Hi All...
Sorry for the double posting today, but I just found out the links didn't work. Since a few of you probably haven't dealt with this yet, no harm, no foul, right? So...here's yet another friendly reminder.
How's that Board of Fisheries comment coming along?
It's really important that you start thinking about your written - and, hopefully, oral - testimony for the Board of Fisheries. Encourage your family, friends, and associates! Strength in numbers...
The Board of Fish shellfish meeting is set for later this month - January 21, in Petersburg. Comments are coming RIGHT UP - like, TOMORROW (Jan 9) for that meeting!
The Board of Fish finfish meeting begins February 17th at Harrigan Hall in Sitka. Comments are due Feb.3, and, yes, they mean BY 5pm.
Other February Meeting Events:
** The ATA Board will be meeting Feb. 15-17 at Harrigan Hall in Sitka - ATA members and invited guests welcome!
** ATA will host a port meeting for all trollers - probably the 16th.
** Plus, look for the trollers break out room that we'll have set up at Harrigan Hall starting the 17th. All trollers welcome. There will be people and equipment to help you with last minute testimony work, or a chair if you need to take a break away from the main meeting.
** ATA 18th Annual Raffle: Friday night, Feb. 20, at the Westmark Shee Atika
Plan to get involved in both Board of Fisheries meetings if they are appropriate to your business plan. You can search out information on both at the links below. ATA is focused on the February finfish meeting.
TESTIMONY
Written testimony can be as long as you want. Oral testimony should be 3 minutes or less. For many people, 3 minutes is two and a half pages - size 12 font - double spaced. Be sure to make it sound like you talk - less likely to stumble that way. Read it over and over to get the timing right and become more comfortable. I realize you'd rather [insert your least favorite thing here] than speak in public, but three minutes can go pretty fast.=)
I encourage you to drop me an email if you're working on finfish proposals and either want to know ATA's position, or need some help figuring out where to search out information.
Warning: I'll be leaving town Sunday for a treaty meeting in Vancouver, BC. There is also a treaty meeting in Portland the week before the February Board of Fish meeting. Email will be best point of contact for me during these meetings, but I'm usually not on it much more than a couple times a day when on the road. Cell phone means big roaming fees when in Canada, so I won't return many calls, either. I will return to the office on January 20th. If you call the office, just leave a message if you don't get me - with a best time call back- the answering service is great about getting messages to me a couple times a day - please, just don't tell them it's an 'emergency', unless it really is!
Finding a board member to talk to is another option, and also very helpful if you would like the ATA Board to consider a compromise position - see names below.
So ... think Board of Fish - read the finfish proposal book and start penning those notes. Don't over think it - no one on the Board of Fish is more the expert on trolling than each of you. Make your point - less can be more - it's just very important that you comment, and, if possible, show up and say it in person, too!
If you haven't been getting the ATA newsletter, give me a call so I can make sure we have your proper mailing address. We will have a bit more Board of Fish info for the fleet in upcoming mailings.
Finally, be on the lookout for the ATA webpage. Had hoped to launch this week, but... anyway, check the site once in awhile and hopefully you'll see it up very soon: http://www.aktrollers.org Comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism always welcome - it's going to be a work in progress, particularly at the start.
Over and Out...
Dale, ATA
********************
BOARD OF FISH
Southeast/Yakutat Shellfish - January 21-27 Petersburg COMMENTS DUE: 5pm January 9
Proposal Book: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fish ... props2.pdf
Southeast/Yakutat Finfish February 17-26 Sitka COMMENTS DUE: 5pm February 3
Proposal Book: http:// http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fish ... props2.pdf
Send comments by mail or fax to:
Shannon Stone/Scott Crass
Board Support
Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
(907)465-4110 phone
(907)465-6094
Please also sent ATA a copy:
ata@gci.net
Alaska Trollers Association
130 Seward #205
Juneau, AK 99801
(907)586-9400 phone
(907)586-4473 fax
*******************
2009 ATA Board of Directors
President
Dave Otte
Sarah E, Ketchikan
Vice President
Bob Fredrickson
New Day, Lower 48
Secretary
Joel Kawahara
Karolee, Lower 48
Treasurer
Jeff Longridge
Saami, Sitka
Ken McGee
Northstar, Juneau
Keith Brady
Ilona B, Southern Rural
John Murray
Loran, Sitka
Mark Roberts
Cape Cross, Petersburg
Carter Hughes
Radio, Northern Rural
Dan Doak
Kodiak, Wrangell
Dick HofMann
Standy, At Large
Matt Donohoe
Helen A, At Large
Ken Ash
Jennison, Handtroll
Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Re: Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Time for all of you to get your BOF comments posted. Thank you Dale for posting the addresses here. I would recommend faxing your comments on Friday or Monday to make sure they get in.
