Proposal 321

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Post Reply
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Proposal 321

Post by yak2you2 »

Anyone who fishes winter kings had better write a letter of support to the B.O.F in support of this proposal. Thank you Eric, for putting it in. I thought about writing something similar up some time ago, but decided against it, as I try desperately to avoid politics anymore now-a-days. I spent 15 years on the local area advisory committee, and 6 years on the borough assembly, before walking away frustrated by the inability of either board to accomplish much of anything. I'm just not into the dog fights anymore, but it does have to be done, so my hat is off to those who are still willing to put forth the effort.

Proposal 321 will properly allocate 5000 or so hatchery kings to the winter fishery where their worth more to the fleet, rather than have them available for less money to the snowbirds who show up to cream out the summer months and split. It is honestly written, but as you say Eric, I doubt it will get the support of the ATA or any of the summer fleet. It is the age old problem of people being to concerned about "what's in it for me," rather than what's in the best interests of the fleet as a whole.

It leads me into a topic that i've been intentionally avoiding, but will now comment on. The question has been asked about any proposals that might change the nature of handtrolling by way of allowing 2 power gurdies instead. while I cannot find any proposals to this effect in the up coming list of proposals, i have heard continuing rumors that there are some who would like to see a proposal of this nature go through. First, if it were to even remotely to ever have a chance it would DEFINITELY have to be written up in such a way as to make it an OPTION should the handtroller choose it. As I've always said, some guys simply don't have boat enough to support hydraulics, and you wouldn't want to force the change on to them, or you wouldn't even have the full support of the user group you meant to help.

Second, and most importantly, the underlying problem would be the same one that has haunted us an industry for as long as I can remember. For what usually amounts to being purely selfish reasons either financial, or egotistical, we don't ever seem to be able to stand together as often as we should. There are some who will be offended by me saying this, but i have to call them like I see them. Simply put, my guess would be that a proposal that would allow for handtrollers to use power gurdies would probably be opposed by the ATA and most power trollers. It would undoubtedly reallocate more fish to handtrollers by way of making them more effective, and those fish would come out of the power troller's current take. Historically handtrollers have never caught what their allocated share should be, so it would actually probably only make things fair, but some would oppose it anyway.
As a historic example, consider this; In federal waters west of Cape Spencer, power trollers are allowed to run 6 lines in the summer fishery, 2 more lines than the rest of southeast, simply because there's a lot less pressure on the fishery. Because there's so little pressure in this area it was felt locally that increasing the handtrollers to 4 lines in federal waters might make the fleet more effective, not to mention make it a little more even between the two user groups. It has been sponsored by the local area advisory committee, supported by the entire local area fleet for years, and opposed by the ATA and several individual power trollers who don't even fish in this area at the last B.O.F. meeting, and probably at this one too.( this proposal has been handed in again, by the way.) To my knowledge there is no justifiable reason to oppose this proposal, there's plenty of fish and room for everyone, yet it happens, and it makes a handtroller feel like he or she is up against a stacked deck.
Don't get me wrong, I support the ATA, and harbor absolutely zero animosity towards any of my fellow trollers, power trollers included, but it's my opinion that these types of condescending, cast system, politics, are what keep us broke up into individual tribes, there by making it that much easier for outside entities such as the sport fish industry to eat our lunch. It's that way with everything. Trollers against the gillnetters. salmon guys against the halibut guys. Subsistence against commercial, etc., etc.
If we're ever going to get anywhere, we're going to have to learn to stick up for what's right for the fleet, even if it's not in our best interests personally.
I didn't write this to in anyway contribute to this on going rift, in fact, I'm in the process of joining the ATA as I write this, and hopefully help make things better by identifying what it is that bugs me and those like me. Nobody's perfect, and I'll be the last one throwing rocks at anyone whose trying to make things better, It would just be nice to see more unity in the fleet.
Please support proposal 321.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Salty »

I love your post Yak. Here is my thought on troller unity though.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)"

