RPT Meetings

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Post Reply
Ocean Gold
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Juneau
Contact:

RPT Meetings

Post by Ocean Gold »

Erik All things considered and compromises made I think everyone came out as good as we could at this point. Details were typed up and sent to the ADF&G yesterday and then will be sent out to the rest.
Highliner Ed
PS She not only cleans fish, and all other duty's of a great crew, she does the politices to keep all of us fishing. :D
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Salty »

Ed and Kathy,
I am in awe of Kathy. I tried to talk her into the Board of Fish you know. Probably why you two don't call me much anymore.
Please forward me the RPT results as soon as they are online. I had Steve copy the draft for me for tonights AC meeting.

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

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Salty »

Here is the consensus plan and my initial take on it.

Eric

Fellow trollers and chum trollers,
Following is the Joint Regional Plan Team (JRPT) report from December 9th. After discussing it at length with Alan Anderson, Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) troll representative on the JRPT, Steve Reifenstuhl of NSRAA, Chum Troller's Association President, Steven Rhoads, and Botso Eliason, Gillnet representative on the NSRAA Board of Directors, I am wondering if we can support it as written. I would prefer that there was some specific mention of improving chum troll opportunity in the near future. But, knowing how these things go, the fact that chum trollers were not at the meeting (I was planning to attend and got weathered out in Wrangell) and after talking to participants I am confident the consensus proposals has the latitude to include improving chum troll opportunity within the hatchery terminal areas by action of the hatchery operators. Specifically, the NSRAA Board of Directors has asked chum trollers to offer specific suggestions for improving troll opportunity at Deep Inlet.
More important it is a consensus agreement to support the current plan and allocation formula which has left trollers $41 million short of the high end of our allocated range 27-32% and $25 million short of the minimum allocation over the last 14 years. Gillnetters are above the high end of their allocation over the last 14 years and seiners are within a few thousand dollars of their high end.

Nevertheless, I believe the wording in point 1) of the consensus agreement which is:

"Encourage facility operators to try to increase production in a way that will provide additional opportunities to harvest fish by the seine fleet and troll fleet......"

would have been much better if it was written as:

Encourage facility operators to provide additional opportunities to harvest fish by the seine and troll fleet.......

The reason being that encouraging increased production to benefit trollers has been the RPT plan for trollers since 1994 and it has resulted in a $41 million $ shortfall for trollers and a share of about 16% in 2008. The wording I suggest would include increased production in the trying to provide additional opportunities. Nevertheless I know the challenge of putting together consensus agreement and am overall pretty happy that the gear groups have come together. The political dynamics of the present board, the challenges trollers have from the guided sector, and the economic uncertainty make it a good idea to minimize the internal commercial sector conflicts before the Board of Fisheries meeting.
I would like to hear from you and also encourage you to contact ATA at ata@gci.net with your comments on this consensus agreement.

Eric Jordan
Chum Troller



Industry Consensus 12/9/08



The troll fleet continues to be out of their target range, the seiners and gillnetters are out of their ranges. Seiners are on the low end and Gillnetters are on the high end. No extraordinary events outside of association or management control seem to account for these imbalances, therefore they should be addressed.



The recommendations below are considered a package deal.



In recognition of the current imbalance and the long-term trends in the distribution of enhanced fish the JRPT recommends to the commissioner:



1) Encourage facility operators to try to increase production in a way that will provide additional opportunities to harvest fish by the seine fleet and troll fleet (This would include the additional production that might become available because of the increased capacity at Burnett Inlet, if practicable 10 million additional summer chum fry would be released at Kendrick Bay and 1.25 million coho smolts released)



2) Encourage facility operators and ADF&G to identify additional times and areas where enhanced coho and Chinook could be harvested by trollers without affecting wild stocks.



3) Request regional associations to look at the possibility of otolith marking of all Coho and Chinook towards the goal of getting additional information about migration patterns and run timing.



4) RPT ask Gunnuk Creek and AKI give a presentation that outlines their current situation, financial picture, long term plans, cost recovery plans and impediments to getting to full production permitted for.



5) Recommend to SSRAA that Neets Bay be open in the fall after brood stock and cost recovery goals are met.



