Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/24/2014 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE
RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2014
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Anna Fairclough
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Mike Dunleavy
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK KOCH, City Manager
City of Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related issues the City of Kenai deals with
during its personal use fishery.
BRIAN GABRIEL, member
Kenai City Council
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Present to answer questions of City of Kenai
fish issues.
BRUCE KNOWLES, Chairman
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation on Northern Cook Inlet
fisheries.
ANDY SZCZESNY, member
Kenai River Professional Guides Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the economic impact of sport
fishing on the Kenai Peninsula.
DWIGHT KRAMER, Chairman
Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on Upper Cook Inlet king salmon
stock issues.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on Upper Cook Inlet salmon
management issues.
MEGAN SMITH, member
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed setnetting issues in Upper Cook
Inlet.
AMBER EVERY, member
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed setnetting issues in Upper Cook
Inlet.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:22 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Micciche, Bishop, Dyson, Fairclough, and
Chair Giessel.
^Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue
Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue
3:31:01 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said the committee would take up its only order of
business today, the "Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Dialogue." Her
intention was informational only.
3:31:49 PM
RICK KOCH, City Manager, City of Kenai, Alaska, introduced
himself and said he hoped the City of Kenai would always be a
"fishing town" as it is now. They are proud of the responsible
stewardship that generations of Kenai Peninsula residents have
undertaken as a solemn trust.
BRIAN GABRIEL, member, Kenai City Council, Kenai, Alaska,
introduced himself.
MR. KOCH said that subsistence, commercially-guided sportfish,
sportfish, commercial shore (setnet), commercially-guided
personal use, and personal use fisheries all occur on lands
within the corporate boundary of the City of Kenai and almost
exclusively on or over lands owned by the City. The City is also
homeport to many commercial drift operators and fish processing
facilities. As defined in Section 104.297 of the Magnuson
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the City of
Kenai is a fishing community, and at least under federal law, is
mandated to have a seat at the table when decisions affecting
the community are contemplated.
He said he was invited to speak today and wanted to show them
some pictures and tell a few stories, and leave them with a few
fisheries issues that the City of Kenai faces.
The first slide was a picture of a typical day during a personal
use fishery at the mouth of the Kenai River. Last year there
were 15,000 people on the north and south shores during the
busiest day of the fishery. Through the course of the fishery,
they probably see 40,000 to 50,000 different people
participating there, and the photo didn't show the 400-600 boats
that are also participating.
He said the number of permits issued for the Kenai salmon, both
Kasilof and Kenai Rivers, has increased at a steady rate since
1996. It's important to recognize that each permit does not
represent a single individual, but instead represents a
household. ADF&G has provided data that shows that each permit
represents 3.2 individuals. For 2013, the total number of
permits issued was 35,211 or 112,675 Alaskans.
The harvest of Kenai River sockeye salmon during the personal
use fishery has increased (comparing the average harvest for
four years beginning in 2000) from 163,159 fish to 491,173 fish,
an increase of over 300 percent in 10 years.
3:34:38 PM
SENATOR FRENCH joined the committee.
3:35:50 PM
MR. KOCH said fish waste on their beaches used to be one of the
more dramatic problems the city was forced to deal with. It was
unsightly, unhealthy, and attracted other wildlife; fecal matter
from seagulls contributed to elevated bacteria counts which far
exceeded the EPA water-quality standards in the near shores of
the Kenai River.
During the 2013 personal use fishery, the City of Kenai spent
approximately $430,000 to manage fish waste, solid waste, to
provide and service permanent and portable toilets, and other
services solely dedicated to respond to the personal use fishery
that takes place on the city's lands. They collected roughly the
same income from user fees; it does not make a profit from the
fishery. They estimate that user fees are collected from only
about 30-40 percent of the participants who benefit from those
city services. They are only able to collect from parking and
camping; they cannot charge for access to the beach.
He said the more effective management plan for fish waste has
resulted in a marked decrease in seagulls and other animals
feeding on it on the beach and that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) continues to study the levels
of bacteria present in the waters of the Kenai River during the
personal use fishery.
3:37:05 PM
A beach raking operation coupled with the 2013 requirement that
all fish waste must be deposited in the waters of the Kenai
River of Cook Inlet has significantly reduced the problem with
fish waste on the beaches. Tides redeposit fish waste at the
high tide line, but in amounts that are manageable with a
tractor raking operation. In 2013, the cost to the city for just
the raking was over $20,000 for the three-week period. In
summary, he said, fish waste management has ultimately turned
out to be one of their successes.
3:38:09 PM
They don't have their arms around the issues of loss and
protection of habitat. He said the City of Kenai is the majority
land owner in and around the mouth of the Kenai River, up river
to mile 4.5. They have installed over 3 miles of barrier fencing
to protect dune areas, but it's far from enough. The damage to
and loss of near-river habitat as a result of the personal use
fishery is ongoing. It is increasing in severity and this is
unacceptable. The City requests that the ADF&G undertake a
habitat assessment at the mouth of the Kenai River and work
cooperatively with them to develop solutions for this problem.
Given the monumental increase in participation over the last 10
years, it's not surprising that fishery participants are seeking
less crowded areas near the mouth of the Kenai River to fish
from, but unfortunately all the lands upriver from the mouth are
environmentally sensitive. They are mostly wetlands and support
nesting birds, grasses, and plants utilized for subsistence
harvest by Alaskan Natives and other fragile ecosystems.
Riparian habitat important to rearing salmon areas is also being
destroyed by foot traffic along the river banks. Everything is
open to dipnetting for the personal use fishery and the
resulting damages are at times very severe.
MR. KOCH said a situation that has become much more critical
over the course of the last several months is the existing south
shore access along Dune Road and Old Cannery Road. Both require
fishery participants to travel north along the beach to reach
the mouth of the Kenai River. In doing so, vehicles travel
through eight privately owned properties. Ownership extends to
mean high water or an elevation of 19.1 feet. The property
owners have stated that they will block traffic from traveling
over their private property this year. The City of Kenai is
facilitating discussions between them and the ADF&G to attempt
to develop interim and permanent solutions.
New access is being proposed by the City that will decrease the
travel distance on the beach by up to one-half mile. This
realignment will eliminate the conflict with private property
owners where the alleged trespass occurs and it will minimize
conflicts with high tide as it relates to access only during
mean high water along private properties. Providing this access
is estimated to cost $2.1 million.
