-open the SE allocation plan and basically reallocate a bunch of enhanced salmon to the gillnetters at trollers expense. We also need to meet and formally respond to the gillnetters plan. That if the gillnetters want to re-open the plan they can propose that to the Board of Fisheries. That in the meantime the regulation is that the gear groups and hatchery operators are to work to keep or bring each gear group within its allocation by adjusting harvests in the hatchery terminal harvest areas.
Salty
2009-12-25 03:51:11
SE enhanced salmon allocation figures.
(If any of you who are not members would like copies of the attached reports send me a personal message and I will forward.)
Fellow chum trollers,
I am busy working up the data on how 2009 went and why trollers only caught 14.6% of the common property value of SE enhanced salmon. 14.6% is just about half of the range (27-32%) we were allocated by the Board of Fisheries in 1994 and reaffirmed in 2009. I have attached the pertinent information. But here it is for those of you who don't want to bury yourselves in the data but would like to know what is going on.
SSRAA contributed $9,866,800 to the common property commercial harvests in 2009. 36% to the gillnetters, 38% to the seiners, and 26% to the trollers.
NSRAA contributed $9,884,594 to the common property commercial harvests in 2009. 7% to the gillnetters, 11% to the trollers, and 81% to the seiners.
DiPac contributed $7,628,536 to the common property commercial harvests in 2009. 91 % to the gillnetters, 0.8 % to the trollers, and 8% to the seiners.
I rounded all these percentages off. You can check my figures by looking at the attachments. I think this points us in the direction of the problems.
Feedback appreciated.
Happy Holidays,
Eric
Ocean Gold
2010-01-02 05:33:39
The meeting notes from the allocation workshop and all the attachments and handout from the meeting are posted on the SEAFA website
http://www.seafa.org/?page_id=536
Salty
2010-01-03 01:32:17
Thanks to Kathy for taking these comprehensive minutes. I understand you were at the meeting Ed. What was your take?
grabber
2010-01-05 15:07:56
The idea that gillnetters want to review and revisit the enhanced allocation plan to reallocate troll fish to the gillnet fishery is disingenous and a lie. It is just this type of retoric that leads to contentious and non-productive discussions on the issue. Changing the percentages is not the focus. It is about making or adjusting the plan in a manner that doesn't cripple or punish a gear group in the event of a particular enhanced return failure. While the regulation is to adjust harvest in terminal areas, it is also regulation to increase production ( something that the state is unwilling to do, at least lately), or to move production to areas where only certain gear groups can benefit. We would just as soon see the state make some more fish somewhere for the gear groups that are out on the low side. I should point out this was the case when the seiners were out on the high side. We think, although they say it is case by case, the state is unwilling to do this. This puts us in a very percarious situation. In the current plan, we are looking at losing any and all terminal harvest areas, and probably production being moved from areas where we intercept. That leaves us with one option, DIPAC. When that fails, and history tells us at some point they all do, we will all find ourselves at yet another contentious board of fish meeting, and the shoe will be on the other foot. While we do have a plan at this time, it is very obvious after 18 years that it isn't working, especially for you! While I think the original plan was the best the task force could do at the time, it isn't like it was put together by gods. Alot has changed since its inception, and the idea to revisit and review is hardly radical, and is in fact, responisble.
It is frustrating for us that your gear group has been so inept at harvesting. I mean, geez, trolling has been closed for what, 15 days since July 1? I realize troller are a diverse bunch of guys, some just do kings, some just kings and cohos, and more all the time, chums. I hope for everyones sake, including the hatcheries budgets, that is the case.
Finger pointing, misinformation, and villiafying gear groups will do nothing but tear the process apart.
Salty
2010-01-05 19:17:18
Grabber, Why don't you post the gillnet plan here and your understanding of how it will work so we can all make up our own minds about whether it will benefit gillnetters at trollers expense. We have adopted a policy of laying our plans, and how we see them working, out on the table in order to facilitate communication and collaboration. We presented 19 ideas in Juneau.
This was my reaction to reading and hearing what I could about the gillnet plan. "That we need to stand solid with ATA and Southeast Seiners against the gillnet plan to re-open the SE allocation plan and basically reallocate a bunch of enhanced salmon to the gillnetters at trollers expense." Our Chum trollers board met last night and has basically taken this same position. I will post those motions as soon as I type them up and our board members double check them for wording, grammar etc.
Perhaps others see the gillnet plan differently. Paste it up. I think we can all agree that the gillnet plan would take Board of Fish action. In the meantime we have BOF regulation and findings reaffirmed in 2009 and Industry consensus last winter to make the existing plan work. If the gillnet plan will improve troll harvest value of enhanced salmon in SE starting in 2010 please explain and I am sure you will find us interested.
Since it seems you bring some history to your post then you probably know I have a long record of facilitating group process including being asked to facilitate sharing between the gear groups at NSRAA. While people disagree with me all the time, my integrity has seldom been questioned. Is there any misinformation in my post? Please be specific and if there is I apologize and will correct it.
I does seem that there is some common ground. That we want the hatchery investments to be as efficient as possible, that for the foreseeable future trollers are going to be harvesting more chums if they are to improve their SE enhanced salmon value %, and things have changed since 1994.
I suspect there is also common ground supporting this motion that was adopted by Chum Trollers at our second meeting:
Passed unanimously.
Thanks for engaging.
grabber
2010-01-06 05:00:51
One of the major problems with the plan as it now is, is that pnps are included in the talley, but are not included in the rpt, as they do not recieve tax revenues. My understanding is that the rpt has little control over pnps, nor do they (pnps) have an obligation to concern themselves with allocating between gear groups. This makes the allocation plan, overseen by the rpt, cumbersome. The plan Cheyne Blough presented at the allocation workshop, which is at the end of Kathy's looooong set of minutes, calls for throwing out the pnps from the plan. They don't get counted. Before you erupt, they won't count for anybody. Dipac won't get counted, but neither will gunnak creek or Port Armstrong. Certainly, trollers and seiners can see the value in getting those outfits going. Then we separate the north and the south. Nsraa and ssraa. There would be northern allocation and southern allocation. Cheynes plan would have the nrsaa budget be split by the allocation numbers. Trollers get 32% seiners whatever their number is, and the same for gillnetters. Then each gear group could decide how they wanted to spend their allocation money. They would have to be careful about how they did it, because that is all they would get. Instead of counting on fish, you would just spend your money, and take what you got, whatever the gear group decides it wants spend its allocation on. The same goes for ssraa. From the numbers you had in an earlier post, it was obvious that while ssraa was far from perfect, the numbers are a little closer to where they should be. Moving a bunch of fish around ssraa's baliwick to pay for the sins of nrsaa just isn't the answer.
I realize this is radical, and far from a finished product. The first reaction of any sef=lf-respecting troller or seiner is that it is just a money grab by gillnetters. In the short term, it would appear so. gunnak creek did get some eggs this last year, and port armstrong is showing wsome promise. These fish, by virtue of their location would be virtually untouchable by gillnets. Dipac fish on the other hand, have to swim under a bunch of trollers to get to a gillnet, and really, how much poking around have you guys done on that end?
i think cheyne's plan comes from his frustration with being on the nsraa board. they have spent alot of the budget on troll projects over the years with poor results. since boat harbor and limestone have been taken from the nsraa budget, gillnetters now recieve only 1 day in rotation at deep inlet and some spawning bed thing up on the chilkat. What they took in from gillnet fish tax, i know not, but it was something.
I have no clue how to increase your allocation #'s for 2010 friend. Nothing is gonna get moved around until the next board cycle, so unless you got a really hot hoochie, things are gonna be the same.
peace. grabber
grabber
2010-01-06 14:16:11
The main problem with the current allocation is that due to the states reluctance to permit more fish, one of the tools for allocating has been taken away. Our gear groups have evolved differently. The bulk of our fleet targets and concentrate on enhanced chums. Your fleet is split between chummers and traditional fishermen. As a result, it appears as a group that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. As time goes on, it appears more trollers will be targeting chum, and that should help things. It is interesting to note that when ever there is success for these hatcherie, the bulk of the fish are caught in the common property fishery, not in terminal harvest areas. HF is much more productive when portiions of Chatham are opened along with the THA. DIPAC works the same way, and to hear tell of it, Neets Bay was the same thing, as fish were being caught outside of the THA. I have to believe that development at Gunnk Creek and Port Armstrong would work the same way, especially for trollers. That has been the business plan for SSRAA, and it has worked pretty well. The last few seasons have hurt the seiners down there, as they have seen less time due to poor and late pink runs. One of my personal peeves as a fisherman in district 6 is the Neck Lake summeer coho run. It has been very successful, at least in terms of returns and CR. For gillnetters, it has been, except for self-marketing guys, a real failure as we only get a fraction of the price for those fish compared to what we would recieve in the fall. If you look at the catches, it has also been a historical failure for trollers, I guess because those fish are already past the fleet when the season opens.
The only way you will get a concenus for the rpt, is to revisit the plan, or get an increase on permitting more fish to be made available to the gear groups that are out on the low side. Otherwise, we go to the board of fish. Our feeling is that given what we know and what we have to work with in this broken plan, we have nothing to lose. Without increased permitting, you can only take away in the current plan, and to me that is broken.
I could go on and on. I appreciate being permitted to voice my opinions here. I would love for this thing to go away so I didn't have to think about it so much, and I am sure everyone else would also.
