Associations

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
itchyscratchy
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:34 am
Spammer?: No

Re: Associations

Post by itchyscratchy »

Would have responded earlier but I just got out of jail...

I was framed I am innocent!!

Salty, you said your a data junky. That's interesting because
information is data used in a meaningful way. Data is simply a number while information is generally data accumulated and presented in some meaningful way. I'm guessing you're into information and not data.

Also, I have no doubt Chip or the biologist on the dock are giving precise numbers. I'm not interested in the precision of these numbers. I'm positive these numbers are added and subtracted correctly. I'm more interested in the accuracy of these forecast-ed numbers. For example, at 100 yards you can shoot three rounds from your favorite 30-06 at a paper target and have each round positioned within 1 inch of each other. Good shooting!...not if you are aiming at the center of the target and your group lands 8 inches to the right. Are these forecast numbers hitting the mark accurately, and who defines these “marks”.

Data driven predictions can succeed and they can fail. It is when we deny our role in the process that odds of failure increase. Before we demand more of our data, we need to demand more of ourselves. Meaning, as a leader, you need to make sure we as the consumers of these numbers are safe guarded because many of us rely on this information as a basis of planning, and thus forecasts have a significant impact on our economic fortunes. We hope the proof needed to support these forecast appears as the end results of the run tabulations. Yet, when these forecast-ed numbers are not close to the actual “truth” we seem to show a low tolerance for dissenting opinions and look for simple answers as to why the projections did not fall within range. We look for proof why nature didn't hold up it's part of the forecast agreement, instead of asking why our forecasting models were not able to correctly capture and account for risk so as to move closer to the truth.

In the last few years, how often have we heard NSRAA not understanding the cause of low chum returns. Why where the low return numbers such a shock? Easy answer, the forecast models failed to correctly assess each real world risk factor and correctly assess the impact of these risk factors.

Run data should be straight forward and without much mystery. The models used to produce next years run forecast must use this data as a basis but the models should also try to incorporate uncertainty. I am not familiar with how NSRAA or ADF&G create their models but most likely you plug as much current (prior year data) data as you have and out pops the forecast for the coming year. I'm really not interested in the process they go thru, but rather output. As run information is produced the data is been manipulated into useful information but as we use this information, we impart our own bias. We use raw data in self serving ways to produce information which has an inherit spin. To denie this happens is naive because the numbers have no way of speaking for themselves. We speak for them. We imbue them with meaning. We construe them in self serving ways that are detached from their objective reality.

As a board member of NSRAA, wouldn't it be wise to understand a segment of the organization (forecasting) which has such a far reaching impact on fisherman? I don't doubt that you are reporting the numbers issued by ADF&G, or NSRAA precisely. I am more interested in how much truth is held within the forecasts. Are the forecasting models used producing good information or do these forecasts try to serve other purposes. I suggest spending a little of our money and hire a few really smart guys to analyze how forecasts are created or maybe that is to scary for everyone involved.

Salty, in your relelection post you made several other points. You mentioned Hidden Falls and last years tax assessed on fish caught within the terminal harvest area plus your suggesting a change in how this tax is structured. Salty, a flat tax is a regressive tax. You should know how flat taxes works or do we have to discuss that issue as well. You should be looking out for the little guy as a flat tax takes a bigger bite and has more of an impact on us rather then the big guys. Comparied with Seiners, a Troller doesn't have a chance. Shouldn't you be looking out for Trollers? aren't you suppose to represent that gear group or, are you looking at the larger NSRAA picture?

Speaking of taxes, I heard DIPAC (which is under the umbrella of NSRAA) offered to pay NSRAA and SSRAA cost recovery. DIPAC has completely paid off it's loans and will have excess funds. Why didn't you accept this offer and thus doing away with all hidden falls tax as well as letting the fisherman harvest fish allocated as cost recovery?

Riddle me that Bat Boy.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

Wow,
A really detailed, thoughtful, and creative analysis of using data and information. Plus an intriguing question or two.

So, without taking too much time away from my task of preparing my taxes and refinancing the house so I continue my expensive trolling habit, I will answer them.

1. "Speaking of taxes, I heard DIPAC (which is under the umbrella of NSRAA) offered to pay NSRAA and SSRAA cost recovery. DIPAC has completely paid off it's loans and will have excess funds. Why didn't you accept this offer and thus doing away with all hidden falls tax as well as letting the fisherman harvest fish allocated as cost recovery?"