The important thing to me is that ATA and our troller forums have a diversity of thought, perspective, and opinions. And an inclusive, collaborative process to find common ground on important issues and proposals. More important than unity is inclusion and respect for our relative differences. My problem for much of my political life, and I have not outgrown it yet, though I strive every day, is to really hear and respect the perspectives and conclusions of others when they differ from mine. Another problem I have is to understand that even some great and obvious solutions (to me) take time to percolate through both the political and regulatory process. And that the time and percolation usually tempers and improves the solution both in its details and its "buying into" by the fleet.
For example: Even though I offered the proposal to deduct our Alaska Hatchery winter king harvest from our winter guideline harvest quota and still believe it is the best solution I will not be "pushing" it at this years Board of Fisheries meeting. With the quota going down and the guys who primarily troll and ice salmon in July and August heading for deep trouble I don't think it is the time to push the proposal. When the king abundance comes back up and if the composition of the ATA board becomes more favorable toward it I might re-submit.
Why don't you run for the ATA board, yak? They need an active handtroller and it would be good to have someone from Yakutat.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Proposal 321

Post by yak2you2 »

Did I hear somewhere that there was an open seat on the board? No, I'm thinking of the S.S.R.A board. I could take the inevitable whippings if there was at least some things getting done, which there does appear to be. With the economy headed in the direction it's going, the industry as a whole is going to need all the help it can get. It is also true that the handtrollers could use some good representation. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so being able to attend meetings could be an issue, I don't know what the work load entails. I'll think on that one, and do some investigating.
You are absolutely right about progress being a long, slow road. Thinking back on my political career, I would have to say that being impatient was definitely one of my faults. I could see what needed to happen, but was usually frustrated by not being able to get there fast enough.
I forgot one of my Grandfather's favorite sayings, which is a good one to live by, "little by little, the bird builds his nest."
Jon
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:41 pm
Spammer?: No
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Jon »

Would this actually increase the proceeds from the sale of the fish?

For arguments sake lets say the current summer allocation is 1000 fish and the winter allocation is 100. Also lets say the price is $1.00/lb in the summer and $10.00/lb in the winter.

It seems to me if you reversed the Winter and Summer allocations completely, in the winter we would catch what was previously the summer allocation (1000 fish) and in the summer we could catch the winter fish (100). Supply would be high in the winter and low in the summer, opposite of how it is now. This is just an extreme example of how i understood the proposal.

Now, not counting for the worse weather and perhaps slower catch rates, but just assuming each seasons quota is caught within the time frame of that season, basically, all things being equal, the low supply in the summer would drive the price to $10.00/lb and the high supply in the winter would drive the price down to $1.00/lb. Overall, the amount of money generated from the fishery would remain the same, but just reversed. Now I know the proposal is not saying reverse the seasons like my example, but moving quota from one season to the other doesn't seem like it would have the effect of generating a higher overall revenue for the industry.

One difference that I can see is that the amount of fuel used per pound of fish caught would be higher during the winter than that of the summer fishery because the fish are simply more abundant in the summer than in the winter. The lower catch rate would mean more hours spent on the water to catch the same amount of fish in the summer. It would also be more dangerous as the weather is worse in the winter.

Another difference is that the majority of the fisherman would be giving up some income to benefit a minority who most likely live in the state of Alaska. Now, I personally don't live in state or fish in the winter, so if I were only interested in personal profit and not the fleet as a whole, you wouldn't have to guess where I stood on this issue. However, I am interested in the fleet and the industry as a whole and will go so far as to say I'd sacrifice some of my income if it could increase the efficiency of the industry in a substantial and worthwhile manner.

I haven't read the proposal (do you have a link to it?). What exactly is the benefit to the fleet and how much of a benefit is it?

Regarding hand trollers (and I'm just throwing this out there off the top of my head for fun) I think hand trollers should be allowed to use everything power trollers can use, but be restricted to an overall quota which is relative to their historical share of the catch. This way they can catch the same number of fish they always have, but now without undue wear and tear on their bodies. Although I think this would hurt some hand trollers who couldn't afford power troll gear, or for whom power troll equipment wouldn't fit on their boat. For those people they would get a smaller portion of the catch than ever before because the new 2-line power trollers would be sucking up quota at a faster rate than before and the real hand crankers would not get their historical share. As an added benefit, the new 2-liners would be more efficient at catching fish, giving themselves more time off or enabling them to customer process their catch, or even time for another fishery (or whatever). They'd also use less fuel than now to catch the same number of fish, saving money, saving energy, higher efficiency in many ways.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Salty »

At one time I calculated the exact $ difference moving 5,000 fish from the summer to the winter would net the fleet at the difference in value at that time.

