Chum Trollers Association News

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.

Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:21 am

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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:25 am

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.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby ashadu » Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:14 am

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
ashadu
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:47 pm

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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:51 pm

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
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Ocean Gold » Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:33 pm

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
Ocean Gold
Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Juneau

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:32 pm

Thanks to Kathy for taking these comprehensive minutes. I understand you were at the meeting Ed. What was your take?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:07 am

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.
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:17 am

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: Chum trollers support opportunity for all three gear groups at Deep Inlet.
Passed unanimously.

Thanks for engaging.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:00 pm

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
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:16 am

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
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Carol W » Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:35 pm

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
Carol W
Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:32 am
Location: Ketchikan

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:33 pm

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.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:46 am

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.
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:26 am

Grabber, What do you mean by having a terminal harvest area like trollers and seiners do in the plan?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:01 am

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?
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Salty » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:42 am

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?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:13 pm

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.
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby Carol W » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:04 pm

So Grabber will we see a proposal at next board of Fish to open district 11 to trolling?
Carol W
Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:32 am
Location: Ketchikan

Re: Chum Trollers Association News

Postby grabber » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:08 pm

I don't know, will we?
grabber
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:11 am

Next

Return to Fisheries Regulations & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest