This publication was released by the
Department of Fish and Game,
produced at a cost of
$3.03 per copy,
and printed in San Diego, California
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write:
ADF&G ADA Coordinator, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau AK 99811-5526
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington VA 22203
Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240
The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers:
(VOICE) 907-465-6077, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-478-3648, (Juneau TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-
6078
For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact:
ADF&G, Boards Support, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau AK 99811-5526, (907)465-4110.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
REVIEWER LETTER
DEAR REVIEWER: July 2007
The Alaska Board of Fisheries will consider the attached book of regulatory proposals at its
October 2007 through March 2008 meetings. The proposals concern changes to the state’s
fishing regulations. Members of the public, organizations, advisory committees, and staff timely
submitted these proposals. The proposals are published essentially as they were received.
The proposals in this book are presented as brief statements summarizing the intended regulatory
changes. In cases where confusion might arise or where the regulation is complex, proposed
changes are also indicated in legal format. In this format, bolded and underlined words are
additions to the regulation text, and capitalized words or letters in square brackets [XXXX] are
deletions from the regulation text.
You are encouraged to read all proposals presented in this book. Some regulations have
statewide application and some regulations may affect other regions or fisheries of the state.
Also, some proposals recommend changes to multiple fisheries within an area or region.
In this book the proposals are first grouped by the meeting to which they pertain (see
PROPOSAL INDEX for each meeting). Within each meeting the proposals are then organized
by region, fishery or species. These proposal lists are not in roadmap order for the meeting. The
board will generate a roadmap for deliberations prior to each meeting when committee
assignments are made. The roadmap may be changed up to and during the meeting.
Before taking action on these proposed changes to the regulations, the board would like your
written comments and/or oral testimony on any effects the proposed changes would have on your
activities.
After reviewing the proposals, please send written comments to:
ATTN: BOF COMMENTS
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Boards Support Section
P.O. Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Fax: 907-465-6094
Public comment, in combination with Advisory Committee comments and ADF&G staff
presentations, provide the Board of Fisheries with useful biological and socioeconomic data to
form decisions. Comments may be submitted at any time until the public testimony period for
that proposal and/or its subject matter is closed at the meeting and the board begins deliberations.
As a practical matter, you are encouraged to mail or fax your written comments to the above
Juneau address at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting. See “Tentative Meeting
Schedule” on Page v for the comment deadline for each meeting. Receipt by this date will
ensure inclusion in the board workbook. All comments received after that time will be presented
to board members at the time of the meeting, but may not be printed in the board workbook.
Written comments will also be accepted during the board meeting and public testimony during
the public testimony portion of the meeting is always appreciated. Written comments become
public documents.
When providing written comments regarding these proposals, list the PROPOSAL NUMBER to
which your comment pertains and specifically whether you SUPPORT or OPPOSE the proposal.
This will ensure that your comments are correctly noted for the board members. If the comments
i
support a modification in the proposal, please indicate SUPPORT AS AMENDED and provide a
preferred amendment in writing.
Please briefly explain WHY you are in support or opposition of the proposal. Board actions are
based on a complete review of the facts involved in each proposal, not a mere calculation of
comments for or against a proposal. Advisory committees and other groups also need to explain
the rationale behind recommendations. Minority viewpoints from an advisory committee should
be noted in advisory committee minutes along with the majority recommendation. The board
benefits greatly from understanding the pro and cons of each issue. A brief description
consisting of a couple of sentences is sufficient. If making comments on more than one
proposal, please do not use separate pieces of paper. Simply begin the next set of written
comments by listing the next proposal number.
Written comments will be photocopied so please use 8 1/2" x 11" paper and leave reasonable
margins on all sides, allowing for hole punches. Whether typed or handwritten, use dark ink and
write legibly.
Pertinent policies and findings, proposals, written comment deadlines, meeting calendars and
notices for the Board of Fishery meetings are posted on the Board Support website at
http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/ .
Agendas for each Board of Fisheries meeting will be available prior to the meeting. Also, the
most current roadmap will be provided at the specific meeting, which will set forth the order in
which proposals will be considered.
Beginning in October, a recorded telephone message will provide current updates on the board's
agenda and schedule. Call 800-764-8901 (in Juneau, call 465-8901).
Persons with a disability needing special accommodations in order to comment on the proposed
regulations should contact the Boards Support Section at (907) 465-4110 no later than two weeks
prior to the scheduled meeting to make any necessary arrangements.
SPECIAL NOTES: The board applies various statutes and policies when considering fisheries
allocations and when addressing salmon proposals: 1) When addressing fishery allocations
among sport, guided sport, personal use, and/or commercial fisheries, the board considers the
“Allocation Criteria” (AS 16.05.251(e)). 2) When addressing salmon proposals the board
generally considers the “Mixed Stock Salmon Policy” (5 AAC 39.220). 3) The board also
considers the “Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy” (5 AAC 39.222). You may wish to review
these policies as you prepare comments for the board. These policies are accessible on our
website at the above web address. Also, see Page xii for information on the board’s procedures
for “Restructuring Proposals”.
Jim Marcotte, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(907) 465-4110
ii
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
2007/2008 PROPOSAL BOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION SECTION Page Number
Reviewer Letter......................................................................................................................................... i-ii
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................... iii-iv
Tentative Meeting Schedule.........................................................................................................................v
Long-Term Meeting cycle ..........................................................................................................................vi
Board of Fisheries Membership Roster .................................................................................................... vii
Boards Support Section Staff................................................................................................................... viii
Draft Public/Legal Notice ...................................................................................................................... ix-xi
Board Procedures on Restructuring Proposals.................................................................................... xii-xvi
PROPOSAL INDEX BY MEETING/AREA:
Lower Cook Inlet Finfish .................................................................................................................... iii
Chignik Finfish.................................................................................................................................... iii
Kodiak Finfish..................................................................................................................................... iii
Upper Cook Inlet Finfish..................................................................................................................... iii
King and Tanner Crab (statewide except Southeast/Yakutat) and Supplemental Issues .....................iv
PROPOSAL SECTION Page Number
LOWER COOK INLET FINFISH
Salmon - Sport
Central Cook Inlet - Anchor, Ninilchik, Deep Creek ............................................................................1
Lower Cook Inlet Saltwater ..................................................................................................................9
Resurrection Bay and Outer Gulf Coast Sport, Subsistence, and Personal Use..................................14
CHIGNIK FINFISH
Chignik Subsistence...................................................................................................................................18
Chignik Commercial Salmon.....................................................................................................................19
KODIAK FINFISH
Kodiak Groundfish.....................................................................................................................................29
Kodiak Herring ..........................................................................................................................................33
Kodiak Subsistence Salmon.......................................................................................................................36
Kodiak Commercial Salmon......................................................................................................................39
Kodiak Sport
Freshwater ..........................................................................................................................................51
Saltwater..............................................................................................................................................61
UPPER COOK INLET FINFISH
COOK INLET COMMERCIAL FISHING
Herring.................................................................................................................................................64
Spotter Planes ......................................................................................................................................66
Weekly Fishing Periods - District Boundaries ....................................................................................67
Seasons ................................................................................................................................................69
Weekly Fishing Periods - Seasons (Kasilof) .......................................................................................79
Weekly Fishing Periods.......................................................................................................................80
Weekly Fishing Periods - Drift Periods...............................................................................................84
Weekly Fishing Periods - Seasons (Tuxedni Bay) ..............................................................................85
Gear - Monofilament ...........................................................................................................................86
Gear - Quantity....................................................................................................................................88
iii
Gear - Type..........................................................................................................................................91
Gear - Distance from Shore.................................................................................................................93
Registration .........................................................................................................................................93
UMBRELLA PLAN ..................................................................................................................................95
NORTHERN BOUND SALMON PLANS
Stocks of Concern ...............................................................................................................................99
Northern District Salmon - Yentna OEG ..........................................................................................101
Eliminate Fish Creek Stocking..........................................................................................................104
Reorganize UCI Management Plans .................................................................................................104
Commissioner’s Authority ................................................................................................................112
Achieve Goals ...................................................................................................................................113
Northern District Salmon - Management Plan ..................................................................................118
Northern District Salmon - Yentna Priority ......................................................................................125
Northern District Salmon - Seasons and Periods...............................................................................126
Northern District King.......................................................................................................................130
Big River ...........................................................................................................................................133
Pink Salmon ......................................................................................................................................134
KENAI - KASILOF SALMON MANAGEMENT PLANS
Central District Drift Management Plan............................................................................................139
Kasilof Management Plan .................................................................................................................143
Kasilof River Special Harvest Area ..................................................................................................150
Kasilof Escapement Goal ..................................................................................................................155
Kasilof Distance from Shore .............................................................................................................159
Kenai Late Run Sockeye Management Plan .....................................................................................163
Kenai Late-Run Sockeye Management Plan - Kenai River Special Harvest Area ...........................189
Kenai Late Run Sockeye Management Plan - Create Russian River Commercial
Sockeye Management Plan..........................................................................................................189
SPORT FISHING - KENAI PENINSULA
Personal Use - Kenai Peninsula.........................................................................................................190
Kasilof River - Salmon......................................................................................................................200
Chickaloon River - Salmon ...............................................................................................................206
Kenai River Resident Species ...........................................................................................................206
Russian River ....................................................................................................................................220
Kenai River King Salmon .................................................................................................................221
Kenai River Sockeye and Coho Salmon ...........................................................................................241
Kenai River Sport Fishing Vessel Restrictions .................................................................................244
Guides - Kenai & Kasilof Rivers.......................................................................................................259
SPORT FISHING - NORTHERN COOK INLET
Susitna River/West Cook Inlet - Salmon...........................................................................................280
West Cook Inlet - Salmon .................................................................................................................290
Knik Arm - Salmon ...........................................................................................................................291
Resident Species................................................................................................................................293
Personal Use - Northern Cook Inlet ..................................................................................................299
KING AND TANNER CRAB (STATEWIDE EXCEPT SOUTHEAST/YAKUTAT)
Cook Inlet Personal Use Tanner crab fishery ..........................................................................................302
Prince William Sound Personal Use Tanner crab fishery........................................................................305
Kodiak Tanner Crab.................................................................................................................................308
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab .........................................................................309
Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab...................................................................................................323
Norton Sound ...........................................................................................................................................328
iv
Alaska Board of Fisheries
2007/2008
Tentative Meeting Schedule
Cook Inlet, Kodiak and Chignik Finfish; and
King and Tanner Crab (Statewide, except Southeast/Yakutat)
PROPOSAL DEADLINE: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Meeting Comment
Dates (and Duration) Topics Location Deadline
October 9-11, 2007 Work Session Anchorage September 25, 2007
( 3 days ) (Agenda Change Coast International
Requests*, cycle Inn
organization, and
Stocks of Concern)
November 13-15, 2007 Lower Cook Inlet Homer October 26, 2007
( 3 days ) Finfish Land’s End
January 10-12, 2008 Chignik Finfish Anchorage December 27, 2007
( 3 days ) Egan Center
January 14-18, 2008 Kodiak Finfish Kodiak December 27, 2007
( 5 days ) Elk’s Lodge
February 1-12, 2008 Upper Cook Inlet Anchorage** January 18, 2008
( 12 days ) Finfish Coast International
Inn
March 3-9, 2008 King and Tanner Crab Anchorage February 19, 2008
( 7 days ) (Statewide, except Coast International
Southeast/Yakutat) Inn
and Supplemental
Issues
* ACR Deadline: August 27, 2007
** The board will hold hearings in Soldotna and Wasilla on Upper Cook Inlet Finfish topics.
Adopted 10/15/06; subject to meeting space availability
v
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
LONG-TERM MEETING CYCLE
The board meeting cycle generally occurs from October through March. The board considers
changes to regulations on a region-based schedule. All fisheries are considered when the
regional area, shellfish species, or statewide regulations are before the board. The fisheries
include subsistence, sport, guided sport, personal use, and commercial. Special petition and
agenda change request procedures are available for the board to consider out-of-cycle requests.
NOTES:
1) Statewide shellfish regulations will not be considered every meeting cycle. When setting the
future meeting schedule annually, the board will determine whether to consider statewide finfish
or shellfish regulations for that meeting cycle.
2) The proposal deadline is April 10 every year. If April 10 falls on a weekend, the proposal
deadline is the Friday preceding that weekend.
Meeting Cycle: 2009/2010 2012/2013 2015/2016 2018/2019
Area:
Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island Areas (All Finfish)
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Areas (All Finfish)
Bristol Bay Area (All Finfish)
Statewide Provisions (Finfish)
Meeting Cycle: 2007/2008 2010/2011 2013/2014 2016/2017
Area:
Cook Inlet Area (All Finfish)
Kodiak and Chignik Areas (All Finfish)
King and Tanner Crab (Statewide, except Southeast/Yakutak)
Meeting Cycle: 2008/2009 2011/2012 2014/2015 2017/2018
Area:
Prince William Sound Area (All Finfish)
Southeast/Yakutat Areas (All Finfish)
Southeast/Yakutat Areas (King Crab, Tanner Crab, Dungeness Crab, Shrimp; and Miscellaneous
Shellfish)
Statewide Miscellaneous Shellfish and Provisions
THE MEETING CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF EVERY THREE YEARS. This schedule was
adopted November 9, 1990, updated October 13, 2006.
vi
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
(Revised July 1, 2007)
Name and Address Term Expires
Mel Morris (Chair) 6/30/2008
917 Mill Bay Rd.
Kodiak, AK 99615
John Jensen 6/30/2008
PO Box 681
Petersburg, AK 99833
Jeremiah Campbell 6/30/2009
PO Box 1586
Seward, AK 99664
Bonnie Williams 6/30/2009
PO Box 82812
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Larry Edfelt 6/30/2008
PO Box 210821
Juneau, AK 99801
Vince Webster 6/30/2010
PO Box 121
King Salmon, AK 99613
Howard Delo 6/30/2010
PO Box 520707
Big Lake, AK 99652
Alaska Board of Fisheries members may also be reached at:
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Boards Support Section
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
(907) 465-4110
(907) 465-6094 FAX
www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us
vii
Boards Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
PO Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
(907) 465-4110
(907) 465-6094 Fax
HEADQUARTERS
Board of Fisheries Board of Game
Jim Marcotte, Exec. Director II 465-6095 Kristy Tibbles, Exec. Director I 465-6098
Shannon Stone, Pub. Tech. II 465-6097 Scott Crass, Pub. Specialist II 465-4046
Olivia Orsborn, Administrative Manager 465-6096
Vacant, Administrative Clerk III 465-4110
REGIONAL OFFICES
Arctic Region Southeast Region
Susan Bucknell Scott Crass
PO Box 689 PO Box 115526
Kotzebue, AK 99752 Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Phone: (907) 442-1717 Phone: (907) 465-4046
Fax: (907) 442-2420 Fax: (907) 465-6094
Interior Region Southwest Region
Rita St. Louis Joe Chythlook
1300 College Road PO Box 1030
Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 Dillingham, AK 99576
Phone: (907) 459-7263 Phone: (907) 842-5142
Fax: (907) 459-8558 Fax: (907) 842-5514
Southcentral Region
Sherry Wright
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Phone: (907) 267-2354
Fax: (907) 267-2489
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For updated information on the progress of an ongoing Board of Fisheries or Board of Game meeting,
call: Juneau 465-8901; outside Juneau 1-800-764-8901
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Website address: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/
viii
DRAFT
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
The Alaska Board of Fisheries proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations contained in Title
5 of the Alaska Administrative Code, dealing with fishery and aquatic plant resources in the
areas designated below, including the following:
IN THE COOK INLET, KODIAK, AND CHIGNIK AREAS FINFISH REGULATIONS; AND
STATEWIDE KING AND TANNER REGULATIONS:
A. In the commercial, sport, guided sport, and personal use finfish fisheries: fishing seasons,
periods, opening and closing times; bag, possession, size, and harvest limits, harvest levels or
quotas; districts, subdistricts, sections, subsections, areas, and other management boundaries;
locations open and closed to fishing; methods and means; gear and vessel restrictions, marking
and identification, definitions, operational requirements, registration and permit requirements;
permits, harvest records, fish tickets, harvest marking requirements; management plans for
conservation and development of fisheries; allocation among beneficial uses; restrict, prohibit,
or require the retention, sale, or purchase of fish; registration, reporting, logbook, and operating
requirements for fish guides, guided anglers, catchers, processors, buyers and transporters;
possession, transport, or release of fish; onboard observer requirements; regulation of fishing as
needed for the conservation, development, or utilization of fisheries.
B. In the subsistence finfish fisheries: identify subsistence uses and users; fishing seasons,
periods, opening and closing times, harvest levels; methods and means; size, age, and sex
limitations; districts, subdistricts, sections, subsections, areas, and other management
boundaries; area open and closed to fishing; gear and vessel restrictions and operational
requirements; harvest limits, registration and permit requirements, requirements for marking
and possession of fish; management plans for conservation, development and allocation among
beneficial uses, and users; identify customary and traditional uses of fish stocks, and establish
or change subsistence fisheries.
C. In the commercial, sport, guided sport, subsistence, and personal use king and Tanner
crab fisheries: fishing seasons, periods, opening and closing times; harvest levels, harvest
limits or quotas; districts, subdistricts, sections, subsections, areas, and other management
boundaries; locations open and closed to fishing; methods and means; gear and vessel
restrictions; registration areas (including exclusive and super exclusive registration areas), and
operating restrictions, requirements and definitions; management plans for conservation,
development and allocation among beneficial uses; restrict or prohibit the retention, sale, or
purchase of fish; onboard observer requirements; provisions to rationalize the Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crab fisheries.
For a copy of the proposed regulation changes contact the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526, tel. (907) 465-4110 or go to
the internet at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/
You may comment on the regulation changes, including the potential costs to the private persons
of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-
5526, no later than two weeks prior to the meeting during which the topic will be considered to
ix
ensure inclusion in the board workbooks. Written comments may be submitted at any time
during the meeting but, as a practical matter comments submitted after the board begins
deliberations on relevant proposals are likely to receive less consideration than comments
submitted earlier. Comments also may be faxed to (907) 465-6094. Oral comments may also be
presented as explained below.
There will be five separate meetings. Each meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. on the dates noted
below. The public hearing portions for each meeting will begin immediately after staff reports
and continue until everyone who has signed up and is present has been given the opportunity to
be heard. Additional public hearings with Board committees may be held throughout the
meeting before consideration and adoption of proposed changes in the regulations for the various
areas. An agenda will be posted daily during the meeting. The board will take oral testimony
only from those who register before the cut-off time announced by the board chair at each
meeting. The length of oral statements may be limited to five minutes or less. Anyone
interested in, or affected by, the subject matter contained in this legal notice should make written
or oral comments if they wish to have their views considered by the board.
Work Session
October 9-11, 2007
Coast International Inn, 3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage
Lower Cook Inlet Finfish
November 13-15, 2007
Land’s End, 4786 Homer Spit Road, Homer
Chignik Finfish
January 10-12, 2008
Egan Center, 555 West Fifth Avenue, Anchorage
Kodiak Finfish
January 14-18, 2008
Elk’s Lodge, 102 Marine Way, Kodiak
Upper Cook Inlet Finfish
February 1-12, 2008
Coast International Inn, 3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage
King and Tanner Crab (statewide except Southeast/Yakutat)
and Supplemental Issues
March 3-9, 2008
Coast International Inn, 3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage
Any changes to meeting locations, dates or times, or rescheduling of topics or subject matter will
be announced by news release. Please watch for these announcements in the news media or call
(907) 465-4110. Please carefully review the PROPOSAL INDEX available for the meeting for
specific proposal issues to be addressed by the board. Copies of the proposal indices are in the
proposal book or at the relevant meeting.
Anyone interested in or affected by subsistence, personal use, sport, guided sport or commercial
fishing regulations, is hereby informed that, by publishing this legal notice, the Board of Fisheries
may consider any or all of the subject areas covered by this notice. Pursuant to AS 44.62.200(b),
x
the board may review the full range of activities appropriate to any of the subjects listed in this
notice. The board may make changes to the personal use, sport, guided sport or commercial fishing
regulations as may be required to ensure the subsistence priority in AS 16.05.258. On its own
motion, after public hearing, the board may adopt, amend, reject, supplement, or take no action on
these subjects without further notice. In addition, the board may adopt other regulations necessary
to implement, administer, or enforce the regulations adopted. THE BOARD IS NOT LIMITED
BY THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR CONFINES OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSALS
THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OR STAFF. The language of the final
regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. YOU SHOULD COMMENT
DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOUR INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED.
If you are a person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to
participate in the process on the proposed regulations, please contact Jim Marcotte at (907) 465-
4110 no later than two weeks prior to the beginning of each meeting to ensure that any necessary
accommodations can be provided.
Statutory Authority: AS 16.05 - AS 16.20, AS 16.40
Statutes being implemented, interpreted, or made specific: AS 16.05 - AS 16.020, AS 16.40
Fiscal Information: The proposed regulatory actions are not expected to require an increased
appropriation.
Date:
Jim Marcotte, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Fisheries
xi
BOARD PROCEDURES ON RESTRUCTURING PROPOSALS
The following six proposals for the 2007-2008 cycle have been identified as possible
restructuring proposals.
Proposal 33 Allow drift gillnetting in the Chignik area
Proposal 34 Allow hand and power trolling in the Chignik area
Proposal 58 Allow fishing of two set gillnet permits
Proposal 59 Establish Kodiak Area troll fishery
Proposal 110 Allow commercial use of reef net gear for harvest of live fish
Proposal 113 Eliminate area registration for vessel for Cook Inlet and Kodiak salmon fisheries
A restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on these proposals in order that they can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) determine if the proposal complete;
b) determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal where
board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work and
process; and
e) identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate these proposals can be found in
the 11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the proposal authors and the public to submit any additional information to help in the
evaluation of these proposals.
Background on Board of Fisheries Restructuring Proposals
In 2004 the Board of Fisheries established a Commercial Salmon Industry Restructuring
Workgroup consisting of various stakeholders and interests from the fishing industry to examine
policy and other options for the Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Legislature to properly
consider restructuring in Alaska’s salmon fisheries. This board workgroup was undertaken after
a cooperative agreement between the board and the legislature as a continuation of the work
from the Legislature’s Salmon Industry Task Force. In 2006, the board received a report from
the stakeholder panel and the board forwarded the report to the legislature. (Report available at
http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/sirp/meetinfo/panelfinalrep06.pdf or by writing to the
Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-
5526 or by calling 907-465-4110.)
Much of the work from the stakeholder workgroup centered around the Board of Fisheries
process and how the board should receive and consider proposals which may be considered a
“restructuring proposal”. The workgroup developed a suggested format for how restructuring
proposals should be submitted to the board, along with criteria for how the board should review
xii
these proposals. The board decided to informally follow these recommendations for a “trial
period”, during which the board will annually review the process for modification or, ultimately,
consider adopting it as a board policy.
Proposals which seek to significantly change how salmon fisheries operate should be reviewed
with extra scrutiny and an examination of the possible benefits and impacts to the stakeholders,
communities, regions and the state as a whole.
Board of Fisheries Criteria for Review of Restructuring Proposals
Keeping in mind that all proposals must promote the sustainability of fishery resources and be
consistent with other Board of Fisheries policies, the Board of Fisheries may consider
comprehensive regulatory restructuring proposals, and when doing so may, in addition to other
factors, use the following criteria:
1) Promote an increased net economic benefit to the participants remaining in the fishery
following restructuring:
2) Identify possible interactions within and between regions;
3) Identify potential mitigation measures for those dependent on the fishery that may be
negatively impacted;
4) Promote improvements in a fishery’s value, product quality, or an increase in efficiency;
5) Adequately address biological impacts to the resource caused by changes in management
systems and utilization of the resource;
6) Promote a healthy fishing economy in Alaska that provides social and economic benefit
to communities dependent upon the fishery and contributes to the overall benefit of the
resource and the economy of the state; and
7) In addition to the criteria above, other factors may be considered as appropriate.
Process to Review Restructuring Proposals
Restructuring proposals may have substantial economic, social, and/or biological impacts and
may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. Accordingly, the Board of
Fisheries is interested in ensuring ample opportunity for review and comment by potentially
affected regions and fishery participants. The board identified the following steps for addressing
restructuring proposals:
1) Submit proposal as part of regular review cycle for a given area. (Applicant)
2) Determine if proposal is a restructuring proposal. (Board)
3) Publish restructuring proposals in a separate section of the board proposal book or
otherwise identify proposal as a restructuring proposal. (Department)
4) Hold a publicly-noticed worksession to determine: (Board)
a.) Is proposal complete?
b.) Are there outstanding questions or information needed?
c.) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions.
d.) Identify whether CFEC or other agencies need to be consulted on issues raised by the
proposal. If so, bring staff together to schedule work and process.
e.) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
5) Hold information-gathering public hearing within region if needed. (Board)
6) Hold other hearings/work sessions as needed. (Board)
7) Board of Fisheries decision. (Board)
xiii
Alaska Board of Fisheries - Restructuring Proposal Form
Please answer the questions below as completely as possible. Your response will likely
require multiple pages and considerable time and effort. Some questions may not be
applicable to your proposal. Some questions may be quite difficult to answer; incomplete
answers will not necessarily disqualify your proposal.
Please carefully read the instructions on second page before answering the questions.
1) What regulatory area, fishery, and gear type does this restructuring proposal affect?
2) Please thoroughly explain your proposal. (See Part II, Question 2 of the instructions on
second page for important guidance on how to answer this question).
3) What are the objectives of the proposal?
4) How will this proposal meet the objectives in Question 3?
5) Please identify the potential allocative impacts of your proposal. Is there an allocation or
management plan that will be affected by this proposal?
6) If the total value of the resource is expected to increase, who will benefit?
7) What will happen if your fishery is not restructured as your proposal recommends, and how
is this proposal an improvement over current practices?
8) Considering the history of the commercial fishery, what are the potential short- and long-
term positive and negative impacts on:
a) the fishery resource;
b) harvesters;
c) the sector, species, and regional interdependence relationships;
d) safety;
e) the market;
f) processors; and
g) local communities.
9) What is your understanding of the level of support for your proposal among the harvesters,
processors, and local communities?
10) What are the potential short and long-term impacts on conservation and resource habitat?
11) What are the potential legal, fishery management, and enforcement implications if this
proposal is adopted? What other governmental actions may need to be taken into account?
Submitted By: Name ____________________________________ (signature required)
Individual or Group ______________________________________________________
Address ______________________________ Zip Code _______ Phone ___________
xiv
Instructions for Restructuring Proposal Form
Please answer the questions below as completely as possible. Your response will likely require
multiple pages and considerable time and effort. Some questions may not be applicable to your
proposal. Some questions may be quite difficult to answer and incomplete answers will not
necessarily disqualify your proposal.
Part I: How to determine if your proposal is a “restructuring” proposal
A ”restructuring proposal” is a proposal that is likely to have substantial economic, social, and/or
biological impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: (1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved quality); or
(2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or (3) improve conservation. Such proposals may include (but
are not limited to): consolidation of fishing effort or a shift in who harvests the fish, changes in harvest
methods used, or allocations of quotas.
Please note that if the board does not have the legal authority to implement the proposed regulation then
your proposal may be dismissed or tabled. If your proposal is found to be incomplete, the board may
direct you to potential resources or specific agencies you may need to work with. If your proposal is
determined to be a restructuring proposal, the board may put the proposal on a special timeline for action
to allow for appropriate public input. If the proposal is determined to be incomplete or otherwise needs
further development prior to action, the board, at its discretion, may table the proposal for future action.
The board may, at its discretion, amend any proposal and move it forward.
Restructuring proposals may have broad ramifications with both positive and/or negative impacts to
harvesters, processors, coastal communities, associated businesses and the State of Alaska. Therefore,
your proposal should consider the potential impacts of the proposed new regulation on all stakeholders.
Part II: How to Fill out the Restructuring Proposal Form
Question #1: For which fishery management areas and gear type will the regulations be changed? For
which specific fisheries?
Question #2: To completely explain your proposal, address the questions below:
a. Will this proposal require initial harvester qualification for eligibility? If so, how would it work?
b. Are there new harvesting allocations? If so, how are they determined?
c. What means, methods, and permitted fishing gear are proposed?
d. Is a change in vessel length proposed?
e. Are the transferability of permits or harvest privileges affected? If so, explain.
f. Is there a defined role for processors? If so, please describe.
g. Will this proposal be a permanent change to regulation? If not, for how long?
h. If adopted, will your proposal require a change in monitoring and oversight by ADF&G?
i. Will vertical integration (e.g. harvesting and/or processing) or consolidation occur? Will limits
be imposed?
j. How do you propose to monitor and evaluate the restructured fishery?
k. Is there a conservation motivation behind the proposal? If so, please explain.
l. What practical challenges need to be overcome to implementing your proposal, and how do you
propose overcoming them?
Question #3: Restructuring proposals may have many goals that may not be apparent from the proposal
itself. What specific changes to you want to occur if this proposal is put into regulation?
Question #4: How and why will your proposed regulation meet the goals and objectives in question #3?
Question #5: A restructuring proposal will often have allocative or reallocative impacts. Please identify
those potential impacts. Other than already identified in question #1, what management plans and
xv
allocation regulations might be affected? Note that this could include fisheries distant from the fishery
being regulated.
Question #6: Who will benefit? Harvesters? Processors? Communities? State? Subsistence users? Etc.
Question #7: How is your proposal better than status quo?
Question #8: Restructuring proposals will have positive and/or negative impacts to harvesters,
processors, coastal communities, associated businesses and the State of Alaska. Your proposal is more
likely to be judged complete if you try to identify both the positive and negative impacts of your proposal
on:
a) The fishery resource: 1) biological; 2) management system; and 3) economic utilization.
b) Harvesters: 1) economic efficiency of the harvesting function; 2) species interdependence
impacts; 3) harvesting asset ownership impacts; 4) distribution of product value; and 5) market
access.
c) Interdependence: How will your proposal impact other gear types and fisheries targeting other
species? How will it affect interactions between regions and within the communities of the
region?
d) Safety: How does your proposal affect safety, if at all?
e) The market: 1) market access and product form; 2) market timing; 3) competitive opportunities;
4) other, if any.
f) Processors: 1) economic efficiency of the processing function; 2) species interdependence
impacts; 3) processing asset ownership impacts; 4) distribution of product value; and 5) market
access.
g) Local communities: 1) employment enhancement, displacement, and loss; 2) municipal revenue
impacts; 3) industry infrastructure impacts; 4) species interdependence impacts; 5) ownership of
local harvesting and processing impacts; and 6) gain or loss of associated businesses.
Question #9: Is this a “one-person idea” or does your proposal have broad support?
Question #10: Conservation and development of fisheries resources are major goals of the board and any
impacts on these goals, positive or negative, are of high importance. Please explain the likely impacts of
your proposal.
Question #11: Restructuring proposals often have legal, fishery management, and enforcement
implications that the board will have to address before it can take action. Please identify the potential
issues in these areas.
xvi
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
November 13-15, 2007
LOWER COOK INLET FINFISH
PROPOSAL INDEX
Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general
topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.
PROP SUBJECT
NO.
SALMON - SPORT
Central Cook Inlet - Anchor, Ninilchik, Deep Creek
1 Open Anchor River king salmon fishery 6 days per week
2 Open Anchor River king salmon fishery 5 days per week
3 Modify king salmon season opening date on the Anchor River
4 Increase the annual limit for king salmon on the Anchor River and Deep Creek
5 Allow catch and release fishing after retaining a king salmon on the Anchor River and
Deep Creek
6 Reduce the conservation corridor dates in the Early-Run King Salmon Special Harvest
Area around the Anchor River
7 Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River from 4 miles to 2 miles in the Early-Run
King Salmon Special Harvest Area
8 Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River and Deep Creek in the Early-Run King
Salmon Special Harvest Area
9 Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River and Deep Creek in the Early-Run King
Salmon Special Harvest Area
10 Allow fishing for hatchery king salmon in the Ninilchik River 7 days per week
11 Allow harvest of hatchery king salmon 7 days per week on Ninilchik River
12 Reduce king salmon bag limit on Ninilchik River
Lower Cook Inlet Saltwater
13 Prohibit use of weighted hooks in the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon
14 Increase bag limit of king salmon under 20 inches in Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon
15 Prohibit personal use gill nets within a thousand yards of the Nick Dudiak Fishing
Lagoon
16 Prohibit sport fishing in Tutka Bay Lagoon and near the Tutka Bay lagoon hatchery net
pens
17 Close sport and personal use sockeye fishing in Tutka Bay Lagoon
18 Remove spiny dogfish from the sport bag limit for sharks
Resurrection Bay and Outer Gulf Coast Sport, Subsistence, and Personal Use
19 Reduce daily possession limit of rockfish between Gore Point to Cape Puget
20 Establish a youth only fishery in the Seward lagoon area
21 Open a sockeye salmon fishery in the Resurrection River
22 Allow retention of rockfish and lingcod in subsistence fisheries
xvii
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
January 10-12, 2008
CHIGNIK FINFISH
PROPOSAL INDEX
Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general
topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.
PROP SUBJECT
NO.
Chignik Subsistence
23 Amend regulation to allow fishing in Chignik Lake tributaries.
24 Amend regulation to restrict gillnets from fishing no more than one half of wetted width
of any fish stream.
Chignik Commercial Salmon
25 Amend regulation to allow the Eastern District to open independently of the Chignik Bay
and Central districts.
26 Restrict commercial fishing in Chignik to improve subsistence fishing opportunities.
27 Amend regulation to include Castle Bay in Central District.
28 Open the Western and Perryville districts in June and early July with the Chignik Bay
and Central districts.
29 Repeal the closed waters area near Kupreanof Point.
30 Repeal the coho cap in the Chignik fishery.
31 Allow fishing periods in the Western and Perryville districts based on pink, chum, coho,
and sockeye salmon.
32 Develop a coho salmon management plan.
33 Allow drift gill gear in Chignik Area.
34 Allow hand and power trolling in the Chignik Area.
xviii
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
January 14-18, 2008
KODIAK FINFISH
PROPOSAL INDEX
Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general
topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.
PROP SUBJECT
NO.
Kodiak Groundfish
35 Revise incidental black rockfish registration
36 Revise application of incidental trip limit for black rockfish
37 Revise vessel hook limit definition in jig fisheries
38 Close Alitak Bay to pelagic trawl gear year-round
39 Close Alitak Bay to pelagic trawl gear March 1 – November 1
40 Require observer coverage on pelagic trawl vessels for fisheries in the Kodiak Area
Kodiak Herring
41 Amend description of Kodiak Area districts and sections
42 Modify Kodiak herring management plan
43 Develop regulatory measures to improve commercial harvest
KODIAK SUBSISTENCE SALMON
44 Restrict gillnets and seine gear from obstructing more than one half of any stream
45 Eliminate harvest limits on permits in parts of the Kodiak Management Area
KODIAK COMMERCIAL SALMON
46 Amend description of Duck Bay Section
47 Amend description of Inner Karluk Section
48 Amend regulation to create a closed water area in Izhut Bay
49 Change description of the closed water area in Pasagshak Bay
50 Amend regulation to make practice purse seine sets
51 Delay opening Westside Kodiak salmon fishery until June 16
52 Delay opening Outer Karluk Section salmon fishery until June 16
53 Modify Cape Igvak salmon allocation formula
54 Modify North Shelikof Sockeye Salmon Management Plan
55 Link opening of Northern District Shelikof Strait sockeye season to Kenai River
preseason sockeye forecast
56 Revise opening and closure times in Alitak District
57 Change allocation to Olga Bay fishery
58 Allow fishing of two set gillnet permits
59 Establish a Kodiak Area troll fishery to meet market demand
KODIAK SPORTFISH
Kodiak Freshwater
60 Remove Buskin River closure
xix
61 Liberalize Buskin River fishing
62 Close portions of Pillar and Monashka creeks
63 Simplify Kodiak Area king salmon sport fishing bag limits
64 Modify bait restriction for Karluk River fishery
65 Create an Ayakulik River King Salmon Management Plan
66 Establish an OEG for king and/or sockeye salmon on the Ayakulik River
67 Establish an OEG for king and/or sockeye salmon on the Ayakulik River and allow a
catch and release fishery
68 Establish an OEG for king and/or sockeye salmon on the Ayakulik River and allow a
catch and release fishery
69 Establish an OEG for coho salmon on the Ayakulik River and allow a catch and release
fishery
70 Allow early season catch and release on Ayakulik River
Kodiak Saltwater
71 Review Kodiak Area Salt Water King Salmon Sport Fishery Management Plan
72 Create an exclusive use area in Kodiak for salt water sport fishing charter operators
xx
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
February 1-12, 2008
UPPER COOK INLET FINFISH
PROPOSAL INDEX
Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general
topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.
PROP SUBJECT
NO.
COOK INLET COMMERCIAL FISHING
UCI Herring
73 Amend Central District Herring Management Plan
UCI Spotter Planes
74 Prohibit use of spotter pilots
75 Prohibit use of spotter planes within one hour of commercial open periods
UCI Weekly Fishing Periods - District Boundaries
76 Modify drift gillnet area for Kasilof Section
77 Redefine demarcation of Kenai and Kasilof sections
78 Reopen the Southside of Chinitna Bay to gillnetting
UCI - Seasons
79 Remove restrictions from drift and set gillnet fisheries for coho protection
80 Modify the dates of the Central District for the Kenai and East Forelands sections
81 Change season dates for Kenai and East Forelands Sections
82 Open Kenai and East Forelands sections earlier
83 Extend the Upper Subdistrict late-run sockeye salmon season to August 15
84 Allow set gillnet fishing until August 15
85 Delay season closure for Kenai and East Forelands sections
86 Specify that the set net fishery will close by emergency order
87 Clarify transition between sockeye management and coho management
88 Amend management plan
89 Close Central District commercial fishery by executive order
90 Change weekly fishing periods
91 Repeal mandatory July 17 and 26 restrictions for Kenai and Kasilof Rivers
92 Repeal Kenai River coho plan
UCI Weekly Fishing Periods - Seasons (Kasilof)
93 Amend management plan
94 Reopen set gillnet season south of Blanchard line after June 15
UCI Weekly Fishing Periods
95 Change weekly fishing periods
96 Change Central District fishing periods
97 Allow commercial harvest of salmon from time specified on Monday, Wednesday and
Friday in the Central District
xxi
UCI Weekly Fishing Periods - Drift Periods
98 Restrict drift gillnet use in Upper Subdistrict
99 Clarify drift gillnet closure areas
UCI Weekly Fishing Periods - Seasons (Tuxedni Bay)
100 Open a commercial fishery in Tuxedni Bay
101 Open a commercial fishery in Tuxedni Bay
UCI Gear - Monofilament
102 Provide flexibility in regulation for the use of single filament gillnet web
103 Allow additional use of monofilament gillnets
104 Prohibit use of monofilament nets in Cook Inlet
UCI Gear - Quantity
105 Increase drift gillnet to 200 fathoms in the Upper Cook Inlet
106 Increase maximum drift gillnet depth to 60 meshes
107 Allow up to 200 fathoms of drift gillnet gear and allow joint ventures with concurrent
fishing from one vessel by permit holders
108 Increase aggregate set gillnet gear length
UCI Gear - Type
109 Limit east side set gillnet gear to 3 strands
110 Allow commercial use of reef net gear for harvest of live fish
UCI Gear - Distance From Shore
111 Change distance offshore for set gillnets in Cook Inlet
UCI Registration
112 Allow set gillnet fishing in any district after 48-hour waiting period
113 Eliminate area registration for vessel for Cook Inlet and Kodiak salmon fisheries
UCI UMBRELLA PLAN
114 Renumber Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan to put "umbrella" plan first in the
regulations
115 Return Upper Cook Inlet management plan to 1995 wording
116 Add personal use, sport and guided sport user to the priority for management purposes in
Upper Cook Inlet salmon based on abundance
117 Amend umbrella salmon manage plan to clarify escapement goals based on wild fish
118 Return to 1996 Kenai River sockeye plan
NORTHERN BOUND SALMON PLANS
UCI Stocks of Concern
119 Identify Susitna River and Fish Creek as stocks with a yield concern under the
Sustainable Salmon Policy and create conservation corridor (also listed below under
Central District Drift Management Plan)
120 Designate Cook Inlet chum salmon as a Stock of Concern
UCI Northern District Salmon - Yentna OEG
121 Modify Yentna/Susitna escapement goals
122 Modify Yentna River escapement goal
UCI Eliminate Fish Creek stocking
xxii
123 Eliminate Fish Creek stocking program until escapement goal met
Reorganize UCI Management Plans
124 Reorganize the Upper Cook Inlet Management plans by species
125 Revise UCI area management plans to address quality, sustainability and revitalize
industry
UCI Commissioner’s Authority
126 Amend the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management plan to clarify board intent regarding
the commissioner’s EO authority
127 Authorize the commissioner to issue EO openings to ensure escapement ranges are met
UCI Achieve Goals
128 Clarify BOF intention to manage the fisheries in season to meet the escapement goals
129 Clarify the BOF intent that achieving escapement goals supersedes specific time and area
provisions in other UCI Salmon Management plans
130 Clarify that achieving the established escapement goals is the primary management
objective in the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management plan
131 Manage to achieve in-river goals
132 Implement priorities among salmon management plan for Upper Cook Inlet
133 Specify from June 20 to August 20 Upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks will be primarily
managed for high quality commercial uses
UCI Northern District Salmon - Management Plan
134 Delete portions of Northern District management plan
135 Amend Northern District salmon management plan
136 Direct department to manage chum, pink, and sockeye salmon primarily for commercial
uses
137 Eliminate the regulatory language from plans that direct the department to minimize
harvest of Northern District and Kenai R coho in order to provide personal use, sport
138 Reinstate the pre-2005 Northern Distinct Salmon Management Plan
139 Close commercial fishing to protect Alexander Creek stocks
UCI Northern District Salmon - Yentna Priority
140 Clarify escapement goal priorities regarding the Yentna and Kenai rivers
UCI Northern District Salmon - Seasons and Periods
141 Allow longer sockeye season in Northern District
142 Allow additional coho fishing time after August 10 in Northern District
143 Manage Northern District Eastern Subdistrict by regular periods not tied to Yentna River
escapement
144 Allow the commissioner to selectively close specific statistical areas in the Northern
District commercial salmon fishery
145 Modify management of Northern District
UCI Northern District King
146 Remove reference to specific commercial fishing periods in the Northern District King
Salmon Management plan
147 Add Thursday to the allowed king salmon fishing periods in Northern District
148 Increase maximum king salmon net length mesh size in the Northern District
149 Allow additional king salmon fishing time for the area located one mile south of the
Theodore River to the Susitna River in Northern District
xxiii
150 Modify fishing periods in Northern District
151 Allow drift gillnets during May and June in west side fishery
UCI Big River
152 Modify the Big River Sockeye Salmon Management Plan
UCI Pink Salmon
153 Amend Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan
154 Allow earlier and more fishing periods for pink salmon harvest and delete permit
requirements
155 Allow set gillnet use for harvesting pink salmon
156 Add set and drift gillnet opportunities to harvest pink salmon
157 Amend the Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan for commercial uses
158 Allow department to open set gillnet periods in Cook Inlet
159 Delete Cook Inlet Pink Salmon plan
KENAI - KASILOF SALMON MANAGEMENT PLANS
UCI Central District Drift Management Plan
160 Modify the Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management plan to allow the area
managers flexibility based on run strength
161 Repeal the Central District Drift Gillnet Management plans
162 Delete Central District Drift Gillnet plan
163 Amend the Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management plan
164 Amend regulation to clarify August fishing periods in the Central District
165 Reinstate sunset provision for directed Cook Inlet west side drift gillnet fishery
119 Identify Susitna River and Fish Creek as stocks with a yield concern under the
Sustainable Salmon Policy and create conservation corridor (also listed above under
Stocks of Concern)
UCI Kasilof Management Plan
166 Amend the Kasilof River Salmon Management plan
167 Revise Kasilof River management plan
168 Modify the Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan
169 Increase OEG based on updated data in the Kasilof and modify fishing periods
170 Open South Kenai Beach district whenever necessary to harvest in the Kasilof terminal
area
171 Move guided sport fishing regulations out of commercial fishing regulations
UCI Kasilof River Special Harvest Area
172 Specify use of Kasilof River Special Harvest Area
173 Limit use of Kasilof River Special Harvest Area
174 Eliminate Kasilof River Special Harvest Area
175 Establish corridor or time limits on nets to increase number of kings entering the Kasilof
River during July
176 Modify Kasilof River late-run king salmon periods
UCI Kasilof Escapement Goal
177 Direct department to manage the Kasilof River sockeye salmon primarily for commercial
uses
178 Modify OEG for Kasilof River sockeye
179 Increase Kenai River OEG
xxiv
180 Repeal the Kasilof Salmon Management plan
UCI Kasilof Distance from Shore
181 Increase area for set gillnet use and reduce area for drift gillnet use
182 Amend Kasilof River plan to limit Kenai River sockeye harvest
183 Limit gillnetters to one half mile from shore
184 Change area for set and drift gillnet use for Kasilof River
185 Expand Kasilof River special harvest area
186 Change area for set and drift gillnet use for Kasilof River
UCI Kenai Late Run Sockeye Management Plan
187 Directs the Kenai River late run sockeye salmon plan to be abundance based for all user
groups
188 Modify management plan for Kenai River late run sockeye salmon
189 Modify the Kenai River Late Run Sockeye Management Plan escapement goals
190 Modify Kenai River salmon escapement goals
191 Delete portions of Kenai River salmon late run sockeye plans
192 Modify Kenai River late-run sockeye plan
193 Modify Upper Cook Inlet management plan
194 Set Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goal range of 400,000 to 700,000
195 Repeal regulations that require mandatory time and area closures, windows and limit the
commissioner’s EO authority
196 Modify Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goals
197 Establish Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goal range of 400,000 – 700,000
198 Amend the Kenai River late run sockeye management plan for commercial uses and
establish escapement goals
199 Modify Kenai River salmon escapement goals
200 Remove windows for Kenai area
201 Modify Kenai River escapement goals
202 Amend windows provisions for Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Plan
203 Limit commercial fishing prior to availability of in-season run strength estimate
204 Eliminate regulatory language from the commercial plans that direct department to
minimize harvest of late run Kenai River kings in order to provide personal use, sport use
205 Revise Cook Inlet management plan and allocation
206 Amend Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon plan
207 Allow the commissioner to increase the bag limit up to 12 sockeye salmon if abundance
exceeds 4,000,000 salmon
208 Allow additional harvest opportunity when in-river sockeye abundance warrants
UCI Kenai Late-Run Sockeye Management Plan - Kenai River Special Harvest Area
209 Open a Kenai River Special Harvest Area
UCI Kenai Late Run Sockeye Management Plan - Create Russian River Commercial
Sockeye Management Plan
210 Increase commercial allocation of Russian River sockeye
SPORT FISHING - KENAI PENINSULA
Personal Use - Kenai Peninsula
211 Prohibit dipnetting on the Kenai River until BEG is met
212 Prohibit personal use dipnet fishery on Kenai River until escapement goals met
213 Link personal use dipnet openings to escapement numbers
xxv
214 Extend dipnet season on Kenai River
215 Increased harvest opportunity in personal use fishery in Kenai and Kasilof rivers
216 Increase Kasilof River personal use household limit
217 Reduce personal use fishery limit to 5 salmon per person, 25 per household
218 Lower annual limits for personal use salmon harvest to 20 for head of household and 5
for each dependent and no more than 50% of limit may be taken from the Kenai River
219 Lower annual limits for personal use salmon harvest to 15 for head of household and 5
for each dependent
220 Prohibit personal use dipnets with mesh size over 2 1/2 inches
221 Implement motor type restriction for dip net fishing from vessel
222 Restrict 2-stroke motor boat use in personal use fishery
223 Require motorized boats utilizing the personal use fishery to be anchored or without
power while fishing
224 Allow rod and reel in personal use fishery/Identify consumptive users as a person fishing
for winter supply
Kasilof River - Salmon
225 Increase days allowed to retain naturally-produced king salmon in the Kasilof River
226 Increase bag limit for hatchery stock king salmon on Kasilof River
227 Prohibit fishing after retaining a king salmon
228 Designate portion of Kasilof River as a king salmon spawning sanctuary
229 Prohibit power boats on Kasilof River
230 Restrict motorized use on portion of Kasilof River
231 Prohibit fishing from boat July 1-Aug. 15 in upper portion of Kasilof River
232 Allow motorized use during king salmon season on the Kasilof River
233 Allow anchoring of boats in portion of Kasilof River
234 Increase Kasilof River sockeye bag limit
Chickaloon River - Salmon
235 Open Chickaloon River to king salmon fishing
Kenai River Resident Species
236 Modify rainbow trout bag limits for Kenai River drainage lakes and ponds
237 Modify rainbow trout bag limits for Kenai River drainage lakes and ponds
238 Expand rainbow trout spawning closure from the outlet of Skilak Lake to the Upper
Killey River to include Dolly Varden
239 Reduce spawning closure season for rainbow trout
240 Prohibit all sport fishing during the rainbow trout spawning closure
241 Prohibit removing rainbow trout from the water during spawning closure
242 Prohibit removing rainbow trout or Dolly Varden from the water in catch and release
fishing
243 Require single, barbless hooks in Kenai River upstream of Lower Killey River from
August 21 - June 10
244 Require barbless hooks for rainbow trout or Dolly Varden in the Kenai River
245 Restrict gear for rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in portion of Kenai River
246 No fishing from anchored vessel in the swan sanctuary area, Skilak Lake /Kenai River
from June 15 – December 31
247 Eliminate size restriction on Dolly Varden for Kenai River
248 Increase the bag limit for Arctic Char in the Cooper Lake to 5 per day / 5 in possession
only one over 20 inch or longer
249 Decrease the daily bag limit for lake trout in Hidden Lake
xxvi
250 Allow up to five lines to fish for northern pike fishing in Arc Lake and Scout Lake
251 Allow up to five lines to fish for northern pike fishing in Stormy Lake
252 Prohibit releasing any northern pike while fishing in the Kenai Peninsula
Russian River
253 Close fishing from 100 yards above Ferry Cable to 25 yards below cable on Kenai River
254 Increase size of designated youth fishing area on the Kenai River
Kenai River King Salmon
255 Increase size and bag limits for jack kings in Kenai River
256 Delete bag limit for king salmon under 28 inches on Kenai River
257 Increase size and bag limits for jack kings in Kenai River
258 Increase the jack king salmon size limit from 20" to 25" in Cook Inlet freshwaters
259 Modify bag limit to allow retention of hatchery stock king salmon in the Kenai River
drainage
260 Modify bag limit to allow retention of hatchery stock king salmon in the Kenai River
drainage
261 Eliminate Kenai River early-run king salmon slot limit
262 Eliminate Kenai River early-run king salmon slot limit
263 Amend the slot limit season for early-run king salmon on the Kenai River
264 Extend early-run king salmon slot limit below the Soldotna Bridge through July 14
265 Restrict altering harvested king salmon to allow for length assessment
266 Restrict use of bait for early-run kings on portion of Kenai River
267 Allow use of bait in the early run Kenai River king salmon fishery starting May 1 or June 1
268 Extend Funny River, Slikok Creek, and Lower Killey River sanctuary closures through
July 31
269 Extend Funny River, Slikok Creek, and Lower Killey River sanctuary closures through
July 31 and expand Killey area
270 Extend Kenai River king salmon season through August 7
271 Extend late-run king salmon sport fishing season through August 10
272 Increase escapement goal for Kenai River late-run king salmon
273 Delete portions of Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon plan
274 Delete section (e) of Kenai River late-run king salmon management plan
275 Limit non-resident permits for king salmon on Kenai River
276 Establish annual limits for salmon fishing by non-resident anglers
277 Prohibit non-residents from exporting more than 125 pounds of fish
Kenai River Sockeye and Coho Salmon
278 Allow retention of sockeye salmon unintentionally hooked in the Kenai, Kasilof, and
Russian Rivers
279 Increase bag limit for coho salmon in Kenai Peninsula freshwater streams
280 Increase coho bag limit in Cook Inlet area rivers
281 Increase bag limit for coho salmon in the Kenai River
282 Extend the coho salmon fishing season through November on Lower Kenai River and
Skilak Lake
Kenai River Sport Fishing Vessel Restrictions
283 Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai River
284 Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai River
285 Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai River
286 Add one additional non-guided drift only day on the Kenai River
xxvii
287 Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai River
288 Make Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday drift-only days on Kenai River
289 Phase-in additional drift boats only days on Kenai River
290 Prohibit fishing from motorized vessel in Kenai River
291 Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection motors on the Kenai River
292 Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection motors on the Kenai River
293 Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection motors on the Kenai River
294 Regulate motorized use for fishing on the Kenai River to reduce hydrocarbon pollution
295 Reduce fishing hours or restrict motorized use to reduce hydrocarbon discharge into
Kenai River
296 Restrict outboard motors to 35 hp on the Kenai River
297 Prohibit king salmon fishing from boats during a 48 hour period on lower Kenai River
298 Prohibit non-residents from fishing from a vessel unless accompanied be a relative
between 6pm and 6am on the Kenai River
299 Open Kenai River below Soldotna Bridge to fishing from boats during king salmon
season
300 Require course for powerboat operation on Kenai River
301 Restrict use of motorized vessel for fishing on the Upper Kenai River near Kenai Lake
Guides - Kenai & Kasilof Rivers
302 Institute limited entry program for guides on Kenai and Kasilof rivers
303 Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm, to 7am - 7pm
304 Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm, to 7am - 7pm
305 Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm, to 8am - 8pm
306 Prohibit guide boats with clients in fishing holes 10 minutes prior to opening times
307 Prohibit guides with clients from being on the river prior to 1/2 hour before start time
308 Separate the guided and unguided sport fishers in the lower Kenai river by day and time
309 Prohibit Kenai River guiding on Thursdays in June and July
310 Prohibit guides from fishing on Kenai River on Sundays
311 Prohibit guides from fishing on Kenai River on Sundays
312 Restrict licensed guides while fishing during non-guide hours on Kenai River
313 Limit guides on the Kenai River to only one client or group of clients per day during July
314 Restrict Kenai River guiding to one trip per day
315 Restrict Kenai River and Kasilof River guides to one trip per day on either river
316 Limit guides to only one client or group of clients per day for Upper Cook Inlet Rivers
317 Require guides to register for either the Kenai River or the Kasilof River
318 Restrict same day guiding on both Kenai and Kasilof rivers
319 Prohibit Kasilof River guided fishing when the Kenai River is closed to guided fishing.
320 Prohibit Kasilof River guided fishing on Mondays
321 Allow Kenai River guides to operate on Sundays in May and June, and no hour
restrictions in May
322 Repeal the guide boat prohibition on Mondays in the Kenai River
323 Allow guides to fish from drift boats on the Kenai River in July
324 Allow a guide boat on the Kenai River to carry six persons instead of five during the
month of July
325 Designate one day per week on the Kenai River late run to guided anglers only
326 Allow guided fishing 7 days per week with each individual guide allowed 5 days per
week on the Kenai River
327 Eliminate Sunday closure for guides on the Kasilof River
328 Modify regulation prohibiting fishing by sport fishing guides when clients are present on
the Kenai River
xxviii
329 Align vessel registration regulations with DNR requirements that allow for un-registering
guide vessels
SPORT FISHING - NORTHERN COOK INLET
Susitna River/West Cook Inlet - Salmon
330 Reduce open periods for king salmon sport fishing in Alexander Creek drainage
331 Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek
332 Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek
333 Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek
334 Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek
335 Allow 24 hour fishing for king salmon in Unit 1 of the Susitna River drainage
336 Allow use of bait for king salmon fishing in Unit 1 of the Susitna River drainage
337 Increase bag limit for king salmon in Deshka River
338 Allow 24-hour fishing in Deshka River
339 Extend king salmon season in the Deshka River based upon escapement counts.
340 Amend season dates for king salmon fishing in Unit 2 of the Susitna River Drainage
341 Allow multiple hooks two weeks earlier for king salmon fishing in Unit 2 of the Susitna
River drainage
342 Increase bag limit of coho salmon for Alaskan residents in Parks Highway streams and
Talkeetna River
343 Delay bait restrictions on Talkeetna River
West Cook Inlet - Salmon
344 Close Chuitna River to sport fishing above old cable crossing
Knik Arm - Salmon
345 Require unbaited, artificial lures year-round on the Little Susitna River
346 Allow use of bait in the Little Susitna River king salmon fishery from July 1 -13
347 Apply vessel restriction on Little Susitna River
348 Extend waters open to king salmon fishing near Eklutna Tailrace
Resident Species
349 Allow use of bait on Big Lake
350 Establish a spawning closure and decrease bag limit for burbot in Big Lake
351 Decrease bag limit for burbot in Big Lake
352 Modify pike fishing for selected Upper Cook Inlet streams
353 Increase number of lines allowed for pike fishing in Shell Lake
354 Allow up to 12 lines for pike while ice fishing in Northern Cook Inlet
355 Liberalize methods and means for northern pike in fishing Deshka, Yenta, and Susitna
drainages
Personal Use - Northern Cook Inlet
356 Establish personal use fisheries in selected Upper Cook Inlet drainages
357 Establish a limit for hooligan harvest in Cook Inlet
358 Open a personal use salmon fishery in the Beluga area
xxix
ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES
March 3-9, 2008
KING AND TANNER CRAB (STATEWIDE EXCEPT SOUTHEAST/YAKUTAT)
AND SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES
PROPOSAL INDEX
Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general
topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.
PROP SUBJECT
NO.
Cook Inlet Personal Use Tanner Crab Fishery
359 Establish and refine management criteria sport and personal use crab fisheries in Cook
Inlet
360 Open a personal use bairdi tanner crab fishery between Gore Point to Cape Puget
Prince William Sound Personal Use Tanner Crab Fishery
361 Allow personal use fishery for golden or brown and red king crab in Prince William
Sound
362 Open personal use Tanner crab season in Port Valdez
363 Allow a personal use tanner crab season in areas of Prince William Sound
364 Open personal use crab fishery in Prince William Sound
365 Open personal use crab fishery in Prince William Sound
Kodiak Tanner Crab
366 Repeal superexclusive registration
367 Implement differential pot limits for big and small vessels
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab
368 Provide for voluntary transfer of CDQ allocation overage between groups
369 Provide for partial observer coverage in Bering Sea Tanner crab fishery
370 Modify preseason vessel registration requirements for rationalized fisheries
371 Modify preseason vessel registration for Bering Sea Tanner crab
372 Clarify IFQ crab fisheries management plan
373 Define incidental and directed Tanner crab fishing for rationalized fisheries and clarify
registration for concurrent harvest of Tanner crab with Bristol Bay red king and Bering
Sea snow crab
374 In rationalized fisheries, allow pot gear to be transferred and operated by another vessel
after vessel that originally registered the pot gear has unregistered
375 Clarify gear storage for rationalized crab fisheries
376 Repeal Tanner and snow crab pot limit and buoy tags
377 Repeal Bristol Bay pot limit and buoy tags
378 Allow 20 pots configured for groundfish to capture bait for use in the Bristol Bay red
king crab fishery
379 Allow 20 pots configured for groundfish to capture bait for use in the Bristol Bay red
crab fishery
380 Develop Pribilof red king crab management plan
xxx
381 Reduce or repeal St. Matthew blue king crab minimum total allowable catch for fishery
to open
Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab
382 Increase biodegradable cotton thread size for golden king crab
383 Increase harvest level in the golden king crab fishery
384 Increase time that golden king crab gear may be left unattended prior to storage
385 Establish Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab regulatory harvest strategy
386 Establish Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab districts
Norton Sound
387 Start open access Norton Sound king crab fishery on June 15
388 Modify opening of Norton Sound king crab fishery
389 Reduce size limit for blue king crab in Norton Sound
390 Modify escape mechanisms for king crab pots in Norton Sound
391 Require galvanic release or other thread for Nome winter king crab fishery
xxxi
LOWER COOK INLET FINFISH
PROPOSAL 1 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Open Anchor River
king salmon fishery 6 days a week as follows:
The Anchor River is open daily from May 25 to June 25 except on Mondays. Everything else
including the closed areas and bag limits can stay in effect.
ISSUE: Open the Anchor River king fishery six days per week from May 25 to June 25. The
fishery shall remain closed on Mondays. There are 5 to 10 times as many kings as were
previously thought. This stock is larger than the Kenai early run and a huge surplus is going
virtually untapped. In Cook Inlet we fight over a few kings in the Kenai and let these go to
waste.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will be thousands of kings wasted
each year in an area where there is no fight for who gets the fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Gary Simmons (HQ-07F-230)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 2 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and exceptions
to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai
Peninsula Area. Open Anchor River king salmon fishery 5 days per week as follows:
Open Anchor River 5 days a week.
ISSUE: 10,000-15,000 kings returning to Anchor River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Wasted fish, more bears.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, makes more opportunity.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
1
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-041)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 3 - 5 AAC 56.122(a)(2). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Modify king salmon season opening date on the Anchor River as
follows:
The board should consider going back to the original timing of yesteryear: The Anchor River
shall be open for five 3-day weekends, starting on Saturday of Memorial weekend, and
continuing for another four consecutive 3-day weekends.
ISSUE: The timing of the open season for the five 3-day king salmon fishing weekends on the
Anchor River is less than desirable, for optimizing the overall fishing experience. The first 3-day
opener for kings on the Anchor River is the weekend before Memorial weekend. The river is
usually unfishable at least 80% of the time, on that weekend opener can be a marginal
experience, for these same reasons.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Small numbers of fish, if any, will
continue to be harvested on that first 3-day opener. Fishermen may take unnecessary risks to fish
in extremely high water conditions, which could create dangerous situations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the quality of the flesh of king salmon harvested in less
turbid waters, can be considerably better than the flesh taken in muddy conditions.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen will benefit, where their chances for a
quality fishing experience are optimized, in a limited 15 day season.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-248)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 4 - 5 AAC 56.122(a)(2),(5). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Increase the annual limit for king salmon on the Anchor River and
Deep Creek as follows:
The new regulation would mention no limits to the number of fish taken yearly on the Anchor
River and Deep Creek. By omission, the annual limit of 5 king salmon would apply. This would
revert the regulation back to the way it was, before it was changed to its present state.
ISSUE: The Board should consider a more liberal regulation in regards to numbers of king
salmon kept on the Anchor River and Deep Creek, to prevent the resource from being
underutilized. The current king salmon regulations for the Anchor River and Deep Creek allow
the taking of no more than 2 king salmon 20 inches or longer each year from these two rivers
2
combined. Recent escapement data, collected over the past three years, (particularly on the
Anchor River), has shown healthy populations of king salmon, which should support a more
relaxed regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE?
Unnecessary caution will prevail, which will limit the number of fish that can be taken on these
already restricted rivers, and the underutilization of the resource.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen will benefit, and it will simplify the
regulations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-250)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 5 - 5 AAC 56.122(a)(2),(5). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Allow catch and release fishing after retaining a king salmon on the
Anchor River and Deep Creek as follows:
The new regulation would mention nothing about having to stop fishing after keeping your daily
limit of one fish. By omission, catching and releasing would be allowed whenever the river was
open for king salmon fishing, as it was before the current regulation was adopted.
ISSUE: The Board should consider a more liberal regulation in regards to king salmon fishing
on the Anchor River and Deep Creek, to prevent the resource from being underutilized. The
current king salmon regulations for the Anchor River and Deep Creek do not allow any fishing
on either river on that same day, if one king salmon 20” or longer has been taken. Recent
escapement data, collected over the past three years, (particularly on the Anchor River), has
shown healthy populations of king salmon, which should support a more relaxed regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unnecessary caution will prevail, which
will continue to limit the amount of fishing time on these already restricted rivers, and the
underutilization of the resource.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen who enjoy spending quality time on these
amazing rivers will benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered.
3
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-249)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 6 - 5 AAC 58.005. Description of the Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay
Saltwater Area. Reduce the conservation corridor dates in the Early-Run King Salmon Special
Harvest Area around the Anchor River as follows:
Lift the restrictions for the conservation corridor for the Anchor River on June 25. The vast
majority of Chinooks bound for the Anchor are in the stream.
ISSUE: The July 1 date for lifting trolling restrictions off the mouth of the Anchor River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Trolling for second run salmon will be
restricted off the mouth of the Anchor River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fishing opportunities for saltwater anglers will be improved.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Saltwater fishermen/women.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None considered.
PROPOSED BY: Clive Tallington (HQ-07F-329)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 7 - 5 AAC 58.005. Description of the Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay
Saltwater Area. Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River from 4 miles to 2 miles in the
Early-Run King Salmon Special Harvest Area as follows:
Return the markers to their former positions - one mile north and south of the river mouth.
ISSUE: The closure at the mouth of the Anchor River during the early run of Chinook salmon It
is presently, two miles north and south of the river mouth and extends one mile offshore.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Loss of trolling opportunity for salmon
anglers. Restricts near shore halibut fishing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The regulation change will enhance the quality of the fishing
experience (less crowding).
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All salt water fishermen/women that fish out of Anchor
Point.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminate markers - no protection for salmon.
4
PROPOSED BY: Clive Talkington, Doug Peterson (HQ-07F-330)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 8 - 5 AAC 58.055. Upper Cook Inlet Salt Water Early-run King Salmon
Management Plan. Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River and Deep Creek in the Early-
Run King Salmon Special Harvest Area as follows:
Early run king salmon special harvest area conservation zones would be one mile south of the
mouth of Deep Creek, one mile north of the mouth of the Anchor River and one mile south of the
mouth of the Anchor River.
ISSUE: Saltwater king salmon fishery is only harvesting 45 percent of the GHL of 8,000 king
salmon. The conservation zones are too restrictive. Sport fisherman should be given increased
opportunity to harvest king salmon in the marine fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishing for king salmon in the
marine waters of Cook Inlet will remain 55 percent under the GHL, in all fairness if the GHL is
8,000 king salmon we would like the opportunity.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, increased opportunity to saltwater fisherman for king
salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Saltwater sport fisherman who fish for king salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, all local streams are meeting escapement goals for
king salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Deep Creek Charterboat Association (HQ-07F-189)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 9 - 5 AAC 58.055. Upper Cook Inlet Salt Water Early-run King Salmon
Management Plan. Reduce closed area at mouth of Anchor River and Deep Creek in the Early-
Run King Salmon Special Harvest Area as follows:
Allow fishing in the saltwater for early run king salmon within one mile of the Anchor River and
Deep Creek.
ISSUE: Unnecessarily restriction in the saltwater troll fishery for early run kings. No
conservation concern exists today and the restriction should be repealed.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of harvest opportunity on
surplus stocks.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers.
5
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (HQ-07F-375)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 10 - 5 AAC 56.122(6). Waters; seasons; and bag, possession, and size limits;
and special provisions for the Kenai Peninsula Area (excluding the Kenai River drainage).
Amend these regulations to allow fishing for hatchery king salmon in the Ninilchik River seven
days per week as follows:
(6) Ninilchik River drainage
(C) is open to sport fishing from the mouth upstream to ADF&G regulatory
markers located approximately two miles upstream beginning Memorial Day weekend
through December 31.
[(i) ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AND THE FOLLOWING TWO
WEEKENDS AND THE MONDAY FOLLOWING EACH OF THOSE
WEEKENDS; AND]
[(ii) FROM JULY 1 – DECEMBER 31;]
(D) open to sport fishing for king salmon from its mouth upstream to ADF&G
regulatory markers located approximately two miles upstream [ON MEMORIAL DAY
WEEKEND AND THE FOLLOWING TWO WEEKENDS AND THE MONDAY
FOLLOWING EACH OF THOSE WEEKENDS] beginning Memorial Day weekend through
December 31; naturally produced king salmon may be retained only on Memorial Day
weekend and the following two weekends and the Monday following each of those weekends;
for the purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘naturally produced” king salmon is a king salmon with
an intact adipose fin; a person may not remove a king salmon from the water before releasing
the fish; bag and possession limit two king salmon 20 inches or greater in length, of which only
one may be a naturally produced king salmon; annual limit of five king salmon 20 inches or
greater in length; a harvest record card is required as specified in 5 AAC 56.124; a king salmon
20 inches or greater in length that is removed from the water must be retained and becomes a
part of the bag limit of the person originally hooking it; a person may not remove a king salmon
from the water before releasing the fish;
ISSUE: The harvest opportunity for surplus hatchery king salmon in the Ninilchik River sport
fishery is currently underutilized by the angling public within the present bag and possession limit
and season regulations. King salmon are stocked in the Ninilchik River to provide additional
harvest opportunity for sport anglers. In fall of 2004, the BOF passed a regulation, effective in 2005,
to increase the bag and possession limits in the Ninilchik River to two king salmon, only one of
which could be wild but both could be of hatchery origin. Despite this liberalization of the bag and
possession limits for hatchery fish, the number of hatchery fish escaping the sport fishery to the
ADF&G weir located upstream, remained near previous levels of approximately 500. A fishery
extension by Emergency Order in 2006 following the second regulatory weekend opened the
fishery for hatchery fish throughout the remainder of the king salmon run increased harvest and
lowered escapement to the weir to 273 king salmon. Additional opportunity is available to harvest
stocked fish in the Ninilchik River without negatively impacting the wild king salmon run or
salmon spawning and rearing habitat.
6
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Stocked king salmon that could be
harvested will continue to escape the sport fishery in the Ninilchik.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers that fish in the Ninilchik River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-287)
*******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 11 - 5 AAC 56.122(a)(6). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Allow harvest of hatchery king salmon 7 days per week on Ninilchik
River as follows:
Allow the harvesting of hatchery king salmon 7 days per week on the Ninilchik River, starting
on the Saturday of Memorial weekend, and continuing through July 15. Wild king salmon would
only be retained on the original three 3 day weekends, starting on the Saturday of Memorial
weekend. The waters open to the harvesting of hatchery king salmon would be the same as the
open season for wild king salmon.
ISSUE: The opportunity to harvest surplus hatchery king salmon in the Ninilchik River is
currently underutilized by fishermen. The present regulation allows an open season for
harvesting king salmon, that is limited to 3-day weekends, or nine days per year. It’s only been
by emergency order from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, that fishermen have been
allowed an extended open season for harvesting hatchery king salmon. Fish and Game has
sufficient data to support an increase in the open season for harvesting hatchery kings on a
regular basis, without negatively impacting the biological escapement goal for wild king salmon
on the Ninilchik River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Large numbers of hatchery king salmon
will continue to be underutilized by sports fishermen on the Ninilchik River, and surplus
hatchery kings will escape to their spawning grounds. The failure to take advantage of this
fishing opportunity could almost be considered illegal. Section 2 of the Alaska Constitution says
on the subject of resource management: “The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and
waters, for the maximum benefit of it’s people.”