Just arbitrarily figuring 15 lb late April Kings at $3.00 per lb more than summer kings you end up with 5,000 x 15 x $3.00. It comes out to $225,000. But it actually is worth more than that in terms of keeping the fish on the market. The only time this addition makes a difference is if we are going to be closed in mid April because we are approaching the winter quota. So, it adds time in late April when the markets are especially hungry for wild salmon and when the bite is spread throughout SE. It actually adds to the efficiency of the fleet that is geared up and fishing anyway because it makes the overall investment of time and fuel into more fish. Some of us catch sometimes catch more Chinook in April than we do in July so it can be very carbon efficient comparably. I, for example, caught more kings on the last day of April this year than I did the whole August Chinook opening.

But, crediting the winter troll fishery with the Chinook caught in the winter is dead for this cycle regardless of its merit. I am not especially into beating a dead horse.

What is important this cycle, in my opinion, is recouping some of the millions we are losing every year by not catching our allocated share of SE enhanced salmon. $41 million over the last 14 years. I will be in Ketchikan for the Allocation workshop on Monday and for the JRPT meeting on Tuesday.
Jon
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:41 pm
Spammer?: No
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Jon »

Just arbitrarily figuring 15 lb late April Kings at $3.00 per lb more than summer kings you end up with 5,000 x 15 x $3.00. It comes out to $225,000
But adding 5,000 fish to the winter fishery (increasing supply) will decrease the overall price for every fish sold during that period, negating any additional income gained from the higher winter price.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Salty »

Actually, 5000 kings during that time period, remember you only get them if you are going to be closed otherwise, does not hurt the market. Our price in recent years has gone up toward the end of the winter season as people realized that these wonderful fish were soon to be unavailable. For example if it takes you to the end of April to get to 45,000 then you don't get these. You only get them if for example you were going to catch the quota by April 15th. 5000 more would give you another five days or a week depending on the catch rate. The market that time of year can easily absorb, or used to be able to, 1000 kings a day.

But, 5,000 kings is peanuts. What makes them interesting at all is the justice of getting credit for them when you caught them and that they are worth so much more then than in the summer.

What we want is our share of the enhanced salmon. The gillnetters caught more than 6,000 kings at Deep Inlet last year.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Proposal 321

Post by yak2you2 »

First, making king salmon available all winter does huge wonders for the marketability of wild salmon. It allow us to compete with farm salmon as a year around product, which is the one edge it's always had on us. Second, the reasons for winter fish being worth so much more than summer fish are obvious. Winter kings are the only fresh wild fish available in the winter, they don't have to compete with the other 250,000,000 salmon that are produced every summer and all of the halibut. Third, and most importantly, why shouldn't the winter fishery receive an equal share of the hatchery fish? You can look at this proposal as written, under the board of fisheries thread by the way.
The winter fishery, just like the summer, has it's good years and it's bad, but over all it provides a very important boost to the near bankrupt economies of a lot of small communities through out southeast in the winter months when nothing else is going on. I realize that you need not be an Alaskan resident to troll here, but it is still an Alaskan fishery, and I don't care what anybody says, the fisheries should be structured so that they give maximum benefit to Alaska's communities.
Lastly, Winter king trolling is not an exclusive club, anyone with a permit is welcome to participate. To try to force a larger percentage of the fishery to happen at a time of year that better suits your schedule is just not right.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Salty »

Lets be careful Yak and Jon to respect our differences. What is important in the long run is to optimize the value of the harvest to the fleet. Yak brings up an important point about how the winter Chinook fishery helps keep our markets and improves our prices all year. On the other hand Jon brings up a good point about not everyone being able to fish all winter, the carbon efficiencies of scratching, etc.

Nevertheless we don't usually allocate our fisheries in Alaska by harvest value. If we did we would have a fleet of freezer trollers working from Nome to Ketchikan.