If access is prohibited across the private properties, the City
during this year's personal use fishery may limit access periods
to the south beach when tides are at 16.1 feet or lower. He
explained that on many days only three tides would not impact
access. On some days there are 12 hours that access would not be
possible on the beach and given the thousands of vehicles that
are there, it would be a tremendous conflict. Hopefully, the
Alaska Legislature will consider funding for alternative access
and the private property owners may then allow access across
their beach properties during the 2014 season.
3:44:22 PM
He said the City's resources to respond to the state's personal
use fishery at the mouth of the Kenai River are extremely
tapped. They are at the breaking point of being able to respond
for simple things like hauling garbage off and raking fish waste
down the beach. Trespass in the environmentally sensitive areas
on private property is becoming more the norm rather than a rare
circumstance.
As a solution they would request that the ADF&G work
cooperatively with the City in planning a decision-making
process regarding the personal use fishery. For the last three
years, the City has requested the ADF&G not open the personal
use fishery to a 24 hr/day opening. The only time they can
safely provide maintenance activities on that beach is from 11
p.m. to 6 a.m. when it's normally closed. When the commissioner
opens it up by emergency order they can't get out on the beach
to clean fish waste, pick up garbage, or service the portable
toilets.
MR. KOCH said they would like the Board of Fisheries to
recognize, as the federal government would under the Magnuson
Stevens Act, the City's rights as a property owner in a fishing
community. They submitted a proposal this year to eliminate the
possibility of 24-hour openings, but the Board told the City
that they just need to learn how to manage crowds, not a very
cooperative stance.
3:46:32 PM
In April 2013, it was necessary for the City to submit their
proposals almost a full year ahead of the Board's meeting. After
that time, the ADF&G went through each proposal and made
findings which were published. At the beginning of the meeting
the ADF&G did nothing but give staff reports for the first day.
They made two recommendations of what should happen in the
Management Plan: the first was to eliminate the present Lake
Management Plan, because they didn't have the funding to be able
to go over it, and the second was to raise by only a couple
hundred fish the lower escapement goal for Jim Creek off the
Knik River. Aside from that, the ADF&G felt they had the tools
to be able to effectively manage the Upper Cook Inlet fisheries.
The public had an opportunity then for three days to make
comments at the meeting, then the deliberations went to the
Board of Fisheries. The process up to that point was very open;
every proposal and recommendation could be followed, but when it
got into the Board's hands things changed. Several of the
proposals were amended and essentially became new Board-
generated proposals that the public and the ADF&G never had a
chance to comment on. They weren't judged by scientists or
biologists. In the course of 10-20 minutes, brand new proposals
were created and approved by the Board of Fisheries.
MR. KOCH said even if he agreed that each of those actions came
to a positive result, he was still offended by that process. He
thought that all Alaskans should be offended by it when eight
months of process went before the meeting and then in the course
of minutes brand new management decisions that have far-reaching
effects are brought up.
3:49:20 PM
SENATOR FRENCH, on behalf of the dipnet fishermen from
Anchorage, thanked him for a well-run, friendly operation. It's
a positive experience for him as a casual fisherman.
MR. KOCH said he hoped that experience only gets better in being
able to find a way to work with the state to resolve some of
their issues.
3:50:06 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he is proud of the way crowds have been
handled in the past, yet as they are increasing Mr. Koch
explained how the population tripled on weekends. He asked how
the legislature can help with other than the access issues.
MR. KOCH responded that certainly access issues on the south is
most critical, but the north, as well. Because this fishery
takes place only for three weeks a year and their population
more than tripled, at times it's very difficult to create the
infrastructure to support it based on revenues that can be
derived in only three weeks. For instance, if they were going to
build a 250-500 place campground, it's very difficult to justify
the capital cost for the three weeks they could get revenue from
it. Personal use permit fees were a possibility for providing
some of those capital improvements that would enhance the
experience at the mouth of the river.
3:52:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if ADF&G could publish a brochure about
how to access the fishing grounds and handle fish.
MR. KOCH said they do some of that on line now, but it could be
expanded; some people in environmentally sensitive areas just
don't know it. Information could come in with returned permits,
for instance.
SENATOR DYSON said he hears that people who are not residents
set up industrial scale harvesting, but he wanted to know if
that was true.
MR. KOCH replied yes; they see very efficient operations, but he
didn't know if they were Alaskans or not.
3:54:15 PM
BRUCE KNOWLES, Chairman, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and
Wildlife Commission, gave a presentation on Northern Cook Inlet
fisheries. He said he had lived in the Valley since 1982. He had
had a guide service for a few years in the winter and is now a
sport fisherman. He got involved in salmon issues in the late
90s and has been involved ever since.
He said the Commission was established in 2007 and was first
named the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Committee. Its purpose is to
represent the Borough in conservation and allocation of fish,
wildlife, and habitat. He said Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) salmon
fisheries are essential to the character of life and the economy
of the Mat-Su Borough (MSB). There is a compact amount of time
during which the fish swim through. It's something that can be
readily taken care of because of the complexity and the changes
year by year. Two-thirds of Alaska residents reside along the
Upper Cook Inlet road system; approximately 250,000 people sport
fish annually; 160,000 are salmon fishermen and 300,000
households fish for personal use. One out of three Alaskans
sport fish, the highest rate of fishing in the nation.
The economic significance of sport fishing has only recently
been recognized. Statewide, $1.4 billion was spent by sport
fishers in 2007 and half of the sport fishing in Alaska occurs
in Cook Inlet. Anglers spent $733 million in 2007 to fish there,
which supported 8,056 jobs and generated $55 million in state
and local taxes. Anglers fished nearly 300,000 angler days in
2007 and spent $118 million and generated $31-64 million to the
local economy. Wholesale fishing in 2007 amounted to $77
million. Mr. Knowles said he was trying to illustrate that
Alaskans depend very heavily on these resources for their food.
3:58:05 PM
MR. KNOWLES said issues affecting salmon abundance in the
Northern Cook Inlet are fresh water invasive species, loss of
wetlands, fish barriers, and the high seas by-catch, which
nobody has any control over, and federal and fisheries policies.
In Cook Inlet there are research gaps in commercial harvest
data. Low salmon abundance in Upper Cook Inlet affects
management of the Central District. There is a lack of
scientific data on when the fish are moving through, but that is
being fixed.
He said the Borough has been "dinged" for culvert problems and
that has resulted in replacing and repairing 86 old culverts. He
noted in areas that have stocks of concern have very few
culverts, because they are in roadless areas.