6) In recognition of the current imbalance and the long-term trends in the distribution of enhanced fish the JRPT recommends to the Board of Fisheries to:



A) Change the opportunities in several SHA's where there are or have been net fishery rotations. These changes will likely result in a substantial higher percentage of the harvest in these SHA's going to seiners. These changes would remain in place until at least 2011. If at that time the seine fleet and gillnet fleets are still out of their range these changes would remain in place, unless the Joint RPT agrees to other remedies. Although it appears that changes in all SHA's might not correct the present imbalance the joint RPT is cautious in requesting too many changes at once, knowing that unusual survival or market conditions could occur, and wants to avoid any over steering of the balance. These SHA changes would be:



a) A time ratio of one to one for gillnet openings to seine openings in Deep Inlet after the third Sunday in June for 2009, 2010 and 2011 and sunset after the 2011 season. (Proposal #273 RPT)

b) A time ratio of one to one for gillnet openings to seine openings in Anita Bay for 2009, 2010 and 2011 and sunset after the 2011 season. (Proposal #271)

c) RPT recommends when SSRAA determines that a rotational fishery is to be conducted in Neets Bay have the time ratio between the gillnet and seine fleet be 1 to 1 after June 20. (Proposal #268)



B) RPT makes the following recommendations regarding Board of fisheries proposals

a) Proposal #244 (exclude PNP's from allocation plan) The RPT recommends no action be taken based on the recommendations above and the belief that they are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, SE Enhanced Allocation plan and the duties of the RPT.

b) Proposal #245 (removes NSRAA from overall plan) The RPT recommends no action be taken based on the recommendations above and the belief that they are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, SE Enhanced Allocation plan and the duties of the RPT.

c) Proposal #246 (excludes commercial fishing from Coffman Cove) The RPT recommends the Board of Fish opposes this proposal based on that the RPT has consistently as the permits were approved commented that this production would not change the management of the commercial fisheries to protect these fish for sport fish terminal use (RPT minutes April 12, 2006 and Dec 7, 2005)

d) Proposal #267 (Nakat rotation 1to1) oppose and recommend that Nakat Inlet remain closed to commercial seining for at least the next three years as other short and long term remedial measures are put into effect

e) Proposal #268 (Neets Bay rotations) opposed as written. See recommendation above A (c).

f) Proposal #271 (Anita Bay) oppose as written. See recommendation above A (b).

g) Proposal #273 Deep Inlet 1 to 1 Amend as recommended above in A (a)

h) Proposal #274 Recommend no action based on amended action taken on Proposal #273.

i) Proposal #327 (extend coho season to 9/30 in Behm Canal) The RPT recommends support for this proposal if there are no wild stock concerns. The RPT believes that if wild stock concerns can be addressed this would provide additional opportunity for the troll fleet which is below their allocation range.

j) Proposal #269 (extend SHA for sport fishery) The RPT is making no recommendation on this proposal but would like to comment that this proposal will further impact the troll fleet within the allocation plan of enhanced fish.



The Industry members of the RPT would like to state that this is the first time since 1994 where both net fleets are significantly out of their ranges in opposite directions. It is the first time the joint RPT has needed to consider recommending changes in SHA rotations. The JRPT recognizes that there may be a better and more timely alternative than the Board of Fish process continually readjusting the management of the rotational fisheries. The joint RPT will consider alternatives and may have a recommendation by the 2012 board meeting that will allow significant adjustments in SHA's without requiring board of Fisheries action. These adjustments would be conducted within the current Southeast Enhanced Allocation Plan and would not make any changes to the allocation ranges. If the RPT can not come up with a plan the RPT will submit Board of Fish proposal as appropriate for the gear groups based on the current situation within the allocation plan.
Carol W
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:32 am
Location: Ketchikan

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Carol W »

As Ed said it was a compromise we were striving for, I was also trying to get more information out to the fleet as to migration patterns and run timing of enhanced chinook and coho. If we could increase our catch rate on enhanced kings it would go a long way towards balancing the books, by having better data through otilith marking and better reporting of stock composition in various spring fisheries we could stay on top of the run better. It has become my experience that where we think the fish are swimming to is often different than what we think.
I think as a fleet we need to do a few things to help ourselves in this arena, for instance those of you who have fished chum in near terminal areas should do some experimenting with gear and techniques to catch kings in terminal areas. The argument that your secrets would help the your fellow troller doesn't hold water for if trollers don't harvest these kings then you will be competing with gillnet and seines in terminal area's.

It appears that there will be enough chum to have a fishery in Neets Bay now a market needs to be found.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Salty »

Tom,
Are you on the RPT?

