SSRAA

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Post Reply
Carol W
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:32 am
Location: Ketchikan

SSRAA

Post by Carol W »

I just returned from alaska where I attended a SSRAA meeting, one of the eyeopeners for me was how few SSRAA fish we as a fleet intercepted this year. As the allocation wars heat up i would remind all trollers that we have been outside of our allocation percentages longer than any other group and need to keep our place right at the head of the table in front of the other two gear groups. I have asked the SSRAA staff to look at the Neets Bay kings and see if there may be a different release site to increase our interception. I am also interested in pursuing otilith marking of both Kings and coho so we could maybe get closer to real time data during the season to try and track the migration through our fishery. An example of how this might work is if a sampling of Tebenkoff fish showed a high percentage of Neets kings on week 20 we could move over to Sumner in week 21 and increase our interception of these fish. Seiners and Gillnetters are doing this with chum now we need the same tools.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: SSRAA

Post by Salty »

Tom,
See the comments I posted on the ATA Board of Fish proposal site. The difference between catching our minimum share of the hatchery salmon and what we caught from 94-04 was -$15,605143.96.

I have not seen the updated figures for the last three years but you can be sure I will be working with them between now and the January BOF meeting. My understanding is that trollers have fallen even further behind. The seiners are upset about how far they have fallen behind during the last three years. The gillnetters are proposing that we throw out the sharing plan or not count the fish produced at DiPac and other facilities where they harvest most of the fish.


Gear Actual 10 year enhanced harvest value Actual Harvest % Allocation Allocated Minimum Value@ low end of range *Based On JRPT Figures
Harvest Value* $ Difference
1994-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004
Troll $40,688,486 19.50% 27-32% $56,293,630.00 -15,605,143.96
Seine $112,804,934 54.10% 44-49% $50,038,782.00 4,962,723.44
Gillnet $55,001,505 26.40% 24-29% $91,737,767.00 21,067,166.77
Total $208,494,925 100.00%

Anyway this table does not seem to reproduce well here, I will try an attachment, but what it shows is that trollers over the first ten years of the agreement caught fifteen million dollars less than they were allocated.

There are a lot of ways to address this inequity and I support your idea on Chinook but the quickest way to move enhanced harvest to trollers is to give us opportunity to harvest chums at DIPAC and SSRAA, and more opportunity in Deep Inlet. There could be opportunity at Hidden Falls but with the seiners also falling below their share it would not be a good idea to take from seiners to help trollers. Gillnetters have to give up opportunity somewhere to both trollers and seiners.
What do you think?
Salmon Enhancement sharing 94-04.doc
(58 KiB) Downloaded 668 times
John Murray
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: SSRAA

Post by John Murray »

Thanks Eric and the pesky troller for your comments on enhanced fish allocation.In a report to BOF for the 2006 meeting No.05-69 by ADFG's Flip Pryor it was noted in introduction .The five -year average troll harvest value has been below its target range for ten consecutive years,making it the only gear group outside its target range for more then three consecutive years.I don't think things have improved in last three years.The tools for making adjustments in order to acheive allocation percentage target are spelled out in three parts(1)area adjustments (2)new enhanced salmon production(3)modification of enhancedment project production.All this relates to a task force (SATF )set up to head off the gear wars that would happen over allocation of enhanced fish and the plan that was presented to BOF for their 1994 meeting.Its called the SOUTHEAST ALASKA AREA ENHANCED SALMON ALLOCATION MANAGAMENT PLAN [ 5 ACC 33.364] Finding #94-02-FB.Good reading if you care about history and wonder how we got where we are now.
What can trollers do running a bunch hooks compared to the highly efficient net gear?That's the literal 15 to 20 million dollar question see Eric post.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: SSRAA

Post by Salty »