4:00:24 PM
Pike suppression has come along very well in the Lower Susitna;
on Alexander Creek, over 12,000 pike have been killed by the
state and studies show juvenile salmon recolonizing it. Culverts
are adversely affecting salmon, because of growth in the
borough; they all fall in a core area around Palmer and Wasilla.
Solutions for low salmon abundance involve revising the Upper
Cook Inlet management plans to ensure sustained yield for Upper
Cook Inlet for both Northern and Central District salmon. A
major improvement by the Board of Fisheries was establishing an
area for the fish to move through the central district drift
area without overharvesting.
4:02:06 PM
He explained that there are discreet stock zones in Bristol Bay
and there is a core area where boats can't fish, but a fishing
area at the throats of all the different rivers. The Board of
Fisheries should maintain and refine the Upper Cook Inlet
conservation corridor, which would require studies that the
legislature can help the department fund.
4:03:22 PM
He said that genetics and allocation acoustic studies were done
in the last couple of years, which will improve and enhance the
department's management by identifying the main mixing areas for
the different salmon
MR. KNOWLES said the cause of low abundance in Northern Cook
Inlet was that northern district salmon were not getting through
commercial fishing gauntlets in sufficient numbers. ADF&G lacks
in-season management tools and there is a lack of genetic
identification of salmon species other than sockeyes there. This
is something they have been trying to get in. The first main
fisheries studies that were done in the late 1900s happened when
the legislature funded studies on the Northern District
sockeyes.
Upper Cook Inlet Solutions: Revise Upper Cook Inlet Management
Plan, which they have done. Discreet harvest zones, which will
be tested for the first time this year, should show positive
results with more fish getting back to the Northern Districts.
Maintain Upper Cook Inlet conservation corridor, which is going
to be a key. Genetics and acoustics all need to be maintained
for the next few years.
The Board came up with the conservation corridor, harvest zones,
and expanded harvest zones to try and move fish up the Inlet.
The majority of stocks of concerns are in the Northern District
for coho and sockeyes. The Lower Susitna coho nearly missed
being a stock of concern.
4:06:35 PM
One of the things they have been working on with the ADF&G and
the Borough is for the legislature to authorize an additional
test fishery above Kalgan Island to monitor fish as they move
through the Central District. They have already found out that
that in areas 6 and 7 the test stations are not finding enough
fish to warrant doing the studies there and have talked about
moving the test fishery line down to the lower end of Kalgan
Island, which is in the main mixing zones they have tried to get
data on. So, they support moving it.
Capital funding going to the MSB of $4-5 million for FY 2014:
science and research: they have asked for a contract person to
work with them to develop gap analysis, find areas that need to
be improved, and to help determine what needs to be done to
better use this fisheries research money. They hope to have him
on board sometime in mid-May. They continue to work on resource
access for 12.2 miles of habitat funded by grants and borough
funds.
4:08:30 PM
Next steps for the Fish and Wildlife Commission:
-$2.5 million from the legislature funding FY2015 research and
habitat projects
-MSB fish research: conduct studies in UCI fisheries and data
gap analysis
-Advocate for improved UCI management for all users to the Board
of Fisheries
MR. KNOWLES said one of the main things they have heard is that
people are moving to the Kenai to do their sport fishing,
because the MSB doesn't have enough fish for a personal use
fishery.
4:09:27 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said warming waters in the Matsu was presented to
her as a factor affecting spawning and survival.
MR. KNOWLES said he hadn't heard that or heard of warming
studies. He had heard about water warming on the high seas,
which is causing problems.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she had seen a report that the ADF&G
commissioner had, but it might not be widely distributed yet.
MR. KNOWLES asked if was just in the Northern District or all of
Cook Inlet.
CHAIR GIESSEL answered that this particular study dealt with the
Northern Matsu area.
MR. KNOWLES said he wanted to get a copy of it.
SENATOR MICCICHE said healthy returns of fish to the Northern
Cook Inlet is one of his top priorities, because inadequate
returns compromises the sport and commercial fisheries further
south. He was glad Mr. Knowles had talked about some of the pike
problems and oceanic atmospheric affects they can't control.
He hoped they could work together more in the future as this is
not only a Cook Inlet problem. When they talk about
interception, he urged that they not always focus on their
nearest neighbors; there are many fisheries in Cook Inlet and
the ocean also affects returns.
Primarily Senator Micciche said he wanted to note that there are
500 drifters and at least that many setnetters sitting in front
of two rivers that literally are a gauntlet in a 10 mile area.
Those are healthy river systems that continue to return millions
of fish year after year. He hoped they could work together in
identifying the issues system-wide instead of focusing too
locally on the solutions.
MR. KNOWLES said he agreed completely and that he has requested
the department and the board to do that. He said they had
started increasing the returns to the Kenai in the late 1990s
and that the return had gone from 250,000 to over 1 million. He
had asked them to over-escape their area for 10 years to see
what could be done to provide additional fish in the Central
District.
4:13:21 PM
ANDY SZCZESNY, member, Kenai River Professional Guides
Association, Soldotna, Alaska, said he had been a registered
Kenai River guide for 28 years. He is also a member of the Kenai
River Special Managed Area Advisory Board. He had held a number
of different positions in the City of Soldotna and was appointed
to the Board of Fisheries in 2002; he had also held several
positions on advisory committees involving fisheries and
guiding.
He said the ADF&G study of economic impacts and contributions of
guided anglers on the Kenai River shows they are responsible for
$40 million in direct expenditures annually and their annual
fees account for about $400,000 to the State of Alaska annually.
This number does not include additional boat launch and parking
fees, which would probably bring it closer to $500,000. He said
71 percent of the Kenai River sport fishing guides are Alaska
residents; 285 of them registered in 2013, a loss of 111 since
2007, which was the peak year (with 396 registered guides).
Forty-percent of them have 10-plus years of experience.
MR. SZCZESNY said the Kenai River guided angler effort accounts
for 51,430 fish (14 percent of the total effort) annually, down
from its historic average by 67 percent. The early run king
salmon guided angler effort is down from its historic average by
83 percent; the late run guided angler king salmon effort is
down by 70 percent.
He said the Kenai River guides are the most regulated group of
sport fishing guides in the state and are governed by a total of
six separate state and federal agencies. They are required to
pass a three-credit college course, which is five days of
classes. The Board of Fisheries has adopted policies that limit
both days of the week and hours of the day they can operate,
which has resulted in limited opportunities for both resident
and non-resident guided anglers to access the Kenai River. No
fishing from a guided vessel on Sundays and Mondays through May,
June, and July; no fishing from a guided vessel from 6 p.m. to 6
a.m. May, June, and July; no fishing for coho from a guide
vessel from the Moose River confluence on Mondays in August,
September, and October.