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, because it allows prime quality fish to be taken
throughout the migration of hatchery king salmon through the open season waters of Ninilchik
River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen who enjoy fishing for king salmon on the
Ninilchik River will benefit. Also, service providers and tourist related businesses could see an
7
increase in their sales, as more people visit the Ninilchik area. This increase in visitors would not
be so concentrated in the current 9 day season, but would be spread out over a longer period of
time.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one would suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-246)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 12 - 5 AAC 56.122(a)(6). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Reduce king salmon bag limit on Ninilchik River as follows:
The Board is urged to go back to the original regulation that allows for the taking of 1 king
salmon 20 inches or longer per day, and 1 fish in possession, during the open season on the
Ninilchik River. This change, along with the hopeful acceptance by the board of a separate
proposal to increase the open season on the Ninilchik River, will provide a quality and effective
fishing experience on the Ninilchik River.
ISSUE: The current bag limit regulation for king salmon on the Ninilchik River is too liberal,
and is not necessary to provide a quality fishing experience on the river. In fact, this regulation
has done the opposite, by helping to facilitate overcrowded conditions on Ninilchik River. The
daily bag limit for king salmon 20 inches or longer during the open season on the Ninilchik
River, was increased from 1 fish to 2 fish at the Board of Fisheries meetings in November of
2004. This liberal bag limit was enacted, instead of accepting the proposal from Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, which would have extended the open season on the Ninilchik
River, to harvest the underutilized hatchery king salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? To continue with the current regulation
only encourages overcrowding on the Ninilchik River, since it is the only river on the Kenai
Peninsula that allows the taking of 2 king salmon 20 inches or longer per day. People who have
already kept one king salmon on another river will be lured to the Ninilchik River on the same
day, in hopes of keeping another king. With the present regulation, which allows an open season
of only nine days, this puts a lot of additional fishing pressure on this river, during those nine
days.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen who enjoy fishing the Ninilchik River will
benefit by having less overcrowded conditions.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-247)
******************************************************************************
8
PROPOSAL 13 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Prohibit use of
weighted hooks in the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon as follows:
The use of weighted hooks and weights that follow hooks in The Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon as
associated waters during periods closed to snagging will be prohibited. If a flotation device,
such as a bobber is utilized, no other gear (hooks, weights, etc.) may be used on the line between
the flotation device and the pole
ISSUE: In 1988, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted a regulation whereby snagging would
be permitted on and adjacent to the Homer Spit only after June 23 and only by emergency order
when stocked fish could not be adequately harvested by conventional fishing methods. “Snag”
means to hook a fish elsewhere than in the mouth of the fish. The use of weighted hooks and
hooks with weights below the hook, or the practice of installing a hook a few feet above a
drooping line leading from the flotation device to the pole are the most common tackle of
violators caught snagging and retaining the fish. The described setups result in a high incidence
of fish hooked on the body area other than in the mouth. These practices are increasing in
popularity in the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon when the fishery is not open to snagging. Gear
setups purportedly intended to mouth-snare salmon swimming in the lagoon should not be
utilized before legal snagging is allowed. The flotation and weighted setups are designed to let
the fisherman rip their line when the fish swim into it. The line must be lightweight so that the
salmon cannot easily perceive it. These setups break off easily leaving the hooks, lines, and
flotation devices attached to the fish. The constant slashing of tackle through the water agitates
and harasses the schools until they no longer respond to sanctioned sport fishing methods. A
substantial number of fish are illegally snagged and kept utilizing these methods. It is therefore
justified to eliminate this gearing during periods when the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon is closed
to snagging.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will no longer be an opportunity to
successfully sport fish in the lagoon when the tide is not running through the sea channel. At low
tide, the fish trapped inside will continue to be beleaguered and molested by bobber snagging
and tight-line techniques to a point where they are no longer receptive to conventional baits or
lures.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? A significantly reduced quantity of salmon will be illegally
snagged, abused then released improperly, injured, or simply kept. It would provide more
fisherman access to quality fresh fish and less of dying salmon damaged by the scofflaws who
now utilize the aforementioned techniques.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Individuals and groups who enjoy and wish to practice true
sports fishing where their proficiency and aptitudes are challenged. The lagoon will, once again,
be an excellent place to teach fishing skills to children and visitors.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer by having to follow simple fair catch
rules.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Nick C. Varney (HQ-07F-185)
******************************************************************************
9
PROPOSAL 14 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Increase bag limit of
king salmon under 20 inches in Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon as follows:
The regulation for king salmon under 20” long at the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon and
associated waters should be the same as it is in the Kenai Peninsula fresh waters that are open for
the taking of king salmon. In other words, 10 king salmon under 20” long would be allowed per
day and 10 in possession. This would also reduce confusion in jack king regulations for bank
accessible fisheries
ISSUE: King salmon under 20” long at the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon are underutilized.
Currently at the fishing lagoon, any king salmon kept under 20” long, or commonly referred to as
jack kings, are counted toward the daily bag limit of two king salmon. These jack kings are not
included in the five king salmon yearly limit for Cook Inlet, but most people don’t keep jack
kings, because they are hoping to keep two kings over 20” long. It is understood that in salt
water, small king salmon may be at their early stage of development, and will continue to grow
to adult size. But, this is not the case with the lagoon Kings, as they arrive in the lagoon with
hopes of spawning, just like jack Kings that enter our river systems.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? King salmon under 20” long will
continue to be underutilized, even though they could provide quality food, while they are still
bright and active biters.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by encouraging the keeping of kings under 20” long,
these fish can be utilized in their prime state, rather than allowing the majority of them to be
snagged during the emergency order in late June, when most of them are past their prime.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All people who enjoy fishing for kings at the fishing
lagoon will benefit, especially the kids. Children can have a tough time landing a normal size
king salmon, but would have a sense of pride in catching and keeping a few jack kings, and
providing quality meat for their family.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions were considered.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Sinnhuber (HQ-07F-251)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 15 - 5 AAC 77.549. Personal Use Coho Salmon Fishery Management Plan.
Prohibit personal use gill nets within a thousand yards of the Nick Dudiak Fishing Lagoon as
follows:
No subsistence nets may be utilized within a thousand yards of the entrance to the Nick Dudiak
Fishing Lagoon.
ISSUE: On certain dates in August, personal use nets are allowed within two hundred yards of
the northwest channel entrance to the Nike Dudiak Fishing Lagoon. These nets take a large
10
number of the silvers designated for the lagoon’s sport fishery. The personal use set net fishery
was originally developed to harvest Fox Creek and Fritz Creek silvers, but those runs have been
diminished significantly. The silver run at the fishing lagoon now bears the brunt of these nets,
depleting the number of fish available for sport fishing enthusiast. The problem has been
exacerbated by some of the operators using boats to drive the fish into the nets from the area
around the mouth of the lagoon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The nets will continue to take large
numbers of silvers designated to return to the fishing lagoon. The quality of fishing will continue
to be dramatically reduced during the days designated for the set net openings. The overt
“herding of fish” away from the lagoon’s entrance will continue to propagate a negative
experience for visitors and locals, who suffer a degraded fishery while the nets are in the water.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Visitors and locals will have access to more silvers
designated to return to the lagoon because they will not be competing with an August personal
use set net fishery and “herding” boats.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The personal use net operators may not catch as many fish
when they cannot concentrate closer to the lagoon. But, the lagoon fishery was not intended to
fill these nets in the first place.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminate subsistence net fishing on the Homer Spit.
Recanted because there are other salon available that are not designated to return to the lagoon.
PROPOSED BY: Nick C. Varney (HQ-07F-184)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 16 - 5 AAC 58.022(b)(2). Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits;
and special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Prohibit sport
fishing in Tutka Bay Lagoon and near the Tutka Bay lagoon hatchery net pens as follows:
Add the following season to 5 AAC 58.022 (b):
(E) salmon, in the waters of Tutka Bay Lagoon and within 100 yards of the Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery net pens, may only be taken from September 15 to June 30.
ISSUE: The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA) is developing a sockeye return to
Tutka Bay Lagoon to provide brood stock for salmon enhancement at Leisure, Hazel and
Kirschner Lakes. Returning adult fish will be captured throughout the return and placed in
saltwater net pens for maturation. To allow CIAA to capture fish throughout the return and
minimize disturbance to the captured brook stock during the maturation process. CIAA requests
the Board limit the sport fishing season within 100 yards of the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery net
pens from September 16 to June 30.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Brood stock and gamete collections for
Lower Cook Inlet salmon enhancement projects will be compromised. Disturbances during
brood stock maturation will result in poor gamete quality and reduced brood stock survival.
Brood stock and gamete shortages will reduce sockeye returns to Leisure, Hazel and Kirschner
Lakes. Leisure, Hazel, and Kirschner Lakes support popular sport and commercial fisheries.
11
Conflicts will also arise between CIAA brood stock collection activities and sport fishing
activities.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of the salmon harvested by sport or commercial
fishing activities will not be changed; however, the quality of the brood stock and gametes
collected for hatchery operations will be improved. Improved brood stocks and gamete quality
will also reduce the incidence of disease during hatchery incubation and rearing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association will benefit by
having and easily accessible source of brood stock and gametes to continue sockeye salmon
enhancement projects at Leisure, Hazel and Kirschner Lakes. Sport and commercial fishers and
the businesses which depend on these groups will benefit from consistent returns to the
enhancement projects supported by brood stock and gametes collected from the Tutka Bay
Lagoon net pens
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A small pink salmon sport fishery exists in Tutka Bay
Lagoon. The fishing activity of this sport fishery will be restricted from the net pen area from
June 30 through September 15.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association considered
collecting brood stock and gametes from sockeye returns to Leisure Lake. To accomplish brood
stock and gamete collections at Leisure Lake, a portion of the established sport fishing activities
would need to be restricted. This solution was rejected because an existing sport fishery would
need to be restricted.
PROPOSED BY: Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (HQ-07F-428)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 17 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Close sport and
personal use sockeye fishing in Tuka Bay Lagoon as follows:
No sockeye salmon can be harvested by personal use or sport fishing gear inside the Tutka Bay
Lagoon.
ISSUE: Sport - personal use harvest of sockeye salmon in Tutka Bay Lagoon needs to be
prohibited.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The hatchery will likely fail to harvest
cost recovery sockeye salmon needed to meet revenue goals.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, prohibiting the harvest of sockeye salmon inside the
Lagoon will allow cost recovery operations to harvest bright sockeye.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All salmon harvesters in Lower Cook Inlet. Currently the
hatchery is failing to meet revenue goals and will fail economically.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Without hatchery provided salmon, the sockeye in
Resurrection Bay, China Pool, Kirshner, and other planted hatchery releases will end.
12
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Leroy L. Cabana (HQ-07F-103)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 18 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Remove spiny dogfish
from the sport bag limit for sharks as follows:
The solution should include removing the spiny dogfish from the sport fish bag limit for sharks,
reclassifying them in the miscellaneous finfish category in sport fishing regulations. This
reclassification is not meant to allow mutilation or wanton waste of spiny dogfish but may
encourage a moderately increased take by sport fishermen for use as food, bait or other species,
or other legitimate purposes.
ISSUE: We respectfully request that the Board of Fisheries address the ballooning population of
spiny dogfish (Squallus acanthias) in the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet
waters. Spiny Dogfish are a voracious, opportunistic predator. Dogfish compete for food with
other indigenous populations of fish within these areas and consume quantities of juvenile fish
such as salmon, rockfish, and cod.
“Their principal food appears to be herring, sandlance, smelt, and euphausiids. Their diet also
includes some 27 other fish species and 13 varieties of invertebrates, many of which are
commercially important (Hart 1980). Dogfish are also known to prey on juvenile salmon.”
(Conservation Institute, 2003)
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the escalating population of dogfish in
these areas is not addressed it may have disastrous effects on the populations of many other fish
such as salmon, halibut, cod, and rockfish as they compete with and/or are consumed by spiny
dogfish. The huge, quickly growing population of dogfish has the potential to affect the health
and balance of the ecosystem in the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet.
Dogfish are negatively affecting subsistence, sport, and commercial fisheries.
“Anecdotal accounts of increasing numbers of dogfish in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of
Alaska are supported by time series of relative abundance (catch per unit effort) for dogfish
compiled from International Pacific Halibut Commission longline survey data, and longline
surveys conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Prince William Sound. Spiny
dogfish catch rates have increased 5-fold in Prince William Sound and 20-fold in the central Gulf
of Alaska between Nuka Point and Cape St. Elias since 1994.” (Conservation Institute 2003)
“The spiny dogfish often has a negative impact on commercial fisheries as it displaces or chases
off other fishes, gets hooked or netted in gear intended for other species, damages fishing gear,
and often destroys hooked and netted fishes.” (Conservation Institute, 2003)
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is brought about out of concert for the
populations of Alaska’s most desired species of commercial and sport fish as the spiny dogfish
competes with and/or consumes these other species.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The primary beneficiary of this change would be other
13
species of finfish, ground fish, and invertebrates that compete with spiny dogfish for food or who
are consumed by spiny dogfish. These include all species of salmon, halibut, rockfishes, other
bottom fish and invertebrates.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The spiny dogfish currently is not a species harvested for
any purpose, commercial or sport. Therefore, moderately increased removal by sport fishermen
should have no ill effect on any sector.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Seward Charter Boat Association (HQ-07F-214)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 19 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Reduce daily
possession limit of rockfish between Gore Point to Cape Point as follows:
From Gore Point to Cape Puget, reduce the daily possession limit to the first 4 rock fish caught,
one of which can be a dismissal rock fish.
ISSUE: Charter vessels targeting pelagic rock fish, specifically the black and dusky rock fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The present pelagic rock fish limit is 5
per day and 10 in possession. The non-pelagic limit is one per day, 2 in possession. Some charter
operations are offering half day rock fish trips departing from Seward. Many charters stop at
Cape Resurrection to get limits of rock fish on their way back to the dock at the end of the day.
There is concern in the community that when the new regulations come into effect for the halibut
fleet, some of the existing fleet will be displaced and will be putting more pressure on the rock
fish resource. There is not adequate population data to allow managers to make informed
decision concerning harvests. There is good data supporting the theory that these fish to not
release well and live long lives. Embolisms occur even if the fish looks fine upon release. These
fish grow slowly. The oldest dusky rock fish caught in Resurrection Bay was 62 years old.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Reducing the limit from 5 fish to 4 would result in a 4 percent
decline in harvest. Little is known about rock fish populations or the future charter harvest. We
advise the application of sound, precautionary conservation management practice.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The rock fish resource and anglers in the future who would
enjoy catching rock fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Charter operators who are running dedicated rock fish trips
and those that will be froze out of the sport halibut fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Limiting daily bag limits to one per day. This was
seen as excessive due to the lack of biological data in support of this action.
PROPOSED BY: Seward Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-349)
****************************************************************************
14
PROPOSAL 20 - 5 AAC 58.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for Cook Inlet - Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Establish a youth only
fishery in the Seward lagoon area as follows:
Establish a children’s only fishery in the ditch leading to the Seward Lagoon and the Seward
Lagoon to run two weekends for kings and two weekends for coho. The fishery would be limited
to a single artificial hook. Bait and bobber fishing would be allowed. Snagging would not be
allowed. The fishery would occur June 23, 24, and 25 and July 14, 15, and 16 for kings and
August 4, 5, and 6 and September 1, 2, and 3 for coho. Limits for kings would be two per day,
two in possession. Limits for coho would be three per day and three in possession.
ISSUE: There is a lack of salmon fishing opportunities for children in the Seward area. There
are surplus coho and king salmon from the ADF&G’s stocking program which return to the
Seward Lagoon. This is not spawning habitat and there is no fishing allowed in the lagoon. The
area is relatively small and includes the ditch leading to the lagoon and the lagoon itself. These
fish that are not caught are considered by the Department to be ‘wasted’.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Escapement of stocked fish will
continue into the Seward Lagoon. Children will be subjected to the snag beach fishery if they
want to catch salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Children’s fishery would expand educational opportunities.
Hopefully this would get young people interested in fishing at an early age and they would
continue the sport through adulthood. Excess stocked fish could be put to a good use instead of
dying with no chance of spawning in the Seward Lagoon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Future sport fishers and our fishery resources.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We discussed placing a grate across the culvert that
would not allow the fish to pass through to the Lagoon. This was rejected because of the problem
of maintaining such a grate and who the responsibility would fall to.
PROPOSED BY: Seward Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-351)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 21 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and exceptions
to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai
Peninsula Area. Open a sockeye salmon fishery in the Resurrection River as follows:
After June 15, allow fishing for salmon with a single artificial lure in the Resurrection River
drainage, downstream from the Seward Highway and downstream from Nash Road. Bag limits
would be three per day and three in possession.
ISSUE: Lack of fresh water salmon fishing opportunity in the Resurrection Bay drainage.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The only salmon fishery available to
anglers will be the snagging in saltwater. Lack of opportunity for ‘sport’ fishing versus
15
‘consumptive’ fishing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Opening a limited fresh water salmon fishery on June 15
would allow anglers who are more interested in sport than production to have an opportunity to
participate in a fishery that was not snagging. By keeping the limit lower than the saltwater limit,
people who wanted to fill their freezer would snag in the salt and people who wanted a fresh
water fishing experience would have the opportunity to do so.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who desire a less crowded and more sporting
fishing experience.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? As fresh water fishing in June has been illegal since
statehood, this is unknown.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Opening larger areas of the drainage to salmon sport
fishing. This was rejected due to enforcement and property ownership issues.
PROPOSED BY: Seward Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-352)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 22 - 5 AAC 01.570. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Amend this
regulation to allow the retention of rockfish and lingcod when harvested with gear that is legal in
other subsistence fisheries.
5 AAC 01.570. Lawful gear and gear specifications.
(m) Lingcod may be taken only by a single hand troll, single hand-held line, or single
longline, none of which may have more than five hooks attached to it, except that lingcod taken
incidentally in another subsistence finfish fishery may be retained for subsistence purposes
as described in 5 AAC 01.560(l) and 5 AAC 01.595(c);
(n) Rockfish may be taken only by a single hand troll, single hand-held line, or single
longline, none of which may have more than five hooks attached to it, except that rockfish
taken incidentally in another subsistence finfish fishery may be retained for subsistence
purposes as described in 5 AAC 01.595(d).
ISSUE: In that portion of the Cook Inlet Area outside the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai
Nonsubsistence Area as defined in 5 AAC 99.015, subsistence halibut fishers catch rockfish and
lingcod on subsistence gear utilizing more hooks than currently allowed under subsistence
regulations for rockfish and lingcod. This proposal would allow subsistence-caught rockfish and
lingcod to be retained up to the daily bag limit in the Lower Cook Inlet Area when harvested
with gear that is legal in other subsistence fisheries but not allowed for the directed harvest of
rockfish and lingcod.
Subsistence regulations for the Cook Inlet area specify that rockfish and lingcod may only be
taken by a single hand troll, single hand-held line, or single longline, none of which may have
more than five hooks attached to it. Current federal halibut subsistence regulations allow for the
use of up to 30 hooks per person, for eligible individuals who have obtained a Subsistence
Halibut Registration Certificate from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Board of
16
Fisheries has found that rockfish and lingcod in the Cook Inlet Area outside the boundary of the
nonsubsistence area are customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence, and has
established amounts reasonably necessary for subsistence uses of these fish stocks (5 AAC
01.566).
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Subsistence halibut fishers would continue
to be unable to legally retain rockfish and lingcod caught while legally subsistence fishing for
halibut with more than five hooks.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence fishers of halibut, rockfish, and lingcod.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-277)
******************************************************************************
17
CHIGNIK FINFISH
PROPOSAL 23 - 5 AAC 01.475(2). Waters closed to subsistence fishing. This proposal would
amend the regulation to allow subsistence salmon fishing in the Chignik Lake tributaries of Clark
River and Home Creek.
5 AAC 01.475. Waters closed to subsistence fishing.
(2) in Black Lake, or any tributary to Black Lake or Chignik Lakes except those
waters of Clark River and Home Creek from their confluence with Chignik Lake upstream
one linear mile.
ISSUE: During some years the present regulation may not provide reasonable opportunity for
subsistence users to meet their needs.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Subsistence fishermen will continue to have
limited opportunity to harvest their late season subsistence salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Area subsistence salmon users, fishery managers,
and Division of Subsistence personnel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-257)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 24 - 5 AAC 01.470. Lawful gear and gear specifications. This proposal would
amend the regulation to restrict subsistence gillnets to obstruct no more than one half the wetted
width of any fish stream.
5 AAC 01.470. Lawful gear and gear specifications. (a) Salmon may be taken by seines
and gillnets, or with gear specified on a subsistence fishing permit, except that in Chignik Lake
salmon may not be taken with purse seines. Subsistence gear may not obstruct more than one
half the wetted width of any fish stream open to subsistence salmon fishing.
ISSUE: Salmon returning to small rivers and tributaries open to subsistence salmon fishing may be
over harvested by subsistence fishermen or prevented from reaching local spawning grounds during
specific times of the year.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Subsistence fishermen may over exploit
local rivers and tributaries and prevent returning salmon from reaching spawning grounds, and
subsistence harvest opportunity may lost if an area could be opened to limited harvest opportunity.
18
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence fishers, fishery managers and enforcement
personnel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Using EO authority to expand closed waters in order to
prevent stream blockages.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-258)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 25 - 5 AAC 15.357(c)(1). Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. This
proposal seeks to amend the regulation that opens the Eastern District in the Chignik Management
Area concurrently with the Chignik Bay and Central districts during June.
5 AAC 15.357(c)(1) during June, the commercial salmon fishery may [SHALL] open
concurrently with the Chignik Bay and Central districts, and the openings shall be based on
achieving the Black Lake sockeye salmon escapement goals;
ISSUE: The current regulation opens the Eastern District concurrently with the Chignik Bay and
Central districts based on Black Lake sockeye salmon escapement goals during June. Given the
remote location and sporadic effort in the Eastern District during June, the department often does
not know the amount of commercial fishing effort occurring in this area. This proposal would allow
the department to better document effort and manage the fishery by opening the Eastern District
upon request when Black Lake sockeye salmon escapement goals are achieved. This information is
particularly useful when Black Lake sockeye salmon escapements are at or near minimum
thresholds for commercial fishing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continue to limit management flexibility.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishery managers. Chignik fishermen may also benefit during
years when surplus pink and chum salmon are available for harvest and commercial fishing would
otherwise be closed due to sockeye salmon escapement concerns under the current regulation.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-255)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 26 - 5 AAC 15.357. Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Restrict
commercial fishing in Chignik to improve subsistence fishing opportunities as follows:
19
Chignik Lagoon Council would like to see no commercial fishing in Area L before June 5 of
each year, or before the Chignik weir get 30,000 to 40,000 escapement.
ISSUE: Subsistence opportunity. Residents need their subsistence fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Residents from the Chignik area will not
be able to get their subsistence fish from the early run. Elderly rely the first run fish to can their
fish and to freeze for the winter. First run fish have more fat in them.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All residents in our area that subsistence fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Lagoon Village Council (HQ-07F-424)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 27 - 5 AAC 15.200(c)(e). Fishing Districts. Amend regulation to include Castle
Bay in Central District as follows:
The Central District will include Castle Bay, excluding that portion of the bay within 1/4 mile of
the tip of Castle Cape. Management of the Central District will remain the same as it is now.
ISSUE: The Central District should encompass Castle Bay, excluding that portion of the bay
within 1/4 mile of the tip of Castle Cape. Castle Bay is an inner bay of Chignik Bay, and with its
East-West orientation is parallel to the Alaska Peninsula. Geographically, Castle Bay fits with
the Central District and is not in character with the Western District. Castle Bay also offers
protection from most ocean-borne storms, especially southeasters, and being in the Central
District, Castle Bay would give the fleet an alternative to plying more exposed outside waters
under adverse weather. Safety should not be compromised, but with the current economic
conditions there is more risk taking - fishing is a risky business by nature 0 it will be reduced. In
further support of the proposal, Chignik cannot afford to miss out on any local-stock harvest
opportunities. Chignik fishermen should have the option of more harvest opportunity within
Chignik Bay than they currently have. This can be accomplished with a minor revision of the
Central District boundary to include Castle Bay.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Chignik has seen a more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. Continuing lost
harvest opportunities, especially under adverse weather conditions, will only contribute to rather
than help to alleviate the economic hardship suffered by Chignik fishermen and communities as
sockeye salmon prices remain extremely poor. Harvest opportunities will be risked and
fishermen will have fewer alternatives to operate more safely and efficiently.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Possibly. Allowing a more sheltered area for fishermen to
harvest in the Central district can result in better quality fish being produced during adverse
20
weather conditions.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen, the five Chignik communities faced
with severe economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit. There would be more
local stock harvest opportunity under less risk.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should be harmed.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-203)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 28 - 5 AAC 15.357 (d). Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Open the
Western and Perryville districts in June and early July with the Chignik Bay and Central districts
as follows:
Manage the Western and Perryville Districts the same as the Eastern District for June by
substituting the following language:
5 AAC 15.357. (d): In The Western and Perryville Districts, during June, the commercial
salmon fishery shall open concurrently with the Chignik Bay and Central Districts, and the
openings shall be based on achieving the Black Lake sockeye salmon escapement goals;
(1) from approximately June 26 through July 9,
(A) the Department shall evaluate the strength of the Chignik Lake run; and
(B) in order to allow the Department to assess the Chignik Lake run strength, commercial
salmon fishing in the Western and Perryville Districts will, in the Department’s
discretion, be disallowed or severely restricted;
(2) from the end of the transition period, described in (b)(2) of this section, until approximately
August 20, fishing periods shall be based on the Department’s evaluation of local pink and
chum salmon runs, and its evaluation of the Chignik Lake sockeye salmon run; and
(3) from approximately August 20 until the end of the fishing season, fishing periods shall be
based on the Department’s evaluation of local coho salmon runs, and its evaluation of the
Chignik Lake sockeye salmon run.
(A) to ensure reasonable protection of the Kametolook River coho salmon run at Perryville,
the Department will, at its discretion, maintain a closed water area of sufficient size in the
Perryville District.
ISSUE: The current Chignik salmon management plan does not allow Chignik fishermen to
harvest Chignik bound sockeye in our own Western District during June, resulting in Chignik
fishemen being denied access to one half of their available fishing area. With the small fleet that
currently exists (less than half of the 92 permits fished in 2006), the potential for significant
overescapement is greatly increased if the fleet is not allowed more area to harvest sockeye as
they enter the Chignik Management Area. Allowing Chignik fishermen to start harvesting
Chignik bound sockeye as they enter our Western District will help mitigate the potential for
overescapement. When the Igvak fishery is open, fishing in our Eastern, Central and Chignik
Bay districts suffer, and we currently have no other available areas to fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Chignik has seen a more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. Continuing lost
harvest opportunities will cause even greater economic hardship to the local fishermen and
21
communities as sockeye salmon prices remain extremely poor. Significant overescapement
problems could arise, further damaging our already distressed sockeye rearing habitat.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. By allowing the sockeye harvest to be more spread out
over more time and area it will promote a more orderly harvest, which should result in a better
quality product.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen, the five Chignik communities faced
with severe economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. It would simply allow Chignik fishermen the
opportunity to harvest Chignik bound sockeye in their own area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-204)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 29 - 5 AAC 15.350. Closed waters. Repeal the closed waters area near
Kupreanof Point as follows:
Repeal the following language: 5 AAC 15.350. Closed waters
(20) [FROM JULY 6 THROUGH AUGUST 31, ALL WATERS OF ALASKA IN THE
IVANOF BAY SECTION, BETWEEN A LINE EXTENDING 135° FROM KUPREANOF
POINT AT 55° 33.98’ N. LAT., 159° 35.88’ W. LONG., AND A LINE EXTENDING FROM
65° FROM 55° 34.90’ N. LAT., 159° 37.10’ W. LONG.]
This will return the Western District of the Chignik Management Area to its historical
boundaries and allow Chignik fishermen to resume recently lost traditional harvest opportunities.
Opening both Chignik and Area M sides of Kupreanof Point, but we don’t think the Board can
take action on the Area M boundary out of cycle, so that will have to wait until the next Area M
BOF meeting.
ISSUE: The current Chignik salmon management plan does not allow Chignik fishermen to
harvest salmon at Kupreanof Point. Chignik fishermen have been denied the opportunity to
utilize this historical fishing area since the late 90’s. The same is true for Area M fishermen on
the other side of the boundary line.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Chignik has seen a more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. Continuing lost
harvest opportunities will only contribute to rather than help to alleviate the economic hardship
suffered by Chignik fishermen and communities as sockeye salmon prices remain extremely
poor.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Potentially. Salmon caught on the capes are generally better
quality, especially pinks and chums.
22
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen, the five Chignik communities faced
with severe economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. It would simply re-open a traditional fishing area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Opening both Chignik and Area M sides of
Kupreanof Point, but we don't think the Board can take action on Area M boundary out of cycle,
so that will have to wait until the next Area M BOF meeting.
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-205)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 30 - 5 AAC 15.357. Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Repeal the
coho cap in Chignik fishery as follows:
Repeal the coho cap.
ISSUE: The 60,000 coho cap imposed on Chignik fishermen. Chignik fishermen did not protest
when the cap was imposed in the spirit of fairness as Area M fishermen had previously had a
coho cap imposed on them. The Board has since removed the coho cap from Area M, deeming it
unnecessary. The coho cap is equally unnecessary in Chignik fishermen and communities as
sockeye salmon prices remain extremely poor.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Chignik has seen more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. Continuing lost
harvest opportunities will only contribute to rather than help to alleviate the economic hardship
suffered by Chignik fishermen and communities as sockeye salmon prices remain extremely
poor.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen, the five Chignik communities faced
with severe economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. It would simply allow us to return to our historical
fishing pattern.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-202)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 31 - 5 AAC 15.357(d)(3). Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. This
proposal seeks to amend the regulation that opens the Western and Perryville districts in the Chignik
Management Area from approximately August 20 solely based on the department’s evaluation of
local coho runs and Chignik lake sockeye salmon run.
23
5 AAC 15.357(d)(3) from approximately August 20 until the end of the fishing season,
fishing periods may [SHALL] be based on the department’s evaluation of local pink, chum, and
coho salmon runs, and it’s evaluation of the Chignik Lake sockeye salmon run.
ISSUE: After approximately August 20 the current regulation bases commercial fishing in the
Western and Perryville districts on the department’s evaluation on local coho runs and the Chignik
Lake sockeye salmon run. This proposal would allow the department to open portions of the
Western and Perryville districts for harvest of surplus late season pink and chum salmon when local
coho and Chignik Lake sockeye salmon escapements are not achieved and the Western and
Perryville districts would otherwise be restricted or closed to commercial salmon fishing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Potential lost fishing opportunity for surplus
late season chum and pink salmon in the Western and Perryville districts during late August and
early September.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishery managers and Chignik fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-256)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 32 - 5 AAC 15.357. Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Develop a
coho salmon management plan as follows:
When sockeye escapement is below minimums but harvestable amounts of coho are available,
the department may open a targeted coho fishery where sockeye would not be retained in the
catch but released to escape and spawn.
This proposal should be considered a placeholder proposal to promote discussion between
fishermen, local communities and Advisory Committees, Subsistence and Sport users, CRAA,
the department, and other interested stakeholders. We understand that this concept is
underdeveloped and will benefit from further discussion.
ISSUE: In years of weak late season sockeye runs, coho stocks go unharvested because the
current management plan mandates closures for sockeye escapement. Further, published
University of Washington studies have demonstrated that excess coho salmon escapements
causes excess sockeye fry predation and corresponding damage to the Chignik sockeye
resources.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued lost harvest opportunity on
Chignik Lakes coho salmon and continued excess predation of sockeye fry from an over
abundance of coho salmon fry.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
24
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik area fishers, local communities, and the local
processor.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-201)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 33 - 5 AAC 15.330. Gear; and 5 AAC 15.xxx. New section. Allow drift
gillnetting in the Chignik area as follows:
Allow drift gillnetting in the Chignik Area, by adding the following language to the Chignik
management plan.
5 AAC 15.330. Gear.
(a) Salmon may be taken only by drift gillnet, purse seine, and hand purse seine.
5 AAC 15.xxx. Gillnet specifications and operations.
(a) In the Eastern, Central, Western and Perryville Districts no gillnet less than 100
fathoms or more than 200 fathoms in length may be used.
(b) In the Chignik Bay District, no gillnets may be used.
(c) No gillnets may be more than 90 meshes in depth
5 AAC 15.xxx.Identification of gear.
(a) Each drift gillnet in operation must have at each end a bright red keg, buoy, or a cluster
25
of floats plainly and legibly marked with the permanent vessel license plat (ADF&G)
number of the vessel operating the gear, as well as the initials of the operator.
5 AAC 15.xxx. Registration.
(a) A person may not fish a vessel simultaneously as a purse seine vessel and a drift gillnet
vessel. A person may change gear types anytime during the season if a written request
is submitted to, and validated, by the Department.
ISSUE: Chignik permit holders are locked into one method of harvesting salmon – purse
seining. There needs to be more flexibility in harvesting methods in order to allow fishermen to
adapt to changing economic forces in the salmon industry. Chignik has seen a more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. With the dramatic
decrease in sockeye prices and the increase costs associated with seining (large crews, expensive
nets, skiffs, outboards, fuel), coupled with the fact that Chignik is a low volume salmon fishery,
fewer and fewer Chignik fishermen can afford to operate their fishing boats and as a result are
going out of business. The poor returns have been especially crippling to the fishery in
Chignik.Drift gillnetting, if allowed, would enable fishermen to drastically reduce their operating
expenses and give them a chance to turn a profit, even on low volume, and thus stay in business.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The financial stress associate with poor
sockeye prices and runs will continue without the relief that a new low cost fishery could have
provided. More and more Chignik fishermen will go out of business, quickly destroying a local
economy already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. By allowing fishermen to be able to drastically reduce
costs they can get out from under the burden of needing to sacrifice quality for volume. With
lower operating costs fishermen can better afford to slow down and take care of their catch. Drift
gillnetting also provides for a slower rate of harvest than seining, which further allows fishermen
to focus on taking proper care of their catch.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen, the five Chignik communities faced
with severe economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-206)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
26
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 34 - 5 AAC 15.330. Gear; and 5 AAC 15.xxx. New section. Allow hand and
power trolling in the Chignik area as follows:
Allow hand and power trolling in the Chignik Area, by adding the following language to the
Chignik management plan.
5 AAC 15.330. Gear
(a) Salmon may be taken only by hand or power trolling, purse seine and hand purse seine.
5 AAC 15.xxx. Troll gear specifications and operations.
(a) Salmon may be taken by hand troll gear and power troll gear after August 15 and only
in Eastern, Central, Western and Perryville Districts.
(1) to ensure reasonable protection of the Kametolook River coho salmon run at
Perryville, the Department will, at its discretion, maintain a closed water area of
sufficient size in the Perryville District.
(b) The maximum number of trolling lines that may be operated from a salmon troll vessel
is as follows:
(1)from a power troll vessel:
(A) No more than six lines may be operated.
(2)from a hand troll vessel
(A) from each hand troll gurdy: only one line to which multiple leaders and
hooks may be attached;
(B) from each fishing rod: only one line with no more than one leader and
one lure or two baited hooks per leader;
(C) an aggregate of four fishing rods or an aggregate of two hand troll
gurdies may be operated.
(c) A salmon troll vessel may have a fishing rod equipped exclusively for taking bait or a
gillnet for taking bait of a mesh size of no more than two and one-half inches and made of
no greater than number 20 gillnet thread.
(d) No more than six troll gurdies may be mounted on board any salmon power troll vessel.
(e) No more than two troll gurdies and four fishing rods may be on board any salmon hand
troll vessel. A downrigger may not be used in conjunction with a fishing rod.
(f) For purposes of this section
(1) a troll gurdy is a spool- type device that is designed to deploy and retrieve troll
lines, weights, and lures’ the term “troll gurdy”
(A) includes a downrigger; and
(B) does not include a reel attached to a fishing rod;
(2) a hand troll gurdy is a troll gurdy powered by hand or hand crank that is not
mounted on or used in conjunction with a fishing rod and is not considered power
27
troll gear;
(3)a fishing rod is a tapering, often jointed, rode equipped with a hand grip and line
guides, upon which is mounted a hand powered reel used to deploy and retrieve the
trolling line;
(4)a downrigger is a device designed to be used with a fishing rode to deploy a line to
a selected depth and retrieve the downrigger line and weight.
5 AAC 15.xxx. Registration.
(a) A person may not fish a vessel simultaneously as a hand troll vessel and a power troll
vessel. A person may change gear types anytime during the season if a written request is
submitted to, and validated, by the Department.
ISSUE: Chignik permit holders are locked into one method of harvesting salmon – purse
seining. There needs to be amore flexibility in harvesting methods in order to allow fishermen to
adapt to changing economic forces in the salmon industry. Chignik has seen a more dramatic
economic decline than surrounding areas since sockeye salmon prices began to deteriorate due to
our almost total dependence on our sockeye salmon fishery for our income. With the dramatic
decrease in sockeye prices and the increased costs associate with seining (large crews, expensive
nets, skiffs, outboards, fuel), coupled with the fact that Chignik is a low volume salmon fishery,
fewer and fewer Chignik fishermen can afford to operate their fishing boats and as a result are
going out of business. The poor returns have been especially crippling to the traditional August
and September fishery in Chignik. While coho have returned in significant numbers, the poor
sockeye returns have prohibited Chignik fishermen from being able to harvest the coho. As it is
the coho are almost completely unutilized, resulting in a significant lost harvest opportunity, and
there is concern among the fishermen that the coho may become relatively more dominant than
in the past. When coho become relatively dominant they also consume lots of juvenile sockeye in
the Chignik and Black lake and, therefore, tend to suppress sockeye numbers. It is desirable to
maintain the traditional species composition ratio between sockeye and coho in Chignik Lake
and Black Lake.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The current underutilization of the coho
stocks will continue. The financial stress associate with poor sockeye runs will continue without
the relief that a new low cost high value fishery could have provided.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. By allowing fishermen to be able to drastically reduce
costs they can get out from under the burden of needing to sacrifice quality for volume. With
lower operating costs fishermen can better afford to slow down and take care of their catch. Drift
gillnetting also provides for a slower rate of harvest than seining, which further allows fishermen
to focus on taking proper care of their catch.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik Fishermen (primarily the local resident permit
holders of the Chignik management area), the five Chignik communities faced with severe
economic hardships, and the local processor would benefit by increasing harvest opportunity on
currently unutilized late season coho by providing low cost high quality harvest opportunity. The
resource will be benefited by balancing the harvest pressure across salmon species.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-207)
******************************************************************************
28
KODIAK FINFISH
PROPOSAL 35 - 5 AAC 28.406(e). Kodiak Area Registration. Revise incidental black
rockfish registration as follows:
Ask the board to amend 5 AAC 28.406(e) to include the following: A vessel that is registered
for a specific black rockfish section under 5 AAC 28.406(e), also shall be considered
registered for the Kodiak Area black rockfish fishery.
ISSUE: Under 5 AAC 28.406(e) and 5 AAC 28.472(b), vessels are allowed to retain up to 2500
lbs. of black rockfish without being registered in the Kodiak Area directed black rockfish fishery.
Often times the amount of black rockfish landed greatly exceeds the target species, which
suggests that the black rockfish should be considered the primary target species. By not having to
register in the Kodiak Area directed black rockfish fishery, vessels have been able to circumvent
the area registration process and fish for black rockfish in a super-exclusive registration area in
the same calendar year which violates 5 AAC 28.020(4)(A) and 5 AAC 28.020(4)(B).
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Vessels will continue to fish rockfish in
super-exclusive and non-exclusive registration areas in the same calendar year.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessels fishing in the Kodiak Area black rockfish fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Vessels that want to fish super-exclusive and non-exclusive
registration areas in the same calendar year.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Leonard Carpenter (HQ-07F-244)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 36 - 5 AAC 28.406(e). Kodiak Area registration; and 28.472(b). Black
rockfish possession and landing requirements for Kodiak Area. Revise application of
incidental trip limit for black rockfish as follows:
Ask that the Board of Fisheries amend the Kodiak area black rockfish management plan, to apply
the incidental harvest strategy only to specific black rockfish areas that have not attained seventy
percent or more of the guideline harvest level (GHL) in the preceding two years.
ISSUE: In 2005 the BOF adopted a proposal that allowed vessels participating in the Kodiak
Area State Pacific cod fishery to retain 2,500 lbs. of black rockfish as an incidental harvest. This
was in an attempt to harvest black rockfish quotas in three areas that had not met their GHLs in
several years. By allowing this incidental harvest the department’s (ADFG) ability to track
vessels and effort has been compromised, resulting in GHL overages in several sections and
premature closure in others.
29
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Without reliable tracking of vessels and
effort excessive overages of the GHL may occur, this in turn will prompt the department to take
a drastically conservative in-season management approach which will result in premature
closures and lost harvesting opportunities.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessel operators targeting black rockfish and ADFG staff
through better tracking of vessels and catch rates.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Vessel operators targeting Pacific and black rockfish during
the same trip.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Repealing 5 AAC 28.472(b). By repealing this
regulation it doesn’t address the problem of attaining the GHL in the Mainland, Southwest, and
Westside sections.
PROPOSED BY: Leonard Carpenter (HQ-07F-243)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 37 - 5 AAC 28.430(g). Lawful gear for Kodiak Area. Revise vessel hook
limit definition in jig fisheries as follows:
Ask the Board of Fisheries to amend 5 AAC 28.430(g) to read: In the Kodiak Area, a vessel
using mechanical jigging machines and hand troll gear to take groundfish may have no
more than 250 hooks, in the aggregate, deployed in the water and on board the vessel that
are, or can be, attached permanently, or temporarily snapped on to a mainline or
groundline that meets the definition of longline gear. In addition no more than 150 hooks
may be deployed in the water as described in (f) of this section.
Ask that the board repeal 5 AAC 28.430(g), if an adequate definition of longline gear cannot be
formed.
ISSUE: The hook limit for vessels using mechanical jig gear is restrictive and is hard to enforce.
This regulation was imposed in response to unfounded allegations of vessels using longline gear
during the state-water Pacific cod jig fishery, and has only served to limit the amount of legal
gear a vessel may possess onboard
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If considerations are made for gear loss,
little room is left to experiment or develop variation in jig gear, such as color or hook patterns,
leader sizes, hook spacing, etc. Experimental gear development becomes stagnant, and as a result
higher catch rates may not be realized or attained. It is important to have this flexibility in our
Pacific cod fishery and essential in our rockfish fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? With higher and more dependable catch rates, value added
niche markets can be developed that increase the value and quality of the product.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Jig vessel operators targeting Pacific cod and pelagic
30
rockfish, and the processor sector, through increased catch rates and ex-vessel prices, and value
added processing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No negative impacts are expected, nor is anyone likely to
suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Repeal of 5 AAC 28.430(g).
PROPOSED BY: Leonard Carpenter (HQ-07F-245)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 38 - 5 AAC 39.165. Kodiak King Crab Management Plan. Close Alitak Bay
to pelagic trawl gear year-round as follows:
Close Deadman’s Bay for pelagic trawling on Kodiak Island from Cape Trinity to Cape Alitak
year round for crab protection.
ISSUE: Dead loss and crab bycatch occurring in the Deadman’s Bay (Kodiak Island) during the
pelagic trawl fishery. In the pelagic trawl fishing there is a great deal of fishing actually done on
the bottom. With this being the last remnant population of king crab on the island we need to
address this interaction.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Dead loss of crab due to contact with the
pelagic trawl will continue and crab stocks in the area will be negatively impacted. (Currently we
have no hard cap on crab or salmon in the Gulf of Alaska with no hard caps this equals no
incentive not to interact with these species.)
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, in that the king crab may have the ability to rebuild,
possibly to a commercial harvest level. Tanner crab stocks currently rebuilding would continue
to thrive.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial and subsistence fishermen prosecuting crab in
the area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Pelagic trawl fleet will need to harvest pollock outside of
Deadman’s Bay which they can very easily do.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? State and Federal crab closures may not be working
as well as they should be due to the increased pressure and technologies in the pelagic trawl
fishery.
Solution- 100 percent observer coverage inside of 3 miles and in areas identified critical crab
habitat, coupled with shared data between State and Federal agencies including VMS data. With
this Sate managers will have the information needed to see how federally managed fisheries may
impact Sate managed fisheries.
PROPOSED BY: Alexus Kwachka (HQ-07F-209)
******************************************************************************
31
PROPOSAL 39 - 5 AAC 28.450. Closed waters in Kodiak Area. Close Alitak Bay to
pelagic trawl gear March 1 – November 1 as follows:
Closed inside waters between Cape Trinity and Cape Alitak to pelagic trawling from March 1 to
November 1.
ISSUE: High potential for salmon and herring bycatch by pelagic trawl gear in Deadman’s Bay
on Kodiak Island. Deadman’s Bay is a relatively narrow and closed body of water but is open to
pelagic trawling. Salmon and herring are in the water column throughout this bay during the
spring and summer.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Salmon escapement and successful
directed fisheries in Deadman’s Bay will be hindered due to bycatch associated with pelagic
trawling. Incidental bycatch of herring will continue to affect these stocks.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Salmon managers may more effectively monitor salmon
escapements which the closed waters are designated to protect commercial and subsistence
salmon and herring fishermen will benefit from greater protection of the stocks.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The trawl fleet will need to prosecute the Pollock fishery
outside of the closed area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Peter Hannah (HQ-07F-212)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 40 - 5 AAC 28.xxx. New section. Require observer coverage on pelagic trawl
vessels for fisheries in the Kodiak Area as follows:
Increase observer coverage to 100% for vessels prosecuting pelagic trawling for Pollock within
the inside waters between Cape Trinity to Cape Alitak.
ISSUE: Pelagic trawling and its effects on the ecosystem, including but not limited to, crab,
salmon and herring in Deadman’s Bay, Kodiak Island.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Existing observer coverage, which is very
minimal, will result in continued unmonitored and potentially unreported bycatch of crab,
salmon and herring. Contact of the pelagic trawl with the bottom and the adverse impacts to this
area will occur without corresponding quality data to quantify bottom contact and bycatch.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area biologists will have a better understanding of the
effects on fishing practices or untargeted species. Commercial and subsistence fishermen who
depend up on the well being of salmon, crab and herring stocks in the Deadman and Alitak Bay
32
region.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Peter Hannah (HQ-07F-213)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 41 - 5 AAC 27.505(g). Description of Kodiak Area districts and sections.
This proposal would redefine several section lines within the Kodiak Area, in order to clarify and
simplify regulations, reduce enforcement problems, and/or allow greater opportunity for fishermen
to harvest herring when the section in question is open to fishing. This proposal also eliminates the
Portage Bay Section, and recombines it with portions of the Sulua Bay and Inner Alitak sections.
(2) Inner Alitak Bay Section: all waters enclosed by a line from Cape Alitak to Cape
Trinity, [AND] south of a line across the Olga Narrows at 57º 03.38' N. lat., [A LINE FROM
THE LATITUDE OF BUN POINT IN MOSER BAY,] and south of 56º 58.02' N. lat. in Alitak
Bay. [FROM BUN POINT TO THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE OF SEABORG COVE (56º
53.83' N. LAT., 153º 58.72' W. LONG.)];
(4) Outer Deadman Bay Section: all waters north of 56º 58.02' N. lat. in Alitak Bay. [A
LINE FROM CAPE HEPBURN TO BUN POINT] and south of 57º 05.00' N. lat.;
(5) [PORTAGE BAY SECTION: ALL WATERS ENCLOSED BY A LINE FROM
BUN POINT TO CAPE HEPBURN (56º 57.30' N. LAT., 154º 06.45' W. LONG.) TO A POINT
IN PORTAGE BAY AT 56º 56.50' N. LAT., 153º 51.40' W. LONG.), AND NORTH OF A
LINE FROM BUN POINT TO THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE OF SEABORG COVE (56º
53.83' N. LAT., 153º 58.72' W. LONG.);]
(6) Sulua Bay Section: all waters of Sulua and Portage Bays [ANDTHE NORTHERN
PORTION OF PORTAGE BAY] NORTH OF] east of 153° 57.90' W. long. [A LINE FROM
CAPE HEPBURN TO A POINT IN PORTAGE BAY AT 56º 56.50' N. LAT., 153º 51.40' W.
LONG.];
(7) Lower Olga [-MOSER] Bay Section: all waters of Lower Olga Bay [AND MOSER
BAYS] south of a line across the entrance of Upper Olga Bay at 57º 07.30' N lat. [FROM
STOCKHOLM POINT (57º 07.60' N. LAT., 154º 06.75' W. LONG.)], and north of a line
across the Olga Narrows at 57º 03.38' N. lat. [EAST TO A POINT AT 57º 07.47' N. LAT.,
154º 04.90' W. LONG., AND NORTH OF THE LATITUDE OF BUN POINT;]
(8) East Upper [NORTH] Olga Bay Section: all waters of Olga Bay north of a line
across the entrance of Upper Olga Bay at 57º 07.30' N lat., [THAT EXTENDS FROM THE
TERMINUS OF SILVER SALMON CREEK (NO. 257-303) TO STOCKHOLM POINT,] and
east of a line across upper Olga Bay at 154º 16.06' W. long. [TO A POINT AT 57º 07.47' N.
LAT., 154º 04.90' W. LONG].;
(9) West Upper Olga Bay Section: all waters of Upper Olga Bay west of a line across
Upper Olga Bay at 154º 16.06. W. long. [SOUTH OF A LINE FROM STOCKHOLM POINT
TO THE TERMINUS OF SILVER SALMON CREEK];
33
ISSUE: Several section lines in the Alitak District transect areas of common interest where roe
herring are available for harvest and are, by definition, hard to locate with currently used GPS
equipment. This proposal would redefine several section lines within the Kodiak Area, in order
to clarify and simplify regulations, reduce enforcement problems, and/or allow greater
opportunity for fishermen to harvest herring when the section in question is open to fishing. This
proposal also eliminates the Portage Bay Section, and recombines it with portions of the Sulua
Bay and Inner Alitak sections. Several section line modifications are submitted under one
proposal. Changes are sought in several section boundary line descriptions in the Alitak Bay
District.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Section lines will continue to be changed
prior to the herring season by EO.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial herring fishermen, fishery managers, and
enforcement personnel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Continue to change section lines by EO.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-265)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 42 - 5 AAC 27.535. Harvest strategies for Kodiak Area. Modify Kodiak
herring management plan as follows:
This proposal would encourage the formation of an industry workgroup through the local Kodiak
advisory committee to work with the Department and determine Kodiak management sections
that are currently limited to gillnet herring fishing that could be opened to herring seine fishing.
The workgroup would also discuss a default provision so that when a set number of herring
gillnet landings are recorded, the current management plan of 25% allocation to herring gillnet
fishermen is reinstated. Absent the work of the Kodiak Advisory Board and an industry
workgroup, this proposal would request that until at least 20 herring gillnet landings by at least 5
distinct Kodiak herring gillnet permit holders are recorded in a single season, the current Kodiak
Herring management plan be suspended and that a new plan be developed. The new plan would
have the Department determine, based on their assessment of effort levels, harvest rates and its
ability to monitor the fishery, which sections could be open to the Kodiak herring seine fleet
without reference to a specific percentage being reserved for the Kodiak herring gillnet fleet.
In other words, this proposal to suspend the current management plan until more Kodiak herring
gillnet fishermen participate in the fishery.
ISSUE: The declining fishing effort of permit holders with a Kodiak herring gillnet permit has
left substantial amounts of herring unharvested each year in areas that designated “setnet only”
due to the 25% allocation to the setnet fleet in the current management plan. Also, this is a
problem, because of decreased values overall. The Kodiak herring seine fleet has also declined
and is struggling to survive. The unharvested amount of commercially available herring would
34
help to maintain a viable fishery for at least some of the seine fleet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Relatively large amounts of commercially
harvestable herring in the Kodiak management area will remain unharvested and more Kodiak
herring purse seiners will choose not to fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This will not necessarily improve quality in the Kodiak
herring fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Kodiak seine fleet, the Kodiak processing sector,
Kodiak workers and the City of Kodiak will benefit from this proposal.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some Kodiak herring gillnet fishermen could suffer.
However, with the effort levels of the past two or three season, there may not be a single Kodiak
herring gillnet permit holder actually fishing. In the negotiations with industry, the Department
may be able to identify one or two areas of particular importance to one or two Kodiak herring
gillnet fisherman that could be considering possibly fishing.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered just opening all areas to the Kodiak
Herring seine fleet. This was rejected because there are some areas that could be easily be over
harvested by the seine fleet. We considered specifying exactly what areas needed to be open to
the Kodiak seine fleet. This was rejected because the Kodiak herring fishery has established a
tradition of the fleet working together with the Department in developing open and closed areas.
Finally, we considered different thresholds and/or criteria for reinstating the current 25%
allocation to the Kodiak herring gillnet fleet. We rejected higher thresholds for reinstatement
because we say this proposal as an interim solution with the hope that value would return to the
herring fishery and more Kodiak herring setnet fishermen would participate. (The 25% allocation
was a hard fought battle by the Kodiak herring gillnet fleet to benchmark a specific amount of
quota when there was value in the fishery. It is not the intent of this proposal to erase this
allocation, but simply to suspend it for a few seasons.)
PROPOSED BY: Old Harbor Fisherman’s Association (HQ-07F-074)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 43 - 5 AAC 27.525. Seine specifications and operations for Kodiak Area.
Develop regulatory measures to improve commercial harvest as follows:
The Kodiak Advisory Committee should work with the herring fleet and the department to
develop regulatory measures that could slow down the Kodiak herring fishery - in small quota
situations. Methods to limit the number of participating vessels, or to limit seine length or to
limit seine depth should be considered. In the absence of a proposal from the department and
stakeholders, this proposal would provide regulations that would permit the department to
specify seine gear length limitations of 75 fathoms and/or seine gear depth limitations of “3
strips” in situations when the department believes that a “full fleet and capacity” opening may
exceed the catch quota.
ISSUE: As the ADF&G budget has been cut over the past three years, the ability of the
department to have field teams on site and to “hands on” manage the harvest of herring stocks in
the Kodiak area is substantially diminished. Consequently, the Department is increasingly forced
to be more “conservative” and the “error on the side of conservation”. The change in
35
management tents to limit herring harvests to a few sections in the Kodiak management area
with large quotas. In addition, the herring seine fleet is sometimes forced to forgo harvests of
smaller remaining amounts of quota, even in these areas, because of the catching capacity of the
fleet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercially harvestable herring in the
Kodiak area will continue to be lost.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Quality will improve both by the amount of herring
caught in one haul and by the reduction of the “competition” that may encourage the capture and
retention of smaller or less mature herring. In addition, Kodiak processors are concerned about
large volumes of herring being delivered at one time and encourage managers and the fleet to
spread out the herring harvest over a longer period. This proposal could substantially help
processors to maintain high quality herring.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kodiak herring fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen in any one year who get a “lucky set” with the
larger seine in a big quota opening could be harmed. On the other hand, overall the fleet will
benefit because there is more opportunity to catch herring.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Smaller seines for the entire fishery were considered.
This was rejected because only some of the fleet would want to participate in the small quota
openings and the larger seines are appropriate for the large quota openings. A co-operative
fishery was considered for the small quota areas. This was rejected because of legal concerns.
Finally, individual vessel and trip limits were considered. While this may be something that the
Board may want to consider, these measures have not been used in the Kodiak herring fishery.
Traditional methods of limitation like seine length and depth are more familiar to the fleet.
PROPOSED BY: Old Harbor Fisherman’s Association (HQ-07F-075)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 44 - 5 AAC 01.520. Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications. This proposal would
restrict the obstruction of any subsistence fishing gear in a fish stream to no more than one half the
wetted width of the existing channel at any stage of the tide as follows:
5 AAC 01.520. Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications.
(b) Salmon may only be taken by gillnet and seine. Gillnets and seines may not
obstruct more than one half the wetted width of any fish stream open to subsistence salmon
fishing.
ISSUE: Salmon returning to rivers and tributaries open to subsistence salmon fishing may be over
harvested by subsistence fishermen or prevented from reaching local spawning grounds during
specific times of the year.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There may be an increased risk that
subsistence users may over exploit local rivers and prevent returning salmon from reaching
spawning grounds, and subsistence harvest opportunity may be lost if an area could be opened to
limited harvest.
36
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kodiak Area salmon subsistence users, fishery managers, and
enforcement personnel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Subsistence users that choose to completely block streams in
order to harvest salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Using EO authority to expand closed waters in order to
prevent complete stream blockages.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-264)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 45 - 5 AAC 01.530. SUBSISTENCE FISHING PERMITS and 5 AAC
01.545. SUBSISTENCE BAG AND POSSESSION LIMITS. Amend these regulations to
eliminate the harvest limits on permits in a portion of the Kodiak Management Area, as follows:
5 AAC 01.530. Subsistence Fishing Permits.
(b) Repealed.
5 AAC 01.545. Subsistence Bag and Possession Limits. Add a new subsection to read:
(d) The total annual possession limit for each subsistence salmon fishing permit is as
follows:
(1) For all fresh waters of Kodiak Island east of a line from Crag Point south to
the westernmost point of Saltery Cove, including waters of Woody and Long islands, and all salt
waters bordering this area within 1 mile of Kodiak Island, excluding waters bordering Spruce
Island, 25 salmon for the head of household plus an additional 25 salmon for each member of the
same household whose names are listed on the permit. An additional permit may be obtained if
it can be shown that more fish are needed.
(2) For the remainder of the Kodiak Area, no annual limit.
ISSUE: The current permit system may underestimate subsistence harvests in the more remote
portions of the Kodiak Management Area. In part, this is a consequence of the current permit limit
of 25 salmon per household member. Although additional permits may be obtained if more fish are
needed, few subsistence fishers in the remote communities are aware of this provision. As a result,
some fishers who harvest more than 25 fish per household members for their household’s use or for
sharing with other community members, underreport their harvests on their returned permits, fail to
return the permits with a harvest report, or fail to obtain a permit at all. Passage of this proposal is
unlikely to result in substantial increases in subsistence salmon harvests, but could result in more
accurate harvest data and more support for the department’s subsistence salmon harvest monitoring
program.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Subsistence fishers in more remote areas
will continue to need to obtain additional subsistence salmon permits if they need to harvest
37
salmon above the 25 per person annual limit that now appears on permits. The permit system
may continue to underestimate subsistence salmon harvests in the more remote areas of the
Kodiak Management Area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence fishers who fish in the more remote areas of the
Kodiak Management Area. Everyone if the change results in more accurate subsistence harvest
data.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminating the annual limit for the entire Kodiak
Management Area. This was rejected due to the large number of permits that fish in areas
connected to the Kodiak road system.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-276)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 46 - 5 AAC 18.200(a). Description of districts and sections. This proposal would
amend the description of Duck Bay Section to read:
(10) Duck Bay Section: all waters of Duck Bay bounded by the latitude of Pillar Cape, by a
line from Pillar Cape at 58º [56º] 08.90’ N. lat., 152º 06.77’ W. long., to Peril Cape at 58 º 08.06’
N. lat., 152 º 15.77’ W. long , and by a line from Cape Kostromitinof at 152° 33.40’ W. long.
ISSUE: This is a housekeeping proposal to correct an error in regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue to use
emergency order authority to correct the section line. Continued confusion with regulatory lines in
the Kodiak Management Area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Enforcement, management staff, commercial salmon permit
holders.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? None.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-259)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 47 - 5 AAC 18.200(a). Description of districts and sections. This proposal would
amend the description of Inner Karluk Section to read:
38
(2) Inner Karluk Section: all waters west of Kodiak Island bounded by the latitude of Pafco
Point, the latitude of Cape Karluk, (57º 34.20’ N lat.) [(57º 36.78’ N LAT.)]and by midstream
Shelikof Strait;
ISSUE: This is a housekeeping proposal to correct an error in regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue to use
emergency order authority to identify the section line. There could be continued confusion with
regulatory lines in the Kodiak Management Area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Enforcement, management staff, commercial salmon permit
holders.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? None.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-260)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 48 - 5 AAC 18.350(a)(6). Closed Waters. This proposal would amend the
regulation to create a closed water area in Izhut Bay as follows:
Izhut Bay: All waters near the terminus of stream number 252-302: north of 58º
14.36' N. lat. and west of 152º 17.73' W. long.
ISSUE: This proposal would codify historical closed water lines in Izhut Bay at stream number
252-302. The described closed waters have been on the KMA statistical chart as early as 1975
and closed waters were designated by regulatory markers, but not put into regulation. This
proposal will codify past practices.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the current regulatory markers are lost or
destroyed without the departments' knowledge, there would be no closed waters in effect and
there would be no protection to salmon stocks using the system.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? No one.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Close waters by EO, continue placing markers.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-261)
******************************************************************************
39
PROPOSAL 49 - 5 AAC 18.350. Closed waters. Change description of the closed water area
in Pasagshak Bay as follows:
(A)(v) Pasagshak Bay: north of 57º 27.00' N. lat. and east of 152º 27.60' [28.00] W.
long.;
ISSUE: Change the description of the closed water area in Pasagshak Bay to better represent
historical closed water marker placement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Current closed water markers in Pasagshak
Bay represent the historical closed water area. There may be some confusion due to the discrepancy
with the placement of the markers and the current regulatory description of the closed water area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Enforcement.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-263)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 50 - 5 AAC 18.337. Purse Seine Practice Sets. This proposal would amend the
regulation to make practice purse seine sets as follows:
(a) From May 25 [JUNE 1] through October 31, purse seine vessels may make practice
purse seine sets. The sets may be made only during daylight hours. All fish caught shall be returned
to the water without further harm.
ISSUE: Amend the current date allowing practice sets for seine gear from June 1 to May 25. The
Kodiak Management Area has had June 1 opening dates for commercial salmon fishing for the past
2 years. Managers have used emergency order (EO) authority to change the date in order to allow
practice sets prior the commercial fishing opening date.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Practice sets will be allowed prior to June 1
by EO.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Purse seine permit holders wishing to practice seine sets prior
to the June 1 opening date.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
40
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-262)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 51 - 5 AAC 18.362. Westside Kodiak Salmon Management Plan. Delay
opening Westside Kodiak salmon fishery until June 16 as follows:
5 AAC 18.362. Westside Kodiak Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The Inner and outer Karluk Sections must be managed.
From June 16 [1] through July 15, based on early-run sockeye salmon returning to the Karluk
system; the commissioner may open, by emergency order, fishing periods in the inner
Karluk Section only if the department determines that the desired early-run escapement goal
will be exceeded.
ISSUE: The issue of subsistence fishing. Commercial fishing opens too soon in the year before
the villagers are able to gather the needed subsistence catch.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The problem of lack of subsistence foods
will continue to affect the community as a whole. Without the necessary subsistence foods
available, hardships arise in the winter.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will offer a better subsistence fishery for the
community. We feel this is an appropriate step to enhance subsistence fishing for the native
village of Karluk.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The local villagers will benefit from this solution. It really
would not hurt the commercial fishery, just delay it by two weeks from the current opening date.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? We do not feel anyone will suffer; again delaying the
commercial fishery by two weeks seems logical to enhance the subsistence fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None considered.
PROPOSED BY: Karluk IRA Tribal Council (HQ-07F-353)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 52 - 5 AAC 18.310. Fishing Seasons. Delay opening Outer Karluk Section
salmon fishery until June 16 as follows:
5 AAC 18.310 Fishing Season.
Salmon may be taken only from June 1 through October 3; except in the Inner and Outer
Karluk Sections, salmon may be taken only from June 16 through October 3.
ISSUE: The issue of subsistence fishing. Commercial fishing opens too soon in the year before
the villagers are able to gather the needed subsistence catch.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The problem of lack of subsistence foods
will continue to affect the community as a whole. Without the necessary subsistence foods
41
available, hardships arise in the winter.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will offer a better subsistence fishery for the
community. We feel this is an appropriate step to enhance subsistence fishing for the native
village of Karluk.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The local villagers will benefit from this solution. It really
would not hurt the commercial fishery, just delay it by two weeks from the current opening date.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? We do not feel anyone will suffer; again delaying the
commercial fishery by two weeks seems logical to enhance the subsistence fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None considered.
PROPOSED BY: Karluk IRA Tribal Council (HQ-07F-354)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 53 - 5 AAC 18.360. Cape Igvak Salmon Management Plan. Modify Cape
Igvak salmon allocation formula as follows:
The department will manage the Cape Igvak Section whereby the number of sockeye salmon
taken will approach as near as possible 19% of the total sockeye salmon catch in the
Chignik Management Area. The change from a 15% to a 19% allocation is solely a
mathematical adjustment based on a harvest assignment using the Chignik Area sockeye salmon
catch only. The proposed change provides no net loss or gain to either the Chignik or Kodiak
fisheries and complies with original Board of Fisheries intent.
ISSUE: To mathematically simplify the formula used in calculating the assigned Chignik
allocation to ensure that management error in the neighboring intercept fishery (Southeastern
District Mainland (SEDM) of area M) does not change, reward, or inflate the Igvak allocation.
Currently the Cape Igvak Salmon Management provides for a 15% allocation on the total
Chignik sockeye catch. The 15% is calculated on the combined pre July 26 sockeye harvest from
the Chignik Management Area, the Kodiak Cape Igvak Section and designated areas within the
SEDM as assigned by stock.
The problem is the link which occurs when there is an allocation overage because the overage is
applied to the formula when calculating the inseason allocation. This inadvertently results in the
increased allocation (Note: In 2007, the Board of Fisheries adopted the proposed formula change
for the SEDM fishery to correct the error.) Under past management regimes, this was not a
problem but in 2004 and 2005 management decisions resulted in allocation overages triggering
even more overages simply because of the mathematical formula applied in determining the
allocation.
The Cape Igvak fishery should not be rewarded by an allocation overage in the SEDM fishery as
can now occur due to the cyclic nature of the current mathematical formula. This can readily be
corrected, as has already been done for the SEDM fishery, without changing the intended
allocation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The pre July 26 Cape Igvak fishery will
42
continue to be rewarded when management error occurs which results in a harvest beyond the
assigned Chignik allocation in the SEDM fishery. Such overages disadvantage fishers in the
Chignik Management Area as occurred in 2004 and 2005.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik fishers because they are otherwise penalized when
allocation overages occur in the South East District Mainland fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who believe that interception fishers should be
rewarded by compounded unintended management error.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chignik Seiners Association (HQ-07F-200)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 54 - 5 AAC 18.363. North Shelikof Strait Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify North Shelikof Sockeye Salmon Management Plan as follows:
1. The North Shelikof Sockeye Salmon Management Plan shall run from July 6 through July 20.
(changed from July 25).
2. Throughout the period for the North Shelikof Sockeye Salmon Management Plan the fishery
in the Dakavak Bay, Outer Kukak Bay, Inner Kukak Bay, Hallo Bay and Big River Sections of
the Mainland District and in the Shuyak Island and Northwest Afognak Sections of the Afognak
Districts the fishery shall be restricted to waters inside a line drawn 1/2 mile off the outer points
of land (excluding small pinnacles and reefs) in each of the sections.
ISSUE: Regain historical use of the North Shelikof area for Kodiak salmon fishermen.
The Black Cape purse seine haul point as well as some capes on the mainland are traditional haul
points that have been used by fishermen from Ouzinkie and Port Lions for generations. The
North Shelikof plan did not take into consideration the historical use of those points. Note: The
board recognized the need for a 1/2 mile inshore fishery in the S.W. Afognak District in the
2002.
Management experience during the 18 years since the implementation of the North Shelikof
Management Plan show that Cook Inlet sockeye availability in the Kodiak Management Area is
irregular and random. There is little or now correlation between Cook Inlet sockeye availability
in the Kodiak Management Area and the triggering of the North Shelikof caps. Moreover, local
sockeye stocks in the Kodiak area have increased and the current regulatory structure should be
adjusted for changes in local stock availability and well as for historical use and fishing patterns.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Kodiak salmon fishermen will continue
to be excluded from their historical fishing areas and their efforts to prosecute fisheries inshore
for local stocks will be compromised.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is unlikely to improve quality.
43
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kodiak purse seine salmon fishermen, Kodiak area
processing plants, Kodiak seafood processing workers and the City of Kodiak.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This proposal may serve to redistribute some of the catch
between sectors of the Kodiak salmon fishery. It is believed that most of the fish caught within
1/2 mile of shore (as with the S.W. Afognak district) will be local stocks. To the extent that fish
caught in this area are n0n-local, fishermen in other management areas could be harmed.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Many Kodiak fishermen believe that the North
Shelikof management plan was a “knee jerk” reaction to a single circumstance during the 1988
season and that the Kodiak fleet was moved from its historical fishing area in the North Shelikof
and further restricted in its near shore harvest of local stocks as punishment for the 1988 season.
Most Kodiak fishermen believe that they have been punished enough and that the entire plan
should be eliminated. This was not proposed, however, because it was thought that the Board
should slowly and incrementally return to the Kodiak fleet to its historical use area so as not to
risk the possibility of encouraging attempts to intercept non-local stocks. Just raising the cap in
the N. Shelikof management plan was also considered. This may be an approach for the Board to
consider - especially given the increase in west side local sockeye stocks. This was rejected,
however, in favor of a more incremental and near shore approach -- an approach that would
mirror what the Board did with the S. W. Afognak district by opening up a 1/2 mile corridor near
shore.
PROPOSED BY: Ouzinkie Native Corporation (HQ-07F-073)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 55 - 5 AAC 18.363. North Shelikof Strait Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Link opening of Northern District Shelikof Strait sockeye season to Kenai River
preseason sockeye forecast as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 18.363 as follows:
(a)(2) the fishery will not [MAY REMAIN] open during normal fishing periods until the Kenai
River preseason forecast or in-season estimate is greater than 3,000,000 sockeyes. When
this area is open there will be a harvest limit of 15,000 sockeye salmon. [HARVEST
EXCEEDS 15,000 SOCKEYE SALMON].
