Our fish

2016-06-26 12.47.44

The prize – a pile of Alaska sockeye salmon/Craig Medred photo

What would normally be a quiet March meeting of the Alaska Board of Fisheries to discuss generic statewide issues is shaping up to be a battle royal over a proposal that could boost the number of salmon available to average Alaskans.

“The Kenai River Sportfishing Association is leading a well-funded online campaign…based heavily on emotion, inaccurate statistics, and seeks to place personal-use fisheries at a higher priority for allocation than commercial and sport,” the Cordova District United Fishermen warned in an action alert to its members this week.

It urged them to flood the Board with emails and to try to attend the Board meeting. Other commercial fishing organizations are equally gearing up to put asses in the seats for the March 9-12 Anchorage gathering in the hopes a show of hostile fishermen can turn back what is viewed as a precedent-setting measure that could lead future Boards to shift salmon allocation from commercial fishermen to personal-use dipnetters and anglers.

The issue is particularly contentious in Cook Inlet,  the long offshoot of the North Pacific Ocean that stabs a finger smack into the Anchorage metropolitan area.

With a population now estimated at 385,000, it is home to more than half of the state’s population. Many of them are non-commercial fishermen of one sort or another, and they increasingly question whether they are getting a fair share of the Inlet salmon harvest.

As the more militant among them have observed, “those are our fish.”

In this they are in perfect agreement with commercial fishermen who also believe, “those are our fish.”

Inevitable conflict

Given that the demand for the resource now always exceeds the supply, the Fish Board is left with the Solomonesque task of deciding how to divide everybody’s baby. It’s not an easy job, although the Board has never really taken on commercial fishermen.

An 2014 Alaska Department of Fish and Game report concluded commercial fishermen harvested 98.5 percent of all wild resources of Alaska. The calculation was a percentage of all commercial, and non-commercial fishing  and hunting harvests. The harvest of wildlife by hunters of any sort in Alaska is largely irrelevant; it is miniscule compared to fish.

In Cook Inlet, commercial fishermen have largely owned the salmon since 1952, which was the year “pre-statehood federal authorities prohibited subsistence fishing in freshwater,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game anthropologist James Fall wrote in a 2004 technical paper on Inlet salmon history.

Though the federal ruling put an end to fishing with subsistence nets in Kenai Peninsula rivers, it didn’t actually stop people from fishing for food, the essence of subsistence fishing.

“Fishing for ‘personal use’ with a rod and reel remained open,” Fall noted. “In freshwater, snagging became the primary harvest method for those living along the river. Snagging was restricted to the head in 1969. By 1973, snagging any part of the fish was made illegal.

“This rule greatly reduced the local meat fishermen’s ability to harvest fish
for home use. More local residents headed to the beaches of Cook Inlet to fish with gill nets in the (remaining) subsistence fishery.”

Snagging was banned largely in the name of conservation. The number of sockeye salmon allowed to escape the nets of commercial fishermen to enter the Kenai in late ’60s and early ’70s was never greater than 507,000 and in ’69 dipped below 73,000.

The minimum, in-river goal is now 900,000 and climbs higher in years of abundance. Despite the snagging ban, angler catches in modern times are in the neighborhood of 400,000 sockeye in years of strong Kenai returns, according to Alaska Department of fish and Game data. 

The ban on snagging clearly didn’t stop anglers from catching Kenai sockeye and king salmon for food. The regulatory change simply forced the rod-and-reel subsistence fishermen to join the so-called “sport fishermen,” who’d backed the snagging ban for conservation and “fair-chase” reasons.

Among fishing purists, snagging is considered unethical. They believe fish should be baited into taking a lure or fly, or if that’s not possible at least snagged in the mouth.

“Some people insist that snagging is not even fishing,” Associated Press reporter Joel Stashenko observed while covering a Lake Ontario fishing dispute in 1990.

“The practice has been outlawed entirely or severely restricted in other Great Lakes states…(and) fishing ethics aside, snagging does nothing to make the salmon run along the Lake Ontario tributaries more civilized.”

In the early 1970s, the snagging ban came as civilization was starting to invade the Alaska fisheries.

“The sportfishing industry was growing and techniques for catching Chinook (king) salmon with colored lures, smell, and methods of moving the lure with the current were refined by Spence Divito,” Fall wrote. “A similar technique, known as the ‘Kenai flip’, was soon developed for catching sockeye salmon.