Remember, we're all in this together, but just to a point.
grabber
Carol W
2010-01-06 22:35:38
I must say I am glad there is recognition that SSRAA is close to the overall percentages, this is also an indiction as to what works for the troll fleet if the releases of NSRAA and Dipac coho were in the south then the data I have seen would increase the troll percentages overall. I was on the original allocation task force and we recognized that the troll imbalance would be the hardes to adjust, and the troll fleet has been very patient in dealing with the allocation imbalance. That being said it is not meant to say that we want our percentages lowered. Nor does thaqt mean we as a fleet are interested in correcting our imbalance entirely with chum production nor are we interested in curtailing either the fall coho or chinook program. For general info 68% of all enhanced coho harvested in 09 were of SSRAA origin and as of the 1st week of Dec 09, SSRAA produced Chinook comprised 20% of the over all winter catch to date (1100 kings out of 5000 were from SSRAA hatcheries).
The question that I would like answered though is if PNP's are removed then are the fish they produce allowed to be free fish, and when Dipac is mentioned it is said that Dipac isn't overseen by RPT however when I was on the RPT Dipac representatives were at the meeting. Dipac was also at ALL allocation workshop meetings and very instrumental in the authorship of the allocation plan, and in my conversations with Dipac they are not interested in being excluded from the plan. Gillnetters are now given 2 areas where they are the exclusive harvestors of a THA (Nakat, and Dipac sha's) and they harvest a majority of the fish for Anita Bay in district 8 yet when the troll fleet try's to have a conversation reguarding the harvest of chinook in district 8 or district 11 we are met with so much resistance by the gillnet fleet that you would have thought we are taking their last fish, why would we not be suspicious of motives in removing PNP's from the allocation plan.
I think as I did when the original plan was drawn up that all major players in the enhanced salmon program need to be included under the allocation plan, and whether the gillnetters admit it or not Dipac is a major player and the value they contribute is significant.
The summer coho are discussed often at the SSRAA board meetings and the survivals are hard to nail down however theis year we did see about 5000 of these fish in the troll fishery so there is some interception and yes the troll fleet would benefit if these were fall coho, the problem becomes where to release them and water supply at existing SSRRAA facilities. We have increased ourcoho production with a release of 500,000 cohofrom Bakewell lake.
Banking money for each fleets production would be a budgeting nightmare for both SSRAA and NSRAA it may appear easy but in practice it would be difficult, and what would be the measurement basis 3%. That would be very difficult in the fact that most of SSRAA's coho are harvested in district 113 therefor most of the enhancement tax genenrated in the troll fleet for SSRAA coho goes to NSRAA so would NSRAA have the lions share of the burden for balancing the troll imbalance?
One of the things we need to all keep in mind is that the 5 year rolling average is fluid and changes based on a lot of different influences, if dipac has a failure or the coho market gets hot or the Ikura market tanks or a big pink year happens these numbers all change, we never meant the enhanced allocation plan to be a holy grail but rather a tool to measure the overall success of the hatcheries and a measuremeant as to weather the program is actually contributing to all three fleets equitabilly. Removing PNP's from the base of enhanced fish is not a solution.
Keep your hand on it
Tom
Salty
2010-01-07 02:33:20
Fellows,
These are the kind of discussions we need more of. For the most part respectful and informative.
Chum Trollers subcommittee met with NSRAA staff about Hidden Falls coho and Chinook today for about two hours. There are just not enough Chinook (5,000 or so) returning to Hidden Falls in 2010 or 11 to make any significance difference in the troll percentage. We talked about coho for most of the time including coho returns projected for Mist Cove. I think it is safe to say there is some opportunity to improve troll coho harvest at Hidden Falls by opening the Special Harvest Area during the August coho closure and delaying cost recovery when a fleet of trollers is working. There might be similar opportunity for improving troll coho harvest at Mist Cove. These changes can be accomplished by the NSRAA Board. After running the ideas by our Chum Trollers Board I believe we will have proposals for the NSRAA Board at its March meeting. These moves, if adopted, will not bring the trollers within their allocation, but, as my mother used to say, "every little bit helps".
Subcommittee meetings on Hidden Falls Chum and Deep Inlet Chum possibilities will be coming later this month. We are also planning to send representatives to the SSRAA meeting later this month to support the wonderful work trollers and SSRAA staff and board are doing for us. Getting a better % of DIPAC production is a high priority for CTA but we don't see how to do that without BOF action so we will working long term on that plan.
I hear grabbers concerns. In the long term, with the ability of 600 or so trollers to start targeting chums, and the potential for Port Armstrong and Kake to start producing, gillnetters may be going back to court, as they did to get the allocation plan, to see that it is enforced. I suspect most readers of these posts know that I was the first Secretary of NSRAA, was probably the first person to ever pen the name, was the second person hired to work for NSRAA, and helped the initial Board deal with a lot of the questions about how we made sure gear group taxes benefited that gear group. Tom is right on about how you really can't separate the funding pies. And I think we are on common ground that managing the fisheries to achieve the allocation plan goals is extremely complex. But, it doesn't mean that we don't all strive to make it work and sustain collaboration between the gear groups.
As an original organizer of the non-profit hatchery program in SE I have an investment beyond what I make harvesting the salmon. I think it is one of the most successful examples of fishermen working together in fisheries history. It is an example of how we can rise above conflict and, as tough as it was and is, work together for mutual benefit.
grabber
2010-01-07 13:46:03
Tom, as one of the brain trust that came up with this plan, can you not see anything in it you would want to have changed? Just a question. It would seem that after so many years that something would have popped up that caught somebodies eye. So hard to get anything right the first time. Something else I saw in Kathy's notes from the allocation workshop was that somebody mentioned turning the 5year rolling average into a ten year rolling average. the idea being that over the course of time less drastic measures might be necessary, reducing risk to an individual gear group for big chunks of time. For the net fisheries, this gets us kind of closer where we need to be.
As for the dipac/rpt issue, I could be wrong. That is how it was explained to me, but it don't make it so necessarily.
As for our dedicated THA's Nakat was shared, made gillnet only. In return, seiners got Kendrick Bay. Trollers are also allowed in Nakat, 7 days a week I'll remind you.
Boat Harbor is hole in the wall, and the fishery is conducted in traditional gillnet area. Limestone is also a hole in the wall, with most fish being caught in the general district. common property. What gillnetters are lacking is having a terminal harvest area named in the allocatiion plan like the seiners and trollers. Another good reason to revisit the plan.
Salty
2010-01-07 19:26:31
Grabber, What do you mean by having a terminal harvest area like trollers and seiners do in the plan?
grabber
2010-01-08 13:01:52
A terminal harvest area that is named in the actual allocation plan. guideing principle # 13: "Hidden Falls shall remain a seine/troll terminal harvest area."
I am sure that was an add on afterthought, but whatever, I just thought it is interesting that ony one terminal harvest area gets named in the actual plan and only one gear group isn't part of it.
Speaking of Hidden Falls, what is your plan for harvesting some of those fish? Since you guys are the make-a-wish kids of the plan, it would seem that a terminal fishery there would be something you could be benefitting from. What needs to be done to make that happen?
Salty
2010-01-08 17:42:06
Thanks for the answer. I understand what you are saying. Kind of like SSRAA dedicating terminal harvest at one of their sites to gillnetters and another to seiners. Kind of like DiPac is now exclusively gillnet for all practical purposes. Why don't we do the same with DiPac, state that the terminal harvest areas as presently defined, will be exclusively gillnet, but open parts of District 11 to chum trolling during the times when chums are there in July?
We have a subcommittee working on accessing chums in June at Hidden Falls. We are confident that we could harvest 10 to 20% of the return there in June given the right kind of opportunity. And we are working on defining that. It is complicated because Hidden Falls seine openings are a big part of the whole northern end seine management plan and seiners are also below their allocated share. We have a Chum Troll Policy adopted last month that we will not support moving fish from one group behind in its allocation to another group behind unless we can find equivalent replacement. In other words if we move 100,000 chums from the seiners at Hidden Falls to the trollers then we need to find 100,000 chums somewhere in SE to move from the gillnetters to the seiners. Any ideas?
grabber
2010-01-08 21:13:31
I think you get it. Your perspective is just a little different. Putting a gillnet only tha in the plan would call for revistation. I would rather make Nakat a gillnet only tha, take the pnps out of the plan, let trollers come and play in district 11, get gunnack and armstrong rolling and put nrsaa's feet to the fire and make them actually produce something for our gear group.
Carol W
2010-01-08 22:04:54
So Grabber will we see a proposal at next board of Fish to open district 11 to trolling?
grabber
2010-01-08 23:08:35
I don't know, will we?
Salty
2010-01-09 01:21:42
Grabber,
The way I read the plan you don't need to re-open it to accomplish what you are suggesting. We will need BOF action to put trollers into Distict 11, the seiners havn't fished in District 11 in so many years I am not sure it is even possible to open 11 or 15 without BOF action.
The most important reason back in 76 and 77 for some of us organizing the associations was so Alaska fishermen, instead of corporations, would control ocean ranching technology. I think we have succeeded tremendously in that respect. To me the thought of taking any of the PNP's in SE out of the allocation formula, after SE fishermen and the State and Federal Government have invested millions in them over the years, flies in the face of all we have done working together to control and share the benefits of ocean ranching technology.