Eric
Eric
Re: Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Here is my latest comment on these. I think it would be great if as many trollers as possible added their comments.
Proposal # 244 and 245 page 184 & 185 (Exclude PNP’s from SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan).
These are the most important proposals for me before the BOF this year. I oppose these proposals. The SE enhanced salmon allocation plan, 5AAC 33.364, adopted by the Board of Fisheries in 1994, allocates trollers, gillnetters, and seiners a % range of the value of SE enhanced salmon. It was recommended by consensus agreement by a task force of the commercial gear groups and adopted unanimously by the Board of Fisheries.
As noted by the Joint Regional Planning Team and the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008 trollers are out of their target range. In fact trollers have been, are, and will continue to be out of our allocated share unless significant action is taken to improve troll opportunity. While we have been allocated 27-32% of the value of SE enhanced salmon over the last 14 years we have actually harvested 19% of the value according to JRPT and NSRAA figures. This is a difference of $25 million dollars from the low end (27%) of our allocation and $41 million from the high (32%) of our allocation over the 14 years of the plan.
Here are the exact figures from a power point presentation I made to the NSRAA Board last November. No one has disputed these figures.
• The Problem:
• Since 1994 the total commercial value of SE enhanced salmon is $306,475,385.
• Trollers have harvested $56,928,851 or 19%.
• Their minimum share is $82,748,354 @ 27%
• The difference is $25,819,503!
• The trollers share at 29.5% midpoint of their allocation range would be $90,410,239.
• The difference is $33,481,388.
• The trollers share at 32% would be $98,072,123.
• The difference is $41,143,272.
Trollers have used this plan to improve investment in Coho and Chinook production, gain better opportunity at hatchery Chinook and Coho, and to gain opportunity at chum hatchery production. Specifically this plan has resulted in protection of troll opportunity on Chinook at Hidden Falls, improved opportunity for trollers at Neets Bay on Chum, Coho, and Chinook over the years. The existence of this plan helped bring Chum Trollers and NSRAA staff and Board together to collaborate on a proposal to improve both troll and cost recovery opportunity at the last Board of Fisheries SE proposal cycle. Past Board of Fisheries have used this plan to adopt troll proposals to access hatchery chum in Sitka Sound during summer troll Coho closures. Without this plan the trollers harvest value would undoubtedly be less than what it is.
Removing the PNP hatcheries, particularly DIPAC, which contributes practically nothing to the seine fleet, very little to the troll fleet, and millions of dollars to the gillnet fleet would fracture the allocation plan. It would also seriously compromise the process of collaboration and consensus the SE commercial fleets have developed through creation and adherence to this plan over the years.
I would like the Board of Fisheries to reiterate their support for the SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan and state their support for the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008.
As a Chum Troller I would like the Board of Fisheries to understand that the only way trollers can move within their allocated share of SE enhanced salmon in any foreseeable near future scenario includes moving more chums into troll harvest. So, while I support the industry consensus statement:
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.
And believe this statement, the rest of the consensus, and the existing allocation plan give facility operators plenty of incentive to improve hatchery salmon harvest opportunity for trollers I would prefer stronger language from the Board of Fisheries such as:
Direct SE facility operators to work together to develop a regional plan to provide the gear group(s) below their allocation range immediate additional opportunities to harvest SE enhanced salmon toward the goal of each gear group achieving enhanced salmon harvest values within their allocated range as soon as possible.