“Along with the new techniques for catching salmon came the sportsman image cast by Mr. Divito holding his record book Chinook salmon in 1973. By the early 1980s the sportfishing industry was growing rapidly on the Kenai Peninsula and became a major competitor with the commercial and subsistence fisheries.”

Much to the chagrin of commercial fishermen in the Inlet, the sport fishery proved much harder to control than the easily eliminated in-river subsistence fisheries.

Battleground Kenai

Through the 1980s and up to the present day, arguments over salmon allocation – the Kenai fish wars – have become almost annual affairs with the Fish Board first trying to moderate between old commercial fishing interests and newer angling interests wanting more Chinook to escape commercial gillnets and later older sockeye interests wanting to claim to more than a token percentage of the sockeye catch.

Commercial fishermen led to believe they should be able to make a year’s living in a few months thanks to the state’s 1973 limited entry law have been understandably angry that what Alaska voters gave Alaska anglers and dipnetters want to take away.

It was in 1972 that voters approved an amendment to the “common property” clause of the state constitution that cleared the way to make commercial fishing a select club. The Limited Entry Act passed by the Alaska Legislature in 1973 stated among its purposes “the economic health and stability of commercial fishing.”

The economic health of the fishery is contingent on commercial fishermen catching the maximum allowable harvest of salmon to generate the maximum possible profit.

Noncommercial fishermen have never really liked that, arguing that while limited entry might have given some people the privilege to catch and sell fish – in much the way a liquor licence gives some the privilege to run a bar – the law didn’t entitle commercial fishermen to ownership of the resource.

Over the years, the Board of Fish has appeared divided on how it views this fundamental issue.

In the last big go around on Cook Inlet, then Board chairman John Jensen, a commercial fishermen from Petersburg, announced that salmon regulations were being changed to give salmon back “to the commercial fishermen who, in my opinion, gave them up.”

Jensen’s comment was a reflection of the view of the majority of the Board that the Inlet’s commercial gillnet fishermen were entitled to most of the Inlet’s sockeye for historic reasons.

Recognizing, among others things, the evolving economics of the region, the Kenai sport fishing group put before the Board a proposal intended to reframe the entitlement mentality. It establishes standards for the Board to consider “before adopting regulation that allocate fish among personal use, sport, and commercial fisheries.”

It bows to historical uses, stipulating that they “may be taken into consideration when reviewing and making an allocation decision (but) this criterion alone shall not be determinate.”

The proposal then gets down to the nitty-gritty that has commercial fishermen in a panic. The proposal would establish seven criteria that govern Board allocations in “non-subsistence areas.” Those areas are clustered near the states few urban areas.

A subsistence preference prevails throughout the rural part of the state, which largely makes a non-issue of allocation between commercial and non-commercial fisheries in those areas. The non-subsistence areas were created specifically to eliminate a preference that could have cut deeply into commercial harvests.

The Kenai proposal falls short of re-establishing such a preference, but it does tilt allocation toward Joe and Jane Average Alaskan at the probable expense of commercial fishermen. The seven criteria in their order of preference:

  • Salmon for “Alaska residents for personal and family consumption.” The bulk of these salmon are now caught in personal-use, Alaska-only, salmon dipnet fisheries on the Kenai, Kasilof and Copper Rivers and at Fish Creek and Kachemak Bay. 
  • Salmon to meet the needs of both “residents and non-residents who have participated in state fisheries in the past and can reasonably be
    expected to participate in the future.”
  • Salmon to protect the tourism “economy of the region and local area in
    which the fishery is located.” Tourism has become a major economic engine both on the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage and in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough north of Anchorage.
  • Salmon to preserve “importance of each fishery to the economy of the state.
  • Salmon adequate to satisfy the historical demand “of each personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fishery with emphasis on the previous 20 years.
  • Salmon that recognize “the importance of each fishery in providing recreational opportunities for residents and non-residents.
  • And, lastly, “the availability of alternative fisheries resources of similar characteristics.”

The latter standard would allow the Board to shift some catch to commercial interests. The rest of the criteria are a obvious threat to the lock commercial fishing interests have had on salmon in the state’s small, non-subsistence zones since limited entry was established.

Political efforts to shift salmon allocations in Alaska are not unprecedented. The salmon in what are now the state’s non-subsistence zones were once largely controlled by Seattle fishing interests that ran massive fish traps in the territory. The first Alaska Legislature outlawed traps to protect “our” salmon.