While I can support some of the specific ideas you post, grabber, the idea of pulling DiPac or other PNP's out of SE enhanced salmon value sharing is a non-starter for both practical and philosophical reasons. I went to almost every BOF meeting in the 70's and 80's dealing with SE issues. I was an officer of the Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Committee for most of those years. I am sure I have attended more NSRAA meetings than any other non-board or staff member. So I understand, as few do, the cost of gear groups warring with each other.
As many of you also know I have become familiar with and use my excel programs to analyze how we are doing in terms of sharing. I understand, as few do, what the numerical ramifications of taking DiPac out of the SE sharing formula will do. We are sharing e-mails and checking our numbers internally within the chum trollers association as I write this. The preliminary analysis is that it would benefit gillnetters at expense to trollers. Have the gillnetters asked Chip, or asked the RPT to ask Chip, what the model says would be the result? Seems like a reasonable question and then you would have an objective answer. While we are at it why don't we ask what it would take to bring the trollers up to 29.5%, the mid-point of our allocation, in Northern SE, starting in 2010 without putting the seiners out of their allocation?
But, that does not mean there can't be common ground found on re-imbursing DiPac and other PNP's for the 3% value their fishery produces. Along with that should be some oversight that they do their share to contribute to equitable sharing among the gear groups. For example: the commercial harvest of DiPac salmon last year was estimated to be worth $7,628,536. 3% of that amount would be $228,000.00. While I don't understand all the internal workings of why NSRAA stopped supporting DiPac projects I am open to considering supporting re-investing in DiPac so long as we could see a plan by DiPac to improve trollers harvest share of their salmon which was 0.8% in 2009.
One of the things I learned facilitating group process over the years is that in the search for common ground you often have to abandon some ideas that just don't fly with other participants. But then other things seem to take root. At first it often seems that there is an extreme scarcity of common ground. But, usually, if people of good will hang in there and work with each other long enough an increasing amount of common ground emerges. For example: I am sure almost everyone on this site really loves the thrill of the big set, seeing the jumpers heading in, the challenge of filling the boat without sinking it, the satisfaction of working it out so we all get our shot. I can remember days at Long Island when I could see gillnetters hauling nets full of chums at one end of the Island while I was loading the lines at the other end. And the seiners were filling em up at Silver Pt. It did not happen by accident.
Of course all the above, unless otherwise noted, are my personal perspectives.
Carol W
2010-01-09 02:35:28
Grabber I typed up quite a reply to your posts unfortunately I somehow lost the post so I will try to recapture my thoughts.
First off if there was something I would change is adding another 5 year rolling average yet keeping the time for action to start on the 3rd five year rolling average keeping any actions small and somewhat conservative. And making any major production shifts to be on the last 5 year rolling average. The thought process behind the 3 five year rolling averages were that; we didn't want knee jerk reactions, new production takes time to get online (so lengthening out to 10 years would be to long and further excrabate the imbalances), that there are other influences that are outside of the scope of what hatcheries control ( market conditions, wild stock run strengths, weather conditions effecting whether coho are close to coast in July, etc) and sometimes time corrects the problem. I have often wondered if maybe one of the Ideas we should have captured more is for each ehancement entity be required to look at their own production and see if they are meeting their obligations in 1st the release of fish and secondly how their returns are matching up.
As a member of the troll fleet and the longest serving member on the SSRAA board of directors I have often realized that the chances of the troll fleet actually meeting its percentages doesn't mean that the plan is broken. The hatcheries are very important to the economic viability of the troll fleet whether we are catching our percentage or not and in my mind the value of the percentages that are listed for the troll fleet are a guarentee as to production aimed at the troll fleet, and not nessasarily a guarantee as to harvest. On the face of it one may draw the conclusion that either the plan is broken or the troll percentages are to high and need to be lowered, however this is far from the trueth, here is an example and maybe if you stop and think about this example Grabber you may understand why the troll fleet has been so patient. The chinook program is designed with the troll fleet in mind and is doing the job chinook releases were designed to do and that is mitigate the loss of chinook due to the treaty. Currently there are 400 plus trollers who fish in the May and June however the majority of chinook are harvested in the net fleets fishing in the THA's, on the face of it the chinook program hurts the troll fleet in the allocation percentages. However from the troller perspective that fishes in May and June this is a very valuable fishery to their bottom line. We as a fleet don't ask that the net harvest of these chinook be curtailed because they harvest more than the troll fleet we support the program because we are able to work at a time that if the hatcheries didn't produce chinook. So from my perspective yes I would like trollers to increase their percentage of value it is not the only measure of success of the enhanced fish allocation plan. The coho program is another example we as a fleet do harvest the lion share of these fish and the enhanced coho help keep our fishery very much alive. But it is almost impossible to release enough coho to make up for the difference in value of all the chum. Currently 90 % of all the enhanced fish released in SE AK are chum which are primarily a net fish and even though Eric and a group are quite effective at harvesting chum there is not enough room for the entire troll fleet to harvest chum to make up the difference, and further more the processors much prefer to get chum from the net fleet as they are more effective. Yet the gillnet fleet who right now is maximizing its harvest of enhanced fish are crying foul because trollers are protecting their interest and wants to change the allocation plan to further increase their harvest. I am not naive enough to think that if the percentages were changed that the production of chinook and coho wouldn't then decrease. SSRAA has been dealing with water issues for quite sometime now and if we could just lower the troll percentage then maybe we could decrease coho production and then increase chum production. As I have said the value in these percentages to the troll fleet is it safeguards the production of fish for our fleet. There is a gillnetter on the SSRAA board who has been there almost as long as I have been there and we had a conversation a couple years ago in how ironic it is that as SSRAA has climbed out of debt and the fish we raise are contributing more and more to the fisheries there is more bickering going on than when we had less fish for the common property.
I am the guy who a long time ago put a motion on the floor to not have a slot in the rotation for trollers in the SSRAA THA's, now this is the one thing in my years as a board of director of SSRAA I wish I hadn't done. Grabber you are correct in saying we are allowed to fish in Nakat 7 days of a week, however until we wrote the Neets Bay Harvest plan the troll fleet didn't have a tha that they could go into and harvest terminal fish with out competition of a net. To put it another way grabber imagine fishing Nakat with your gillnet while the seine fleet was there. As I said I have wished that I could have this motion back I did it at the time to help the net groups to maximize their value of dark chum in not having to have a slot of time where there was very little if any harvesting going on and the fish getting darker. So when you start harping about how unfair the plan is in not listing a THA for the gillnet fleet remember the trollers used to have their own slot and we as a fleet have given to the net fleet.
Last spring at the Board of Fish I asked members of the gillnet fleet if they would support allowing the trollers to have our openings on Stikine chinook to not coincide with their openings, to simply allow us some unfeathered access to these fish. I actually had an agreement with a couple Wrangell gillnets and yet some very prominant spokesmen from the gillnet group testified in committee against this move and killed the idea. Yes I know they aren't enhanced fish but what I am trying to illustrate is that the gillnet fleet is so paranoid that somebody outside of their group may harvest a fish they can't bend at all. So parden me if I am suspect of the gillnet community's desire to change the plan. Maybe the gillnetters should just shut up and Fish and stop calling trollers name like "make a wish group" or saying we are talking out of "both sides of our mouth" we have been patient in looking at enhanced fish and will continue to be and it is not the troll fleets perspective that we should take fish out of the gillnet hold but rather we are looking to increase our share and to protect our share.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone in the gillnet community I am just pointing out my perspective and history in this issue.
Keep your hand on it
Tom
Salty
2010-01-09 03:41:38
Great post Tom,
Thank you so much for your perspective. Every time I listen to you my perspective broadens a bit.
But, the reason for this post is to apologize to all who have been following it. I finally got around to actually running the numbers from the gillnet plan as I understand it for what the result in 2009 would have been. Previous to this I had been running numbers on what trollers share would have been without Neets Bay etc. I had looked briefly at the ramifications of the gillnet plan and understood it would benefit them but I hadn't realized it would also benefit trollers.
Here is what the numbers would have looked like in 2009 if the gillnet proposal to remove DiPac from the allocation formula, separate NSRAA from SSRAA, and put the groups into their allocated range at NSRAA. I don't have the harvest values for Kake, SJ, and Port Armstrong, but I don't think they change things much.
Assuming DiPac harvest ratios stayed the same and NSRAA was managed to the allocation formula and the trollers caught 29%, seiners 44%,and gillnetters 27% of the value of NSRAA Common Property harvest then this would be the result. Gillnetters would improve their situation by $1,943,996.51 to 54.8% of the value of Northern SE enhanced salmon, seiners would lose $3,682,480.43 and harvest 28.5% of Northern SE enhanced salmon value, trollers would gain $1,738,484.40 and improve to 16.7% of the value of Northern SE enhanced salmon. Please check my figures because I am not a mathematician or biometrician. This is my understanding of how the gillnet plan presented by Cheyne Blough at the December 9 & 10 meeting would have worked in 2009.
I have not figured out how this would work out then for the whole region but I am confident it would put the seiners well below their allocation, leave the trollers still way out, and further move the gillnetters out of their range.
Am I close?
Salty
2010-01-09 04:02:40
Here is a chart of the figures I used for the last post.