Eric
Carol W
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:32 am
Location: Ketchikan

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Carol W »

Eric I am an alternate and I attended the meetings in Ketchikan for I feel the Trollers need a strong voice in this argument, I was one of the original group that put the enhanced fish allocation plan together. So as I am sure that Ed, Kathy, and Alan can tell you I was quite vocal with my concerns and ideas at the fishermans group and through the RPT.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by Salty »

Tom,
I don't mind putting these ideas out here for anyone to see and comment on but if you want to contact me personally as a follow-up my e-mail is ericsarahjordan@gci.net. My cell phone is 738-chum (2486).
Here is what I am thinking after talking to gillnet, troll, seine, and biological interests since the JRPT meeting. There is no doubt that our hatchery harvest values have evolved differently than we planned when we developed these hatchery programs. These are some facts:

Our Alaska Hatchery Chinook Program has failed to meet the goals of putting at least 100,000 Alaska Hatchery Chinook into troll harvest in spite of an investment of millions of dollars. We are harvesting, without looking it up, somewhere around 20-30,000 in the troll fishery. There is no probable way we can get that to 100,000 in the forseeable future. There is not even a plan to double what we are harvesting that I have heard about. Tagging and sampling to better identify migration routes etc. while helpful only promise incremental gains.

Our Alaska Hatchery Coho program, while successful, is near the top of the 20% threshhold the Dept. has set for the hatchery/wild mix. While new production at Sawmill Cove and other sites may help someday there is no plan or any likely way for trollers to make up our enhanced allocation deficit by improved hatchery coho harvest in the near (0-8 year) future.

Does any troller who has seriously considered the problem that we are $41 million below our allocated share over the last 14 years believe we can make up that difference in the next few years on Chinook and Coho production? While I am totally supportive of doing all we can to improve both our harvest rate (I have proposed and fought for years to get more favorable hatchery/treaty fish spring formulas and areas) and production of Chinook and Coho, I am familiar enough with the hatchery production problems and our harvest rate challenges to know we can not make up our allocation deficit in the near (0-8 year) future on Chinook and Coho.

All the gear groups have recognized that after 14 years we have a better idea of how our hatchery programs are working and in order to achieve the allocation formula changes need to be made. Thus the industry consensus. But, in my conversations with gillnetters it sounds like they are not going to support the consensus agreement on what should be done. They are going to push for a new allocation formula based on what has been happening lately. They tell me point blank that our share should be about 20%.

So, the only way I see for trollers to get their allocated share 27-32% of the value of the SE enhanced salmon is for management of the returning SE hatchery fish, including chums, to be changed in a way that gives trollers better opportunity. Seiners, gillnetters, and some trollers don't believe we can catch 32% of the value of the expected returns in the next few years. I couldn't disagree more. The difference between what we are catching and what we are allocated amounts to $2-3 million dollars a year and more than that if we get good survival and good prices again. I am not willing to give that up when I know that management changes in terminal areas could rapidly raise the troll percentages.
Trollers should be outraged that they are about to lose millions of dollars of harvest value to the gillnetters, perhaps permanently, because their leaders are fixated on an outdated paradigm that trollers can't catch chums or that somehow we can make up the deficit on Chinook and coho. I know it is difficult for most trollers to catch chums at a profitable rate. I know it is much easier to catch Chinook and Coho. The gear stores all sell the most effective Chinook and Coho lures and almost anyone worth their salt can catch half of what the top guys on the drag are catching.
It is not the same with chums. The top guys often have 5 times the production in a day than the fleet average. The reason for this is because most trollers are new to chum trolling. Given the opportunity and motivation most trollers will catch on rapidly. We got $0.83 per lb. for most of our chums last year and $0.80 for the rest. That should help motivate people.
I am absolutely confident, based on experience at Excursion Inlet, Neets Bay, Hidden Falls, Cross Sound, Deep Inlet, and off the coast that the troll fleet could significantly improve their harvest of hatchery chums if we were given the opportunity to better define the opportunity. But, the troll fleet leadership, from ATA to SPC to the JRPT and our representatives on the Association Boards need to buy into the fact that improving our harvest rate on chums, the most successful SE enhanced salmon species, is part of the troll formula for achieving our allocated share.
Do you disagree with any of the above, Tom? I ask because there needs to be some basic agreement on the problem and that we want to get into our allocated share before we can talk specifics of how to get there both politically and by specific improved opportunity.
John Murray
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: RPT Meetings

Post by John Murray »

Thanks Eric for leading the charge on this group of issues.It is one of the top issues trollers need to address.You can imagine if the other gear groups were out of their allocation % for this long,what might take place.There would be a full court press .
There's some viable ideas out there ,its time more cards are layed on the table.Thanks again Eric and others who are doing the lifting on this one.I'd like to help after the holidays ,till then I'm also open to ideas or thought on how we get from here to there.JOHN 9077476212 F/V LORAN
Post Reply