The Kenai River sport fishing guides pay the highest annual
licensing fees in the State of Alaska, he said. A resident Kenai
River guide spends $1,075 annually for a license and a non-
resident spends $2,075. An annual sport fishing guide license
for the remainder of the state is $150, and that allows guiding
on every drainage except the Kenai River.
4:18:12 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it was good to hear his voice and that
it's imperative to understand that every aspect of these
fisheries is important to the economy and that none of these
user groups can go away.
MR. SZCZESNY said the May and June King salmon closure will
affect the numbers and that the sport fishery had fallen rapidly
in the last five or six years.
4:19:20 PM
DWIGHT KRAMER, Chairman, Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition,
Kenai, Alaska, read his comments:
The Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition is a private
angler group that was formed in 2007 to provide a
voice for private anglers and promote conservation of
our resources for future generations to enjoy. We have
10 past state and federal fisheries biologists on our
Board of Directors or in our membership.
We advocate for science-based fisheries management and
sustained resource stability by providing direct input
to agencies regarding fisheries management and habitat
issues. We have no commercial interests.
4:20:29 PM
First, I would like to address the Upper Cook Inlet
(UCI) king salmon stocks devastated by overfishing and
a poorly regulated commercial sector. During the early
part of the 1900s the UCI king stocks were devastated
by over-fishing in a poorly regulated commercial
sector. It took about 20 years or so for recovery of
these stocks so they could produce harvestable numbers
once again. During this recovery there were years of
commercial closures and the sport fishery, as we know
it, had not developed yet. The fish enjoyed virtually
natural river systems to reproduce and recover. There
was little development and hardly any sport fishing
effort and no pike.
Now we find ourselves in another period of low king
salmon abundance partly because of ocean phenomena
that we don't fully understand and partly because of
human effects. We now have trawlers operating in the
high seas that take countless thousands of Kings as
by-catch, vast developments and roadways along and
crossing our streams, hydrocarbon contamination from
boat engines, bank erosion and turbidity issues from
boat wakes, invasive species (pike) in many of our
lakes and waterways and, of course, a growing public
demand for fishing opportunities.
4:21:45 PM
One of the causes of this recent collapse has to be
shouldered by a mismanaged in-river sport and guided
sport fishery. Never before in their history had our
king salmon been fished for size selectivity and
pursued on their spawning grounds for trophy
selection.
Recent research information now suggests that
targeting the largest kings may have some lasting
effects on the characteristics of the stocks. Size
selectivity over time can cause future returning fish
to be smaller and fewer in numbers and produce fewer
females than in more productive times.
Please Note: These are all symptoms that we are
currently seeing in our Kenai and UCI stocks. The
point being is that we should expect any recovery of
these stocks to take much longer than at any other
time in history because of the new human effects and a
growing demand to want to fish on them as soon as
there are any harvestable amounts to satisfy socio-
economic interests. We have to stop taking our biggest
and best breeders out of our systems and we have to
have more spawning protections on some of our most
productive spawning and staging areas.
We can start by protecting our largest fish with
meaningful season-long slot limits individually
appropriate for all of our rivers. Taxidermists have
molds for all sizes and shapes of Kings so it's no
longer necessary to kill a large King to get a mount
made.
In the case of our current king salmon situation we
have to remember that scientists tell us, "When salmon
runs are at risk, conservation must be given a
priority."
4:23:32 PM
Habitat Issues
Healthy salmon stocks rely on good habitat in our
rivers, streams and lakes. We currently have many
habitat issues that stand in our way of rebuilding
declining stocks and maintaining healthy ones. Because
of socio-economic issues related to the powerful
guided sport fish lobby and tourism, both
municipalities and state agencies are reluctant to
support necessary listings of impaired water bodies as
identified by the Clean Water Act and the more obvious
crippling impacts of invasive species (pike) on
juvenile salmon production.
In the Matsu for instance, 10 years ago we had 11
sockeye producing lakes in the Susitna drainage. Then
a few years ago we were down to seven, and now we are
down to four, and two of the four have failed to meet
their escapement levels in the last two years. Pike
and stream blockage by beaver dams are the main two
reasons. We have hydrocarbon and turbidity violations
associated with powerboat use in the Little Susitna
that is worse than the Kenai ever was, but no Category
5 impaired water-body listing to date. In Big lake we
have quit trying to enhance sockeye production,
because the juvenile survival rates were so poor,
because of pollution factors associated with
hydrocarbon exceedances and chemical pollution
associated with runoff of lawn care products
(fertilizer, weed killers, etc.) and sewage issues.
In the Kenai we have different issues associated with
increased use and a shift in use patterns that is not
being addressed. One would think that with reduced
king salmon fishing opportunities things would be
better, but that is not the case. We have seen a huge
increase in July powerboat traffic associated with
personal use fishermen launching upriver to avoid the
congestion of the lower river launches and parking. In
2013, for instance, the days that we exceeded
turbidity standards on the lower river coincided with
the busiest days in the personal use (PU) fishery.
This should be a growing concern to the resource for
both bank erosion and juvenile salmon survival.
4:25:38 PM
Another issue of concern is the rapid growth in the
in-river sockeye sport fishery. Both the guide
industry and private sector have transferred efforts
away from the king fishery to the more productive
sockeye fishery. This doesn't come without problems
though, as this is mostly a bank-oriented fishery and
we are witnessing new areas of bank degradation in the
riparian areas associated with riverbank crowding. The
sad part is that nobody from the various agencies
currently have available staff to assess these damages
and make appropriate bank closures. This is an area
where recent budget cuts and personnel vacancies have
reduced our effectiveness in habitat protection where
our vigilance now should be more rather than less.
So overall, if we don't want to end up like the
Pacific Northwest and have to spend billions of
dollars on reclamation projects, hatcheries and
enhancement to rebuild the salmon stocks we failed to
protect, we need to acknowledge our habitat problems
and deal with them now rather than later. Everyone
should want clean water and healthy habitat. To stand
in the way of this endeavor is not prudent of good
fishery management and should not be tolerated by
anyone associated with legislative oversight.