DIPAC is not under the umbrella of NSRAA other than being in our region and the groups have a long history of cooperation. While I am not on the JRPT, Alan Anderson is the NSRAA troll representative, I listened to their December meeting via teleconference. It sounded like I was the only troller in attendance. The possibility of DIPAC funding some CR at NSRAA did come up. Here is the discussion from those draft minutes:


7.4 Clarification of the 70/30 split performance goal between common property and hatchery operators (including an update on DIPAC’s financial situation)

Introduction: Southeastern Alaska Area Enhanced Salmon Allocation Management Plan (5 AAC 33.364), Alaska Board of Fisheries Finding #94-02-FB, lists fourteen guiding principles which includes: 1(A) Performance Goals: Hatchery program plans and performance, over time, should provide a 70% contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries. Out of recognition for those hatcheries not receiving any salmon enhancement tax revenues, a 60% contribution (after broodstock) to common property fisheries is an acceptable goal. This goal should be expanded to 70% when these non-association hatcheries retire their existing debt obligation to the State of Alaska.

Discussion: The NSRAA interpretation of the guideline is that once the cost recovery and broodstock goals are met, the rest of the production goes to common property, as opposed to operating under 30% of revenue. SSRAA’s corporate goal is 75% common property and 25% cost recovery. The guideline in the BOF findings was created as reasonable goals given the prices at the time and was not meant to limit contribution to the common property. The current price of fish has allowed some producers to surpass those contribution goals.
DIPAC’s debt peaked at $30 million, but with better marine survivals as well as increased prices should allow debt to be paid off this year. Funds in excess of cost have been aggressively applied to the debt. The DIPAC board is looking at what to do next including; giving the University money, creating a research program, and contributing to other organizations to pay for cost recovery. DIPAC is using one million dollars of the reserve fund as an endowment fund for scholarships. DIPAC had a 63% contribution to common property this year, which is the first time they broke the 60% guideline. The two Amalga Harbor SHA seine openings helped to contribute to the common property. Nine million chum salmon have been shifted from Amalga Harbor to Boat Harbor which will also help to contribute to common property when those fish return. The JSERPT would like to hear some ideas from DIPAC as to what they will do with their surplus money once all debts are paid off.


We have not seen the offer from DIPAC as a board yet. Here is the latest on that from our Executive Director in a monthly report I got today: The DIPAC board is considering funding the Deep Inlet cost recovery for 2013. Three committees have reviewed and approved the idea. Last night the executive committee approved and will recommend to the full DIPAC board. Kevin played a big role in this. Eric P. will be given discretion to put the money toward either NSRAA or SSRAA. DIPAC at its December meeting gave the Sitka Sound Science Center $200,000 toward renovation of the Sage Building. I have scheduled Eric at our board meeting to speak on the first day prior to the board’s consideration of the Deep Inlet schedule.

More later
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

As a board member of NSRAA, wouldn't it be wise to understand a segment of the organization (forecasting) which has such a far reaching impact on fisherman? I don't doubt that you are reporting the numbers issued by ADF&G, or NSRAA precisely. I am more interested in how much truth is held within the forecasts. Are the forecasting models used producing good information or do these forecasts try to serve other purposes. I suggest spending a little of our money and hire a few really smart guys to analyze how forecasts are created or maybe that is to scary for everyone involved.
Great question, and since I have spent hours in discussions with the Association forecasters, Susan Dougherty, and Chip Blair, I am probably a good troller source for the answer. It is my opinion that both of these individuals are exceptional at what they do. But, forecasting salmon returns is not a precise science, and errors will be made. I fondly remember an ADF&G management biologist telling me years ago that the Department would have been as close on their SE Pink predictions if they had been blindfolded throwing darts at possible returns on a dart board across the room. Things have undoubtedly improved since then but salmon survival still remains a relative mystery.
Nevertheless, I pay a lot of attention to ADF&G, NMFS, and SE hatchery predictions. I also talk to the individuals involved to get a feeling of their judgement beyond the data and official printed interpretations. I also usually talk to area managers in SE to get their feeling. Then I talk to other fishermen who annually observe fry and smolt emigrations around SE. Finally, I consider what I see emigrating in terms of fry and smolt each spring, what I saw the fall before, and what came up in coho stomachs the summer before.
So, "how much truth" is in these forecasts? My feeling is that the more information you gather, combined with some understanding of statistics and models, but most important an interpretation of the all the individuals involved "gut feeling" gives you your own truth of the most likely future returns. Then you truth test that with what is happening in season.
I think the forecasting produces good information and I don't think the forecasters are serving other purposes. I don't think hiring outside experts to analyze the predictions would help. But, I don't think you are going to get a foolproof answer on what the salmon return will be to a specific site every year. Intelligent people will weigh all the information and come up with different conclusions.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