Who owns “our” salmon in Alaska has been the subject of debate almost ever since.

31 replies »

  1. Gunner, it is quite ok to be passionate about fisheries in Alaska, particularly when it provides one’s livelihood or part of it. Your reference to how users from SEAK, B.B. , Kodiak, PWS might feel about their share may have some validity in some cases. But UCI is an entirely different, as you know. And that is because nearly half the State’s population has reasonable road access to the Kenai River which provides the best chance of harvesting Salmon and other species. And as the population has grown so has the demand from Alaskans. In the other areas you mentioned there is very little pressure exerted on the fisheries by anglers or P.U. Users.
    And when Alaska’s constitution states that the fisherery resource shall be managed for the maximum benefit of its people, it is referring to, among others, all those residents who want to fish on the Kenai Peninsula. 50 years ago the commercial gill netters did not have to share with Anch or the Valley users. They pretty much had the fisheries to themselves. Now they do have competing users and their share has been getting reduced. And it will continue until all Alaskans who want to share in this common propert resource get a fair and reasonable opportunity to do so. While the gill netters may be upset, remember that their CFEC permit provides no guarantee other than an opportunity with limited commercial competition. I feel for them. But the answer is not in limiting the rightful opportunity of all other Alaskans

    • Finally, I can’t argue with anything in your post. All alaskans deserve their share of this common property resource. But that has little to do with my post. The percentage of geoducts harvested by commercial interests has little to due with cook inlet salmon allocation. Using the percentages of commercial harvest of all seafood,including those that have little or no sport/ pu harvest is misleading to say the least. Reminds me of krsa’s failed attempt years ago which I believe was proposition 1 if I recall correctly.

      • Thank you for the cordial reply Gunner. They are hard to come by sometimes. I think Medred’s percentages of “salmon” caught by CFEC permit holders in the areas you mentioned probably reflects an approximate balance between the users in those areas. Not so in UCI, however. And that is of concern. Why are the gill net commercial interests in UCI getting more than the lions share of the salmon resources at the expense of the hundreds of thousands Alaska residents who do not want to purchase their fish but rather want the reasonable opportunity to catch them. Both for food and recreation. There appears to be a gross imbalance in the distribution of the resource in UCI between users.
        The B.B. Board of fish meeting takes five days to complete. There is little controversy and 40 million or more Sockeye salmon are reasonably allocated between users. Contrast that with the UCI meeting which takes 14 days, is very costly and has enormous controversy in allocating less than a sixth of the fish of B.B. why? Because for decades the commercial sector has mostly had its way with a majority on the BOF and because the Dept has been run by commercial fishing sympathizers or former commercial fishers. Hell, the building in which the Dept has its offices in the Peninsula also houses the UCIDA offices. Imagine the influence that is asserted by the commercial fishers in that environment.
        This imbalance needs to stop. And It appears that change is on the way. It may not be pleasant for the commercial fishers, but it is only fair and in keeping with Alaska’s constitution.

  2. Thank you Kevin, I do have a habit of getting sidetracked easily, or maybe I might be in the throes of early memory loss. I was born in 1949, I am a real ‘49er.
    What gets me riled up are proposals like #169 & 170. Waste of everyone’s time.
    On #171, I do not agree with the actual premise, since BOF already has the authority to make allocation decisions based on certain criteria.
    Anyway good luck with #171 at the mtg. The public will have their opportunity to speak, the local advisory committees can weigh in also and the BOF members will discuss and make a decision based on best science, state constitution and probably some “expediency of the times”.
    I also apologize to you, if any of my past comments were deemed offensive or inappropriate. Thank you for your work career at ADF&G. I have always supported the Department, even when I have not agreed with their management decisions. Besides sustainability being in our constitution, without the Department doing their job, we would not have the seafood industry, that we have.
    AK is only area on this planet which has sustainable fisheries.

    • Finally, Have looked at the list of past board members since the 70’s and am familiar with most of the names and I don’t see where there could have been a majority of commercial interests on the board at any time. I could be mistaken, but I think not.
      UCI meetings are contentious,but let us not forget the board must consider every fishery from yukon chum to s.e herring. Having members with various backgrounds is imperative.
      The fact that ucida rents an office space in the same building as adfg leads to them having influence is a pretty far stretch. Now the governors kenai campaign headquarters in the krsa building is another thing altogether.
      Once again,I would be curious to know the actual percentage of total harvest of UCI coho ,chinook,and sockeye that are caught commercially.
      This summer we will hear it repeated by UCI p/u and sportfishermen that the commercial boys are getting 98.5 percent of our fish and that just isn’t true.