NSRAA and Dipac Figures 2009
Gillnet Seine Troll Total
NSRAA $724,844.00 $8,031,701.97 $1,128,048.28 $9,884,594.47
DiPac $6,923,073.00 $642,852.00 $62,611.00 $7,628,536.00
Total $7,647,917.00 $8,674,553.97 $1,190,659.28 $17,513,130.47
NSRAA and existing DiPac
Gillnet @ 27% of NSRAA Seine @44% Troll @29% Total
NSRAA Managed to allocation $2,668,840.51 $4,349,221.57 $2,866,532.40 $9,884,594.47
DiPac harvest constant $6,923,073.00 $642,852.00 $62,611.00 $7,628,536.00
Total DiPac and NSRAA $9,591,913.51 $4,992,073.57 $2,929,143.40 $17,513,130.47
Harvest % of DiPac & NSRAA 54.80% 28.50% 16.70% 100.00%
Difference in 2009 $1,943,996.51 Neg $3,682,480.43 $1,738,484.40
Hope this post is understandable
Salty
2010-01-09 04:07:29
[attachment=0]Gillnet plan analysis with difference.xls[/attachment]Well,
It doesn't look like it did in excel, I will try an attachment.
grabber
2010-01-09 13:36:29
Tom,
Your kinda thin skinned, ain't ya? Saying trollers are talking out of both sides of their mouths is just another way of saying you belong to a very diverse group. I didn't call your gear group the "make a wish kids" as an insult either, it was i guess a feeble attempt at humor. Sorry if i hurt your feelings. The last thing want to do is start pointing fingers and name calling.
As for the troller not having a tha, we all know that they just don't work for trollers, at least for kings and cohos. Another mistake you have made is stating the processors would rather have chums from the net fleet, as they are more efficient. The only people i have heard bitch are the tenders because of the configuration of most troller makes it slow to unload. Processor could care less who catches. They just want them.
Am I harping? If so I am sorry. I thought we were having a discussion concerning allocation. If my ideas and perspectives are viewed as inflammatory, I guess I chose the wrong venue.
Gillnetters are not calling foul. What I am saying, and I am just one gillnetter, is that I think the allocation plan as written, and given the tools of the rpt and states unstated agenda of no new production, is punitive. We have become victims of DIPAC's success. the more successful Dipac is, the more fish get moved out of other areas, concentrating the fleet. As our fleet concentrates in 11 and 15, our time will diminish, as these fisheries are wild stock managed. There could be lots of chums, but our effectiveness could be resticted. Then, of course if there is a chum failure, and there will be down the road at some point, we will be left pretty much high and dry. I am merely concerned with the long term viability of my fishery, and I'm not going to step aside and allow the rpt to marginalize or put it at risk. Shoot me.
grabber
2010-01-09 14:20:43
Your turn salty-
I'm sure the numbers you have there are correct, but it is just a scenerio. since we are talking fantasy fish, you need to include Gunnak Creek at some percentage of production, as well as port armstrong. If gunnak creek can keep getting some eggs the next few years, there is a very real possibility that in five or six years we could be having this same conversation wearing different shoes.
Aonther thing I has always raised questions in my little one way mind is accounting. Gillnet fisheries is very easy to account for. We, for the most part, fish in one district for an entire period. Tenders make the rounds and deliver fish to the plant. Outside of some back and forth between 6 and 8 and a little between 11 and 15, there are very few mixed bags of fish. Very little sampleing needs to be done in 11 and 15 on chums, as they are either native or dipac.
Seineing is a whole different animal, with tenders roaring around, getting fish possibly from different districts. Fish and Game, by their own admission, has not the man power to sample the percentage of the catch of seiners that they need, though they do their best. when the seine processors have their million pound openers, things get pretty hectic, a fact I can understand, but leaves me with some doubts that our fleet is getting a fair shake.
It is also a fact that troll boats that freeze their catch are not sampled at all. They are merely figured at the same percentage of enhanced fish as trip guys who are fishing the same area. With a freezer boats ability to roam, that might not be good enough. The troll biologist that told me this, said the 60 or so boats that freeze aren't a big enough of the percentage to worry about. I don't know if that is good enough either.
I am sure I will get taken to the wood shed for this, but I am willing to take a whipping in exchange for knowledge.
grabber
Carol W
2010-01-09 17:46:33
Grabber no I am not thin skinned I have been around fishery politics all my life and I don't recognize you on here but I am sure we have bumped into each other somewhere along the road. In Sept of 08 I wound up trolling off the lighthouse at Tree Point the gillnets were working and we had a nice thing going I would drag between the guy on the beach set and the guy on the next set out, and let me say those orange balls you guys have are quite fishy, everything was going well I put 2 trips in catching a nice little jag of Nakat coho. The dept announced an extension in the area for the gillnet fleet but closed trolling on the 20th of Sept, so I was walking up the dock in Thomas Basin and 2 gillnetters were talking on the dock as I went by one of them said that the trollers shouldn't be allowed to fish Tree Point as those coho were gillnet cohos and trollers had no right to them, you can well imagine my reaction after 20 years on the SSRAA board. So last spring I was at the Board of fish and some very prominant members of the gillnet fleet were so steadfast in opposition in any changes or adjustments to the Taku and Stikine fisheries where your fleet catch almost all the chinook in these fisheries, it was disheartning. I bring this up for I beleave the gillnet fleet has a bit of a credibility problem when it comes to sharing the wealth, or to put it another way your fleet is making damn good money and when my fleet ask for a little access that we can fish without a gillnet in our face all sharing comes off the table. When gillnetting and trolling are opened at the same time in district 8 there is no way for the trollers to compete as there are so many gillnets tin the water we can't make a drag, we don't want all your Stikine or Taku chinook we would just like to have some time where we can fish with out being corked but I guess that is way to much to ask for.
Anyway I will try to be rational and address the issue at hand, years ago when I was on the RPT the issue of Freezer Boats came up and how they are adding value and how this should be addressed in looking at the total value of fish. A solution was reached and I can tell you that the Freezers value is incorperated into the final value. The dept does the most extensive job of sampling on the troll fleet, as compared to any other fleet, and the numbers the freezer fleet produces are for sure cranked into the overall numbers. As to how much of their fish is enhanced fish that is fairly easy for the dept to get fairly close to as the freezers are generally fishing in a fleet of ice boats so you simply take the percentage of enhanced fish in the ice fleet in the same area and apply it to the freezers, not an absolute number but fairly close.
As to sampling of the Seiners, SSRAA is now otilith marking a 100% of our chum and SSRAA is also sampling both the seine fleet and the tenders as well as the gillnet fleet. We have our own lab we sample both net groups as it gives us a much better handle on the run strength, composition of the run and contribution to the common property. I can't speak to NSRAA.
One of the interesting notes that came out of us sampling both net groups is the contribution of SSRAA fish was much higher than we originally thought under coded wire data.
As to my statment about processors wanting chum from the net fleet Neets Bay has been open to trolling for chum for a few years now but the processors are very reluctant to ru n tenders up there to buy chum. In 08 a friend of mine was fishing chum in Neets he had 9000 lbs on board ran them into Ketchikan one processor said he wasn't buying troll chums the other who my friend had sold a couple trips prior to this trip told him that was the last trip they were buying as the seiners and gillnetters were swamping the plant with chum. So it isn't entirely true that we can just go catch chum and have a market for them.
I noticed you didn't address the value to the troll fleet of safeguarding the production coming out of the aquaculture associations, that tells me that you know as well as I do that without a plan that has actual percentages aimed at the troll fleet that we would lower the production of chinook and coho. I have had many battles at the board table protecting this production and the seiners are included in the battles, so I don't mean to say the gillnet are the only advasary to troll production. As I have said we as a fleet may never reach our percentage as long as chum production is so high and now with the spread between chum value per pound and coho value per pound narrowing, reaching these percentages becomes even harder as the whole plan is based on value. I do think we as an industry in SE AK need to step a step back from this issue and look at where we are and where we have been right now we are catching a trememdous amount of enhanced fish and all three gear groups have benefitted from the success of the hatcheries, and trying to get somebody elses slice of pie is the least of our troubles. We have a common enemy out there who would just as soon see all commercial fishermen off the water, we also have some very serious enviromental changes going on that could very significantly effect our economic future far more than if one group or the other is getting a few more enhanced fish than they are alloted.
I will say in closing though that if all enhanced coho were released in the south end that the percentage of coho intercepted in the troll fishery would significantly rise. The other thing that really bears some exploration and is being looked at is how to increase the interception of Neets chinook in the spring troll fishery. It appears to me that we may eventually have to try another release site for these fish, as they are caught in the end of winter troll fishery off of Sitka and in the spring openings off of Biorka Island the next place we see these kings is in the terminal fishery at Neets. Yes there are things that can be done to help the troll percentages but it takes time and we all knew in the formulation of this plan that troll imbalances are the hardest to adjust. And yes we are a very diverse group and there is no silver bullet the chum trollers are important to me as a traditional troller in they add to the economic viability of the fleet, however we as a fleet need all three species that the hatcheries produce.
And yes I am open to discussing options and exploring possibilities but I draw the line firmly in the sand in any twinking of the plan that in any way changes the percentages or the manner in which they are calculated. The troll fleet very economic viability is dependant on the fish the hatcheries produce.