ISSUE: In 2006 the harvest of sockeye salmon in the Seaward Zone of the North Shelikof Unit
(mid to north Mainland and northwest Afognak/Shuyak Island) was 82,538 sockeyes which
exceeds the 15,000 harvest cap by 67,538 sockeyes. These additional 67,538 sockeyes were
caught in the July 6 through 14 time period. These sockeyes would have arrived at the Kenai in
the July 11-20 time frame. These 82,538 sockeyes were necessary in the Upper Cook Inlet to
meet normal escapement goals in the Kenai River. As we know, due to low Kenai River sockeye
escapements there were extensive sockeye closures in the commercial, personal use and sport
fisheries in the July 11-20 time frame. Had these fish not been harvested, these wide-spread
Kenai River closures would have been avoided. An additional 82,538 sockeye into the Upper
Cook Inlet would have proved valuable in the meeting harvest and escapement goals. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Memorandum, Dated
December 1, 2006 states the following:
“From July 6 to 25, this regulatory management plan (5 AAC 18.363) places harvest limits on
two areas of the KMA (Kodiak Management Area) bordering northern Shelikof Strait to limit
44
interception of sockeye salmon that are considered Cook Inlet-bound. During the period that this
management plan is in effect, KMA fisheries are targeting local pink salmon runs and the fishing
periods are based on the projected pink salmon run strength. If it appears that the sockeye salmon
harvest will meet or exceed limits set by the Board of Fisheries, then fisheries are to be restricted
to inshore waters only, and offshore “Seward Zones” are closed. In 2006, a department biologist
was present on-the-grounds, to determine the sockeye salmon catch and facilitate orderly, short
notice, closures if the harvest limits were met.
A Seward Zone closure was required in the North Shelikof Unit (mid to north Mainland and
northwest Afognak/Shuyak Islands). Soon after the July 12 commercial fishing period, the
department biologists estimated that the harvest would meet or exceed the North Shelikof
sockeye salmon harvest cap of 15,000 fish. The Seaward Zone of North Shelikof Unit was closed
at noon July 14. At the closure of the Seward Zone, the harvest was estimated to include
approximately 15,000 sockeye salmon. The total July 6 to 25 harvests in the North Shelikof Unit
was 82,538 sockeye salmon, which includes both the Shoreward Zone harvests and the Seward
Zone harvests prior to the closure. There was no closure of the Seward Zone in the Southwest
Afognak Section as the harvest cap of 50,000 sockeye salmon was not met. The July 6 to 25 in
the Southwest Afognak Section was about 24,182 sockeye salmon.”
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Future economic losses in Upper Cook
Inlet due to closures in the commercial, personal use and sport fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Upper Cook Inlet commercial, personal use and sport
users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Kodiak seiners.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - not an acceptable solution.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-407)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 56 - 5 AAC 18.361(b-c). Alitak District Salmon Management Plan. Change
opening and closure times for Alitak District as follows:
5 AAC 18.361. Alitak District Salmon Management Plan
(b) In the Cape Alitak, Humpy-Deadman, Alitak Bay, Moser Bay, and Olga Bay Sections, from
June 1 through June 13, the commissioner may open, by emergency order, a 33-hour commercial
test fishing period beginning at 12:00 noon. From the conclusion of the commercial test fishing
period through September 15, there shall be a minimum closure of 63 [69] consecutive hours in
every 10-day period, [TO APPLY TO EACH SECTION INDIVIDUALLY AS EACH
SECTION CLOSES,] unless the department determines that the sockeye salmon escapement
goals will be achieved for the Frazer and Upper Station sockeye salmon runs.
(c) Except during the commercial test fishing period under (b) of this section, from June 1
through September 15, the commissioner shall open and close, by emergency order, fishing
periods for the Cape Alitak, Alitak Bay, Moser Bay, and Olga Bay Sections at the same time
[AT DIFFERENT TIMES], as follows:
45
All sections in the Alitak Bay District will open at 12:00 noon and close at 9:00 p.m.
prior to August 15. At that time all sections will close at 6:00 p.m.
[(1) IN THE OLGA BAY SECTION, FISHING PERIODS SHALL OPEN AT 6:00 A.M.,
AND SHALL CLOSE AT 9:00 A.M. THE FOLLOWING DAY;
(2) IN THE MOSER BAY SECTION, FISHING PERIODS SHALL OPEN AT 12:00
NOON THE SAME DAY AS THE OLGA BAY SECTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION,
AND SHALL CLOSE AT 3:00 P.M. THE FOLLOWING DAY;
(3) IN THE ALITAK BAY SECTION, FISHING PERIODS SHALL OPEN AT 6:00 P.M.
THE SAME DAY AS THE OLGA BAY AND MOSER BAY SECTIONS UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION, AND SHALL CLOSE AT 9:00 P.M. THE FOLLOWING DAY;
(4) IN THE CAPE ALITAK SECTION, FISHING PERIODS SHALL OPEN AT 6:00 A.M.
THE DAY FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF THE OLGA BAY, MOSER BAY, AND
ALITAK BAY SECTIONS UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, AND SHALL CLOSE AT 9:00
A.M. THE FOLLOWING DAY.]
ISSUE: Opening and closure times for Alitak District.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The problem the existing regulations has
created will continue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This regulation was changed in 2005. Its intent was to
help spread the resource out, increasing harvest percentages in Moser and Olga Bay. However it
has done the opposite, decreasing harvest percentages further. If adopted, hopefully it would
improve the situation. It would also simplify the management for the department in the Alitak
District.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? It is unclear.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Nina Burkholder (HQ-07F-183)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 57 - 5 AAC 18.361 (a-d). Alitak District Salmon Management Plan. Change
allocation to Olga Bay fishery as follows:
The Kodiak Department of Fish and Game will allocate a percentage of the overall catch of the
Alitak District to the Olga Bay section based on the number of permits fished in Olga Bay. This
catch percentage will equitable to all fishers in the Alitak District. The overall harvestable catch
will be 100% with each area (Cape Alitak, Alitak Bay, Moser Bay, and Olga Bay) allocated a
percentage according to the number of permits fished in each area. The Department of Fish and
Game will require a preseason registration of permits in the Alitak District to establish the area
of intent to harvest fish. This registration will be used to establish a catch percentage based on
the number of permits fished in each area. (Olga, Moser, Alitak Bay, and Cape Alitak)
Allocations into bay areas would be adjusted by 12 hour advanced notice openings to areas
behind their allocation percentages. Each salmon opening would be based on an eight day cycle
with 5 1/2 day fishing periods and a 2 1/2 day closures. All areas would close at the same time. If
percentages are within the ranges of the catch percentage allocated, all areas would open and
46
close at the same time.
ISSUE: Regulation changes by the State Board of fish 04/05 in the Alitak Dist. Salmon
management plan (5 AAC 18.361 letters a, c, d) have reduced catches in the Olga Bay section by
5% of the total catch in the district. This 5% catch reduction in the overall catch percentage is a
40% reduction in catch to the individual permit holders in the Olga Bay section. This reduction
of catch percentage is a direct result the changes in the regulations. Regulation 5 AAC 18.361
Alitak Management Plan:
Letter A: Frazer escapement goals were reduced which resulted in extended fishing periods that
gave advantage to interception fishery over the terminal harvest, nature of Olga Bay section.
Letter C: #1,2,3,4 Opening and closing times of the sections. In the past the Board of Fisheries
has recognized the erosion of the Olga Bay section catch percentages and has tried to address the
problem with a staggered opening, giving Olga Bay a 6 hour head start in fishing time. This six
hour staggered opening is not sufficient to address the continuing reduction in the Olga Bay
catch percentage.
Letter D: Equal fishing time for all sections in the Alitak District. The Board of Fisheries
reversed their position on giving Olga Bay section extended fishing time to address the decline
of the catch percentage into the district. This regulation looked to be an equalizing factor on the
surface but in action was a major contributor of the catch reduction. This equal fishing time was
a staggered closure which resulted in gear still being fished 24 hours after Olga Bay was out of
the water. This staggered closure had the effect of not allowing enough time for salmon to travel
to the Olga Bay section to be available for harvest before gear from the other areas were once
again in the water and fishing
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the continued erosion of the Olga Bay
set net catch percentage is not reversed by board action, this traditional fishery on Kodiak Island
will not be able to survive and will cause extreme financial and emotional hardship to the
families who depend on the income. Young family members will not be able to carry on a way of
life that they have been brought up with, and fishermen who would like to change occupations
will not be able to sell their business and recoup their investments as there will be no viable
fishery to sell.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Olga Bay set net fishers have developed a high quality fresh
and frozen market with Plitt Seafoods in Chicago. Sockeye are caught, bled, slush iced, gutted
and gilled at great labor to fishermen involved. Olga Bay salmon are gaining label recognition,
and are in demand. If there is not fish to be caught and processed in Olga Bay this innovative
niche market will cease to exist.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All set net operatives in Alitak area will benefit from an
equitable allocation of harvestable salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Each area in the Alitak District will have an allocation based
on per capita of permits fished. Some fishers who in the past have received a high percentage of
the area’s catch will see the catch somewhat reduced.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Olga Bay has considered a terminal trap fishery
proposal in the past, but could not reach a consensus on how that might proceed.
47
PROPOSED BY: James Pryor (HQ-07F-317)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 58 - 5 AAC 18.331. Gillnet specifications and operations; and 5 AAC 39.280.
Identification of stationary fishing gear. Allow fishing of two set gillnet permits as follows:
5 ACC 18.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. (a) Except as provided in (e) of this
section. A fisherman owning two CFEC permits may operate no more than two 150 fathom
set gillnets, 300 fathoms in the aggregate, no more than four set gillnets. [A CFEC PERMIT
HOLDER MAY OPERATE NO MORE THAN 150 FATHOMS OF SET GILLNET IN THE
AGGREATE, NO MORE THAN TWO SET GILLNETS.]
5AAC 39.280. Identification of stationary fishing Gear. (a) The owner or operator of a set
gillnet or fish wheel in operation shall place in a conspicuous place on or near the set gillnet or
fish wheel the name of the fisherman operating it together with the fisherman’s five digit CFEC
permit serial number, followed by the letter “D” to identify the gillnet as a duel permit set
gillnet.
ISSUE: Amend this regulation as follows: Allow anyone who owns two setnet permits (as
allowed by 2006 legislation) to operate them in accordance with existing regulations. Presently a
fisherman may own two permits but he can only fish on. HB251 gives the board the authority to
allow a fisherman to own and operate two CFEC permits in the same fishery. We are asking the
Board to allow a fisherman who owns two setnet permits be allowed to fish them during the
fishing season in accordance with 5 AAC 18.331. This would be especially advantageous to a
family owned set net camp with multiple permits held by the family. As our kids have grown and
entered non-fishing vocations (because of poor ex-vessel prices) we are finding it very difficult
to fish the same number of permits unless they are permanently transferred (sold) to a crewman.
48
This proposal will not add any new or additional gear. This proposal will allow a family
operation to operate the same amount of gear with the security of not loosing a CFEC permit.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? HB251 cannot be utilized. Families who
have had multiple permits fished by family members will not be able to fish the permits.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It is imperative to our long-term market survival that the
harvester continue to improve the quality of our product. Allowing a family set gill net operation
to continue their present volume of production which will allow greater investments in ice, CWS
or RSW equipment improving quality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Family owned set gillnet operations. Crewmen who would
be out of a job unless the permit can be fished. A fisherman wanting to sell their CFEC permit
and/or site. Will increase employment opportunity for local Alaska residents who could replace
nonresident family members who have had to leave the fishery for other economic opportunity.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The permits have been fished in the past and there
will be no additional gear on sites added to the fishery. HB251 is rendered useless in
consolidating the set gillnets. There will continue to be no benefit to anyone who owns two
permits.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Your family member holding a CFEC permit as
beneficiary can have you fish their permit as their proxy. Rejected: May not conform to CFEC
regulations.
Limit this amended regulation to the first degree on kindred (mother, father, sister, brother)
instead of any fisherman. Rejected: Would limit this opportunity to families only.
PROPOSED BY: Richard G. Blanc (HQ-07F-067)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
49
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 59 - 5 AAC 18.330. Gear. Establish a Kodiak Area troll fishery to meet market
demand as follows:
The Board of Fisheries would need to work with CFEC to develop the new regulatory structure.
The new regulations would clarify that the “Statewide” salmon troll permits is a permit for the
area that has been historically (since 1972) open for trolling in Southeast Alaska. The regulations
would then provide that Kodiak salmon fishermen could convert their Kodiak salmon permits,
once per year, to a Kodiak area only salmon troll permit. The regulations would further provide
that the Kodiak salmon troll season would open on August 1 each year, in state waters only, and
the fishery would continue through September 30.
ISSUE: Lost fishing opportunity and low ex-vessel value for the Kodiak salmon fleet in late
August and September due to increased operational costs, loss of crew and low ex-vessel prices
for coho salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The status quo will continue the limited
harvest of coho salmon in the Kodiak area and will ensure low ex-vessel value for those coho
that are harvested. Failure to change current regulations will also ensure that many Kodiak
fishermen will be forced to quit fishing early in August due to operational costs and loss of crew.
Further, large numbers of Kodiak salmon permits will continue to be unused - between 250 - 300
in the purse seine and beach seine fisheries. In addition, the unmet market demand for troll
caught salmon will continue. Failure to increase the supply of Alaska troll caught salmon will
continue to provide additional opportunities for famed salmon producers to erode market share
for Alaska wild salmon product.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, troll caught salmon will improve the quality of
commercially caught salmon in the Kodiak area and increase the ex-vessel price. Troll caught
salmon will provide a product that local processors can afford to ship by air to domestic markets
and thereby increase fresh “quality” product out of Kodiak. For many markets, “fresh” is where
it’s at. The current Kodiak seine and gillnet fisheries make it difficult to produce fresh salmon in
the August - September timeframe.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kodiak salmon fishermen, Kodiak processors and
processing workers, the community of Kodiak, and the six communities around Kodiak Island.
The Alaska Salmon market in general because of the need for more troll caught, salon in the
market place. Many processors have indicated that they just don’t have enough fresh troll caught
salmon to meet market demand.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? It is unlikely that any one will “suffer” from this proposal.
S.E. Alaska troll fishermen will be concerned about competition for market share and would be
expected to defend the status quo --- all time high ex-vessel prices for troll caught fish. However,
with the freight cost differential between Kodiak and S.E. Alaska, the S.E. trollers will still be
the low cost producer and will still control the market. In addition, it seems unlikely that an eight
week troll fishery on a relatively small resource at the end of a long Kodiak commercial salmon
season is likely to produce enough fish to threaten or erode the S.E. troll market. In other words,
50
the market demand for troll caught salmon is far more than can be supplied by S.E. Alaska
fishermen. This proposal will enable Alaska to supply additional troll caught salmon for the
increasing domestic market demand and help to retain “wild salmon” market share in the face of
farmed coho salmon competition.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Co-operative fisheries for Coho were considered but
because of local concerns and implementation difficulties this was rejected. Regulatory changes
to make catching coho more efficient, like in river fishing with beach seines, would, most likely
interfere with traditional sport fishing areas and were rejected. Gear modifications such as
dipnetting or fish wheels did not appear to have the efficiencies of trolling and were also
rejected.
PROPOSED BY: Old Harbor Fisherman’s Association (HQ-07F-072)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 60 - 5AAC 64.020 Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and special
provisions for the Kodiak Area(b)(1)(B). Repeal the following regulation as follows
[(B) THE BUSKIN RIVER DRAINAGE UPSTREAM OF BRIDGE 1 IS CLOSED
TO SPORT FISHING FOR SALMON FROM AUGUST 1 – SEPTEMBER 15]
ISSUE: This proposal would open the Buskin River drainage to salmon sport fishing by removing
the August 1 – September 15 closure currently in place for waters above Bridge #1. If this proposal
is adopted, the entire Buskin drainage would be open to sport fishing for salmon all year.
Rescinding this seasonal upstream closure still allows the department to restrict fishing via
emergency order should it become necessary.
The upriver closure to sport fishing for salmon was implemented in the 1970s to provide protection
for pink and coho salmon stocks that were relatively low in abundance at the time. The department
has operated a weir in the Buskin since 1985 and documented that spawning escapements for both
pink and coho salmon are currently at high levels. Pink salmon escapement has averaged 118,000
fish over the past 10 years. Over the same time period, the Buskin River has had an average
spawning escapement of over 10,000 coho salmon and supported an annual coho salmon sport
harvest of approximately 3,000 fish. The escapement goal for Buskin River coho salmon is 3,200 to
7,200 fish.
In recent years, the Department has issued an emergency order removing the August 1– September
15 upriver closure to provide additional sport fishing harvest opportunity, primarily for coho
salmon. The department will continue to operate a weir on the Buskin River and actively manage
these fisheries to ensure that the escapement goals are being achieved. Additionally, increased
angling opportunity on the Buskin River may reduce sport fishing effort at other Kodiak Road Zone
drainages, which have smaller coho salmon returns and are not monitored inseason.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unless the closure is rescinded annually by
emergency order, anglers will be deprived of additional sport fishing opportunity along on the
Kodiak Road Zone.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
51
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who want to take advantage of the extra sport fishing
opportunity being provide for in regulation.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? One alternative to changing the regulation would be to
continue using emergency order authority to open the Buskin River prior to September 15 if
forecasts and weir counts indicate the escapement goal would be achieved. However, this
alternative has proven to result in lost harvest opportunity as escapement goals have been
consistently exceeded.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-291)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 61 - 5 AAC 64.022(b)(1)(C). Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits;
and special provision for the Kodiak Area. Amend the regulation to allow the following:
(b)(1)(C) [PILLAR AND] Island Lake Creek [s] is [ARE] closed to sport fishing for
salmon from January 1-December 31.
ISSUE: Pillar Creek is currently closed year round to sport fishing for salmon. This proposal
would remove Pillar Creek from the list of streams in regulation closed to sport fishing for salmon.
A companion proposal would establish an upstream boundary for the fishery that would close Pillar
Creek above the highway to all sport fishing, year round. If both this proposal and the companion
proposal were adopted, the result would be that Pillar Creek waters below the highway would be
open to all fishing all year and the waters above the highway would be closed to all fishing all year.
Upper Pillar Creek drainage is currently a source of drinking water for the community of Kodiak. In
the early 1970’s, the creek was de-watered when an outflow valve from the reservoir malfunctioned.
The de-watering caused catastrophic mortality of rearing salmon fingerlings and developing eggs.
As a result of the dewatering, Pillar Creek was closed to sport fishing for salmon by the Board of
Fisheries in 1973 to protect and rebuild the salmon returns. Since then, AD&G has stocked the
creek with coho salmon fingerlings from the Buskin River to help rebuild the return.
During the 30-year closure to sport fishing for salmon, Pillar Creek salmon stocks have rebounded
and stabilized. Over the past 10 years, annual escapement counts have averaged approximately
9,000 pink salmon and 142 coho salmon. Beginning in 2003, Pillar Creek began to receive a small
number of king salmon that are likely strays from an enhancement project in nearby Monashka
Creek. To provide anglers access to these surplus king salmon, Pillar Creek was opened by
emergency order to sport fishing for salmon in 2005 and 2006 and will likely be opened again in
2007.
The Department will continue to monitor spawning escapements and, if coho salmon counts decline
due to increased sport harvest, the department will either restrict coho salmon fishing or pursue the
option of stocking coho fingerlings into Pillar Creek to compensate for the decrease in natural
spawning escapement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If nothing is done, Pillar Creek will remain
closed in regulation to sport fishing for salmon. This closure will result in lost sport fishing
opportunity. Pillar Creek will continue to be opened by emergency order so that hatchery reared
king salmon strays can be harvested.
52
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fish anglers will benefit from increased fishing
opportunity on the Kodiak road system.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The Department considered leaving the salmon sport
fishery closed, but decided to submit this proposal since salmon stocks have rebounded and are now
stable.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-292)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 62 - 5 AAC 64.050(1) Waters closed to sport fishing in the Kodiak Area; and 5
AAC 64.022 (b)(1)(A). Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and special provisions
for the Kodiak Area. Amend the regulation to allow the following:
5 AAC 64.050(1) Waters closed to sport fishing in the Kodiak Area;
(1) [FROM MAY 1-SEPTEMBER 15] that portion of Monashka and Pillar Creek
drainages upstream from the Monashka Highway;
5 AAC 64.022 Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and special provisions for the
Kodiak Area(b)(1)(A). Amend the regulation to allow the following:
(A) all drainages on the Kodiak Road Zone flowing into Chiniak Bay,
[FROM MONASHKA CREEK TO AND INCLUDING CHINIAK CREEK] but excluding the
Buskin River and Kalsin Pond, upstream from the Chiniak Highway are closed to sport fishing for
salmon from August 1 – September 15;
ISSUE: This proposal would institute a year round closure to sport fishing on Pillar and Monashka
creeks upstream of the Monashka Highway. Currently waters of Monashka Creek are open to sport
fishing above the highway from September 16 through April 30. Pillar Creek waters above the
highway are closed to salmon fishing all year but are open to sport fishing for other species.
The primary purpose of this proposal is to ensure development of an orderly fishery resulting from
the enhancement efforts presently underway in the area. Adoption of this proposal will also
simplify Kodiak Road Zone sport fishing regulations.
Salmon hatchery and municipal water supply facilities are present in the Monashka and Pillar Creek
drainages. A sport fishing closure would remove the potential for conflict by separating anglers
from these facilities. As there is very little fishable water above the highway in either stream, little,
if any, angling opportunity would be lost. This proposal would close both streams year round to all
sport fishing upstream of the highway.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishing in these adjacent drainages
will continue to be unnecessarily complicated due to different regulations that do little to provide
fishing opportunity or protect the fishery resources. If nothing is done, anglers that do access these
53
small streams above the highway will encounter municipal water supply and hatchery facilities
creating the potential for conflict.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The angling public will benefit from consistent, clear
regulations between adjacent streams. The operators of the hatchery will benefit from by not having
anglers fishing too close to the hatchery while operators of the municipal water supply facilities will
benefit from less public intrusion into the watershed.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The few anglers who may wish to fish in the small headwater
areas of Pillar and Monashka Creeks would suffer from this closure.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-293)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 63 - 5 AAC 64.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provision for the Kodiak Area. Amend the regulation to allow the following:
(1) King salmon:
(A) in fresh waters:
(i) 20 inches or greater in length; bag and possession limit of two [THREE
OF WHICH ONLY TWO MAY BE 28 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH]; annual limit of
five king salmon; a harvest record is required as specified in 5 AAC 64.025;
ISSUE: The current freshwater king salmon bag limit is unnecessarily complex and potentially
confusing while providing relatively little additional harvest opportunity. Changing the freshwater
daily bag limit for king salmon over 20 inches from three fish, where only two may be 28 inches or
greater in length, to two fish with no maximum size limit will simplify the regulation and make it
consistent with the saltwater bag limit, which is also two king salmon with no maximum size limit.
Recent king salmon runs to the Karluk and Ayakulik rivers have been weak and this has prompted
the department to issue emergency orders for bag limit reductions, catch and release only, and
complete fishery closures.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The freshwater bag limit for king salmon
will remain status quo. King salmon bag and possession limits will remain inconsistent between
fresh and salt waters in the Kodiak area. The Department will continue to issue emergency orders
inseason as necessary to insure that escapement goals can be achieved.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public will benefit by having a simplified and consistent
king salmon bag and possession regulations. In the near term, the resource will benefit by having a
bag limit set at a level that is more appropriate for reduced king salmon returns.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers who would like to harvest a third king salmon that is
between 20 inches and 28 inches.
54
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leaving current regulations in place was considered,
but rejected.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-294)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 64 - 5 AAC 64.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession , and size limits; and
special provisions for the Kodiak Area. Modify bait restriction for Karluk River fishery as
follows:
5 AAC 64.022(a)(l)(A)(iii) in the Karluk river drainage, except Karluk Lake, only artificial lures
may be used from June 1 through July 25. Prohibiting bait from June 1-25 would effectively
eliminate it during the king fishery but continue its use for other fisheries i.e. silver salmon
fishing.
ISSUE: Too high a harvest by use of bait and/or too high hooking mortality on released fish
resulting from the use of bait. The use of bait has contributed to the poor king salmon runs at
Karluk in the last 6 years, which have include 2001 and 2006 during which minimum spawning
escapement goals have not been met. In our opinion thus far the inseason restrictions on the sport
fishery imposed by ADF&G have not been effective to sufficiently reduce the harvest and/or
hooking mortality and have been overly disruptive to anglers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Too high harvests and/or hooking
mortality will continue to reduce the king salmon run and jeopardize the long term health of the
stock.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Harvests and/or hooking mortality will decrease and the
increased number of surviving fish will help achieve escapement goals sustain long term health
of the stock.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource will benefit from lower harvest and hooking
mortality resulting from prohibiting the use of bait, and anglers who currently prefer to not use
bait will benefit from the equalization of opportunity in the sport fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers who prefer using bait may feel they will lose some
fishing opportunity if this practice is discontinued.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No bait is the best option to conserve more king
salmon while allowing the sport fishery to proceed with minimal disruption and the overall loss
of potential opportunity for anglers.
PROPOSED BY: Karluk IRA Tribal Council (HQ-07F-117)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 65 - 5 AAC 64.xxx. New section. Create an Ayakulik River King Salmon
Management Plan as follows:
Amend the Alaska Administrative Code Number 5 AAC 64 Kodiak Area to include an Ayakulik
55
King Salmon Management Plan as follows:
A. The purpose of this plan is to manage the Ayakulik king salmon sport fishery to obtain an
optimal escapement goal (OEG) as defined in 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of
sustainable salmon fisheries.
1. The board recognizes the unique qualities of the Ayakulik sport fishery.
2. The board recognizes that harvest of king salmon is important to some Ayakulik sport fishing
visitors, commercial fishermen and subsistence users. Through this management plan, the
board will provide for this harvest as long as the biological escapement goal (BEG) of king
salmon can be met.
3. The board recognizes that harvest of king salmon is secondary to many Ayakulik sport
fishing visitors and to the industry surrounding the sport fishery. Through this management
plan, the board will provide, at a minimum, a “conservation catch and release” (as defined in
5 AAC 75.003(1)(B)) fishing opportunity as long as the OEG of king salmon can be met.
B. To implement this management plan the board will take the following actions.
1. The board shall define an OEG for the Ayakulik king salmon run.
2. Pre-season, the king salmon limit on the Ayakulik River is as defined in 5 AAC 64.022.
3. June 5, if the weir has been in place for ten days* and, there are fewer than 500 kings
counted through the weir, the ADF&G shall, by emergency order, reduce the king salmon
limit to one king of any size per day, two kings in possession, two kings annually. Legally
sport fishing methods and means shall include the use of bait.
4. June 15, if the weir has been in place for twenty days* and, there are more than 3500 kings
counted through the weir, the ADF&G shall set, or retain, the king salmon limit at pre-season
levels.
b. June 15, if the weir has been in place for twenty days* and there are fewer than 2000 kings
counted through the weir, ADF&G shall institute a conservation catch and release king
salmon fishery. Legal sport fishing methods and means, for all species on the Ayakulik, shall
include only artificial lures and flys with single, barbless hooks. Sport fishing methods and
means shall require that all kings be released unharmed and that kings may not be removed
from the water.
5. June 25, if the weir has been in place for thirty days* and there are more than 4500 kings
counted through the weir, the ADF&G shall set, or retain, the king salmon limit at pre-season
levels.
b. June 25, if the weir has been in place for thirty days* and, there are less than 70% of the
king salmon OEG counted through the weir, the ADF&G shall, by emergency order, close
all targeted king salmon fishing. Legal sport fishing methods and means, for all species on
the Ayakulik, shall include only artificial lures and flys with single, barbless hooks. Legal
sport fishing methods and means shall require that all kings, caught incidentally, be released
un-harmed and that kings may not be removed from the water.
56
6. July 5, if the weir has been in place for forty days* and, there are less than the total king
salmon OEG counted through the weir, the ADF&G shall, by emergency order, close or keep
closed, all targeted king salmon fishing. Legal sport fishing methods and means, for all
species on the Ayakulik, shall include only artificial lures and flys with single, barblesss
hooks. Legal sport fishing methods and means shall require that all kings, caught
incidentally, be released un-harmed and that kings may not be removed from the water.
*In the event of fewer actual days of weir operation, ADF&G will use historical averages or
other reasonably reliable means to estimate king escapement for those days that the weir was not
in operation. This estimated king escapement shall be added to any actual weir count to
determine the number of “kings counted through the weir” for the purposes of this plan.
ISSUE: Current regulations governing the Ayakulik River sport fisheries do not provide for a
“conservation catch and release” option during weak salmon returns. Currently, ADF&G must
totally close sport fishing for a species, if that species’ projected spawning escapement falls
below it’s biological escapement goal (BEG). A total closure is extremely disruptive to the
unique sport fishery which exists on the Ayakulik.
A conservation catch and release fishery can exist on the Ayakulik without significantly
impacting the resources as long as an optimum escapement goal (OEG) is met. During the years
1970 to 1979 (10 years) the Ayakulik king returns were well below the current BEG in 7
different years*. Less than 1600 kings returned during 5 of these years*. The Ayakulik sustained
these weak runs and build to an all time high of 24,830 kings in 2004.
The Ayakulik sport fishery is unique in that harvest has a fairly low priority. During the 2003
king salmon sport fishery 4,746 fish were caught, of which 4,312 (91%) were released*. During
the 2004 king salmon sport fishery 7,450 fish were caught, of which 7,049 (95%) were
released*. A conservation catch and release fishery would be acceptable to most Ayakulik
visitors and would reduce the impact of weak returns on the sport fishery in general.
The Ayakulik sport fishery is unique in that the Ayakulik is remote in the extreme. Access is by
high performance floatplane or helicopter only. There are no roads, runways or harbors available
to the visiting angler. Because of this, fishing the Ayakulik requires more planning and expense
than most other rivers. 85% of visitors to the Ayakulik are from somewhere other than Kodiak
Island**. 73% are from outside Alaska, many are Alien**. Just to reach the City of Kodiak,
most Ayakulik visitors have made a significant investment in both time and money. On top of
this, floatplane and helicopter charters to the Ayakulik must be arranged and they are among the
most expensive on Kodiak Island, 41% of visitors to the Ayakulik are guided which adds
significantly to their investment**.
King salmon fishing on the Ayakulik requires more commitment than most other rivers. The
average Ayakulik visitor stays on the river for 5 days**. Their visit to the Ayakulik is the
primary motivation for their entire trip to Alaska. They Ayakulik is one of only two rivers on
Kodiak Island that provide a freshwater king fishery. Due to land management issues, switching
to another king river on short notice is rarely an option. While on the Ayakulik, visitors are
limited to its freshwater fishery alone. In the event of a fishing closure, visitors don’t have the
option of a different river or a saltwater fishing trip.
As is the case in most of Alaska, there is an industry developed around the Ayakulik sport
fishery. Total fishing closures have an immediate financial impact on this industry. Because of
the Ayakulik’s unique circumstances, this industry is 100% done during a total closure. Closures
57
also have a negative long term impact. Because of the added expense in time and money, and the
commitment that it takes to fish the Ayakulik, it’s important that the river maintains a reliable
fishing opportunity. Visits to the Ayakulik are often planned one or two years in advance.
Visitors are not likely to gamble this type of investment on a chancy fishing opportunity.
*ADF&G, Ayakulik Chinook Salmon Weir Counts, 1970 - 1984
**ADF&G Sport Fish Division and Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, 2003 and 2004 Ayakulik
River Visitor Census
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishing opportunities on the
Ayakulik will continue to be lost for no significant biological reason. The industry developed
around the Ayakulik sport fishery will continue to suffer unnecessary financial loss.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will improve the products offered to the public
by the industry that surrounds the Ayakulik sport fishery. This industry will be able to supply a
more reliable guided sport fishing experience. The portion of this industry which services un-
guided anglers (hotels, airlines, air charter operators, fish processors, equipment sales and
rentals) will also be able to supply a more reliable sport fishing experience.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishing visitors to the Ayakulik who enjoy the
experience regardless of their ability to harvest fish. Employees and businesses who make up the
industry which surrounds the Ayakulik sport fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This proposal does not directly allocate fish, or anything
else, away from any user to another. In the abstract, it is true that there is a mortality rate,
however small, in the most careful catch and release fishery. While this proposal seeks not to
allow this mortality rate to endanger the future of the Ayakulik king run, it may have a slight
impact on the runs maximum potential yield. This impact would effect all harvest oriented users
including commercial, sport and subsistence.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None
PROPOSED BY: James “David” Jones (HQ-07F-344)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 66 - 5 AAC 64.xxx. New section. Establish an OEG for king salmon and/or
sockeye on the Ayakulik River as follows:
ADF&G to be able to establish a management plan for an OEG/optimal escapement goal, in
order to allow a conservative catch and release sport fishing if king and/or sockeye salmon runs
falls.
ISSUE: Emergency order closing of sport fishing along the Ayakulik River. Kodiak, Alaska if
the escapement of king and/or sockeye salmon falls below the BEG.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishing enthusiasts from all over the
world enduring itinerary cancellations of a planned trip to Alaska. Lost revenue to guide
operations, employees, air taxi services, Native corporations and local town businesses.
58
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the salmon resource can be improved by going to a catch
and release early in the run if the BEG looks like it will not be mat vs. bag/possession
limits/means of harvest.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishing enthusiast, businesses such as guide
operations, Native Corporations, air taxis, local businesses within town (hotels, grocery market,
retail stores), guide employees, even commercial fishing operations by having more fish enter
system for a BEG.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Amy Fredette (HQ-07F-340)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 67 - 5 AAC 64.xxx. New section. Establish an OEG for king and/or sockeye
salmon on the Ayakulik River and allow a catch and release fishery as follows:
The ADF&G should establish a management plan and establish an optimal escapement goal to
allow a catch and release sport fishery if the run of king and sockeye salmon falls below the
biological escapement goal.
ISSUE: The ADF&G does not have a conservation catch and release regulation if the
escapement of king and sockeye salmon falls below the biological escapement goal. This is very
disruptive to the sport fishery and creates a hardship on some people.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishery opportunity will be lost for
no significant biological reason. The guides the Ayakulik native lodge and other sportfishermen
suffer.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of the resource can be improved by earlier in the
runs going to a catch and release fishery for king and sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All sport fishermen, guides, Ayakulik native lodge, and a
catch and release may benefit commercial fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Dennis Harms (HQ-07F-341)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 68 - 5 AAC 64.xxx. New section. Establish an OEG for king and sockeye
salmon on the Ayakulik River and allow a catch and release fishery as follows:
In the event of a low king or sockeye salmon run permit catch and release sport fishing.
59
ISSUE: Complete closure of sport fishing instead of catch and release on the Ayakulik River
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Creates a hardship for members of
Ayakulik Inc.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will improve the quality of the resource
because we will go immediately to a catch and release
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Ayakulik members derive part of their income from their
sport fishing lodge. All sport fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one because fewer fish totally will be harvested.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Ayakulik Inc. (HQ-07F-342)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 69 - 5 AAC 64.xxx. New section. Establish an OEG for coho salmon on the
Ayakulik River and allow a catch and release fishery as follows:
Establish biological and optimal escapement goal for coho salmon in the Ayakulik River and use
a method to verify that the fish are in the river. Also establish a catch and release sport fisher in
years of low runs.
ISSUE: Amend west side Kodiak Island management plan to guarantee an adequate escapement
of coho salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? High danger of over harvesting coho
salmon, especially when mingled with pink salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal eliminates an accidental over fishing of coho
salmon for the Ayakulik River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? In long run everyone and the coho resource
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one except short term parties over fishing the coho
stocks.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Move marks further from north of Ayakulik River.
PROPOSED BY: Dennis Harms (HQ-07F-343)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 70 - 5 AAC 64.022. Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and
special provisions for the Kodiak Area. Allow early season catch and release on Ayakulik
River as follows:
60
When escapement is low early in season, go to catch & release or fly fishing only. This way the
resource can be utilized and not diminished.
ISSUE: Complete closure of sport fishing instead of catch & release on the Ayakulik River
when escapement numbers are low.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Denies use of resource to everyone,
including those who rely on this resource for income and subsistence.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, allows use of the resource with minimal detriment to the
fish renewal.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who sport fishes on Ayakulik River. Guides,
native users, Alaska residents.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Not even the fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Richard H. Young (HQ-07F-068)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 71 - 5AAC 64.060. Kodiak Area Salt Water King Salmon Sport Fishery
Management Plan. Amend the regulation based on the following provisions:
(c) If the guideline harvest level is exceeded, the board will consider restrictions that
may be necessary to avoid exceeding the guideline harvest level at a regularly scheduled
meeting for the Kodiak Area. If the board finds that restrictions are necessary, the board will
adopt one or more of the following restrictions in the following order:
(1) reduce the nonresident bag and possession limit for king salmon in salt
waters to one fish;
(2) prohibit a sport fishing guide from taking a king salmon while a client is
present or is within the guide’s control or responsibility;
(3) allow only king salmon 28 inches or greater in length to be retained;
(4) reduce the resident bag and possession limit for king salmon in salt waters
to one fish.
ISSUE. The saltwater king salmon management plan allows the board to consider restrictions if the
guideline harvest level of 8,000 fish is exceeded. Since the plan became effective in 2003, king
salmon harvests for 2003 through 2006 are estimated to be 8,024, 9,787 and 8,278 king salmon
respectively. This proposal has been submitted as a placeholder to provide the Board and the public
the opportunity to review the status of the fishery and make adjustments to the management plan as
necessary.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The management plan will remain in effect
as currently written. The Board will have the opportunity to review the plan at its next regularly
scheduled meeting in three years.
61
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All stakeholders will benefit by providing the opportunity to
comment to the Board of Fisheries regarding the saltwater king salmon management plan.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A opportunity to review the plan should cause no one to suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-295)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 72 - 5 AAC 64.060. Kodiak Area Salt Water King Salmon Sport Fishery
Management Plan. Create an exclusive use area for saltwater sport fishing charter operators in
the Kodiak area as follows:
Add a new regulation to specify the following:
(a) The Kodiak Area (as defined in 5 AAC 64.005) is an exclusive use area for salt water
sport fishing charter service operators
(b) A person licensed uner 5 AAC 75.075 to provide sport fishing services that operates a
salt water sport fishing charter service in the Kodiak exclusive use area at any time during
the calendar year may not operate or have operated a salt water sport fishing charter
services in any other sport fishing regulatory areas of the State during that same calendar
year.
(c) A person licensed under 5 AAC 75.075 to provide sport fishing services that operates a
salt water sport fishing charter service in a sport fishing regulatory area other than the
Kodiak exclusive use area at any time during the calendar year may not operate or have
operated a salt water sport fishing charter services in the Kodiak exclusive use area during
that same calendar year.
(d) A vessel registered under 5 AAC 75.077 for sport fishing services that operates a salt
water sport fishing charter vessel in the Kodiak Area at any time during the calendar year
may not operate or have been operated as a salt water sport fishing charter vessel in any
other sport fishing area within the State of Alaska during that same calendar year.
ISSUE: Currently, the potential exists for unlimited increase in the number of salt water sport
fishing charter services operators in the Kodiak Area. Kodiak operators are subject to increased
competition no only from new operators but also from operators that fish in other sport fishing
areas of the State of Alaska. Operators that can move their salt water charter services anywhere
within the state have no incentive to protect local area sport fishing resources (such as salmon,
halibut and other fish stocks and so not support local economies. Operators from areas outside of
Kodiak do not have the same need as Kodiak operators to keep the sport fishery resources of
Kodiak healthy and sustainable.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Excessive competition will lower the
quality of the sport fishing experience for clients and may force local operators out of business.
Sport fishing areas will become more and more crowded with charter boats from other areas of
the state. Information about sport harvests from the Kodiak Area by non-Kodiak operators may
62
not be available to local ADF&G managers, putting Kodiak sport fishing resources at more risk.
The local Kodiak economy will suffer as money from salt water sport fishing charter services
and clients that might have been spent on Kodiak goes to other communities.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Limiting participation in Kodiak sport fishing salt water
charter services through exclusive use limitations will improve the quality of the sport fishing
experience for Kodiak sport fishers and charter vessel clients. Competitive pressure on the sport
fishing resources of the Kodiak Area will be lower.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Operators and clients of sport fishing salt water charter
services, and the sport fishing resources of the Kodiak Area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Salt water sport fishing charter operators that do not care
about the health of the fishery resources of Kodiak or the quality of the sport fishing experience
of their clients.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Larry Shaker, Charles Glagolich, Tim Tripp, John Witteveen,
Gary Salter, Chris Fiala, David Olsen, and John T. Parker (HQ-07F-427)
******************************************************************************
63
UPPER COOK INLET FINFISH
PROPOSAL 73 - 5 AAC 27.409. Central District Herring Management Plan. Amend these
regulations as follows:
(a) The purpose of this management plan is allow [TO FOSTER THE COMPLETE
RECOVERY OF] the herring fisheries of the Central District of the Cook Inlet Area [. THIS
PLAN SETS OUT INTERIM STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING ALL CENTRAL DISTRICT
HERRING FISHERIES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP BIOLOGICALLY SOUND AND
SUSTAINABLE HERRING FISHERIES] while minimizing the bycatch of salmon and char.
(b) Herring fishing in the Central District will occur only in the waters of Upper
Subdistrict, Kalgin Island Subdistrict, Western Subdistrict, and Chinitna Bay Subdistrict as
described in 5 AAC 21.200(b).
(c) the open season is from April 20 through May 31, the commissioner may open,
by emergency order, herring fishing periods as described in (d) of this subsection;
(d) the commissioner may open and close, by emergency order, a herring fishery for
one fishing period per week, beginning on Monday 6:00 a.m. and closing Friday 6:00 p.m.;
a fishing period may not last longer than 108 hours; a fishing period may extend beyond
May 31 if it begins before that date and is not longer than 108 hours in length;
(e) [c] To participate in a Central District herring fishery, a person must register with the
department's Soldotna Office prior to fishing. [NO LATER THAN APRIL 10 OF THE YEAR
IN WHICH THE PERSON INTENDS TO PARTICIPATE]. A person shall report fishing time
and herring harvested, whether sold or retained for personal use, to that office by noon of the
day following the harvest. [WITHIN 12 HOURS OF THE CLOSURE OF A FISHING
PERIOD DURING WHICH THE PERSON PARTICIPATED OR HARVESTED HERRING IN
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT.]
(f) In the Upper Subdistrict a person may not fish for herring closer than 600 feet of
the mean high tide mark on the Kenai Peninsula; the department may expand, by
emergency order, this closed area in order to minimize the bycatch of salmon and char.
[(1) THE DEPARTMENT WILL MONITOR THE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT, AGE
COMPOSITION, BYCATCH, AND OTHER ASPECTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO
CONDUCT A CONSERVATIVE, LOW-LEVEL FISHERY;
(2) THE DEPARTMENT WILL PERFORM ASSESSMENT STUDIES OF AGE
COMPOSITION IN ORDER TO MONITOR FUTURE RECRUITMENT, AND IT WILL
MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISHERY BASED UPON STOCK
TRENDS;
(3) FROM APRIL 20 THROUGH MAY 31, THE COMMISSIONER MAY OPEN, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, HERRING FISHING PERIODS AS DESCRIBED IN (4) OF THIS
SUBSECTION;
64
(4) THE COMMISSIONER MAY OPEN AND CLOSE, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, A
HERRING FISHERY FOR ONE FISHING PERIOD PER WEEK, BEGINNING ON
MONDAY 6:00 A.M. AND CLOSING FRIDAY 6:00 P.M.; A FISHING PERIOD MAY NOT
LAST LONGER THAN 108 HOURS; A FISHING PERIOD MAY EXTEND BEYOND MAY
31 IF IT BEGINS BEFORE THAT DATE AND IS NOT LONGER THAN 108 HOURS IN
LENGTH;
(5) THE GUIDELINE HARVEST RANGE IS 0 - 40 TONS OF HERRING;
(6) A PERSON MAY NOT FISH FOR HERRING CLOSER THAN 600 FEET OF THE MEAN
HIGH TIDE MARK ON THE KENAI PENINSULA; THE DEPARTMENT MAY EXPAND,
BY EMERGENCY ORDER, THIS CLOSED AREA IN ORDER TO DECREASE THE
EMERGENCY ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE BYCATCH OF SALMON AND CHAR.
(E) IN THE CHINITNA BAY, KALGIN ISLAND, AND WESTERN SUBDISTRICTS:
(1) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALLOW A HERRING FISHERY IF IT HAS ASSESSED
THE AGE COMPOSITION OF HERRING STOCKS WHERE THE FISHERY WILL OCCUR
AND IF IT HAS DETERMINED THAT A HEALTHY STOCK STRUCTURE EXISTS;
(2) THE DEPARTMENT WILL MANAGE THE FISHERIES IN TUXEDNI BAY AND
CHINITNA BAY IN ORDER TO ASSURE SUSTAINED YIELD, AND WILL TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE STOCK STATUS AND ASSESSMENTS OF THE HERRING STOCK
LANDED;
(3) FROM APRIL 20 THROUGH MAY 31, THE COMMISSIONER MAY OPEN, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, HERRING FISHING PERIODS AS DESCRIBED IN (4) OF THIS
SUBSECTION;
(4) THE COMMISSIONER MAY OPEN, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, THE FISHERY FOR
TWO FISHING PERIODS PER WEEK, ONE BEGINNING ON MONDAY AND ONE
BEGINNING ON THURSDAY; EACH FISHING PERIOD MAY NOT LAST LONGER
THAN 30 HOURS; A FISHING PERIOD MAY EXTEND BEYOND MAY 31 IF IT BEGINS
BEFORE THAT DATE AND IS NOT LONGER THAN 30 HOURS IN LENGTH;]
(1) [(5)] the guideline harvest range for the
(A) Chinitna Bay Subdistrict is 0 - 40 tons of herring;
(B) Western Subdistrict is 0 - 50 tons of herring.
(C) Kalgin Island Subdistrict is 0 - 20 tons of herring.
(D) Upper Subdistrict is 0-40 tons.
(g) Repealed 3/8/2002.
PROBLEM: Rewrite the Central District Herring Management Plan to simplify and correct
errors that have occurred in the regulation.
65
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will open the season by
emergency order which will lead to confusion for many users.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Herring Fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-266)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 74 - 5 AAC 21.387. Prohibition on the use of aircraft. Prohibit use of spotter
pilots as follows:
Use of aircraft unlawful. A person may not use or employ an aircraft to locate salmon for the
commercial taking of salmon or to direct commercial fishing operations in the Upper Cook Inlet
Area one hour before, during, and one hour after a commercial salmon fishing period.
ISSUE: I want the Board to reinstitute the prohibition on spotter pilots that was in effect until it
was changed in 2005.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Spotter pilots will continue to be used
adding additional costs to an already over capitalized fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, eliminates concentrations of boats in areas where fish are
and allows a few boats that locate a school of fish to harvest those fish more slowly.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users except those that employ aircraft.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Spotters and those who need them to fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Chris Kempf (HQ-07F-022)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 75 - 5 AAC 21.378. Prohibition on the use of aircraft. Prohibit use of spotter
planes within one hour of commercial open periods as follows:
A person may not use or employ an aircraft to locate salmon for the commercial taking of
salmon or to direct commercial fishing operations in the upper cook inlet area one hour before,
during and one hour after a commercial salmon fishing period.
ISSUE: Prohibit the use of aircraft for spotting or directly salmon drift boats in Cook Inlet.
66
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Too often planes are used on days when
the fleet is fishing in restricted areas & are used to keep track of enforcement. When the coast is
clear, boats slip into restricted areas of fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It would improve the quality of the resource in that boats
would not be able to target weak stocks that the Dept. is trying to enhance.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Honest fisherman and weak stocks.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Dishonest fishermen.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Daniel R. Hakkinen (HQ-07F-098)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 76 - 5 AAC 21.200(b)(2)(C). Fishing districts, subdistricts, and sections.
Modify drift gillnet area for Kasilof Section as follows:
Put prior area waters back in place in regulations:
Change (C) Kasilof Section: 151 degrees 25.70’ W. long., to prior waters in regulation.
(C) to a point at 60 degrees 27.10’ N. lat. 151 degrees 25.05 W. long. [25.70’]
ISSUE: Drift area expanded at the last board meeting allowed extra three or more drift boats to
operate seaward in an area instead of what was in prior regulation. This change was allocation
guised as safety issue.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Allocation of Kenai River late-run
sockeye from this change and managing of late-run harder on low runs.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Probably Fish and Game managing on low runs. Everyone
who will not be closed earlier to reach the lower end of Kenai River sockeye escapement goal.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drift who fish in this expanded area of .2 mile.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. The BOF has allocated authority but the
allocation criteria was not talked about when the drift proposal came up.
PROPOSED BY: Owen Geer (HQ-07F-131)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 77 - 5 AAC 21.200(b)(c) Fishing districts, subdistricts, and sections.
Redefine demarcation of Kenai and Kasilof sections as follows:
Redefine the demarcation of the Kenai and Kasilof sections (the Blanchard Line) as a point one-
half mile north of the north bank of the Kasilof River.
67
ISSUE: Current Kasilof setnet management areas are not adequate. Excessive use of the Kasilof
terminal fishing area in years of big Kasilof sockeye runs is ineffective for regulating Kasilof
sockeye escapement and has caused a variety of fishery problems and conflicts, making it
extremely unpopular with commercial fishers. However, the current Kasilof setnet area is not
adequate to protect Kenai fish when those runs are weak. The northern boundary of the Kasilof
River set net fishing area (Blanchard line) does not provide adequate protection of Kenai fish
during Kasilof cockeye target fisheries. The setnet fishery from the Kasilof River mouth to the
Blanchard Line is a mixed stock fishery for Kasilof and Kenai River sockeye and chinook.
Intensive Kasilof fisheries in big run years intercept large numbers of Kenai fish. Kenai
escapements and fisheries suffer as a result. For instance, big Kasilof fisheries in 2006 would
have caused Kenai sockeye escapement to fall short of goals if the run had been on time rather
than late. Large king harvests in set net fisheries north of the Kasilof also add to the excessive
harvest of this sport fishery. Commercial fishery managers have consistently failed to implement
effective management measures to limit king bycatch in sockeye target fisheries. Redefining the
Kasilof area to exclude areas one-half mile north of the north bank of the Kasilof River would be
much more effective strategy for selectively targeting Kasilof fish and avoiding Kenai fish,
including kings.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial fishery managers will
continue to lack effective tools for independently managing Kasilof and Kenai stocks. Kasilof
setnet fishery areas will remain inadequate for targeting large Kasilof sockeye. Kasilof target
fisheries will continue to have unwanted effects on Kenai escapement and in-river fishery
opportunities.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit from effective management to
achieve escapement goals of all stocks. Setnet permit holders south of the Kasilof will benefit in
years of large Kenai sockeye runs when the Kenai run is weak. Setnet permit holders north of the
Kasilof will benefit in years of large Kenai sockeye runs when the Kasilof run is weak.
Commercial fishers operating north of the Blanchard line may get additional fishing time if the
Kasilof fishery reduces its bycatch of sockeye bound for the Kenai and other systems. All setnet
permit holders will share in sockeye fisheries when both runs are strong. Recreational and
personal use sockeye fisheries on the Kenai will benefit from passing additional Kenai stocks
through the Kasilof fishery. Kenai and Kasilof sport fisheries will benefit from increased
opportunity when the excessive harvest of kings in the commercial setnet fishery is effectively
addressed.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Better definition of the Kasilof section that better
addresses the Kasilof stocks should provide benefit across the user groups. However, commercial
fishers operating within the Kasilof fishing district may have to forego some harvest of sockeye
and king salmon bound for the Kenai River and other river systems within Cook Inlet.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered redefining K-beach fishery areas
from two areas to three with a central K-beach area to include the southern portion of north K-
beach area to include the southern portion of north K-beach and the northern portion of south K-
beach. The new central K beach area would be fished when both the Kenai and Kasilof sockeye
runs were strong but closed when either needed to be protected. This alternative was rejected
because the proposed change is simpler and less disruptive. We also considered other alternatives
68
for reducing excessive king catches in the commercial setnet fishery such a shallower set nets.
Research has demonstrated that king bycatch can be reduced by use of shallower nets but
commercial fishery managers have failed to follow up on this research with further experiments,
new regulations or test fisheries.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-163)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 78 - 5 AAC 21.320. Weekly fishing periods. Reopen the Southside of Chinitna
Bay to gillnetting as follows:
(vii) along the north side of Chinitna Bay from 59° 53.17’ N. lat., 153° W. long., to 59° 51.52’
N. lat., 153° 08.17’ W. long and only within 2,500 feet of the mean high tide mark and on the
South side of the bay, east of a line from the crane on the south shore at 59° 51.72’ N. lat.,
153 07.84’ W. long and only within 2,500 feet of the mean high tide mark;
ISSUE: I want the Board to reopen the south side of Chinitna Bay to set gillnetting during
regular periods.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? I will have to travel to the north side of
the bay and fight the weather.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, I will be able to monitor my nets better and pick fish
more often since I live on the south side of the bay.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anyone wanting to set gillnet on the south side of the bay.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one is fishing in the bay so there is little impact.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None
PROPOSED BY: Mike Carpenter (HQ-07F-025)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 79 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Remove restrictions from drift and set
gillnet fisheries for coho protection as follows:
(c)(i) Kasilof Section: from June 25 through August 15 [10], unless closed earlier by
emergency order under (iii) of the subparagraph; however, if the department estimates that
50,0000 sockeye salmon are in the Kasilof River before June 25, but on or after June 20, the
commissioner may immediately, by emergency order, open the fishery;
(ii) Kenai and East Forelands Sections: from July 1 [8] through August 15 [10] unless
closed earlier by emergency order under (iii) of the subparagraph,
(iii) Kenai, Kasilof, and East Forelands Sections; the season will close August 15 [10]
unless closed earlier by emergency, [ORDER AFTER JULY 31, AFTER THE
DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE
SEAON’S TOTAL SOCKEYE HARVEST HAS BEEN TAKEN PER FISHING
PERIOD FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE FISHING PERIODS; FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SUB-PARAGRAPH, “FISHING PERIOD”, MEANS A TIME
69
PERIOD OPEN TO COMMERCIAL FISHING WITHOUT CLOSURE;]
(3) Central District, for drift gillnet; from the third Monday in June or June 19 whichever
is later, until closed by emergency order, except that fishing with drift gillnets may not occur
within two miles of the man high tide mark on the eastern side of the Upper Subdistrict until
those locations have been opened for fishing with set gillnets and the area within 5 miles of the
Kenai Peninsula shoreline is closed after August 15;
ISSUE: Management of the commercial fisheries to meet the escapement goals for UCI stocks.
In 2000 the BOF accepted a petition and restricted the set gillnet and drift fishery because of a
perceived problem with coho salmon. This problem was not real and those restrictions should
now be removed.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about one third of the surplus fish available for harvest in UCI because of
some ill-defined goals of “meaningful sport fish opportunity”. In all other areas of the state the
sport fishery has a meaningful opportunity when the escapement goals are achieved.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of salmon in a predictable
and reasonable fashion and return the commercial season to what it was before it was messed
with for no apparent gain. It would return the commercial fishery to a time when the plans
worked and provide for a meaningful opportunity to harvest the salmon available surplus to
escapement needs. Kings and coho are not an issue as the goals have been achieved every year.
This is to put so many fish in-river so that even poor fishermen can “snag” a fish. This is a
colossal waste and benefits to no one.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? In the long term everyone who fishes because the returns
should be more stable and predictable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, managing for reasonable escapement goals is the
one success the department has been bragging about for years.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-220)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 80 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Modify the dates of the Central District
for the Kenai and East Forelands sections as follows:
(2)(C)(ii) Kenai and East Forelands Sections from July 1 [8] through August 15 [10].
Delete windows.
ISSUE: A gross inequity in fishing opportunity by time available in the Kenai and East
Forelands setnet areas. Fishing Season opening and closing dates have been significantly
reduced in the Kenai and East Forelands Sections; available opportunity has been further reduced
by mandatory closure times (closed days in windows). A thirty-seven percent (37%) reduction
on available fishing time from June 25 - August 15 dates has occurred by comparison to the
current season opening and closing dates of July 8 - August 10. When mandatory limitations on
time (windows) were put in, on Kenai River late-run sockeye runs between two to four million
70
fish, an increased unavailable fishing time of sixty percent (60%) went into effect.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be a gross inequity
in available fishing opportunity in the Kenai and East Forelands Sections. Drift gillnet opens
June 19 and until closed by emergency order after August 11. Continued significant reduced
time available compared to other areas or gear groups, including lost sockeye harvests on regular
weekly fishing periods that otherwise would have been open.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Early market demand for quality fresh sockeye.
Harvesting sockeye available on or after August 10 protects the resource from over escapement
problems on production.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set net Fisherman in Kenai and East Forelands sections.
The July 1 opening season date (in prior regulation) allows valuable safety training time, and one
or two regular 12-hour periods of harvest opportunity. The August 15 seasons ending date
represents at least one regular 12-hour period for sockeye harvest that otherwise would be
foregone (even when the goals are exceeded).
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? June 25, July 1 opening date in prior management
plans. Considered July 5 but rejected because in some years the first regular fishing period
wouldn’t start till July 7 or 8. Considered Season closing date similar to drift plan date closed by
EO but rejected because August 15 is our historical season closed date.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-454)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 81 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing Seasons. Change season dates for Kenai and East
Forelands Sections as follows:
(B) (iv) by set gillnets in the Kenai and East Forelands Sections from July 1 [8] through
August 15 [7], unless closed earlier by emergency order; when July 1 [8] falls within a closed
weekly period, the season will open the next open weekly period, unless the department
estimates that 100.000 sockeye salmon are in the Kenai River before that date, at which time the
department may open the fishery; however, the fishery may not open before June 25;
ISSUE: Management of the commercial fisheries to meet the escapement goals for the Kenai
River. The starting date for the Kenai and East Forelands Sections is too late and the ending date
is too early to manage for many years.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about 1/3 of the surplus fish available for harvest in UCI because of some ill-
defined goals of “meaningful sport fish opportunity”. The Kenai River is the only river in the
state with this “goal” of ever increasing escapement without any measurable benefit to anyone.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of Kenai River sockeye in
a predictable and reasonable fashion. This would return the commercial fishery to a time when
the plans worked and provide for a meaningful opportunity to harvest the available surplus to
71
escapement. Kings are not an issue as the goals has been achieved every year.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for the Kenai River and the Kasilof
River for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, managing for reasonable escapement goals is the
one success the department has been bragging about for years. Kenai Chinook should not be the
only stock that concerns the BOF. If changes are not made soon the gasoline problem in-river
will get worse and banks will continue to get trampled
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Everything else has already been tried and failed.
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-221)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 82 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Open Kenai and East Forelands sections
as follows:
The Kenai and East Forelands Section should open on July 1.
ISSUE: To late of an opening date in the Kenai East Forelands Sections. I would like these
sections open on July 1, instead of July 8. Lack of fishing opportunity along with the safety
factor of training a crew for fishermen in the Kenai and East Forelands Sections.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The current regulation reads Salmon may
only be taken in the Kenai East Forelands Sections: from July 8… With a Monday and Thursday
regular scheduled periods, if July 8 falls on Friday, the first regular period in these sections
would be Monday July 11. This happened in 2005. At this date there are usually fish in the area.
It would be nice to have a few extra days to train the crew. It seems that every year most set-
netters have some new and “green” crew that need to be trained. There is also lost fishing
opportunity. The Kenai River has exceeded its in-river goals the past five years. The Kasilof
River has exceeded its goal 9 out of the past 10 years.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, salmon would be harvested earlier in the season, when
they are fresher and worth more money, they could go to the new and expanding fresh market.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set-netters who fish in the Kenai and East Forelands
Sections.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The dip-net fishery in the Kenai River doesn’t start
until July 10. There are not many sportsmen fishing for sockeye on the Kenai River in the first
week of July. Since the inception of the Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan
the biological escapement goal has always been met. The first week of July is in between the
early and late king salmon runs. The harvest of king salmon would be minimal.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? These sections open on July 5. The result would be
only one additional fishing day per year. I rejected this as it would be good for training the crew,
yet there is no biological reason not to open on July 1.
PROPOSED BY: Gary L. Hollier (HQ-07F-093)
72
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 83 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Extend the Upper Subdistrict late-run
sockeye salmon season to August 15 as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.310
(2)(C)(i) Amend: August 15 [10]
ISSUE: Even though the 2005 board removed the Kenai River coho salmon management plan -
a season closing date of August 10 remains in regulation.
The preliminary Kenai River coho smolt date in 1998 changed the season closing date from
August 15 to August 10 in the Upper Subdistrict set gillnet fishery; the department
acknowledged coho restriction based on that data are unfounded but the season closing date
restriction still remains in regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Restrictions in regulation exist after a
management plan has been removed. Harvestable (surplus to escapement) Kenai River late-run
sockeye placed into escapement and precluded from harvest. Ninety five percent of Kenai River
pink salmon stocks are currently wasted (estimate 5 million). Kenai River pink salmon run
timing is between August 7 and August 30; the season closing date of August 10 severely
precludes a pink salmon harvest on these stocks which are known to traditionally run inside
waters along the beaches on even years.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Currently, improvement would be harvest on surplus stocks
available now risking future yield (quality of the resource). Large sockeye salmon escapement
events have occurred between August 10 - 15th; even though the upper end of the Kasilof and
Kenai River late-run sockeye in-river goals are widely exceeded before this timeframe. Kenai
River pink salmon are a marketable product; quality pink salmon purchase agreements from
European Union continue to expand. The demand for quality pink salmon has increased yearly.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishing families.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Overall Kenai coho exploitation rates in set gillnet
fisheries are minimal.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Extending seasons closing date in North K. beach,
Kenai and East-Forelands from August 10 to August 15. Historically fishing season ending date
of August 15 and those area waters should be returned to prior regulation equally.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-446)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 84 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Allow set gillnet fishing until August 15
as follows:
Close the Upper Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery on the first Monday or Thursday before August 15.
ISSUE: The problem I would like to address is the closure of the Cook Inlet East Side set gillnet
73
fisheries. This fishery should not close until August 15, the sockeye salmon run appears to be
returning later and later each year, and the pink salmon run is starting to come back stronger.
Due to economic hardships, fisherman must be given this time to harvest these fish to prevent
over escapement and lack of harvest of the Pink Salmon run.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Each year we will continue to see over
escapement in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. In years such as 2005 and 2006 where the fish ran
late, fishermen were not given the chance to harvest the late run of sockeye salmon and pink
salmon creating a large over escapement in both rivers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, there is a market that will process the millions of pink
salmon and the late run of sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The entire Kenai Peninsula will benefit by keeping the fish
economy in business for a longer period of time.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer if this regulation is passed.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Gary Deiman (HQ-07F-087)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 85 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Delay season closure for Kenai and East
Forelands sections as follows:
Extend season.
ISSUE: Fishing season closes too early in the Kenai and East Forelands Sections.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost fishing opportunity. Especially on
even number years when pink salmon are abundant Kenai River has exceeded its in-river
escapement goal the last 5 years. This is an opportunity to catch excess sockeye salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? There is opportunity to catch good quality pink salmon.
Sockeye salmon are still very marketable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen in the Kenai and East Foreland sections.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. There is ample in-river opportunities to harvest
coho, pink, and sockeye salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Open fishing season until August 20 on even years,
but did not feel that this would have a chance of passing.
PROPOSED BY: Gary L. Hollier (HQ-07F-095)
******************************************************************************
74
PROPOSAL 86 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Specify that the set net fishery will close
by emergency order as follows:
The setnet fishery will close by emergency order.
ISSUE: Unnecessary commercial closer.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Under utilized salmon resource.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allows harvest of under utilized salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those few who participate.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The salmon resource at this time of year is not
being utilized at even close to the biological exploitation rate.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-459)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 87 - 5 AAC 21.310(b)(2)(c)(iii). Fishing seasons. Clarify transition between
sockeye management and coho management as follows:
5 AAC 21.310(b)(2)(c)(iii) Kenai, Kasilof, and East Forelands Sections: the season shall close
August 10, unless closed earlier by emergency order after July 31, after the department
determines that less than five [ONE] percent of the season’s total sockeye harvest has been taken
per fishing period for two consecutive fishing periods; for purposes of this sub-subparagraph,
“fishing period” means a time period open to commercial fishing without closure for at least 12
and not more than 24 hours.
ISSUE: During the January 2005 Upper Cook Inlet Finfish meeting department staff and
members of the various user groups arrived at an approach to define when the Department would
transition from sockeye salmon management. Although numerous approaches were discussed the
one that was eventually agreed to was to define the termination of the commercial sockeye
season to be when the commercial catch was 1 percent or less of the cumulative season total for
2 consecutive commercial fishing periods. This agreement was part of a complex set of
negotiations and collaborative efforts among users. The board took action on this approach and
adopted to it into regulation. Following that action ADF&G staff took steps intended to “clarify”
the regulation and the result is the language we presently have in 5 AAC 21.310(b)(2)(C)(iii).
This provision now contains language that was inserted during the editing process that, if
followed to the letter, subverts the intent of the board when it passed this regulation in January
2005. The inserted language redefines a fishing period to include “a time period open to
commercial fishing without closure”. Under this inserted language this could include several
days rather than the daily periods upon which the 1 percent trigger was selected. There is no
record that the language in question was ever formally acted on by the board (RC or Amendment
to the proposal by a board member during deliberations) and although intended to help clarify
the regulation the added language has the opposite effect.
75
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The transition between sockeye salmon
management and coho salmon management will continue to be ill defined and the original intent
of the Board passed regulation will continue to be ignored. The sport priority for coho salmon
will be ignored. The sport priority for coho salmon will be ignored and potential harm to early
run coho stocks may occur through high exploitation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The sport priority for coho salmon found in regulation will
be factored into the management decision making process.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fishermen who benefit from extended late
season commercial fishing periods that are offered under the guise of sockeye salmon periods but
were the catch of coho salmon constitutes a significant number of fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because when offered the
opportunity commercial fish management staff called an unprecedented 80 hour commercial
period to side step the regulation as it is currently written.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-158)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 88 - 5 AAC 21.310(c)(iii) Fishing seasons. Amend management plan as
follows:
Delete: [KENAI, KASILOF, AND EASTE FORELANDS SECTIONS; THE SEASON WILL
CLOSE AUGUST 10, UNLESS CLOSED EARLIER BY EMERGENCY ORDER AFTER
JULY 31, AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT LESS THAN ONE PERCENT
OF THE SEASON’S TOTAL SOCKEYE HARVEST HAS BEEN TAKEN PER FISHING
PERIOD FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE FISHING PERIODS; FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-
SUBPARAGRAPH, “FISHING PERIODS MEANS A TIME PERIOD OPEN TO FISHING
WITHOUT CLOSURE;]
ISSUE: Prescribed harvest closure based on a percentage of sockeye salmon harvest may close
the Kenai, Kasilof, and East Forelands. This provision can ridiculously close the commercial set
gillnet fisheries based solely on two consecutive fishing periods; large salmon escapement events
have occurred and will occur in August regardless if a lull in sockeye harvest occurs during the
first days in August.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Large salmon escapement events can
continue, sockeye escapement exceeding established goals, loss of harvest based on unknowns
(sockeye available within August), risk sockeye production.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Harvesting sockeye salmon allows for “improving the
quality of the resource and products produced.”
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set gillnet sockeye fishery management based on practical
fishery provisions consistent with escapement goals.
76
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The old Kenai River coho conservation plan was
repealed in 2005; restrictions were lifted for commercial drift, commercial set through August
10, and October sport fishery put back in place.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A. Arbitrary provisions should not be in
regulation.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-447)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 89 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan.
Close Central District commercial fishery by executive order as follows:
Close fishery by emergency order.
ISSUE: Close fishery by emergency order.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost opportunity. Wasted fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The fishery should be open when fish are present.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Monday, Wednesday, and Friday fishing.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-036)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 90 - 5 AAC 21.320. Weekly fishing periods. Change weekly fishing periods as
follows:
5 AAC 21.320 Weekly fishing periods: After August 10 the regular periods are Monday,
Wednesday and Friday from 7 AM to 7 PM until closed by emergency order.
ISSUE: Unutilized salmon resources in August and September.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? These salmon resources will continue to
be wasted.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will allow harvest of ocean run salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those few fishermen who will participate in this late
fishery. Processors, local economy.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Status quo will continue to forego the harvestable
surplus.
77
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. Status quo will continue to forego the
harvestable surplus.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-455)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 91 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Repeal mandatory July 17 and 26 restrictions for the Kenai and Kasilof rivers as follows:
Repeal mandatory July 17 and 26 restrictions.
ISSUE: Repeal mandatory July 17 and 26 restrictions, the biologist can manage to the plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Wasted fish to Kasilof and Kenai.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users of Kenai and Kasilof fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? More early openings.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-035)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 92 - 5 AAC 57.170. Kenai River Coho Salmon Management Plan. Repeal
Kenai River coho plan as follows:
Repeal coho restrictions. There is no biological problem.
ISSUE: Repeal the Kenai River Coho plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost opportunity, economic loss and
waste.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fishermen are cut off from late sockeyes, there is no shortage
of coho.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Managing while fish are present.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-033)
******************************************************************************
78
PROPOSAL 93 - 5 AAC 21.310.(b)(2)(C)(i). Fishing seasons. Amend management plan as
follows:
Kasilof section: from June 25 through August 10, unless closed earlier by emergency order
under (iii) of this subparagraph; however if the department estimates that 25,000 [50,000]
sockeye salmon are in the Kasilof River before June 15. . .
ISSUE: Kasilof River sockeye escapement goal has been exceeded in nine out of ten previous
years.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Salmon will be wasted.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Early sockeye have a history of being excellent quality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kasilof section set netters.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Open date similar to Central district drift (third
Monday in June or June 19). Reduction in escapement rate was considered a reasonable
solution.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-448)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 94 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons. Reopen set gillnet season south of
Blanchard line after June 15 as follows:
Open set gillnet fishing on the East side of the upper Cook Inlet south of the Blanchard Line on
the first Monday or Thursday period after June 15.
ISSUE: Re-open set gillnet season to June 15, south of the Blanchard Line, on the East side of
the upper Cook Inlet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved we will
continue to see an over escapement of salmon in the Kasilof River and undue economic hardship
to set gillnet fishing families and businesses.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the first sockeye salmon that enter the Cook Inlet are
beautiful silver fish without any blush color appearing yet. Most are Category One fish that
create a strong appearance in the market. Category One fish sell for a higher price, concluding
that they are more valuable to fishermen and processors.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The entire Kenai Peninsula will benefit, everyone from
fisherman, cannery’s, gas stations, trucking businesses, and airlines. Not only will people benefit
but, Tustumena Lake and the salmon spawning beds along the Kasilof River due to not over
escaping the river.
79
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer if the river is managed properly. All user
groups will benefit due to good management and larger and stronger runs.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Gary Deiman (HQ-07F-086)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 95 - 5 AAC 21.320. Weekly fishing periods. Change weekly fishing periods as
follows:
(a) In the set gillnet fishery,
(1) salmon may be taken in the Northern District from 7:00 a.m. Monday and from 7:00 p.m.