4:26:52 PM
Board of Fisheries
Given the complexities of our fisheries and the
current allocation issues related to declining stock
issues throughout most of Alaska, it has become
apparent to many that our current BOF process does not
possess the technical knowledge and sometimes internal
integrity to accomplish decisions based on science and
available technical data.
The recent Upper Cook Inlet meeting was a prime
example. A majority of the board had a preconceived
agenda on how they were going to deal with the king
salmon declines throughout Upper Cook Inlet and
sockeye numbers in the Susitna. That conclusion was to
find a way to transfer allocations from the commercial
sector to the in-river users and that they did. There
was little regards for in-river conservation measures
on how these fish would be protected so that we could
advance a production model that would actually help us
start to recover these stocks.
We believe that the benefits of this methodology will
be marginal without meaningful changes in how we
regulate in-river fishing methods. There was no
serious consideration for how we can protect prominent
spawning areas or most of the largest age class fish
of our most valuable breeding component.
The current BOF process is swayed too easily by the
most prominent and powerful groups and often give into
political pressure, innuendo and fabricated statements
rather than scientific information.
4:28:29 PM
It is time to consider a professional Board of
Fisheries. With billions of dollars at stake annually
involved in this decision making body we have evolved
past the time when a lay board is adequate to meet the
demands of our modern day fishery issues. With
everything from foreign enhancement and competition,
high seas mortality, global warming, evolving habitat
issues, population increases and overall growing
demand, we have to have a panel of experts from
various areas of fisheries expertise that can better
understand the volumes of data and research that is
presented for evaluation in the decision making
process. For instance, this last 2014 UCI meeting
produced thousands of pages of data, research reports,
proposals, public comment, and meeting record
comments. During the meeting it became painfully
obvious that the board members had not had time to
adequately familiarize themselves with much of this
information.
4:29:41 PM
What can the legislative body do to help?
We believe there are two important things the
legislature could do that would help:
1) Initiate legislation to move toward a professional
Board of Fisheries. We envision this body to be made
up of paid positions selected for their scientific or
socio-economic expertise in the area of fisheries
management and research. We would also suggest that
they would have a dedicated research staff solely for
the purpose of helping them coalesce and present
necessary data for the regulatory area under
consideration at the time.
Members of this board would be selected by the
governor and confirmed by the legislature, much as it
is now. Members of this board would be selected for
their knowledge of fishery issues without regards to
any allocative or area representation.
The Board meetings would still invite public
participation in regulatory proposals submissions and
public testimony.
We're not sure exactly what for this body should
actually look like but these are our suggestions.
There are probably a variety of state fishery boards
out there that could provide workable solutions.
2) We believe it is imperative that the legislature
support a comprehensive independent research project
of our UCI salmon stocks and habitat issues as they
relate to the recovery and sustainability of these
valuable resources. We would like to see this
accomplished along the same lines as the recently
published, "Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Chinook Salmon
Research Action Plan", which involved some of the most
respected fishery scientists in the nation. This
document laid out various hypotheses for what
precipitated the declines, issues that needed
attention and recommendations for research projects
that could be beneficial in the recovery and long-term
sustainability of the stocks.
The timing is perfect for pursuing this type of effort
as there appears to be some funding that might be
available through the direction of the recently
approved National Marine Fisheries Service's 2012
salmon fisheries disaster relief program. It appears
that the State of Alaska is going to be instrumental
in deciding how this $20.8 million dollars is going to
be divided up and dispersed within Alaska.
4:31:45 PM
To recap our testimony, we believe we need to put more
emphasis on in-river King salmon production by
installing regulatory sport fishing methods that
protect our largest age class breeding stocks and set
aside some protective zones recognized as important
spawning and staging areas.
We need to acknowledge and mitigate habitat
deficiencies that could cause undesirable effects on
the recovery and sustainability of our fishery
resources.
We need to move forward on changing to a professional
Board of Fisheries to meet our modern day complexities
and future demands on our fishery resources.
We need a complete and thorough and independent review
of our UCI salmon stocks, habitat issues and fisheries
management practices. That concludes my testimony
today and I thank you very much.
4:32:42 PM
SENATOR DYSON thanked him for his balanced and knowledgeable
presentation and asked him to talk about the impact of beaver in
salmon rearing areas and possible solutions.
MR. KRAMER answered from talking to biologists he understands
that a lot of that takes place in difficult-to-access areas.
They have talked about taking some helicopters in and blasting
out some of the beaver dams, which seems to be the only way to
get at them, because they are off the road system for the most
part.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he had any proposals for protecting
regions of the river into the BOF and what would be the benefits
of identifying key spawning areas of the river and protecting
them.
MR. KRAMER said they proposed putting two spawning areas into
protected areas to the BOF: the first is above the Moose River
after July 1 to help the early run, because it moves up earlier
than any other segment of the king salmon population and is
vulnerable to harvest longer, because the season goes through
July 31. The second closure would take place after July 15 from
the Soldotna Bridge to the Moose River, which would protect both
early run and late run fish. Protecting those two areas would
allow harvest by people at some point who live along the river
in the season, but then as the fish moved up closer to their
spawning areas and spawning times, it would give them some
protection. That protection would allow the state to have
prudent spawning and production capabilities for the long term.
SENATOR MICCICHE said they would have to continue pressure
especially after recovery and he hoped Mr. Kramer would stay
engaged in protecting areas around key spawning grounds.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked his thoughts on the survival of salmon in a
catch and release scenario. Do the released salmon survive to
spawn?
MR. KRAMER replied in the studies that have been done on the
Kenai, it looks like only about 7 percent have issues on the
first hook up and that doubles on the second hook up and the
ones thereafter. What seems to be unknown is the impacts of
their spawning capabilities after they have been taxed on
multiple hook ups in a catch and release fishery of that kind.
He thought some meaningful studies would be done in that regard.
It's a problem throughout the Pacific Northwest where they are
trying to recover their stocks.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if anyone had entertained spawning area
restrictions that are based on the size of the return. He was
looking for folks not being so hesitant to have spawning
preserves if it could be temporary and if they knew they could
be eliminated when the returns recover.
MR. KRAMER said he hadn't heard of that, but it should be
pursued.
4:38:22 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
Palmer, Alaska, said they are a statewide conservation
organization with 10,000 members. He went to slide 2 of his AOC
presentation, the pie chart of resources harvested by use in
Alaska in 2012 put together by Dr. Jim Hall of ADF&G (on the
state website). He said they represent thousands of Alaskans who
aren't getting their fair share of the pie.