Keep Your Hand On It
Tom
Salty
2010-01-09 21:09:05
Folks,
I had a comment from a troller today that Chum Trollers Association News had morphed into a three way discussion of the SE enhanced salmon allocation history and challenges on this site. An astute observation but I believe this discussion is totally relevant to the Chum Trollers priority for figuring out how to improve the troll fleets harvest % of SE enhanced salmon toward our allocation of 27-32%. Understanding the gillnet perspective which Grabber has articulated so well, the history of the allocation and a coho/Chinook troller perspective, which Tom has so eloquently explained are essential to working together.
Here is the deal Tom and Grabber, Chum Trollers believe we can move trollers within our allocated range. Here is how one of our board members articulated it:
We believe the first priority is to examine all possibilities for improving Chinook and coho hatchery harvests by the troll fleet. We had a meeting with NSRAA this week that resulted in a couple of ideas we believe could move thousands of coho at Hidden Falls and Mist Cove from Cost Recovery to the troll fleet. But, as SE salmon fishermen, we make our living adjusting to reality every day, every trip. The reality of SE enhanced salmon programs is that chums have succeeded tremendously well and Chinook and coho, well extremely helpful to the troll fleet, as Tom has pointed out, have not and are not likely to in the foreseeable future be able to significantly improve the trollers share. The reality is that in order for the allocation plan to work and for trollers to get an equitable share of their 3% investment in SE enhanced salmon harvest values trollers need to harvest more chums. And we can do it.
We have proved that at Hidden Falls, Neets Bay, Deep Inlet, and chum trollers have had good success on Excursion Inlet Chums years ago when there were large returns there. We have learned some things along the way. Our troll fishery for chums does not work when the net fisheries or cost recovery are working in the same area at the same time. Our gear works best when there is a significant enough body of fish for the chums to "clatter up". It works better when the water is deep enough for us to get thirty or so fathoms of wire out. And our gear works best when the chums are holding or milling in an area as opposed to shooting by due to rain. Chums will bite our gear right up to the most terminal area. I am absolutely certain that we could figure out how and where to catch significant numbers of DiPac chums if DiPac, gillnetters, and Territorial Sportsman would support giving us a shot.
It is seldom that Tom is mistaken, but he is in regards to processors preferring net chums. Processors have been approaching us for several years now about chum troll production. There were at least three companies and multiple tenders in Neets Bay last year. We usually ask, and get, at least a nickel more per pound than the net fisheries. Our fish aren't net marked like gillnet fish, they are all individually bled, unlike seine fish, and most often they are brighter and a higher percentage are female than those caught in the same area by seiners or gillnetters. While Tom and Grabber are correct about some of our chum troll fleet not having as efficient unloading systems as top of the line gillnetters or the pumping system used by seiners, an ever increasing number of chum trollers have top of the line brailer bag/slush tank systems. I personally have unloaded 9,000 lbs., scrubbed down, and re-iced within 20 minutes at a tender and at Sitka Sound Seafoods.
Here is another interesting thing about our chum troll fishery. It is amazingly selective for chums. While the flasher/bug gear will catch coho, sockeye, and especially pinks, the chum schools often segregate themselves as they get close to the terminal area. Even when there are large numbers of pinks in the Eastern Channel area most of us can effectively minimize that catch by adjusting our drags, depth, and terminal bug. While we can use the gear to target coho by speeding up and changing the terminal bug, we can also minimize coho catch by slowing down and going to bugs coho don't like. Chinook by-catch is practically nil. Sockeyes are highly selective as to the bug they want and we can practically eliminate sockeye catch by going to bugs chums like but they don't. The other thing is that if we do catch a salmon we need to release the fact that we are going very slow and using artificial bugs on small hooks, often without barbs, means mortalities of released salmon are extremely low.
So, what we have here is a developing fishery that can effectively target our SE hatchery success story, chums. The problem is where and when. We are working on it.
grabber
2010-01-10 15:16:29
Chum trolling will put the trollers where they are supposed to be. Of that I have no doubt. It is just a matter of more trollers incorporating it into their business plan. I don't have a problem with any of the gear groups being where they are supposed to be according to the plan. And of course, I realize that there are many factors leading to the way the numbers have worked out the last few seasons, which are, but probably not limited to: An increase in active gillnet permits pursuing enhanced chums, and everything else. Lack of time and area for seiners due to poor or later pink returns during criticle interception windows. A higher coho price (not counting last year) pulling trollers off of chums. Weaker than expected returns to Deep Inlet. Very good returns to DIPAC. And of course, there are others I am sure I am not seeing at the moment. None of these can be controlled by the rpt, the allocation plan, bof or anybody else. It is just what happens in the real world.
The bulk of the fish the gillnet fleet catches is in the common property. when we have healthy returns of sockeye to the Chilkat, Chilkoot, Taku, and Stikine, life is good. Unfortunatly, at the gillnet task force meeting in December in Kethchikan, the department painted a grim picture for management, at least in the northern end. With more and more boats, they will find themselves with the task of manageing boats. With a poor pink forecast, distrit one and six also stand to lose significant time. I don't want sympathy, I am just saying this is what we could be looking at. We are about a year from proposals, two years for the rpt to try to make a concenus. If by some miricle, all gear groups were to fall in their ranges, first next year, probably wouldn't change the proposal picture much. If it happened two years in a row, we would probably still be out with the five year rolling average and get taken to the wood shed. I said it before, and I will say it again for the last time, I promise. The plan as it is written, given the workable tools of the rpt, is punitive to whoever is out of the high end. The way I see it, the only tools the rpt has is to take time from us in tha's, or move fish to different release sites. Taking fish away puts our fleet at incredible risk for a complete bof cycle. I believe when the seiners were out, more oppourtunities and I believe more more fish(I could be wrong here i don't know that for a fact) were made availible for gillnetters. I just want the same treatment. Maybe instead of fighting over existing fish, we should all be banging on the governors door to produce something for us to catch.
Salty
2010-01-10 21:14:39
There is a huge hatchery site at Warm Springs Bay that NSRAA could develop. A local landowner there is applying for it now, but NSRAA has basically first right of refusal.
One of the problems we have with future production is the lack of suitable sites. Then we have the problem of salmon fishermen from Bethel to the Yukon worried that more SE chum production will hurt their markets.
But, I think there is enough common ground between the gear groups in SE that we should be aggressively pursuing new production somewhere on the north end for the species that works, chums.
grabber
2010-01-11 00:33:29
finally, something we can all agree on.
carojae
2010-01-12 03:50:41
Pardon me for a minute.
Too bad NSRAA couldn't put a little more "N" (for North) in terminal projects.
Sitka, not to mention Warm Springs bay or Hidden Falls, are not exactly in the neighborhood for a lot of northern fisherman. Fisherman and expecially the local cold storages and cannery's are having a hell of a time trying to keep above water in a sea of rough financial times. While the city of Sitka and it's fisherman enjoy the wind fall of having NSRAA operating in their back yard, other areas are hurting big time.
There should be more focus for all parties who contribute to NSRAA and SSRAA. If this is to be a enhancement program, then somebody needs to realize that your northern brethren are hurting i.e. Pelican Cold Storage folds and soon others will fall, (yes thanks in part to IFQ's).
I suppose Excursion Inlet is out of reach for a hatchery / terminal fishery ( :arrow: NPS)? How many places are available (or could be) for a hatchery/terminal fishery up here in the Northern Chatham, Icy Straits, Lynn Canal or Lisianski etc areas? I thought since the conversation waivered to allocation and fairness that this would be a good time to inject these thoughts. I realize that this is the Chum Trollers Association thread, but I just had to I bring this up because I see some very knowledable people in this thread right now. You know, Dipac is pretty good at keeping a couple (2?) of boats happy in a terminal fishery (for cost recovery) but is a joke in comparison to Sitka's Deep inlet and eastern channel et al.
Nobody can agrue about the success of Coho hatchery fish and what it does for us all as fisherman, but the Chum program is a whole differnet ball game and not quite fair for all parties interested.
Anyway, back to the program already in progress. lol.
JMHO
ps I only know the Northern area and its situation and know little about Southern Southeast. Just so you know.
Jim
Salty
2010-01-12 08:29:18
Jim,
One of my personal top priorities for the long term is to try and figure out how we get some kind of hatchery production in the Cross Sound, Icy Straits area. Paul Johnson, who has been on the NSRAA Board for a while now, and I have talked about getting something going in that area. The biggest problem is siting to meet the criteria to protect wild salmon, which Senator Dick Eliason got protected in legislation, resulting in the top Wild Salmon policy protection of any state. I support that policy and nominated Senator Eliason to the Wild Salmon Hall of Fame in part for that work. There are a lot of good reasons for these precautions, look at the situation with salmon farms becoming vectors for salmon lice in BC for example. Nevertheless it means we have to have siting which minimizes impacts on Wild Salmon in Hatchery Harvests, competition, and disease possibilities.
Thus it makes it challenging trying to find good water sources for a Hatchery without wild salmon impacts. I have always thought Excursion Inlet, with its infrastructure, relative isolation, and two streams right there at the cannery site might hold some potential. But working around the existing sockeye, chums, coho, and pinks in the inlet might be too challenging. Likewise for Port Frederick, Idaho Inlet, and Lisianski Inlet. I thought there might be some possibility in Port Althorp but don't know the water supply and existing runs that well. Do you have any site suggestions Jim? Of course, as you mentioned, the Park is unavailable, and while I worked with Paul Peyton back in 77 to get language in ANILCA to allow hatchery activities in Alaska Wilderness, it will be difficult or impossible to site a major hatchery such as Hidden Falls in a Wilderness Area such as Yakobi Island or West Chichagof. I know the NSRAA staff would love to have a site to try and get something going.