Friday [THURSDAY];
(2) salmon may be taken in the Central District from 7:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m.
Friday [THURSDAY] until 7:00 p.m. Friday [THURSDAY];
(3) salmon may be taken in the Southern District from 6:00 a.m. Monday until 6:00 a.m.
Wednesday and from 6:00 a.m. Wednesday and from 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 6:00 a.m.
Saturday;
(4) the fishing periods set forth in (1) - (3) of this subsection may be modified by emergency
order.
(b) in the dirt gillnet fishery
(1) salmon may be taken in the Central District from 7:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m.
Monday and from 7:00 a.m. Friday [THURSDAY] until 7:00 p.m. Friday
[THURSDAY];
ISSUE: Return regular periods to Mondays and Fridays.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The commercial fishery will continue to
fish more on Saturdays and Sundays, causing problems for personal use fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the harvest of Kenai River sockeye without
fishing so much on the weekends
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for Kenai River sockeye salmon
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-222)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 96 - 5 AAC 21.320 (b)(1). Weekly fishing periods. Change Central District
fishing periods as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.320 (b)(1) as follows:
Salmon may be taken in the Central District from 7:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m.
80
Monday, from 7:00 a.m. Wednesday until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, Friday to 7:00 a.m.
Friday…
ISSUE: The current weekly fishing periods consist of two 12-hour periods. This proposal would
increase the number of fishing periods in the drift gillnet fishery to three 12-hour weekly fishing
periods. These periods would be on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This proposal would
increase the quality of the product harvested in Cook Inlet by the drift gillnet fleet and reestablish
the historical harvest percentage by the drift gillnet fleet.
Presently, with restrictions on time and area the drift gillnet fishery is forced into being a peak
fishery. The fleet during the peak harvest is severely hampered to property handle, ice and bleed
fish for better quality. Processors must hold fish for longer times before processing which results
in a lost quality than could be achieved with this proposal. This proposal is intended to provide
for even harvests.
In addition, the economic situation of the commercial fishery has resulted in a reduction of the
drift fleet from approximately 600 actively fishing boats to 400. This has resulted in a lower
harvest percentage of sockeye salmon by the fleet. Limitations on fishing areas and times in
existing management plans do not recognize this loss of fishing power. This proposal should
help restore the balance of harvest between all users to the inlet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The quality of product in Cook Inlet will
not improve and the drift gillnet fleet will continue to suffer loss of market share as a result of
economic limitations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. The drift gillnet fleet typical harvest between 500 and
1,200 fish on average per vessel during the peak period. This proposal is intended to lower the
per vessel harvest by reducing fishing time per period. Both during the peak of the fishery and
adjacent to the peak the number of fish per vessels should be reduced to allow proper quality
control of the product. In addition, this regulation should provide an incentive to fishermen to
modify their vessels to increase quality of the harvest. The increased financial reward from high
quality product and the reestablishment of the historical harvest percentage should be a sufficient
positive for fishermen to expand the funds and time to make this conversion.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The industry and the drift gillnet fleet is the obvious
benefactor of this proposal. The industry benefits by having higher quality product and the drift
gillnet fleet benefits from both quality and increased harvest.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The reestablishment of the historical harvest percentage
should not hurt other commercial users if viewed in the long term. However, relative to recent
trends commercial set gillnet permit holders will be impacted negatively. Relative to other users
the impact should be minimal since management plans and allocations of the resources.
It should be noted that the fishing time recommendation assumes the same catch or higher will
be made fishing three 12-hour periods as opposed to two 12-hour periods. It is the intent of this
proposal to maintain the long-term harvest patterns and not be reallocation. If this becomes an
issue then adjustments to fishing time should take place. This proposal does nothing to the
department’s emergency order authority to modify fishing times or area for biological concerns.
Therefore, there should be no negative impact on escapements.
81
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Consideration of a ten-hour period was given.
However, in Cook Inlet ten hours is so short that fishers tend to search out fish more before the
period and the decrease in fishing power and harvest may not be as great as with ten hours. In
addition, a ten-hour period does not allow a fisherman to make repairs to vessels suffering
mechanical breakdowns without losing the period. This would be a significant hardship for
some. Also, the late area and tides of Cook Inlet would negatively impact fishing opportunities
during a period of shorter duration.
PROPOSED BY: Bob Wolfe (HQ-07F-387)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 97 - 5 AAC 21.320(b)(1). Weekly fishing periods. Allow commercial harvests
of salmon from time specified on Monday, Wednesday and Friday in the Central District as
follows:
Modify section 5 AAC 21.320(b)(1) to read “salmon may be taken in the Central District
from XX:00 a.m. Monday until XX:00 p.m. Monday, from XX:00 a.m. Wednesday until
XX:00 p.m. Wednesday, and from XX:00 a.m. Friday until XX:00 p.m. Friday, except
salmon may be taken….”
ISSUE: Overview: In order to revitalize the commercial salmon fishery, to provide for stable
and predictable fishery based on principles and to promote higher quality seafood products, we
need to regulatory changes contained in this proposal to be made by the Board of Fisheries.
There are new markets that are responding very positively to the higher quality salmon products
coming from Cook Inlet. There are three goals that are being achieved by this proposal: industry
revitalization, improved quality, and stable supply of fish.
Revise the present weekly fishing periods consisting of two 12-hour periods. This portion of the
proposal will revise the fishing periods in the drift gill net fishery and increase the number of
weekly fishing periods to 3. These three periods would be on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
The reason for this proposal is to increase the quality of the product harvested in Cook Inlet by
the drift gill fleet and reestablish the historical harvest patterns and percentage by the drift gill
net fleet. Presently, fishing Monday and Thursdays with restrictions on time and area the fishery
is forced to be a peak fishery. With a concentrated peak harvest regulated fishery it is not
difficult to ice and bleed fish for quality. Processors must hold fish for longer times before
processing which results in loss of quality. This part of the proposal in intended to allow a more
even harvest and improve quality.
Limitations on fishing areas and times in existing management plans do not recognize this
economic loss. This proposal should help restore the historic fishing patterns and balance of
harvest between all users in the inlet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public will continue to have different
expectations concerning the management actions to be taken by ADF&G staff which are in
conflict in these plans and increased public dissatisfaction by the public with ADF&G and the
Board of Fisheries. The commercial fishing community is struggling to survive, however;
without these regulatory changes conflict, economic hardships, political unrest, lost economic
benefits will occur. The quality of product in Cook Inlet will not improve and the drift gill net
fleet will continue to suffer loss market share as result of economic limitations.
82
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRDUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? Many of these regulation changes are directed at improving quality. The
increased flexibility of ADF&G to meet escapement goals should increase quality by removing
artificial and unnecessary limitations on fishing areas and times that creates a concentrated
fishery. Additionally, the drift gill net fleet typical harvest between 500 and 1200 fish on average
per vessel during the peak period. This proposal is intended to lower the per vessel harvest by
increasing the number of fishing periods per week. Both during the peak of the fishery and
adjacent to the peak the number of fish per vessel should be reduced to allow better quality
control of the product. In addition, this regulation will provide an economic incentive for
fishermen to modify their vessels to increase quality of the harvest. The increased financial
reward from high quality product and the reestablishment of the historical harvest patterns and
percentage will be a sufficient incentive for the existing fisherman to expend the funds and time
to make the vessel conversions that are necessary to improve quality of fish harvested. In lieu of
late-season, less-efficient terminal sockeye fisheries - this proposal would allow the drift fleet to
harvest surpluses of sockeye when sockeye are at their highest quality during mid season. Lastly,
allowing the drift fleet to fish historical periods outside the Kenai and Kasilof sections provide
product to the processors that is higher quality than fish captured latter in the season when they
move toward their rivers of origin. It also allows for an orderly harvest of product during large
return years of sockeye salmon
The present regulation requires that the harvest of surplus sockeye salmon during extra periods
take place in the Kenai and Kasilof sections only, including the Kasilof Terminal Harvest Area.
This results in fish harvests of a low quality. In large return years the volume of harvest during
the peak periods increases as fish tend to hold in the district and enter the near shore areas of
large numbers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit with this regulation since it will be
clear that the Board of Fish intends to manage the resource for escapement goals. Concerning the
three fishing periods, the industry and the drift gillnet fleet is the obvious benefactor of this
proposal. The industry benefits by having higher quality product and the drift gillnet fleet
benefits form both quality and historic patterns of harvest. The commercial fishing industry will
benefit as well as the drift gillnet fleet.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer. These regulatory changes do not alter
the allocation of the resource between users and the escapement goals. The entry of salmon into
the system is already controlled by ADF&G managers to achieve biological objectives relative to
harvesting equally over the entire run.
The reestablishment of the historical harvest patterns and percentage should not hurt other
commercial users when viewed in the long term. However, relative to other users the impact
should be minimal since management plans and allocations were based on the drift fleet having
nearly 600 fishing boats. Therefore, relative to these plans there should not be a reallocation of
the resources since only 400 drift boats participate in these fisheries. It should be noted that the
fishing time recommendation assumes the same catch or on one slightly higher will be made
fishing 3 periods as opposed to two 12 hours periods. While the total fishing time is nearly the
same it is anticipated that harvest will be greater but it is hard to say how much. This possible
increased harvest, however, is not outside the historic drift gill net harvest with 600 boats fishing.
It is the intent of this proposal to maintain the long term historic harvest patterns and not be a
reallocation. If this becomes an issue then adjustments to fishing time should take place.
These proposals do nothing to the Department’s emergency order authority to modify fishing
83
times or areas. The escapement objectives for all systems are maintained so there should be no
impact on in-river users. There will be a lost harvest to set gill net fishermen who target Kenai
and Kasilof sockeye stocks. However, this should not result in an upsetting of the historical
harvest pattern. Other salmon stocks have not entered Cook Inlet in large numbers during this
time frame so harvest of coho salmon should remain low.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Concerning managing for escapement goals there are
no other alternatives. If limitations on time and area are left in place the conflict over which takes
priority escapement goals or time and area restrictions will continue. The Central District is
about 1,800 square miles in size making the location of salmon difficult. Additionally in Upper
Cook Inlet we have some of the largest tides in the world. These tides associated tidal rips
thoroughly mix the salmon on a daily basis. The fishing periods must be long enough to locate
salmon in the 1800 square mile area during both flood and ebb tides. By decreasing the options
used by the department that could be put into regulations, however, this would defeat the purpose
of allowing flexibility. For example, the fishery could be allowed to fish regular periods with a
restriction on the fishery to the area below Kalgin Island. This would accomplish the goal of
lowering the exploitation rate but would not be needed in all years. Any regulation that does not
allow for flexibility based on abundance of the stocks was rejected.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-400)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 98 - 5 AAC 21.310(b)(3). Fishing seasons. Restrict drift gillnet use in Upper
Subdistrict as follows:
Central District, for drift gillnet: from the third Monday in June or June 19 whichever is later,
until closed earlier by emergency order, except fishing with drift gillnets may not occur within
two miles of the mean high tide mark on the eastern side of the Upper Subdistrict until those
locations have been opened for fishing with set gillnets, including the Kasilof, Kenai, and East
Forelands Sections set gillnet areas. Fishing with drift gillnets may not occur within two
miles of the mean high tide mark on the eastern side of the Upper Subdistrict after the
season closing of the Upper Subdistrict set gillnet fishery.
ISSUE: The department must state during the fishing season that drift gillnets are closed to set
net areas in the Kasilof, Kenai, and East Forelands sections because it is not placed in current
regulations.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set gillnet areas are subject to drift
fishing if the department forgets to mention it during a drift opening.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? ADF&G.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drift gillnet fisherman who take advantage of a situation if
the department was remiss to describe drift closed waters properly.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-451)
******************************************************************************
84
PROPOSAL 99 - 5 AAC 21.310(b)(3). Fishing seasons. Clarify drift gillnet closure areas as
follows:
Central District, for drift gillnet: from the third Monday in June or June 19 whichever is later,
until closed earlier by emergency order, except fishing with drift gillnets may not occur within
two miles of the mean high tide mark on the eastern side of the Upper Subdistrict until those
locations have been opened for fishing with set gillnets, closed in the Kasilof, Kenai, and East
Forelands Sections set gillnet areas during the Upper Subdistrict set gillnet fishing season.
Fishing with drift gillnets may not occur within two miles of the mean high tide mark on
the eastern side of the Upper Subdistrict after the season closing of the Upper Subdistrict
set gillnet fishery.
ISSUE: The department must state during the fishing season that drift gillnets are closed to set
net areas in the Kasilof, Kenai, and East Forelands sections because it is not placed in current
regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set gillnet areas are subject to drift
fishing if the department forgets to mention it during a drift opening.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? ADF&G.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drift gillnet fisherman who take advantage of a situation if
the department was remiss to describe drift closed waters properly.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Jeff Beaudoin (HQ-07F-130)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 100 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons.; and 5 AAC 21.320. Weekly fishing
periods. Open a commercial fishery in Tuxedni Bay as follows:
Commercial salmon fishing in statistical area 245-30 Tuxedni Bay will commence the first
Monday after May 15, 7 AM to 7 PM Mondays and 7 AM to 7 PM Thursdays until 1,000 kings
are caught. Legal gear is a single 35 fathom net.
ISSUE: Open a commercial fishery in Tuxedni Bay stat area 245-30 for regular periods
beginning the first Monday at or after May 15. Legal gear would be a single 35 fathom net.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The resource will go unutilized and
people of Alaska will be deprived contrary to their constitution.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. It is cooler in the early spring and the small quantity
caught improves quality. There is usually lots of ice and snow to put on the fish.
85
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? No hurt to others because these salmon go up Crescent
River and are not utilized, also other streams in area. All the people of Alaska will benefit with
an early supply of fresh fish, our children will be smarter.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody. Very few, if any of these fish go up the Susitna
River.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? My neighbors in Tuxedni Bay have talked about this
for years.
PROPOSED BY: Henry Kroll (HQ-07F-020)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 101 - 5 AAC 21.310. Fishing seasons; and 5 AAC 21.320. Weekly fishing
periods. Open a commercial fishery in Tuxedni Bay as follows:
Commercial king salmon fishing in stat area 245-30 Tuxedni Bay will commence the first
Monday after May 15, 7 AM to 7 PM Mondays and 7 AM to 7 PM Thursdays until 2000 kings
are caught. Legal gear is a single 35 fathom net.
ISSUE: Open a commercial fishery for king salmon in statistical area 245-30 Tuxedni Bay.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The resource will go unutilized.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, this resource is currently unused and would provide
kings for early markets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All would benefit with early supply of fresh fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No, because these salmon go up the Crescent River and are
not utilized.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Jennifer J. Porter (HQ-07F-023)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 102 - 5 AAC 21.331 (h). Gillnet specifications and operations. Provide
flexibility in regulation for the use of single filament gillnet web as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
(h) Notwithstanding 5 AAC 39.250 (c), in the Cook Inlet Area, the commissioner may close, by
emergency order, a fishing season and immediately reopen a season during which a person may
use up to 150 [50] fathoms of monofilament mesh web in a drift gillnet or up to 35 fathoms of
monofilament mesh web in a set gillnet. Before a person uses monofilament mesh web under this
subsection, that person must register with the department. If after opening a season under this
subsection to allow the use of monofilament mesh web, the commissioner determines there is
adverse effects from monofilament mesh web is allowed. For the purposes of this subsection,
“monofilament mesh web is allowed. For the purposes of this subsection, “monofilament mesh
86
web” means any single filament mesh web. The provisions in this subsection do not apply after
December 31, 2007.
ISSUE: The December 31, 2007 date needs to be removed. The current regulations contained in
5 AAC 39.250 prohibit the use of less than 30 or six equal filaments of nylon in gillnet web.
Single-strand nylon gillnet webbing is about 60 percent the cost of 30 or six filament webbing.
As a means of costing the economic cost of replacing gillnet webbing provide in regulations the
flexibility to use single filament gillnet web if the fisherman chooses.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued high costs of replacing gillnet
webbing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Reduces cost by about 40 percent for gillnet web replacement.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, intended to be allocation neutral.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None
PROPOSED BY: Bruce Gabrys (HQ-07F-393)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 103 - 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow additional
use of monofilament gillnets as follows:
I would like to see the regulations changed so that we may use all monofilament if we choose,
not just one shackle.
ISSUE: Only one shackle of monofilament gillnet is permitted per boat or setnet permit in Cook
Inlet. We need to be able to use all monofilament.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? I found that not only is mono cheaper to
buy, but the fears about increased dropout were absolutely wrong. In fact, the opposite is true.
The fish are harder to pick out, but they stay in the net much better even when it is rough seas.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. I believe that there would be even fewer dropouts and
fishermen would save money on gear. Both of these results would boost profits for fishermen
and add value to the industry.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen who choose to use monofilament.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People who think monofilament kills marine mammals are
misguided because of the problems with high-seas driftnets which were miles and miles long. In
Cook Inlet, we have extremely low incidents with marine mammals and gillnets.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We could still fish with only one shackle of
monofilament, but there is absolutely no reason nor to fish with three.
87
PROPOSED BY: Teague Vanek (HQ-07F-089)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 104 - 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet Specifications and Operations. Prohibit use of
monofilament nets in Cook Inlet as follows:
A subsection would read that monofilament salmon web shall not be allowed in the waters of
Cook Inlet.
ISSUE: Monofilament mesh web.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued use of poor unselective and
wasteful fishing gear.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, less dropouts and less “girdled” or “cut” fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those that do not want to consider detrimental effects.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions.
PROPOSED BY: South K-Beach Independent Fishermen’s Alliance (HQ-07F-309)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 105 - 5 AAC 21.331(a)(c). Gillnet specifications and operations. Increase
drift gillnet to 200 fathoms in the Upper Cook Inlet as follows:
(c) A drift gillnet may not be more than 200 [150] fathoms in length and 45 meshes in depth…
ISSUE: The current 150 fathoms of gillnets used by the drift fleet are inadequate to effectively
harvest fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Economic hardship on drift fleet.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Provide the drift fleet an opportunity to harvest fish on the
early and later portions of the run.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift fleet.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Other users, some allocation will occur.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Bob Wolfe (HQ-07F-386)
****************************************************************************
88
PROPOSAL 106 - 5 AAC 21.331 (c). Gillnet specifications and operations. Increase
maximum drift gillnet depth to 60 meshes as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
(c) A drift gillnet may not be more than 150 fathoms in length and up to 60 [45] meshes in depth.
No person may operate more than one drift gillnet.
ISSUE: The present regulation allows drift gillnets to be 45 meshes deep. This proposal would
allow up to 60 mesh deep nets. Presently, the drift gillnet fleet consists of approximately 400
boats, which is significantly lower than the nearly 600 vessels which fished in the past. This
regulation would allow increased harvest by the drift gillnet fleet to help maintain its historical
harvest percentage. In addition, limitation in management plans on extra periods by the drift
gillnet fleet has resulted in very low exploitation rates on chum, coho, and pink salmon. This
proposal would allow these under-harvested stocks to be used. This is more closely in tune with
sustained fisheries management. Present exploitation rates on chum, coho, and pink salmon by
the drift gillnet fleet is less than 10 percent. In years with warmer water temperatures in Upper
Cook Inlet, the salmon runs are deeper in the water column.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A usable resource will continue to be
underutilized.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, to a limited degree. A small increase in efficiency at the
start and end of the season will allow more fish to be handled for quality markets. Presently,
catches in the drift gillnet fleet average less than 100 fish for the first few periods. At this level of
harvest fish can be individually handled and therefore bled, packed in ice, and delivered in prime
condition. At the peak of the fishery this does not take place and the slight increase in efficiency
should not impact negatively the overall quality of the pack.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The drift gillnet fleet will increase slightly the harvest of
all species of salmon. The commercial industry will have slightly more fish for programs like
Kenai Wild.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The increase in harvest by the drift gillnet fleet should be
small enough that most other users will not see the impact of the harvest in their activities.
However, increased harvest by one user group will make less fish available for others from a
purely statistical viewpoint. At the low exploitation levels in the drift gillnet fleet is anticipated
that nearly 90 percent of chum, pink and coho entering the inlet will continue to enter Cook Inlet
streams.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A consideration was given to making gear longer.
However, this would increase harvest significantly and would upset the historical harvest
patterns in the inlet. This option was rejected for that reason.
PROPOSED BY: Bruce Gabrys (HQ-07F-394)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 107 - 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow up to 200
fathoms of drift gillnet gear and allow joint ventures with concurrent fishing from one vessel by
permit as follows:
89
Add new Regulatory Section 5 AAC 21.331. Requirements and Specifications for Use of 200
Fathoms of Drift Gillnet in Cook Inlet.
(a) Except if the special harvest areas specified in (e) of this section, two Cook Inlet
drift gillnet CFEC permit holders may concurrently fish from the same vessel and
jointly operate up to 200 fathoms of drift gillnet gear under this section.
(b) Before operating drift gillnet gear jointly under this section, both permit holders
shall register with the department.
(c) When two Cook Inlet drift gillnet CFEC permit holders fish from the same vessel
and jointly operate a drift gillnet gear under this section, the vessel must display its
ADF&G permanent license plat number followed by the letter “D” to identify the
vessel as a dual permit vessel. The letter “D” must be removed or covered when the
vessel is operating with only one drift gillnet CFEC permit holder on board the
vessel. The identification number and the letters must be displayed.
(1) in letters and numerals 12 inches high with lines at least one inch
wide;
(2) in a color that contrasts with the background
(3) on both sides of the hull; and
(4) in a manner that is plainly visible at all times when the vessel is
being operated.
(d) When two permit holders jointly operate gear under this section, each permit
holder is responsible for ensuring that the entire unit of gear is operated in a lawful
manner.
(e) The joint operation of drift gillnet gear under this not allowed in any other area, or
during any time, when a single CFEC permit holder is restricted to operating less
than 150 fathoms of drift gillnet gear and in the
(1) Kasilof and Kenai sections of the Central Districs;
(2) Kasilof terminal fishery described in 5 AAC 21.365 (f);
(3) Closed areas described in 5 AAC 21.350
(4) Chinitna Bay Subdistric of the Central District.
ISSUE: The limit of 150 fathoms of drift gillnet gear on drift gillnet vessels during times of low
salmon runs and low salmon prices. The difficulty of hiring qualified crew during times of low
salmon returns and prices. The percent of gross revenue that is required to operate a drift gillnet
vessel. The continued decline of local ownership of drift gillnet permits.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The continued difficulty of hiring
qualified crew resulting in a higher chance of accidents and insurance premiums. Continued
difficulty of achieving a reasonable profit from drift gillnetting in Cook Inlet. Continued losses
of local ownership and use of drift gillnet permits.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Reducing operational costs will provide profits that
could be used to improve the quality of harvesting salmon. Reducing the total amount of gear
and vessels used in harvesting will reduce crowding and provide harvesters the option to harvest
salmon in a more quality-conscience method.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those drift gillnet fishermen who wish to remain in the
fishery as an active participant and still realize a profit.
90
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Those drift gillnet fishermen who choose not to
participate in the new regulation will still benefit from the reduction in gear and vessels.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other gear and vessel reductions which would have
reduced from the status quo, but preferred the option that allowed for individual choice.
PROPOSED BY: Brent M. Western (HQ-07F-372)
******************************************************* **********************
PROPOSAL 108 - 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet Specifications and Operations. Increase
aggregate set gillnet gear length as follows:
(d) 140 [105]
ISSUE: Inequitable gear allocation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Opportunity will not be the same.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set net fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions.
PROPOSED BY: South K-Beach Independent Fishermen’s Alliance (HQ-07F-310)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 109 - 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Limit east side set
gillnet gear to 3 strands as follows:
East side set nets shall consist of 3 strand netting or less.
ISSUE: Limit the commercial catch of July Kenai River chinook salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial fishermen. East side
setnetters will continue to harvest a large number, 15,000 - 20,000, July king salmon heaed for
the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kenai River sport fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Three strand netting will hold sockeye, but kings
will break through to reach the Kenai River.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Sports fishermen have been trying for years to limit
91
the commercial catch of July kings.
PROPOSED BY: Melvin Forsyth Jr. (HQ-07F-305)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 110 - 5 AAC 21.330. Gear. Allow commercial use of reef net gear for harvest
of live fish in Cook Inlet as follows:
Allow any Cook Inlet gillnet limited entry permit holder to substitute a reef net for of gillnet gear
for live fish harvest.
ISSUE: Low percentage of high quality salmon in gillnet gear.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Inability to meet market demands for
high quality salmon will cause further deterioration in the Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery, resulting
in the loss of jobs, processor capacity and tax revenues.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes it would improve quality. By the use of a new design in
gear (the reef net) it would allow fishermen to catch a consistent live harvest that could be bled
and iced on site or held live for several days until processors could custom process for added
value.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen, processors, consumers and the
sport fish industry, as non-targeted stocks could be released alive.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
92
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Liz Chase (HQ-07F-186)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 111 - AAC 21.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Change distance
offshore for set gillnets in Cook Inlet as follows:
East side set nets shall be at least 600 feet offshore from mean high tide line.
ISSUE: Escapement (lack of) of chinook salmon into the Kenai River in July.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial fishermen, east side set
netters will continue to harvest large numbers of king salmon headed for the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kenai River sport fishermen and women.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Commercial fishermen will receive more fishing
time for sockeye salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Sports fishermen have tried unsuccessfully to limit
commercial catch of July Kenai River kings.
PROPOSED BY: Melvin Forsyth Jr. (HQ-07F-306)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 112 - 5 AAC 21.345. Registration. Allow set gillnet fishing in any district after
48-hour waiting period as follows:
Allow Upper Cook Inlet set gill net permit holders to fish any area of the Upper Cook Inlet, from
the West side, East side, to the Northern district. When transferring from area to area apply a 48
hour period of time.
ISSUE: The board should address opening entire Upper Cook Inlet to Cook Inlet set gillnet
permit holders. For many years fishermen with this permit were allowed to fish the entire inlet
and now fisherman have to register their permit for one area.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lack of opportunity for fisherman
wanting to fish other areas which bring economic hardships for permit holders in the Cook Inlet.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it would allow fishermen with gillnetters that have
refrigerated sea water or ice to go to different areas to fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen that struggle to keep the quality of their
harvested fish superb and make a living off their yearly catch.
93
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen that don’t take care of their fish properly such as,
refrigerating, icing and bleeding them.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Gary Deiman (HQ-07F-088)
******************************************************************************
Note, a board committee has identified the following proposal as a “restructuring” proposal. A
restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological
impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed
regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased
opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved
quality); or 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.
The board is seeking additional information on this proposal in order that it can be fully
evaluated. During the October 9-11, 2007 worksession, the board will:
a) Determine if the proposal complete;
b) Determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed;
c) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal
where board may need additional authority to make decisions;
d) Identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be
consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work
and process; and
e) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule.
The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate this proposal can be found in the
11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xiv). The board
invites the author and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of
this proposal.
PROPOSAL 113 - 5 AAC 21.345. Registration; and 18.xxx. New section. Eliminate area
registration for vessel for Cook Inlet and Kodiak salmon fisheries as follows:
Eliminate area registration for boats, same as the herring regulations for the state.
ISSUE: Be able to fish one boat in both Cook Inlet and Kodiak in the same year. Eliminate area
registration for the boat.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? With the price of fish and amount of fish,
it is hard to make a living fishing one area. Kodiak is at less than 50 percent of permit holders
fishing and Cook Inlet at 60 percent.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. It allows fishermen to be more selective to species and
market.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who hold permits in different areas, and would
like to fish both areas. Also creates a bigger pool for the processors to pick from for buying
quality fish.
94
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who don’t hold multiple permits will have more
competition.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Buying two boats, income doesn’t warrant it.
PROPOSED BY: Gary W. Jackinsky (HQ-07F-097)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 114 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan.
Renumber Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan to put umbrella plan first in the
regulations as follows:
Renumber 5 AAC 21.363 to 5 AAC 21.351 or 352.
ISSUE: The Upper Cook Inlet “umbrella salmon management plan” occurs in the middle of all
the step down plans. As a result of the sequence in which the plans occur in regulations, many
users don’t understand or encounter this umbrella plan until after reading several step down
plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anyone who reads the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon
Management Plan will encounter this umbrella plan just after 5 AAC 21.350 “Closed waters…”
and just before 5 AAC 21.353 “Central District…”
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - continued confusion.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-403)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 115 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Return
Upper Cook Inlet management plan to 1995 wording as follows:
Return the plan as it was in 1995 which made a clear divide by timeline for management of the
various stocks. Prior to July 1, the inlet was managed primarily for recreational uses, from July 1
to August 15 the salmon stocks are managed primarily for commercial purposes and after August
15 Kenai Peninsula stocks are managed primarily for recreational purposes while those stocks in
the remainder of the inlet are managed primarily for commercial purposes.
ISSUE: The current UCI management plan is useless and confuses the management of the inlet,
the plan should be returned to what it said in 1995.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the public will be
unsure of what the overall goals and long term direction for the UCI fisheries
95
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of UCI salmon stocks in a
predictable and reasonable fashion. It eliminates a great deal of the language that has been
confusing the department and all users for 12 years
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, making it clear what the long term management
goals should benefit everyone.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-227)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 116 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan; 21.360.
River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan. Add personal use, sport and guided
sport use to the priority for management purposes in Upper Cook Inlet as follows:
Revise current allocation priorities to match current needs and values.
Amend 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan to add the following: The
department shall manage all upper Cook Inlet salmon for priority use by subsistence,
personal use, sport, and guided sport uses based on abundance. Commercial fisheries shall
be allocated fish surplus to the capacity of subsistence, personal use, sport, and guided
sport fisheries, and spawning escapement goals.
Amend 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai late-run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan as follows:
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for
subsistence, personal use, sport, and guided sport [COMMERCIAL] uses based on
abundance. The department shall also manage the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest
of Northern District coho, Northern District Sockeye, Kasilof king, Kenai River king and
Kenai River coho salmon stocks to provide personal use, sport and guided sport fisherman with
the [A REASONABLE] opportunity to harvest salmon resources to the full capacity of the
non-commercial fisheries.
ISSUE: Article 8, section 3 of Alaska’s constitution states: “wherever occurring in their natural
state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use”. Because more than
half of Alaska’s residents live in Southcentral Alaska with many more having access to the
region and its transportation system, it is more evident than ever that the salmon fishery stocks of
Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) should be managed so that subsistence, sport, guided sport, and personal
use fishery participants are provided unimpaired access to the common property fish resource.
Additionally, current salmon management plan execution has resulted in the failure to provide
sustainable biological escapements in some natal streams which is contrary to the Sustainable
Salmon Fisheries Policy (5 AAC 39.222) as well as the best interest of the resource and all user
groups. The non-consumptive fishers (commercial fishing) of UCI harvest less than 58 of
Alaska’s commercially harvest salmon. The commercial fisheries’ economic value to the State
and the region pales in comparison to the value generated by the sport, guided sport, subsistence,
and personal use fisheries. These fisheries also are a major driver in the visitor industry.
96
UCI commercial fishers currently take a large majority of the harvestable surplus of upper Cook
Inlet salmon, largely for export from Alaska, at the expense of Alaska residents. Opportunities to
obtain fish for personal and family consumption have been negatively impacted by the current
management regime. There has also been a negative impact to the economy of the region of the
Board of Fisheries (AS 16.05.251).
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Consumptive users of these common
property resources will continue to not have reasonable opportunity to harvest UCI salmon
stocks. Some natal streams will continue to consistently fall below escapement goals at a cost of
future yield and fishery value. Optimum economic value of the existing fishery resources will
not be realized. Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, are not static - they have a long history of
evolution since before statehood in response to changing markets, values, user needs, biological
factors, and management. As demands have changes, fisheries and fishery allocations have been
adjusted. For instance, the Central District setnet fishery has expanded over the past couple of
decades and replaced the drift net fishery as the largest harvester of UCI salmon. Many Northern
District setnet permits have relocated to the cast side of the Central District. Chum salmon runs
have declined, Kenai and Kasilof sockeye runs have increased, and commercial harvest emphasis
has changed as the mixed stock fisheries have changed.
Current commercial fishery management in the Central District of the UCI is a holdover from an
earlier ear and is not in step with current demands and economic values. Worldwide market
values of wild salmon have declined with the rise in farmed salmon. At the same time, demand
and economic value of personal use and sport-caught salmon have exploded in South Central
Alaska. Economic value of a sport-caught fish now far exceeds the value of the same fish caught
in a commercial net. The upper Cook Inlet area supports over two-thirds of the State’s population
and consumptive harvest effort. The Kenai Peninsula and UCI is the only road-accessible area
with a sockeye run large enough to meet the consumptive needs of the majority of the Alaskan
population. It is also by first the most readily accessible and heavily-utilized area for visitors to
the state.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Reduced volume of commercial harvest will place a premium
on quality rather than quantity of fish delivered to the commercial market. A significant portion
of the commercial harvest is currently delivered at suboptimal quality. Accordingly, the UCI
commercial fishers receive a lower price than others do for higher quality fish. Fishers will be
encouraged to deliver a higher quality product. The proximity of the UCI commercial fisheries to
population and transportation centers provides untapped opportunities to access a quality-based
market. Improvements in fish quality will secure a premium price and can partially offset the
efforts of reduced fishery volume.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Personal use, subsistence, and sport fishery users will
benefit with the increased opportunity to harvest the available fish. Local and regional economies
will benefit from the much higher values on the fish in noncommercial fisheries. Central District
commercial fisheries will benefit by installing higher quality fishing practices that will result in
higher prices. Northern district commercial, sport and personal use fisheries will benefit from
restoration of sustainable levels of fish retaining to that area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This proposal will reduce the opportunities of the central
district drift and set net commercial fisheries. However, the reduced value of the commercial
catch will be more than offset by the much greater economic value of the fish in the consumptive
fisheries.
97
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? An incremental one to five year implementation of
this charge was considered to provide for an orderly transition in the fisheries. This alternative
was rejected because of the long term consequences of continued failure to meet escapement
goal of all stocks and the impact of the foregone economic value when fish are harvested by
commercial rather than the more valuable consumptive fisher.
PROPOSED BY: Cook Inlet Sportfishing Caucus (HQ-07F-419)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 117 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Amend
umbrella salmon management plan to clarify escapement goals based on wild fish as follows:
Amend the umbrella Salmon Management Plan to direct that escapement goals be met based
solely with wild fish.
ISSUE: Counting hatchery fish toward wile escapement goals is inaccurate, biologically
inappropriate, and contrary to the Sustainable Fisheries Policy (5 AAC 39.222 (c) (1) (D)).
Hatchery fish are currently counted toward achieving escapement goals for wild fish in a number
of upper Cook Inlet systems (Fish Creek sockeye, Kenai River sockeye, and Kasilof River
sockeye). However, escapement goals are based on wild spawner numbers and hatchery fish
often do not make effective contributions toward natural production. Counting hatchery fish
masks the actual status of the wild stock and makes it appear that wild spawning goals are being
met, when in fact they are not. Hatchery fish can also make it appear that escapement goals are
being exceeded when they are not.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Habitat protection and restoration efforts
are often ineffective when hatchery fish obscure the status of the wild population (e.g. Fish
Creek sockeye). Future production and yield is reduced where hatchery fish are not effective
natural spawners and natural spawning escapement goals are not reached (e.g. Hidden Lake
sockeye in the Kenai). Intensive fisheries for enhanced runs in large run years results in
overfishing of the wild stock (e.g. Kasilof sockeye).
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users and the management systems will benefit from
sustainable wild salmon populations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer from accurate assessments on wild
salmon status.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because current practice
risks wild salmon sustainability and is contrary to management policy. Closure of affected
hatcheries was rejected because hatchery fish can provide significant fishery benefits where
managed to ensure protection of the wild fish.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-162)
******************************************************************************
98
PROPOSAL 118 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Return to 1996 Kenai River sockeye plan as follows:
Return to 1996 Kenai River sockeye plan.
ISSUE: Putting 1.5 million sockeye in the Kenai River is foolish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued waste.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? A uniform harvest while in saltwater means better fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users benefit by abundance.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Stop managing for in-river allocations.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-034)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 119 - 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon
fisheries; 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan; and 5 AAC 21.353.
Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan. Identify Susitna River and Fish
Creek as stocks with a yield concern under the Sustainable Salmon Policy and create
conservation corridor as follows:
The Susitna River and Fish Creek should be placed on the status of yield concern under the
Sustainable Salmon Management Policy. Due to missed escapement goals, there is not a salmon
management plan that will protect Northern District salmon stocks as they transit the central
district. The board should adopted a new regulation that establishes a conservation corridor in
the center half or the central district from 8 July thru 26 July to protect northern bound stocks
and that restricted drift fleet to the pre 2005 fishing areas.
ISSUE: Sockeye salmon escapement goals in the Northern District have been missed on a
regular base, and consumptive users have not been able to fish for sockeye salmon for the past
two years in the Susitna River drainage and there has not been a personal use fishery in over 10
years. Northern District commercial fishermen have been restricted repeatedly in an attempt to
make escape goals with little success. The current preseason forecast for the Yentna River and
Fish Creek are so low that they won’t make their escapement goals again this year. If fishing
following the traditional patterns.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The sockeye salmon runs in these streams
may be seriously damaged, there are a many problems related to over harvest, miss management
of hatchery stocks and salmon management plans that are aim at insuring the majority of the
harvest is done in the central district by the drift fleet. The attitude of many in the department
that believed the native sockeye salmon run in Fish Creek has been killed out by the hatchery
program.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
99
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will provide sufficient sockeye salmon to meet escapement
goals and return the health of run back to historical high levels.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All sockeye salmon returning to the Northern District not
just the two within escapement goals. The wild life, resident species this home waters and the
water it self and the young salmon living in the stream. After the streams have been returned to a
recovered status everyone will be better off.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Initially anyone depending on sockeye salmon will be
required to give up their access to these stocks, but as they recover access can granted.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Stop all commercial fishing when these stocks are
transiting their area.
PROPOSED BY: Bruce Knowles (HQ-07F-136)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 120 - 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon
fisheries. Designate Cook Inlet chum salmon as a Stock of Concern as follows:
Consider designation of Cook Inlet chum salmon as a Stock of Concern which warrants
development of an action plan to evaluate status, assess factors in decline, and identify
appropriate remedies.
ISSUE: Chum salmon numbers in upper Cook Inlet have plummeted over the last two decades
and the reason is unclear. Chum historically supported very large commercial harvests but
fisheries have evaporated over the years. Declines in chum numbers may have broader
ecosystem implications, for instance, to the sensitive Cook Inlet beluga population. Significant
investigation for action regarding chum salmon appears to have been precluded by failure to
define meaningful conservation concern criteria and a lack of representative chum escapement
data. Failure to act in the face of uncertainty is contrary the precautionary approach of the
Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Upper Cook Inlet chum salmon stocks
will continue to be at significant conservation risk, provide no meaningful fishery benefits, and
affect other species of concern.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not Applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Recovery of chum would provide fishery and ecosystem
benefits.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because lack of a clear cause
of the decline or a fishery- related remedy does not eliminate the conservation concern.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-160)
******************************************************************************
100
PROPOSAL 121 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Modify
Yentna/Susitna escapement goals as follows:
Amend section (b) of the Northern District Salmon Management Plan as follows: To provide for
inriver uses of Yentna/Susitna River sockeye salmon the department shall manage for an
inriver goal range of 105,000 - 195,000 sockeye salmon past the Yentna River sonar
counter. Achievement of the lower end of the inriver goal will take priority over not
exceeding the upper end of the Kenai River or Kasilof River sockeye salmon escapement
goals. [ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LOWER END OF THE YENTNA RIVER OPTIMAL
ESCAPEMENT GOAL SHALL TAKE PRIORITY OVER NOT EXCEEDING THE UPPER
END OF THE KENAI RIVER ESCAPEMENT GOAL. WHEN THE SOCKEYE SALMON
RETURNS TO THE KENAI RIVER ARE FOUR MILLION OR GREATER, THE OPTIMAL
ESCAPEMENT GOAL IS 75,000 TO 180,000.]
ISSUE: With interpretation of the present Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan ADF&G
managers have been managing Yentna/Susitna River sockeye salmon, by at times, allowing zero
harvest of sockeye salmon by in river sport fishermen, while simultaneously allowing regular
fishing periods and also granting emergency order extra fishing time to commercial fishermen in
the Central District of Upper Cook Inlet - where the largest harvest of Yentna/Susitna bound
sockeye likely occurs. During 2005 such management practices resulted in the lowest recorded
Yentna River sockeye salmon sonar escapement on record.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If something is not done to adjust the
harvest pattern on Yentna/Susitna bound sockeye salmon, inriver sport fishermen will likely see
more frequent and longer sockeye closures, even though this fishery harvests a small percentage
of the total Yentna/Susitna sockeye. These closures will likely be accelerated if low sockeye
numbers return from years of less than adequate parent spawning escapements, as would seem
logical. Subsistence users along the Yentna River will likely experience continued difficulties
catching subsistence salmon, and subsistence salmon that are harvested will continue to reduce
needed sockeye numbers from escapement. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fishermen could see
lower sockeye prices if the compounding escapement woes of Yentna / Susitna sockeye trigger
an “unsustainable” management label for Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Yentna/Susitna inriver users (including subsistence users)
would enjoy a higher likelihood of a consistent and predictable sockeye salmon fishery and
harvest opportunity. All users could benefit from additional future abundance, if a reasonable
number of sockeye were allocated to inriver uses, so that inriver harvests would not harvest from
low escapements. Providing each user group a reasonable opportunity to participate in Yentna /
Susitna sockeye harvests on an annual basis seems like a fairer way to manage the Upper Cook
Inlet salmon fishery, and such opportunity may only be provided with adequate inriver sockeye
returns. Such an approach would seem to more closely fit the approach outlined in 5 AAC
39.220 Policy for the Management of Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries, section (b).
In the absence of a regulatory management plan that otherwise allocates or restricts harvest, and
when it is necessary to restrict fisheries on stocks where there are known conservation problems,
the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to their
respective harvest on the stock of concern. The board recognized that precise sharing of
conservation among fisheries is dependent on the amount of stock specific information available.
101
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Central District drift gillnetters who saw management plan
changes granting them significant expanded fishing opportunities during the last Upper Cook
Inlet Board of Fisheries meeting would likely see the largest reduction in their harvest of Yentna
/ Susitna bound sockeye salmon. The new ADF&G genetic harvest allocation study should be
examined closely, however, to identify ways to reduce harvests of Yentna / Susitna bound
sockeye salmon while secondarily maintaining opportunity to harvest more abundant sockeye
stocks.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? It is easy to look at yearly inriver Yentna River
sockeye harvests and think a lesser number of sockeye salmon could be made available to inriver
uses, however, we would request the Board consider that ADF&G originally monitored the
Susitna wide sockeye escapement below the confluence of the Yentna River, and that ADF&G
uses the current goal as it’s only commercial management goal for the entire Susitna River
Drainage.
Thus when figuring an appropriate allocation for inriver uses the Board should consider ADF&G
figures the Yentna portion is approximately half of the entire Susitna sockeye return. In
addition, higher inriver harvest of sockeye occurs on the more accessible Susitna stem. To
manage the system on a conservative basis, it is more appropriate to place in regulation an
inriver sockeye allocation based on the Susitna stem with it’s higher inriver sockeye harvest, as
doing otherwise subjects the system to overharvest. After examining the past 10 years of inriver
sockeye harvests, and remembering these harvests have been closed at different times during the
past several years, a minimum inriver goal of 105,000 sockeye past the Yentna River sonar
seems an appropriate and conservative number. It may also be appropriate to consider higher
minimum numbers.
PROPOSED BY: Andy Couch (HQ-07F-123)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 122 - 5 AAC 21.358(b). Northern District Salmon Management. Modify
Yentna River escapement goal as follows:
To provide for inriver uses of Yentna/Susitna River sockeye salmon the department shall
manage for an inriver goal range of 105,000 – 195,000 sockeye salmon past the Yentna River
sonar counter. Achievement of the lower end of the inriver goal will take priority over not
exceeding the upper end of the Kenai River or Kasilof River sockeye salmon escapement
goals. [ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LOWER END OF THE YENTNA RIVER OPTIMAL
ESCAPEMENT GOAL SHALL TAKE PRIORITY OVER NOT EXCEEDING THE UPPER
END OF THE KENAI RIVER ESCAPEMENT GOAL. WHEN THE SOCKEYE SALMON
RETURNS TO THE KENAI RIVER ARE FOUR MILLION OR GREATER, THE OPTIMAL
ESCAPEMENT GOAL IS 75,000 TO 180,000.]
ISSUE: With interpretation of the present Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan ADF&G
managers have been managing Yentna/Susitna River sockeye salmon, by at times, allowing zero
harvest of sockeye salmon by in-river sport fishermen, while simultaneously allowing regular
fishing periods and also granting emergency order extra fishing time to commercial fishermen in
the Central District of Upper Cook Inlet - where the largest harvest of Yentna/Susitna bound
sockeye likely occurs. During 2005 such management practices resulted in the lowest recorded
Yentna River sockeye salmon sonar escapement on record.
102
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If something is not done to adjust the
harvest pattern of Yentna/Susitna bound sockeye salmon, in-river sport fishermen will likely see
more frequent and longer sockeye closures, even though this fishery harvests a small percentage
of the total Yentna/Susitna sockeye. These closures will likely be accelerated if low sockeye
numbers return from years of less than adequate parent spawning escapements as would seem
logical. Subsistence users along the Yentna River will likely experience continued difficulties
catching subsistence salmon, and subsistence salmon that are harvested will continue to reduce
needed sockeye numbers from escapement. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fishermen could see
lower sockeye prices if the compounding escapement woes of Yentna/Susitna sockeye trigger an
“unsustainable” management label for Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Yentna/Susitna in-river users (including subsistence users)
would enjoy a higher likelihood of a consistent and predictable sockeye salmon fishery and
harvest opportunity. All users could benefit from additional future abundance, if a reasonable
number of sockeye were allocated to in-river uses, so that in-river harvests would not harvest
from low escapements. Providing each user group a reasonable opportunity to participate in
Yentna/Susitna sockeye harvests on an annual basis is a fairer way to manage the Upper Cook
Inlet salmon fishery, and such opportunity may only be provided with adequate in-river sockeye
returns. Such an approach would more closely fit the approach outlined in 5 AAC 39.220 Policy
for the Management of Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries, section (b):
In the absence of a regulatory management plan that otherwise allocates or restricts harvest, and
when it is necessary to restrict fisheries on stocks where there are known conservation problems,
the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to their
respective harvest on the stock of concern. The board recognized that precise sharing of
conservation among fisheries is dependent on the amount of stock specific information available.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Central District drift gillnetters who saw management plan
changes during the last Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fisheries meeting that granted them
significantly expanded fishing opportunities would likely see the largest reduction in their
harvest of Yentna/Susitna bound sockeye salmon. The new ADF&G genetic harvest allocation
study should be examined closely, however, to identify ways to reduce harvests of
Yentna/Susitna bound sockeye salmon while secondarily maintaining opportunity to harvest
more abundant sockeye stocks.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? It is easy to look at yearly in-river Yentna River
sockeye harvests and think a lesser number of sockeye salmon could be made available to in-
river uses, however, we would request the Board consider that ADF&G originally monitored the
Susitna wide sockeye escapement below the confluence of the Yentna River, and that ADF&G
uses the current goal as it’s only commercial management goal for the entire Susinta River
Drainage.
Thus when figuring an appropriate allocation for in-river uses the Board should consider
ADF&G figures the Yentna portion is approximately half of the entire Susitna sockeye return. In
addition, higher in-river harvest of sockeye occurs on the more accessible Susitna stem. To
manage the system on a conservative basis, it is more appropriate to place in regulation an in-
river sockeye allocation based on the Susitna stem with it’s higher in-river sockeye harvest, as
doing otherwise subjects the system to overharvest. After examining the past 10 years of in-river
103
sockeye harvests, and remembering these harvests have been closed at different times during the
past several years, a minimum in-river goal of 105,000 sockeye past the Yentna River sonar
seems an appropriate and conservative number. It may also be appropriate to consider higher
minimum numbers.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-361)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 123 - 5 AAC 21.xxx. New section. Eliminate Fish Creek stocking program
until escapement goal met as follows:
Stop the stocking program in Fish Creek until the escapement goals is being meet on a regular
bases a minimum of two life cycles.
ISSUE: Hatchery stocks are interfering with the natural reproduction of sockeye salmon on Fish
Creek. Fish Creek has repeated missed its escapement goals. It has only been until the last five
years that hatchery stock were marked so that they could be properly identified. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game continues to use both hatchery stocks to count towards
escapement goals, when only wild stocks are suppose to be.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? False returns will continue to be reported
on Fish Creek and the health of the stock will not ever be known for sure. For years wild stocks
were not allowed to migrate up stream in their normal patters do to a weir that was used to block
their path until the hatchery stocks were mature and ready for processing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The wild stocks of Fish Creek and the resident species that
depend on the dead sockeye salmon, their eggs and their off spring as a food source.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Initially hatchery workers and some commercial fishermen.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? When it comes to saving an unique species of
sockeye salmon major steps must be taken. This is just one of many that have been taken on Fish
Creek.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-362)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 124 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan; 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai
River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run
Sockeye Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management
Plan; 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC 56.070. Kenai River
and Kasilof River Early-run King Salmon Conservation Management Plan; 5 AAC 56.080.
Kenai River Coho Salmon Management Plan; and 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet
Personal Use Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Reorganize the Upper Cook Inlet
Management plans by species as follows:
104
The intent of this proposal is to reorganize the Administrative Code sections listed above into a
format of an overall plan that provides information and regulation common to all fisheries, and
additional plans that deal with the fisheries by species. The proposed language is not provided
here because of its length, but will be provided during the fall comment period for inclusion in
the BOF record.
ISSUE: Cook Inlet Fishery Management Plans are very complicated and because of the
extended time period over which they were developed and differences in focus with each plan,
contain regulations that impact individual or groups of fisheries in more than one plan. The
public, agencies, and BOF periodically debate fishery decisions because of perceived differences
intent or regulation in different plans. Some of this confusion results from the organization of the
plan. This proposal is an attempt to reorganize the plans by species under an umbrella plan so
that all current regulations for harvest of that species are in one location. This is viewed as a
reorganization of the material in the current plans to make the previous plans easier to use.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be confusion over
the intent and prosecution of management plans.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All individuals and groups that develop and implement the
management plans.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-332)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 125 - 5 AAC 21.320(b)(1). Weekly fishing periods; 5 AAC 21.331. Gillnet
specifications and operations; 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan.
5 AAC 21.360(b)(1),(c). Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC
21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan; 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon
Management Plan; and 5 AAC 77.525. Personal use salmon fishery. Revise the Upper Cook
Inlet area management plans to address quality, sustainability and revitalize the industry as
follows:
i) Insert in the 5 AAC 21.363 UCI Management Plan the following statement: (7) It is the
intent of the Board of Fish that achieving the BEG and the in-river escapement goals
for a salmon species take precedent over any other restrictions in these regulations on
fishing time or area. It is further recognized by the Board of Fish that the
Commissioner of ADF&G should exercise his emergency order authority to alter time
and area restrictions in-season to meet these escapement goals.]
ii) Amend 5 AAC 21.360 to read as follows.
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily
for commercial uses based on abundance. [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALSO MANAGE
THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF NORTHERN
DISTRICT COHO, LATE-RUN KENAI RIVER KING, AND KENAI RIVER COHO
105
SALMON STOCKS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL USE, SPORT AND GUIDED
FISHERMEN WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST SALMON
RESOURCES.]
(b)(1) meet a spawning [OPTIMUM] escapement goal [(OEG)] range of 400,000 - 700,000
[500,000-1,000,000] late-run sockeye salmon.
(b)(3) distribute the escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the spawning escapement
goal [(OEG)] range, in proportion to the size of the run.
(c) Based on preseason and in-season forecasts prior to July 25 the fishing season, the
run will be managed as follows:
(1) at run strengths of less than 3,000,000 sockeye salmon,
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal range of 450,000 -
750,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated 50,000 -
75,000 sockeye salmon; and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated 50,000 -
75,000 sockeye salmon and;
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest one half the
salmon per member of household limit in addition to the normal household
bag and possession limit; and
(2) at run strengths greater than 3,000,000 sockeye salmon,
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal range of 475,000 -
800,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated 75,000 -
100,000 sockeye salmon; and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated 75,000 -
100,000 sockeye salmon and;
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest the full per
head of household bag and possession limit.
iii) Modify section 5 AAC 21.320 (b)(1) to read “salmon may be taken in the Central District
from 7:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m. Monday, from 7:00 a.m. Wednesday until 7:00
p.m. Wednesday with “D” permit, and from 7:00a.m. Friday, until 7:00 p.m. Friday
except salmon may be taken….”
iv) Repeal 5 AAC 21.365 (b) of the Kasilof Salmon Management Plan.
v) Add new regulatory section in 5 AAC 21.331
Requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Cook Inlet.
(a) Except if the special harvest areas specified in (e) of this section, two Cook Inlet drift
gillnet CFEC permit holders or one permit holder with 2 permits may concurrently
fish from the same vessel and jointly or separately with 2 permits operate up to 200
fathoms or drift gillnet gear under this section.
(b) Before operating drift gillnet gear jointly under this section, both permit holders
shall register with the department.
(c) When two Cook Inlet drift gillnet CFEC permit holders or a permit holder with 2
permits fish from the same vessel and jointly or collectively operate a drift gillnet
gear under this section, the vessel must display its ADF&G permanent license plate
number followed by the letter “D” to identify the vessel as a duel permit vessel. The
106
letter “D” must be removed or covered when the vessel is operating with a permit
holder with only one drift gillnet CFEC permit on board the vessel. The
identification number and letters must be displayed
(1) in letters and numerals 12 inches high with lines at least one inch wide;
(2) in a color that contrasts with the background;
(3) on both sides of the hull and top deck (as to be visual from the air); and
(4) in a manner that is plainly visible at all times when the vessel is being operated.
(d) When two permit holders jointly operate gear under this section, each permit holder
is responsible for ensuring that the entire unit of gear is operated in a lawful
manner.
(e) The joint operation of drift gillnet gear under this not allowed in any other area, or
during any time when, a single CFEC permit holder is restricted to operating less
than 150 fathoms or drift gillnet gear and in the
(1) Kasilof and Kenai sections of the Central District
(2) Kasilof terminal fishery described in 5 AAC 21.365 (f);
(3) Closed areas described in 5 AAC 21.350;
(4) Chinitna Bay Subdistrict of the Central District.
vi) Amend this regulation as follows:
(c) A drift gillnet may not be more than 150 fathoms in length and up to 60 [45] meshes in
depth. No person may operate more than one drift gillnet.
vii) Amend 5 AAC 21.358(b) as follows:
(b) Meet a spawning escapement goal [sustainable] escapement [(SEG)] range of 40,000 -
80,000 sockeye salmon.
viii)Amend 5 AAC 77.525 Personal use salmon fishery, the personal-use dip net regulation to
begin with 15 salmon per head of household and 5 per dependent limit on runs less than 3
million to the Kenai and 25 head of household and 10 per dependant on runs greater than 3
million to the Kenai. Or for runs less than 3 million to the Kenai manage to 30 fish per
household of two or 15 fish per households of 1 as currently the Copper River is regulated.
With EO authority for date extension or closure of the dip net fishery to manage to
escapement goals. For sanitation purposes, only viscera are to be placed in the river, no
filleted carcasses.
ISSUE: Salmon management plans in the Upper Cook Inlet.
Overview: The three goals that are too be addressed by this proposal are as follows: industry
revitalization, improved quality, and stable supply of fish. In order to revitalize the commercial
salmon fishery, to provide for a stable and predictable fishery based on principles and to promote
higher quality seafood products, the regulatory changes contained in this proposal need to be
made by the Board of Fisheries. Currently, there are many contradicting and confusing
regulations. There are new markets that are responding very positively to the higher quality
salmon products coming from Cook Inlet. The local infrastructure makes Cook Inlet very
competitive in a quality, oriented market. This proposal is based on maximum sustained
yield/abundance based escapement goals taking highest priority and considers overcapitalization
and latent capacity of the drift fleet in conjunction with run strength. This coordinated and
comprehensive proposal will also restore the historic harvests as directed by 5 AAC
21.363(a)(5). This proposal contains several elements that will bring a coordinated revitalization
to the industry. Therefore the above referenced regulations need to be amended in a collective
107
manner.
First: 5 AAC 21.363 UCI Management Plan, the conflicts in the current management plan must
be clarified concerning area and time limitations or restrictions that conflict with achieving
escapement goals. Most of the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plans have performed
poorly and need revision.
Second: revise the present weekly fishing periods consisting of two 12-hour periods. This portion
of the proposal will revise the fishing periods in the drift gillnet fishery and increase the number
of weekly fishing periods to 3 as follows: three periods would be on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday. Only those “D” (Dual Permit) operations fishing 2 permits would be permitted to fish the
Wednesday period. Other single-permit holders or operations would continue to have two
regularly scheduled 12-hour periods per week. This will prevent disenfranchisement of any
permit holders who don’t want to have a “D”-type operation. If all UCI drift permit holders were
to decided to pursue a “D” operation, this proposal would reduce the fishing capacity per week
by 25%, but create a higher quality product and more consistent supply. In the event that only
one regular scheduled period is to occur in a particular week on either a Monday or Friday, the
“D” permit operation would still have one regular 12-hour period. To offset the 25% reduction in
harvest capacity with the “D” permit in strong salmon return years (greater than 2 million late-
run Kenai sockeye) – a “D” permit operation will be allowed to use 200 fathoms and 60-mesh
gear. This proposal does not reduce the number of permits, but maintains the unique
individuality of each permit and takes constructive steps in rationalization of the overcapitalized
fishery. The number of permits would remain the same, but this proposal would allow more
flexibility and foster economic stability/growth via improved quality, vertical integration, and
better utilization of capital. The reason reasons for this element of the proposal is to increase the
quality of the product harvested in Cook Inlet by the drift gillnet fleet and re-establish the
historical harvest patterns and percentage by the drift gillnet fleet. Presently, fishing Monday and
Thursdays with restrictions on time and area the fishery is forced to be a peak fishery. With a
concentrated peak harvest regulated fishery it is not difficult to ice and bleed fish for quality.
Processors must hold fish for longer times before processing which results in loss of quality. This
part of the proposal in intended to allow a more even harvest and improve quality. Limitations on
fishing areas and times in existing management plans do not recognize this economic loss. This
proposal should help restore the historic fishing patterns and balance of harvest between all users
in the inlet.
Third: there needs to be revisions to the sockeye escapement descriptions for the Kenai River. A
two-tiered escapement goal is proposed at above and below 3 million sockeye, and an in-river
goal that includes an allocation for sport fishermen above the sonar counter at river mile 19.
Creating only two tiers this will facilitate better management of Kenai River Sockeye Salmon.
Fourth: requiring the attainment of the lower end of the Kenai River sockeye salmon escapement
goal to take priority over not exceeding the upper end of the Kasilof River optimal escapement
goal of 150,000 to 300,000 places a cumbersome and unnecessary complication on fishery
managers in Upper Cook Inlet. Why sacrifice harvests to achieving the Kenai goals? This is not a
real problem. This is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Let the area
management biologist manage for the escapement goals in both rivers.
Fifth: the limit of 150 fathoms of drift gillnet gear on drift gillnet vessels during times of low
salmon prices. The difficulty of hiring qualified crew during times of low salmon returns and
prices. The percent of gross revenue that is required to operate a drift gillnet vessel. The
continued decline of local ownership of drift gillnets permits. In short, a more economically
108
stable fishery with higher quality.
Sixth: the present regulation allows drift gillnets to be 45 meshes deep. This proposal would
allow up to 60 mesh deep nets. This regulation would allow increased harvest by the drift gillnet
fleet to help maintain its historical harvest percentage. In years with warmer water temperatures
in Upper Cook Inlet, salmon run deeper in the water column and the increase to 60 mesh would
provide a means to maintaining the historical drift fleet catch. In addition, limitation in
management plans on extra periods by the drift gillnet fleet has resulted in very low exploitation
rates on chum, coho, and pink salmon. This proposal would allow these under-harvested socks to
be used. This is more closely in tune with sustained fisheries management. Present exploitation
rates on chum, coho, and pink salmon by the drift gillnet fleet is less than 10 percent.
Seventh: the present escapement goal for the Yentna does not correspond to the rearing capacity
of the system. The escapement goal needs to reflect natural characteristics (beavers, pike,
zooplankton, water temperature, oxygen, development and in-river use impacts, etc….) of the
system.
Eighth: the present regulation does not regulate all users based on run strength. This proposal
would manage all users to escapement goals based on preseason forecasted run strength and
adjusted if needed in season.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public will continue to have different
expectations concerning the management actions to be taken by ADF&G staff which are in
conflict in these plans and increased public dissatisfaction by the public with ADF&G and the
Board of Fisheries.
The commercial fishing community is struggling to survive, however; without these regulatory
changes conflict, economic hardships, political unrest, lost economic benefits will continue to
occur.
The wrong management actions will be applied because the returns have not been in the tier as
forecasted.
The quality of product in Cook Inlet will not improve and the drift gill net fleet will continue to
suffer loss market share as a result of economic limitation.
The continued difficulty of hiring qualified crew resulting in a higher chance of accidents and
insurance premiums. Continued difficulty of achieving a reasonable profit from drift gillnetting
in Cook Inlet. Continued losses of local ownership and use of drift gillnet permits.
A usable resource will continue to be underutilized.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Many of these regulation changes are directed at improving
quality. The increased flexibility of ADF&G to meet escapement goals should increase quality
by removing artificial and unnecessary limitation on fishing areas and times that creates a
concentrated fishery.
Additionally, the drift net fleet typical harvest between 500 and 1,200 fish on average per vessel
during the peak period. This proposal is intended to lower the per vessel harvest by increasing
the number of fishing periods per week. Both during the peak of the fishery and adjacent to the
109
peak the number of fish per vessel should be reduced to allow better quality control of the
product. In addition, this regulation will provide an economic incentive for fisherman to modify
their vessels to increase quality of the harvest. The increased financial reward from high quality
product and the reestablishment of the historical harvest patterns and percentage will be a
sufficient incentive for the existing fisherman to expend the funds and time to make the vessel
conversions that are necessary to improve quality of fish harvested.
In lieu of late-season, less-efficient terminal sockeye fisheries - this proposal would allow the
drift fleet to harvest surpluses of sockeye when sockeye are at their highest quality during mid
season.
Lastly, allowing the drift fleet to fish historical periods outside the Kenai and Kasilof sections
provides product to the processors that is higher quality than fish captured latter in the season
when they move toward their rivers of origin. It also allows for an orderly harvest of product
during large return years of sockeye salmon. The present regulation requires that the harvest of
surplus sockeye salmon during extra periods take place in the Kenai and Kasilof sections only,
including the Kasilof Terminal Harvest Area. This results in fish harvest of a low quality and
increases poor public relation perceptions/feelings with other user groups. In large return years
the volume of harvests during the peak periods increases, as fish tend to hold in the district and
enter the near shore areas in large numbers. These various elements of the revitalization and the
quality improvement require regulatory changes that can be accomplished while remaining
within the historical catches of the drift fleet.
Yes. Reducing operational costs will provide profits that could be used to improve the quality of
harvesting salmon. Reducing the total amount of gear an vessels used in harvesting will reduce
crowding and provide harvesters the option to harvest salmon in a more quality-conscience
method.
A small increase in efficiency at the start and end of the season will allow more fish to be
handled for quality markets. Presently, catches in the drift gillnet fleet average less than 100 fish
for the first few periods. At this level of harvest fish can be individually handled and therefore
bled, packed in ice, and delivered in a prime condition. At the peak of the fishery this does not
take place and the slight increase in efficiency should not impact negatively the overall quality of
the pack.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit with this regulation since it will be
clear that the Board of Fish intents to manage the resource for in-river escapement goals.
Concerning the three fishing periods and gear adjustments for “D” permit owners, the industry
and the drift gillnet fleet is the obvious benefactor of this proposal. The industry benefits by
having higher quality product and the drift gillnet fleet benefits from both quality, historic
harvest patterns, reduced operating costs and more efficient use of capital.
The commercial fishing industry will benefit as well as the drift gillnet fleet. Those drift gillnet
fishermen who wish to remain in the fishery as an active participant and still realize a profit. The
drift gillnet fleet will increase slightly the harvest of harvestable surpluses of all salmon species.
The commercial industry will have slightly more fish for programs like Kenai Wild.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer. These regulatory changes do not alter
the allocation of the resource between users and the escapement goals. The entry of salmon into
the system is already controlled by ADF&G managers to achieve biological objectives relative to
110
harvesting equally over the entire run.
The reestablishment of the historical harvest patterns and percentage should not hurt other
commercial users when viewed in the long term. However, relative to recent trends in the last 3-
10 years, commercial set gill net permit holders may be impacted negatively. Relative to other
users the impact should be minimal since management plans and allocations were based on the
drift fleet having nearly 600 fishing boats with 150-fathoms, 45-mesh gear. The total fishing
harvest capacity of fishing three 12-hour periods with half the permits will be at or below the
harvest capacity of the existing regulations at 600 drift boats fishing two 12-hour periods. It is
the intent of this proposal to maintain the long term historic harvest patterns and not be a
reallocation. If this becomes an issue then adjustments to fishing time should take place.
These proposals do nothing to the Department’s emergency order authority to modify fishing
times or areas.
The escapement objectives for all systems are maintained so there should be no impact on in-
river users. There will be a lost harvest to set gill net fishermen who target Kenai and Kasilof
sockeye stocks. However, this should not result in an upsetting of the historical harvest pattern.
Other salmon stocks have not entered Cook Inlet in large numbers during this time frame so
harvest of coho salmon should remain low.
No one. Those drift gillnet fishermen who choose not to participate in the new regulation will
still benefit from the reduction in gear and vessels. At any time through the season and with
proper registration or notification to ADF&G, a permit holder may decide to either fish
independently or as a “D” operation.
The increase in harvest by the drift gillnet fleet to historical levels should be small enough that
most other users will not see the impact of the harvest in their activities. However, increased
harvest by one user group will make less fish available for others from a purely statistical
viewpoint. At the low exploitation levels in the drift gillnet fleet it is anticipated that nearly 90
percent of chum, pink and coho entering the inlet will continue to enter Cook Inlet streams.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Concerning managing for escapement goals there are
no other alternatives. If limitations on time and area are left in place the conflict over which
takes priority escapement goals or time and area restrictions will continue.
The Central District is about 1,800 square miles in size making the location of salmon difficult.
Additionally Upper Cook Inlet has some of the largest tides in the world. These tides and
associated tidal rips thoroughly mix the salmon on a daily basis. The fishing periods must be
long enough to locate salmon in the 1,800 square mile area during both flood and ebb tides.
By decreasing the options used by the department that could be put into regulations, however,
this would defeat the purpose of allowing flexibility. For example, the fishery could be allowed
to fish regular periods with a restriction on the fishery to the area below Kalgin Island. This
would accomplish the goal of lowering the exploitation rate but would not be needed in all years.
Any regulation that does not allow for flexibility based on abundance of the stocks was rejected.
Other gear and vessel reductions, which would have reduced from the status quo, but preferred
the potion that allowed for individual choice.
Alternating regular periods every other day to accommodate an A and B fleet to maintain current
111
allocation of 2 regular periods per week between an A and B fleet (4 periods every 8 days), and
so forth through the season based on run strength seemed cumbersome.
PROPOSED BY: Brent M. Western (HQ-07F-373)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 126 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Amend
the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan to clarify board intent regarding the
commissioner’s emergency order authority as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.363 (e)
(e) It is the intent of the board that, while in most circumstances the department will adhere to
the management plans in this chapter, nothing in the management plans is intended to override
the commissioner’s emergency order authority under AS 16.05.060. [SHOULD SIGNIFICANT
NEW INFORMATION ARISE THAT, IN THE COMMISSIONER’S JUDGMENT,
WARRANT DEPARTURE FROM THE PROVISIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN.]
ISSUE: Eliminate the conflict, confusion and mixed individual interpretations.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion and mixed
interpretations as to what new information is. The results have been the commissioner’s not
using this emergency order authority. Thereby grossly over escaping the rivers and harming the
users by not being allowed to harvest the salmon surpluses. Limits the use of the commissioner’s
emergency order authority.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Would possibly allow the harvest to be more spread out over
course or the run.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who want flexibility in the use of the
Commissioner’s EO authority.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who want mixed interpretations and to restrict the
Commissioner’s EO authority.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-440)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 127 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan.; and 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Authorize the
commissioner to issue EO openings to ensure escapement ranges are met as follows:
Insert in management plans language that the department will manage for escapement goals first.
The board directs the commissioner, or his designee, to issues emergency order openings to
insure that the escapement goals will be met by the department.
ISSUE: Hour and time limitations placed in regulation disregards managing the fishery within
112
the established in-river escapement goals, even when established goals have been met or
exceeded.
Provisions written into regulation are in regulatory conflict to the board’s directives to the
department; To manage within the goals, distribute the escapement evenly within the escapement
goal range, and manage fisheries to provide commercial fishermen with an economic yield from
the harvest of these stocks based on abundance.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Placing significant risk on fishery
resource management. Large escapements and especially consecutive large escapements have the
potential to substantially reduce stock productivity on the Kenai River system and Kasilof River
system.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The Kenai River production could fail.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All user groups would benefit by clearly defined regulatory
language with specific objective on fishery management as stated above.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-384)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 128 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Clarify
the intention to manage fisheries in season to meet the escapement goals as follows:
Insert in the 5 AAC 21.363 UCI Management Plan the following statement (7) It is the intent of
the Board of Fisheries that achieving escapement goals for a salmon species take precedent
over any other restrictions in these regulations on fishing time or area. It is further
recognized by the Board of Fisheries that the Commissioner of ADF&G should exercise his
emergency order authority to alter time and area restrictions in-season to meet these
escapement goals.
ISSUE: Overview: In order to revitalize the commercial salmon fishery, to provide for stable
and predictable fishery based on principles and to promote higher quality seafood products, we
need the regulatory changes contained in this proposal to be made by the Board of Fisheries.
Currently, there are many contradicting and confusing regulations - these conflicting and
confusing regulations need to be clarified. There are new markets that are responding very
positively to the higher quality salmon products coming from Cook Inlet. In Cook Inlet we are
positioned very well with electricity roads, airports, processors, secondary processors and trained
individuals to efficiently compete in a quality oriented market. There are three goals that are
being achieved by this proposal: industry revitalization, improved quality, and stable supply of
fish.