  3. James, this thread is about Proposal #171 so I didn’t weigh in on #169 and #170 both by the same author. #169 and #170, IMO are nothing less than an egregious attempt to dismantle the State’s Escapement Goal Policy and Policy for Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries respectively. It will be an embarrassing moment if the Board gives either of these proposals any serious consideration. I was on the senior management team in ADFG that helped write many of the early drafts of the PMSSF. That team also did a very careful review of the EGP. Could either or both of these policies be improved, probably, but dismantled in an attempt to return the state to a blind version of single/strong stock management, which is what these proposals seek, when we know better, hell no.

  4. Whoa, some super sleuthing by Mongo. You must be an undercover detective to be able to find such top secret and worthless info.

    • Yes, Mongo, I declare N on my CFEC salmon permit, since I am no longer in AK, for more than 6 months a year.
      I have owned a home in Cordova, since 1980. I also own a home in WA.
      My current abode in AK, is at 121 W Davis Ave, Cordova, AK 99574 & PO BOX 1241. Stop by and visit, next time you are there.
      I have had an AK DL and voter registration card also, since 1980. I have participated in Halibut, Cod, Herring & Salmon Fisheries all over the state, store nice 1976. I received my 100 T Near Costal Masters license in 1990. I worked a number of winter months for a marine transportation company, plying waters between Seattle and Dutch Harbor.
      I also visited the Elbow Room, after it had been immortalized in Playboy.
      I got a moose permit in ‘95, since I did declare residency for a number of years. Best eating meat I have ever had. Also shot many deer in PWS, I will have those memories forever.
      My wife is sick, so she needs to be close to her Doctors, otherwise I would still be full time in AK. That is my story, and I still have the right to be heard and write public comments.
      Thank you for reading.

      • Good post James. Sorry about your wife. I often disagree with what you post but it is clear that many can benefit from your experience. Particularly when you direct your comments towards the issues and not towards personalities.
        You might want to look into whether you might still be able to claim Alaska resident status. Just because you are outside the state more than 6 months is not dispositive of the matter. If your intent is to make Alaska your domicile, and you have not obtained the benefit of being a resident in another state ( senior tax break, resident fishing / hunting license, voting in another state, etc) than with all the contacts you have in Ak you might still be a resident here. Check it out James. There are countless Ak residents that spend more than 6 months outside the state. They don’t get the PFD but they are still considered residents.

      • Alaskans First,
        Thank you for your comment. I only received the PFD, a couple years, due to working for a freight company, based out of Seattle, during late ‘80-‘90s.
        The freight would be collected in Seattle, and we would do a 21 day trip. Stops at Chignik, Sandpoint, Akutan, Dutch & Captain’s Bay. We would meet up with Pollock & Cod catcher/processor boats, to transport their frozen fillets back to Seattle.
        Had two weeks off, and do the 21 day trip again. That goes on all year long. I was a relief 1st Mate, filling in during the winter months, when I was not fishing.
        On another note:
        I wonder how many Alaskans understand how products and goods are delivered to Alaska.
        Majority is by container vans on barges (ported in Seattle), Trucking and Airplanes make up the rest of the supplies needed by Alaskans.
        Alaska needs Seattle more than Seattle needs Alaska. The State and the city, have a special relationship, that goes over a hundred years ago.
        Seattle has been the departure point for majority of expeditions, airline flights, boat cruises and road trips for many of lower 48 residents. We should welcome them all. Thanks again.

  5. Was going to respond to this article with some facts, but then I read the byline and found the statement that this website is not necessarily factual but entertainment, much like the current “reality” shows. So why waste my time. On to bigger and better things. No wonder adn fined this so called journalist.

    • “fired,” not fined, Leland.and if you have some facts pertinent to the conversation, please add them.

      insults are simply cheap, throwaway crap. they only make you look ignorant.

      you’re not ignorant are you?

      • Why is my email address viewable. When you log on to post,it explicitly says your email will not be viewable to the public. Please remove.