Salty, in your relelection post you made several other points. You mentioned Hidden Falls and last years tax assessed on fish caught within the terminal harvest area plus your suggesting a change in how this tax is structured. Salty, a flat tax is a regressive tax. You should know how flat taxes works or do we have to discuss that issue as well. You should be looking out for the little guy as a flat tax takes a bigger bite and has more of an impact on us rather then the big guys. Comparied with Seiners, a Troller doesn't have a chance. Shouldn't you be looking out for Trollers? aren't you suppose to represent that gear group or, are you looking at the larger NSRAA picture?
Good question again.

Here is my thinking on why the "Assessment" should be a flat rate of so many cents per pound rather than a % of the sales price. A little history here, I was involved in the first discussions of Cost Recovery to pay for the hatcheries way back in 76 when I was one of the founders of NSRAA, it's first Board Secretary, and when I worked for the Association in 77-78. I was uncomfortable with Cost Recovery by the hatchery operators then because I felt, and still feel, we were creating another de-facto salmon harvest gear group. My feeling was that all the fish harvested for sale should go through the common property fisheries.

So, I have been an interested follower of the Seiners initiative to develop legislation and implement an assessment method for paying for hatchery expenses. I attended the meeting at NSRAA with Dept. of Law etc. to set up the program. Unfortunately, I did not see the problem with an assessment based on a % of the sales price while the legislation was being worked up. I saw it at the meeting with fishermen, NSRAA, ADF&G, and Revenue. I immediately pointed out the problem which is that trollers in particular, but others also, may have different markets that pay at different rates.
For example, because of our handling practices, trollers commonly get at least a nickle a pound more for round chums in hatchery fisheries than the net harvesters. So if the Assessment is a percentage of the price paid then trollers will be paying more for each fish. Whereas if it is a flat rate of so many cents per pound everyone pays the same per fish. Also, it is much easier to manage for the Association. They can set what they think they need in cents per pound in March and don't have to worry about how the price fluctuates between then and the harvest.
Seiners and NSRAA staff saw the sense in this immediately and recommended to the Board that we try to get it changed. Unfortunately, that means changing the legislation etc. and dealing with Revenue and Dept. of Law.
I would contend that my position on this issue reflects troll interests in that we don't want to pay more in Assessment than the net groups for the same fish.
SE AK
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Spammer?: No

Re: Associations

Post by SE AK »

Maybe if the proposed Pelican hatchery were approved it would help us to get closer to our allocated share of hatchery fish. Approval of the Excursion Inlet hatchery wouldn't hurt either. I'm sure that the seiners wouldn't mind, though I wouldn't think that the gillnetters would like their fish tax money going to runs that they never get a shot at. Could this be part of the problem that these projects are facing? I know that conflilcts with wild runs are stated as a problem with the Pelican hatchery, however many of the locals who have been there a long time have told me that the Lisianski Inlet runs have been mostly dead since seiners bluestoned all of the streams in the area decades ago. Besides, this is Southeast Alaska. Where is there not a wild run?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

I spent time talking to both Paul Johnson and Steve Reifenstuhl about Pelican and Excursion today. I am not giving up on Pelican as either a hatchery or release site. Discussions are ongoing.
SE AK
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Spammer?: No

Re: Associations

Post by SE AK »

Thanks for your work on behalf of those projects. If there is anything that I could do to help the odds of either of them, especially Pelican let me know.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

Fellow trollers,
Here is the link to the NSRAA agenda for tomorrow and Wednesday, March 5 and 6.