In the meantime those DiPac chums are in large part migrating through the passes and Icy Strait the end of June and first part of July. I know when I used to fish pinks there in the early 90's I often had days of 200 or more chums. I remember one day of nearly 600 in by Mud Bay. I know the guys there would be on them if they were available. What has changed?
yak2you2
2010-01-12 21:41:57
How about a hatchery, chum or otherwise, somewhere north of Icy cape? Trollers can go there, but the gillnet fleet can't, there is no seining, and very little sport fish effort. To me the isolation and exculsiveness is what makes it all the better, but I don't know anything about hatcheries. Comes down to whether a little longer run is worth having the fish all to yourself. There's a whole other "northern end" out there available to trollers that is vastly under-utilized. Believe it or not, there's quiet bays, running water, groceries and fuel, modern fish plants, and daily jet service. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Salty
2010-01-13 00:12:46
Yak,
Do you have any sites in mind? A lot of that land is Park land.
Eric
yak2you2
2010-01-13 02:41:55
I don't know how much of a buffer zone away from existing salmon streams you'd have to have, as I said I don't know much about hatcheries. It's park land all along through La Palma, Lituya, around Cape Fairweather, and up to Dry bay. Unless I've missed my guess, their not going to be receptive what so ever, not to mention the remoteness. From the other side of Dry bay it's about 50 miles to Ocean cape and the mouth of Yakutat bay, still very remote, and laced with active salmon streams. The obvious place to me is right inside the eastern side of Yakutat bay somewhere. Again, it's hard to say without knowing what kind of a buffer zone away from salmon streams your talking about, and what exactly classifies a stream a salmon spawning stream? how big of a run does it take to classify it as a run? What I mean is, the entire Yakutat Forelands has a crick about every 400-500 yards that you could probably find a dozen coho in. Most of them don't even have names or show up on any charts. I can't imagine that it's any different in S.E. If these weren't a problem for the powers that be, I'd stick a hatchery somewhere right inside Monti bay, right in the city limits of Yakutat it's self. You've got a miniscule run of cohos that spawn in the afore mentioned little creeks, but it's 15-20 miles to the nearest major spawning river. You'd have road access, power, water, protected bay to work out of, and be within a mile of the fish plants.
There would be some who would be opposed to it, but the vast majority of the locals would see it as a boon. There is a tiny local gillnet fishery that would benifit from it, but it's small setnet permits operated out of skiffs, with a low impact by S.E. standards. We've talked about doing it for years as a community, but never seem to have the wear-with-all to pull it off as a tiny community. Like I said, if we as an industry (trollers), combined with the community managed to make it happen, it could be a windfall for all. Imagine having a giant place where you could go and make a lot of salmon, and fish for them without having to argue with all the other heavy weight user groups.
There would be some at the start who would weeze about it, but the depleted local runs, and over all poor economic state of the community is such that I don't think you'd find any real opposition to a well thought out plan.
The fleet would have to get used to a 1 or 2 day trip up here, big deal. Once your here, whatever fish there were, wouldn't have to be fought over. The plants are already built and quite capable, so moving the fish wouldn't be a problem. You've got a good anchorage, ammenities, and, room to spread out on some new drags for once. I should add that if you've never been here, it also happens to be a beautiful place.
Salty
2010-01-13 03:58:32
Yak,
Tell me more about the specific site, the water supply.
yak2you2
2010-01-13 06:36:21
Depends on what the needs are and or exactly where it went in at. Meaning, do you have to have a natural little stream? I can think of a few in the area that would be in reach of local electricty. I don't know how big they'd have to be.Then there's the whole Ankau inlet, which is a tidal lagoon that has many little creeks feeding into it.
If you don't have to have a natural creek, you could always pump it out of the ground and make your own creek, or have all the water you wanted for whatever else.If you could do that, you could build the thing anywhere you wanted. There's some nice little bays and coves back inside that still have road access, could be powerd easily, could hold a lot of rearing pens.
The local processor boss is way into marketing chums and their eggs too, seems to easy to me. I don't know how long it would take to get it up and running, or how long until you started seeing returns, but it would sure be a big boost for the fleet and the town. I'm sure a lot of boats would migrate up this way for a fishery. I know of a couple that have migrated from here down to hit the Neets bay fishery, so traveling for chums is not something that guys won't do.
One thing that we looked at doing in the interim of building a facilty was just to have an existing hatchery knock us out a couple of boat loads of fry, and just build some pens to rear them in, so the clock could start ticking. Check it out at googleearth.com, you know what your looking for better than I do. If you do, check out the sawmill cove area, seems perfect to me.
Small handtrollers like myself would be better off by having an actual town to go home to at the end of the day, rather than have to sleep on their little boats in a more remote spot somewhere else. Probably cost a guy 1000 bucks to throw a boat on the ferry, heck i'd burn more than that in fuel to get to Hoonah.
Once a hatchery was in place, it would be neat to try out other species to see how they'd do here. I was talking to a guy who seines in Prince William sound the other day. He told me they catch more hatchery sockeyes up there now than they do wild Copper river fish. Every year they get about a billion hatchery pinks out that place seems like. I know hatcheries have their troubles, but when you don't have anything left to loose, the odds look pretty good.
yak2you2
2010-01-13 06:52:24
One question Eric, I don't know anything about chum trolling either, in the summer months we get a lot of glacier silt in the water up here, and it tends to make things pretty cloudy. Can you still get chums to bite in milky water? Every year I seem to catch a handful of incidentals while I'm coho fishing so I would assume so, but all the pictures I've seen any of you post have a lot clearer water in the background than we have.
Salty
2010-01-13 19:02:25
Good questions Yak. Do you guys pay three percent in Yakutat? Not that it makes much difference in looking for a hatchery site.
There are a lot of criteria to go through to protect both the natural runs and the hatchery production. We don't move fry around the state too much. So, you would have to start with a local stock, probably from Yakutat Bay. You would have to have good water, that doesn't freeze up, is disease free, and plenty of it. You need access to the land etc. Anyway there is a whole permitting process, brood stock selection and development, management planning, terminal and special harvest area mapping, loan application, board development and training, personnel hiring etc. Unless you got NSRAA to look into a project. Then you have a Board, staff, and experience on line already. But, it would mean loss of local control which I think would be important in Yakutat.
If I were to try and get something going in Yakutat I would probably look into forming a separate Regional Association for the Yakutat area.
But, it is like I tell people when I make presentations on changing the future. It starts with a "vision".
Eric
kalitan97828
2010-01-19 11:09:39
Remember to get your NSRAA ballots in. Voting closes Feb 5 . A vote for Eric Jordan would be appreciated.
Carl
Salty
2010-02-10 03:01:29
I talked to Pete Esquiro, General Manager of NSRAA, today at about 2:00 pm. He informed me that I was elected to the NSRAA Board as a power troller. I last served on the NSRAA Board in 1980 as an elected hand troller. Since then I have run for the Board as a power troller at least three times and been defeated by ever increasing margins to George Eliason, Alan Anderson, and somehow to my good friend, Bill Paden, when we screwed up and both ran for the same seat.
Over the years I have attended as many NSRAA Board meetings as possible as I have a degree as a hatchery technician, helped organize NSRAA, and have always been fascinated by both the group dynamics of fishermen working together, and the challenges of raising salmon. It is probably safe to say that I have sat through more NSRAA Board meetings than any non board or staff member.
So, it will be wonderful to once again join the Board as an elected member. I understand that this election was not personal. The incumbent, Rafe Allensworth, is a respected troller who has put in good service on the board. To me this election was about chum trollers wanting a voice and investing a good bit of work helping to elect their candidate. It was also about the majority of the trollers who do not chum troll voting for change.
While I was encouraged to run by our chum trollers organization, this seat is not a chum troll seat, it is a power troll seat and I will be doing my best to represent the whole troll fleet. Any troller reading this can send me a personal or public message if you have any questions and I will do my best to answer them. And I love ideas to improve trolling. My phone is 738-chum.
The challenges for trollers at NSRAA are daunting. We harvested only 11% of the value of the gear group harvest of NSRAA salmon last season. There are challenges with predators at Hidden Falls, ocean survival in general, and for NSRAA Chinook and coho in particular. Our chum trollers association has been meeting every week to learn how we can improve the troll harvest share both in terms of what is projected to return starting in 2010, and what we can do to develop hatchery returns for the future that will assure trollers their share. Serving on the NSRAA Board also involves responsibility for preserving the Association and working to understand and where possible facilitate the needs of the other interest groups.
Thanks again to all of you who voted.
Salty
2010-04-16 16:46:34
Here is some good news for the troll fleet.
1. Our chum troll Hidden Falls coho subcommittee, chaired by Carl Peterson, developed an idea this winter to leave the Hidden Falls Special harvest area or a portion thereof open to coho trolling during the August coho closure. The sub-committee developed the idea into a written proposal, brought it to our Chum Trollers Board, which approved it unanimously, and then proposed it to the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association Board of Directors which unanimously endorsed it. Then we brought it to the Regional Planning Team and ADF&G. It was announced at the Sitka Troll Port meeting that ADF&G has endorsed the proposal and trollers will be allowed to fish a portion of the Hidden Falls Special Harvest Area for coho during the August Troll closure.