MR. ARNO said the personal use fishery is about one-tenth of 1
percent of the public fisheries resource harvested annually. Of
the 98.2 percent commercial fishermen many are non-residents.
Only Alaskans can participate in the personal use fisheries.
He said more and more people are moving into Anchorage, Matsu
and the Kenai population centers who want their share of a
public resource.
4:40:59 PM
He said the mission of the Division of Commercial Fisheries is
to manage subsistence, commercial and personal use fisheries in
the interests of the general well-being of the people and
economy of the state consistent with sustained yield and subject
to allocation during the public regulatory process. The emphasis
is on having the same people managing commercial and personal
use whether it's in a subsistence area or not. This is a
problem, Mr. Arno said: the entire commercial fishery complex -
fishermen, buyers, processors, marketers, regulators - versus a
relative handful of Alaskans who want to put fish in their
freezer.
4:42:13 PM
MR. ARNO said the Alaska Constitution clearly places the
responsibility of managing the fisheries with the state
legislature, which has in turn delegated that management
authority to the Department of Fish and Game, who then delegated
that authority to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
The department is clearly a part of the executive branch, but
the BOF is an extension of the legislature. This is supposed to
be the people's board, so they wouldn't have a conflict in
selecting and then confirming a member.
He plead with them to be more engaged in this process saying
that last year two nominees for the Board of Fisheries were
asked seven questions by the Senate Resources Committee. In 2012
there were two nominees and the Resources Committee asked only
one question. This is a job interview and they wouldn't hire
someone for their staff without asking questions! He said please
don't put someone on this very important board without having
some understanding of whether or not they think it's okay for
their constituents to get one-tenth of 1 percent of the fish in
a public resource for their personal use.
Slide 6 showed how the BOF allocates their workload through a
committee system much like the legislature. A total of 25
proposals were submitted on personal use fisheries compared to
other committees that had far fewer proposals. He wanted them to
see that the public is engaged in the issue of personal use and
other fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet and they are trying to make
progress through the board system. So, when they see him in
front of them they know the board system has not resolved
allocation issues as user groups in Cook Inlet fluctuate. The
evidence is in the first pie chart he showed them where they get
a small sliver of the pie.
4:45:11 PM
Slide 7 was a graph of the local food activity by region in
Alaska in 2011 (from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System, used by the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) to track social trends). About 25 Alaskans were in that
survey. It is a good illustration of the demand for wild food.
Well over half of the people surveyed in the urban areas of
Anchorage and Matsu stated that they harvested wild food. And as
more people relocate from rural Alaska to the Railbelt it is
reasonable to expect that the demand for wild food in Cook Inlet
Basin will increase.
4:46:18 PM
The legislature says they support wild food harvest. Last year
they passed HCR 1 that requested the governor to form a Food
Policy Development Working Group, which he did, to work with the
Alaska Food Policy Council. He hoped the legislature would look
at their progress from time to time to ensure that those
Alaskans who want to harvest their own wild salmon will be
represented in that process.
Slide 8 had a map that shows rivers with the stocks of concern.
It's important to know that 7 of the 11 stocks of concern are in
Cook Inlet in the northern district. It shows that during the
last two board cycles (the Board considers Upper Cook Inlet
issues every three years), commercial fishing interests have
characterized this problem of weak stocks as a result of habitat
degradation. During public testimony just a few weeks ago in
Anchorage, limited entry permit holder after permit holder
testified that it was the fault of the people who live in the
northern district that there are no fish. One of the things
often pointed to are the culverts, which they say fish can't
pass through. But the green box in the lower middle of the map
contains the area of the Matsu where there is transportation
infrastructure with 86 culvert improvement projects underway,
but there aren't any streams that host stocks of concern in that
area. His point is that you don't have to worry about habitat.
4:48:20 PM
Slide 9 was a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) transportation analysis, the West Susitna Access
Reconnaissance Study for resource development. He said
development is coming to the Susitna drainage and AOC doesn't
oppose that. The good news is that it's probably far enough off
that the fish habitat can be protected. The Study is a "must-
read" for anyone who cares about the fish in the northern
district, as well as all of Cook Inlet. The study presents
several options for transportation corridors over and parallel
to major salmon streams and water ways.
Slide 10 is DNR's Susitna Matsu Area Plan that was adopted in
2011. Many different colors represented different resource
classifications of state and public domain. It showed that the
major salmon producing waters flowing right through the multi-
color quilt. He said the fish need someone to watch all the
"kids in the sandbox called the Susitna drainage" to make sure
that this precious resources is not affected by the development
of other resources or urban sprawl.
4:50:08 PM
In conclusion, Mr. Arno said first, Alaskans want to harvest
wild, local, organic, healthy Upper Cook Inlet salmon; it's a
public resource. Second, there is an imbalance in that system
currently, and as more people move into the Cook Inlet drainage,
it's only going to get more competitive (an allocation issue).
Third, they are asking for the legislature to help. Finally, he
said he had been in the process of advocating for Alaskans who
want to harvest their own Cook Inlet salmon for many years and
he couldn't remember a Resource Chair who dedicated the time and
focus Senator Giessel had to Cook Inlet salmon and he thanked
her for setting the week aside to hear from users and managers.
4:51:31 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if 98.2 percent of the fish harvest on slide
2 included big commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea and
Bristol Bay.
MR. ARNO answered yes; it indicated the statewide wild food
harvest taken annually not only of fish, but game, too.
SENATOR DYSON added that Dutch Harbor/Unalaska is the largest
fish landing port in North America, and realizing that that is
happening where there is no personal use sport fishing distorts
the picture a little bit, but it is profoundly true.
4:52:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he is also a member of the AOC and
supported most of its objectives, but he wanted to chat with Mr.
Arno about what an appropriate share is "for filling the
freezer."
4:53:41 PM
MR. ARNO responded that this is an evolving issue as the
population in Alaska increases and folks migrate to urban
centers from rural Alaska. "Cook Inlet is right at the edge of
the testing of the board's process in fisheries as well as game,
just because of the increasing population." Of course,
conservation is first with AOC.
4:54:48 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said last week this committee passed a bill that
establishes a Susitna State Forest and one of its provisions
allows timber harvest, but it also preserves those borders along
salmon-bearing water bodies. She asked where the AOC stands
relative to the establishment of state forests.
MR. ARNO answered that SB 23 would only select about 700,000
acres of high value timber, and that's been a "real bone of
contention" for the AOC. He advocated for a larger state forest
that would include high-quality habitat protecting the drainages
in the northern district, as the state has millions of acres of
unencumbered land that won't be protected by provisions of a
state forest.