The reason I prefer the stronger language is that encouraging facilities to try and increase production to benefit the group(s) out of their allocation means years of waiting while increased production is planned, permitted, brood stock is developed, and the salmon mature. Meanwhile the salmon already produced and returning are not adequately targeted for the group(s) below their allocation.
This language is why trollers are still out after 14 years. We lose over two million dollars a year that has been allocated to us. Furthermore this language does not recognize the realities of our SE enhancement program which is that our Chinook programs have largely failed to produce troll Chinook harvest goals while our chum hatchery programs are one of the greatest salmon hatchery success stories in history.
I also believe it is important for the Board of Fisheries to leave as much latitude as possible for the facility operators to figure out their own best way to provide those additional harvest opportunities. These opportunities are going to vary from facility to facility, from species to species, and from return to return. But, with the language suggested above, facility operators will have the direction and impetus to work with trollers and seiners to figure out how to improve our opportunity.
Proposal # 244 and 245 page 184 & 185 (Exclude PNP’s from SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan).
These are the most important proposals for me before the BOF this year. I oppose these proposals. The SE enhanced salmon allocation plan, 5AAC 33.364, adopted by the Board of Fisheries in 1994, allocates trollers, gillnetters, and seiners a % range of the value of SE enhanced salmon. It was recommended by consensus agreement by a task force of the commercial gear groups and adopted unanimously by the Board of Fisheries.
As noted by the Joint Regional Planning Team and the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008 trollers are out of their target range. In fact trollers have been, are, and will continue to be out of our allocated share unless significant action is taken to improve troll opportunity. While we have been allocated 27-32% of the value of SE enhanced salmon over the last 14 years we have actually harvested 19% of the value according to JRPT and NSRAA figures. This is a difference of $25 million dollars from the low end (27%) of our allocation and $41 million from the high (32%) of our allocation over the 14 years of the plan.
Here are the exact figures from a power point presentation I made to the NSRAA Board last November. No one has disputed these figures.
• The Problem:
• Since 1994 the total commercial value of SE enhanced salmon is $306,475,385.
• Trollers have harvested $56,928,851 or 19%.
• Their minimum share is $82,748,354 @ 27%
• The difference is $25,819,503!
• The trollers share at 29.5% midpoint of their allocation range would be $90,410,239.
• The difference is $33,481,388.
• The trollers share at 32% would be $98,072,123.
• The difference is $41,143,272.
Trollers have used this plan to improve investment in Coho and Chinook production, gain better opportunity at hatchery Chinook and Coho, and to gain opportunity at chum hatchery production. Specifically this plan has resulted in protection of troll opportunity on Chinook at Hidden Falls, improved opportunity for trollers at Neets Bay on Chum, Coho, and Chinook over the years. The existence of this plan helped bring Chum Trollers and NSRAA staff and Board together to collaborate on a proposal to improve both troll and cost recovery opportunity at the last Board of Fisheries SE proposal cycle. Past Board of Fisheries have used this plan to adopt troll proposals to access hatchery chum in Sitka Sound during summer troll Coho closures. Without this plan the trollers harvest value would undoubtedly be less than what it is.
Removing the PNP hatcheries, particularly DIPAC, which contributes practically nothing to the seine fleet, very little to the troll fleet, and millions of dollars to the gillnet fleet would fracture the allocation plan. It would also seriously compromise the process of collaboration and consensus the SE commercial fleets have developed through creation and adherence to this plan over the years.
I would like the Board of Fisheries to reiterate their support for the SE Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan and state their support for the Industry Consensus statement of December 9, 2008.
As a Chum Troller I would like the Board of Fisheries to understand that the only way trollers can move within their allocated share of SE enhanced salmon in any foreseeable near future scenario includes moving more chums into troll harvest. So, while I support the industry consensus statement:
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.