5 AAC 21.363 UCI Management Plan, the conflicts in the current management plan must be
clarified concerning area and time limitations or restrictions that conflict with achieving
escapement goals. Most of the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plans have performed
poorly and need revision.
113
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public will continue to have different
expectations concerning the management actions to be taken by ADF&G staff which are in
conflict in these plans and increased public dissatisfaction by the public with ADF&G and the
Board of Fisheries. The commercial fishing community is struggling to survive, however;
without these regulatory changes conflict, economic hardships, political unrest, lost economic
benefits will occur. The wrong management actions will be applied because the returns have not
been in the tier as forecasted. The quality of product in Cook Inlet will not improve and the drift
gill net fleet will continue to suffer loss market share as result of economic limitations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The increased flexibility of ADF&G to meet escapement
goals should increase quality by removing artificial and unnecessary limitations on fishing areas
and times that creates a concentrated fishery. Additionally, the drift gill net fleet typical harvest
between 500 and 1,200 fish on average per vessel during the peak period. This proposal is
intended to lower the per vessel harvest by increasing the number of fishing periods per week.
Both during the peak of the fishery and adjacent to the peak the number of fish per vessel should
be reduced to allow better quality control of the product. In addition, this regulation will provide
an economic incentive for fisherman to modify their vessels to increase quality of the harvest.
The increased financial reward from high quality product and the reestablishment of the
historical harvest patterns and percentage will be a sufficient incentive for the existing fisherman
to expend the funds and time to make the vessel conversions that are necessary to improve
quality of fish harvested. In lieu of late-season, less-efficient terminal sockeye fisheries - this
proposal would allow the drift fleet to harvest surpluses of sockeye when sockeye are at their
highest quality during mid season. Lastly, allowing the drift fleet to fish historical periods
outside the Kenai and Kasilof sections provides product to the processors that is higher quality
that fish captured latter in the season when they move toward their rivers of origin. It also allows
for an orderly harvest of product during large return years of sockeye salmon. The present
regulation requires that the harvest of surplus sockeye salmon during extra periods take place in
the Kenai and Kasilof sections only, including the Kasilof Terminal Harvest Area. This results in
fish harvests of a low quality. In large return years the volume of harvest during the peak periods
increases as fish tend to hold in the district and enter the near shore areas of large numbers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit with this regulation since it will be
clear that the Board of Fish intends to manage the resource for escapement goals.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer. These regulatory changes do not alter
the allocation of the resource between users and the escapement goals. The entry of salmon into
the system is already controlled by ADF&G managers to achieve biological objectives relative to
harvesting equally over the entire run. These proposals do nothing to the Departments emergency
order authority to modify fishing times or areas. The escapement objectives for all systems are
maintained so there should be no impact on in-river users. There will be a lost harvest to set gill
net fisherman who target Kenai and Kasilof sockeye stocks. However, this should not result in an
upsetting of the historical harvest pattern. Other salmon stocks have not entered Cook Inlet in
large numbers during this time frame so harvest of coho salmon should remain low.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Concerning managing for escapement goals there are
no other alternatives. If limitations on time and area are left in place the conflict over which takes
priority escapement goals or time and area restrictions will continue. By decreasing the options
used by the department that could be put into regulations, however, this would defeat the purpose
of allowing flexibility. For example, the fishery could be allowed to fish regular periods with a
114
restriction on the fishery to the area below Kalgin Island. This would accomplish the goal of
lowering the exploitation rate but would not be needed in all years. Any regulation that does not
allow for flexibility based on abundance of the stocks was rejected.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-399)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 129 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Clarify
the BOF intent that achieving escapement goals supersedes specific time and area mangers
flexibility as follows:
Add new section
7), “It is the intent of the Board of Fish that achieving escapement goals have a higher
priority than following the specific time and area provisions in the other Upper Cook Inlet
salmon management plans.
ISSUE: This “umbrella plan” for Upper Cook Inlet provides no clear direction concerning the
conflicts between meeting escapement goals and specific time and area restrictions contained in
all the other Upper Cook Inlet step down salmon management plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion, conflicting
expectations; conflict between meeting escapement goals and restrictions in the stop down plans.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allows for the orderly management of the resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Provides clarity to ADF&G and the public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - no change.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-404)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 130 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Clarify
that achieving the established escapement goals is the primary management objective in the
Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management plan as follows:
Clarification in section (e) Amend as follows: It is the intent of the board that, while in most
circumstances the department will adhere to the management plans in this chapter, achieving
established escapement goals is the primary management objective; therefore, nothing is the
management plans is intended to override the commissioner’s emergency order authority under
AS 16.05.060.
[SHOULD SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION ARISE THAT, IN THE
COMMISSIONER’S JUDGEMENT, WARRANTS DEPARTURE FROM THE PROVISIONS
IN THE MANGEMENT PLAN]. (The commissioner’s authority is already stated in section (e);
new information is determined by the commissioner under his authority).
115
This requested action is allocatively neutral, as the board in 2005 established that this was their
intent, by passing (e) in the Upper Cook Inlet sockeye management plan.
ISSUE: The stated problem outlined by the department (ADF&G) in the UCI salmon
management issues paper: “The BOF has adopted escapement goals, windows, and established
fishing time restrictions. It is unclear which is the higher priority; allowable fishing time or
management within the escapement goals.”
This proposal requests clarification from the Board to resolve this management priority
uncertainty.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Large sockeye salmon escapement
events, well in excess of in-river established goals, will continue; such events severely preclude
harvest on abundant surplus sockeye available. Over escapement events pose a serious risk of
sockeye production; increased yield loss.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Provides direction, quality harvest operational plans can be
reasonably made with clearly defined fishery management practices in place.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fisheries economy. Maintain fishery resources
into the future (sockeye production), ensures future harvest (subsistence, commercial, sport) will
continue, abundant, and available.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, when the department’s mission is dedicated to
accomplish the board’s intent.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Reducing window timed events. Fish run timing,
movement, and abundance cannot be pre-determined by windows in control large escapement
events or over escapement in Upper Cook Inlet Sockeye systems.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-449)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 131 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Manage
to achieve in-river goals as follows:
ADF&G should be directed by the BOF to manage all river systems to achieve the in-river sonar
set by the BOF. Mandatory windows and lack of Emergency Order Authority should be
eliminated from any management plan.
ISSUE: Management plans set by the Board of Fish (BOF) that tie ADF&G’s hands.
Mandatory windows and lack of Emergency Order Authority, do no allow ADF&G the ability to
effectively manage to the in-river goals set by the BOF.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In-river sonar goals set by the BOF will
continually be exceeded. Nine out of the past 10 years in the Kasilof River the in-river sonar
goal was exceeded. In the Kenai River the past 5 years, the in-river goals set by the BOF has
been exceeded. Continuous escapements over the goals, set by the BOF lead to poor returns from
the parent years of the large escapements. It would be prudent for the BOF to ask ADF&G if this
scenario does exist.
116
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Quality: yes, an orderly predictable fishery should lead to
higher quality processing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All user groups in Cook Inlet who want a stable,
predictable fishery, with in-river sonar goals set by the BOF and managed to be achieved by
ADF&G.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? I can’t figure out who wouldn’t want in-river sonar goals
achieved.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Gary L. Hollier (HQ-07F-145)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 132 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan.
Implement priorities among salmon management plans for Upper Cook Inlet as follows:
Amend the umbrella Salmon Management Plan to provide explicit direction on priorities as
follows:
(f) Implementation priorities among specific management plans are as follows:
(A) Achieving established escapement goals is the primary management objective
unless otherwise specified.
(B) Achieving the lower end of every optimal, biological, or sustainable escapement
goal shall take priority over not exceeding the upper end of any optimal, biological, or
sustainable escapement.
(C) Fisheries shall be provided no less than a 51% harvest share of species and
stocks designated for management priority of that fishery (e.g. 5AAC 21.358 northern
district chum, pink, and sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses, 5 AAC 21.360
Kenai River late-run primarily for sport and guided sport uses, 5 AAC 21.360 Northern District
coho, late-run Kenai King, and Kenai River coho for personal use, sport and guided sport
fisheries.)
(D) Limitations on emergency order authority and fishery closure windows
designated to distribute escapement throughout the run and to the balance allocation and
opportunity among fisheries shall take priority over not exceeding the upper end of any
optimum, biological, sustainable, or in-river escapement goal.
ISSUE: Upper Cook Inlet salmon management is governed by five different management plans
in regulation. Many of these plans overlap in time and area and may have objectives that
compete with one another. Lack of explicit direction has let to confusion and subjective
interpretations as to which objectives may have priority under different circumstances. Priority
language considered by the BOF at the 2007 statewide meeting identifies escapement goals as
the primary management objective within a specific plan but does not provide adequate direction
to resolve questions of potentially competing objectives among plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Plans may not be implemented consistent
with the intent and allocation decisions by the Board of Fisheries. Fisheries managers will be
saddled with making or defending potentially subjective decisions with significant allocation
implementations.
117
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users and the management system will benefit from
clear management plans.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Any user group attempting to prosecute their fishery without
regard for effects on other users.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because purported confusion
over competing priorities has been used as a basis for arguments to circumvent or abrogate
management plans reflecting the board’s intent.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-152)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 133 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan. Specify
from June 20 to August 20, Upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks will be primarily managed for high
quality as follows:
Amend this regulation to add a new subsection as follows (a) (8)*:
(8) From June 20 through August 20, salmon stocks which normally move in Upper Cook
Inlet will be managed primarily for high quality commercial uses.
* a new (a)(7) has been suggested in another proposal.
ISSUE: The drift fleet has been denied a reasonable opportunity to harvest abundant
commercial salmon stocks.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue to be
unable to biologically manage the Central District salmon stocks, specifically, Kenai and Kasilof
sockeye salmon, which will result in economic loss to the state and its residents.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Processors will have fish delivered of a much higher
quality on a regular predictable basis, rather than unpredictable, sporadic deliveries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Danny Thompson (HQ-07F-395)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 134 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Delete
portions of Northern District management plan as follows:
118
5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The purpose of this management plan [ARE TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF COHO
SALMON BOUND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF UPPER COOK INLET AND is to
provide the department direction for management of salmon stocks. [THE DEPARTMENT
SHALL MANAGE THE CHUM, PINK, AND SOCKEYE SALMON STOCKS PRIMARILY
FOR COMMERCIAL USES TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN WITH AN
ECONOMIC YEILD FROM THE HARVEST OF THESE SALMON RESOURCES BASED
ON ABUNDANCE.] The department shall also manage the chum, pink and sockeye salmon
stocks to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho salmon.[ TO PROVIDE SPORT AND
GUIDED SPORT FISHERMAN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST THESE
SALMON RESOURCES OVER THE ENTIRE RUN, AS MEASURED BY THE
FREQUENCY OF INRIVER RESTRICTIONS, OR AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION AND
OTHER REGULATIONS.]
(b) The department shall manage the Northern District commercial salmon fisheries based on
the abundance of Yentna River sockeye salmon , the Yentna River escapement goal, or other
salmon abundance indices as it deems appropriate. [ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LOWER END
OF THE YENTNA RIVER OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL SHALL TAKE PRIORITY
OVER NOT EXCEEDING THE UPPER END OF THE KENAI RIVER ESCAPEMENT
GOAL. WHEN THE SOCKEYE SALMON RETURNS TO THE KENAI RIVER ARE FOUR
MILLION OR GREATER, THE OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL IS 75,000 TO 180,000
SOCKEYE SALMON IN THE YENTNA RIVER.]
(c) From July 20 through July 31, if the department’s assessment of abundance indicates that
restrictions are necessary to achieve the escapement goal, the commissioner may, by emergency
order, close the commercial set gillnet fishery in the Northern District and immediately reopen
the season during which the number of set gillnets that may be used is limited to the following
options selected at the discretion of the commissioner:
(1) three set gillnets that are not more than 105 fathoms in aggregate length;
(2) two set gillnets that are not more than 70 fathoms in aggregate length;
(3) one set gillnet that is not more than 35 fathoms in length.
(d) In addition to the provisions specified in (b) and (c) of this section, the department shall
manage the Northern District commercial salmon fisheries to minimize the incidental take of
coho salmon stocks bound for the Northern District in the following manner:
(1) additional fishing periods, other than the weekly fishing periods described in 5 AAC
21.32- (a) (1), may not be provided when coho salmon are expected to be the most
abundant species harvested during that period; additional fishing periods may not be
provided based on the abundance of Northern District coho salmon;
(2) after August 15, the department shall limit the harvest of coho salmon in the
Northern District by limiting commercial fishing time to the weekly fishing periods
described in 5 AAC 21.320(a)(1).
[(e) PERSONAL USE FISHING WITH A SET GILLNET IS PROHIBITED IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT.]
[(f) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, TO THE EXTENT PRACTIBLE, CONDUCT HABITAT
ASSESSMENTS ON A SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE BOARD’S TRIENNIAL
MEETING CYLE. IF THE ASSESSMENTS DEMONSTRATES A NET LOSS OF
RIPARIAN HABITAT CAUSED BY NONCOMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, THE
DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT THOSE FINDINGS TO THE BOARD AND
SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD FOR APPRIATE MODIFICATION OF THIS
119
MANAGEMENT PLAN.]
ISSUE: Delete meaningless and confusing language from the plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI with no benefit to any users
in the long term.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgens (HQ-07F-225)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 135 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Amend
Northern District salmon management plan as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan.
Amend (a) as follows: [THE PURPOSES OF THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN ARE TO
MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF COHO SALMON BOUND FOR TH ENORTHERN
DISTRICT OF UPPER COOK INLET AND TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTION
FOR MANAGEMENT OF SALMON STOCKS.] The department shall manage the chum, pink
and sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses to provide commercial fishermen with
an economic yield from the harvest of these salmon resources based on abundance. [THE
DPEARTMENT SHALL ALSO MANAGE THE CHUM, PINK AND SOCKEYE SLAMON
STOCKS TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF NORTHERN DISTRICT COHO SALMON TO
PROVIDE SPORT AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY
TO HARVEST THESE SALMON RESOURCES OVER THE ENTIRE RUN, AS MEASURED
BY THE FREQUENCY OF IN-RIVER RESTRICTIONS, OR AS SPECIFIED IN THIS
SECTION AND OTHER REGULATIONS.]
ISSUE: Provide flexibility and clarity to the Northern District Salmon Management Plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion and conflicts.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? No one, removes redundant language.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The Mat-Su may feel impacted.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-402)
******************************************************************************
120
PROPOSAL 136 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Direct
department to manage chum, pink, and sockeye salmon primarily for commercial uses as
follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.358 Northern District Salmon Management Plan.
(a) [THE PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ARE TO MINIMIZE THE
HRVEST OF COHO SALMON BOUND FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF UPPER
COOK INLET AND TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTION FOR
MANAGEMENT OF SALMON STOCKS.] The department shall manage the chum,
pink, and sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses to provide commercial
fisherman with an economic yield from the harvest of these salmon resources based on
abundance. [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALSO MANAGE THE CHUM, PINK,
AND SOCKEYE SALMON STOCKS TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF
NORTHERN DISTRICT COHO SALMON, TO PROVIDE SPORT AND GUIDED
SPORT FISHERMAN A RESONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST THESE
SALMON RESOURCES OVER THE ENTIRE RUN, AS MEASURED BY THE
FREQUENCY OF INRIVER RESTRICTIONS, OR AS SPECIFIED IN THIS
SECTION AND OTHER REGULATIONS.]
Repeal: [(b)]; [(d)]; [(d)(1)] and [(d) (2)].
ISSUE: To give the managers the flexibility to manage on a real-time basis and for the users to
harvest the salmon surplus to spawning escapement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued conflict and confusion.
Continued waste of surplus salmon. Economic loss.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Quality will improve by allowing managers to manage on a
real-time basis and the harvest to be spread out more evenly for the entire run.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users, the resource, the managers, the local economies
by harvesting the surplus and maintaining future high returns from managing biologically for
maximum sustained yields.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The coho stocks are healthy, abundant and are
being harvested substantially below the maximum exploitation rates. There is more than
reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. Remaining status quo will only continue to
waste the harvestable surplus and put undue restriction on the managers and fishermen.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-442)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 137 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Eliminate
the regulatory language from plans that direct the department to minimize harvest of Northern
District and Kenai River coho in order to provide personal use, sport as follows:
From all management plans eliminate the wording: [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALSO
121
MANAGE THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF
NORTHERN DISTRICT COHO, AND KENAI RIVER COHO SALMON STOCKS IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL USE, AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN WITH A
SESONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST SALMON RESOURCES.]
ISSUE: Unnecessary language in management plans that restricts the flexibility for the
managers to manage on a real-time basis of in season abundance.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued conflict, unnecessary
restrictions resulting in un-harvested salmon surpluses.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It allows for harvest efforts to be spread over the course of the
run.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users by harvesting the salmon surpluses.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The coho runs are healthy and are only being
exploited at less than half the biological exploitation rate. In river users have reasonable
opportunity.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-456)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 138 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Reinstate
the pre-2005 Northern District Salmon Management Plan as follows:
5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan
(a) The purposes of this management plan are to minimize the harvest of coho salmon
bound for the Northern district of upper Cook Inlet and to provide the department
direction for management of salmon stocks. The department shall manage the chum,
pink, and sockeye salmon stocks for commercial uses in order to provide commercial
fisherman with an economic yield from the harvest of these salmon resources based
on abundance. The department shall also manage the chum, pink, and sockeye salmon
stocks to minimize the harvest of northern District coho salmon, in order to provide
sport and guided sport fisherman with a reasonable opportunity to harvest these
salmon resources over the entire run, as measured by the frequency of inriver
restrictions, or as specified in this section and other management plan.
(b) The department shall manage the Northern District commercial salmon fisheries
based on the abundance of Yentna River sockeye salmon and the Yentna River
escapement goal, or other salmon abundance indices as it deems appropriate.
Achievement of the lower end of the Yentna River escapement goal shall take priority
over not exceeding the upper end of the Kenai River escapement goal.
(c) From July 20 through July 31, if the department’s assessment of abundance indicates
that restrictions are necessary in order for the escapement goal to be met, the
commissioner may, by emergency order, close the commercial set gillnet fishery or
close the commercial set gillnet fishery and immediately reopen the season during
which the number of set gillnets that may be used is limited to the following options
selected at the discretion of the commissioner;
122
(1) three set gillnets that are not more than 105 fathoms in aggregate length;
(2) two set gillnets that are not more than 70 fathoms in aggregate length;
(3) one set gillnet that is not more than 35 fathoms in length.
(d) In addition to the provisions specified in (b) and (c) of this section, the department
shall manage the Northern District commercial salmon fisheries to minimize the
incidental take of coho salmon stocks bound for the Northern District in the following
manner:
(1) additional fishing periods, other than the weekly fishing periods described in 5
AAC 21.320(a)(1), may not be provided when coho salmon are expected to be
the most abundant species harvested during that period; additional fishing
periods may not be provided based on the abundance of Northern District
coho salmon;
(2) after August 15, the department shall limit the harvest of coho salmon in the
Northern district by limiting commercial fishing time to the weekly fishing
periods described in 5 AAC 21.3230(a)()1);
(3) After the last regular weekly fishing period in July through August 10, a
person may not operate more than two set gillnets that are more than 70
fathoms in aggregate length.
(e) In the Central District commercial drift gillnet fishery, weekly fishing periods
Described in 5 AAC21.320(b) shall be restricted as follows:
(1) for one regular fishing period designed from July 9 through July 15, the
department shall restrict fishing to the Kenai and Kasilof Sections of the
Upper Subdistrict;
(2) except as provided in (f) and (g) of this section, the department shall
restrict fishing for only two consecutive regular fishing periods from July 16
through July 31, to either or both of the Kenai and Kasilf Sections of the
Upper Subdistrict or that portion of the Central District south of Kalgin island.
(f) During the periods restricted in (e)(2) of this section, if the department determines
that the abundance of the total run strength of the Kenai River late-run sockeye
salmon return is greater than three million fish, the department may allow a drift
gillnet fishery for the first regular weekly fishing period on or immediately before
July 25 and the first weekly period after July 25 in the waters opened under (e) (2) of
this section and in the additional water of Cook Inlet enclosed by a line from 60°
20.43’ N. lat., 151° 54.83’W. long, to a point at 60° 34.00’ N. lat., 151° 41.75’ W.
long., to a point at 60° 34.00’ N. lat.,151° 25.93’ W. long., to a point at 60° 27.10’ N.
lat., 151° 25.50’ W. long., to a point at 60° 20.43’ N. lat., 151° 28.55’ W. long. If two
consecutive fishing restrictions have already been implemented during two other
regular weekly fishing periods from July 16 through July 31, no further area
restrictions are necessary during the first regular weekly period on or immediately
before July 25 and the first weekly period after July 25. Drift gillnet fishing is
authorized in this additional area only if the department determines that
(1) sockeye salmon escapement goals are being met in the Kenai, Yentna, and
Kasilof Rivers;
(2) the abundance of pink salmon and chum salmon stocks are sufficient to
withstand a commercial harvest; and
(3) coho salmon stocks are sufficient to withstand a commercial harvest, and the
commercial harvest of coho salmon will not prevent the sport and guided
sport
fisherman from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest coho salmon over
the entire run, as measured by the frequency of inriver restrictions.
(g) If after July 20, the department determines that the abundance of the total run strength
123
of the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon return is greater than four million fish, the
commissioner may open a drift gillnet fishery for the first regular period after July 25
in the area of the Central District normally open to drift gillnet fishing during regular
periods, if the department determines that
(1) sockeye salmon escapement goals are being met in the Kenai, Yentna, and
Kasilof Rivers;
(2) the abundance of pink salmon and chum salmon stocks are sufficient to
withstand a commercial harvest; and
(3) coho salmon stocks are sufficient to withstand a commercial harvest, and the
commercial harvest of coho salmon will not prevent the sport and guided
sport fisherman from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest coho salmon
over the entire run, as measured by the frequency of inriver restrictions.
(h) Personal use fishing with a set gillnet is prohibited in the Northern District.
(i) The Board of Fisheries (board) recognizes that major chum salmon stocks in Cook
Inlet are currently below historic levels. Chum salmon stocks in the upper Cook Inlet
Area are bound primarily for the Northern District and are not harvested to an
appreciable degree in the Kenai and Kasilof Sections approach to chum salmon
management, no additional fishing periods shall be provided to the drift gillnet
fishery outside the Kenai and Kasilof Sections of the Upper Subdistrict, except as
provided in this management plan.
(j) Pink salmon stocks harvested in the Central and Northern Districts are bound
primarily for the Kenai River and river systems in the Northern District, and pink
salmon run timing is similar to that of coho salmon. To minimize the harvest of coho
salmon, a directed pink salmon fishery may only occur as specified in 5 AAC 21.356.
(k) The department shall, to the extent practicable, conduct habitat assessments on a
schedule that conforms to the board’s triennial meeting cycle. If habitat causes by
noncommercial fishermen, the department is requested to report those findings to
appropriate modification of this management plan.
ISSUE: The Old Northern District Salmon Management Plan was revised at the last Cook Inlet
hearings in 2005. Numerous major changes were made that have had detrimental effect on the
Northern District sockeye salmon runs. Consumptive fishing has been shut off for the last two
summers, the subsistence users on the Yentna River have not been able to catch enough sockeye
salmon for their winter food supplies. Escapement goals have been missed in the Northern
District on both systems with escapement goals and are forecasted to be missed in the summer of
2008.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sockeye salmon runs in the entire Susitna
River drainage system and the Fish Creek drainage many well see more escapement goals missed
if immediate and positive actions are not taken to insure that their escapement goals surpassed by
several tens of thousands up word of the upper end of the their goals.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Northern District sockeye salmon stocks and others
resident species that depend on them for a food source. The consumptive users that depend on
them for food.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one when salmon are managed according to the
sustainable salmon policy everything and everyone wins in the long run.
124
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Have the Yentna River and Fish Creek classified as
stocks of yield concerns.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-360)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 139 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Close
commercial fishing to protect Alexander Creek stocks as follows:
Close commercial fishing in Alexander Creek
Close and let the run come back (3-4 years).
Open to one fish per year (no catch and release).
Open June 15 - June 30 (four hours a day).
ISSUE: We are running out of fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? No fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Give the fish a better chance to reproduce.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Future generations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Lodge owners, commercial fishermen.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Let it stay as is, no fish in 3-4 years.
PROPOSED BY: Kris and Marie Draper (HQ-07F-004)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 140 - 5 AAC 21.358(b). Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Clarify
escapement goal priorities regarding the Yentna and Kenai rivers as follows:
Clarify that achievement of the lower end of the Yentna escapement goal shall take priority over
any upper Kenai escapement goal, be it the Kenai OEG or the run-strength-based in-river goal.
ISSUE: The Northern District Salmon Management Plan directs that achievement of the lower
end of the Yentna River optimal escapement goal shall take priority over not exceeding the upper
end of the Kenai River escapement goal. However it is unclear to which goal in the Kenai the
plan is referencing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Managers will lack guidance on
appropriate management goals and may be faced with potentially allocative choices.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fisheries will benefit from sustainable Yentna sockeye
management.
125
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Central district commercial driftnet and setnet fisheries may
be constrained in years of low Yentna sockeye returns.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered limiting the consistent to central drift
net fisheries outside of the Kenai and Kasilof corridors but this alternative was rejected because
historical genetic stock composition data from the setnet catch indicates that Kenai and Kasilof
setnet fisheries take significant numbers of northern district sockeye as they move north along
the beaches and that aggressive setnet fisheries for Kenai and Kasilof sockeye can preclude
achievement of the Yentna sockeye escapement goals with detrimental consequences for Susitna
sockeye conservation and yield. We also considered the need for a stock-of-concern designation
but commercial fishery limitations in the central district during 2006 were adequate to achieve
the minimum Yentna escapement so a stock-of-concern designation may not be necessary as
long of future fishery management is similarly effective.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-161)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 141 - 5 AAC 21.358(c). Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Allow
longer sockeye season in Northern District as follows:
5 AAC 21.358 (c) From July 20 through August 6 [JULY 31], if the department’s assessment of
abundance….
ISSUE: This regulation was intended to give the Department flexibility with Northern District
closures during times when Northern District sockeye salmon abundance indicates that
restrictions are necessary to achieve the escapement goal. It gives the Department the ability to
restrict gear in the Northern District without complete closure. The current regulation ends this
flexibility on July 31. However, the Department regularly closes the Northern District into
August 6, it gives the Department the ability to restrict the Northern District without a complete
closure if it so decides.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Department does not have the
flexibility to restrict but not close, the Northern District during periods of sockeye concern, the
Department currently has only two options for the Northern District set gillnet fishery, either
close for everyone or fish everyone. This proposal provides them with an additional option of
keeping the fishery open, but with reduced gear.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allows Northern District fishers to provide fresh fish to
niche markets will less disruption.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Northern District and the fish buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-416)
******************************************************************************
126
PROPOSAL 142 - 5 AAC 21.358(d). Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Allow
additional coho fishing time after August 10 in Northern District as follows:
5 AAC 21.358 (d) After August 10, fishing in the Northern District will be open Monday,
Thursday, and Saturday.
ISSUE: The Northern District set net fleet is already in compliance with the Northern District
Salmon Management Plans that mandates minimizing coho salmon catches by restricting the
fleet to the regular Mondays and Thursdays August 1 through 10. It is generally agreed that the
bulk of the coho runs is in-river by August 10. Allowing an additional opener on Saturday would
provide opportunity for Northern District fishers to fish their traditional coho salmon fishery
without adversely impacting the coho salmon run while also allowing for a “weather window”.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued inability to harvest and deliver
fish to a historic and growing niche market. Under utilization of coho salmon socks that the
Northern District set netters have traditionally harvested with no historical damage to the
Northern District coho salmon stocks. There are no coho salmon conservation concerns, and the
Department has EO authority to close if one manifests.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Reliable deliveries with quality fish to processors and the fish
buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Northern District and the fish buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-417)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 143 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Manage
Northern District Eastern Subdistrict by regular periods not tied to Yentna River escapement as
follows:
(b) The department shall manage the General Subdistrict of the Northern District commercial
salmon fisheries based on the abundance of Yentna River sockeye salmon and the Yentna River
escapement goal, or other salmon abundance indices as it deems appropriate. Achievement of the
lower end of the Yentna River escapement goal shall take priority over not exceeding the upper
end of the Kenai River escapement goal. The Eastern Subdistrict shall be passively managed
for regular periods unless the department determines in-season that conservation measures
are necessary.
ISSUE: I want the board to change the management of the Northern District set gillnet fishery to
fish on the east side for Monday and Thursday regular periods and not be tied into the Yentna
escapement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A fishery that catches very few
Yentna/Susitna fish will continue to be restricted for no reason.
127
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Provides a stable and reliable fishery so processors can count
on product to fill fresh markets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District east side fishermen and processors.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Tom M. Rollman (HQ-07F-069)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 144 - 5 AAC 21.358(c) Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Allow
the commissioner to selectively close specific statistical areas in the Northern District
commercial salmon fishery as follows:
5 AAC 21.358(c)…the commissioner may, by emergency order, selectively close specific
statistical areas of the commercial set gillnet fishery in the Northern District….
ISSUE: Since the early 1990’s, the Northern District has increasingly experienced peak-run
closures in an effort to achieve the Yentna River escapement goal in the Upper Cook Inlet mixed
stock fishery. Although the Northern District catches relatively few sockeye salmon, it is the
most “terminal” fishery and therefore continually experiences the brunt of the conservation
measure by being completely closed rather than Central District restrictions (but still allowed to
fish).
Since 1993, Northern District closures are as follows:
1993 - 1 closure
1994 - 1 closure
1995 - 1 closure
1996 - 1 closure July 22
1997 - 2 closures July 18 & 21
1998 - 3 closures July 20, 27, 31
1999 - 2 closures July 22 & 29
2000 - None
2001 - 2 closures July 23 & 26
2002 - 2 closures July 25 & 29
2003 - None
2004 - 1 closure (August 2)2n nets (July 26 ); one net (July 29)
2005 - 5 closures (closed July 21 through August 4; fished August 8)
2006 - 8 closures (closed July 10 through August 3; fished August 7)
One year (2004), the Department used a recently added regulation and allowed the Northern
District set netters to fish limited gear for two periods.
These Northern District closures affect all statistical areas in both the General and Eastern
subdistricts of the Northern District. There are six open statistical areas in the General Subdistrict
and three in the Eastern Subdistrict.
The intent of this proposal is to allow the Department more flexibility in opening and closing
128
Northern District statistical areas so areas that are targeting more abundant stocks are not closed
under a district-wide “Northern District closure.” It is important to note that unlike the Central
District the Northern District is held to Monday and Thursday 12 hour openers. The total
Northern District fishing effort in a week with no closures is 24 hours. In recent years, there have
been no additional fishing days granted and no extensions of hours. The Yentna River sockeye
salmon escapement woes virtually guarantee extra Northern District fishing time is not likely to
occur in the foreseeable future.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Northern District fishers will continue to
lose fishing opportunity even if the closure of particular areas are not facilitating the desired
escapement, not provide timely fresh salmon to established markets, and lose markets.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It allows Northern District fishers to provide fresh fish to
niche markets with less disruption.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Northern District and the fish buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-365)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 145 - 5 AAC 21.358. Northern District Salmon Management Plan. Modify
management of Northern District as follows:
(b) The department shall manage the General Subdistrict of the Northern District commercial
salmon fisheries based on the abundance of Yentna River sockeye salmon and the Yentna River
escapement goal, or other salmon abundance indices as it deems appropriate. Achievement of
the lower end of the Yentna River shall take priority over not exceeding the upper end of the
Kenai River escapement goal. The Eastern Subdistrict shall be passively managed for regular
periods unless the department determines in-season that conservation measures are necessary.
ISSUE: I want the Board to change the management of the Northern District set gillnet fishery to
fish on the east side for Monday and Thursday regular periods and not be tied into the Yentna
escapement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A fishery that catches very few
Yentna/Susitna fish will continue to be restricted for no reason.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Provides a stable and reliable fishery so processors can count
on product to fill fresh markets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District east side fishermen and processors.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
129
PROPOSED BY: Betty Gilcrist (HQ-07F-028)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 146 - 5 AAC 21.366 (1). Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
Remove reference to specific commercial fishing periods in the Northern District King Salmon
Management Plan as follows:
(1)…the season will be open for [THREE] commercial fishing periods with the first fishing
period beginning on the first Monday on or after May 25, except when May 25 falls within a
closed period, in which case the season opens the next following open period and continue
through [CLOSES] June 24, unless closed earlier by emergency order.
ISSUE: By limiting the Northern District king salmon fishery to three periods, Northern District
set netters are not allowed to harvest kings over the duration of the run. In 2002, the Board of
Fisheries modified the management plan to open this fishery on the first Monday after May 25
(instead of June 1) to ensure the fishing effort was on the peak of the run. In deliberations, the
Board limited the fishery to three periods. Northern District fishers have established niche
markets for these king salmon, but the premature closure disrupts providing fresh fish to these
markets. This fishery has a 12,500 harvest cap that has not been approached in recent years. The
Northern District king salmon return is healthy. Since registration requirements were
implemented in 1993, the average annual harvest in the Northern District directed king salmon
fishery has been 2,982 from 52 permit holders.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Northern District fishers will continue to
under harvest king salmon, not provide timely fresh salmon to established markets, and lose
markets.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, Northern District fishers have established niche markets
for king salmon and the premature closure disrupts providing fresh fish to these markets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District set netters, tenders, processors, the
Village of Tyonek, and the fresh fish fish-buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The extra kings harvested on one or two additional
Mondays per season will likely not affect any other users. Upper Cook Inlet Area registration
limits the number of commercial fishers in this niche fishery. The number of Northern District
set netters is relatively small. The Northern District set netters already harvest well below the
12,500 annual cap.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-412)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 147 - 5 AAC 21.366(2). Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
Add Thursday to the allowed king salmon fishing periods in the Northern District as follows:
(2) fishing periods are from 7:00 am to 7:00pm on Mondays and Thursdays.
130
ISSUE: Limiting Northern District fishers to one day per week does not allow fishers to take
advantage of abundant king stocks. This fishery has 12,500 harvest cap that has not been
approached in recent years. Upper Cook Inlet Area Registration limits the number of commercial
fishers in this niche fishery. The number of Northern District set netters is relatively small.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued under harvest by the
commercial fishery, loss of markets.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fishers will be able to provide fresh-caught king salmon
twice a week rather than once a week.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Northern District and the fish buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-413)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 148 - 5 AAC 21.366(4) Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
Increase maximum king salmon net length mesh size in the Northern District as follows:
(4) set gill nets may not exceed 35 fathoms in length and eight [SIX] inches in mesh size.
ISSUE: Current regulations limit mesh size to six inches on the targeted king salmon fishery.
This causes larger fish to hit the net, maybe become entangled, maybe become mortally injured,
but not become caught and not harvested.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of larger king salmon that
are entangled, not adequately caught, and ultimately roll out of the net with an unknown fate.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, Northern District fishers will be able to harvest larger
king salmon that become loosely entangled in their under-sized gear and provide these fish to
establish niche markets for king salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District set netters on this beach, tenders,
processors, and the fresh fish fish-buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-415)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 149 - 5 AAC 21.366(8). Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
131
Allow additional fishing time for the area located one mile south of the Theodore River to the
Susitna River as follows:
(8) allow additional fishing time for the area located one mile south of the Theodore River to the
Susitna River.
ISSUE: The area located one mile south of the Theodore River to the Susitna River is limited to
one opening for king salmon. There have been numerous sport fishery liberalizations in last few
years. The commercial fishery in this area remains severely restricted.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued under harvest by the
commercial fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, Northern District fishers have established niche markets
for king salmon and the closure disrupts providing fresh fish to these markets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District set netters on this beach, tenders,
processors, and the fresh fish fish-buying public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-414)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 150 - 5 AAC 21.366. Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
Modify fishing periods in the Northern District as follows:
except as provided in (8) of this section, the season will be from May 25 until June 24;
fishing periods are from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Mondays and Fridays only;
ISSUE: Remove the limitation on three fishing periods and add a second regular period per
week to allow us to harvest the allocation that was given under the plan. The average harvest in
this fishery is not even half of the harvest cap of 12,500 kings. In 2006 only 4000 kings were
harvested.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More Chinook will go unharvested.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District commercial fishermen who have been
restricted for many years without any benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody, there are fish surplus to escapement needs in
nearly every creek in nearly all years.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
132
PROPOSED BY: Rick Jewell (HQ-07F-024)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 151 - 5 AAC 21.366. Northern District King Salmon Management Plan.
Allow drift gillnets during May and June in west side fishery as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.366(4) as follows:
(4)(a) Drift gillnets will not exceed 100 fathoms in length and six inches in mesh size.
ISSUE: Drift gillnet fishermen are currently not allowed to participate in the early May and
June king salmon fishery on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet. The board has allocated 12,000
kings to set gillnet fishery. Drift gillnet fishermen wish to participate in this fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Underutilization of the 12,000 kings
allocated to commercial fishermen.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? These early kings would become part of the drift fleet’s
revitalization and harvest of quality products.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The drift gillnet fishermen that chooses to participate. Less
than 50.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. In the last few years the setnetters harvested a
fraction of the 12,000 kings allocated to commercial users. These are surplus kings available for
commercial harvests.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Thompson (HQ-07F-389)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 152 - 5 AAC 21.368. Big River Sockeye Salmon Management Plan. Modify the
plan to provide for the following:
Amend this regulation as follows:
(a) delete “set”…by [SET] gillnets…
(b) delete “along the main shore”…of Kustatan Subdistrict [ALONG THE MAIN SHORE]….
(c) Change opening date to May 1 from June 1.
(e) Delete “set”…by [SET] gillnets…
(e)(2) change “one” to “two”:…may operate more than that two [ONE] gillnets at a time.
(g) delete “incidental.” Change “1,000” to “1,500”:…when the [INCIDENTAL] harvest of
chinook salmon reaches 1,500 [1,000] fish.
(h) new section added: The combined harvest of set and drift gillnet harvest of sockeye salmon
will not exceed a 40% exploitation rate on these stocks.
Amend 5 AAC 21.310 to accommodate these earlier openings.
ISSUE: Lack of harvest opportunity for Upper Cook Inlet drift CFEC salmon permit holders on the
first sockeyes returning to the Upper Cook Inlet, Drift, Big River and Kustatan River Systems.
133
These first (May) sockeye harvests will allow fishermen and processors the opportunity to expand
our markets and products.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? As we all know early May sockeye are
economically valuable in the fresh fish markets of North America. There are no conservation
reasons why the opportunity to harvest these fish should be denied.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? Provides a source of high quality fresh sockeye in May and June.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? CFEC permit holders, processors and the economy. The
department has indicated that the sport fish harvests are ten times larger than the statewide harvest
survey has indicated. Even with an actual sport harvest ten times larger than formerly though the
department has no proposals before the Board of Fisheries to restrict these harvests giving further
evidence that these stocks scan sustain additional harvest opportunities.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Currently, according to the department, these sockeye
runs have available harvest opportunities. A 20 to 40 percent commercial exploitation rate is quite
conservative and reasonable.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Higher exploitation rate 40 to 60 percent.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Thompson (HQ-07F-390)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 153 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Amend
these regulations as follows:
(4) fishing may occur only in the waters of Cook Inlet enclosed by a line extending
from Boulder Point at 60° 46.39' N. lat., to Shell Platform C at 60° 45.80' N. lat., 151° 30.30'
W. long., a line from Shell Platform C at 60° 45.80' N. lat., 151° 30.30' W. long., to the
Kalgin Buoy at 60° 04.70' N. lat., 152° 09.90' W. long., a line from the Kalgin Buoy at 60°
04.70' N. lat., 152° 09.90' W. long., to the southwest corner of the Kasilof Section at 60°
04.02' N. lat., 151° 46.60' W. long., and the western boundary of the Kenai and Kasilof
Sections as described in 5 AAC 21.200(b)(2)(B) and (C).
PROBLEM: Between 2002 regulations and 2005 regulations, the area for the pink salmon
fishery was inadvertently deleted.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will have to continue to
describe the open area by emergency order.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users. The legal fishing area will be described and
known by everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
134
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-267)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 154 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Allow
earlier and more fishing periods for pink salmon harvest and delete permit requirements as
follows:
Revise 5 AAC 21.356 (c)(2) to read as follows:
“in even numbered years, after August 1 [10], the commissioner will open, by emergency order,
six [THREE] additional fishing periods;”
Delete 5 AAC 21.356(d) [TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMERCIAL PINK SALMON
FISHERY, A CFEC PERMIT HOLDER MUST FIRST OBTAIN A PINK SALMON PERMIT
FROM THE DEPARTMENT BY AUGUST 9 AT THE DEPARTMENT OFFICE IN
SOLDOTNA OR HOMER. THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT MAY INCLUDE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, GEAR RESTRICTIONS, AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND
CONSERVATION OF THE PINK SALMON STOCK; FISHING MUST BE CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT.]
ISSUE: Unnecessary registrations.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Needless registrations and extra work.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? A few pink salmon fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No others considered.
PROPOSED BY: Dyer VanDevere (HQ-07F-396)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 155 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Allow set
gillnet use for harvesting pink salmon
5 AAC 21.356 Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan: (d) drift gillnets may not exceed 150
fathoms in length and 45 meshes in depth. Set gillnets may not exceed 35 fathoms in length
and 45 meshes in depth, 105 fathoms in aggregate.
5 AAC 21.310 (2) (C) (i, ii, and iii). Fishing season dates of August 15 [10].
ISSUE: The current pink salmon management plan arbitrarily excludes the Upper Subdistrict
set gillnet fisheries in Cook Inlet. The commercial drift only pink fishery registration has created
an exclusive fishery of a State fishery resource available during the month of August.
135
Cook Inlet pink salmon stocks are managed primarily for commercial use; set gillnet fisheries are
commercial. No conservation issues exist on coho but restrictions exist on the Upper Sub district
set gillnet fishery in the Pink Salmon management plan. This exclusion restricts the most
productive harvest period on Kenai bound pink salmon stocks available.
Pink salmon stocks bound for the Kenai River on even years are evaluated in the 4 to 6 million
range. Under current regulation, a drift only registration opportunity exists; excluding foregone
harvest on approximately 500,000 pink salmon that are available for harvest in the Upper
Subdistrict set gillnet fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A total waste of a salmon resource will
continue. Spawned pink carcasses piled 3 feet thick in the lower and middle reaches of the Kenai
River and the rotting odor in neighboring communities will continue unabated.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, a pink salmon harvest would be quite an improvement as
food.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishing families who have historically fished
for these salmon stocks and have marketed this fish for sales.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one considering several million pinks are estimated to
return to the Kenai River.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-445)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 156 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Add set and
drift gillnet opportunities to harvest pink salmon as follows:
(c) (4) set gillnets may not exceed 105 fathoms (or 140 fathoms) in aggregate length or 35
fathoms long or 45 meshes in depth.
ISSUE: No set net opportunity for Pink Salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of harvest opportunity.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, there will be an orderly harvest and continued
processing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set net fishermen and processors as well as the general
community.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Sculpins.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions.
136
PROPOSED BY: South K-Beach Independent Fishermen’s Alliance (HQ-07F-308)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 157 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Amend the
Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan for commercial uses as follows:
5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The department shall manage the Cook Inlet pink salmon stocks primarily for
commercial uses to provide an economic yield from the harvest of these salmon resources
based on abundance.
ISSUE: The current pink salmon management plan does not allow the managers the flexibility
to manage for harvesting the pink salmon harvestable surplus. Literally tens of millions of pinks
are not allowed to be harvested under the current management plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The continued waste of tens of millions
of pink salmon. Pink salmon were historically harvested in large numbers. The current plan
allows virtually no pink salmon harvest and allows most of the entire run to go un-harvested by
anyone.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It allows the harvest of pinks over the entire run. It will allow
a harvest of quality and quantity to develop markets. The Cook Inlet pink are large, bright and
highly marketable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who wish to harvest, process and market pink
salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. There are literally millions of pinks going un-
harvested and wasted in Cook Inlet. The coho runs are healthy and only being exploited at less
than half the biological exploitation rate.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. Status quo only continues the waste of a high
protein food for absolutely no reason.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-439)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 158 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Allow
department to open set gillnet periods in Cook Inlet as follows:
Allow for managers to open setnetting and don’t restrict drifters to five miles of offshore at time
when pink salmon are abundant. Allow managers to determine when there is a concern about
silver salmon abundance; don’t just close the season on an arbitrary date. Let the season be
closed by Emergency Order.
ISSUE: There is no real meaningful opportunity to harvest pinks in Cook Inlet, especially for
the setnet fishery. Pink salmon, at times, are incredibly abundant and totally underutilized. Left
unharvested, pinks simply clog the river and benefit nobody. There is without a doubt a huge
harvestable surplus. Setnetters, canneries, drifters, the State- through raw fish taxes, and the local
137
economy would all benefit from a commercial harvest of pinks. The pink fishery was closed
because of concerns in one year when there was a perceived shortage of silvers in the Kenai
River. Returns of silvers have been strong since then, even in return years from low escapements.
The exploitation rate of silvers in Cook Inlet needs to be closely examined by the Board of
Fisheries so that the truth about the availability of a potential increased harvest is known. Don’t
allow pinks to go to waste simply because someone doesn’t want commercial fishermen to catch
even a single silver, especially in years when no conservation concern has been identified for
silvers and when exploitation rates are so low.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Pink salmon will continue to be wasted
with no benefit to anybody. Commercial fishermen and the economy in general will continue to
suffer from not being given the opportunity to utilize this abundant resource.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It allows for a harvest of, and benefit from, an unused and
abundant resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen, canneries, the State- through raw
fish taxes, and the local economy.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody will suffer from the utilization of an abundant
resource. In times of conservation concern, the Department can always close the fishery by
Emergency Order.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? There is no other solution than allowing a harvest on
these abundant resources.
PROPOSED BY: Douglas F. Bloom (HQ-07F-064)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 159 - 5 AAC 21.356. Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan. Delete
Cook Inlet Pink Salmon plan as follows:
Delete 5 AAC 21.356, Cook Inlet Pink Salmon Management Plan, in its entirety.
ISSUE: Exclusive/divisive fisheries.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the Board of
Fisheries will continue to waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI with no benefit
to any users in the long term.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of Cook Inlet salmon
stocks without exclusive fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success
until the BOF messed with these plans. The higher escapement goals will provide for in-river
users without the waste experienced the last 12 years.
138
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgens (HQ-07F-224)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 160 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan. Modify the Central District Gillnet Fishery Management plan to allow the area mangers
flexibility as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.353 to read as follows:
(a)(2)(A)(ii) “during this time regular fishing periods may be restricted as necessary to
move sockey salmon north to meet the Northern District escapement goals”.
(a)(2)(A)(ii) “at all run strengths additional fishing periods may be granted in order to
achieve the escapement goals of the Kasilof, Crescent or Kenai Rivers.
(a)(2)(B) “from July 16 until closed by emergency order.
“at all run strengths into the Kenai additional fishing periods may be granted in
order to achieve the escapement goals into the Kasilof, Crescent, Kenai Rivers
and rivers in the Northern District.
“Chinitna Bay may be opened by emergency order only.
Delete [(a)(2)(C)]
ISSUE: The preseason forecast, which determines the amount of fishing time and window
closures for the start of the commercial fishing season, has not been correct since these plans
were implemented. Since 1999, the department forecast of Kenai run strength has not been in the
same tier when the total return is completed. Management actions can be opposite of what is
actually necessary. This is an issue for the department and the board. However, it shows that
current plans may not be flexible enough.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Future application of inappropriate
management plans concerning time and area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Generally everyone, including commercial drift gill net
fishermen, by removing unnecessary restrictions and providing flexibility to ADF&G managers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Whoever is benefited by having overlapping confusing
regulations.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Total deletion of 5 AAC 21.353. Central District
Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-405)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 161 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
139
Plan. Repeal the Central District Drift Gillnet fishery management plans as follows:
Delete the current management plan, all of the fishing times and areas in this plan are contained
in other existing regulations or can be handled by emergency orders.
ISSUE: This plan is very difficult to manage due to the three tiers, time and area restriction. In
1999 the three tiers were put in regulation. The preseason forecast, which determines the amount
of fishing time and window closures for the start of commercial fishing, has not been correct
since these plans were implemented. Since 1999, the department forecast of Kenai run strength
has not been in the same tier when the total return is completed. Management actions can be
opposite of what is actually necessary. This is an issue for the department and board. However, it
shows that current plans may not be flexible enough.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued application of inappropriate
management actions.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Provides flexibility to everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift fleet.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - very restrictive and cause confusion
with other management plans.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-406)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 162 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan. Delete Central District Gillnet plan as follows:
Delete 5 AAC 21.353, Central District Drift Gillnet Plan, in its entirety.
ISSUE: The management of the commercial drift gillnet fishery with all the arbitrary fishing
areas and seasons. The drift fishery should fish two regular periods in the Central District per
week unless the department determines they should be fished differently. All these restrictions
were put in place for the Yentna counter that is known to undercount sockeye. This technical
glitch in the departments escapement program has been used a club to get a super allocation to
the Northern District
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI with no benefit to any users
in the long term.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of Cook Inlet salmon
stocks.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
140
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success
until the BOF messed with these plans. The higher escapement goals will provide for in-river
users without the waste experienced the last 12 years.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-223)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 163 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan. Amend the Central District drift gillnet fishery management plan as follows:
5 AAC 21.353. Delete all references to Drift Area 1 and 2. Maintain the established
Kenai/Kasilof corridor with the corresponding dates and add a buffer zone from 60° 41.08 N lat.
To the Northern District boundary at the forelands from July 16 through July 31 and anytime
Northern District is closed in August for sockeye salmon concerns.
5 AAC 21.353 (a)(2)(A) from July 9 though July 15,
(i)fishing during the two regular fishing periods is restricted to the Kenai and Kasilof Sections
[AND DRIFT GILLNET AREA 1]
(ii) at run strengths greater than 2,000,000…of the Upper Subdistrict [AND DRIFT GILLNET
AREA 1]
5 AAC 21.353 (a)(2)(B) from July 16 though July 31,
(i) at run strengths of less than 2,000,000…of the Upper Subdistrict [AND DRIFT GILLNET
AREA 1]
(ii) at run strengths of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 …of the Upper Subdistrict [AND DRIFT
GILLNET AREA 1 AND 2].
(iii) at run strengths greater than 4,000,000…during regular fishing periods except 5 AAC
21.353 (2)(A) remains in effect.
(iv) Drift gillnet fishing is not allowed in the buffer zone from 60° 41.08 N lat. To the
Northern District boundary at the foreland.
5 AAC 21.353 (a)(2) from July 31 through August 10 drift gillnet fishing is not allowed in
the buffer zone from 60° 41.08 N lat. To the Northern District boundary at the foreland
anytime Northern District is closed for sockeye salmon concerns. (new Section (C)).
5 AAC 21.535 (a)(2) (D) [(C)] from August 11 until closed by emergency order…(old (C)
becomes (D)
ISSUE: Drift Area 1 and Drift Area 2 in the Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan expand fishing effort when Northern District bound stocks are known to be transiting the
Central District while attempting to minimize over escapement into the Kenai/Kasilof sections.
While the Central District drift fleet is a valuable component of the Central District commercial
141
fishery it is neither necessary nor reliable as a tool to gauge run strength or to prevent over
escapement. The only proven, effective tool the Department has is the Central District set net
fleet.
Fishing the Central District drift fleet in Drift Area 1 and Drift Area 2 in early July focuses the
fleet on mixed stocks at a time when Susitna-bound sockeye are present.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over-exploitation of Northern
District bound stocks with no apparent effect on the over escapement into the Kenai.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Bigger fish with less “net marking”. More stability to the
fishery upon which buyers can rely.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern District fishers and the resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Will affect fishing patters of Central District drift fleet.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Northern District Set Netters Association of Cook Inlet (HQ-07F-418)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 164 - 5 AAC 21.353(a)(2)(b). Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery
Management Plan. Clarify August fishing periods in the Central District as follows:
Amend the regulation to correct omission in direction for drift gillnet fisheries during August.
5 AAC 21.353(a)(2)(B) from July 16 through August 10 [JULY 31]…
ISSUE: The Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan currently provides no
direction for fishing periods from August 1 through August 10. The current text in (B) provides
direction “from July 16 through July 31.” Part (C) provides direction “from August 11 until
closed by emergency order.” This is an apparent oversight in language adopted in the previous
UCI Board meeting.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It is confusing whether fisheries during
this period are: a) to be restricted to Kenai and Kasilof corridors or Drift Gillnet areas 1 and 2
based on run strength guidance as in the drift net plan; b) independent of area and run strength
guidance as per general fishing seasons identified in 5 AAC 21.319(b)(3), or c) not authorized.
This confusion leads to misunderstandings and false expectations by fishers and potentially
subjective or allocation decisions by fishery managers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit from clear direction in management
plans.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because it allows drift net
142
fisheries in early August with potentially significant impacts on other stocks regardless of Kenai
sockeye run strength.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-159)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 165 - 5 AAC 21.353. Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management
Plan. Reinstate sunset provision for directed Cook Inlet west side drift gillnet fishery as follows:
Sunset the provision for directed west side Cook Inlet driftnet fisheries after 2007 as per the
current plan.
ISSUE: In a last minute amendment at the 2005 UCI BOF meeting, the Board revised the
Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan to remove coho fishing time restrictions
on the drift fleet during August in areas of the western inlet. This change was enacted through
the 2007 season. This fishery does not make a significant contribution to UCI fishery values but
can have significantly affect on local escapements and sport fisheries.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local coho stocks can be overfished
where fishing effort is unregulated. This change has also resulted in a significant reallocation of
Westside coho from sport to commercial fisheries. There is no accurate means to evaluate the
annual escapement of targeted west side coho stocks. While the Department can close this
fishery by emergency order, it has no effective way to evaluate the fishery in-season.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sustainable west side coho escapements and in-river
fishing opportunities.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A very limited number of commercial fishery participants
for whom this fishery was designed to benefit.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-164)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 166 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management plan. Amend the
Kasilof River Salmon Management plan as follows:
Amend as follows:
(a) This management plan governs the harvest of Kasilof River salmon excess to spawning
escapement needs. It is the intent of the Board of Fisheries that Kasilof River salmon be
harvested in the fisheries that have historically harvest them, including the methods,
means, times, and locations of those fisheries. Achieving the established in-river
escapement goal is the primary management objective. Openings in the areas
historically fished must be consistent with escapement objectives for Upper Cook Inlet
salmon with the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 21.363.)
(b) In order to achieve the lower end of the Kenai River sockeye salmon escapement goal,
143
the Kasilof River biological escapement goal of 150,000 - 250,000 sockeye salmon
may increase by an additional 50,000 sockeye, if necessary, on forecasted Kenai
River sockeye run strengths of less than 2 million, under an optimal escapement goal
of 150,000 - 300,000 sockeye salmon. (Note: per intent of the 2002 Board and is
described in section (4)). Delete: [ACHIEVING]. [SHALL TAKE….THE KASILOF
RIVER].
(c) (2) Delete [FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FISHING SEASON THROUGH JULY
7.]
Amend:
(c) (2) (A) The commissioner may, by emergency order, open additional fishing periods or
extend regular fishing periods, in order to achieve the Kasilof River sockeye escapement
goal; [TO A MAXIMUM OF 48 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL FISHING TIME PER WEEK]
(2) (B) Delete [THE FISHERY SHALL REMAIN CLOSED FOR AT LEAST
CONTINOUS 48-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK]
(c)(3) [BEGINNING JULY 8, THE SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE KASILOF
SECTION WILL BE MANAGED AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.360. (c); IN ADDITION
TO THE PROVISIONS OF 5 AAC 21.360 (c) The commissioner may, by emergency order
limit fishing during the regular weekly periods and any extra fishing periods to those waters
within one-half mile of shore in the Kasilof Section in order to achieve the lower end of
the Kenai River late-run sockeye escapement goal, if the set gillnet fishery in the Kenai
and East Forelands Sections are not open for the fishing period,
(4) [after July 15,] If the department determines that the Kenai River late-run sockeye run
strength is projected to be less than two million fish and the 300,000 upper range of the
optimal escapement goal for the Kasilof River sockeye salmon may be exceeded, the
commissioner may, by emergency order, open fishing for [an] additional [24-] hours per
week in the Kasilof Section within one-half mile of shore [and as specified in 5 AAC 21.360
(c) ].
ISSUE: The department (ADF&G) fully acknowledged that two factors (window and
established fishing time restrictions) have kept the department from being able to manage for the
Kasilof River sockeye biological escapement goal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Without direction from the board: a
biologically allowable resource harvest will be continue to be precluded, large escapement
events and over escapement will continue; fishery conflicts by the department’s recent and
extensive use of the non-orderly Kasilof River Special Harvest Area will conflict with traditional
commercial, personal-use, sport) fishing methods, means, times, and locations in the Kasilof
Section intended for harvest, as intended by the Board; misuse of closed waters surrounding the
terminus of Kasilof River intended for distribution of sockeye and Kasilof River late-run
Chinook stocks; further risk to Kasilof River sockeye salmon caused by excessively large
escapements will continue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, poor quality harvest of sockeye salmon in the Kasilof
Special Harvest Area would be greatly reduced.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Traditional, historical fisheries.
144
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The Kasilof River sockeye management plan
objectives are also consistent with escapement objectives for Upper Cook Inlet salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Fisheries are not static; prescribed windows have
proven to predetermine the department’s inability to meet escapement goal objectives. Weir in
terminus; allocates fish from traditional fishery areas, methods, means, and locations.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-450)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 167 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Revise
Kasilof River management plan as follows:
5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan.
(a) This management plan governs the harvest of Kasilof River salmon excess to spawning
escapement needs within the Kasilof Special Harvest Area. It is the intent of the Board of
Fisheries that Kasilof River salmon be harvested in the fisheries that have historically areas
historically fished must be consistent with escapement objectives for upper Cook Inlet salmon
and with the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 21.363).
(b) [ACHIEVING THE LOWER END OF THE KENAI RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON
ESCAPEMENT GOAL SHALL TAKE PRIORITY OVER NOT EXCEEDING THE UPPER
END OF THE KASILOF RIVER OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL OF 150,000 TO 300,00
SOCKEYE SALMON.]
(c) [THE COMMERCIAL SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE KASILOF SECTION SHALL
BE MANAGED AS FOLLOWS;
(1) FISHING WILL BE OPENED AS DESCRIBED IN 5 AAC 21.31-(B) (2) FOR
REGULAR WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320;
(2) FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FISHING SEASON THROUGH JULY 7,
(A) THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, OPEN ADDITIONAL
FISHING PERIODS OR EXTEND REGULAR WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS TO A
MAXIMUM OF 48 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL FISHING TIME PER WEEK UNLESS
THE OEG WILL BE EXCEEDED THEN THIS PROVISION NO LONGER APPLIES;
(B) THE FISHERY SHALL REMAIN CLOSED FOR AT LEAST ONE CONTINUOUS
48-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK UNLESS THE OEG WILL BE EXCEEDED THEN
THIS PROVISION NO LONGER APPLIES;
(3) BEGINNING JULY 8, THE SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE KASILOF SECTION
WILL BE MANAGED AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.360(C); IN ADDITION TO THE
PROVISIONS OF 5 AAC 21.360 (C), THE COMMISSSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY
ORDER, LIMIT FISHING DURING THE REGULAR WEEKLY PERIODS AND ANY
EXTRA FISHING PERIODS TO THOSE WATERS WIHTIN ONE-HALF MILE OF
SHORE, IF THE SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE KENAI AND EAST FORELANDS
SECTIONS ARE NOT OPEN FOR THE FISHING PERIOD;
(4) AFTER JULY 15, THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE KENAI RIVER
LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON RUN STRENGTH IS PROJECTED TO BE LESS
THAN TWO MILLION FISH AND THE 300,000 OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL FOR
THE KASILOF RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON MAY BE EXCEEDED, THE
COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, OPEN FISHING FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 24-HOURS PER WEEK IN THE KASILOF SECTION WITHIN ONE-
145
HALF MILE OF SHORE AND AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.360 (C).
(d) THE PERSONAL USE FISHERY WILL BE MANAGED AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC
77.540 (B) AND (C).
(e) IN ADDITION TO THE PROVISIONS OF 5 ACC 56 APPLICABLE TO THE KASILOF
RIVER, FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JULY 31, THE GUIDED SPORT FISHERY FOR
EARLY-RUN AND LATE-RUN KASILOF RIVER KING SALMON WILL BE MANAGED
AS FOLLOWS:
(1) A FISHING GUIDE MAY NOT SPORT FISH WHILE CLIENT IS PRESENT OR IS
WITHIN THE FISHING GUIDES CONTROL OR RESPONSIBILITY;
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTIONS, A GUIDE MAY
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO A CLIENT WITH A DISABILITY IN ORDER TO ENABLE
THE CLIENT TO ENGAGE IN SPORT FISHING; IN THIS PARAGRAPH
“DISABILITY” HAS THE MEANING GIVEN IN 42 U.S.C. 12102 (2) (A) AND (C), AS
AMENDED AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1994;
(2) DURING ANY ONE DAY, A FISHING GUIDE MAY GUIDE ONLY THAT CLIENT
OR GROUP OF CLIENTS INITIALLY GUIDED BY THE FISHING GUIDE THAT DAY;
DIFFERENT OR ADDITIONAL CLIENTS MAY NOT BE GUIDED;
(3) A VESSEL MAY NOT BE USED FOR GUIDED SPORT FISHING UNLESS, AT ALL
TIMES, IT HAS ITS ADF&G REGISTRATION NUMBERS PLAINLY AND LEGIBLY
DISPLAYED IN PERMANENT SYMBOLS AT LEAST SIX INCHES HIGH AND WITH
LINES AT LEAST ONE INCH WIDE IN A COLOR THAT CONTRASTS WITH THE
BACKGROUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VESSEL.]
(f) The commissioner may, be emergency order, open the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area to
the taking of salmon by gillnets when it is projected that the Kasilof River sockeye salmon
escapement will exceed 275,000 fish. It is the intent of the board that this Special Harvest
Area only be used as a last resort to achieve the escapement goal and not used instead of
the traditional fishing times and areas. The Kasilof River Special Harvest Area is defined as
those waters within one and one-half miles of the navigational light located on the south bank of
the Kasilof River, excluding waters of the Kasilof River upstream of ADF&G regulatory markers
located near the terminus of the river and waters open to set gillnetting under 5AAC 21.33-(b)
(3) (C) (ii) and (b) (3) (C) (iii). The following apply within the special harvest area when it is
open:
(1) set gillnets may be operated only within 600 feet of the mean high tide mark;
(2) a set gillnet may not exceed 35 fathoms in length;
(3) drift gillnets may not be operated in waters within 600 feet of the mean high tide mark;
(4) no more than 50 fathoms of drift gillnet may be used to take salmon;
(5) a permit holder may not use more than one gillnet to take salmon at any one time;
(6) a person may not operate a gillnet outside the special harvest area when operating a
gillnet in the special harvest area;
(7) there is no minimum distance between gear, except that a gillnet may not be set or
operated within 600 feet of a set gillnet located outside of the special harvest area; and
(8) a vessel may not have more than 150 fathoms of drift gillnet or 105 fathoms of set gillnet
on board,
(g) [FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,
(1) “CLIENT” HAS THE MEANING GIVEN IN 5 AAC 75.995,
(2) “FISHING GUIDE” HAS THE MEANING GIVEN IN 5 AAC 75.995;
(3) “WEEK” MEANS A CALENDAR WEEK, A PERIOD OF SEVEN CONSECUTIVE
146
DAYS BEGINNING AT 12:01 A.M. SUNDAY AND ENDING AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT
THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY.]
ISSUE: The current Kasilof management plan is confusing the plan should be returned to what
it said before the BOF recently messed with it and be used for the terminal area only.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the public will be
unsure of what the overall goals and long term direction for the Kasilof River fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of UCI salmon stocks in a
predictable and reasonable fashion. It eliminates a great deal of the language that has been
confusing the department and all users for 12 years.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, making it clear what the goal of management is
helps everyone.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-229)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 168 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Modify the
Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan as follows:
(a) [FOR UPPER COOK INLET SALMON AND WITH THE UPPER COOK INLET
SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN (5 AAC21.363).]
(b) delete
(c) (2) (7) 15 (A) delete (B) delete
(c) (3) [BEGINNING] after …[8] 15 [THE SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE KASILOF
SECTION WILL BE MANAGED AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.360(c); IN
ADDITION TO THE PROVISIONS OF 5 AAC 360 (c) ]
(d) [300,000] 250,000 [OPTIMAL] Biological …[24] …[AND AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC
21.360 (c)]
(e) (1) (2) (3) delete
(f) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) DELETE
(g) (1) (2) delete
ISSUE: Inoperable Plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? New and expanding fishery will continue.
Historical fisheries will be decimated. Poor maximized utilization of fishery. Poor quality.
Disorderly fishery. Violation of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries policies.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial Fishery.
147
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions.
PROPOSED BY: South K-Beach Independent Fishermen’s Alliance (HQ-07F-458)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 169 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Increase OEG
based on updated data in the Kasilof and modify fishing periods as follows:
1. Maintain recent large runs Kasilof sockeye salmon runs by increasing the OEG based on
updated data showing large returns from high escapements.
(b)…the Kasilof River optimal escapement goal range of [150,000] 200,000 to [300,000]
350,000 sockeye salmon.
2. Increase the size of the Kasilof River Special Harvest area to provide an orderly commercial
fishery and regulate Kasilof sockeye escapement where necessary in poor Kenai run years.
(f) The commissioner may, by emergency order, open the Kasilof River Special Harvest
Area to the taking of salmon by gillnets when it s projected that the Kasilof River sockeye
salmon escapement will exceed [275,000 FISH] the OEG. The Kasilof River Special Harvest
Area is defined as those waters within [ONE AND] one-half miles of shore [THE
NAVIGATIONAL LIGHT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH BANK OF THE KASILOF RIVER],
in proportions of the Kasilof section south of a point one-half mile north of the north bank
of the Kasilof River, excluding waters of the Kasilof River upstream of ADF&G regulatory
markers located near the terminus of the river[AND WATERS OPEN TO GILLNETTING
UNDER 5 AAC 21.330 (b)(3)(c)(ii) and (b)(3)(c)(iii)].
3. Protect escapement of Kasilof king salmon and provide in-river sport and personal use
opportunity in the face of intensive fisheries on large sockeye runs by use of commercial fishery
windows.
(c)(2) from the beginning of the fishing season through July 7,
(B) the fishery shall be closed for at least one continuous 48-hour period per week
in order to provide for Chinook escapement and in-river fisheries.
(c)(3) beginning July 8,…
(A) the fishery in the Kasilof section, including the special harvest area, will
be closed for not less than one continuous 36-hour period per week beginning between
7:00p.m. Thursday and 7:00 a.m. Friday and for an additional continuous 36-hour period
per week, regardless of Kasilof sockeye run strength, in order to provide for Chinook
escapement and in-river fisheries. Kasilof window closures shall be concurrent with Kenai
window closures when Kenai closures are in effect.
(c)(4) after July 15,…
(A) the fishery in the Kasilof section, including the special harvest area, will
be closed for not less than one continuous 36-hour period per week beginning between 7:00
p.m. Thursday and 7:00 a.m. Friday and for an additional continuous 36-hour period per
week, regardless of Kasilof sockeye run strength, in order to provide for Chinook
escapement and in-river fisheries. Kasilof window closures shall be concurrent with Kenai
window closures when Kenai closures are in effect.
4. Provide for an orderly end of season closure of the Kasilof area set net fishery after the Kasilof
sockeye run has passed in order to provide appropriate opportunity to Kenai area setnet and in-
river fisheries.
(c)(5) Close Kasilof area set net fisheries after August 1, except when the Kasilof or
Kenai OEGs are projected to be exceeded. In that case, close Kasilof sections as per 5 AAC
31.310(b).
148
ISSUE: The Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan needs to be revised to accommodate
issues arising from an increasing trend in Kasilof sockeye in recent years. The terminal fishing
area does not provide for a traditional and orderly commercial fishery in years of big Kasilof run
years when the Kasilof section is restricted to protect a weak Kenai run. Intensive commercial
sockeye fisheries on recent large runs have also eliminated significant in-river sportfishing
opportunities for Chinook and are likely to overfish Kasilof Chinook to below sustained yield or
maximum sustained yield levels. Chinook escapement data is inadequate to develop escapement
goals necessary for direct regulations of fisheries and so indirect protection measures such as
fishery windows are necessary. Further, intensive commercial fisheries in the terminal area have
eliminated significant personal use fishery opportunity in the Kasilof. Finally, the current
sockeye OEG also does not provide adequate protection for large escapements needed to ensure
continuing large runs and requires adjustments.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Problems will continue to fester in the
terminal fishing area. Intensive commercial fisheries in large Kasilof run years will allocate most
of the Kasilof Chinook harvest to the commercial fisheries largely eliminating meaningful in-
river fishery opportunity in the Kasilof. Future Kasilof runs and yield will decline if escapements
are not protected.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fish quality problems in the commercial harvest caused by
overuse of the current special harvest area will be avoided.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit from proposed changes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Costs and benefits are balanced among fishery
sectors.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected due to recognized issues
with the existing plan.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-156)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 170 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Open South
Kenai Beach district whenever necessary to harvest in the Kasilof terminal area as follows:
New subsection would open the South K-Beach District (244-10) whenever it is necessary to
harvest in the Kasilof Terminal area, using restrictions to area to minimize interception of Kenai
bound stocks.
ISSUE: Inequitable Fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Management plan will continue to
subvert Kasilof historical fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? South K-beach fishermen.
149
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those fishermen who have not normally targeted
historically on the Kasilof run.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions.
PROPOSED BY: South K-Beach Independent Fishermen’s Alliance (HQ-07F-460)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 171 - 5 AAC 21.365(e). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Move
guided sport fishing regulations out of commercial fishing regulations as follows:
Move regulations out of commercial regulations in (e) and into sport guided regulations in sport
fish regulations on the Kenai Peninsula.
ISSUE: Guided sport fish regulations in commercial salmon fishing regulations
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guided sport regulations not in guided
Sport regulations where regulations should be available to guided sport operators on the Kasilof
River and general public.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? General public in publication of regulations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Not available.