If we really wanted to optimize the value of the Chinook troll harvest in SE we would IFQ the fishery based on past production and let everyone market their own. It would also reduce the bycatch problem. I see the Canadians have ITQ for one of their chum troll fisheries. I am not proposing IFQ's for Troll King Salmon. I still like the idea of competing.

But, if we had an IFQ for troll chum based on past production and no % cap on the initial allocation I might take a good long look at it.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Proposal 321

Post by yak2you2 »

I have the upmost respect for everyone on this boards opinion. I also am more than willing to share my own opinion, thats what here for right? You said it yourself Eric, we don't necessarily have to agree with everybody all the time. If you can't honestly express your feelings without the sugar coating, then your not really going to get very much accomplished.
If there's one thing I've noticed over the years, there doesn't seem to be very many handtrollers or local winter trollers that are willing to fill out boards or speak up for their fair share very often. Invariably the old adage holds true, " the squeaky wheel gets the grease." I have made it abundantly clear from the start that I feel like both of these user groups are treated like the redheaded step children of the fleet, and I've yet to talk to a fisherman from either group that doesn't feel the same way. They just don't seem to have a very strong voice, and for this reason their spot is usually way down at the end of the trough. The tide rips between handtrollers and powertrollers, local and out of state fisherman, have always been there, The sooner we can identify our respected differences, is the sooner we can start closing the gap and maybe having true unity.
How many times do you read posts, or talk on the docks, where people are bummed because yet another convenient fish plant, place to buy fuel, or even the whole town has folded up? I'm just saying, you can't just simply board up the communities of southeast until may, then expect them to be there to buy your fish for you. Infrastructure DOES matter. How can you go wrong by giving the people who keep the towns open all winter enough fish to be able to do so?
I don't mean to pontificate, but the specter is very real up here. It's still 5.65.a gallon for fuel, 500 dollar a month electric bills,and will be for the rest of the winter.There may very well be a lot of little towns that may not exsist for much longer.
You want to talk about carbon foot prints? wait until you have to run your fish from Yakutat bay all the way to Sitka because there's no more Yakutat, Hoonah, or Pelican anymore. I just feel like there should be an extra healthy consideration given to what's best for the communities we all sell our fish in during this spring's decision making process.
Ocean Harvester
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by Ocean Harvester »

I don't mean to pontificate, but the specter is very real up here. It's still 5.65.a gallon for fuel, 500 dollar a month electric bills,and will be for the rest of the winter.There may very well be a lot of little towns that may not exsist for much longer.


wow, that is rediculous. With the price of a barrell below $44 it is amazing that fuel prices remain that high up there. With as much oil that is produced up there alaska should be very competitve in regards to nationwide averages. It makes no sense that it is being shipped out cheap to the lower 48 but can't be refined there and sold at a reasonable price. The fact that SE is roadless makes fuel more expensive but it shouldn't make it that much more compared to the lower 48.

With fish prices high it makes it a little easier to stomach the high cost of fuel. If the economy forces a drop in fish prices and then you have these high fuel prices it could really put a hurt on the industry more than it already is. It is just one more reason to use as much of the quota as you can during the times when they are worth the most.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Proposal 321

Post by yak2you2 »

They top off the tanks in the fall in most little villages, and then your locked in for the winter. it is indeed a terrible travesty that Alaska is so oil rich, an yet ultimately, or ironically is probably a better word, it will be oil that destroys our rural communities and/or our fisheries.
As far as price goes, I'm getting about a dollar less per lb. than I was at this time last year. the whole world is on Top Ramen right now, and most of the majors are having a tough time moving any Cohos. If this doesn't improve over the winter, and watch the news, there doesn't appear to be any end in sight, will be feeling the effects all the way out into next summer, I'm sorry to say.
Amen, Ocean Harvester, to the thought of using as much quota as you can when their worth the most, it's just simple math.
sixlines
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: Proposal 321

Post by sixlines »

A troller that lives in alaska cant argue about 321.myself would like to see the winter quota increase as long as we fish till the quota is caught and not just april 30.
Post Reply