      • Craig, My first post was inflammatory and disrespectful.One tends to get defensive when one’s livelihood is under constant attack. Please accept my apology.
        That being said, the statement that 98.5 percent of wild resources are taken by commercial fishing may be true,but I feel is misleading . This number takes into consideration harvests of all groundfish,shellfish,herring,salmon and more.
        I don’t believe many p/u or sportfishermen feel they are not getting their fair share of cod and pollock. For that matter I have not heard an outcry over allocation of pws,s.e,or kodiak pink runs. Or bristol bay sockeye.
        I think it would be more pertinent to state the commercial harvest percentages here in cook inlet of the various salmon species,which I believe would be far less than 98.5 percent.

    • I certainly do not agree with Craig’s reasoning, at times, though I really appreciate him putting his voice out there to start a conversation.
      Thank you Craig

    • Leland, very pleased to know that you will not be wasting your time by responding to Medred’s articles. Given the tone of what you posted, I am sure that many others will be happy to not have to waste their time reading what you say.

  6. Glad to see that recreational fishermen may finally get some relief from the commercial fishing industry. It has been getting harder to catch salmon on the Kenai River each year I have fished over the last decade. I haven’t even bothered to fish for kings for the last ten years. Now I have to dip net several days in July to supplement what little I manage to catch by rod and reel (2 fish last summer). Eight to ten hours of hard work dipping yields next to nothing if the commercial boats are out. The resource is getting squeezed and something needs to be done to make sure Alaskan anglers can get their fair share. As for local businesses benefiting, all you have to do is compare road traffic and shopping lines at Fred Meyers in July to any month in the winter to see the economic boost recreational and tourist fishing brings to the Soldotna and Kenai community. I’d like to see a study done that would accurately compare the dollar benefit to the community on a fish per fish basis between recreational and commercial fishing interests. I think the results would be staggering!!

    • Steve, not sure if this helps or not or even if this is what you are talking about. I am going to assume this is for non-res because of the lodging/meals, etc.. I came up with approx. $3,500-$7,000 for four-five days of recreational fishing from several random Google sources. Going to add (off topic and assuming non-res) brown bear $17,000-$25,000, moose $15,000, sheep, $15,000 for a guided hunt. I say a recreational seat at the table is well deserved no?

    • I would just like to point out that having to dip net multiple days to get your fish brings multiple days of economic benefit to the Kenai community.

  7. Craig does a good job of explaining just what outcome is sought by this important proposal. It may be helpful to readers to clearly understand that the process sought by the proposal would only apply withing the Non-Subsistence Areas in the State. This is an important distinction because, for example the only part of Prince William Sound that is considered a non-subsistence area is the area immediately around the town of Valdez, no part of the Copper River drainage or the Copper River Flats is designated part of a non-subsistence area, Here’s some context for the proposal:

    State statute AS 16.05.251. Regulations of the Board of Fisheries, lays out the duties of the Board. After complying with the Constitutional obligation to see that fisheries resources are managed for sustained yield comes the Constitutional obligation to maximize the benefit to the State resulting from utilization of the fisheries resources. Paramount to accomplishing the second of these Constitutional obligations is the responsibility to allocation the beneficial use of the resource in a wise manner.

    To this end the State Legislature adopted AS.16.205 (e) which provides the Board of Fisheries with direction for allocation of fisheries resources. This statute was adopted in 1989. The Statute provided a list of suggested criteria “that the Board shall consider, as appropriate”. The Statute provided no framework for priority or weighting the criteria. The Board subsequently complied with the statute by simply adopting it in regulation, essentially by reference, in 1991. No action has been taken to amend or improve the regulation since that time.

    As a result, in spite of 27 years of development and change to the economy and demographic composition of the State, historical use of a fishery resource, has been observed to be the most heavily weighted criteria.

    Achieving and maintaining the Constitutional obligation the provide maximum benefit to the people of the State requires that allocation of fishery resources occurs based on an adaptive framework that takes into consideration the dynamic nature of the State’s economic and demographic landscape. This proposal seeks to establish that framework.

    • Kevin,
      I also oppose #165 & 169. Charter boats want to double dip, not happening. You are either one or the other.
      #169, waste of everyone’s time. ADF&G is doing a great job, even with all the budget cuts. Alaska is the only state, in the union, which has sustainable fisheries. Matter of fact, the only area or region, in the world, which has sustainable fisheries. And you want to change that! Gimme a break!
      Do not try to fix what is not broken. Thank goodness for the state employees, working hard to maintain a balance, that is not seen in the rest of the world!