4:56:46 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked his thoughts on a professional BOF.
MR. ARNO responded that the AOC is satisfied with the current
public board and that the process works. It works because the
public is involved and has different avenues to participate:
they can petition and ask the administration to appoint certain
people and they can go to the legislature and ask for support to
get those individuals confirmed or not. They can also go to the
Board of Fisheries and put in their proposals. However, the
process only works as well as the public is willing to engage in
it.
4:58:28 PM
MEGAN SMITH, member, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
(KPFA), introduced herself and Amber Every.
5:00:01 PM
AMBER EVERY, member, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association,
said their 300-plus members are primarily setnetters but also
include drifters and seiners who fish in Cook Inlet, and on some
fishing sites some four generations of families participate
together. They represent an industry where 84 percent of the
participants are Alaska residents and 56 percent of those reside
on the Kenai Peninsula year-round; the primary species harvested
in Cook Inlet by an overwhelming margin is sockeye.
MS. EVERY said she had been an Upper Cook Inlet fisherman for 20
years and was proud to be raising two fourth-generation
setnetters. She said this presentation would explain who the
Upper Cook Inlet setnetters are and their role in the fishery.
They will then look at the importance of sockeye in Upper Cook
Inlet. Next they will analyze the impact of personal use and in-
river sport fisheries and the Kenai River late run Chinook;
lastly, they will look at what they would like from the
legislature.
She said setnetters are families and they are proud to have fed
the world a natural and healthy protein that it is sustainable
for over 100 years. They are stewards of the resource and
because of purposeful planning by ADF&G future generations will
continue to feed the world this amazing protein.
Setnet fishing methods in Cook Inlet have changed very little
over the past 135 years and their goal is to continue to fight
for their families and small businesses. Beyond the cultural and
historical part of their fishery, they play an important role in
the local economy. The estimated overall economic contribution
to the Cook Inlet region from harvesters and processors of Cook
Inlet salmon approaches $350 million per year. Sockeye are the
predominant species harvested in Cook Inlet. From 1980 to 2011
sockeye account for 88 percent of the more than $2 billion total
in revenues in 2012 dollars. In 2010 and 2011, Cook Inlet ranked
fourth among Alaska major salmon fisheries.
The sockeye salmon is the heart of Upper Cook Inlet, Ms. Every
said, and Alaskan families depend on a healthy annual return to
feed their families. Their local economy runs off the summer
activity related to the sockeye run, as each summer the
population swells with anglers, dipnetters, and commercial
fishermen who come to harvest it - all the while spending money
in the local economy.
MS. EVERY said that 84 percent of east side setnet permits are
owned by Alaska residents who support businesses, pay taxes, and
look after the best interests of the local community.
5:03:00 PM
She showed a graph of the 10-year average of over 1.2 million
sockeye spawners for escapement and said the reason this should
be of concern is that spawning escapements of 1.2 million will
have future yields of 2 million; spawning escapements of
600,000-900,000 sockeye provides a 4 million return. A 2 million
return means 1 million goes to escapement. Personal use and
sport fishing harvest is nearing 1 million.
What is left for the commercial industry? The numbers show that
the commercial fishermen are being allocated out of the fishery.
Another river in Upper Cook Inlet with a vibrant healthy sockeye
run is the Kasilof River with an 11-year average of 364,790,
which exceeds the maximum BEG range of 160,000-340,000, which
again reduces future sockeye yields.
5:03:55 PM
MS. SMITH took up the presentation and continued that the Kenai
in-river sockeye fishery has grown exponentially. The in-river
harvest is at its highest point and has yet to harvest what is
allocated by the Board of Fisheries. With increased user
participation, there is increased pressure in riparian habitats.
The sockeye fishery is primarily a bank fishery putting
fishermen right on critical Chinook spawning and rearing
habitats. She said the City of Kenai covered the PU dipnet
fishery pretty well and showed a picture of the largest
unlimited dipnet fishery in the state.
5:05:14 PM
She showed a graph of Kenai river sockeye timing and explained
that 2013 was the first year that the sockeye did not hit on a
weekend, which limited the harvest of non-local participants.
The "large pulse" entered the river after a regular east side
setnet opening on Monday. The next three charts illustrated
2010/11/12 showing that the peaks and secondary peaks fell on
the weekends.
MS. SMITH said in 2013 the ADF&G converted the late-run Chinook
goal, which was simply an adjustment for the new Didson sonar
counter. In fact, the recommended goal provides a small safety
factor of 3,000 Chinook.
The next graph showed the Kenai River late-run Chinook
escapement levels. The red lines represented the goals
recommended by ADF&G. In 2003-2006, the escapement levels were
greatly exceeded, one of the factors that contributed to
density-dependency to recent declines in late-run Chinook. It's
important to see that the Kenai River late-run Chinook have met
their escapement goals for the past 27 years and they have
exceeded the upper goal for 19 of those years. She said many
people use the last 10 years when the drop is significant, but
she liked to look at the whole run.
5:06:31 PM
MS. SMITH said the average annual harvest rate on the Kenai
River late-run Chinook is 39 percent. The other users
represented in the slide include subsistence, personal use (PU),
drift, and sport fisheries. The majority of the harvest is taken
by the sport fishery and even if the setnets were closed for an
entire season, only an additional 13 percent of the total run
would enter the river. There are times when escapement goals for
both Chinook and sockeye runs cannot be met, and that's why the
trade-off discussion is needed. Which stock do more Alaskans
benefit from?
5:07:09 PM
UCI setnetters want legislative support for the 735 small family
businesses. They would like to see funding for research in
spawning and rearing areas and juvenile outmigration studies for
Chinook. They would like pro-active multi-agency action plans
for the Upper Cook Inlet Chinook stocks and a closer look at the
Board of Fisheries process to remove conflict and political
pressure and restoration of science-based, biological decision
making.
She said some associations are trying to circumvent the process
and outlaw setnetting in Cook Inlet, but what would that
produce? Of the two Chinook stocks that return to the Kenai
River, only 13 percent more late-run Kings would return. She
also pointed out that 40 percent of the 13 percent are "jack
kings." Removing them from the equation would leave 7 percent
and there would be no benefit to the early run Chinook, as
setnetters have not fished on that stock for decades, and 736
permit holders and crewmembers, would be out of work; 615 of
those businesses are owned by Alaska residents. The loss of
businesses would backlash into local communities.