There is other Chum Troller News but we have developed a careful policy about vetting any publication of news through the Board of Directors before sharing. Thus the dearth of news lately. I call it a muzzle but others see it as discretion. Anyway, since this Hidden Falls coho fishing was announced at a public meeting attended by many trollers I feel it can be shared.
salmon4u
2010-04-17 05:06:19
That's great !!! Thanks for all the work you guys are doing
Salty
2010-05-05 00:06:43
Here is a Round Chum Troll quality guideline paper and a summarizing bullet point one page sheet that the Chum Trollers Association Board approved for sharing with our members, processors, and posting on this forum.
Chum Troller Association Guidelines for harvesting, handling, and delivering high quality round troll caught wild Alaska chum salmon.
Some notes on the history of the round chum troll fishery and the qualifications or lack thereof of the authors.
The first deliveries of round troll caught chums that we know about were in 1990 to Sitka Sound Seafoods. The round chum troll fishery developed after the round pink troll fishery at Sitka Sound Seafoods in 1989 and 1990. A Sitka troller proposed delivering round pinks after observing and experiencing the effects on his and his crews’ hands of trying to dress 500-1000 pinks a day. In 1989 the round pinks were layer iced. The first trip to Sitka Sound Seafoods was a layer of ice, a layer of salt, a layer of pinks, a layer of salt, a layer of ice, etc. Legend has it that the first load of round troll pinks to Sitka Sound Seafoods was removed via pick axes as the pinks, salt, and ice had frozen into solid blocks in the bins.
Future round pinks were carefully layer iced as the trollers were not equipped with slush tanks. That worked fairly well in preserving the pinks without belly burns and did not freeze the eggs if the icing was monitored carefully. The fishery developed and soon there were over a dozen trollers fishing round pinks for Sitka Sound Seafoods. Trollers figured out how to get Deep Inlet chums to bite in Eastern Channel in 1989 but this was a dressed fishery.
In the winter of 1989-90 some trollers tanked their vessels and ordered brailer bags. Since 1990 some trollers have fished round chums every year and the evolution of how to handle and slush ice the round chums to produce the highest quality flesh without freezing the eggs has advanced every year. In 2010 there were 70 trollers who delivered round troll caught chum in SE Alaska.
Processors have reported a great deal of difference in the quality of round troll chums delivered from the troll fleet over the years. One year Seafood Producers Cooperative actually billed a good percentage of their round chum troll deliveries for freezing the eggs. Processors have reported high rates of bruising in some troll deliveries. Some of the deliveries, particularly from layer iced chums, have a high incidence of “red bellies”. Some of the deliveries, particularly from slush bags, have been reported to not “smell good”, an indication of high bacteria counts. Processors usually pay more for round troll chums so they expect well bled, unbruised, high quality, properly chilled fish. Several processors have asked experienced chum trollers to prepare an information sheet they can use to develop guidelines for trollers delivering round chums.
Here is what we have learned on how to produce the best quality troll caught round chums. (This also applies in good part to round troll pinks.)
Handling troll chums.
1. From the bite to the deck.
A) Run the gear regularly so the chums are still alive as you come to the leaders with the fish. Dragging chums till they die and for an hour or so after they are dead negates the advantage we have over gillnet fish in dealing with troll caught fish while they are alive and getting them chilled immediately. A dead chum in the 60 degree water is already deteriorating.
B) Slip the chums aboard with the gaff or by gently lifting them aboard. Chums are the most docile of the salmon and do not scale readily so you do not need to conk them in the water as we do with coho and Chinook. Do not gaff and sling the chums over your shoulder, over the pit, and down into the landing checker with a thump. This bruises the flesh and compromises quality. It is also hard on your shoulders and your deck.
C) Immediately stick the chums with your gaff or knife in the gills before removing the hook. This begins the bleeding immediately upon landing.
2. From the deck to the slush.
A) Stick the fish in the throat with your bleeding knife (serious chum trollers have specially honed knifes sharpened on both sides similar to oyster shucking blades for this task) as soon as you have run a line.
B) Rinse the blood off your fish after you have run your side and immediately slip all the bled chums into your slush iced tanks. (We will not be discussing layer icing round chums here as we believe you need to slush ice round troll salmon for the best quality.) Some chum trollers have developed creative systems so that they minimize handling from checker to slush tank.
C) Thoroughly rinse your landing checker area with good water pressure before running the lines again. (Some serious chum trollers use 2 inch pacer pump hoses for a thorough rinsing.) Without rinsing the slime and blood build up quickly in the landing area and will contaminate the next batch of fish.
3. Managing the brailer bags, slush tanks.
A) Make sure you don’t make the slush mixture so thick that you freeze the eggs of the first chums. If you freeze them initially then they are ruined forever even if you deliver them at 33-35 degrees. If you are new to slush icing round troll fish then we recommend a temperature gauge to check flesh temps to keep them above 31 degrees. Most chum trollers who have been doing this a long time keep the slush mixture relatively thin, with a layer of slush of a couple of inches or so over cool water. This keeps the fish cool without freezing and makes it easy to slip the fish through the slush area into the tank.
B) Build or manage your slush tanks as individually as your boat will allow for 800 pound brailer bags. Keeping the tanks small minimizes the possibility of hot spots, fish sliding around, and squishing when the brailer bags are lifted out of the hold. Many chum trollers use custom made or standard NoMar Brailer Bags that hold about 800 pounds.
C) Add ice as needed to your slush tanks. You can not produce the optimum quality chums by loading your tank with a slush mixture you anticipate will allow you to load it with chums and keep them at optimum temperature until you unload. If you do this you will freeze the eggs of the first ones loaded. This is not like slushing dressed salmon where it does not matter if the first ones get colder than the last ones loaded. Most experienced chum trollers have developed a system of totes or brailer bags of ice so they can add ice to their slush tanks as they load them with chums. It also works great for optimum slushing of dressed salmon.
D) Segregate the species if possible into separate brailer bags and always keep the dressed fish and round fish in separate tanks.
4. Unloading
A) There are usually two different unloading scenarios and it is important to manage your slush ice/brailer bag system to best facilitate whether you will be unloading to a tender who will be weighing your round chums in your brailer bags or to a plant which will be sorting the fish into totes and then weighing them. When you know your fish will be weighed in the bag it is essential that you minimize the ice in the bags. If you have been carefully adding ice only as needed then this is easily accomplished by shoveling any surplus ice off the top of the bags on the way to or at the tender. Train your crew or yourself to make sure you do not have ice in the bottom of your bags. This will freeze your eggs, compromise the volume of your bags, and lead you to think you have more fish than you do.
B) Chum trolling is a volume fishery with unloading every day or at the most every other day. (Most processors allow 36 hours from coming on deck to unloading.) There is no “0” day in round chum trolling. The clock starts when the first fish bites.) Unloading efficiency and ergonomics becomes a good part of producing a quality product day after day. Quick turn around is good for you, the processor, and the rest of the fleet. Be ready to have your bags lifted when you arrive at the tender or plant. Do not tie up and then start getting your stays, holds, etc. arranged. Be ready to have the hook connected as soon as the ropes are secure. Efficient chum trollers regularly unload 5,000 or so pounds, clean up, ice up, and are ready to go within half an hour. Here are some tips on how to do that, but the most important one is to be ready and have a plan.
C) Have straps pre-attached to all your brailer bags so you don’t have to snap or tie up straps for every lift. This includes bottom straps to hook up for unloading the bags.
D) Evacuate your slush tanks as you approach and during unloading so when the bag of fish goes out you can quickly finish pumping out the rest of the slimy bloody water.
E) Ask for a hose from the tender or plant immediately upon tying up. Have that hose and a couple of your own hoses going to help rinse out the tanks as quickly as possible.
F) Scrub and rinse your tank with your bactericide formula as soon as it is empty.
G) Have a clean, dry, previously sterilized brailer bag or slush bag ready to go in your tank as soon as it is cleaned. Do not replace a brailer bag with one you just unloaded fish from. You do not have time to adequately hose it off, bactericide rinse it, clean water rinse it, and return it to your tank if you are trying to optimize your quality and turn around time. Brailer bags and slush bags need to be sterilized regularly. The chum troll fishery goes on day after day without break and unless you build in a system to sterilize your bags after every delivery you will end up with bags with high bacteria counts. (Some chum trollers have three sets of brailer bags, up to 33 bags on one experienced chum troller, on board to facilitate quality and speedy turn around.)
H) Develop a regular system and order for unloading your tanks so both your crew and the tender crew learns your system and can anticipate where to go next.
I) Ice up immediately if you can. Ask for cold water and ice if both are available. Most plants and all the tenders will facilitate your icing up immediately after unloading if you are ready. Over time they will come to appreciate your efficiency and hustle and will bend over backward to accommodate you.
J) Almost all the companies have their particular rules. Learn them and follow them scrupulously. If you become efficient your peers will be watching you carefully and will quickly notice if you bend or break the company rules.
K) Express your appreciation for the tender and plant service to every helpful person. It takes teamwork to handle large volumes of troll salmon day after day and these people can make a big difference to you. Unloading high volumes of chums and turning around immediately is a different animal than unloading a troll trip of dressed kings or coho once a week. An attitude of gratitude is greatly appreciated.