Thanks John,
I think I am going to post the latest work here and start a new thread. I am posting it here and also sharing it with NSRAA and others from all gear groups so everyone can start realizing that we have a problem. A multimillion dollar imbalance problem.
A bit of history is important here for new readers. I have been involved in fisheries politics since sitting in on troller meetings conducted by my father "Skip" Jordan in the late 50's. I have made a lot of enemies over the years in the troll fleet by representing handtrollers in the late 70's and by proposing conservation minded regulations like outlawing treble hooks and going barbless in our troll fishery. I have also antagonized my peers by being a liberal on social and environmental issues while most of the fleet are either Republican or Independent politically. Recently I have been at odds with the ATA board over the management of the winter and spring fisheries. Nevertheless I am a member and strong supporter of ATA.
I have been attending Board of Fisheries meetings and speaking at them representing groups from trout fishermen to chum trollers since 1973. I have had the great honor of serving on all kinds of fisheries and conservation boards including the Sitka Advisory Committee, ATA, NSRAA, NPFMCAP, the Southeast Regional Subsistence Advisory Board, and the Board of Fisheries. Some of the differences I have helped make over the years include:
Working with Dexter Kyle and others to help found NSRAA;
Settling the Hand and Power Troll disputes in the late 70's;
Making the motion at ATA to set up the troll task force in the early 90's that defined our winter fishery;
Developing the round pink and chum troll fisheries near Sitka and in Cross Sound;
Facilitating task group sharing and conservation on issues as diverse as Sockeye and Halibut;
Working out chum troller opportunity with seiners, gillnetters, and NSRAA for many years.

I emphasize help because the way things seem to work is that it takes a lot of people pulling together to get any thing done. I can't remember a single important thing that I accomplished all by myself.

That it is why it is so important to those of you reading this that you share it with your fellow trollers and others so that an understanding that we have a problem starts building. My experience is that activism is born in outrage. The difference in value between what we (trollers) are allocated by Board of Fisheries regulation and what we are harvesting of enhanced salmon in SE is outrageous :x.

Here are the figures:

We are allocated between 27 and 32 percent of the value of SE enhanced salmon harvested by the commercial gear groups. Between 1993 and 2007 according to Joint Regional Planing team figures the total value of the SE enhanced salmon harvest was $271,748,472.97. Our share at the midpoint of our allocation 29.5% would be
$80,165,799.53. What we actually harvested was $52,461,440.44. The difference is
-$27,704,359.09.

The seiners and gillnetters both have proposals to address the allocation plan. Seiners to get a better deal because they have fallen out of the minimum of their allocation the last few years and gillnetters because they have gone so far above their allocation that they don't want the sites primarily benefiting gillnetters to be counted in the SE enhanced formula. The Joint Regional Planning Team, made up of two trollers, two gillnetters, and two seiners has proposed #273 to improve the seiners situation by changing the regulation for days in Deep Inlet from 2 gillnet to 1 seine to 1-1. I understand this was a 4-2 vote on the team with the gillnetters opposing.
I support this proposal because the seiners have fallen below their share for the last five year rolling average. But they have just fallen below it and if you look at the historical shares from 1993 both the seiners and gillnetters are well above their share. It is the trollers who have been, are, and likely will continue to be well below their share. Here are the figures.
The seiners allocated share at the midpoint of their allocation 46.5% would be $126,363,039.93.
What they actually have harvested is $133,156,751.76.
The difference is $12,111,640.85.

The gillnetters allocated share at the midpoint of their allocation 26.5% would be $$72,013,345.34.
What they have actually harvested is $80,812,351.75.
The difference is $8,799,006.41.

This is the historical perspective. I will post some of the recent figures and ideas for solutions later. The thing to remember from all this is that there is a SE enhanced salmon sharing plan. It is not working for trollers. It is outrageous that we are so far behind.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: SSRAA

Post by Salty »

Just a brief note before I start posting more data and some ideas for solution. Some trollers and others don't think that trollers can easily get their share of the enhanced salmon because lots of them are chum, and kings and coho don't bite well once they get near the terminal area etc.
If I was to manage these SE hatchery fisheries to get the trollers up to 30% I am confident we could do it within three years at good prices for chums, coho, and kings. It is a bit harder to get trollers to harvest chums when they are worth only 18 cents per lb. But, we could do it at whatever price if there was a good enough opportunity. We have proved that at Neets Bay, Sitka, and Hidden Falls.
I have loaded my boat with chums at Neets Bay, Bear Cove, Hidden Falls, and Deep Inlet within yards of the release site. Just this year, due to an oversight by managers, we missed an excellent opportunity in Deep Inlet that cost trollers at least hundreds if not thousands of chums. The opportunities can be made for trollers. What is missing is the outrage to demand action to remedy this problem. A 27 million dollar problem.
Post Reply