And believe this statement, the rest of the consensus, and the existing allocation plan give facility operators plenty of incentive to improve hatchery salmon harvest opportunity for trollers I would prefer stronger language from the Board of Fisheries such as:
Direct SE facility operators to work together to develop a regional plan to provide the gear group(s) below their allocation range immediate additional opportunities to harvest SE enhanced salmon toward the goal of each gear group achieving enhanced salmon harvest values within their allocated range as soon as possible.
The reason I prefer the stronger language is that encouraging facilities to try and increase production to benefit the group(s) out of their allocation means years of waiting while increased production is planned, permitted, brood stock is developed, and the salmon mature. Meanwhile the salmon already produced and returning are not adequately targeted for the group(s) below their allocation.
This language is why trollers are still out after 14 years. We lose over two million dollars a year that has been allocated to us. Furthermore this language does not recognize the realities of our SE enhancement program which is that our Chinook programs have largely failed to produce troll Chinook harvest goals while our chum hatchery programs are one of the greatest salmon hatchery success stories in history.
I also believe it is important for the Board of Fisheries to leave as much latitude as possible for the facility operators to figure out their own best way to provide those additional harvest opportunities. These opportunities are going to vary from facility to facility, from species to species, and from return to return. But, with the language suggested above, facility operators will have the direction and impetus to work with trollers and seiners to figure out how to improve our opportunity.
Re: Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Salty,I feel for you,I really do.I've felt similar to the way you are right now. I would love to be behind all that your trying to get for the trollers in southeast, but Im not treated fairly by the ATA and I know that you have their support, so maybe your proposals will stand a better chance. We are only around 80 sum trollers, so I understand that to have us on your side of cause, does not mean much to you. Myself, I really think all the trollers state wide are going to have to stand together one day soon. If we all take a good look around, we are all the same. Im no better than a hand troll when Im powertrolling and Im no lesser of a man when im handtrolling. Maybe a little more tired but not lesser.We the fishermen of Yakutat should have the chance to participate in the spring fishery.I mean look at it salty, really think about if you were us.The last community that really had a spring fishery and not being able to participate anymore. And yes, Yakutat had a spring fishery when no one else was fishing. Now everyones fishing but us. And yes, again you are catching fish that I should also be fishing for or at least have a chance at.We are in the migratory path of these fish. I have feedback off my catch to prove it. Yakutat and Criag should be put in the equation. And as far as the handtroller goes, read ATA/329. Now how do you argue with that?The only argue thats been told to me is it should be state wide, or so Im told.The board told me,Spencer to Suckling; so thats where it is now.
Re: Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Salty, at least say something even if you think im wrong.
Re: Have You Sent BOF Comments Yet?
Sixlines and all,
I didn't make as many proposals as usual last spring as I was preoccupied with some other issue, like living. But, I did help write some for some other people and a couple of the ones I submitted or help write previously got submitted again. We just finished our AC meeting last night. A lot of hard work by 15 voting members and a good number of staff and public in attendance. I contacted NSRAA staff and they let me set up my laptop with their LCD projector and I was able to project proposals and motions to amend on the wall so we could all work together on the language. I also used the opportunity to make a power point presentation on the hatchery allocation imbalance.
Here is a couple of key points that might be of interest to some reading this site.
Our committee did not support the ATA proposal to extend the season from September 20 to 30. After several of us, including me, made strong statements in favor of the proposal our longtime local highliner, Mo Johnson, made an eloquent speech about why he favored continuing to let the Department make extensions when and where warranted. After his speech and some prodding ADF&G staff confessed that while they were neutral on the proposal it is relatively easier to justify an extension than it is to close the season early. After all that the majority, including myself opposed the proposal.
The word from Petersburg is that the BOF will be taking a good look at the definition of possession limits.
On the hatchery allocations which are so important to the troll fleet, as we are losing nearly three million dollars per season difference from our allocation and what we are harvesting, we supported the industry consensus adopted in Petersburg with an amendment to strengthen the language similar to what I proposed above.