Handling Procedures and Quality Control Recommendations
From the gear to the landing checker:
1. Run the gear regularly.
2. Slip the salmon over the rail either with a gaff or by gently lifting them aboard to avoid bruising the flesh. Avoid slamming the fish into the landing checker.
3. Immediately stick the gills with a gaff to begin bleeding.
From the landing checking to the fish hold:
1. Gill bleed each fish with a knife.
2. Rinse the blood off each fish.
3. Slip the fish into your slush ice tanks as soon as possible preferably within 15 minutes of landing.
4. Thoroughly rinse your landing checker.
Managing brailer bags, slush bags and slush tanks:
1. Do not pre-load your slush tanks to the top with a thick slush ice mixture. Add water and ice as you add fish in such a way as to not cause the core temperature of the fish to drop below 32 degrees which freezes the eggs.
2. Strive for an optimum fish core temperature of 34 degrees.
3. If you are new to slush icing, use a temperature gauge and check fish core temperatures throughout the day until you get a feel for the proper slush ice ratio for the slush tanks on your boat.
4. Build your slush tanks to allow a brailer bag capacity of between 500 to 800 pounds per bag. Any larger then 800 pounds results in increased bruising and lower quality.
Unloading: Unload and turn around your boat around as fast as possible. Don’t stand on the talk chatting or wasting time if there’s a list of boats waiting to offload. Strive to unload, wash down, and ice up your boat in 30 minutes or less.
1. Almost all fish buyers have their particular rules. Learn them and follow them.
2. Develop a regular system and order for unloading your boat.
3. Try to have 2 or 3 sets of brailer bags for your slush tanks.
4. Have straps pre-attached to you brailer bags for lifting and dumping.
5. Evacuate you slush tanks as you approach and during unloading.
6. If you have multiple species of fish, segregate them into separate bags.
7. Ask for a hose from the tender or plant immediately upon tying up.
8. Scrub, disinfect and rinse your slush tank as soon as it’s empty.
9. Have a clean, dry, previously sterilized brailer bag or slush bag ready to go into your tank as soon as it is clean.
10. Ice up immediately if you can.
11. Express you appreciation for the tender and plant service to every helpful person.
To promote and improve Alaska chum salmon harvest for all trollers.
[attachment=0]Silver Brite.jpg[/attachment]
Salty
2010-10-06 18:46:51
Chum Trollers and others. Obviously our board and members have been busy trolling. I imagine we will have a board meeting later this month, prepare a season recap, identify challenges and opportunities for the meeting season, and go to work. Some things we know are coming up......
Alaska Board of Fishery proposals due in early April 2010. Lots of coordinating with ATA, and other groups before proposal submission.
Neets Bay troll plan is going to be revisited. Tom Sims, Ssraa Board Chair, has asked for chum troll input.
Salty
2010-10-06 18:49:56
As a troll representative on the NSRAA board I would love to hear your ideas on how Nsraa can improve your fishing.
Anyway, lots of work ahead.
Salty
2010-10-19 14:38:21
First fall Board meeting/potluck scheduled for 6:30 pm Friday, Oct 22 at 103 Gibson Place.
Salty
2010-10-23 14:51:58
Chum Trollers Association News flash.
Successful Board meeting last night with a great deal of work accomplished, more on that in later posts.
The news that the Board wanted posted and e-mailed as soon as possible is that two of our Chum Trollers Association members, Matt Stroemer and Bert Bergman, are running for the Seafood Co-operative Board of Directors. If you have not cast your ballot yet then we recommend you vote for these outstanding young leaders who are participants in the chum troll fishery.
The Chum Trollers Association Board elected Matt Stroemer to our board last night.
Hooker
2010-11-13 01:45:16
As a board member ot the Chum Association, I would ask that all CTA post on this website please be passed by the board.
This will be discussed at the next board metting.
Also I would ask that each board member be notified proir to his or her name being posted or be asked at the next board meeting to give their permission that their name be used in future.
Thanks Hooker
JYDPDX
2010-11-13 04:01:46
Who is this annonymous "hooker" person? And why is it so important that his identity be secret? Why would he not want anyone to write his name without special permission?
tomic
2010-12-23 19:45:31
As a board member of CTA I would ask as well that all things posted on this forum related to CTA and its meeting please be passed by the board for their approval prior to posting on this site.
Hans2
2010-12-23 20:04:41
If it's simply passing on existing information, what is the issue? These requests for "prior approval" seem very Gustapo-esque...
Any governing body should be expected to have, and be happy for it, a bright light shone on them at all times.
I thank those that are willing to share public information with other folks on this board.
tomic
2010-12-23 20:21:32
Its a simple matter of informing the board that this is happening so that all members of the board are aware.
Nothing more nothing less.
Hans2
2010-12-23 22:03:44
I suspect it certainly is something more. If it is simply a matter of informing the board "this is happening", then prior approval as previously requested is not necessary then, correct? Or are you taking the position that the board might have the desire to prevent someone from factually representing public information prior to them posting it? If that be the case, please sir, be very specific with your reply to this question - to what purpose would the board want to prevent an open discourse relative to the goings-on in the CTA?
As members of a public board, surely both you, tomic, and you, Hooker, understand you serve the membership first. If any of the membership feel this is the forum in which they decide to discuss or diseminate information, that is outside of the province of the CTA board to regulate. Do a great job and you'll have no worries about what is said.
"Paranoia will destroy ya"
tomic
2010-12-24 14:36:21
Hans2. I can see your searching for the next conspiracy theory or the underbelly of CTA. Sorry to inform you there is none, but you are welcome to attend any meetings and share with us. Please bring a dish, it's usually a potluck.
I am simply asking that the board be aware that the minutes are being posted on the site. Full disclosure to all members of the board and to the members of CTA that this is happening, just so we are informed. As a board member I was suprises to see these post and unaware that this was happening.
The board is made up of a group of poeple. So when one person makes decisions for the group the process is flawed. It's a matter of respect for the process and the board.
I would encourage you to attend and bring up your concerns. Bring a dish, chicken wings are a favorite.
See you there.
Hans2
2010-12-27 19:36:37
Truthfully, I'm not searching for anything - just responding to what has historically been a big red flag of less-than-honest dealings. If there is nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a worry about posting public info on this board. I don't see anybody here making decisions for the group, just posting decisions the group has made. See, I'm here to learn as much as I can about the fishery, the markets, the lifestyle, the history, the future, the politics, etc. When there is an attempt to limit the information flow for whatever reason, it starts looking to us outsiders like some suspicious goings-on. Although admittedly I'm primarily a lurker, I consider myself a member of this site as a donor, and feel as though these requests to "approve comments prior to posting" affect the total value of the site for myself and the many other lurkers on the board. If there is a good reason to not post minutes of meetings (ie., the gillnetters/seiners/charters will use the info agianst us in future negotiations), then I get that - but it should probably be pretty specifically noted that it is a closed-door meeting, yes?
I do appreciate the offer to attend a meeting, and I fully intend to when I get to that stage in my transition from wanna-be to actually fishing for a living. And you can count on me for the wings! But until then, due to my current location (Puget Sound) and occupation (desk jockey), I'll just have to rely on the open and free information sharing this great site and others like it have offered.
Best regards,
Hans2
kalitan97828
2010-12-31 19:54:40
Time to reup on your dues fellows. Your $50 goes a long way to create new fishing opportunites for those trollers who target chums. Recently we have had a number of representatives at DIPAC, NSRAA and SERAA board meetings. It looks good for the upcomming season both in the number of fish and in the price. Dues can be sent to Chum Trollers Association % Carl Peterson Box 593 Sitka,Ak 99835
kalitan97828
2011-10-29 19:24:49
At the last chum trollers association meeting the following guidlines for handling chums was adopted. Last season in Icy Straits a problem developed with a lot of pinks being good only for cat food. With the price of pinks approaching 50 cents per pound we need to produce a very good quality product as pinks can become an important part of our income.
Below is an abbreviated best practices protocol for handling the pinks caught
incidental to your chum. For more in-depth information, please contact a Chum
Trollers Association Board member below. They will be monitoring VHS channels 16
and 7.
Run gear regularly. Dead pinks begin to belly-burn immediately.
Don't allow pinks to accumulate on deck! Slush immediately. They have
already started to deteriorate.
Gently bring your fish on board. Slamming your fish on deck produces
significant bruising and an inferior product.
Immediately stab your fish in the gills with your gaff /knife as it comes aboard.
Rinse blood off your fish after running your side and immediately slip all bled pinks into your slush tanks.
If the processor is utilizing eggs, water temperature should be 34 degrees. If not, colder temperatures are appropriate.
Thoroughly rinse landing checker area with good water pressure before running your lines again. Without rinsing, slime and blood build up quickly
and will contaminate the next batch of fish.
Remember, Pinks don't just pay for your fuel. They help keep the fishery viable!
Linda Danner f/v Amberjack Ryan Wilson f/v Rochelle
Eric Jordan f/v I Gotta Carl Peterson f/v Last Dance
Jim Moore. f/v Aljack Matt Stomer, f/v Acumen
IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO JOIN THE CHUM TROLLERS ASSOC.
P.O. BOX 593 SITKA, AK 99835el