MS. SMITH said that setnetting is an important tool in
maintaining sustainable sockeye salmon goals. Eliminating
setnetters would limit economic diversification and cause
community conflict rather than community cooperation, and would
the gain be worth the loss?
5:08:59 PM
MS. SMITH said they need the legislature's help to guarantee
Chinook will survive for future generations. Quality research is
needed to identify key areas in Chinook development. The early-
run Kenai Chinook run has failed to meet its goal for the past
two years; Beaver Creek and Sly Hawk Creek in Soldotna are
examples of tributaries that should be producing hundreds of
fish.
The identification of high-density spawning and rearing areas in
the Kenai River drainage is critical in breaking the cycle of
low abundance, she said. Juvenile out-migration studies provide
a last look at the stock going into the sea, which gives a more
accurate picture for forecasting the stocks that return.
5:09:47 PM
She said it's time to build community cooperation not community
conflict. The Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon
Initiative (AYKSSI) is a first comprehensive look at the causes
leading to the decline of king salmon stocks in the AYK area and
it is a great example of how to proceed in Cook Inlet. This
panel is comprised of 13 fisheries scientists with diverse
expertise; part of AYKSSI is the action plan component. Its goal
is to determine which variables and processes most likely are
causative factors in the AYK Chinook salmon decline and to
produce more detailed set of research priorities and questions
to better understand the key drivers of salmon abundance in the
region. It's time for Cook Inlet to have a solid plan to find
answers for survival of its Chinook.
5:10:39 PM
She said after attending the 2014 Upper Cook Inlet meeting, she
was left with a lot of questions and a little less faith. There
are 7 BOF members who are making biological, social, and
economic decisions in a billion-dollar fishing industry. Many
of the implications of their decisions are not known at the time
and may not be realized until implementation. The members are
required to read and retain overwhelming amounts of information
in an extremely limited timeframe. Initially, all the public and
department proposals are vetted through the public and
department comment process and there is ample time for all
groups to weigh in on potential ramifications. But mid-board
meeting proposals may be generated and voted on with little or
no public, scientific or biological input. Unintended and
unforeseen consequences result from such a harried process.
ADF&G initially weighs in on proposals, but as plans develop,
they are relied on less and less. The Upper Cook Inlet meeting
has not been held on the Kenai Peninsula since 1999, and this is
really important. The cost and time required for a two-week
meeting prohibits many private citizens from participating. The
tone of this meeting is that of conflict and politics, which
fosters public mistrust in the process and previous board
precedent are the only rules that the board adheres to, which
leads to confusion and lack of consistency. She said they are
concerned about the BOF process and hope that trust can be
reestablished.
5:12:40 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said recently the King Salmon Task Force said
the setnetters seemed unwilling to adjust to looking at other
methods of catch in times of low abundance. He agreed with them
on the initiative saying it's absolutely an unacceptable
approach to shut down hundreds of independent small business
owners. But they must work together to ensure the survival of
all the different user groups, and he wanted to know if they
were open to exploring other methods of catching until there are
adequate supplies of king salmon.
MS. SMITH responded that setnetters are exploring other options,
but they want an answer based on science. Some have cut their
nets in half just to see what that will do, but they find there
is "no magic bullet" and that is what people are looking for.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she appreciated the efforts made by the
setnetters and that she had seen a model of a proposed method of
capturing by-caught king salmon and not handling them so the
survival rate is much higher.
She said she was going to ask her some basic questions, because
some people are not real familiar with the setnet issues. She
asked the significance of her chart indicating that the peak
occurred after the weekend and asked of that.
MS. SMITH answered that chart was created by ADF&G as a response
to the idea that commercial fishermen are taking all the fish on
the weekends. This illustrated that the peak of the run hit
immediately after the commercial fishing period. In the previous
three years, the peak and secondary peak hit on the weekend, so
everyone could get their fish. Not peaking on a weekend limits
participation for people who don't live locally.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked what days has the BOF limited setnet
fishing.
MS. SMITH answered that there is a mandatory closure right
before the weekend every week to allow fish passage. Recently
this "window" could happen on Tuesday or Wednesday.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked when they can fish.
MS. SMITH answered that they have regular periods on Mondays and
Thursdays, but they don't necessarily get to fish them. They
have been closed out for the past two years. The department has
the authority to open them on emergency order if they are
worried about getting too many sockeye in the river.
5:17:32 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked how effective the mesh size regulation is in
keeping setnetters from catching kings while fishing reds.
MS. SMITH answered that they are 99 percent efficient at
harvesting sockeyes. Less than 1 percent of their catch is king
salmon.
SENATOR DYSON explained that the department requires a maximum
mesh size that is designed to exclude the big fish.
MS. SMITH said that was correct and that the regulation is 6
inches, but they go smaller than that at 5 1/8 inches.
SENATOR DYSON asked if they pick can pick kings out of the gear
without tearing them up.
MS. SMITH answered yes. Their licenses don't differentiate
between salmon species, but their mesh is designed to gill the
smaller fish.
5:19:16 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked her opinion on changing the BOF to a
professional scientific-based board.
MS. SMITH said it is worth looking at. They feel there is an
overwhelming load of information to manage along with the
different species of fish and scientific support is needed.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked the difference between fishing a flood
and an ebb, because a lot of people blame their lack of fish on
commercial fishermen.
MS. SMITH agreed and said a lot of it depends on location, also.
Amber is south of the mouth of the river and more efficient on
the ebb, and she fishes even further south of Calm Gulch and
typically has stronger hits on the flood. They can only access
their nets at slack tide. Fish move into the river with the
tides.
SENATOR MICCICHE said so, the day that 232,000 fish hit the
river was right after fish day and if you fished the flood, it
was amazing: the entire sky above the water and river is alive
with jumpers. But six hours later the fishing is very poor. He
said they want people to be successful when they come down for
personal use.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the participants and said the committee
would hear on Friday from ADF&G about the studies they had been
doing.
5:23:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SRES Agenda 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES City of Kenai 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES MSB Fish & Wildlife Commission 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES Kenai River Professional Guide Assn 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES Alaska Outdoor Council 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Assn 20140324.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES MSB Fish & Wildlife Commission Alaska-Factsheet Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES MSB Fish & Wildlife Commission-Economic_Impact_Report_E-version-Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SRES Salmon_water_temp_research_map- Cook Inlet Keeper.pdf |
SRES 3/24/2014 3:30:00 PM |