On 329 we discussed the proposal at length and I brought up that there had been lots of discussion on this forum about it. There was a move to adopt the proposal, then there was a move to table it in deference to the Yakutat committee. The motion to table failed for a variety of reasons. It was brought out that power trollers are only allowed to fish 6 lines in the FCZ (outside of 3 miles) west of Spencer while the proposal would allow handtrollers to use 4 lines in both state and federal waters west of Spencer. It was brought out that there were 2700 handtrollers fishing when the 80/20 pt/ht division was adopted. It was repealed in 1995, thirteen years ago. It was pointed out that the deal that was made in 1979 to allow handtrollers to fish all areas and times open to power trollers was part of a package that included limiting handtrollers to two lines. In the end we voted on 329 and it failed with 2 or three committee members voting for it.
I am a bit tired as I worked on the back of my boat on my new bait shed with my son in about 30 knots of wind and a variety of rain, snow, sleet, and hail all day. But, in response to your desire for a spring fishery in May and June. I favor it. I believe we should look on these spring fisheries as a combination of market and hatchery openings. Yakutat and some areas near Craig where there are only a few Alaska Hatchery Kings should be allowed some "market openings". In that vein we supported the proposal by Fred Fayette to move unharvested winter Chinook to the Spring fisheries instead of to the summer openings. Perhaps Yakutat could recommend an amendment to use 1,000 to 2,000 of those kings to conduct a "market" fishery in the spring.
Hope this is an adequate response.
I didn't make as many proposals as usual last spring as I was preoccupied with some other issue, like living. But, I did help write some for some other people and a couple of the ones I submitted or help write previously got submitted again. We just finished our AC meeting last night. A lot of hard work by 15 voting members and a good number of staff and public in attendance. I contacted NSRAA staff and they let me set up my laptop with their LCD projector and I was able to project proposals and motions to amend on the wall so we could all work together on the language. I also used the opportunity to make a power point presentation on the hatchery allocation imbalance.
Here is a couple of key points that might be of interest to some reading this site.
Our committee did not support the ATA proposal to extend the season from September 20 to 30. After several of us, including me, made strong statements in favor of the proposal our longtime local highliner, Mo Johnson, made an eloquent speech about why he favored continuing to let the Department make extensions when and where warranted. After his speech and some prodding ADF&G staff confessed that while they were neutral on the proposal it is relatively easier to justify an extension than it is to close the season early. After all that the majority, including myself opposed the proposal.
The word from Petersburg is that the BOF will be taking a good look at the definition of possession limits.
On the hatchery allocations which are so important to the troll fleet, as we are losing nearly three million dollars per season difference from our allocation and what we are harvesting, we supported the industry consensus adopted in Petersburg with an amendment to strengthen the language similar to what I proposed above.
On 329 we discussed the proposal at length and I brought up that there had been lots of discussion on this forum about it. There was a move to adopt the proposal, then there was a move to table it in deference to the Yakutat committee. The motion to table failed for a variety of reasons. It was brought out that power trollers are only allowed to fish 6 lines in the FCZ (outside of 3 miles) west of Spencer while the proposal would allow handtrollers to use 4 lines in both state and federal waters west of Spencer. It was brought out that there were 2700 handtrollers fishing when the 80/20 pt/ht division was adopted. It was repealed in 1995, thirteen years ago. It was pointed out that the deal that was made in 1979 to allow handtrollers to fish all areas and times open to power trollers was part of a package that included limiting handtrollers to two lines. In the end we voted on 329 and it failed with 2 or three committee members voting for it.
I am a bit tired as I worked on the back of my boat on my new bait shed with my son in about 30 knots of wind and a variety of rain, snow, sleet, and hail all day. But, in response to your desire for a spring fishery in May and June. I favor it. I believe we should look on these spring fisheries as a combination of market and hatchery openings. Yakutat and some areas near Craig where there are only a few Alaska Hatchery Kings should be allowed some "market openings". In that vein we supported the proposal by Fred Fayette to move unharvested winter Chinook to the Spring fisheries instead of to the summer openings. Perhaps Yakutat could recommend an amendment to use 1,000 to 2,000 of those kings to conduct a "market" fishery in the spring.
Hope this is an adequate response.