PROPOSED BY: Jeff Beaudoin (HQ-07F-129)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 172 - 5 AAC 21.365(f). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Specify use
of Kasilof River Special Harvest Area as follows:
Insert the Board’s intent at that time (1986) when it was described “to be rarely, if ever used”
(f) It is the intent of the Board of Fisheries that the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area be
rarely used. Before opening the terminal fishing area, the Department shall first
exhaust all other means available, including a reduction in mandatory closed weekly
fishing periods in the Kasilof Section set gillnet fishery and a reduction in the number
of weekly emergency order restrictions in the Kasilof Section set gillnet fishery. The
Kasilof Section may be reduced to within one-half mile of shore for regular and extra
fishing periods in order to achieve the lower end of the Kenai River late-run sockeye
escapement goal. If, after all measures have been exhausted, the Kasilof River sockeye
escapement estimates 200,000 sockeye, the Department may utilize the Kasilof River
Special Harvest Area on or after July 17, if the the Department projects exceeding
275,000 sockeye in escapement.
150
ISSUE: Use of the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area (KRSHA). The KRSHA precludes
harvest in the traditional fisheries that have historically harvested sockeye salmon excess to
spawning escapement needs.
Continued use was neither considered, not intended by the Board of Fisheries. Major historical
harvest reallocation occurred in 2006 emergency opening in the KRSHA, with 33 percent of the
entire Upper Cook Inlet harvest occurring in the terminal area.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Department acknowledges that
continued use of the terminal area will be direct conflict with the written intent of the Board of
Fisheries. “It is the intent of the Board of Fisheries that Kasilof River salmon be harvested in the
fisheries that have historically harvested them, including the methods, means, times, and
locations of those fisheries.”
The KRSHA is not an orderly fishery; creates intense user and gear conflicts, reallocates fishery
resources from the historical fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Poor quality sockeye salmon harvested in KRSHA reduced;
marketing of UCI sockeye based on quality harvest will only improve Alaska sockeye salmon
reputation; regional branding, quality seafood programs will not be harmed further.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Traditional fisheries (commercial, personal use, sport
fishery); particularly historical fishing family operations (generations) that have relied on Kasilof
River sockeye salmon harvests for well over 50 years.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, beyond some within gear groups of the few
individuals who recently consider reallocation of a fishery away from the traditional fishing
areas or fisheries as a means to exploit a fishery resource situation, justification being ‘only
remaining tool in the toolbox.”
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Delete fixed window management from regulatory
framework in the Kasilof River sockeye management plan. This should be done, the KRSHA
still needs to be addressed; conflict with the Board’s intent.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-453)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 173 - 5 AAC 21.365(f). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Limit use
of Kasilof Special Harvest Area as follows:
The Kasilof River Special Harvest Area shall rarely be used, for a management emergency, and
only concurrently used with the Kasilof Section set gillnet fishery. The Kasilof Section may be
reduced to one-half mile, if necessary, in order for the department to achieve the lower end of the
Kenai River late-run sockeye escapement goal.
ISSUE: Using the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area. If it is the intent of the Board of
Fisheries that Kasilof River salmon be harvested in the fisheries that have historically harvest
them, including the methods, means, times, and locations of those fisheries. In 2006 the Kasilof
River Special Harvest Area’s statistical catch area reallocated three million pound of salmon
away from the traditional Kasilof Section Fisheries.
151
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued conflict with the intent of the
Board. Continued reallocation away from traditional fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Fish harvested in the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area
are notorious for lower quality. This solution allows for the quality of the resource harvested.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport, personal, and traditional commercial fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Complete removal of Kasilof River Special Harvest
Area from use. But in extreme situations, after all effort has been made to harvest Kasilof
sockeye in traditional fisheries, it may be needed.
PROPOSED BY: Joel Doner (HQ-07F-118)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 174 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Eliminate
Kasilof River Special Harvest Area as follows:
The complete elimination of the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area from the books.
ISSUE: The impact of the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area (KRSHA) to several user groups
of the Kasilof River sockeye salmon and the unconfirmed, yet probable, high impact of the
currently unmanaged late-run Kasilof kings.
Currently preliminary estimates of run size for Kasilof late-run kings is 5-10,000 fish per
sampling by ADF&G.
Over 2,500 kings were harvested in the KRSHA in 2006. This is in addition to the nearly 6,500
kings harvested in the traditional Kasilof section in 2006.
At one point in the 2006 usage of this fishery, exploitation rates on the Kasilof-bound sockeye
were on excess of 95%. Because of the aggressive nature of this fishery, it is likely that
exploitation rates on Kasilof-bound late-run king salmon were also extremely high.
It is unknown how many of these kings are of Kasilof-origin. However, observations by sports
anglers and by ADF&G workers conducting test-netting on late run kings indicate that in-river
returns were amongst the lowest in memory.
Sport fishing logbook data kept by sports fishing guides will confirm the belief that this poor
showing of the fish in-river was due to the impact of the unprecedented netting schedules in the
Kasilof section and the KRSHA over the past two years and NOT as a result of poor returns.
Kasilof water conditions and catches are historically very consistent during this timeframe. In the
timeframes where commercial nets finally came out of the water, sports catch rates, as well as
test-netting success by ADF&G workers increased by many-times over; indicating that the
netting and not poor returns were the probably cause of poor returns.
While utilized to help keep Kasilof sockeye numbers in check, the impact upon the late-run
152
Kasilof kings may be felt for many years, not only in future cycles from 2006 escapement, but in
the accuracy of collected data by ADF&G’s efforts to determine the population, distribution,
age-class, as well as needed escapement data & goal establishment.
With the elimination of hatchery-produced sockeye returns coming in future years, the need for
this fishery will also be reduced.
It is time for this run of fish and the impact of all user groups upon it to be accurately assessed
and management plan be full implemented for the long-term viability of the stock and the
sustainability of the fishery for all associated user groups.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over-exploitation of Kasilof
late-run king salmon by the UCI commercial salmon fishery.
Failure to allow ADF&G to fully and accurately determine the status of this stock.
Collapse, of the small, yet financial critical sports fishery that helps keep many Kasilof area
business afloat in a time when the crowds of the well-known, heavily utilized early-run Kasilof
king fishery have left.
Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof late-run king salmon in present day than
in past years. Continued aggressive commercial fishing effort to keep sockeye escapements in
check will only hasten this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Use of this fishery was a nightmare for many, and the
resulting product quality of the commercial salmon fishery was negatively impacted. In
ADF&G’s 2006 UCI Commercial Salmon Season Report, it states that: “The aggressive use of
this terminal harvest area impacted product quality, price, and “traditional’ harvest areas and
gear types to a degree that was not contemplated when this management plan was crafted”.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kasilof River late-run king salmon, sport anglers (of both
guided & unguided categories), personal-use fishers targeting Kasilof River sockeye salmon,
many commercial fishers that are forced to move into the KRSHA to have fishing time.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Possibly all Kasilof section commercial fishers that may see
reduced sockeye harvests if harvest yield is not as high in future years as the result of possible
increased Commercial escapements. Usage of this fishery was very unpopular with most UCI
commercial fishers based upon testimony heard at meeting at Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association with the ADF&G Commissioner in July of 2006.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Regulated use of the fishery: rejected for the reasons
of clear overuse by emergency order in 2006 and the unknown impact upon the king stocks.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-046)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 175 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Establish
corridor or time limits on nets to increase number of kings entering the Kasilof River during July
as follows:
153
Allow corridors or make time limits on nets to raise the number of kings entering the river nets
should be manned and picked in a timely manner.
ISSUE: When the terminal area is open on the Kasilof during July the second run (native) of
kings is getting wiped out. Also the commercial fishermen should have to be onsite to pick their
nets not leave fish to sit in the mud and sun.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The second run of native kings will be
wiped out. This fishery is in peril now. Also the wanton waste of fish by unattended nets will
continue. Some nets sit out in the mud for hours after the tide has gone out.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, more kings in the river. Healthier resource. The fish
caught in nets won’t be laying out in the sun and mud for hours.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sportsfishermen, the overall health of the second run of
kings, dipnetters, guides, businesses.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The set netters. The drift netters.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Do not allow any nets in the terminal area - too many
sockeye will enter the river.
PROPOSED BY: Michael Craig (HQ-07F-462)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 176 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Modify
Kasilof River late-run king salmon periods as follows:
Until which time a Kasilof late-run king salmon plan is fully implemented to assure that
adequate numbers of kings are escaping, there must be at least two 24 hour windows per week
in the Kasilof section of UCI by set gillnets and the KRSHA may not be fished by either drift or
set gillnets during these closed fishing periods.
ISSUE: The impact of the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area (KRSHA) and extremely high
number of Emergency Orders opening all or part of the Kasilof Section of the Upper Cook Inlet
commercial salmon fishery to several user groups of Kasilof River sockeye salmon and the
unconfirmed, yet probable, high impact of the currently unmanaged late-run Kasilof kings.
Current preliminary estimates of run size for Kasilof late-run kings is 5-10,000 fish per sampling
by ADF&G.
Over2,500 kings were harvested in the KRSHA in 2006. This is in addition to the nearly 6,5000
kings harvested in the traditional Kasilof section in 2006.
Impact from drift gillnets outside of the KRSHA is minimal on Kasilof-bound late-run king
salmon, although the same cannot be said for the impact of the gillnet fishery.
It is unknown how many of these kings are of Kasilof-origin. However, observations by sport
anglers and by ADF&G workers conducting test-netting on late run kings indicate that in-river
returns over the last two years were amongst the lowest in memory.
154
Sport fishing logbook data kept by sports fishing guides will confirm the belief that this poor
showing of the fish in-river was due to the impact of the unprecedented netting schedules in the
Kasilof section and the KRSHA over the past two years and NOT as a result of poor returns.
Kasilof water conditions and catches are historically very consistent during this timeframe. In the
timeframes where commercial nets finally came out of the water, sports catch rates, as well as
test-netting success by ADF&G workers increased by many-times over; indicating that the
netting and not poor returns were the probably cause of poor returns.
With the elimination of hatchery-produced sockeye returns coming in future years, the need for
this fishery will also be reduced.
It is time for this run of fish and the impact of all user groups upon it to be accurately assessed
and management plan be full implemented for the long-term viability of the stock and the
sustainability of the fishery for all associated user groups. More conservative netting schedules
will allow for late-run Kasilof king numbers to be closer to what many users to believe to be
their historical norms.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Over exploitation and probable under
escapement of Kasilof River late-run king salmon.
Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof late-run king salmon in present day than
in past years. Continued aggressive commercial fishing effort to keep sockeye escapements in
check will only hasten this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kasilof late-run king salmon, sports users of Kasilof River
late-run kings, sports and personal use fishers of Kasilof River sockeye salmon. Area business
that benefit from an announced window that will come for either sport or personal use.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Managers will have to keep better track of the Kasilof
sockeye run to place additional fishing time when the larger pushes of fish hit the beaches.
Commercial fishers may see lower catches and slightly less yield form sockeye returns, but more
consistent kings run will help offset the decrease in sockeye yield.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Timing of the Kasilof section closures does not have
to correspond to commercial fishing closures in the Kenai/East Forelands section.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-048)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 177 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Direct
department to manage the Kasilof River sockeye salmon primarily for commercial uses as
follows:
5 AAC 21.365 Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan
(a) The department shall manage the Kasilof River sockeye salmon stocks primarily for
commercial uses based on abundance.
(b) meet a spawning escapement goal range of 150,000 to 250,000 sockeye salmon.
155
ISSUE: Simplify the Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan to allow the local management
biologist to manage for the spawning escapement goals. The current plan does not work and
grossly over escapes the Kasilof basically every year, whether the run is large or small. Great
economic harm is inflicted to the users. A large part of the harvestable surplus is wasted.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Kasilof will continue to over escape.
Harvestable surpluses will be lost. Economic harm will continue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This allows harvest to be spread more evenly over the entire
run. Harvest will be on fresher salmon further away for the river and contain a higher oil content.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users, the resource, the managers, the local economies
by harvesting the surplus an maintaining future high returns from managing biologically for
maximum sustained yields.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The resource is healthy and not being fully utilized.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. No other solution will solve the problems.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-443)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 178 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Modify OEG
for Kasilof River sockeye as follows:
The sockeye salmon optimal escapement goal (OEG) measured at the Kasilof River sonar site
located at river mile 11 is 175,000 [150,000] to 350,000 [300,000] fish.
ISSUE: The impact of the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area (KRSHA) and extremely high
number of Emergency Orders opening all or part of the Kasilof Section of the Upper Cook Inlet
commercial salmon fishery to several user groups of Kasilof River sockeye salmon and the
unconfirmed, yet probable, high impact of the currently unmanaged late-run Kasilof kings.
Current preliminary estimates of run size for Kasilof late-run kings is 5-10,000 fish per sampling
by ADF&G.
Over 2,5000 kings were harvested in the KRSHA in 2006. This is in addition to the nearly 6,500
kings harvested in the traditional Kasilof section in 2006. Fishing time in these areas in 2005
approached all-time highs.
Impact from drift gillnets outside the KRSHA is minimal on Kasilof-bound late-run king salmon,
although the same cannot be said for the impact of the set gillnet fishery.
It is unknown how many of these kings are Kasilof-origin. However, observations by sports
anglers and by ADF&G workers conducting test-netting on late run kings indicate that in-river
returns over the last two years were amongst the lowest in memory.
Sport fishing logbook data kept by sports fishing guides will confirm the belief that this poor
showing of the fish in-river was due to the impact of the unprecedented netting schedule in the
156
Kasilof section and the KRSHA over the past two years and not as a result of poor returns.
Kasilof water conditions and catches are historically very consistent during this timeframe. In
the timeframes where commercial nets finally came out of the water, sports catch rates, as well
as test-netting success by ADF&G workers increased by many-times over; indicating that the
netting and not poor returns were the probably cause of poor in-river showing of Kasilof River
late-run kings.
With the elimination of hatchery-produced sockeye returns coming in future years, the need for
this fishery will also be reduced.
It is time for this run of fish and the impact of all user groups upon it to be accurately assessed
and a management plan be full implemented for the long term viability of the stock and the
sustainability of the fishery for all associated user groups. More conservative netting schedules
will allow for late-run Kasilof king numbers to be closer to what many users to believe to be
their historical norms.
In addition, there is no BEG/OEG in place for the Kasilof silver salmon run. Late season efforts
to keep sockeye escapements at current levels impact the early portion of the Kasilof silver
salmon run as well.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Over-exploitation and probable under
escapement of Kasilof River late-run king salmon.
Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof late-run king salmon in present day than
in past years. Continued aggressive commercial fishing effort to keep sockeye escapements in
check will only hasten this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kasilof late-run king salmon, sports users of Kasilof River
late-run kings, sports and personal use fishers of Kasilof River sockeye salmon. Area businesses
that benefit from additional silver, late-run king, and silver salmon in the Kasilof River and the
associated effort to fish either via sport or personal use for them.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fishers may see lower catches and slightly less
yield from sockeye catches, but historical data indicates that most returns will not vary greatly
under escapements in this range.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No changes: continued overharvest of Kasilof River
late-run king salmon by the UI commercial salmon fishery. ADF&G records indicate that Kasilof
River sockeye salmon escapements in the proposed ranges have not seen poor returns in
subsequent years.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-045)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 179 - 5 AAC 21.365(b). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Increase
Kasilof River OEG as follows:
Change the Kasilof River optimal escapement goal to 200,000 to 350,000 [150,000 to 300,000]
157
sockeye salmon.
ISSUE: Kasilof River optimal escapement goal (OEG) is too low. For the last two decades the
majority of the years the OEG has been exceeded. Good returns from a higher OEG occur in the
system. The system can take 50,000 more sockeyes in river.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial fishermen will get extra
fishing time to try to keep the run in the mandated OEG.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? More sockeye would be put into the Kasilof River over the
season for in-river users to harvest.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? In-river users, personal use, dip-net and sportfishing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fisherman.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Jim McKenzie (HQ-07F-082)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 180 - 5 AAC 21.365 (b). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Repeal
the Kasilof Salmon Management plan as follows:
Repeal 5 AAC 21.365 (b) [KASILOF SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN]
ISSUE: Overview: In order to revitalize the commercial salmon fishery, to provide for stable
and predictable fishery based on principles and to promote higher quality seafood products, we
need the regulatory changes contained in this proposal to be made by the Board of Fisheries.
Requiring the attainment of the lower end of the Kenai River sockeye salmon escapement goal to
take priority over not exceeding the upper end of the Kasilof River optimal escapement goal of
150,000 to 300,000 places a cumbersome and unnecessary complication on fishery managers in
Upper Cook Inlet. Why sacrifice harvests to achieving the Kenai goals? This is not a real
problem. Let the area management biologist manage for the escapement goals in both rivers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public will continue to have different
expectations concerning the management actions to be taken by ADF&G staff which are in
conflict in these plans and increased public dissatisfaction by the public with ADF&G and the
Board of Fisheries. The wrong management actions will be applied because the returns have not
been in the tier as forecasted.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Many of these regulation changes are directed at improving
quality. The increased flexibility of ADF&G to meet escapement goals should increase quality
by removing artificial and unnecessary limitations on fishing areas and times that creates a
concentrated fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit with this regulation since it will be
clear that the Board of Fish intents to manage the resource for escapement goals. The
commercial fishing industry will benefit as well as the drift gillnet fleet.
158
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer. These regulatory changes do not alter
the allocation of the resource between users and the escapement goals. The entry of salmon into
the system is already controlled by ADF&G managers to achieve biological objectives relative to
harvesting equally over the entire run. These proposals do nothing to the Departments emergency
order authority to modify fishing times or areas. The escapement objectives for all systems are
maintained so there should be no impact on in-river users. There will be a lost harvest to set gill
net fisherman who target Kenai and Kasilof sockeye stocks. However, this should not result in an
upsetting of the historical harvest pattern. Other salmon stocks have not entered Cook Inlet in
large numbers during this time frame so harvest of coho salmon should remain low.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Concerning managing for escapement goals there are
no other alternatives. If limitations on time and area are left in place the conflict over which takes
priority escapement goals or time and area restrictions will continue.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-401)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 181 - 5 AAC 21.365(f),(3). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Increase
area for set gillnet use and reduce area for drift gillnet use as follows:
(f)(1) set gillnets may be operated only within 1,200 feet [600 feet] of the mean high tide mark;
(f)(3) drift gillnets may not be operated in waters within 1,200 feet [600 feet] of the mean high
tide mark.
ISSUE: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association opposes the use of the Kasilof Special
Harvest Area, but an inequity of area for the gear types exists in the Terminal Harvest Area.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set netters will be limited to 600 feet
(which is usually at least partly dry), while drift fishers have 8,520 feet.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No. Fish harvested in the terminal area have a reputation for
poor quality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set netters who fish close by the Kasilof terminal area
(closed waters).
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drifters who operate smaller boats. Drifters who use skiffs
inshore.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allocation of surplus harvest away from the
traditional fisheries is a serious concern. We oppose any measure to undermine traditional
fisheries in the Kasilof Section.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-452)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 182 - 5 AAC 21.365(c)(4). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Amend
Kasilof River plan to limit Kenai River sockeye harvest as follows:
159
(4) after July 15, if the department determines... the Kasilof River sockeye salmon may be
needed, the commissioner may, by emergency order,
(A) open fishing for an additional 24-hours per week in the Kasilof Section within one-
half mile of shore and as specified in 5 AAC 21.360 (c) or;
(B) if the fishery mangers determine too many Kenai sockeye are being harvested
within one-half mile, the commissioner may limit setnets to 600 feet from shore.
ISSUE: Future inability of the Kenai River to meet minimum escapement goals for sockeye.
This assumption is based on Skilak Lake fry-to-smolt survival data.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial fishing will be closed an
opportunities to harvest Kasilof River sockeye will be lost.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allows for a tiny harvest in traditional areas, where
quality can be maintained; as opposed to harvests in the “terminal’ area where quality is poor
because of fresh water marking, mud, intense competition, and separation from tote-lifting
equipment and ice storage.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Setnetters in the Kasilof Section who have near-shore nets.
Old-timers often have these nets.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Measuring the 600 feet from the edge of the water
instead of from MHW. Rejected because it would be more difficult to enforce.
PROPOSED BY: Brent Johnson (HQ-07F-182)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 183 - 5 AAC 21.365(f)(5). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Limit
gillnetters to one half mile from shore as follows:
5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan.
(f)(5) Drift gillnets may be limited to one-half mile from shore if the fishery managers
determine that Kenai River stocks need additional protection.
ISSUE: Catching Kenai River sockeye in the Kasilof “terminal” area.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Kenai River sockeye escapement
minimum goal will not be achieved.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the quality will get worse as the harvest areas move
toward the river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drifters with skiffs. Processors, who will get a trickle of
poor-quality fish instead of no fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fishers who haven’t the stomach to fish it.
160
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Turning the "inner terminal" area into about 50
setnet sites awarded to drift and setnet fishers by lottery. Rejected because the idea made me
seasick.
PROPOSED BY: Brent Johnson (HQ-07F-181)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 184 - 5 AAC 21.365(f)(1),(3). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan.
Change area for set and drift gillnet use for Kasilof River as follows:
Set netters should be allowed to fish 3000 feet from shore. This is approximately 1/3 of the
available area in the terminal fishery.
(f)(1) Set gillnets may be operated only with in 3,000 [600] feet of the mean high tide mark.
(f)(3) drift gillnets may not be operated in waters within 3,000 [600] feet of the mean high
tide mark.
ISSUE: The Kasilof Special Harvest Area (terminal fishery), is a valuable tool that can be used
by ADF&G. It can be used by ADF&G to protect Kenai River sockeye salmon stocks in a year
when the Kenai River has a low return and might not make its minimum escapement goal. It can
also be used to harvest sockeye to the Kasilof River when ADF&G can project the Kasilof River
sockeye escapement will exceed 275,000 fish.
In the terminal area set netters have less than 10 percent of the area. Set netters can only fish 600
feet from the mean high tide. Drift fishermen may operate out to 1 1/2 miles from the
navigational light located on the south bank of the Kasilof River, over 9,000 feet. This inequity
in fishing area between set netters and drifters should be examined.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved set netters
will continue to be limited to fishing 600 feet from mean high tide. Drifters will continue to have
over 90 percent of the fishing area, out to over 9,000 feet from shore.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set netters who fish in the terminal harvest area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drift fishermen who fish in the terminal harvest area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Let set netters fish out to 1,200 feet from mean high
tide, but I rejected this as it is still not a equitable portion of the terminal area available for set
netters.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Hollier (HQ-07F-104)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 185 - 5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan. Expand
Kasilof River special harvest area as follows:
(f) The Kasilof River Special Harvest Area is defined as those waters within one an done-half
161
miles of the navigational light located on the south bank of the Kasilof River, excluding waters
of the Kasilof River upstream of ADF&G regulatory markers located near the terminus of the
river and in that portion of the Kasilof Section within 1/2 mile of the mean high tide mark
on the Kenai Peninsula shoreline [ AND WATERS OPEN TO SET GILLNETTING UNDER
5 AAC 21.330(B)(3)(C)(II) AND (B)(3)(C)(III).] The following apply within the special harvest
area when it is open.
ISSUE: Include the area within 1/2 mile of shore in the Kasilof Section the legal description of
the terminal area.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The terminal area will continue to be
used in a way counter to it’s stated purpose.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes and it also meets the primary objective of harvesting in
the traditional areas
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody, these are fish surplus to escapement needs.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chuck Smith (HQ-07F-242)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 186 - 5 AAC 21.365(f)(1),(3). Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan.
Change area for set and drift gillnet use for Kasilof River as follows:
5 AAC 21.365. Kasilof River Salmon Management Plan.
(f)(1) set gillnets may be operated in waters only within 1,200 [600] feet of the mean high
tide mark;
(f)(3) drift gillnets may be operated in waters only within 1,200 [600] feet of the mean high
tide mark.
ISSUE: Three tiered abundance based management for the Kenai River with its mandatory
windows and lack of Emergency Order Authority for ADF&G, has tied the Dept. of Fish &
Games hands. With the lack of flexibility, due to management plans. ADF&G is unable to stay
within the goals wet by the Board of Fish for the Kasilof River. This has led to use of the Kasilof
Special Harvest area (terminal fishery). In the terminal area set netters can only fish 600 ft. from
mean high tide (MHT). Drift fishermen can fish over 9,000 ft. from MHT. This inequity in
fishing areas between set netters and drifters should be addressed.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set netters will continued to be limited to
600 ft. from MHT. During some tide cycles this area is dry for half the time. Drifters will have
over 9000 ft. to fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No, not a quality issue.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set netters who fish in the terminal area.
162
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Drifters who fish in the terminal area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered asking the BOF for half the area for set
netters in the terminal area, but I did not think the BOF would make that big of change.
PROPOSED BY: Sarah Pellegrom (HQ-07F-099)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 187 - 5 AAC 21.360 (b)(1), (c). Kenai River Late Run Sockeye Salmon
Management Plan. Direct the Kenai River late run sockeye salmon management plan to be
abundance based for all user groups as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.360 to read as follows:
(a)The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily
for commercial users based on abundance. The department shall also manage the
commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai
River king, and Kenai River coho salmon stocks in order to provide personal use, sport
and guided fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources.
(b)(1) meet a spawning escapement goal [OPTIMUM (OEG)] range of 400,000 - 700,000
[500,000 - 1,000,000] late-run sockeye salmon.
(b)(3) distribute the escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the spawning escapement
goal [(OEG)] range in proportion to the size of the run.
(c) based on preseason and in-season forecasts prior to July 25 the fishing season, the run
will be managed as follows:
(1) at run strengths of less that 3,000,000 sockeye salmon
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal range of 400,000 -
700,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated up to 75,000
sockeye salmon; and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated up to 75,000
sockeye salmon; and
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest one half the
salmon per member of household limit in additional to the normal bag
and possession limit; and
(2) At run strengths of greater than 3,000,000 sockeye salmon
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal range of 400,000 -
700,000 salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated up to 100,000
sockeye salmon; and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated up to 100,000
sockeye salmon and
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest the full per
head of household bag and possession limit.
ISSUE: There needs to be revisions to the sockeye escapement descriptions for the Kenai River.
163
What is proposed is a single escapement goal that historically existed, and a single in-river goal
that includes an allocation for sport fishermen above and below the sonar counter at river mile
19. Then this will allow for the removal of the current OEG that confuses the management of
Kenai River Sockeye Salmon.
Directs all user groups and harvests to be abundance based.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public will continue to have different
expectations concerning the management actions to be taken by ADF&G staff which are in
conflict in these plans and increased public dissatisfaction by the public with ADF&G and the
Board of Fisheries.
Quality of product in Cook Inlet will not improve and the drift gill net fleet will continue to
suffer loss market share as a result of economic limitations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? In lieu of late season, less-efficient terminal sockeye fisheries
- this proposal would allow the drift fleet to harvest surpluses of sockeye when sockeye are at
their highest quality during mid season.
Lastly, allowing the drift fleet to fish historical periods outside the Kenai and Kasilof sections
provides product to the processors that is higher quality than fish captured latter in the season
when they move toward their rivers of origin. It also allows for an orderly harvest of product
during large return years of sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit with this regulation since it will be
clear that the Board of Fish intents to manage the resource for escapement goals and abundance.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer. Those regulatory changes do not alter
the allocation of the resource between users and the escapement goals. The entry of salmon into
the system is already controlled by ADF&G managers to achieve biological objectives relative to
harvesting equally over the entire run.
These proposals do nothing to the Departments emergency order authority to modify fishing
times or areas.
The escapement objectives for all systems are maintained so there should be no impact on in-
river users.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Concerning managing for escapement goals there are
no other alternatives.
PROPOSED BY: United Cook Inlet Drift Association (HQ-07F-385)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 188 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify management plan for Kenai River late run sockeye salmon as follows:
Amend 5 AAC 21.360 as follows:
1. (a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for
commercial uses based on the abundance. [THE DEPARMTENT SHALL ALSO MANAGE
164
THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF NORTHERN
DISTRICT COHO, LATE-RUN KENAI River KING AND KENAI River COHO SALMON
STOCKS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL USE, SPORT AND GUIDED FISHERMEN
WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST SALMON RESOURCES.]
(b)(1) meet a spawning escapement goal [(OEG)] range of 400,000-700,000
[500,000-1,000,000] late-run sockeye salmon.
(b)(3) distribute the escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the spawning
escapement goal [OEG] range, in proportion to the size of the run.
(c) based on preseason and in-season forecasts prior to July 25 the fishing season,
the run will be managed as follows:
(1) at run strengths of less that 3,000,000 sockeye salmon,
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal range of 400,000 - 700,000
sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 10; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated up to 50,000 sockeye
salmon, and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated up to 50,000 sockeye
salmon; and
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest one half the salmon
per member of household limit in addition to the normal household bag and
possession limit; and
(2) At run strengths greater that 3,000,000 sockeye salmon,
(A) The department shall manage for an in-river goal of 400,000 - 700,000 salmon
past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
(B) The sport fishery below the sonar counter will be allocated up to 100,000 sockeye
salmon; and
(C) The sport fishery above the sonar counter will be allocated up to 100,000 sockeye
salmon; and
(D) The personal use dip net fishery will be allowed to harvest the full per head of
household bag and possession limit.
ISSUE: Lack of clarity and coordination in this plan and with other Upper Cook Inlet salmon
management plans.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion as to what the BOF
intended to happen.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Provides clarity for all users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Not sure.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Deleting all references to tiers. Have not rejected the
possibility of removing all references to tiers.
165
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-381)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 189 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify the Kenai River Late Run Sockeye Management Plan escapement goals as
follows:
5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks
primarily for commercial uses [BASED ON ABUNDANCE]. The department shall also manage
the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho. Late run Kenai River
king, and Kenai river coho salmon stocks in order to provide personal use, sport, and guided
sport fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources.
(b) The Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon commercial, sport, and personal use
fisheries shall be managed to
(1) meet the sustainable escapement goal [AN OPTIMUM ESCAPEMENT
GOAL (OEG)] range of 500,000 -800,000 [1,000,000] late-ruin sockeye
salmon as follows:
(2) The sport fishery below river-mile 19 and the personal use and
commercial fisheries shall be managed to achieve an in-river sonar goal
of 600,000 to 900,000 sockeye [AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD
AND MEASURED] past the Kenai River sonar counter located at river mile
19; and
(3) The sport fishery above river-mile 19 shall be managed to achieve a
final escapement of 500,000 to 800,000 late-run sockeye salmon
[DISTRIBUTE THE ESCAPEMENT OF SOCKEYE SALMON EVENLY
WITHIN THE OEG RANGE, IN PROPORTION TO THE SIZE OF THE
RUN].
[(c) BASED ON PRESEASON FORESCASTS AND INSEASON EVALUATIONS
OF THE TOTAL KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON RETURN
DURING THE FISHING SEASON, THE RUN WILL BE MANAGED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) AT RUN STRENGTHS FO LESS THAN 2,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER
GOAL RANGE OF 650,000 - 850,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR
COUNTER AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT
PLANS, THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH
REGULAR WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320,
THROUGH JULY 20, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE
MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, AT WHICH TIME THE FISHERY
SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER
MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NO
MORE THAN 24-0HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(2) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF 2,000,000 TO 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER
GOAL RANGE OF 750,000 - 950,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR
COUNTER AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANGEMENT
PLANAS, THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH
REGULAR WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320,
THROUGH JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A
166
DETERMINATION OF RUN STRENGTH, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE
DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT
BE MET, THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY;
THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA
FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 51-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL
BE CLOSED FOR ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY AND FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 24-HOUR PERIOD DURING THE SAME MANAGEMENT WEEK;
(3) AT RUN STRENGTHS GREATER THAN 4,000,000 SOCKEYE
SALMON;
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER
GOAL RANGE OF 650,000 - 1,200,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR
COUNTER AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS FO OTHER MANGEMENT
PLANS, THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH
REGULAR WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC21.320,
THROUGH JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A
DETERMINATION THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET,
THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE
COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING
PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 84-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
IN 5AAC21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL
BE CLOSED FOR ONE CONTINUOS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY.
(D) THE SONAR COUNT LEVELS ESTABLISHED THIS
SECTION MAY BE LOWERED BY THE BOARD IF NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING,
AFTER CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION EFFORTS, RESULTS IN A NET LOSS
OF RIPARIAN HABITAT ON THE KENAI RIVER. THE DEPARTMENT WILL, TO
THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, CONDUCT HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ON A
SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOARD)
TREINNIAL MEETING CYCLE, IF THE ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATE A NET
LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT CAUSED BY NONCOMMERCIAL FISHERMEN,
THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT THOSE FINDINGS TO THE
BOARD AND SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD FOR APPROPRIATE
MODIFICAITON OF THE KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON
INRIVER GOAL.]
(e) Repealed.
(f) Repealed.
(g) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the in-river sonar
goal in (1) [OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL], the department shall provide for a
personal use dip net fishery in the lower Kenai River as specified in 5 AAC 77.540.
(h) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the sustainable
[OPTIMAL] escapement goal, the department shall manage the sport fishery on the
Kenai River, except that portion of the Kenai River from its confluence with the Russian
River to an ADGF&G regulatory marker located 1,800 yards downstream, as follows:
(1) fishing will occur seven days per week, 24 hours per day; and
(2) the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery is three sockeye salmon,
unless the department determines that the final escapement will exceed the upper end
167
of the escapement goal range of 800,000 late-run sockeye salmon [ABUNDANCE OF
LATE-RUN SOCKEYE EXCEEDS TWO MILLION SALMON], at which time the
commissioner may, by emergency order, increase the daily bag and possession limit to
six sockeye salmon.
[(I) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “WEEK” MEANS A
CALENDAR WEEK, A PERIOD OF TIME BEGINNING AT 12:00:01 A.M.
SAUNDAY AND ENDING AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY.]
ISSUE: Management of the commercial, sport and personal use fisheries to meet the
escapement goals for Kenai River and also delete the abundance based goals and other confusing
elements of this plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss by management (resource
wasted) on 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI; increased risk on sockeye salmon
production and yield.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allows for the orderly harvest of Kenai River sockeye
in a predictable and reasonable fashion and maintains the resource. It eliminates a great deal of
the language that has been confusing the department and all users for 6 years.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for Kenai River sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, managing for reasonable, clearly defined
escapement goals has been the one success the department has been claiming for years in its
attempt to clarify regulatory understanding among users.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Abundance-based tiers have been tried and failed to
protect, maintain, or develop the resource over the last several years.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-07F-444)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 190 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify Kenai River salmon escapement goals as follows:
5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily
for commercial uses. [BASED ON ABUNDANCE.] The department shall also manage
the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run
Kenai River king, and Kenai River coho salmon stocks in order to provide personal use,
sport, and guided sport fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon
resources.
(b) The Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon commercial, sport, and personal use fisheries
shall be managed to meet the Sustainable escapement goal [AN OPTIMUM
ESCAPEMENT GOAL (OEG)] range of 500,000 - 800,000 late-run sockeye salmon as
follows;
(2) The sport fishery below river-mile 19 and the personal use and commercial
fisheries shall be managed to achieve an in-river sonar goal of 600,000 to 900,000
sockeye [AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD AND MEASURED] PAST THE
Kenai River sonar counter located at river mile 19; and
168
(3) The sport fishery above river-mile 19 shall be managed to achieve a final
escapement of 500,000 to 800,000 late-run sockeye salmon [distribute the
escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the OEG range, in proportion to the size
of the run.]
[(C) BASED ON PRESEASON FORECASTS AND INSEASON EVALUATIONS OF
THE TOTAL KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON RETURN DURING THE
FISHING SEASON, THE RUN WILL BE MANAGED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF LESS THAN 2,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
OF 650,000 - 850,000 SOCKEY ESALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER
AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN F AAC 21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE
MINIMUM INREIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, AT WHICH TIME THE
FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE
COMMISIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA
FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 24-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED IN 5AAC 21.365;
(2) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF 2,000,000 TO 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
OF 750,000 TO 950,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER
AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN F AAC 21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION OF
RUN STRENGTH, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE DEPARTMENT
DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET,
THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY;
THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA
FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 51-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED
FOR ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY AND FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 24-HOUR PERIOD DURING THE SAME MANAGEMENT
WEEK;
(3) AT RUN STRENGTHS GREATER THAN 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
OF 850,000 - 1,100,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER
AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION
FOF RUN STRENGTH, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE
DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL
WILL NOT BE MET, THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED
169
AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER,
ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 84-HOURS PER
WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED
FOR ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY.
(D)THE SONAR COUNT LEVELS ESTABLISHED THIS SECTION MAY BE LOWERED
BY THE BOARD IF NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF
MITIGATION EFFORTS, RESULTS IN A NET LOSS OF REPARIAN HABITAT ON THE
KENAI RIVER. THE DEPARTMENT WILL, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE,
CONDUCT HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ON A SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE
BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOARD) TRIENNIAL MEETING CYCLE. IF THE
ASSESSMENTS DEMONSTRATE A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT CAUSED BY
NONCOMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, THE DEPARMTENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT
THOSE FINDING TO THE BOARD AND SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD FOR
APPRORIATE MODIFICATION OF THE KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON
INRIVER GOAL.]
(e) Repealed.
(f) Repealed.
(g) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the in-river sonar goal in (1)
[OPTIMAL ESCAPEMENT GOAL], the department shall provide for a personal use dip net
fishery in the lower Kenai River as specified in 5AAC 77.540.
(h) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the sustainable [OPTIMAL]
escapement goal, the department shall manage the sport fishery on the Kenai River, except that
portion of the Kenai River form its confluence with the Russian River to an ADF&G regulatory
marker located 1,800 yards downstream as follows:
(1) fishing will occur seven days per week, 24 hours per day; and
(2) the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery is tree sockeye salmon, unless the
department determines that the [ABUNDANCE OF LATE-RUN SOCKEYE WILL EXCEED]
final escapement will exceed the upper end of the escapement goal range of 800,000 late-
run sockeye salmon [UPPER END OF THE EXCEEDS TWO MILLION SALMON], at which
time the commissioner may, by emergency order, increase the daily bag and possession limit to
six sockeye salmon.
[(I) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “WEEK” MEANS A CALENDAR
WEEK, A PERIOD OF TIME BEGINNING AT 12:00:01 A.M. SUNDAY AND ENDING AT
12:00 MIDNIGHT THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY.]
ISSUE: Management of the commercials port and personal use fisheries to meet the escapement
goals for Kenai River and also delete the abundance based goals and other confusing elements of
this plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allow for the orderly harvest of Kenai River sockeye in
a predictable and reasonable fashion. It eliminates a great deal of the language that has been
170
confusing the department and all users for 6 years.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for Kenai River sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, managing for reasonable escapement goals has
been the one success the department has been bragging about for years.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Everything else has already been tried and failed.
PROPOSED BY: Gary Hollier (HQ-07F-092)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 191 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Salmon Late-Run Sockeye Management
Plan. Delete portions of Kenai River salmon late-run sockeye plans as follows:
5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Salmon Late-Run Sockeye Management Plan.
(a) The purpose of this plan is to guide the department in the management of the Kenai River
sockeye stocks and provide the fishing public with an expected framework of how the fishery
will be conducted so they know what to expect. [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE
THE KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON STOCKS PRIMARILY FOR
COMMERCIAL USES BASED ON ABUNDANCE. THE IN-RIVER SONAR GOAL FOR
EACH RUN STRENGTH SHALL BE THE PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE FOR
THE DEPARTMENT TO ACHIEVE. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THESE PLANS
INCLUDING ADDITONAL HOURS AND MANDATORY CLOSED PERIODS ARE ONLY
TO OCCUR IF THE IN-RIVER SONAR GOAL WILL BE MET WITH THEIR USE. THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ALSO MANAGE THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE
THE HARVEST OF NORTHERN DISTRICT COHO, LATE-RUN KENAI RIVER KING,
AND KENAI RIVER COHO SALMON STOCKS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL
USE, SPORT, AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN WITH A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST SALMON RESOURCES.]
(b) The Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon commercial, sport, and personal use fisheries
shall be managed to;
(1) meet a final [OPTIMUM] escapement goal range of 500,000 - 8000,000 [1,000,000]
late-run sockeye salmon;
(2) The fisheries below river-mile 19 sonar site shall be managed to achieve an in-river
sonar goal of 600,000 to 900,000 sockeye [ACHIEVE INRIVER GOALS AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD AND MEASURED AT THE KENAI RIVER SONAR
COUNTER LOCATED AT RIVER MILE 19; AND]
(3) The fisheries above river-mile 19 sonar site shall be managed to achieve a final
escapement of 500,000 to 800,000 sockeye [DISTRIBUTE THE ESCAMENT OF
SOCKEYE SALMON EVENLY WITHIN THE OEG RANGE, IN PROPORTION TO THE
SIZE OF THE RUN
(c) BASED ON PRESEASON FORECASTS AND INSEASON EVALUATIONS OF THE
TOTAL KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON RETURN DURING THE
FISHING SEASON, THE RUN WILL BE MANAGED AS FOLLOWS;
(1) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF LESS THAN 2,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE OF
650,000 - 850,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER AT RIVER
MILE 19 AND AN OEG OF 500,000 - 750,000 SOCKEYE SALMON; AND
171
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR WEEKLY
FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320, THROUGH JULY 20,
UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THEMINIMUM INRIVER
GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, AT WHICH TIME THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED
OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN
24-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC21.365;
(2) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF 2,000,000 TO 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE OF
750,000 - 950,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER AT RIVER
MILE 19 AND AN OEG OF 650,000 - 850,000 SOCKEYE SALMON; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR WEEKLY
FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320, THROUGH JULY 20, OR
UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION OF RUN STRENGTH,
WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST, IF THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE
MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, THE FISHERY SHALL BE
CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN
51-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT ASPROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED FOR
ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK BEGINNING BETWEEN 7:00
P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY AND FOR AN ADDITIONAL 24-
HOUR PERIOD DURING THE SAME MANAGEMENT WEEK;
(3) AT RUN STRENGTHS GREATER THAN 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE OF
850,000 - 1,100,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER AT RIVER
MILE 19 AND AN OEG OF 750,000-1,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON, AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR WEEKLY
FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC.21.320, THROUGH JULY 20, OR
UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION OF RUN STRENGTH,
WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT
THEMINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, THE FISHERY SHALL BE
CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NOT MORE
THAN 84-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED FOR
ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, BEGINNING BETWEEN 7:00
P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY.
(d) THE SONAR COUNT LEVELS ESTABLISHED THIS SECTION MAY BE LOWERED
BY THE BOARD IF NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF
MITIGATION EFFORTS, RESULTS IN A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT ON THE
KENAI RIVER. THE DEPARTMENT WILL TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE,
CONDUCT HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ON A SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE
BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOARD) TRIENNIAL MEETING CYCLE. IF THE
ASSESSMENTS DEMONSTRATE A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT CUASED BY
NONCOMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT
THOSE FINDINGS TO THE BOARD AND SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD FOR
172
APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF THE KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE
SALMON INRIVER GOAL.
(e) REPEALED.
(f) REPEALED.]
(g) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the [OPTIMAL] escapement goal,
the department shall provide for a personal use dip net fishery in the lower Kenai River as
specified in 5 AAC 77.540.
(h) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the optimal escapement goal, the
department shall manage the sport fishery on the Kenai River, except that portion of the Kenai
River from its confluence with the Russian River to an ADF&G regulatory marker located 1,800
yards downstream, as follows;
(1) fishing will occur seven days per week, 24 hours per day; and
(2) the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery is three sockeye salmon, unless the
department determines that the final escapement [ABUNDANCE] of late-run sockeye will
exceed 800,000 [EXCEEDS TWO MILLION] salmon, at which time the commissioner may,
by emergency order, increase the bag and possession limit to six sockeye salmon.
(i) [FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “WEEK” MEANS A CALENDER WEEK,
A PERIOD OF TIME BEGINNING AT 12:00 A.M. SUNDAY AND ENDING AT 12:00
MIDNIGHT THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY.]
ISSUE: Delete meaningless and confusing language from the plans and clarify the management
for the escapement goal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and BOF will continue to
waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI with no benefit to any users in the long
term
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, makes the plans clear and concise and manages to ensure
that the escapement goal is achieved. It also returns the lower end of the sonar range to 600,000
where it should be since the sport fishery harvest with a three fish bag limit is 100,000 not
150,000, as the BOF was led to believe.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-228)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 192 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify Kenai River late-run sockeye plan as follows:
5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Salmon Management Plan.
173
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for
commercial uses based on abundance. The department shall also manage the commercial
fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai River king, and Kenai
River coho salmon stocks in order to provide personal use, sport, and guided sport fishermen
with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources.
(b) The Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon commercial, sport, and personal use fisheries shall
be managed to:
(1) meet an optimum escapement goal (OEG) range of 500,000 - 1,0000,000 late-run sockeye
salmon;
(2) achieve inriver goals as established by the board and measured at the Kenai River sonar
counter located at river mile 19; and
(3) distribute the escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the OEG range, in proportion
to the size of the run.
(c) [BASED ON PRESEASON FORECASTS AND INSEASON EVALUATIONS OF THE
TOTAL KENAI RIVER LKATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON RETURN DURING THE
FISHING SEASON, THE RUN WILL BE MANAGED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF LESS THAN 2,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
OF 650,000 - 850,0000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER AT
RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, UNLESS THE DEPARMENT DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM
INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET, AT WHICH TIME THE FISHERY SHALL
BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE COMMISSIONER MAY,
BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING PERIODS OF NO MORE
THAN 24-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(2) AT RUN STRENGTHS OF 2,000,000 TO 4,000,000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
OF 750,000 - 950,000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER AT
RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION OF
RUN STRENGTH, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE DEPARTMENT
DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET,
THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE
COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING
PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 51-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED
FOR ONE CONTINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY AND FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 24-HOUR PERIOD DURING THE SAME MANAGEMENT
WEEK;
(3) AT RUN STRENGTHS GREATER THAN 4,000,0000 SOCKEYE SALMON,
(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE FOR AN INRIVER GOAL RANGE
174
OF 850,000 - 1,100,0000 SOCKEYE SALMON PAST THE SONAR COUNTER
AT RIVER MILE 19; AND
(B) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE
UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL FISH REGULAR
WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS, AS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 21.320, THROUGH
JULY 20, OR UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DETERMINATION OF
RUN STRENGTH, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; IF THE DEPARTMENT
DETERMINES THAT THE MINIMUM INRIVER GOAL WILL NOT BE MET,
THE FISHERY SHALL BE CLOSED OR RESTRICTED AS NECESSARY; THE
COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, ALLOW EXTRA FISHING
PERIODS OF NO MORE THAN 84-HOURS PER WEEK, EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) THE UPPER SUBDISTRICT SET GILLNET FISHERY WILL BE CLOSED
FOR ONE CONINUOUS 36-HOUR PERIOD PER WEEK, BEGINNING
BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY,
(d) THE SONAR COUNT LEVELS ESTABLISHED THIS SECTION MAY BE LOWERED
BY THE BOARD IF NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF
MITIGATION EFFORTS, RESULTS IN A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT ON THE
KENAI RIVER. THE DEPARTMENT WILL, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE,
CONDUCT HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ON A SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE
BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOARD) TRIENNIAL MEETING CYCLE. IF THE
ASSESSMENTS DEMONSTRATE A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT CUASED BY
NONCOMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT
THOSE FINDINGS TO THE BOARD AND SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD FOR
APPOPRIATE MODIFICTION OF THE KENAI RIVER LATE-RUN SOCKEYE SALMON
INRIVER GOAL.
(e) REPEALED.
(f) REPEALED.]
(g) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the optimal escapement goal, the
department shall provide for a personal use net fishery in the lower Kenai River as specified in 5
AAC.77.540.
(h) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the optimal escapement goal, the
department shall manage the sport fishery on the Kenai River, except that portion of the Kenai
River from its confluence with the Russian River to an ADF&G regulatory marker located 1,800
yards downstream, as follows:
(1) fishing will occur seven days per week, 24 hours per day; and
(2) the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery is three sockeye salmon [, UNLESS
THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE ABUNDANCE OF LATE-RUN
SOCKEYE EXCEEDS TWO MILLION SALMON, AT WHICH TIME THE
COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, INCREASE THE BAG AND
POSSESSION LIMIT TO SIX SOCKEYE SALMON.
(i) FOR THE PUPOSES OF THIS SECTION “WEEK” MEANS A CALENDAR WEEK, A
PERIOD OF TIME BEGINNING AT 12:00:01 A.M. SUNDAY AND ENDING AT 12:00
MIDNIGHT THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY.]
175
ISSUE: Delete the windows and other limits on management, authority which is causing the
commercial fishery to catch more kings than they would otherwise catch
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to cause problems between these users with no benefit anyone. This causes a great deal
of waste, about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI are going in-river over the goals with
no benefit to any users in the long term.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, makes the plans clear and concise and manages to ensure
that the escapement goal is achieved without a great deal of meaningless closures and restrictions
that help no one.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgens (HQ-07F-238)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 193 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify Upper Cook Inlet management plan as follows:
a. from 5 AAC 21.360 (c) at run strengths of less than 2,000,000 sockeye salmon,
i. from 5 AAC 21.360(c)(1)(A) the department shall manage for an inriver goal range if
650,000 - 850,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
ii. the sport fishing bag and possession limit shall be 3 fish with 3 fish in possession until
such time as the department exceeds the extra fishing periods allowed of 24 hours per
week then, at the discretion of the Commissioner, the sport fishing bag and possession
limit may be increased to 4 fish and up to 8 fish in possession.
b. from 5 AAC 21.360(c)(2) at run strengths of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 sockeye salmon,
i. from 5 AAC 21.360(c)(2) the department shall manage for an inriver goal range of
750,000 - 950,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19; and
ii. the sport fishing bag and possession limit shall be 3 fish with 3 fish in possession until
such times as the department exceeds the extra fishing periods allowed of 51 hours per
week or if the department voids the 36 hour weekly closure and/or voids the additional 24
hour weekly closure then, at the discretion of the Commissioner the sport fishing bag and
possession limit may be increased to 6 fish and up to 2 fish in possession.
c. from 5 AAC 21.360(c)(3) at run strengths greater than 4,000,000 sockeye salmon,
i. from 5 AAC 21.360(c)(3)(A) the department shall manage for an inriver goal range of
850,000 - 1,1000,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter mile 19; and
ii. the sport fishing bag and possession limit shall be 6 fish with 6 fish in possession until
such time as the department exceeds the extra fishing periods of 84 hours per week or if
the department voids the 36 hour weekly set net closure then, at the discretion of the
Commissioner the sport fishing bag and possession limit may be increased to 8 fish and
up to 16 fish in possession.
176
ISSUE: Sportfishers are not able to benefit from large sockeye salmon returns to the Kenai
River until very late in the season due to the current regulatory structure of the Kenai River Late
Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan. If we are going to manage the Kenai River sockeye
salmon using the “over escapement” philosophy under current regulations sportfishers are not
allowed an increased harvest opportunity during “emergency commercial openings”, that usually
occur during high escapement periods with large runs.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Kenai River may be inundated with
higher numbers of sockeye salmon without an inriver method or means to slow the heavy surges
of fish down.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, improved quality of freshly harvested fish for the public.
It would provide an earlier opportunity for anglers to harvest abundant sockeye salmon in the
Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource will benefit because we would now have
another tool to help slow the escapement of sockeye salmon into the Kenai River and avoid
problems with over escapement. In addition, the borough economy would benefit through
increased sales tax revenue from increased tourist and angler related purchases.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Start the season with a 6 fish bag limit. That might
create a situation of too great a harvest for the size of the sockeye salmon return and failure to
achieve the necessary escapement goal.
PROPOSED BY: Rod and Randy Berg (HQ-07F-254)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 194 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Set Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goal range of 400,000 to 700,000 as follows:
Amend (b)(1) as follows:
Meet a Kenai River spawning escapement goal range of 400,000 to 700,000 late-run
sockeye salmon.
ISSUE: Lost economic opportunity for the Kenai Peninsula.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost economic opportunity, over
escapement into the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen, processors, consumers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Sue the board for not taking economic loss into
consideration/allocation to in-river fishery. Could not afford to sue.
177
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-380)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 195 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Repeal regulations that require mandatory time and area closures, windows, and limit the
commissioner’s emergency authority as follows:
Repeal those portions of the management plan that require mandatory time and area closures,
windows, and limit the emergency order authority of the commissioner.
Repeal 5 AAC 21.360(c).
ISSUE: The current management plans take away the manager’s flexibility for allowing the
commercial salmon harvest to be more evenly spread out over the entire run. The plans also make it
impossible not to exceed the escapement goals on medium to large returns.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The bulk of harvest will continue to be only
within a one-week peak period. This fact places the processing facilities at maximum or
overcapacity, and greatly reduces quality. Medium to large returns will exceed the biological
escapement goals, thereby wasting the surplus, and reducing the stability of supplying quality wild
salmon meet market demand and maintaining market share.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? Yes, by spreading the harvest evenly over the entire run the fishermen and
processors will have time to properly ice and handle the salmon. This will result in higher volumes
of premium quality salmon that can be certified in the Kenai Wild program, thereby increasing the
market of wild salmon. This benefits the entire fishing industry.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen, crew, processors, support businesses and the local
economy because a larger volume of high quality salmon will be available to develop and meet
market demand and return a higher price.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. These changes would allow the department the
flexibility to biologically manage the fisheries on real time in-season abundance, as they are allowed
to do in other salmon fisheries of the state.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions will work to spread the harvest out,
to improve quality, and prevent waste of surplus salmon from being unharvested by any users. The
current plans are proven not to work and must be changed to improve quality and provide a more
stable supply of wild salmon.
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-382)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 196 - 5 AAC 21.360(b)(1). Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon
Management Plan. Modify Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goals as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
(b)(1) meet an escapement goal of 400,000 - 700,000 late run sockeye salmon.
178
In addition, section (c) would be deleted, for those sections which define three ranges of
in-river goals. Only a single in-river goal above the sonar counter of 400,000 - 700,000
sockeye.
ISSUE: The management of the Kenai River sockeye salmon for an OEG of 500,000 to
1,000,000 fish has created lost harvest opportunity for the commercial fleets and moved the
management of the fishery away from high sustained yield management without providing
significant benefit to any user group.
Late-run Kenai River sockeye salmon are the backbone of the commercial industry in Cook
Inlet. The Kenai River represents the single most important system for sockeye production and
should be managed for high sustained yield. These fish are going into the escapement, not to
other users of the resource, as the allocation of sockeye salmon for sport fishing users in the in-
river goal, not the OEG. There is no positive benefit for allowing excess spawning fish into the
river. Biological limitations on sockeye salmon production are evident in recent studies of lake
rearing capacity and the number of fish entering the system is more than adequate for other
wildlife.
In addition, the three-tier plan in present regulations is confusing for managers and users alike. It
requires that an estimate be made of the total run by July 20 and escapements adjusted
accordingly. This has a negative impact on the flexibility of the department to harvest large
returns.
Establish one BEG and one in-river escapement goal for all run strengths. The meeting of the
BEG takes precedence over OEG and in-river goals.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of economic gain from
Kenai River sockeye production.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users would be able to participate in the harvest of fish
excess to the in-river goals. In large returns, the goals probably cannot be met because the
exploitation rates needed are very high. However, philosophically we should try to manage for
maximum sustained yield in the most productive system in Cook Inlet for sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The escapement goal of 400,000 - 700,000, plus the above
sonar part harvest allocation provides for the in-river sport harvest above the sonar counter.
However, additional fishing time in the commercial fishery may impact the other species
harvested incidental to sockeye salmon, including Chinook and coho salmon. This would impact
users of these resources. Personal use fishermen also may see fewer fish available to them as the
number of fish on average would be reduced along entering the river. The harvest may not go
down proportionally since large numbers of sockeye salmon would still be available for harvest
over a long time period.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? There are no other solutions if one is to manage for
maximum sustained yield.
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-383)
179
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 197 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan.. Establish Kenai River late run sockeye escapement goal range of 400,000 - 700,000 as
follows:
Amend (b) regulations as follows:
Establish one escapement goal range of 400,000 - 700,000 for Kenai late-run sockeye that
has one sonar goal with allocations for sport fish harvest levels below and above the sonar.
ISSUE: Simplify the management plans for the Kenai late-run sockeyes. Currently, there are
three tiers in the management plans for:
less that 2 million;
2 to 4 million;
over 4 million;
Each of these tiers have different restrictions on times, areas, and harvest strategies. Often these
tiers are contradictory, confusing, and really do not work well for anyone.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued poor management plan
performance, confusing and totally unnecessary micromanagement plans.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This will reduce conflicts by removing private interpretations
of the regulations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who want clear and functional management plans
will benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, because the current plan creates a waste of
unharvested fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: Wesley J. Humbyrd (HQ-07F-388)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 198 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Amend the Kenai River late run sockeye management plan for commercial uses and
establish escapement goals as follows:
5 AAC 21.360
(a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks
primarily for commercial uses based on abundance. [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL
ALSO MANAGE THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST
OF NORTHERN DISTRICT COHO, LATE-RUN KENAI RIVER KING, AND KENAI
RIVER COHO SALMON STOCKS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL USE,
SPORT AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN WITH A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST SALMON RESOURCES.]
180
(b)(1) meet the spawning [optimum] escapement goal [(OEG)] range of 400,000-700,
[500,000-1,000,000] late-run sockeye salmon;
(b)(3) distribute, as practical, the escapement of sockeye salmon evenly within the
spawning escapement [OEG] range, in proportion to the size of the run.
ISSUE: This management plan, after multiply years of use, it simply doesn’t work. This plan
unduly restricts local managers to the point that it is impossible to manage for escapement goals
and inevitable creates over escapement, loss of harvestable resource, on both large and small
returns. This creates economic loss and hardship on the users, communities and biological harm
to the resource and future returns.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over escapement, economic
harm, and waste of the harvestable surplus and reduced future salmon returns. Continued conflict
between management plans.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This will improve quality by allowing the managers to
manage on a real-time basis spreading the harvest out more evenly and further way from the
river for the entire run. This allows for more harvest of bright salmon with a higher oil content
which commands a higher demand and price.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users, the resource, the managers, the local economies
by harvesting the surplus and maintaining future high returns from managing biologically for
maximum sustained yields.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Only those who want to continue conflicting, dysfunctional
management plans that are proven to produce future low returns and poorer quality product.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. Remaining status quo will only continue to
waste the harvestable surplus and produce small returns and poorer quality product.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-441)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 199 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Modify Kenai River salmon escapement goals as follows:
The Kenai River sustainable escapement goal (SEG) range should be 500,000 - 800,000 sockeye.
Three tiered abundance based management should be eliminated. It simply is not working. An
in-river goal range of 600,000 to 900,000 sockeye salmon past the sonar counter at river mile 19
should be established for the Kenai River. The BOF will direct ADF&G to manage to the goals.
ISSUE: Three tiered abundance management is not working. The Kenai River has exceeded it
maximum in-river goal the past 5 years. In 2000 and 2001 the minimum BEG was not met. The
Dept. of Fish and Game has their hands tied with to many restrictions put on them, in the current
management plans. Since the inception of the three tiered system, in 1999, ADF&G’s pre-season
forecasts have never been accurate. ADF&G has to assess their pre-season predictions on or after
July 20. Since 1999 ADF&G’s July 20 in-season forecast has never correlated with their pre-
season forecast. With a change in forecast the goals change and so do management plans that
affect all user groups. 2006 was a prime example. Less than two million sockeye were projected
181
to the Kenai River, thus the management plan directed the department to manage for an in-river
goal range of 650,000-850,000 sockeye. Less than 100,000 sockeye were past the sonar counter
on July 19. This led to restrictions and closures on all user groups-personal use, sport, and
commercial. In the end, ADF&G missed their pre-season projection. 1,499,692 sockeye passed
the sonar counter. This was 549,692 sockeye over the maximum in river goal. This was a total
waste of the resource in 2006 and most likely will cause diminishing sockeye returns in 2011.
There was an great economic loss in 2006 and most likely there will be another economic loss in
2011, due to the high escapement in 2006. All user groups might suffer in 2011 do to this high
escapement in 2006. ADF&G should be asked what are the effects, to future sockeye
production, due to excessive back to back to back high sockeye escapements to the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? History will repeat itself. Inflexible
management plans will restrict ADF&G’s ability to manage to the goals. ADF&G and the BOF
will continue to waste about 1/3 of the sockeye available for harvest in Upper Cook Inlet.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? With unnecessary regulations lifted, ADF&G might be able to
allow extra fishing time in a way that could improve quality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All user groups, area businesses and the Kenai Peninsula
Borough. Anybody that wants a stable fishery with goals that will be managed to, by ADF&G.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, as all in-river goals will be achieved.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Go to two-tiered management. Under 3 million and
over 3 million sockeye returning to the Kenai River. In-river goals would change according to
the size of the run. This would affect all user groups opportunities with possible changes in time,
area, and bag limits. Thus I feel the same conflicts would arise and ADF&G would still have a
problem with in-season management. With this uncertainty and confusing management plans,
fish available for harvest will continue to be wasted.
PROPOSED BY: Sara Pellegrom (HQ-07F-091)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 200 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Remove windows for Kenai area as follows:
Open fishery when fish are present, mandatory closures is wrong when fish are present.
ISSUE: Remove windows.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More wasted fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fish are in better condition.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Why close the fishing when fish are there.
182
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-030)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 201 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan.. Modify Kenai River escapement goals as follows:
Escapement 450,000 - 750,000.
ISSUE: Kenai River escapement.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued waste of fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fish caught before fresh water phase.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminating windows.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-031)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 202 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Amend windows provisions for Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Plan as follows:
Amend windows provisions as follows:
1) At run strengths of less than 2,000,000 sockeye salmon, add “(C) the upper Subdistrict will
be closed for one continuous 48-hour period per week beginning between 7:00 p.m.
Thursday and 7:00 a.m. Friday and for an additional continuous 36-period per week
beginning between 7:00 p.m. Monday and 7:00 a.m. Tuesday.”
2) At run strengths of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 sockeye salmon, revise as “(C) the upper
Subdistrict will be closed for one continuous 36-hour period per week beginning between 7:00
p.m. Thursday and 7:00 a.m. Friday and for an additional [24 - 36 HOUR PERIOD DURING
THE SAME MANGEMENT WEEK] per week beginning between 7:00 pm Monday and 7:00
a.m. Tuesday.”
ISSUE: The Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Management Plan does not provide direction for
the weekly timing of fishery escapement/allocation windows at sockeye run strengths of less
than 2 million. Nor is the additional 24-hour window at run strengths of 2 to 4 million sockeye
adequate to provide the intended benefits. Emergency order openers timed for Friday or Saturday
disrupt in-river fishing opportunity on the weekend. A 24-hour window merely reloads the
beaches for the setnet fishery and does not provide for adequate in-river escapement to meet the
management intent of windows.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishery windows ensure that harvest is
spread equally throughout the run; reproductive capacity of the genetic resource is maintained; in
-river fisheries are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity; and commercial harvest does not
183
take an excessive share of sport-priority species (Chinook and coho). Failure to establish and
maintain adequate fishery windows undercuts reasonable in-river fisheries, allocates
disproportionate harvest shares to the commercial fishery, and risks balanced representation of
all run components on the spawning grounds.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit from protection of the genetic
diversity that sustains productivity. Sport and personal use fishers will benefit from predictable
fishery opportunities of windows.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fishers attempting to maximize their harvest of
sockeye and Chinook at the expense of fair and appropriate access by other user groups.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because of a consistent
pattern of commercial fishery management to maximize the commercial harvest share without
regard for effects on in-river fisheries.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-153)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 203 - 5 AAC 21.363. Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan; 21.360.
Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan. Limit commercial fishing prior to
availability of in-season run strength estimate as follows:
Prior to July 20 or when ADF&G makes its in-season run strength estimate, commercial fishing
shall be limited to a twelve hour period of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. each Monday. Additional
fishing periods would be based on actual run strength as reflected in the Kenai River Sockeye
sonar counter values.
ISSUE: Article 8, Section 3 of Alaska’s constitution states: “Wherever occurring in their natural
state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use”. Because more than
half of Alaska’s residents live in Southcentral Alaska with many more having access to the
reaction because of the road systems, it is more evident than ever that the salmon fishery stocks
of Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) should be managed so that sport, guided sport, and personal use
fishery participants are provided priority access to the common property fish resource. When
sport fishers purchase a license, it is assumed that the purchaser is entitled to reasonable
opportunity to harvest the common property resource for their personal consumption. Current
ADF&G management practices have denied the sport fisher this reasonable opportunity during
the July sockeye salmon harvest period.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Consumptive salmon fishers (sport,
personal use and guided sport) will continue to be denied the reasonable opportunity harvest
sockeye in Upper Cook Inlet. Similar to when the commercial fisherman stated that his permit
assures him of the opportunity to harvest sufficient fish for him to provide for his family, a
consumptive (sport) fishing license would assure the sport fisher the opportunity to provide fish
for his family.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
184
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Consumptive user groups such as sport, guided sport,
personal use, and subsistence would benefit as the opportunity to harvest enough salmon to feed
their families would be enhanced.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This proposal will reduce the opportunities of the central
district drift and setnet commercial fisheries. However, the reduced value of the commercial
catch will be more than offset by the much greater economic value of the fish in the consumptive
fisheries.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Not allow any commercial fishing until the in-season
estimate is made-this would front load the salmon escapement and not allow for genetic diversity
as the latter part of the run might be decimated by the nets.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-420)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 204 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Eliminate regulatory language from the commercial plans that direct department to
minimize harvest of late run Kenai River kings in order to provide personal use, sport use as
follows:
Delete from all management plans that contain the wording: [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL
ALSO MANAGE THE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES TO MINIMIZE THE HARVEST OF
LATE-RUN KENAI RIVER KING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERSONAL USE, SPORT,
AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
HARVEST SALMON RESOUCES.]
ISSUE: Unnecessary language in management plans that restricts the flexibility for the
managers to manage on a real-time basis of in season abundance.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued conflict, unnecessary
restrictions resulting in un-harvested salmon surpluses.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It allows a more evenly harvest effort to be spread over the
course of the run.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users by being able to harvesting the salmon surpluses.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The Kenai run is healthy.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-457)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 205 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan.. Revise Cook Inlet management plan and allocation as follows:
185
Develop a management plan that enables all other user groups an equal share of the resources
beyond for various and systems. Give equal authority to sport and commercial sides of ADF&G
to determine when emergency openings are granted and how these decisions are reached. With
relocation there would need to increased exploitation in rivers to prevent overescapement. This
could achieve threw altering methods and means as well as possible bag limit increases.
ISSUE: Resource allocation disproportionately awarded to commercial fishermen.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The end users ie. Sport, guided sport,
dipnet, fed subsistence, and state subsistence users will continue to fight each other for a 20%
share of the resource. While the commercial fleets continue to go outside current management
plans and exploit resources to the deferment of all other users.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it will improve the quality and long term health of fish
stocks in Cook Inlet. For instance in 2006 the commercial fleet were given emergency opening
early in order to “balance” the harvest and avoid an “overescapement” into spawning systems.
This action “bottles” the fish up and prevented them from reaching their destinations at normal
times. When fishing was closed due to week returns the fish showed up in large numbers but
these fish were mostly “water marked” and very scared up due to contact with many commercial
nets. We need to have a balanced effort in the commercial fishing that allows fish to proceed up
the inlet at a reasonable pace. For every period nets are fished there should be an adequate time
with no nets in order to allow, unimpeded travel to spawning grounds.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The fish will benefit most, next the rest of the users will
have a more equitable chance at fish that are heeded.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial operators that currently enjoy an inequitably
disputed resource allocation.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A total closure in commercial netting in Cook Inlet.
I decided that is best for fish. But they have an equal right to fish, as I do. Not an 80% -20% right
but 50%-50%.
PROPOSED BY: Monte Roberts (HQ-07F-211)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 206 - 5 AAC 21.360(h). Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Amend this regulation as follows:
(h) …
If the projected inriver goal of sockeye salmon is less than 650,000 and the
inriver sport fishery harvest is projected to result in an escapement below the optimal
escapement goal, the commissioner may, by emergency order, reduce the bag and possession
limit for sockeye salmon in the sport fishery, as specified in 75.003 (1)(A).
ISSUE: Current regulations allow for liberalizing the sport fishing bag and possession limit from
three to six sockeye salmon depending upon run strength projections. Adding the flexibility of
reducing the daily bag and possession limit by emergency order rather than a total closure may
reduce disruption to the Kenai River sockeye salmon sport fishery during years when the
department projects that the in river goal of 650,000-850,000 late-run sockeye salmon will not be
186
met but the optimum escapement goal (OEG) of 500,000-1,000,000 late-run sockeye salmon above
the River Mile 19 ADFG sockeye salmon sonar site could be met if the sport fishing sockeye
salmon bag and possession limit is lowered below three fish. At run strengths of less than
2,000,000 sockeye salmon, the Alaska Board of Fisheries established an inriver goal range of
650,000-850,000 late-run sockeye salmon to help ensure that the OEG of 500,000-1,000,000 fish is
met after harvest by the sport fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? During years of below average or late
arriving Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon, current regulations close the sockeye salmon sport
fishery when the OEG is projected not to be met based upon an expected harvest level with a three
fish bag limit. During these types of sockeye salmon returns, the OEG may not be met if the bag
and possession limit remains at three sockeye salmon thus the sport fishery is closed. If the
department had the flexibility to lower the daily bag and possession limit below three fish, the OEG
may be met without the disruption of totally closing the sport fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who fish for late-run sockeye salmon and the
businesses that rely upon those anglers. The adverse economic impacts of below average or late
arriving returns will be reduced for the portions of the communities of the Kenai Peninsula which
depends upon the inriver sport fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Escapement goals will continue to be managed for,
based upon inseason information.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-280)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 207 - 5 AAC 77.525. Personal use salmon fishery; and 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai
River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan. Allow the commissioner to increase the
bag limit up to 12 sockeye salmon if abundance exceeds four million as follows.
5 AAC21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan would be modified to
read in h it the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery in three sockeye salmon, unless the
department determines that the abundance of late-run sockeye exceeds 2,000,000 salmon at
which time the commissioner may, by emergency order, increase the bag and possession limit to
six sockeye salmon; if the department determines that the abundance of late-run sockeye
exceeds 4,000,000 salmon, at which time, the commissioner may, by emergency order,
increase the bag and possession limit to 12 sockeye salmon in the mainstem Kenai River.