Here is the agenda:

NSRAA Annual Board of Director’s Meeting
March 5 & 6, 2013
Sitka, Alaska
Agenda
Tuesday March 5, 2013
Full Board Convenes at 9 a.m.
9:00 a.m. Ω Call to Order
Ω Roll Call
Ω Establish Quorum
Ω Approve Agenda
Ω Approve Minutes of November 13 & 14, 2012 Meeting
Ω Election Committee Report
Ω Certify Election Results & Seat New Board Members
Ω Election of Officers- President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer
Ω Conflict of Interest Statements
9:30 a.m. General Manager’s Report
9:45 a.m. Operations Manager’s Report
10:00 a.m. Operation Plans & Project Update
Ω Hidden Falls Hatchery – Adam Olson, Hatchery Manager (Tab 5)
10:15 a.m. to 10:30 Break
Ω Coho Lake Rearing – Carrington Gorman, Project Leader (Tab 6)
Ω Medvejie Hatchery – Scott Wagner, (Tab 4)
Ω Haines Projects – Scott Wagner (Tab 7)
11:15 a.m. Hidden Falls & Mist Cove Closure Lines for Broodstock & Economic Harvest
11:30 a.m. Electronic Board meetings – Cost, Convenience, Efficiency
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:30 p.m. DIPAC Funding – Eric Prestegard, Executive Director
2:00 p.m. Deep Inlet Harvest Plan
4:30 p.m. Sitka Sound Science Center – Lisa Busch
4:45 p.m. Harvest & Cost Recovery Plans –
Ω Hidden Falls Chum – Tax Assessment 20%
Ω Deep Inlet/Medvejie Chum – Bid April ’13; Chinook – Need Bid for ‘13
Ω Mist Cove & Hidden Falls Coho Trident Multi-year
Ω Carcasses All Facilities – Trident/HF & Silver Bay/Medvejie Multi-year
5:00 p.m. Adjourn until Wednesday @ 9 a.m.
5:10 p.m. Budget Committee Meeting
5:30 p.m. Allocation Plan Meeting Wednesday March 6, 2013
9:00 a.m. Reserve Accounts & Financial Snapshot – Update & Review
9:15 a.m. Budget & Income Plan for FY’14 – General Manager
9:30 a.m. Budget Committee Report and Recommendation – Deborah Lyons
Ω FY’14 Operational Budget Approval $5,897,186.00
Ω FY’14 Capital Budget Approval $389,454.00
$6,286,640.00
10:30 a.m. Break
11:00 a.m. General Manager Evaluation – Kevin McDougall
11:15 a.m. Pelican Representative – Norm Carson
12:00 Noon Lunch
1:30 a.m. Benefit Cost Analysis – Chip Blair
2:00 p.m NSRAA Scholarship
2:15 p.m. Committee Vacancies – Investment & New Facilities
3:30 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m UFA Report – Richie Davis
4:45 p.m. Set Fall Meeting Date
5:00 p.m Adjourn
dilligaf
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:43 pm
Spammer?: No

Re: Associations

Post by dilligaf »

I'm still waiting for an apology from ATA for trying to cut the hand troller out in the late seventies and early eighties. I remember taking one of my gurdies off because of their input to the board. Fortunately before the season started, that one line decision was reversed and we were allowed 2 lines. As a hand troller in those days, I remember ATA hating on us and trying to ruin us. I realize that the association has done wonderful things for all trollers since, but my memory is long. Two high mucky mucks in the association once explained to me that every fish I caught was one less THEY would catch. Hard to forget that.

Now that I've said this, I will perhaps join both associations but it needed to be said. Long live the putt putt fisherman.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Associations

Post by Salty »

dilligaf,
I represented the Sitka Handtrollers during the battles with the power trollers in the late 70's. I made my peace with ATA a long time ago, served two terms on the ATA Board, during which I fought hard for ATA to extend its membership to include handtrollers. They do now and SE troll groups CTA and ATA work well together.
I just heard a lot about how every chum trollers catch is one less than the net groups catch. Recuperating from a tough NSRAA Board meeting where the net groups and some troll reps were not interested in trollers improving their harvest of NSRAA chums. I may post a report here later in the week. On the other hand folks, there are some wonderful trollers out there who are rising to the challenge and fighting for our whole industry. Some young, some old, some with 40 plus years of experience and some only a couple of years into the fishery. It is inspiring and rejuvenating.

Eric
Post Reply