    • Yes, fish farms have their place, though they produce sterile fish. Roe is in huge demand, and AK has it. Hatcheries produce fish with roe, which salmon farms do not have. Gotta have eggs! They drive the economy, especially in Asia.

  8. Why should non-resident fishers, who fish with guides, even be part of this equation? Yes, tourism brings in money, though, why are out of state sport fishers, even given a seat at the table, higher than resident commercial fishers?
    Majority of salmon limited entry permits, in early ‘70s were given to AK residents, who promptly transferred and sold them, over the last 45 years. The State could not figure out how to prohibit non-residents from buying a commercial salmon permit. As in nature, the strongest survive. What was once a laid back fishing culture, has become a serious and professional profession, that only the strong survive. The commercial fishers I know, work hard in a dangerous industry, and compete with one another to support their families, communities and/or municipalities, each season.
    Every dollar they receive, is turned over and multiplied by a factor of 4.
    On the Copper River, commercial fishers pay for a sockeye hatchery, that provides all user groups, with opportunity each year, to harvest their share of this bounty.
    I repeat, what I have said before, KRSA’s main agenda, is to shut down the CI Eastside set net fleet. That is KRSA’s main goal. The Gov gave RG a job, who now speaks for KRSA?, even though he is still listed on their website.
    We will find out in March! Bob and his bro Francis spent over $550K on Mike’s campaign for gov.
    Maybe KD will take a more active role. Get your public comments in, the battle is being drawn and the war is close.

    • James, as the saying goes, elections have consequences. Perhaps you have not been in the Kenai Soldotna communities when the Personal Use and sport fisheries are taking place. If you were you would see that each dollar spent by those users has the same multiplier affect that you claim occurs when local commercial users spend their money. The problem with
      your argument is that there are exponentially more dippers and anglers spending money on the Kenai Peninsula than there are those associated with the commercial users, and thus the economic impact is far greater. Times have been rapidly changing James and regulations must reflect those changes. It’s hard on those who must give up part of their catch, of course. But no one has ever had a right to a percentage of the common fish resource resource.
      PWS is a far different place than the UCI. It does not have the population base or access as the Peninsula. But change will come there as well. A large majority of Alaskans are fed up with the notion that the Commercial sector has a “right” or is “entitled” to the resource.
      With a new administration, new faces in the Dept and likely on the BOF, there will be changes and the many will no longer be disenfranchised by the few.

    • Hi James, thanks for thinking of me. A commercial fisherman who I have great respect for asked me just what the problem was that KRSA is trying to solve with this proposal.Here’s the problem statement: “The State of Alaska through the Alaska Board of Fisheries is not fulfilling its Constitutional obligation to maximize the benefit of the fisheries resource to the people of the State by continuing to restrict sport, guided sport and personal use salmon fisheries in non subsistence areas in favor of the commercial salmon fisheries” Hope to see you at the statewide meeting, come up and say hello!

      • Thanks for the offer Kevin, though I have already weighed in, on the statewide proposals, by submitting my public comments. I will not be in Anchorage for the BOF mtg. I have attended many BOF mtgs., since 1982, and I am close to retirement, I do not need anymore aggravation in my life. The public process is like our democratic republic, it is messy and dirty, though it does work.
        I would rather be another wannabe fish pundit, and make comments on Craig’s blog, instead of attending.
        I will tell you I opposed #170 & 171. BTW, what has that Jeff guy been smoking. His two proposals do not make sense. The ADF&G already has all the tools to effect sustainability in our salmon fisheries, that also includes SEG on escapement. Both of his proposals will be given their fair do, though both will fail. Another waste of valuable time by BOF members, the state employees and members of the public. #171 is clearly not needed. The Department already has the ability to make allocation decisions, based on certain criteria. Another proposal by the one agenda Bob P. KRSA. Thank You Mr. RG and members of the KRSA board.

    • James, this thread is about Proposal #171 so I didn’t weigh in on #169 and #170 both by the same author. #169 and #170, IMO are nothing less than an egregious attempt to dismantle the State’s Escapement Goal Policy and Policy for Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries respectively. It will be an embarrassing moment if the Board gives either of these proposals any serious consideration. I was on the senior management team in ADFG that helped write many of the early drafts of the PMSSF. That team also did a very careful review of the EGP. Could either or both of these policies be improved, probably, but dismantled in an attempt to return the state to a blind version of single/strong stock management, which is what these proposals seek, when we know better, hell no.

Leave a Reply