5 AAC 77.525(C) In the personal use taking of salmon, unless otherwise specified in
5 AAC 77.500-5 AAC 77.548, the total annual limit for each personal use salmon fishing permit
is 25 salmon for the head of a household and 10 salmon for each dependent of the permit holder.
If the department determines that the abundance of late-run sockeye exceeds 4,000,000
salmon, the commissioner may, by emergency order, increase the head of household annual
limit to 35 sockeye salmon and allow dipnetting from an anchored boat in the area from the
Warren Ames bridge up to the king salmon sonar counter.
187
ISSUE: The commercial fishing regulations unfairly discriminate against sport fishers when the
sockeye run exceeds 4,000,000 fish. The commercial fleet gets more time to fish but the in-river
fisher is provided no additional harvest limit on runs strength of that magnitude.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations will continue to discriminate
against the in-river fisher.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Consumptive user groups such as sport, guided sport,
personal use, would benefit as fewer fishing trips would be needed to harvest sufficient salmon
for family consumption.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-421)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 208 - 5 AAC 21.360(h)(2). Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon
Management Plan. Allow additional harvest opportunity when in-river sockeye abundance
warrants as follows:
(h) Subject to the requirement of achieving the lower end of the optimal escapement goal, the
department shall manage the sport fishery on the Kenai River, except that portion of the Kenai
River from its confluence with the Russian River to an ADF&G regulatory marker located 1,800
yards downstream, as follows:
(1) fishing will occur seven days per week, 24 hours per day; and
(2) the bag and possession limit for the sport fishery is three sockeye salmon, unless the
department determines that the abundance of late-run sockeye exceeds two million
salmon, at which time the commissioner, by emergency order, increase the bag [AND
POSSESSION] limit to six sockeye salmon daily and 12 [6] in possession.
(3) If abundance of late-run sockeye exceeds four million salmon, the commissioner
may, by emergency order, increase the bag limit to nine sockeye salmon daily and 18
in possession.
ISSUE: Provide the department authority to increase sockeye salmon sport bag and possession
limits during periods of large in-river abundance. This authority needs to be explicitly stated in
the management plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In seasons of large inriver returns
sockeye salmon surplus to escapement needs are available for harvest. This proposal will allow
the Department to provide that additional harvest opportunity when runs size warrants.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen on the Kenai River.
188
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered including in this proposal the option
for the Department to reduce bag and possession limits during periods of low abundance but did
not do so as we understood a staff proposal was being submitted to address that condition.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-154)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 209 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan. Open a Kenai River Special Harvest Area as follows:
Open a Kenai River Special Harvest Area (terminal fishery) as soon as the minimum sonar goal
is achieved.
ISSUE: Missed opportunity to harvest sockeye in excess of in-river goals. We used to be able to
drift in the mouth of the Kenai to catch surplus sockeye.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continuing sockeye over-escapement in
the Kenai River. Wasted fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen at the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Opening the terminal area sooner.
PROPOSED BY: Mary Holler (HQ-07F-119)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 210 - 5 AAC 57.150. Russian River Sockeye Salmon Management Plan..
Increase commercial allocation of Russian River sockeye as follows:
Manage so 50 percent of early Russian River reds revert back to commercial fishery.
ISSUE: Russian River Sockeye plan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? No access to surplus fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Appeals to early market demands.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Non-resident sport fishermen.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? These stocks have recovered.
189
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-032)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 211 - 5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management
Plan; and 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery Management
Plan. Prohibit dipnetting on the Kenai River until BEG is met as follows:
The dipnet fishery starts after 450,000 biological escapement goal reached.
ISSUE: Unlimited dipnet fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued expansion of dipnet fishery in a
limited fully allocated fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? A personal use fishery is not supposed to impact the
commercial fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dipnetters will begin at the peak of the run. Commercial
fishermen will not be closed by dipnetters putting the brakes on escapement.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? July 15 start, 7 am – 7 pm., if fish are abundant,
everyone fishes.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-037)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 212 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Close personal use dipnet fishery on Kenai River until escapement goals
are met as follows:
Dipnetting on the Kenai River will commence only after the lower end of the BEG is reached at
the counter.
ISSUE: The opening date of the dipnet fishery on the Kenai River. Prior to 1996 dipnetting
opened only after 450,000 sockeye had passed the counter. It was always a surplus fishery.
Commercial fishing has priority. The change was done illegally without public notice or
comment on the last day of the 1996 BOF meeting.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Dipnetting will continue to illegally have
priority over commercial fishing because commercial fishing is restricted if the BEG is met. The
BEG is reached later because dipnetters take fish below the counter.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen won’t have to wait so long for the
190
BEG to be reached. Sport fishermen may continue to fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Dipnetters who think they have priority.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Steve Vanek (HQ-07F-100)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 213 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Link personal use dipnet openings to escapement numbers as follows:
I would like to see escapement numbers by certain dates be the trigger to allow dipnetting. If it
looks slow early on, then along with commercial users’ restrictions, dipnetting ought to be
closed.
ISSUE: The burden of conservation needs to be shared by dipnetters in the Kenai River.
Currently, dipnetting begins on a fixed starting date without regard to run strength.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In years of poor returns, especially early
in the season, commercial fishing will be restricted because the dipnetted fish won’t make it
across the counter. Dipnetting should not be able to interfere with an orderly commercial
fishery. If nothing is done, then every season’s escapement numbers will look like the run is
starting out slow and commercial fishing will get curtailed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Allowing more fish to escape early on will give
managers a clearer picture of run strength, perhaps lessening the likelihood of over-escapement
later in the year.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen and managers will benefit if all
users have to share in conservation efforts. All users would be motivated to prevent over-
escapement and be concerned about having a healthy return.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Dipnetters, like other users, won’t be able to fish when there
is a conservation concern.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? ADF&G biologists should count any dipnetted fish
early in the run as escapement so they have a true perspective on the run size. This wouldn’t
solve the problem of dipnetters not sharing the burden of conservation.
PROPOSED BY: Teague Vanek (HQ-07F-090)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 214 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Extend dipnet season on Kenai River as follows:
When more salmon go up the Kenai and should dipnet fishing be reopened, that days lost to early
closure be added to dipnet fishing.
191
ISSUE: Early dipnet closure at mouth of Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Overcrowding at Kasilof River mouth.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Don’t know - will improve subsistence jarring and freezing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dipnet fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Patricia L. Shearer and Sheila Caloona (HQ-07F-313)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 215 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Increased harvest opportunity in personal use fishery in Kenai and Kasilof
rivers as follows:
5 AAC 77.540 (c)(1)(B) is amended to read:
(i) The annual limit is as specified in 5 AAC 77.525, except that only one king salmon
may be retained per household and,
(ii) When sockeye salmon in-river run strength exceeds 850,000 sockeye salmon past the
sonar counter at river mile 19, the annual head of household limit is 50 salmon and an
additional 15 salmon for each dependant of the permit holder.
ISSUE: To provide the Department the authority to increase the annual limits in the Kenai and
Kasilof Rivers personal use dip net fishery for salmon when sockeye salmon run strength allows.
The personal use dip net fishery for salmon in the Kenai River is configured to target sockeye
salmon with some limited opportunity to harvest king salmon. Annual limits with this fishery are
set at 25 salmon per head of household and an additional 10 salmon for each dependant of the
permit holder.
There is no provision in regulation for Kenai dipnet personal use fishermen to benefit from
increased harvest opportunity when there is a large surplus of salmon available in the Kenai
River. This proposal seeks to provide the department the ability to react to large in-river
abundance of sockeye salmon by making provisions that allow for increased dip net personal use
harvest in the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In years where sockeye salmon enter the
river in excess of escapement targets increased harvest opportunity in personal use fisheries
should be allowed. If nothing is done then at large run sizes Alaskan residents will not be
allowed to share in the biological surplus and department managers will be limited in their ability
to adjust in-river harvest potential when face with large salmon surplus. The personal use fishery
is a viable tool for regulating escapement within desirable levels but has not been adequately
utilized for this purpose.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA
192
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Alaskan residents who would like to utilize salmon for
their personal use.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, since these fish are surplus to escapement needs.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because current limits
unnecessarily forego take of the harvestable surplus in the large run years when escapement
exceeds current escapement goals.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-155)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 216 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Increase Kasilof River personal use household limit as follows:
If the upper end of the OEG is projected to be exceeded, then additional opportunity may be
provided by [increasing the fishing area or extending the area] increasing the fishing area,
extending the area, and/or doubling the personal and household limit.
ISSUE: A long history of “overescapment” of sockeye salmon into the Kasilof River. In most
instances, when projections for exceeding the upper end of the OEG for Kasilof sockeye salmon
are made, the vast majority of extra fish are passed along to the commercial salmon fishery via
use of extra fish of extra fishing time and the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area.
Overuse of the UCI commercial salmon fishery in the Kasilof section and the KRSHA places
undue stress on the returns of late-run Kasilof king salmon, a stock that currently has no BEG in
place.
In addition, there is no BEG/OEG in place for the Kasilof silver salmon run. Late season efforts
to keep sockeye escapements at current levels impact the early portion of the Kasilof silver
salmon run as well.
The excess fish should be made available to all user groups and extremely liberal limits should
be put into place to encourage and allow sports and personal use fishermen to harvest a greater
potion of these fish so that the impact on silvers and late-run kings are more limited by these
“selective” fisheries.
Fishery managers claim that personal use (and sport effort) has not been an effective tool in
staying within current management goal s for Kasilof River sockeye salmon. By increasing limits
rather than simply increasing time/area fished, it is likely that more effort and subsequent harvest
will take place.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over-harvest of Kasilof River
late-run king salmon by efforts to keep sockeye numbers in check and some years, exceeding the
upper end of the OEG for Kasilof River sockeye salmon.
There is also impact concern on the early-run Kasilof king salmon that have needed a number of
regulatory changes in the fisheries by other user groups in recent years to help ensure meeting of
the BEG for these fish.
193
The early portion of the Kasilof River silver salmon run will continue to be hurt by extreme
efforts in late season to keep sockeye escapements within established goals by utilizing the UCI
commercial salmon fishery rather than more selective methods.
Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof late-run king salmon in present day than
in past years. Continued aggressive commercial fishing effort to keep sockeye escapements in
check will only hasten this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Personal use users of Kasilof River sockeye salmon, sport
users of all other species of Kasilof River salmon present during the sockeye salmon run, and
Kasilof business that will benefit from increased usage of the Kasilof River personal use fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? UCI commercial salmon fishers.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? More liberal limits for other user groups: not rejected
but also proposed in conjunction with this distribution of fish.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-050)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 217 - 5 AAC 77.525. Personal use salmon fishery. Reduce personal use
fishery limit to 5 salmon per person, 25 per household as follows:
Personal use limit is 5 salmon per person or 25 per household.
ISSUE: Personal use limits are too high and doesn’t allow people to cycle through the good
fishing spots.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Personal use fishers will continue to fight
for a good spot while greedy people hog these spots.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, no can catch and take care of 75 or more fish. The
average urban household eats 12 fish a year so the limits are excessive.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Alaska residents.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Tom Obrien (HQ-07F-241)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 218 - 5 AAC 77.525 (c). Personal use salmon fishery. Lower annual limits for
personal use salmon harvest to 20 for head of household and 5 for each dependent and no more
than 50% of limit may be taken from the Kenai River as follows:
194
Amend this regulation as follows:
(c)…the total annual limit for each personal use salmon fishing permit is 20 [25] salmon for the
head of household and 5 [10] salmon for each dependant of the permit holder. However, no
more than 50 percent of the annual limit may be taken from the Kenai River.
ISSUE: The increasing growth of the Kenai River personal use salmon fishery has created a
reallocation of the resource away from commercial and sport fishing interest to personal use
fishermen. When the Kenai River personal use fishery was created it was anticipated that this
fishery would take 80,000 sockeye salmon. Today, this fishery takes over 200,000 sockeye
salmon. This increase in growth violates the original intent of the personal use fishery allocation
understanding when it was formed.
In addition, growth of the fishery is creating significant habitat problems within the river and
adjacent to it in the wetland and sand dune areas. A major increase in the harvest of fish has
resulted for a growing boat fishery. The boat fishery adds to the pollution of the Kenai River and
the City of Kenai has indicated that a second boat ramp is planned to accommodate this growth.
In addition to the boat fishery, the public use of the south shore of the Kenai River has resulted in
damage to wetland areas through the use of off-terrain vehicles and waste disposal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued growth in this fishery will
create allocation issues and increased habitat destruction.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The general public, as habitat degradation should be
reduced. In addition the original allocation intent of the board relative to the Kenai River
personal use fisher will be restored.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those individuals who must fish at other sites if they wish
to catch their total annual limit.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The fishery could be limited to a shore-based fishery
on the north side of the river. This area has sand dunes but measures have been taken to reduce
the habitat damage. In addition, access does not require off-terrain vehicles. This is a viable
solution and should be considered. It was felt that this option would create crowding and social
problems so it was put at a lower priority.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Thompson (HQ-07F-392)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 219 - 5 AAC 77.525(c). Personal use salmon fishery. Lower annual limits for
personal use salmon harvest to 15 for head of household and 5 for each dependent as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
(c)…the total annual limit for each personal use salmon fishing permits is 15 [25] salmon for the
head of household and 5 [10] salmon for each dependent of the permit holder.
ISSUE: The present personal use limits are excessive and relative to actual need. The
department’s subsistence studies indicate that most households use 20 salmon per year in the
195
urban areas. The liberal limits promote waste and increase the potential for illegal use of personal
use caught fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Waste of the resource will continue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The general public, as fish will be used and evenly
distributed between users. Fisheries with quotas such as the Kasilof gillnet fishery will last
longer and more people can participate.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those individuals who require more that the suggested
limits.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? NA.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Thompson (HQ-07F-391)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 220 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Prohibit personal use dipnets with mesh size over 2 1/2 inches as follows:
A personal use dipnet cannot have a mesh size more than 2 1/2 inch in stretched length.
ISSUE: The problem is gillnets in the Kenai River. The public is totally against gillnets in the
Kenai River. Some dipnets have gillnet web in them.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Board of Fish and the State of
Alaska will be hypocrites at future federal subsistence meetings since they oppose gillnets in the
Kenai River yet allow them in a dipnet.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who oppose gillnets in the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Persons who now have dipnets with gill net web in them.
They will have to change the web.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Steve Vanek (HQ-07F-101)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 221 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Management
Plan. Implement motor type restriction for dip net fishing from vessel as follows:
Amend this regulation to prohibit personal use dip netting on the Kenai River from a vessel that
has on board a motor that is not a four-stroke or direct fuel injection two-stroke motor beginning
196
in 2010.
ISSUE: The lower Kenai River has been listed as an impaired waterbody by the Alaska
Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC). ADEC studies have documented high levels
of hydrocarbon pollution attributed to boat engines. In 2000-2002, the Kenai Watershed Forum
conducted systematic water quality monitoring and found elevated levels of hydrocarbons with
the water column. An extensive study contracted by the ADEC in 2003 documented that
outboard motors were the major source of hydrocarbon contamination. Two-stroke motors that
do not have direct fuel injection (DFI) technology produce the greatest levels of hydrocarbon
pollution.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Kenai River may continue to be
listed as an impaired waterbody.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The fish and aquatic species in the lower Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Personal use fishermen who do not have a four-stroke or
direct fuel injection two-stroke motor.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Close the area to dip netting from vessels.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-461)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 222 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Restrict 2-stroke motor boat use in personal use fishery as follows:
One option for consideration could be, under the heading “all boats” add: During July no one
with a 2-stroke motor (other than DFI) may fish or participate in the personal use
motorized dipnet fishery except; From those boats with a current AK boat registration
number who’s last number is odd may fish only on odd numbered days an those with last
numbers that are even may fish on even numbered days.
This is proposal is submitted as one option that is fair to users of 2-stroke engines while moving
hydrocarbon levels in the river to lower levels.
However, we are also aware that other proposals will come from recovery plans prepared by
DEC and other agencies between now and the BOF meeting. Therefore, we are submitting this
proposal to ensure that the BOF has the ability to discuss all options and would request that staff
write the public notice to be inclusive of all ideas on this topic, including restrictions on total
powerboat use and options for alteration of fishing methods and means.
We are aware that proposals to eliminate 2-stroke engines from the river immediately in 2008
will be forthcoming. We agree that 2-stroke engines (EPA non-compliant models) should be
eliminated from use for fishing at some point. We leave it to the board of Fish to define that year
(we would recommend 2010 as a starting point for discussion). Meant to be a placeholder for
other options presented to the board in regard to recovery plans derived from Category 5
Impaired Water status mandates.
197
ISSUE: The State of Alaska water quality standards for hydrocarbons (10ppb) has been
exceeded in the lower river. Additionally, measured values have reached 20 ppb below the
personal use boat fishery and are due to outboard motor use, especially two cycle engines. This
proposal is intended to reduce the use of two cycle engines and cut in half their contribution to
the hydrocarbon problems without totally eliminating access to folks who own these types of
motors. Any measure in this regard has to be a BOF regulatory action in order to affect both the
in-river fishery in KRSMA waters and the personal use fishery outside of KRSMA’s area of
authority.
This represents a clear conservation issue as water quality standards are designed to protect fish
resources- this includes all fish resources of the Kenai River. Review of the literature by DEC
toxicologist indicated that this standard is acceptable for most species. However, data are
available and presented by DEC toxicologist that indicated 1 ppb can have an adverse impact on
rainbow trout. Therefore, the hydrocarbon levels in the Kenai River should be as low as
possible, given that DEC toxicologist recommendation, to protect and conserve the fish resources
of the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The State of Alaska is required by the
Clean Water Act to reduce levels to below the State of Alaska standard.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Owners of older 2-stroke engines that face elimination
from these fisheries if a compromise measure is not adopted.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Owners of 2-stroke engines that wish to fishing more often.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-338)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 223 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Require motorized boats utilizing the personal use fishery to be anchored or
without power while fishing as follows:
From a boat, in the area from an ADF&G regulatory marker located near the Kenai city dock
upstream to the downstream side of the Warren Ames Bridge; vessels must be anchored with
the engine off before fishing. Or the alternative language of
Vessels with 2-stroke outboard motor (other than DFI) are limited to 0.75 miles on
upstream of the public boat launch and must be anchored with the engine off before
fishing. Or
Vessels with 2-stroke outboard motor (other than DFI) are limited to the West side of the
river from the downstream boundary marker upstream to the Kenai Landing dock and
must be anchored with the engine off before fishing.
ISSUE: The State of Alaska water quality standards for hydrocarbons (10ppb) has been
198
exceeded in the lower river. Measured values have reached 20 ppb and are due to outboard motor
use associated with the personal use boat fishery, especially two cycle engines. This proposal is
intended to reduce the running of two cycle engines in this fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The State of Alaska is required by the
Clean Water Act to reduce levels to below the State of Alaska standard. If this is not done the
EPA can impose regulation to accomplish this objective.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, hydrocarbons in the Kenai River has already resulted in
the river being classified an impaired river - Category 5. This gives the public the perception that
Kenai River salmon are tainted and should not be consumed. It is imperative to reduce this
impaired water status as fast as possible.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who uses the Kenai River resources and of
course the resources of the river itself.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some personal use fishermen who drift a dip net will be
required to anchor. This will make it harder to catch fish but should not eliminate the opportunity
to do so.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fisherman Coalition (HQ-07F-334)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 224 - 5 AAC 56.xxx. New section. Allow rod and reel in personal use fishery
and identify consumptive users as a person fishing for winter supply as follows:
Consumptive users should be identified as a person that is fishing to take their fish home for a
winter food supply. I identify them in the regulations an individual that are using a rod and reel
to collect the food supplies.
ISSUE: A large number of Alaskans are classified as sports fishers because they use a rod and
reel to harvest their winter food supply. They do this because it is the only means available to
them and only classification.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Consumptive users will continue to lump
with those that are out there just to enjoy fishing. The majority of the Alaskans on the river banks
in reality are consumptive user. Yet they are beat up continually as a sports fisherman, one that
plays with their food.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone that fishes with a rod and reel to gather their
winter food supply.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allow Alaskans to catch their personal use fish with
199
rod and reel.
PROPOSED BY: Bruce Knowles (HQ-07F-134)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 225 - 5 AAC 56.122(8)(a)(ii). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Increase days allowed to retain naturally-produced king salmon in the
Kasilof River as follows:
5 AAC 56.122(8)(A)(ii) a naturally-produced king salmon may be retained on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Saturdays only;
ISSUE: Unpredictability of opportunity. This proposal is house-keeping in nature, since
precedent of Thursday harvest is present. ADF&G would still have ability to remove harvest
days in season, by emergency order, if biological concerns developed.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Opportunity to harvest surplus early-run
naturally-produced Kasilof king salmon may be denied.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes; it provides predictable opportunity to harvest surplus
early-run natural Kasilof River king salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All early-run Kasilof River anglers who wish to plan a
head.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allowing four or more days a week harvest of early
run Kasilof kings. Rejected this because stock status of naturally produced early-run Kasilof king
salmon may not support this level of additional harvest at this time.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Professional Guide Association (HQ-07F-128)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 226 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Increase bag limit for hatchery stock king salmon on Kasilof River as
follows:
Two clipped fin kings per day allowed January 1 through June 30.
On days for wild fish - one clipped fin, one wild, or two clipped fin.
ISSUE: Kasilof River first run of kings, January 1 through June 30.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Loss of wild king strain.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes - maintains wild king stock, by reducing crossbreeding
200
with hatchery fish on Crooked Creek and the Kasilof River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Extra pressure on the Kasilof River because two fish would
be allowed, and anglers would have to fish longer to fill their bag limit.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Kasilof River Land Owners Association (HQ-07F-061)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 227 - 5 AAC 56.122(8)(a). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit fishing after retaining a king
salmon as follows:
January 1 through July 31, when you keep a king, you put your rod up.
ISSUE: Kasilof River Catch and Release salmon fishing January 1 through July 31.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It will hurt the resource by damaging fish
and tiring them out.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes - Saves catch and release strain on kings.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anyone who catches and releases.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Friends of Kasilof and Kasilof River Association (HQ-07F-319)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 228 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Designate portion of Kasilof River as a king salmon spawning
sanctuary as follows:
Specifically designate the Kasilof River mainstem between the Sterling Highway Bridge and
Tustumena Lake as a King salmon spawning sanctuary from July 1 through August 31.
ISSUE: New data on Kasilof late run King salmon has identified a significant population which
spawns in the mainstream below Tustumena Lake. Current regulations do not allow sportfishing
for king salmon in current mainstem spawning areas upstream from the Sterling Highway Bridge
after June 30, but do not specifically identify the significance of these areas to escapement and
may not provide adequate protection in the face of any potential future fisheries. Adequate
protection of spawners is particularly important in the Kasilof in the absence of designated
201
escapement goals or effective annual in-season monitoring.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Late run Kasilof King salmon
escapement and yield will be at risk.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fisheries that take Kasilof late run Kings will benefit
from effective protection of spawning escapement.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo was rejected because it does not
incorporate new information on the significance of mainstream spawning areas for late run
Kasilof kings.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-157)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 229 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Prohibit power boats on Kasilof River as follows:
No power boats above Old Kasilof landing.
ISSUE: The increased number of power boats used on the Kasilof River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Increased bank erosion and conflicts
between drift boats and power boaters.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Sport fishing would be more enjoyable and safer without the
power boats. Bank erosion will be less.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Alaskans, tourists and users of the river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Dipnetters.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Restrict motor size. Increased wake erodes my bank.
PROPOSED BY: David Carpenter (HQ-07F-002)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 230 - 5 AAC 56.122(8)(B)(iv, v). Special provisions and localized additions
and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for
the Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict motorized use on portion on
Kasilof River as follows:
Above Trujillos and below slack water all year, no fishing or dipnetting from powerboats on the
202
Kasilof River.
ISSUE: Power boats on the Kasilof River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Bank erosion, Spawning beds disturbed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No bank erosion or disturbance of spawning beds.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People who fish or dipnet out of power boats.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Friends of Kasilof and Kasilof River (HQ-07F-318)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 231 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Prohibit fishing from boat, July 1 through August 15, in portion of
Kasilof River as follows:
From July 1 – August 15, fishing from any boat is prohibited from the Sterling Highway Bridge
upstream to the Slackwater Boat Ramp on the Kasilof River.
ISSUE: Illegal targeting of late run king salmon in the Upper Kasilof River during peak
spawning time. High by-catch of late run king salmon in the upper Kasilof River during the first
part of the traditional silver season. Typical Kasilof silver fishing methods of back-bouncing
eggs have extremely high mortality on any fish caught as an extremely high percentage of fish
are hooked in the gill region. Normal spawning habitat for king salmon and silver salmon "
fishing" water in the upper Kasilof are normally only separated by a matter of a few feet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unknown impact upon late-run
king salmon in the Kasilof River and continued illegal king fishing under the guise of fishing for
other species, primarily silver salmon. Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof
late run king salmon in the present day than in the past years. Continued impact on early
spawning late-run Kasilof king salmon in the upper river will only exacerbate this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The fish, ADF&G enforcement: enforcement issues of
anglers targeting kings under the guise of "silver fishing" will be alleviated.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The small number of anglers that legitimately fish for silver
salmon in early August in the Kasilof River. However, effort is usually very low during this
timeframe as few silvers are present in this section of river before the August 15 date.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Complete closure of fishing in the area during this
time: many sockeye still available to anglers and by having a “fishing from a boat” restriction in
203
place, it still allows sockeye anglers to fish throughout this timeframe.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-044)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 232 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Allow motorized use during king salmon season on the Kasilof River as
follows:
Motors are allowed.
ISSUE: Repeal the motor prohibition during king salmon season on the Kasilof River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Public access on the Kasilof River is very
inadequate.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Repealing the prohibition would save a lot of fuel each year
by being able to launch at the bridge and return to bridge launch.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The state has failed to address the problem.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-468)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 233 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Allow anchoring of boats in portion of Kasilof River as follows:
Allow boats to drop anchor in this area for the sole purpose of netting a hooked king. All other
lines in the boat should be in.
or
Allow non-guided boat’s to anchor in this area while fishing.
ISSUE: The ban on anchoring of boats in the people hole area of the Kasilof River, while
fishing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unnecessary stress is put on the king
salmon that need to be released, thus possibly raising the mortality rate.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, lessen the mortality rate of foul hooked or native fish on
hatchery fish only days.
204
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift boat fishermen and/or guides, non guide drift boat
rowers can better utilize the area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Since 90 percent of the fish run on the bank fishermen side
of the river, I don’t think anyone will suffer. Drift boats try to stay away out of courtesy anyway.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Michael Craig (HQ-07F-463)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 234 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Modify Kasilof River sockeye bag limit as follows:
In the Kasilof River, the daily bag limit and possession limit for sockeye salmon is 6 [3] fish.
Liberalization that may occur is a daily bag limit to 12 [6] fish and a possession limit of 24 [12]
fish.
ISSUE: A long history of “overescapement” of sockeye salmon into the Kasilof River. In most
instances, when projections for exceeding the upper end of the OEG for Kasilof sockeye salmon
are made, the vast majority of extra fish are passed along to the commercial salmon fishery via
use of extra fishing time and the Kasilof River Special Harvest Area.
Overuse of the UCI commercial salmon fishery in the Kasilof section and the KRSHA places
undue stress on the returns of late-run Kasilof king salmon, a stock that currently has no BEG in
place.
In addition, there is no BEG / OEG in place for the Kasilof silver salmon run. Late season efforts
to keep sockeye escapements at current levels impact the early portion of the Kasilof silver
salmon run as well.
The excess fish should be made available to all user groups and extremely liberal limits should
be put into place to encourage and allow sports and personal use fishermen to harvest a greater
portion of these fish so that the impact on silvers and late-run kings are more limited by these
“selective” fisheries.
Fishery managers claim that personal use (and sport effort) has not been an effective tool in
staying within current management goals for Kasilof River sockeye salmon. By substantially
increasing sport limits rather than simply increasing time / area fished, it is likely that more effort
and subsequent harvest will take place.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over-harvest of Kasilof River
late-run king salmon by efforts to keep sockeye numbers in check and in some years, exceeding
the upper end of the OEG for Kasilof River sockeye salmon.
There is also impact concern on the early-run Kasilof king salmon that have needed a number of
regulatory changes in the fisheries by other user groups in recent years to help ensure meeting
the BEG for these fish.
205
The early portion of the Kasilof River silver salmon run will continue to be hurt by extreme
efforts in late season to keep sockeye escapements within established goals by utilizing the UCI
commercial salmon fishery rather than more selective methods.
Anecdotal evidence suggests later timing of the Kasilof late-run king salmon in present day than
in past years. Continued aggressive commercial fishing effort to keep sockeye escapements in
check will only hasten this issue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kasilof River sports anglers, Kenai Peninsula businesses
that will se an increase in usage of the Kasilof River sports sockeye fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Since impact on the UCI commercial fishery will likely be
minor, no one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-047)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 235 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Open Chickaloon River to king salmon fishing as follows:
Chickaloon River - open to king salmon fishing from May 1 thru July. No more than one king 20
inches or longer may be retained per year.
ISSUE: Chickaloon is closed to the taking of king salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? No sportfisher will be able to retain a
king salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Vernon Porter (HQ-07F-208)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 236 - 5 AAC 57.120(6)(e). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify
rainbow trout bag limits for Kenai River drainage lakes and ponds as follows:
206
Here is what it would say….(e) may be taken from January 1-December 31 in lakes and ponds of
the Kenai River and Kenai lake Drainage; bag and possession limit of five fish, of which only
one may be 20 inches or greater in length.
Eliminate entire "for the purpose of" subparagraph “stocked lakes and ponds” means …. Lake
waters and flowing waters need to only be clarified. Don’t always complicate things. This
fishery is complicated enough already.
ISSUE: There is ‘another’ predicament. That dilemma is the inability for the board to realize
that local Kenai Peninsula residents are once again being put on the back burner by being able to
only retain 2 rainbow trout per day in several lakes in the Kenai River drainage system. That
regulation can not be justified. It does not make sound biological sense. It does not “simplify
matters” in such a complicated fishery. It only develops more animosity, antagonism, and
hostility among users as it aggravates local residents who are struggling with other Kenai River
regulations. To place all easily accessible lakes at a now 2 trout per day limit is unjustifiable,
especially since most of the lake’s tributaries are several miles from the main ‘trophy fish area’
which are miles from rainbow trout Kenai River entrance and exit and are not in concert with the
small lake strain migration, especially when we differentiate between lake and flowing waters.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Many local anglers use the small lakes as
an escape from the horrendous situation that has been allowed to develop on the Kenai River.
Many local residents have been driven away from the Kenai River to only find ‘homage’ in the
small Peninsula lakes. Two fish are most inadequate, especially since the average lake rainbow
seldom exceeds 20 inches and most amateurs will never see a 3 or 4 pound rainbow taken from
the smaller lakes because they do not exist, mainly because of fish over-population, a population
of fish that need to be culled out. Also the regulation in no way has an effect on the ‘trophy
rainbows’ in the region but rather a negative biological effect. A 4 to 6 pound rainbow in the
smaller lakes is indeed a rare miracle catch. Most larger rainbows average around 22 inches or a
pound and a half and most of those lakes will have grubby fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Of course my proposal improves the quality of the resource
harvested. In the first place, and of elevated importance, it makes for some welcomed breathing
room on the Kenai River by placing more anglers in the small lakes and lessening the pressure
on the Kenai River where the real “trophy” rainbows live. Most of the lakes mentioned, in no
way have as much effect on the ‘trophy’ fishery as the Kenai River hook and release pressure.
That over-fished pressure on the bows could be almost eliminated by allowing more ‘lake’
excitement with quality as well and quantity lake rainbow fishing. To place a 2 rainbow trout
limit on the small lakes show lack of understanding of this whole Peninsula fishery. It has a
negative effect. Instead of placing more anglers on these lakes, your regulation is driving them
away because 2 rainbows on the dinner plate will not feed my family or even my worst appetite.
If you are concerned about migrating bows like all of us are, fish migrating down the streams to
the Kenai River would still be under the 2 fish limit (flowing waters) and continue to be
protected during critical spawning with seasonal closures in those flowing waters while sending
anglers to the lakes. Most folks that now fish the lakes do it for food. They want to eat the fish.
Your regulation eliminates that.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? If my solution is adopted anglers in several categories
would benefit. First and foremost, local residents would benefit and realize that they are still
actually an important part of this well defined tourist ‘trap’ Kenai River anglers from around the
state and some anglers from the rest of the USA would benefit by experiencing two important
207
things: less traffic on the Kenai and some solitude on the lakes with a reason to not only enjoy
nature but to be able to catch a stringer of 12-16 inch edible rainbows. No local anglers worth
their salt cat Kenai River bows for a variety of reasons. Their poor taste after they have been
sucking in salmon eggs in the fall is only one example. The realization that they just ate a
‘potential’ trophy is just another example.
Secondly, it would simplify the regulation and make it easier to digest, comply with and enforce.
Protecting migrating bows in “flowing waters” to the Kenai River could be made more obvious
and understandable.
Thirdly, after an extensive research with the ADFG statewide Harvest Surveys for the past
several years, all of my deductions indicate to met that the lakes need more fishing pressure. A 2
fish limit will eliminate a gross number of anglers because most lake bow fishers do it for food
while some, I agree do it for sport but not with the intense effort expected like we see on the
Kenai. Even with the winter ice fishing effort that goes on here on the Peninsula very few fish
are taken when one works the ADFG harvest survey numbers. To reduce the take to two will
cause a problem in the future and discourage a whole group of potential anglers as well as
intensify the Kenai River effort, something that we are desperately trying to eliminate. Very little
effort will be recorded on the lakes if this 2 limit goes into effect and the harvest will decline to
the point of reducing the quality since quantity will choke out what few lakes produce reasonable
catchable fish. When one studies the data from the Statewide Harvest Survey, notice which lakes
produce the best and most fish. This is the result of family effort mostly done by local residents
who want a few fish to eat, not by trophy hunters. The people of the Kenai Peninsula and the
state of Alaska will benefit with my proposal.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one is likely to suffer as long as Kenai Lake and Skilak
Lake remain a 2 fish lake and close attention be paid to all “flowing waters”.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Keep the “trophy status” for rainbows in the entire
Kenai River from the Kenai, if that. I think only 1 bow per year should ever be taken.
PROPOSED BY: Spencer DeVito (HQ-07F-138)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 237 - 5 AAC 57.120(6)(E). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Kenai River
Drainage Area. Modify rainbow trout bag limits for Kenai River drainage lakes and ponds as
follows:
(E) may be taken from January 1 - December 31, in stocked lakes and ponds of the Kenai River
and Kenai Lake drainage; bag and possession limit of five fish, of which only one may be 20
inches or greater in length; for the purpose of this subparagraph, “stocked lakes and ponds”
means Aurora Lake, Barbara Lake, Cabin Lake, Carter Lake, Cecille Lake, Chugach Estates
Lakes, Douglas Lake, Elephant Lake, Island Lake, Longmere Lake, Loon Lake, Rainbow Lake,
Scout Lake, Sport Lake, Thetis Lake, Tirmore Lake, and Vagt Lake;
ISSUE: The problem is local residents only being able to retain 2 rainbow trout per day in
aprrox.18 lakes in the Kenai river drainage, most people would like to be able to keep enough
fish to eat. The 2005 change in regulations to simplify the regulations. Causes more confusion
than the original regulations. Easily accessible lakes along the road systems, Egomen, Kelly,
Peterson, Watson used by local residents are now on a 2 rainbow trout limit, they are 30 miles up
208
small tributaries from the Kenai river trophy fish areas.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Putting rainbow trout in these small lakes
and ponds in a trophy fish status, is not fair to local residents who like to catch fish to eat. Two
small rainbows is not enough for 3 or 4 persons to eat.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This change would not hurt the quality of any fishery. Most of
the lakes are 20 to 30 miles upstream from the Kenai River Trophy rainbow fishery in the Moose
River Drainage, most lakes effected are 20 to 30 miles up from the Kenai River, Harvey Lake is
35 miles up Killy River from the Kenai River. Fishing would be done by use of rod and reel,
hook & line, not gillnets or dipnets and would have a negligible effect on a sustainable yield
fishery. Fish migrating down the streams to the Kenai River would still be under the 2 fish limit
(flowing waters) and be protected during spawning with the seasonal closures in flowing waters.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All persons who like to sport fish for a few small rainbows
to eat. It would make the regulations easier to understand & comply with. The limit would stay
at 2 rainbows in flowing waters, protecting migrating trout downstream to the trophy fish areas
in the Kenai River. ADFG statewide harvest survey 2001 thru 2005 indicate a total of 540
rainbows harvested per year from these 18 or 20 lakes total - under a 5 fish limit. These lakes are
fished mostly by local residents, ice fishing during the winter. They are not over harvested.
Under the new present regulation of 2 rainbows, less than 200 fish would be harvested, if people
continue to fish, which they would not if the limit stays at 2 fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Dick Dykema (HQ-07F-042)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 238 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Expand rainbow
trout spawning closure from the outlet of Skilak Lake to the Upper Killey River to include Dolly
Varden as follows:
No fishing from April 15 - June 11 on the Kenai River from 1/4 mile of the outlet of Skilak Lake
downstream to the upper (northern) edge of the Upper Killey River.
ISSUE: Anglers targeting spawning rainbow trout via a loophole that allows fishing for Dolly
Varden between Outlet of Skilak Lake down to the Upper Killey River section of the Kenai
River between April 14 - June 11.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Spawning closure for rainbow trout is
being exploited by those fishing for Dolly Varden which threatens the larger, spawning
population of rainbow trout in the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Preserves and protects spawning Kenai River rainbow trout
for future anglers.
209
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All ethical anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those that are pretending to be fishing for Dolly Varden in
this high density area of spawning rainbow trout.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A shorter closed season such as May 1 - June 14 but
we were concerned about allowing more opportunity in this area based on not having the proper
window closure to protect the rainbows and about the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Swan
Sanctuary being closed during the matching time of April 14 - June 14 (three day difference).
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Professional Guide Association (HQ-07F-408)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 239 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Reduce spawning
closure season for rainbow trout as follows:
Move the beginning date of the spawning season closure from May 1 back to May 15. The
ending date can remain the same (June 11).
ISSUE: Rainbow trout spawning closures are overly restrictive and result is unnecessary loss of
sport fishing opportunity. Above and below Skilak Lake between 75% to 80% of rainbow trout
spawn during the period of time from 15 May and June 11. Current regulations prohibit fishing
for all species in the closed waters of Upper Kenai River from May 1 to June 11. This results in a
net loss of two weeks of sustainable fishing opportunity.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of angling opportunity for
no measurable biological benefits.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen who enjoy early season fishing for
rainbow trout.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Andy Szczesny (HQ-07F-215)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 240 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit all sport
fishing during the rainbow trout spawning closure as follows:
Leave the entire fishery closed until June 15.
ISSUE: The harassment of spawning rainbow trout before the June 15th opening date. At
present, the season is open for Dolly Varden and other species in the area below Skilak Lake on
210
the Kenai River prior to the opening for rainbow trout. Both unguided and guided anglers are
targeting rainbows during spawning time rather than catching allowed species resulting in
unnecessary mortality. Many guides are offering trips in the early spring effectively targeting
spawning rainbows.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The rainbow population will suffer as fish
are repeatedly caught while trying to spawn in low water.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will protect rainbow populations form overexploitation.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers will benefit from protecting spawning
rainbows.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A few guided and non-guided anglers will lose fishing days,
primarily from Memorial Day to June 15.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered targeted enforcement but that is
impractical given the shortage of rangers and other enforcement officers. Also, you cannot keep
from catching rainbows.
PROPOSED BY: Ted Wellman (HQ-07F-056)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 241 - 5 AAC 57.120(6). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit removing
rainbow trout from the water during spawning closure as follows:
(6) rainbow/steelhead trout
(F) from May 2 – June 10, rainbow/steelhead trout may not be possessed or
retained; trout caught must be released immediately; a person may not remove a
rainbow/steelhead trout from the water;
ISSUE: Regulations prohibit sport fishing for rainbow/steelhead trout in the flowing waters of
the Kenai River drainage area from May 2 – June 10 to protect these stocks during the spawning
season. The flowing waters from the mouth of the Kenai River upstream to Skilak Lake, and the
waters of Skilak Lake within a one-half mile radius of the Kenai River Inlet are open to fishing
for Dolly Varden year-round. However in 2005 and 2006, anglers were observed catching and
releasing rainbow trout while fishing for Dolly Varden during the rainbow/steelhead trout
spawning closure. Many of these anglers were removing rainbow trout from the water before
releasing them. Prohibiting anglers from removing rainbow/steelhead trout from the water during
the May 2 – June 10 spawning closure may reduce mortality of these incidentally-caught trout
during a time period when the spawning fish may be more susceptible to handling mortality.
Similar regulations prohibiting the removal of rainbow/steelhead trout from the water exist for
other steams and rivers in the Cook Inlet area.
In 2006 the department issued an emergency order prohibiting the removal of rainbow/steelhead
trout from the water during the spawning closure.
211
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Rainbow trout will continue to experience
unnecessary handling mortality during a spawning closure.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The rainbow trout populations in the effected area will benefit
by reduction in handling mortality during a period closed to protect the stocks during the spawning
season.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers wanting to have a photograph taken of a rainbow trout
removed from the water during the spawning closure period.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Closing the area to fishing for Dolly Varden during the
May 2-June 10 rainbow trout spawning closure.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-281)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 242 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit removing
rainbow trout or Dolly Varden from the water in catch and release fishing as follows:
In the Kenai River, rainbow trout/Dolly Varden may not be removed from the water after they
are caught if they are to be released.
ISSUE: In the Kenai River area, poor handling of rainbow trout/Dolly Varden during catch and
release fishing where trout are removed from the water for lengthy photo sessions, etc is causing
increased fish injury and mortality.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will be a higher incidence of
rainbow trout/Dolly Varden mortality and injury.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it will improve the health of the fish and the quality of
the fishing by reducing trout injury and mortality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All rainbow trout/Dolly Varden in Kenai will benefit. Also
anglers will benefit by getting to experience healthier fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one is likely to suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions have been considered.
PROPOSED BY: Cooper Landing Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-430)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 243 - 5 AAC 57.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57.123. Special provisions
212
and localized additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and
methods and means for the Upper Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Require
single, barbless hooks in Kenai River upstream of Lower Killey River from August 21 - June 10
as follows:
Only single, barbless hooks may be used in the flowing waters of the Kenai River drainage from
the mouth of the Lower Killey River upstream from August 21 through June 10 each year.
ISSUE: Unnecessary mortality and excessive physical damage caused to Kenai River drainage
trout and char by use of barbed hooks.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued mortality caused by removal
of barbed hooks; continued excessive physical damage to trout and char caused by the removal
of barbed hooks. To continue as is provides fodder for anti-fishing groups who claim fishing is
barbaric.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. This will result in fewer fish losing parts of their
anatomy and will likely increase survival of released fish. Fish may live longer, and larger fish
may be the result (quality). Fishermen taking pictures of trout and char they ultimately release
will have fish that are more likely to have complete mandibles and less-scarred mouths. People
travel from all over the world to catch Kenai trout and char, there is no need to continue to
mutilate the fish excessively through use of barbed hooks.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All trout and char anglers will benefit from increased
survival of released fish. Those who value the aesthetic appearance of un-scarred fish for photos
will also benefit. This will also serve to appease (to a degree) those who view sport fishing as
barbaric as the fish will no longer be so heavily damaged during release.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People intent on killing a legal fish may have to work a little
harder to land a legal fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? There is no other solution to this problem other than
eliminating fishing for char and trout in the Kenai River drainage.
PROPOSED BY: George Krumm (HQ-07F-348)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 244 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Require barbless
hooks for rainbow trout or Dolly Varden in the Kenai River as follows:
Any angler targeting rainbow trout or Dolly Varden in the Kenai must use barbless hooks or
hooks with pinched barbs, with a hook gap no greater than 3/8”.
ISSUE: Rainbow trout in the Kenai are being mangle through catch and release fishing using
barbed hooks.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be injured,
damaged, and eyeless trout.
213
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the rainbow trout resource will improve in health and
aesthetics. The rainbow trout that are managed to get bigger to produce a trophy fishery for
anglers will not only be big, but they will have all of their parts intact.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The rainbow trout in the Kenai are the primary
beneficiaries. Secondly, anglers will benefit by catching an intact fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions have been considered.
PROPOSED BY: Cooper Landing Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-431)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 245 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict gear for
rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in portion of Kenai River as follows:
Ban the use of treble hooks, barbed hooks, and any hook larger than No. 6 size for fishing for
rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in the Kenai River above it’s intersection with the Moose River.
Use of smaller barbless hooks allow a good fishery and less injury to released fish.
ISSUE: Injury and mortality to rainbow trout in the catch and release fishery in the Kenai River.
A large number of rainbow trout are injured and killed due to oversized barbed hooks in the
primarily catch and release fishery for rainbow trout in the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The problem will continue and more fish
will suffer injury and mortality through the use of hooks not needed for a good fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This change will improve the quality of the fishery, decrease
incidental mortality, and decrease debilitating injuries to fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers would benefit from improved quality of the
fishery and lower fish mortality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered training programs on how to handle and
release fish and increased enforcement but neither alternative addressed the key issue.
PROPOSED BY: Ted Wellman (HQ-07F-057)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 246 - 5 AAC 57.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. No fishing from anchored vessel in the
swan sanctuary area, Skilak Lake /Kenai River from June 15 – December 31 as follows:
214
Amend this regulation to provide the following:
No fishing from an anchored vessel from the swan sanctuary sign at the outlet of Skilak
Lake to the corresponding swan sanctuary sign at approximately river mile 47 from June
15 - December 31.
ISSUE: Fishing from an anchored vessel from the Swan Sanctuary sign at the outlet of Skilak
Lake to the corresponding swan sanctuary sign at approximately river mile 47.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued boat congestion in main river
channels will cause safety concerns and user conflicts. This is largely a catch-and-release fishery.
Anglers that hook trophy sized rainbow and remain on anchor cause unnecessary stress to the
fish and increase likelihood of mortality.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, decrease user conflict, prevents anchoring in braided,
high traffic gravel areas below Skilak and eliminates a significant safety concern.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, all users will have equal fishing opportunity and
safety will improve.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: John Sanderson (HQ-07F-371)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 247 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Eliminate size
restriction on Dolly Varden for Kenai River as follows:
Dolly Varden - Entire Kenai River System - 1 per day, 1 in possession, no size restrictions.
ISSUE: The regulation prohibiting the retention of Kenai River Dolly Varden greater than 18
inches on the lower river (16 inches on the upper Kenai) and restricting the catch limit to 1 fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There are numerous sport use anglers that
have in the past, enjoyed taking the occasional fish home for personal consumption by their
families, but they cannot feed a family of 5 with a single 16 or 18 inch fish. Alaskans that like
the option of keeping and eating their catch may feel disenfranchised.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? There is no good biological reason to have curtailed our right
to keep and eat Dolly Varden larger than 16 inches. The Dolly Varden numbers in the Kenai are
very healthy and have had no trouble sustaining the harvest by a relatively small number of keep
and eat fisherman. Further more, we share salmon as food source with Dolly Varden (Dolly
Varden eat juvenile salmon and eggs), over population could damage salmon stocks.
As you can see by the attached, Kenai River sport fish harvest by species, 1977-2005 the Kenai
River has had no trouble sustaining a reasonable harvest of Dolly Varden.
215
Prior to the 2005 BOF changes to regulations, during 2000-2004 anglers harvested an average of
about 6,000 Dolly Varden when the regulations would allow anglers two fish per day with one of
those allowed to be over 20” in length per day. ADFG data states a total of 4,300 Dolly Varden
were harvested from the Kenai River with the one small fish per day regulation introduced for
the 2005 season. The historical (1977-2005) long term angler harvest of Dolly Varden from the
Kenai River is three times this value (over 12,000 fish per year).
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Alaskan anglers that enjoy taking the occasional Dolly
Varden home for personal consumption by their families.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? I think the only people who would be upset about changing
this regulation are those who don’t see Dolly Varden as a food source and like to force their own
moral code on responsible Alaskans.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Dolley Varden - Entire Kenai River System - 1 per
day up to 18 inches, only 5 per year may be over 18 inches and recorded on the fishing license.
Rejected because this option is more restrictive than original proposal and would restrict food
supply from families wanting to consume Dolly Varden as a food source.
PROPOSED BY: Philip Brower (HQ-07F-102)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 248 - 5 AAC 57.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Increase the bag limit for Arctic Char in
the Cooper Lake as follows:
Under Arctic Char/Dolly Varden “in lakes and ponds” add: Cooper Lake…5 per day / 5 in
possession only (one) over 20” or longer.
ISSUE: Cooper Lake is the largest clear water lake in the Kenai River Watershed and supports
the only viable Arctic Char population. A 2003 mark and recapture study resulted in a population
estimate of 94,000 Arctic Char dominated by 8-11 in. fish. Recent harvest information indicates
less than 35 fish harvested annually, due in part to restricted access and the low daily bag limit.
The current bag limit of 2 fish contributes to the lack of effort on a species that can withstand
more harvest. We propose raising the daily bag limit to 5 fish per day.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Harvest opportunities on Cooper Lake
Arctic Char will remain limited.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen who would like to fish Cooper Lake but have
been hesitant because of log bag limits.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-339)
216
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 249 - 5 AAC 57.121(6). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Amend this regulation to decrease the daily
bag limit for lake trout in Hidden Lake as follows:
(6) in Hidden Lake, the bag and possession limit for lake trout is one [TWO] fish, with
no size limit.
ISSUE: Lake trout populations generally exist at low densities, have slow growth rates, mature
at a relatively old age, low fecundity, alternate-year spawning regimes and strict habitat
requirements. Due to these life history characteristics, lake trout can be over exploited even at
relatively low harvest rates. Consequently, many Alaska lake trout fisheries are conservatively
managed yield-based fisheries. In these fisheries a general lake area model is used to estimate
annual yield potential (sustainable harvest) and regulations are designed to ensure annual harvest
do not exceed the yield potential. The lake area model indicates the sustainable yield for Hidden
Lake is approximately 400 lake trout per year.
The estimated lake trout harvest from Hidden Lake exceeded the estimated yield potential for 25
of the last 29 years. The abundance, size or age structure of the lake trout population of Hidden
Lake is not presently known nor is the historical size and age structure precisely known. Recent
angler and department observations indicate yield at this roadside fishery may not allow the lake
trout population in Hidden Lake to grow to historic, abundance, size and age structure as
represented with the low numbers of lake trout in angler catches and lack of larger lake trout
being caught by anglers. Although the most recent harvest estimate in 2005 was 216 lake trout,
it is likely the current regulation of two lake trout per day will permit future yields that would
exceed the estimated sustainable yield of approximately 400 fish if the bag limit is not reduced.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The lake trout population in Hidden Lake
may be over harvested.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? Yes, more conservative regulations will allow for the lake trout harvest to stay
at level that can be supported by the population and may allow the population to mature thus
providing larger sized fish for anglers to catch.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The lake trout population of Hidden Lake.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Hidden Lake anglers wanting to retain two lake trout per day.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-282)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 250 - 5 AAC 57.121(1)(I). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57.122(4)(F) Special
provisions and localized additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size
217
limits, and methods and means for the Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area.
Allow up to five lines to fish for northern pike fishing in Arc Lake and Scout Lake as follows:
5 AAC 57.121(1)(I)
(I) in Arc Lake, Mackey Lakes, Derks Lake, Sevena Lake, Cisca Lake, Union Lake, and
the unnamed lakes on Tote Road, five lines may be used to fish for northern pike through the
ice;
5 AAC 57.122(4)
(F) in Scout Lake, five lines may be used to fish for northern pike through the ice;
ISSUE: Northern pike were discovered in Scout Lake in September 2005 and in Arc Lake during
2000. Northern pike are not native to the Kenai Peninsula and were likely introduced to Scout
and Arc lakes illegally. Adding Arc and Scout lakes to the regulations which liberalize the
number of lines an angler can use while fishing through the ice for northern pike will assist the
department in their efforts to reduce these populations of northern pike. This liberalization was
allowed by the department’s emergency order authority during winters of 2006 and 2007. This
proposal is housekeeping in nature.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? ADFG will continue to issue an emergency
order to liberalize the number of lines ice fishermen can use to target northern pike in Arc and Scout
lakes.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers will likely increase their success targeting northern
pike and the department will be assisted with the effort to reduce northern pike on the Kenai
Peninsula.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-283)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 251 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow up to five
lines to fish for northern pike fishing in Stormy Lake as follows:
The new regulation would allow for five lines per person to be fished as long as the only species
retained while fishing five lines is northern pike. In other words, if you are fishing more than two
lines per person, you are not allowed to be in possession of any other species. Any fish other than
pike, caught while fishing more than two lines must be returned to the water immediately.
ISSUE: The need for an increase in the number of lines a sport fisherman can use to harvest
Pike on Stormy Lake. (Located in Captain Cook State Park on the Kenai Peninsula)
218
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Overtime fewer anglers will invest the
time and financial resources required to harvest pike from Stormy Lake. Stormy Lake is a long
drive from most places on the Central Kenai Peninsula (30 minutes from Kenai alone) and many
anglers, like myself, find it frustrating to invest the time and gas money involved only to be
allowed to fish two lines per person. Though pike have invaded several stocked lakes on the
Kenai Peninsula, Stormy Lake is the only lake with a two line-per-fisherman limit for pike. The
result of less fishing pressure on Stormy Lake will likely lead to greater numbers of pike. More
pike will mean an increase in the number of native species consumed in Stormy Lake and
potentially the Swanson River Drainage as well, thus having a devastating impact upon both
local sport and commercial fishermen.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal should increase the number of pike harvested.
Since pike are a non-native and invasive species, this proposal would benefit the native species
not only in Stormy Lake whose numbers have suffered since pike were illegally introduced, but
add an additional layer of protection to the entire Swanson River system as well.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen, commercial fisherman and law
enforcement officers should all benefit from this proposal. Pike fishermen will benefit because
an increase to five lines per person should result in an increase in the number of pike harvested.
Greater catches of pike should serve as an incentive for fishermen to invest the time and financial
resources needed to make the long drive out to Stormy Lake. Fishermen who target char, salmon
and trout should also benefit as the number of pike preying on these sport fish are reduced in
Stormy Lake. Commercial fishermen should benefit because the Swanson River drainage is a
key contributor to the sustainability of local runs of reds and silvers. If pike continue to make
their way into the Swanson River, as it appears that they already have (see attached testimony),
this could have a devastating biological and economical impact on both local sport and
commercial fishermen. Law enforcement officers will also benefit because this proposal will
create a uniform number of lines allowed for pike on local lakes, thus reducing confusion among
fishermen. This proposal can also serve as an excellent opportunity for sport fishermen who
enjoy pursing and consuming pike to join forces with local biologists to help curtail pike
population on the peninsula.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one should suffer if this proposal is adopted. Those who
enjoy fishing for char, salmon and trout on Stormy Lake will still be allowed to fish their two
lines and retain their catch like any other lake. In fact, the opportunities to catch these species
should increase over the years if the pike population in Stormy Lake is reduced. The idea here is
to kill as many pike as possible in order to keep them from spreading throughout the Swanson
River System
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered the possibility of incorporating language
in this proposal regarding a minimum size or style of hook (1/0 treble hook or smelt hook) that
could be used to discourage the bycatch of other species in the lake. I rejected this due to the fact
that it would only cause an additional strain on law enforcement officers by once again creating
inconsistency in the regulations among various “pike lakes” on the peninsula. In addition, my
experience has been that bycatch is very rare when “appropriate pike bait” such as whole troll
herring or hooligan are used.
PROPOSED BY: Bryan Copenhaver (HQ-07F-081)
******************************************************************************
219
PROPOSAL 252 - 5 AAC 56.120 (7). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai Peninsula Area; and 5 AAC 57.120.
General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for
the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit releasing any northern pike while fishing in the
Kenai Peninsula as follows:
It is illegal to release alive any sport, commercial, personal use, or subsistence caught northern
pike to any waters of the Kenai Peninsula.
ISSUE: The problem is the invasion and the proliferation of northern pike in Kenai Peninsula
waters of the Kenai Peninsula.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Northern pike will likely change the
ecosystem and the species composition of resident Kenai Peninsula fish. This could result in a
loss of millions of dollars.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality and quantity if fish resources presently harvested
is unique and highly beneficial to peninsula residents. We seek to maintain this rich resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Almost everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those people who believe that northern pike are more
valuable than other resident species of the Kenai Peninsula.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Increasing the penalties for those who introduce
invasive species illegally. Also, fishing derbies to target northern pike. I intend to pursue these
alternatives too.
PROPOSED BY: Natalee Vanderford (HQ-07F-021)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 253 - 5 AAC 57.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Close fishing from 100 yards above ferry
cable to 25 yards below cable on Kenai as follows:
Stop fishing from 100 yards above ferry cable down stream to 25 yards below cable (from
boats).
ISSUE: Fishing from boats up stream from the ferry cable to the down stream end of the island
approx 100 yards to down stream of ferry cable approx 25 yards.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sooner or later these boats will cause an
accident and the ferry can only go where the cable goes and cannot maneuver some time there
boats anchor on close or 25 yards up stream.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
220
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Potential victims of boating accidents.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Charles Owen (HQ-07F-194)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 254 - 5 AAC 57.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Middle Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Increase size of designated youth fishing
area on the Kenai River as follows:
This area should be at least twice to three times the size. The sign should read - “this area
reserved for children 12 and under when present” i.e. if no kids are present - anyone can fish in
this area.
ISSUE: Near Cooper Landing on the Kenai River there is a designated fishing area for kids
under 12 (near ferry) - this area is too small and needs to be expanded.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? This area is overcrowded with more than
two kids trying to fish. I am convinced that some children will get injured due to all the hooks
flying in this small area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This will improve the quality of the experience for children
hoping to catch a salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? I think everyone who fishes this area would benefit if no
children are present - anyone can fish in this location - and if kids are present the adults would
benefit also as they would be a safer distance away from the kids.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Jack Storer (HQ-07F-311)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 255 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Increase size and
bag limits for jack kings in Kenai River as follows:
Amend the regulation such that the allowable limits for king salmon in the Kenai River are 10
fish less than 20 inches in length, 1 fish per day between 20 and 28 inches in length, one per day
greater than 28 inches in length. If a fish greater than 28 inches in length are included in the
annual limit
ISSUE: The smaller age-4 king salmon in the return are frequently released by anglers and are
221
not harvest in proportion to their abundance. As a result, numbers of these small fish are
increasing over time. However, these smaller kings are almost entirely males which do not
significantly contribute to the reproduction potential of the population. Fishery selection which
shifts the age composition toward these small fish will reduce production, yield, and numbers of
large kings over the long term.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Twenty-eight-inch limit will help balance
harvest rates across the size range of the run. Currently, small fish are harvested at a lesser rate
and this is likely contributing to an increased incidence of small fish in the run. Current bag
limits also result in people releasing injured small fish that they would otherwise be able to keep.
Recently-published scientific literature indicates that large differential harvest rates risk genetic
population changes that can negatively affect future productivity and yield. This is an effective
method for ensuring harvest proportional to abundance.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will simplify sport fishing regulations by
eliminating unnecessary restrictions. This new regulation will be in alignment with current
biological data that suggest this component of the return is being underutilized relative to their
abundance.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers fishing the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered recommending no change to these
regulations, however, the data is clear and compelling that additional sport fishing opportunity
can be realized while still being consistent with biologically sound management.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Sportfishing Association (HQ-07F-151)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 256 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Delete bag limit for
king salmon under 28 inches on Kenai River as follows:
Anglers can retain any king salmon under 28 inches on the Kenai River without having to
consider these salmon as part of their daily bag limit.
ISSUE: The excessive propagation of immature male king salmon in the Kenai River. This
problem is due to the one fish daily bag limit which causes anglers to release the immature king
salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to have way too many
“jack” king salmon returning to the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The larger mature male king salmon will be better able to
pass-on their superior genetic qualities to future salmon runs.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen and tourism.
222
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? None.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: James Karl Johnson (HQ-07F-077)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 257 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Increase size and
bag limits for jack kings in Kenai River as follows:
King salmon January 1 - July 31 under 30”/1 per day/1 in possession
King salmon January 1 - June 30 over 30”/under 44”/over 55” 1 per day/1 in possession
King salmon July 1 - July 31 over 30” 1 per day/1 in possession
Seasonal limit 2 under 30”/2 over 30”
ISSUE: The size limit for jack kings is now 10 under 20 inches, these jacks are very distinctive
and easy to identify and most are over 20 inches and run up to about 30 inches in length. The
next year older fish are distinctly larger and are mixed male and female.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We are doing a good job of protecting the
large kings, and allowing a distinct run of kings to be under utilized, and it’s possible that these
jacks are the cause for the reduced size of the average king caught on the river now. I’ve fished
the river for 35 years, and the number of large kings caught is down and the number of jacks
caught and released while trying to get a big one has increased tremendously.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It would increase the opportunity to keep the abundant jacks
for the table and encourage more catch and release of the bigger kings, since there would be the
opportunity to take home something for the table. Now they have to release several of these jacks
a day trying for bigger one
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All king fishermen that enjoy fishing and eating kings, and
if we reduce the numbers of these small breeder males we might se an increase in the number of
the large kings and help restore the river back to the glory and fame that used to be real, rather
than the glory and fame it now only enjoys because of our tremendous advertising campaign.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Kings under 30” 2 per day no annual limit. I don’t
believe that the ADF&G has any idea how many jacks there are and haven’t considered this
problem, so I don’t feel they would support a large bag limit. The guides log book might reflect a
large number of kings released but it won’t state that most were under 30”, so without that data,
one could surmise that we are releasing a lot of big ones. And this size king would be counted as
a red by the sonar counter.
PROPOSED BY: Robert Estes (HQ-07F-070)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 258 - 5 AAC 56.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
223
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai Peninsula Area; 5 AAC 57.120. General
provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai River Drainage Area; 5 AAC 60.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for the Knik Arm Drainages Area; and 5 AAC
61.110. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and
means for the Susitna River Drainage Area. Increase the jack king salmon size limit from 20"
to 25" in Cook Inlet freshwaters as follows:
A total annual limit of 5 king salmon 25” or longer may be taken from fresh waters of Cook
Inlet.
ISSUE: The 20” minimum size limit - on retaining Kenai Peninsula king salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Kenai Peninsula king salmon 1 - 3
pounds will continue to be required to be released.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, this proposal will allow more angler to retain (midget)
King salmon without validating their license.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Kenai Peninsula king salmon anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A 27” or 28” length. Some people may feel a king
salmon weighing five-seven pounds should be validated on license.
PROPOSED BY: Tim D. Hiner and David Richards (HQ-07F-345)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 259 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify bag limit to
allow retention of hatchery stock king salmon in the Kenai River drainage as follows:
In addition to the daily and possession limit on the Kenai River of one king salmon daily, an
angler may retain any king salmon 20” or longer that has a missing adipose fin with a healed
scar. The adipose-clipped king must be recorded as such on the angler’s license and will count
only against the annual limit of five adult king salmon annually from the Southcentral Region.
ISSUE: Straying of hatchery-produced king salmon from other area rivers (predominantly
Kasilof) into the Kenai River drainage. Hatchery king salmon plants have been reduced in the
Kasilof as a direct result of the straying issue. This proposal will help remove some of these
strays from the Kenai River drainage.
Currently, other than reducing hatchery king plants in other watersheds, there is little way to
reduce the number penetrating into the Kenai River watershed.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Mixing of Kenai River wild Chinook
with stray hatchery-origin Chinook may negatively impact the genetics of the Kenai River
drainage stocks.
224
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by essentially making a stray hatchery king salmon in
the Kenai a “free” fish in terms of daily and annual river limit, anglers and managers will have a
tool to decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with wild Kenai king salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kenai River wild king stocks, the additional data obtained
from license data will be beneficial to fisheries managers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, but it will require modification of the printed
license to have a column for “marked” and “unmarked” fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-053)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 260 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify bag limit to
allow retention of hatchery stock king salmon in the Kenai River drainage as follows:
The new regulation would say, “If an angler catches a king salmon on the Kenai River and it has
a clipped adipose fin with a healed over scar, he would be allowed to kill the fish without it
counting towards one of his two Kenai River king salmon per person. The fish would still have
to be tagged as one of the five king salmon allowed from the Cook Inlet waters, since it is a
natural Cook Inlet fish. There would have to be new designation for marking the fishing license
to distinguish the fish as on caught on the Kenai but as an invasive fish.
ISSUE: I would like the board to address the non-native king salmon spawning in tributaries of
the Kenai River. According to Fish & Game, there are king salmon from the Crooked Creek
hatchery enhanced run that stray into the Kenai River. These stray king salmon can be identified
by the lack of an adipose fin with a healed scar where the fin was clipped off. The concern I want
addressed is to create regulations which will reward Kenai River anglers to remove these stray
king salmon from the Kenai River which will reduce the possibility of a hatchery raised salmon
from spawning in the Kenai River watershed where only genetically unique native kings salmon
should spawn. Current daily, possession, and annual limits for king salmon in the Kenai River
are set up in such a way that anglers are encourage to release such fish back into the river.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? As more of these invasive fish spawn
with the Kenai fish, it changes the genetic make-up of the native fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Without a hatchery in place on the Kasilof River, there
would be no hatchery fish to invade the Kenai River. Since the enhancement of the Kasilof River
king salmon, the Kenai has seen salmon that would not be there naturally. This proposal aims to
keep the Kenai River’s genetic strain of king salmon as pure as possible without spending
additional money or resources.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The main human benefactors will be the anglers who
catch a fish on the Kenai River and are allowed to keep it, without affecting their Kenai River
catch record. In the long term, all users of the Kenai River will ultimately benefit, if we keep non
native fish from the river.
225
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one would suffer as a result of this proposal.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Anglers could keep fishing on the Kenai River after
keeping a king salmon with a healed over adipose scar. As an angler I would love this, but there
could be issues with enforcement and other people night have some objection to the proposal
written this way. I believe that the way it is written, there could be very little, if any opposition
from anyone. Biologically it makes sense. Resident anglers that want to kill their two fish every
season would ultimately get a “free fish”, and guides could encourage their clients to keep these
fish as well.
PROPOSED BY: Nathan Corr (HQ-07F-188)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 261 - 5 AAC 57.120(2)(a),(i). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Eliminate
Kenai River early-run king salmon slot limit as follows:
5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and
methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Unless otherwise specified in 5
AAC 57.121. - 5 AAC 57.123 or by an emergency order issued under AS 16.05.060, the
following are the general seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means that
apply to sport fishing for finfish in the Kenai River Drainage Area:
(1) salmon may be landed only with the aid of a landing net or by hand
(2) king salmon 20 inches or greater in length, as follows:
(A) may be taken from only from January 1 - July 31, in the Kenai River from its mouth
upstream to the outlet of Skilak Lake and in the Moose River from its confluence with
the Kenai River upstream to the northernmost edge of the Sterling Highway Bridge, with
a bag and possession limit of one fish, as follows:
[(i.) FROM JANUARY 1 - JUNE 30, FROM ITS MOUTH UPSTREAM TO THE
OUTLET OF SKILAK LAKE, AND FROM JULY 1 - JULY 14, FROM THE
SOLDOTNA BRIDGE UPSTREAM TO THE OUTLET OF SKILAK LAKE AND IN
MOOSE RIVER FROM ITS CONFLUENCE WITH THE KENAI RIVER
UPSTREAM TO THE NORTHERNMOST EDGE OF THE STERLING HIGHWAY
BRIDGE, ONLY KING SALMON THAT ARE LESS THAN 44 INCHES IN LENGTH
OF 55 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH MAY BE RETAINED,]
ISSUE: Repeal slot limit for king salmon on the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The slot limit for early run king salmon
on the Kenai River has not worked as intended. It was originally intended to afford protection for
the most common size and age classes (44 to 55 inches may not be retained) of the return. In fact
this regulation may be directing harvest in an undesirable way by encouraging the retention of
fecund female king salmon less than 44 inches while requiring the release of larger males.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is of benefit to the long-term management of
the king salmon resource of the Kenai River. Escapement quality will be positively influence by
removing and regulation that inadvertently results in a disproportionate percentage of females
being harvest.
226
Recent run data indicates that numbers of large fish vary naturally and stock composition has
improved from a period of low numbers of 5-ocean kings independent of the effects of the slot
limit.
The regulation has also produced unintended consequences that may risk future yield. Fishery
data indicates that the slot limit has concentrated harvest on fish under the slot size which include
a large percentage of 4-ocean females.
Slot limit has skewed size-specific harvest rates and overcompensated for the problem it was
intended to address.
Implementation has made size-specific harvest rate differential worse which is directly contrary
to the sustainable fisheries policy.
Slot limit was a unique experimental approach to king salmon management that was developed
for bass fishery management and has never been used for salmon. The Kenai should not be a test
case for risky fishing regulation experiments.
Slot limit has also reduced effort and harvest rates and increased the likelihood of exceeding the
BEG and sacrificing future yield.
Earlier use of bait in large run years is not an effective alternative for balancing harvest rates
because anglers continue to release larger numbers of smaller fish and smaller fish likely suffer a
higher rate of catch and release mortality on bait.
Slot limit has unnecessarily reduced harvest opportunities and proven extremely unpopular with
many resident and non-resident anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users of the king salmon resources of the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Continuing this management paradigm as suggested
by the Department for several more spawning calycles. This was rejected because there is no
biological reason, nor any sampling evidence, to suggest this approach is beneficial to king
salmon management. This was a poorly conceived management strategy that needs to be
removed.
PROPOSED BY: Andy Szczesny (HQ-07F-218)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 262 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Eliminate Kenai
River early-run king salmon slot limit as follows:
The daily bag limit on the Kenai River is one king salmon per day, with no size restriction, and a
two fish seasonal bag limit.
ISSUE: The unfair lack of opportunity for anglers to harvest Kenai early - run king salmon due
to a slot limit restriction.
227
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to promote our Kenai
late - run king salmon fishing; this will continue to increase the angler pressure during the month
of July on the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will help spread-out angler fishing pressure throughout the
Kenai River king salmon season.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen and tourism.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those sport fishermen who prefer catch-and-release quality
fishing.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A return to bait fishing and multiple hooks, but
because of the early-run needing more protection I rejected that situation.
PROPOSED BY: Joshua Caleb Johnson (HQ-07F-076)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 263 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Amend the slot
limit season for early-run king salmon on the Kenai River as follows:
Soldotna bridge upstream to Skilak Lake…….January 1 - July 31 [July 14] 1 per day / 1 in
possession…must be less than 44” or 55” or longer.
ISSUE: The BOF and ADF&G recognize that preserving the size composition of the Kenai
River early run Chinook escapement is an important aspect of fishery management. Their
application of the slot limit is applied through the first two weeks of July above the Soldotna
Bridge. One ADF&G study indicated that mainstream early run Chinook comprised 28% of the
total, with nearly half of those spawning between the Soldotna Bridge and Skilak Lake. The
department also estimates that early run spawn timing generally occurs between July 19-22.
Thus, harvest issues are exacerbated upstream where the populations subjected to harvest are
stocks that spawn in proximity to known early run spawning tributaries. Additional pressure on
these early run mainstream spawners may affect size and genetic distribution.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Some size classes of early run Chinook
salmon will be harvested at higher rates.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Helps to insure that the escapement size distribution is similar
to the return.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone, because of increased stability in early run
Chinook size composition.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers that previously harvested slot limit excluded fish in
the middle river.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
228
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-333)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 264 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Extend early-run king salmon slot limit
below the Soldotna Bridge through July 14 as follows:
Chinook salmon measuring 44 inches or greater and less than 55 inches in length may not be
retained in the Kenai River in all areas open to chinook salmon fishing downstream from the
outlet of Skilak Lake through July 14. Chinook salmon within this non-retention slot may not be
removed from the water and must be released unharmed.
ISSUE: Inadequate protection of the depleted five-ocean class and the mainstem spawning
substock of early run Chinook salmon returning to the Kenai River, particularly in the reach
below Soldotna Bridge.
The current 44-55” non-retention slot was enacted to help protect declining numbers of large 5-
ocean kings in the early run. It was an important step in the right direction, however, many of the
“slot” kings saved in May-June suddenly become fair game for harvest in July. These large fish
are believed to be the backbone of the mainstem-spawning component of the early run. A major
reason for the decline in large early run kings is that these fish are being harvested off their
spawning reds through all of July. Because the earliest arriving mainstem spawners have the
longest window of vulnerability to the sport fleet, they have become the most heavily exploited
component of the mainstem spawning population. A mainstem spawner entering the river in June
will effectively spend its entire stream life in the open fishing zone where it can be harvested.
Fish entering in July are less vulnerable, while fish returning in August are virtually unexploited.
For over three decades, we have been cropping the front end of the mainstem return genetically
cleansing the river of the earliest arriving fish with no real appreciation of the genetic
consequences for the population as a whole.
The legal retention of early run “slot” kings in July is obviously counter-productive to the
restoration of the five-ocean class and the mainstem-spawning component of the early run.
The Board of Fisheries partially addressed this issue by extending the slot limit out to mid-July
above Soldotna Bridge. Yes, another step in the right direction, but still inadequate to protect
large mainstem spawners. Here’s why.
ADFG’s transmitter data from the Bendock study showed that about one in five early run kings
are mainstem spawners and that median spawning activity took place July 19. A slot regulation
through July 14 does not even begin to protect these fish through their peak spawning activity.
The study also showed that 27% of mainstem spawners use the lower river (RM 12-21, below
the Soldotna Bridge) while 45% used the middle reach (RM 21-39, bridge to Naptowne Rapids).
If one compares the actual amount of habitat available for spawning, there are 9 miles in the
lower reach and 18 miles in the middle reach. From the standpoint of spawners per mile, the data
suggest there is actually a greater density of lower river spawners than middle river spawners.
Clearly, early run mainstem spawners in the lower river require just as much protection as those
in the middle river.
Bendock’s work revealed even more alarming observations about the fate of early run kings
229
during July.
1) Nearly 90% of radio-tagged early run fish that would eventually be harvested in the sport
fishery were taken in July. Significant numbers of early run kings continue to be mistakenly
harvested as “late run” fish in July without any accounting in the early run escapement.
2) Two out of every three documented mainstem spawning sites are located in areas open to
fishing. This is really no surprise since spawning takes place from RM 12 on up…right in the
heart of the supra-tidal fishery in July. Moreover, 75% of radio-tagged lower river ER spawners
were clustered between RM12 and RM 16. Translation: Pillars up to Big Eddy State Park (about
a mile and a half above Big Eddy itself). Significant numbers of early run mainstem spawners
are susceptible to harvest in some of the most heavily pressured fishing holes on the
river…Pillars, Honeymoon, Falling In, Stewarts, Big Eddy, Airplane, Porters, Slide Hole, etc.
3) Median spawning date for radio-tagged river spawners was July 12. all but one of these fish
spawned in July. The current slot regulations offer virtually zero protection for large early run
spawners in the lower mainstem during July.
Conclusion; The available evidence strongly suggest that the manner in which the Kenai River
slot limit is currently being applied significantly undermines its intended objective.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Further depletion of this already
depressed sub-stock with unknown negative consequences to the long-term productivity of the
entire stock as a whole.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By reducing exploitation on this substock, the historic age-
class composition of the entire stock can be restored, and over-exploited mainstem spawners in
the early run can be better conserved. This measure will help to preserve the full spectrum of the
early run stock’s genetic diversity (run-timing, age at return, and preferred spawning habitat) to
help ensure its natural long-term productivity for generations to come.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? 1) The fish, particularly the depressed five-ocean class and
the over-exploited mainstem spawners in the early run. 2) The recreational fishing community at
large would benefit from a revitalized early run replete with the older, larger fish that were
historically present in the early days of the fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those recreational fishermen who wish to continue
harvesting the large 44” to 55” salmon which make up the vast majority of the depressed five-
ocean age class as well as most of the mainstem-spawning population in the early run.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
1) Keep the current non-retention slot rules as is, i.e. through June 30 below Soldotna Bridge and
through July 14 above Soldotna Bridge. This option fails to offer any protection to large early
run mainstem spawners during their peak lower river spawning activity in July. Significant
numbers of early run “slot” fish are harvested throughout July in all areas open to the retention of
large king salmon without any accounting in the early run escapement. The early escapement is
NOT adjusted to reflect early-timed fish harvested after June 30! Far too many of these fish are
being indiscriminately harvested as so-called “late run” fish in July. The valuable early run
conservation efforts of May-June should not be recklessly squandered when these very same
“slot” fish become harvestable in July.
230
2) Extension of the current non-retention slot above Soldotna Bridge thru July 31. Studies
suggest this option still leaves 27% of large early run mainstem spawners vulnerable to harvest
below Soldotna Bridge. This reach supports the greatest density of mainstem spawing activity,
and simultaneously the greatest density of angling activity on the entire river. This option
unfairly requires upriver users to shoulder 100% of the conservative burden for protecting early
run mainstem spawners in July while their downriver counterparts can continue to harvest these
“protected” fish below Soldotna Bridge.
3) Extension of the current non-retention slot rules through July 31 in all areas open to king
salmon fishing. This was proposed at the 2005 Board of Fisheries cycle for Cook Inlet and
soundly rejected due to excessive forgone harvest opportunity on a healthy late run stock.
ADFG has no conservation concerns for late run kings. Because 45% of late run kings fall within
the non-retention slot, there were concerns about excessive handling when nearly half the fish
must be released. Moreover, a season-long slot limit would undesirably skew the total harvest
toward smaller, younger late run fish with unknown long term consequences.
Thus 2008 proposal spells out the rationale for a compromise slot plan that applies through July
14 in all areas open to king salmon fishing from the river mouth upstream to the outlet of Skilak
Lake. Several key features of said plan will effectively address ADFG’s cited concerns back in
2005.
A) Historically only 30% of the late run enters the river by July 14. This plan would not affect
the remaining 70% of the return from July 15 forward.
B) Of the affected portion, only 45% would fall within the 44-55” size range. That means
unharvestable “slot” kings would comprise less than 14% of the late run (0.3x0.45=0.135)
C) All of these late run “slot” kings become available for harvest once again on July 15. That
means the sport fleet has an additional 17 days to harvest them. Basically, these kings are only
unavailable for harvest 14/31-ths of the month.
Effectively, a mere 6% (0.45 times 14 times 14 divided by 31 = 0.06) of the late run is excluded
from harvest under this proposal. It would still enable the fishery to liberally exploit the
remaining 94% of this healthy stock. Because nearly the entire late run remains in the
harvestable pool of kings, concerns about harvesting equally across all age classes become
irrelevant. In essence, all of staff’s objections to the original 2005 proposal become non-issues.
Futhermore, recent entry-pattern trends in the late run make it even less likely that large late run
fish would be affected by this compromise slot plan. In the past 5-6 years, the age-sex
composition of the late run fish entering the river in the first two weeks of July has been
predominated by small 1- and 2- ocean males. Very few large fish actually enter the river during
this time period. Most of the large fish that are present in the lower river fishing zone during this
time are actually mainstem spawners lingering from the early run. Since the bulk of large late run
fish do not enter the river until well into the third week of July, a slot limit in the lower river
during the first two weeks of July actually impacts exceedingly few of them. However, it would
prevent significant numbers of ripening large early run kings in the lower river (virtually all of
which were fully protected just days earlier in June) from being irresponsibly harvested as “late
run” fish.
PROPOSED BY: Francis V. Estalilla, M.D. (HQ-07F-359)
231
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 265 - 5 AAC 57.120(2)(A). General provisions for seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Amend this
regulation to add the following:
5 AAC 57.120
(2)(A)(iv) from January 1 – July 14, a person may not possess a king salmon that
has been filleted, headed, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in a manner that prevents
determination of the length of fish taken until the fish is permanently offloaded from a
vessel if the fish was taken from a vessel or permanently transported away from the fishing
site if the fish was taken from the riverbank; for the purposes of this sub-paragraph,
“fishing site” means the riverbank where the fish was hooked and removed from the water
becoming part of the angler’s bag limit;
ISSUE: In order for the Department of Fish and Game to evaluate the implementation of the
slot-limit harvest strategy for king salmon in the sport fishery, as well as to enforce bag and size
limits, it is imperative that Department of Public Safety representatives be able to determine the
length of harvested king salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? ADFG will continue to issue an emergency
order annually to prohibit anglers from filleting a harvested king salmon prior to the point at which
either ADFG can collect biological information or enforcement officers have had the chance to
inspect the harvest to ensure the fish meets the slot limit length requirements. This proposal is
house keeping in nature.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, ADF&G, and ABWE.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-284)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 266 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict use of bait for early-run kings on
portion of Kenai River as follows:
Only unbaited, artificial lures allowed from Jan. 1 - June 30 from the confluence of the Moose
River to the outlet of Skilak Lake on the mainstream of the Kenai River.
ISSUE: Allowing bait in the Kenai River above confluence of the Moose River prior to July 1.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lowered escapement goals on first run
Kenai River kings has resulted in bait being allowed when goal is expected to be reached. Kenai
232
kings that entered the Kenai under strict gear and harvest restrictions are staging in this area of
the Kenai waiting to move (most) into the tributaries to spawn. Also, rainbow trout in this section
are just coming off a spawning closure which makes them vulnerable to aggressively taking bait.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it helps protect staging first run Kenai River king
salmon. Also, protects post spawn rainbow trout that are vulnerable at this stage.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All future Kenai River first run anglers and all that enjoy
the healthy rainbow trout population that the Kenai River now has.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those wishing to use bait to harvest Kenai River kings in
this area during this timeframe.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Closing entire area above the Moose River and
downstream of Skilak Lake from April 15 to June 30. Rejected as we felt this was too restrictive
and would deny opportunity.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Professional Guide Association (HQ-07F-410)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 267 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow use of bait in the early run Kenai
River king salmon fishery, starting May 1 or June 1 as follows:
Allow use of bait in the early run Kenai River king salmon fishery, starting May 1 or June 1.
ISSUE: Inability to keep the early king run within the escapement goals. Harvesting a larger
percentage of the run from the tail end instead of equally thru the run. Loss of opportunity of
additional harvest for all anglers. No conservation concern exists today that warrants the
continued restriction on use of bait.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continue harvest of majority of fish from
the latter part of the run. Lost opportunity of harvest of surplus fish. Years ago the fishery
opened with bait, because of poor returns in early 1990’s the BOF restricted the use of bait until
escapement goal met.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers increased opportunity. ADF&G will have
easier time to keep run within the escapement goals.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (HQ-07F-378)
****************************************************************************
233
PROPOSAL 268 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Extend Funny River, Slikok Creek, and
Lower Killey River sanctuary closures through July 31 as follows:
Keep the Funny River, Slikok Creek, and Lower Killey River described areas closed to all
fishing from a boat until the end of the king salmon season or July 31, whichever is later.
ISSUE: Current regulations allow designated sanctuary areas to open at the mouths of spawning
tributaries to king salmon fishing July 15. When this occurs the majority of fish taken are
spawning phase fish. We would like to see these areas kept closed throughout the entire king
season to allow main-stem and tributary spawners more protected holding areas. The size
integrity of Kenai kings has suffered because of selective harvest on larger fish, mainly produced
in the main-stem, and it’s time we start thinking of ways to conserve these stocks. First run
spawning occurs between July 19-22 and as late as July 29.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Most tributary fish will hold for a while
before going upstream to spawn and many main-stem fish wills pawn near the outlet of major
tributaries. By continuing harvest in these critical areas we reduce important spawning
opportunity.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of most of the fish harvested in these area is poor,
because they are in the spawning phase, and fishing pressure or retention should not be desirable.
This would enhance the spawning opportunity for fish in these critical areas.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource itself. This would greatly reduce harvest
mortality on these spawning phase kings.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers who don’t care about the quality of the fish only the
opportunity to harvest.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-335)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 269 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Extend Funny River, Slikok Creek, and
Lower Killey River sanctuary closures through July 31 and expand Killey area as follows:
Extend seasonal closures to king salmon fishing on the lower Kenai mainstem January 1 through
July 31 (Slikok, Funny and Lower Killey areas). Extend the Killey sanctuary to upstream areas
adjacent to all three Killy river mouths.
ISSUE: Current seasonal closures to King salmon fishing in the lower Kenai River at the
mouths of Slikok Creek, Funny River, and lower Killey River are not adequate to protect early
run spawners staging at the mouths of these creeks. King telemetry data indicates that significant
numbers of early run fish are staging near tributary mouths outside current seasonal closure areas
234
and closure periods. Some anglers are concentrating on staging ripe and spawning fish in these
areas, catching and releasing significant numbers, and sorting for large fish. Areas of particular
concern include the upper Killey River mouth where dynamic channel changes have altered fish
entry patterns and the College Hole downstream from Slikok Creek. Benefits of slot limits for
protection of the large early run fish and sanctuary closures prior to July 14 are eroded by harvest
of fish in staging areas outside of existing sanctuaries and in tributary mouth areas after they
open in July.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Full benefits of slot limits and existing
sanctuaries will not be realized and disruptive emergency fishery closures may be required in
low run years.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? na
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The early run king sport fishery will benefit from
protection of spawning escapement and large kings. Effective sanctuaries will provide added
flexibility for fishery management at moderate to large run sizes.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Ample opportunity for King soprt fisheries exists in
other areas of the river.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Andy Szczesny (HQ-07F-216)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 270 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Extend Kenai River
king salmon season through August 7 as follows:
The Kenai River king salmon season will open January 1 and close on August 7 each year.
ISSUE: The lack of opportunity for anglers to harvest all segments of the Kenai late-run of king
salmon.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to limit angler access to
harvestable portions of the Kenai late-run king salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Coho salmon runs in August have “crashed” upon the Kenai
River due to excessive gill net harvesting, and the above proposal would give anglers an
alternative fishery during the first week in August.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen and tourism.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who want to keep traditions.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Ruth Marie Johnson (HQ-07F-079)
235
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 271 - 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan.
Extend late-run king salmon sport fishing season through August 10 as follows:
Sport fishing for kings in the Kenai River will close at the same time as commercial fishing
closes - not July 31.
ISSUE: Early closure of king salmon season in the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The status quo shall remain.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sports fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Commercial fishermen are harvesting kings until
their closure. Sportsmen should have the same option. All kings will be spawned if not
harvested, including the kings harvested by commercial fishermen in August.
PROPOSED BY: Melvin Forsyth Jr. (HQ-07F-303)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 272 - 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan.
Increase escapement goal for Kenai River late-run king salmon as follows:
Cook Inlet (Kenai River) fisheries shall be managed for a minimum escapement (in July) of
35,000 chinook salmon into the Kenai River.
ISSUE: Cook Inlet escapement of Chinook salmon into the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sports fishermen and women will lack
kings in the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sports fishermen and women.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial fishermen.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Sports fishermen have tried unsuccessfully, many
times, to limit the commercial catch of the July Kenai River kings.
PROPOSED BY: Melvin Forsyth Jr. (HQ-07F-307)
******************************************************************************
236
PROPOSAL 273 - 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management
Plan. Delete portions of Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon plan as follows:
5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan.
(a) The purpose of this management plan are to ensure an adequate escapement of late-run
king salmon into the Kenai River system and to provide management guidelines to the
department. [THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MANAGE THE LATE-RUN KENAI RIVER
KING SALMON STOCKS PRIMARILY FOR SPORT AND GUIDED SPORT USES IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SPORT AND GUIDED SPORT FISHERMEN WITH A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HARVEST THESE SALMON RESOURCES OVER
THE ENTIRE RUN, AS MEASURED BY THE FREQUENCY OF INRIVER
RESTRICTIONS.]
(b) The department shall manage the late run of Kenai River king salmon to achieve a
biological escapement goal of 17,800 - 35,700 king salmon, as follows:
(1) in the sport fishery,
(A) if the biological escapement goal is projected to be exceeded, the commissioner
may, by emergency order, extend the sport fishing season up to seven days during the
first week of August.
(B) from July 1 through July 31, a person may not use more than on single hook in the
Kenai River downstream from Skilak Lake;
(2) in the sport fishery, that portion of the Kenai River downstream from Skilak Lake is
open to unguided sport fishing from a non-motorized vessel on Mondays in July; for
purposes of this section a non-motorized vessel is one that does not have a motor on
board;
(3) if the projected escapement [IN-RIVER RETURN] is less than 17,800 king
salmon, the department shall
(A) close the sport fisheries in the Kenai River and in the salt waters of Cook Inlet north
of the latitude of Bluff Point to the taking of king salmon;
(B) close the commercial drift gillnet fishery in the Central District within one mile of
the Kenai Peninsula shoreline north of the Kenai River and within one and one-half
miles of the Kenai Peninsula shoreline south of the Kenai River, except within the
Kasilof Special Harvest Area as provided in 5 AAC 21.365;
(C) close the commercial set gillnet fishery in the Upper Subdistrict of the Central
District, except within the Kasilof Special Harvest Area as provided in 5 AC 21.365.
[(c) FROM JULY 20 THROUGH JULY 31;
(1) REPEALED;
(2) IF THE PROJECTED INRIVER RETURN OF LATE-RUN KING SALMON IS
LESS THAN 40,000 FISH AND THE INRIVER SPORT FISHERY HARVEST IS
PROJECTED TO RESULT IN AN ESCAPEMENT BELOW 17,800 KING SALMON,
THE DEPARTMENT MAY RESTRICT THE INRIVER SPORT FISHERY;
(3) REPEALED;
(4) IF THE INRIVER SPORT FISHERY IS CLOSED UNDER (2) OF THIS
SUBSECTION, THE COMMERCIAL SET GILLNET FISHERY IN THE
(5) REPEALED
(d) REPEALED.
(e) CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND 5
AAC 21.360 IF THE PROJECTED INRIVER RETURN OF KING SALMON IS LESS
237
THAN 40,000 FISH, THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT REDUCE THE CLOSED WATERS
AT THE MOUTH OPF THE KENAI RIVER DESCRIBED IN 5 AAC 21.350(B).
(f) THE PROVISIONS OF THE KASILOF RIVER SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN (5
AAC 21.365) ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.
(g) THE DEPARTMENT WILL TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, CONDUCT
HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ON A SCHEDULE THAT CONFORMS TO THE BOARD OF
FISHERIES (BOARD) TRIENNIAL MEETING CYCLE. IF THE ASSESSMENTS
DEMONSTRATE A NET LOSS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT CAUSED BY NON
COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTED TO REPORT
THOSE FINDINGS TO THE BOARD AND SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD
FOR APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF THIS PLAN.]
ISSUE: Delete meaningless and confusing language from the plans and clarify the management
for the escapement goal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department and the BOF will
continue to waste about 1/3 of the fish available for harvest in UCI with no benefit to any users
in the long term.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, makes the plan clear and concise and manages to ensure
that the minimum escapement goal is achieved.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who fishes for salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, this system worked for 50 years with great success.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Higgins (HQ-07F-226)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 274 - 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan.
Delete section (e) of the Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan as follows:
Delete 5 AAC 21.359(e). [CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS MANAGEMENT
PLAN, AND 5 AAC 21.360 IF THE PROJECTED INRIVER RETURN OF KING SALMON
IS LESS THAN 40,000 FISH, THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT REDUCE THE CLOSED
WATERS AT THE MOUTH OF THE KENAI RIVER DESCRIBED IN 5 AAC 21.350(B)]
ISSUE: Delete this section because it prohibits the managers from using a valuable tool, of time
and area, to manage for the sockeye spawning escapement goal. They are prohibited from using
this tool until the upper end of the king escapement is projected to inter the river. The result has
been continual gross sockeye over escapement and loss of valuable salmon surpluses. The Kenai
kings are healthy and provide reasonable opportunity to harvest. The managers manage for the
Chinook spawning escapement goal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued over escapement, economic
harm, and waste of the harvestable surplus and reduced future salmon returns.
238
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users, the resource, the managers, the local economies
by harvesting the surplus, preventing gross over escapements and maintaining future high returns
from managing biologically for maximum sustained yields.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The Kenai kings are abundant. Some users will
want to continue this allocation at the expense of grossly exceeding the sockeye spawning goal.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. This is a tool the managers must have to use
when needed to prevent gross over escapement, waste of the surplus and smaller future sockeye
returns.
PROPOSED BY: Central Peninsula Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-438)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 275 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Limit non-resident
permits for king salmon on Kenai River as follows:
The Board of Fish should restrict the number of non-resident permits for king salmon to no more
than one-half of the projected allowable harvest. Non-resident demand has grown exponentially
while residents use has stayed the same or declined. The current practice of selling unlimited
numbers of non-resident harvest tags for king salmon is the major reason for the large boats and
crowding that is adversely affecting the habitat through erosion. In addition, the large number of
boats is contributing to hydrocarbon contamination through fishing methods that require idling of
motors.
ISSUE: Overuse of the Kenai River during July leads to habitat destruction through boat caused
erosion, hydrocarbon contamination, safety concerns, and displacement of resident anglers due to
overcrowding.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Habitat damage will continue and
accelerate; hydrocarbon problems will continue to adversely affect fish and habitat for juvenile
fish; and resident fishers will continue to abandon the fishery due to overcrowding and
undesirable fishing conditions.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By restricting the number of harvest tags available, crowding,
boat-caused erosion, and hydrocarbon contamination would be reduced leading to an improved
fishing environment and better quality and greater numbers of fish.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers would benefit from improved quality of the
fishery and the habitat and sustainable fishery would be improved.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Non-resident anglers and commercial operators would have
to plan better and move fishing effort to earlier in the season in order to take advantage of fewer
permits in July.
239
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Ted Wellman (HQ-07F-054)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 276 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Establish annual
limits for salmon fishing by non-resident anglers as follows:
Set a season bag limit for non-resident anglers of 1 king salmon, 12 sockeye salmon, 4 silver
salmon and unlimited numbers of pink salmon.
ISSUE: Failure to have a season bag limit for non-resident anglers has resulted in some non-
resident anglers spending the entire summer on the Kenai River and catching excessive numbers
of fish which are then sold for profit outside Alaska. This results in habitat degradation,
overcrowding, displacement of resident use, illegal sale of sport caught fish and boat-caused
erosion, and hydrocarbon pollution. The use diminishing the value of the resource and denies
access to Alaska residents and other non-resident users.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The quality of the fishery will deteriorate
and get even more crowded, additional bank degradation will occur and illegal sale of sport
caught fish will continue to the detriment of all users.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By setting a season bag limit, you would prevent illegal
harvest, decrease crowding and allow more people to enjoy the resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All anglers will benefit from setting reasonable limits.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Only those who abuse the resource by taking more fish than
they need for illegal sale.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered limiting the number of fishing days for
non-resident anglers and considered extending the season bag limit to all anglers, both resident
and non-resident. I rejected the ideas as too difficult to enforce and unnecessary for resident
anglers.
PROPOSED BY: Ted Wellman (HQ-07F-055)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 277 - 5 AAC 57.124. Harvest record required; annual limits for the Kenai
River Drainage Area. Prohibit non-residents from exporting more than 125 pounds of fish as
follows:
Export limit of 125 lbs.
ISSUE: Expanding fisheries in a limited fully allocated fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued allocation battles.
240
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? That depends.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Resident sport fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Non-residents or not.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-038)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 278 - 5 AAC 75.022. Statewide Provisions. Allow retention of sockeye salmon
unintentionally hooked in the Kenai, Kasilof and Russian Rivers as follows:
Change the last sentence of methods and means under “freshwater sport fishing” to read, [Except
for Sockeye salmon in the Kenai, Kasilof and Russian Rivers], a fish unintentionally hooked
elsewhere than its mouth must be released immediately.
ISSUE: Allow sockeye salmon unintentionally hooked other than in the mouth to be retained in
the Kenai, Kasilof and Russian Rivers, where chronic over-escapement and crowding are a
problem. Sockeye salmon do not feed when they enter fresh water streams, therefore, virtually
all are snagged, either by drawing the line through their mouth or elsewhere on their body. By
changing this regulation we would reduce injury and damage to the fish themselves, relieve
crowding, and reduce injuries to fishermen.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishermen will be forced to continue the
practice of sorting through and releasing many foul hooked fish in an attempt to harvest their
limit. This is not good for the resource (fish), fishery (crowding) nor the fishermen (lengthened
exposure to potential injury). Over-escapement issues on the spawning and rearing grounds will
continue to jeopardize future run strength stability.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, damage to the flesh of these fish (tearing and scaring)
would be greatly reduced. In the current fishery many fish are hooked and released numerous
times causing flesh damage and increasing mortality losses.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone. This would help reduce crowding because
people would retain their limit faster and their exposure to injury, from flying hooks or leads,
would also be greatly reduced. Most of the emergency room patients seen at the Central
Peninsula hospital in Soldotna for fishing related injuries are derived from the Sockeye fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody. I realize this is a departure from pure fishing
etiquette, however, these fish are mainly prized for their flavor as illustrated by the popularity of
the personal use fisheries for this same species, which allows great numbers to be harvested in a
single outing. What is the difference when we are considering a species that is neither feeding or
striking?
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? In the event this proposal is not adopted, I would
request that it be considered as an additional measure the commissioner could utilize to increase
harvest when fisheries demand liberalization resulting from large run strengths.
241
PROPOSED BY: Dwight Kramer (HQ-07F-327)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 279 - 5 AAC 56.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai Peninsula Area. Increase bag limit for
coho salmon in Kenai Peninsula freshwater streams as follows:
General season and limits: Kenai Peninsula freshwater other salmon 16” and longer: 3 per day
and in possession all three may be coho salmon.
ISSUE: Coho salmon have a sportfish priority. Coho salmon were listed as a stock of concern in
2001 and the bag and possession limit was reduced from 3 to 2 in all Kenai Peninsula freshwater
road accessible systems. The stock of concern status on coho was removed at BOF Cook Inlet
meeting in 2005 yet bag limits/possession limits remained the same. Need to determine which
Kenai Peninsula streams can safely revert to 3 per day.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Limits for coho would remain at 2 which
would be a loss of opportunity for sport fishing folks.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, provides more opportunity for these sport fish priority
coho salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kenai Peninsula/Lower Cook Inlet sportfish anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those wanting a longer limit hoping that it will reduce
effort by other anglers.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - rejected because of loss of opportunity.
Kenai River limit raised only - rejected because we felt like ADF&G should evaluate coho
stocks and thus determine which systems were able to support a 3 fish coho salmon per day
fishery.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai River Professional Guide Association (HQ-07F-409)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 280 - 5 AAC 56.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai Peninsula Area; 5 AAC 57.120. General
provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai River Drainage Area; 5 AAC 59.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession and size limits, and methods and means for the
Anchorage Bowl Drainages Area; and 5 AAC 60.120. General provisions for seasons, bag,
possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the Knik Arm Drainages Area.
Increase coho bag limit in Cook Inlet Area rivers as follows:
Coho 16-inch or longer, limit is 3 fish.
ISSUE: Change coho limit from 2 to 3.
242
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Two fish limit is too low, silver runs are
healthy again and guides can’t fish while guiding.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who fish for silvers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-465)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 281 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Increase bag limit
for coho salmon in the Kenai River as follows:
Raise the per day catch of coho salmon in the Kenai River to 3 fish per day.
ISSUE: Catch number of coho salmon in the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Undue limit of cohos for sports
fishermen.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sports fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This is just a return to past catch limits.
PROPOSED BY: Melvin Forsyth Jr. (HQ-07F-304)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 282 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Extend the coho
salmon fishing season through November on Lower Kenai River and Skilak Lake as follows:
Coho Salmon 16” or longer open season July 1 - Nov. 30, Lower Kenai River mainstream and
Skilak Lake.
ISSUE: Coho closure of October 31 for Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost opportunity for anglers wishing to
pursue one of the last open water fisheries in South Central Alaska.
243
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, provides opportunity to harvest late arriving Kenai River
Coho salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All sport fishing anglers that want to extend there fishing
season during a time of year that has limited opportunities available to them.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one that I could think of. Perhaps duck hunters or
rainbow fisher folks that wanted this area to themselves.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo - rejected due to lack of reasonable
opportunity.
Opening entire Kenai River mainstream to coho from July 1 - Nov. 30 but rejected due to
concern of low water combined with road running most of the length of Upper Kenai River. Felt
this would make the section from Kenai Lake down to Skilak Lake to problematic to open after
Oct. 31.
PROPOSED BY: Steve McClure (HQ-07F-411)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 283 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai
River as follows:
Add one drift boat day possibly (Thursday) on the Kenai River for guided and non-guided
anglers.
ISSUE: Kenai River hydrocarbons and bank erosion.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continual and increases in hydrocarbons
and bank erosion on the Kenai River. There seems no limit to the increase in the number of
guided and non-guided anglers every year. No agency seems willing or capable to make a
decision that will insure the health of the Kenai River for future generations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Less hydrocarbons and bank erosion in the Kenai River.
With 10,000 gallons of gasoline going into the Kenai River annually something needs to be done
now. A more enjoyable trip for both guided and non-guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Guided and non-guided anglers. The Kenai River
environment and ecosystems. I feel we have to act now to insure the health of the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A few anglers without drift boats.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Only drift boats on the Kenai River. Limited takeout
points and anglers without drift boats.
PROPOSED BY: Warren Crawford (HQ-07F-017)
244
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 284 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai River as follows:
That another day be designated as a drift day and that the day would be Thursday.
ISSUE: That there be more fishing time on the Kenai River for non guided anglers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The fishery will become more lopsided
with the majority of fish being caught by guided anglers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It makes it so unguided anglers can close the gap on
percentage of catch by guided vs. non guided. The percentage is too uneven, with the majority
going to guided.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All non guided anglers including resident sport anglers and
the Kenai River because it would lower hydrocarbon emissions.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Todd Moore (HQ-07F-063)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 285 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding
and guided fishing requirements in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Add one drift boat only
day on the Kenai River as follows:
Under the heading “guide boats” add: In May, June and July fishing is allowed for 24 hours
on Thursday drift days.
Under “all boats” add No one may fish from any motorized vessel on Mondays and
Thursdays in May June and July (except Memorial Day).
ISSUE: Motorized vessel use has increased dramatically and is responsible for excessive
hydrocarbon concentration and increased erosion. There are also social issues associated with
crowding that are compounded by motorizes vessels in the current configuration of the fishery
Another drift day on the river, open to both guided and unguided anglers with no time
restrictions, will help address hydrological issues and may promote more folks to invest in
resource friendly drift boats. This would also allow more fish to move upriver and disperse to
power-boat use during subsequent days. New boat use patterns indicate that most of the chinook
fishing is now taking place in the lower 10 miles of the river.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The use of power-boats will continue to
cause hydrological and social problems.
245
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource and those who would like to see the river use
slow down with more peaceful days on the water.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Power-boat users would lose a day on the water, however,
this change may provide an opportunity for the guided public to enjoys a slower, quieter fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? An alternative area of definition could be: None
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-331)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 286 - 5 AAC 21.359. Kenai River Late-Run King Salmon Management Plan.
Add one additional non-guided drift only day on the Kenai River as follows:
The board will implement one additional non-guided drift only day (preferably Fridays during
king salmon season), similar to the Monday regulations that currently exist as follows: 5 AAC
21.359(b)(2) in the sport fishery, that portion of the Kenai River downstream from Skilak Lake is
open to unguided sport fishing from a non-motorized vessel on Mondays and Fridays In July;
for purposes of this section a non-motorized vessel is one that does not have a motor on board;
ISSUE: The long-developing problem on the Kenai River is one of too much effort during peak
periods, particularly during king salmon season. This proposal would reduce the impacts
associated with the unrestricted growth of guide operators. Under current use patterns, there is
such an imbalance in both harvest and use impacts and use impacts between the commercial
recreation sector (guides) and public non-guided anglers that make it imperative to address this
problem.
The symptoms of this problem are clear. General crowding, both in numbers and in effect on
other users, continues to increase due to the unrestricted numbers of commercial guides
operating on the Kenai. It is well known and documented that guide boats are typically larger
and more heavily loaded than boats utilized by public non-guided anglers. Through research over
the past several years, we have received confirmation of what most people expected: that boat
wakes are predominantly a function of vessel weight, hull configuration and speed. The habitat
along the critical shore areas of the Kenai are being damaged by user-induced boat wakes. To
reduce these impacts we will need to reduce both the impact and incidence of wakes. The 50-hp
regulation currently being considered by Alaska State Parks will do very little, if anything, to
reduce wake-induced impacts if it is implemented. They hydrocarbon pollution is only one facet
of this problem. Other aspects of this problem are:
• The number of Kenai guides has increased each year and is unrestricted.
• The number of non-resident anglers continues to increase year after year.
• The public non-guided angler share of the king salmon harvest is less than 50 percent and
diminishing over time
• Public facilities, such as the Pillars boat launch, provide limited services to the public
because they are heavily used for commercial operations by Kenai guides.
Guided use is not he only contributor to use impacts on the Kenai River. However, the solution
246
proposed below would also provide relief from use impacts from non-guided public anglers as
well.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Resident public (non-guided) anglers will
continue to have a diminishing share of the Kenai River king fishery, and habitat damages to the
river, that will be reduced of this proposal, would not occur.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, if you count increased quality of the angling day as a
product. This proposal would increase the quality of the angling experience for all in-river users
on the Kenai by reducing motorized user-related impacts for an additional day, to two days out
of seven rather than the current on e day out of seven.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All in-river sport anglers on the Kenai would benefit from
reduced habitat damage and water quality damage by taking motorized boats off the river for an
additional day. Public non-guided anglers will have an opportunity to increase their proportional
use of the king salmon harvest and fishing opportunity on the Kenai in a river-friendly manner.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial guide businesses would have one fewer days of
operation per week on the Kenai River during July.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This is a short and succinct change to Kenai sport
management that would provide more opportunity for public non-guided king salmon anglers
and also reduce wake-induced erosion and hydrocarbon emissions for an additional day per week
during king salmon season. Another approach to addressing the user problems on the Kenai
River would be a more comprehensive approach to:
• Limit Kenai guides
• Limit king salmon harvest by non-resident anglers, through limited numbers of king salmon
stamp sales or other methods such as time/area closures
• Implement a number of measures to reduce wake-induced impacts through a) reduction in
allowed weights of motorized boats on the Kenai River, b) encourage boat use for wake-
minimizing hull configurations
• Establish use limits for all Kenai motorized boaters, based upon allowable impacts the habitat
of the river.
In past years, the Board has been reluctant to embark on a comprehensive approach to dealing
with the user-related problems on the Kenai River. The above proposal is a modest step in the
right direction.
PROPOSED BY: Jim Richardson (HQ-07F-252)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 287 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Add one drift boat only day on the Kenai
River as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
Close the Kenai River to fishing from motor-powered boats downstream from the outlet of
Skilak Lake to the Soldotna Bridge on Tuesdays.
247
ISSUE: The use of motor-powered boats is causing serious habit and water degradation along
the Kenai River. These banks are critical for future salmon production. Over 1,000 boats a day
can pass popular fishing areas (Dorara and Moore 1997).
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Motor boats will continue to cause
hydrocarbon pollution and bank erosion thus depleting the bank habitat and eventually the
salmon resource. Hydrocarbons will increase and possibly affect juvenile salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Salmon resource present and future and the people and
industries that use and depend upon sustainable large returns.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those fishermen who want to use power boats on Mondays
above the Soldotna Bridge.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Restrict more areas and more time to drift only. The
public needs some time to adjust to drift only. By doing a little a time, people will see the results
of less habitat degradation, healthier returns and much more enjoyable fishing experience.
PROPOSED BY: Roland Maw (HQ-07F-397)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 288 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Make Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday
drift-only days on Kenai River as follows:
Amend this regulation as follows:
Downstream of the outlet of Skilak Lake to the Soldotna Bridge on the Kenai River, the
following regulation applied to guided fishing from all boats: “No one may fish from any
motorized vessel on Sunday and Wednesday and Fridays in May, June, and July except
Memorial Day). For purpose of this regulation, a motorized boat is one with a motor
onboard.”
ISSUE: The Kenai River is experiencing environmental degradation from power boats. Recent
data suggest that thousands of gallons of unburned gasoline are entering the river each fishing
season. In addition, bank erosion rates continue to be very high due to boat wakes. These issues
have been documented by scientific reports.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the regulatory bodies do not act, the
Kenai River system will continue to suffer degradation. As a past president of the American
Fisheries Society testified in the 1980’s, “a river will bend and bend and bend and then break,
when this happens, it is too late to recover.” This is the Kenai River. If small incremental steps
toward change are not taken the actions needed when the system breaks will be dramatic and
significant. This proposal starts that process of change. The Kenai River is now classified as
“impaired” and has impaired water quality due to the levels of hydrocarbons present.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Removes hydrocarbons - gets rid of hydrocarbons from
248
the river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? In the long-term all users will benefit as the river’s long-
term health is maintained. In the short-term those who are able to fish from a drift boat will
benefit from reduced effort.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Residents and non resident boat owners who fish the Kenai
will suffer some loss of opportunity in the short-term. As the fishery gains longevity, equipment
will be replaced and opportunity will increase. The guided industry will have to adapt but this
proposal does not prohibit guided anglers from fishing on these days.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The most obvious solution is to go to a drift-only
fishery every day. However, this would cause significant economic harm and would not allow
for an orderly transition to a new type of fishery. An additional option would be to zone the river
to drift and motorized boats. However, this would impact the residents along the river unfairly.
PROPOSED BY: John Sanderson (HQ-07F-398)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 289 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Phase-in additional drift boats only days on
Kenai River as follows:
In addition to banning all 2-stroke out board motors in July 2008, and July 2009, with a total ban
in 2010, begin phasing in drift-boats-only over a six (6) year period, one day per week per year,
starting in July, 2008, for fishing and recreation. In 2013, only drift boats would be allowed on
the entire Kenai River during Julys, except for state agency powerboats and for river island
residents for transportation only. There would be no other exceptions to this regulation. For
example, power boat ferrying of sockeye anglers and/or dip netters up and down the river would
not be allowed.
ISSUE: The possibility that just banning 2-stroke outboard motors from the Kenai River would
not be sufficient to remove the river’s “impaired status” listing by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and by the US Environmental Protection Agency, due to
hydrocarbon (HC) pollution in Julys.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulation change is required to bring the
Kenai River into compliance with water quality standards during the month of July. If banning
two stroke outboard motored powerboats were not a sufficient hydrocarbon (HC) remediation
step in July, 2008, then the Kenai River would remain on the section 303 (d) “impaired” water
body list, as required by the US Clean Water Act. Continuing this impaired listing, due to HC
pollution, could harm the River’s fisheries and significantly impact DF&G annual revenues.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, being listed as an impaired water body under the US
Clean Water Act is detrimental to the resource and the local economy. The Item 4 above
described action would certainly result in removing the Kenai River from the 303 (d) impaired
list for HC pollution into the foreseeable future, reduce river bank erosion and loss of habitat,
essentially eliminate HC toxins from accumulating in river spawning beds and other sediments,
improve habitat conditions for immature salmon and other aquatic life, essentially eliminate
249
already intolerable powerboat crowding, and improve boating safety.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All aquatic life in the River, and all other wildlife which
utilize the River and it’s surrounding habitats. All community economic and recreation interests
in the long term health and welfare of the River and sustainability of the River’s fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Owners of 4-stroke outboard motor powered boats (like
me), and those who are not fit enough to row a drift boat (like me), but only in Julys. However,
allowing unlimited numbers of any kind of hydrocarbon-powered-and lubricated boats will
continue to accumulate toxic HC pollutants in the river sediments, and in the Cook Inlet, which
will eventually impact all the fisheries. Also, these power boats will continue to cause river bank
erosion, loss of already intolerable boat crowding, and diminish boating safety. The long term
health and welfare of our River and our fisheries deserve better.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? An immediate change to drift-boat-only for fishing
and recreation on the entire Kenai River for Julys, beginning 2008. This solution was rejected as
being too abrupt to be implemented in an orderly manner.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Hahn (HQ-07F-133)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 290 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit fishing from motorized watercraft
in Kenai River. as follows:
A drift only river until pollution remits and wake study is complete - this is a park - 3 years.
ISSUE: Habitat - pollution and erosion.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More degradation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It protects the fish and the future of the river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone in the long term.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Gas stations.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? It’s time.
PROPOSED BY: John McCombs (HQ-07F-029)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 291 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection
motors on the Kenai River as follows:
On the Kenai River, during the months of July, 2008 and 2009, and annually beginning in 2010,
250
gasoline powered, motorized boats may use only a 4-stroke or 2-stroke direct fuel injection (DFI)
outboard motor.
ISSUE: During peak powerboat use on the Kenai River, coinciding with peak salmon returns
(July), several hundred gallons of gasoline and other hydrocarbon pollution enter the River on a
daily basis, except drift-boat-only Mondays. This quantity of hydro carbons results in State
Water Quality Standards 18 AAC 70 being exceeded for aquatic life. Biologist’s models,
existing data and river hydrocarbon pollution examples from other areas of the US suggest that
traditional 2-stroke gasoline-fueled outboard motors pollute in a significantly disproportional
amount compared to other available options (more than 15 to 1 compared to an equal 4-stroke).
This proposal requests a complete ban for the entire Kenai River watershed on 2-stroke outboard
motors for July, 2008 and July, 2009, and a complete annual ban on all 2-stroke motors
beginning May 2010. This proposal suggests such a ban may sufficiently improve water quality
to bring the river back into compliance with state water quality regulations in 2008 or 2009, and
may eliminate the Kenai River’s “impaired status” listing by ADEC and USEPA as early as
2010. There is no empirical data for hydrocarbon pollution in the Kenai River caused by the
aggregate of various regular and “detuned” 4-stroke outboard motors being used. A ban on 2-
stroke motors in July, 2008, would allow badly needed pollution data from the aggregate of all 4-
stroke motors to be obtained at the earliest possible date.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulation change is required to bring the
Kenai River into compliance with water quality standards during the month of July. Two-stroke
motored powerboats, used for ferrying sockeye anglers, king salmon sport fishing, and for the
personal use fishery to the mouth of river must be banned for the desired result. If this does not
occur, the Kenai River will remain on the section 303(d) “impaired” water body list, as required
by the US Clean Water Act. Continuing this listing may also significantly impact DF&G annual
revenues.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, being listed as an impaired water body under the US
Clean Water Act is detrimental to the resource and the local economy. This action, taken as
described, may result in removing the Kenai River from the 303 (d) “impaired” list.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All aquatic life in the river, and all other wildlife which
utilize the River and it’s surrounding habitats. All community economic and recreation interests
in the use of the River and its fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Owners of powerboats who have motors that are not 4-
stroke or 2-stroke direct fuel injection, as well as the river and its fisheries. However, continued
unlimited use of all hydrocarbon-powered-and-lubricated boats will continue to accumulate toxic
hydrocarbon pollutants in the River sediments and in the Cook Inlet, which will eventually
impact all the fisheries too. Also, these power boats will continue to cause River bank erosion
and loss of River habitat for immature salmon and other aquatic life, cause toxic water turbidity,
increase already intolerable boat crowding, and diminish boating safety.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
Drift-boat-only for fishing or recreation on the entire Kenai River for July, beginning 2008;
Rejected because the change would be too abrupt to be easily adopted.
Phase in a drift-boat-only fishery for Julys, one day per week per year beginning 2008, for 6
251
years. July would then be drift-boat-only in 2013. After 2013, drift-boat-only could be extended
into June or August, as necessary, to reduce undue hydrocarbon pollution from 4-stroke motors.
This solution, coupled with the absolute ban on 2-stroke outboard motors in 2010 would solve
most of the River’s problems in July, including most hydrocarbon pollution, power boat
crowding, while reducing bank erosion and loss of River habitat, and improving boating safety.
But it seems apparent that sustaining the long term health of the River and/or its fisheries are not
the highest priorities of DF&G, BOF, DNR, DEC or many people in the communities whose
livelihood it primarily sustains. This solution was not rejected but there does not appear to be the
political will to implement it.
PROPOSED BY: Richard Hahn (HQ-07F-132)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 292 - 5 AAC 57.xxx. New section. Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection
motors on the Kenai River as follows:
Adopt requirement that all boats operated in personal use or sport fisheries on the lower Kenai
River be operated with motors that are either four-stroke or direct fuel injection, two stroke
motors, or any future engines that meet EPA manufacturing standards for US sale, and
that are built after adoption of this regulation. Phase in the effective date or period in order to
provide the opportunity for people with the older motors to schedule a replacement.
ISSUE: Elevated hydrocarbon levels have been measure in the lower Kenai River during
several peak use days and hours in July. This finding led to a impaired water quality listing by
the Department of Environmental Conservation under the federal Clean Water Act. Studies have
determined that most of the hydrocarbon pollution is caused by older, inefficient two stroke boat
motors and that use of the newer IPA-compliant motors will resolve the problem. Action to
require use of the newer motors has been delayed by agency process and jurisdiction
complications. For instance the Department of Natural Resources has authority to regulate boat
motor use in the Kenai River Special Management Area but this area does not include lower
river areas where the personal use fishery is concentrated. The cities of Kenai and Soldotna and
the Borough can regulate use of their launch facilities. The Board of Fisheries has the authority
to regulate fishing activities that impact on fish habitat.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Effective action to reduce hydrocarbon
pollution will be delayed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource and all users will benefit from improved
water quality.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Persons with old motors will incur the costs of a new motor
in order to continue participation in the fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A variety of alternatives were considered but were
rejected because they will significantly affect the problem. More drift-only days merely
concentrate use and increase peak pollution levels on the remaining days. Additional guide
restrictions provide no significant benefit since guides moors are almost universally the newer
EPA-compliant type, the majority of the hydrocarbon inputs are from nonguided sport and
252
personal use boats, and some of the highest water quality exceedances are seen on Sundays when
guides do not operated. Time and area use limits merely move the problem around but do not
solve it.
PROPOSED BY: Andy Szczensy (HQ-07F-217)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 293 - 5 AAC 57.xxx. New section. Require 4-stroke or direct fuel injection
motors on the Kenai River as follows:
Allow fishing only from boats with 4-stroke or 2-stroke motors with direct fuel injection.
ISSUE: Hydrocarbons in the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Large amounts of unburned gas will
continue to be discharged.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everybody.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Boat owners with old carbureted 2-stroke motors.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (HQ-07F-379)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 294 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 77.540.
Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Regulate motorized use
for fishing on the Kenai River to reduce hydrocarbon pollution as follows:
We prefer a solution regulating motorized use for both the in-river Chinook sport fishery and the
personal use fishery during the month of July in the Kenai River. As local governments we will
work toward finding the best solution; however, for many of the potential options, it is not clear
that local governments have jurisdiction to implement. We prefer solutions that substantially
reduce hydrocarbons in manner that is fair. While a perfectly fair solution may be a challenge,
we believe fair means reductions should come from all user groups in proportion to the amount
of pollution each user contributes to the river.
Solutions may include but are not limited to:
1. Changes in means and methods that limits motorized run time.
2. Limit the total number of motorized boats operating at any one time on the river with a
complete phase out of non-direct fuel injected (DFI) 2-strokes.
3. Increase use of electric motors or drift boats.
ISSUE: During peak powerboat use on the Kenai River, coinciding with peak salmon returns
(July), several hundred gallons of gasoline enter the river on a daily basis. This quantity of fuel
253
has resulted in State Water Quality standards 18 AAC 70 exceedences for aquatic life. This
represents a clear conservation issue as water quality standards are designed to protect fish
resources - this includes all fish resources of the Kenai River. Models, existing data and
examples from other areas in the country suggest that traditionally carbureted 2-stroke motors
pollute in a dramatically disproportional amount compared to several other available options
(more than 10 to 1 compared to an equal 4-stroke).
A complete ban on 2-strokes would almost certainly eliminate this problem. This proposal seeks
an option just short of a complete ban with the hope it would be sufficient to improve water
quality, bringing the river back into compliance with state water quality regulations.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulation change is required to bring the
Kenai River into compliance with water quality standards during the month of July. The July
concentration of hydrocarbons observed in the Kenai River have documented the potential for
adverse affect on all fish species. The Kenai River will remain on the section 303 (d) “impaired”
waterbody list as required by the Clean Water Act.
Area wide zoning to restrict certain inefficient motor types. Banning the launch of certain motor
types from docks within City of Kenai limits. Rejected because potential for litigation with the
State of Alaska challenging jurisdiction.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, being listed as an impaired water under the Clean Water
Act is detrimental to the resource and the economy. This action taken as described will likely
result in removing the Kenai River from the 303 (d) list.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All aquatic life in the river. All economic interests in the
river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Owners of powerboats that have motors that are not 4-stroke
or 2-stroke direct fuel injected.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Area wide zoning to restrict certain inefficient motor
types. Banning the launch of certain motor types from docks within City of Kenai limits.
Rejected because potential for litigation with the State of Alaska challenging jurisdiction.
PROPOSED BY: City of Kenai, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and City of Soldotna (HQ-07F-191)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 295 - 5 AAC 21.xxx. New section. Reduce fishing hours or restrict motorized
use to reduce hydrocarbon discharge into Kenai River as follows:
Do something to lower the gas discharge into the Kenai River.
1. less hours fishing for guides each day.
2. more drift days,
3. no fishing from a boat while the engine is running
ISSUE: Do something to address the “impaired river status” that faces us all and will become a
huge problem in the very near future.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Feds and EPA will step in and do it
254
for you.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Jeff Stephans (HQ-07F-239)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 296 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict outboard motors to 35 hp on the
Kenai River as follows:
Keep maximum outboard use at 35 horsepower, reduce days on the river open to fishing guides,
and replace motorized days with drift boat only days.
ISSUE: Reverse the decision of increasing allowable outboard motor size from 35-horse to 50-
horse.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The increase in size will increase erosion
along the banks, increase water turbidity, decrease catch rates, and increase interpersonal
conflicts.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By reducing larger motors, and thus reduce pollutants fouling
the river, the quality of the resource, will and the experience, will improve for all user groups.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The river, the resource, the public in general.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial guides.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Total ban of all commercial guide existing on the
Kenai River would cause economic harm of untold consequences.
PROPOSED BY: Matthew Hall (HQ-07F-315)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 297 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit king salmon fishing from boats
during a 48 hour period on lower Kenai River as follows:
Close the Kenai king fishery from a boat below the Soldotna bridge for a 48 hour window each
week from 6:00 a.m. on Wednesdays to 6:00 a.m. on Fridays from June 25 to July 31.
255
Everything else can stay in effect.
ISSUE: No Kenai kings get through the lower river fishery to the middle and upper river
causing everyone to go down to the zoo to try to catch a fish. There needs to be a window to pass
fish upriver to other users if there is going to be a meaningful opportunity to fish for kings above
Soldotna.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The only fishery will be in the lower
river. In the last 2 years the fishery is now moving further down the the he Warren Aymes
Bridge and below.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: John Egan (HQ-07F-233)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 298 - 5 AAC 57.140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River drainage area. Prohibit non-residents from fishing from a vessel unless
accompanied be a relative between 6pm and 6am on the Kenai River as follows:
(i) from June 1 through July 31, non-residents may not fish from a boat between the
hours of 6 pm to 6 am, unless accompanied by a relative within the second degree of
kindred who is a resident Alaskan and who possesses a valid Alaska resident fishing
license.
ISSUE: Unregulated guiding activity.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued enforcement problems with
unregistered guides on the Kenai River and poor public perception of legal guide businesses.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resident, public angler as well as guides and legal
guiding businesses.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Illegal guide operations and their clients.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Close the river to all non-resident fishing from 6 pm
to 6 am. That would not be fair to resident anglers who might have visiting relatives that would
like to fish during the evening hours.
PROPOSED BY: Rod and Randy Berg (HQ-07F-253)
******************************************************************************
256
PROPOSAL 299 - 5 AAC 57.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Kenai River Drainage Area. Open Kenai River
below Soldotna Bridge to fishing from boats during king salmon season as follows:
All the Kenai River waters below the Soldotna Bridge shall be open to boat fishing for king
salmon during the king salmon season.
ISSUE: Removal of prime king salmon fishing water, when there is a shortage of water
available for boating anglers on the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to have more boat
congestion upon the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Removal of boat congestion on the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kenai River sportfishermen using boats.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A bank fishermen who does not wish to have a boat
fishermen in his fishing area; fishermen need to learn the art of “sharing the river.”
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Sharing the river.
PROPOSED BY: James Karl Johnson (HQ-07F-078)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 300 - 5 AAC 57.xxx. New regulation. Require course for powerboat operation
on Kenai River as follows:
All powerboat operators upon the Kenai River must pass a Alaska powerboat operators course to
legally operate a powerboat on the Kenai River.
ISSUE: Boating safety upon the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to have safe, licensed,
professional fishing guides operating powerboats upon the Kenai River, we will continue to have
unsafe, unlicensed powerboat operators upon the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will increase boating safety upon the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The boating public.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unsafe boaters.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Require all powerboat operators to pass a U.S. Coast
Guard course in order to operate a boat on the Kenai River.
PROPOSED BY: James Karl Johnson (HQ-07F-080)
257
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 301 - 5 AAC 57.123. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Upper Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict use of motorized vessel for fishing
on the Upper Kenai River near Kenai Lake as follows:
No one may fish from a motorized vessel on the Upper Kenai River in Cooper Landing between
the ADF&G marker 1/4 mile above the Sterling Highway Bridge and the ADF&G “drift only”
marker just upstream of Princess Rapids. For purposes of this regulation a motorized vessel is
any vessel with a motor on board.
ISSUE: There has been an increased use of motorized vessels for fishing the reach of the Upper
Kenai River between the Sterling Highway bridge and the ADF&G “drift only” marker just
upstream of Princess Rapids. These vessels cause unnecessary congestion by making several
passes upriver by motor and also cause an increased amount of wake and stream bank erosion.
This creates a dangerous situation since this area is a narrow reach of river and is also just
downstream of the boat launching site, which causes a huge bottleneck for boaters who are
simply trying to float downstream.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved, the most
immediate and dangerous outcome could be a potentially deadly boating accident in this area.
Finally, the increased boat wakes will cause a long term effect of increased bank erosion, which
poses a threat to both property owners and the stability of sections of the Sterling Highway.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal would improve the angling experience for all
anglers in the area by spreading the pressure on the resource out throughout the river system. It
would also provide for a more tranquil, quiet, and enjoyable experience for all user groups of the
Upper Kenai in that area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anyone looking to drift/fish this area without unnecessary
congestions and a higher risk of boating accidents that comes along with such congestion in a
very small/narrow reach of river benefit. Riverfront property owners in the area would also
benefit from lessened boat wakes which cause increased stream bank erosion. The State of
Alaska would benefit from lessened impact of stream bank erosion on the sections of the Sterling
Highway that run adjacent to the river in this area.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Homeowners living on the Kenai River in Cooper Landing
who use motors to access the river for fishing in this area would suffer if this solution is adopted.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions have been considered.
PROPOSED BY: Cooper Landing Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-429)
******************************************************************************
258
Note the Board of Fisheries does not have authority to establish a limited entry program, but the
following proposal was included because the board does have authority to implement other
guide registration requirements.
PROPOSAL 302 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Institute a limited entry program for guides on the Kenai and
Kasilof Rivers as follows:
Institute a limited entry program for guides on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers.
ISSUE: The Kenai River is overcrowded with commercial users who are crowding out non-guided
use. The guide industry is suffering from this overcrowding and unfettered competition resulting in
excessive boat traffic and consequent bank erosion and habitat damage.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The problem will continue and get worse.
In 2006, guided numbers were at an all time high. The guide industry and the quality of the fishery
will suffer by not placing a reasonable limit on the number of guides.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? This change will improve the quality of the fishery, decrease crowding, lessen
boat caused bank erosion, decrease hydrocarbon problems and increase non-commercial use of the
resource by residents.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users would benefit from decreased crowding, lower
erosion and lower hydrocarbons.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some guides would eventually need to move elsewhere.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This only works if the fewer numbers of king tags are
sold to non-residents or displaced legal guides will be replaced with illegal guides.
PROPOSED BY: Ted Wellman (HQ-07F-058)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 303 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm,
to 7am - 7pm as follows:
Adopt new guided fishing hours – 7 AM to 7 PM for all guide services.
ISSUE: Conflict between guided and non-guided anglers by changing the guiding hours from 6
AM to 6 PM to the following 7 AM to 7 PM on the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More conflict between guide services and
non-guided anglers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It is possible that this proposal will spread out the
hydrocarbons going into the Kenai River; possibly the spike in hydrocarbons will level out a bit.
259
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The non-guided anglers and just maybe the Kenai River.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.
PROPOSED BY: Warren Crawford (HQ-07F-018)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 304 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm,
to 7am - 7pm as follows:
Under the heading “guide boats” change: In May, June and July fishing is allowed only from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. [6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.]
ISSUE: Guide number increases and associated activity has caused many private anglers to
leave the fishery. Between 2005-2006 the number of power-boat guides increased by 66,
resulting in a total of 369. This increased activity has had a negative affect on private angler
participation because they are less tolerant of trying to fish in crowded conditions while guides
must fish in whatever conditions exist in the fishery.
Data suggests that 10 years ago, on the average fishing day there were 50% guided and 50%
unguided boats on the river. In 2006 the typical day consisted of 62% guided and 38% unguided
boats. The decline in private angler participation has resulted in a decline in harvest, and guided
anglers currently for 65-75% of the total.
Our proposal adjusts guide start and finish hours to provide private anglers a better opportunity
to fish during the prime fishing hours. This change may also help bring balance to the King
salmon harvest.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guide angler numbers may continue to
grow and guided angler harvest will continue to dominate total harvest.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Unguided anglers because they will have more productive
hours allotted to them. This proposal would also ease crowding at boat ramps.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guided anglers may lose one of the more productive hours
of morning fishing.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-358)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 305 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify existing Kenai River guide hours from 6am - 6pm,
260
to 8am - 8pm. as follows:
Kenai River guide hours should be set from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in June and July.
ISSUE: Kenai River guide hours - Guides hogging the good holes before 6:00 a.m.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guides will continue to impact resident
anglers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It sure helps the resident anglers put quality king salmon in
their freezers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guided anglers.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Thought about 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. but too liberal.
PROPOSED BY: L.R. Anderson (HQ-07F-084)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 306 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit guide boats with clients in fishing holes 10
minutes prior to opening times as follows:
Guide services are not allowed on the Kenai River with clients in fishing holes at least ten
minutes before opening times.
ISSUE: Fishing guides getting to the fishing holes before opening guided times and interfering
with non-guided anglers. Fishing guides with paying clients should not be in fishing holes before
opening guiding hours.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will be more conflict and hard
feelings between guided and non-guided anglers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-guided anglers and clients of guide services who will
not see conflict between user groups.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The guides that continually fill fishing holes before guided
starting times.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other solutions too costly or controversial.
PROPOSED BY: Warren Crawford (HQ-07F-019)
******************************************************************************
261
PROPOSAL 307 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit guides with clients from being on the river prior to
1/2 hour before start time as follows:
Fishing guide services with clients on board are not allowed on the Kenai River until 1/2
hour before the start time for that day.
ISSUE: On the Kenai River guides are getting to the fishing areas up to 1 hour early and sitting
in the prim fishing spots until the legal fishing time. The method of fishing is back bouncing and
therefore a guide boat can prohibit a non-guided angler in his boat from entering the area by their
physical presence. This is causing conflict with non-guided anglers who are to have guide free
fishing until guide hours begin.
If this proposal is passed the limitation on hours will be on “fishing guide services” instead of
fishing. Fishing guide services are defined in regulation as “to assist, for compensation or with
the intent to receive compensation, a sport or personal use angler to take or to attempt to take fish
by accompanying or personally directing the angler in sport or personal use fishing activities
during any part of a guided fishing trip”… The intent of this proposal is not to allow the guide to
accompany the fishermen until a set time by adding to the regulations a limitation hours
available for fishing guide services.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The conflict between guides and non-
guided anglers will increase.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-guided anglers who must be in competition with a
guide vessels during a time when they are allocated guide free conflict.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Only those inconsiderate guides who are on the river up to
one hour before legal fishing time to tie up prime fishing holes. This regulation allows 10
minutes before and after the legal fishing time for transport of personnel to the fishing area.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? There is one option to not allow a fishing guide to
enter a fishing area until guide hours begin. These areas must be defined along the river which is
costly to the State of Alaska and it is more difficult to enforce.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-337)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 308 - 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57.140. Kenai River guiding
and guided fishing requirements in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Separate the guided and
unguided sport fishers in the lower Kenai river by day and time as follows:
During the month of July:
Mondays…Unguided anglers only, no power boats (Drift Day). 24 hrs.
Thursday…Guided anglers only, no power boats (Drift Day). 24 hrs.
262
All other days, for fishing from a boat;
On odd numbered days, guided anglers fish from 1:00 am - 11:00 am. Unguided anglers fish
from 1:00pm - 11:00 pm.
On even numbered days, unguided anglers fish from 1:00 am - 11:00 am. Guide anglers fish
from 1:00 pm - 11:00 pm.
Sport fishing guides, registered with ADF&G, may only fish or participate in fishing from a
boat during guided angler hours. To participate in fishing means running the boat, baiting
hooks, handling rods, netting fish, etc...
ISSUE: Crowding and guide dominance during the month of July has caused many private
anglers to leave this fishery. This has caused a growing rift between these two user groups and
we need solutions that offer equal fishing times and opportunity for both groups. This proposal
accomplishes that goal and offers long term solutions to;
1) Crowding.
2) Guide limitations. None would be needed because they would only be competing against
themselves for opportunity and harvest.
3) Hydrocarbon pollution - because only half the number of boats would be on the water at
any given time. Large discharge spikes would be less noticeable.
4) Boat launch crowding.
5) Complaints that one user group has any advantage over the other would be unfounded.
Guide number increases and associated activity has caused many private anglers to leave the
fishery. Between 2005 - 2006 the number of power-boat guides increased by 66, resulting in a
total of 369. This increased activity has had a negative affect on private angler participation
because they are less tolerant of trying to fish in crowded conditions while guides must fish in
whatever conditions exist in the fishery
Data suggests that 10 years ago, on the average fishing day there were 50% guided and 50%
unguided boats on the river. In 2006 the typical day consisted of 62% guided and 38% unguided
boats. The decline in private angler participation has resulted in a decline in harvest, and guided
anglers currently account for 65-75% of the total Chinook harvest.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? User conflicts will escalate as guide
dominance continues to grow, and conversely the unguided angler participation and harvest
percentages continue to decline.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone, because fishing times will be equal, less
crowding, and user conflicts would be unfounded. Perhaps harmony between the user groups
would be restored. Guides that wish to expand their business would benefit because there would
be no necessity to limit guiding. The State could also benefit because more boat ramps may not
be necessary.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides that currently run two-a-day trips may find this more
difficult to accomplish.
263
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Reduce hours for guides.
PROPOSED BY: Dwight Kramer (HQ-07F-328)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 309 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit Kenai River guiding on Thursdays in June and
July as follows:
No Kenai River guides on Thursday in June and July.
ISSUE: No guided fishing on Kenai River in June or July on Thursday.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guides percentage of catch will continue
to increase for king salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will help resident anglers quality by increasing their
production.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-guided angler.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guided angler.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Guides drift only on Kenai River on Thursday - too
liberal.
PROPOSED BY: L.R. Anderson (HQ-07F-065)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 310 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit guides from fishing on Kenai River on Sundays as
follows:
In July, no Kenai River guide can be in a vessel that is drifting, moving, under power with
fishing poles in the water.
ISSUE: Guides on Kenai River taking out clients - but not for money for trade or some other
type of compensation on Sundays - abuse of the no-guide on Sunday regulation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guides will continue to abuse the current
regulation by guiding on Sunday for compensation other than money.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It lets non-guided anglers have a better chance to catch a king
without guides on Sunday.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All legal non-guided anglers who fish on Sunday.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides who fish on Sunday in July on the Kenai River.
264
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None
PROPOSED BY: L.R. Anderson (HQ-07F-096)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 311 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit guides from fishing on Kenai River on Sundays as
follows:
If you are a licensed guide on the Kenai River, you are not allowed to fish on Sundays on the
Kenai River under any circumstances.
ISSUE: The problem of guides fishing on the Kenai River on Sunday. A day that’s supposed to
be for non guided anglers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It will be what its already become,
another day for guides on the Kenai river.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the board made this regulation to make the catch rate
between guides and non-guided anglers more even, and provide a day on the water without
guides.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The people that this regulation was supposed to help in the
first place; non guided anglers and resident sport anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, guides are not supposed to be on the river on
Sundays.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Todd Moore (HQ-07F-062)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 312 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict licensed guides while fishing during non-guide
hours on Kenai River as follows:
Put in place a restriction that states: “Nobody registered with the State of Alaska as a Sport
Fishing Guide may participate in fishing from a boat on the Kenai River downstream of
Skilak Lake during June and July when non-guided hours are in effect except with
relatives within the second degree of kindred. Participating in fishing would include the act
of fishing, assisting in fishing, or operating a boat where fishermen are actively fishing.
Second degree of kindred is defines as your father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter,
spouse, grandparent, grandchild, brother/sister-in-law, son/daughter-in-law,
father/mother-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepsister, stepbrother, stepson or
stepdaughter.”
ISSUE: This proposal would address illegal guiding during non-guide hours and unlimited
guide participation and illegal guide activities on Sundays. Public perception is that there are
265
increasing numbers of guide operated boats on the river during non-guide hours. Some guides
appear to be using this time frame to award extra fishing time to good clients or pay back people
for trade of in-kind services, sponsorship, etc. Some of the perceived activity may also be illegal
guiding by people from outside the area or State.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unguided anglers will continue to lose
opportunity.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Unguided fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Non second degree kindred folks will have fewer days to
fish with registered guides. Guides can fish with quote “friends” during guide hours on days
when the have cancellations, limit out early or only have one trip scheduled for that day.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition (HQ-07F-336)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 313 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Limit guides on the Kenai River to only one client or group
of clients per day during July as follows:
Under, Kenai River:
In the month of July, during any one day, a fishing guide may guide only that client or group
of clients initially guided by the fishing guide that day; different or additional clients may not
be guided.
ISSUE: Crowding and over all guide activity during the month of July has caused many private
anglers to leave this fishery. The increased development of two-a-day trips has had a negative
affect on crowding and environmental impacts on the river, such as increased hydrocarbon
discharge and boat wake habitat destruction. Removing activity associated with two-a-day trips
and changing out clients could remedy much of the problem. DNR data indicates that in 2003
27% of guides were doing two-a-day trips. That number increased to 47% in 2004 and 2006
information indicates that about 67% of the number of guide boats on the water in the morning
were on the water in mid-afternoon.
Between 2005-2006 the number of power-boat guides increased by 66, resulting in a total of 369.
This increased activity has had a negative affect on private anglers participation because they are
less tolerant of trying to fish in crowded conditions. The decline in private angler participation
has resulted in a decline in harvest, and guided anglers currently account for 65-75% of the total
Chinook harvest.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? User conflicts will escalate as guide
dominance continues to grow, and conversely the unguided angler participation and harvest
percentages continue to decline. Hydrocarbon and habitat issues will remain problematic.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
266
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Private anglers who desire to fish in less crowding and
boating activity. All fishermen would benefit from this type of environment and habitat friendly
change.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides that currently run two-a-day trips.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Reduce hours for guides.
PROPOSED BY: Dwight Kramer (HQ-07F-356)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 314 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Open Kenai River guiding to one trip per day as follows:
A Kenai River guide may only take one trip for hire per day - similar to the Kasilof River, in
June and July.
ISSUE: Kenai River guides are continuing to take a higher percentage of king salmon harvest in
June and July.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Non-guided harvest will continue to
erode for king salmon on the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It gives non-guided anglers a better chance to harvest king
salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides who take multiple trips per day on the Kenai River.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: L.R. Anderson (HQ-07F-094)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 315 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict Kenai River and Kasilof River guides to one trip
per day on either river as follows:
Guides may not run trips on both the Kenai and Kasilof rivers on the same calendar day,
regardless of the fact if the clients are the same or not.
ISSUE: Overcrowding on the Kasilof River, predominantly during the latter part of May
through the month of June.
Current regulations are unfair to those guides that only wish to guide on the Kasilof River as they
are limited to taking one set of clients per day, while those Kenai-licensed guides may run a trip
267
on both rivers daily.
The current statute that limits guides to one trip daily on the Kasilof during king season does not
address this issue in Kasilof guided angler crowding and stock impacts. It only serves to increase
the overall number of guides in the region, a point of concern for most user groups in the Cook
Inlet region.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations will likely continue to
become more complex. Non-guided anglers may feel the impacts of needed regulatory changes
to keep stocks in tact. Impacts upon stocks not having BEGs in place may suffer from over-
exploitation as overall guided effort increases.
The quality of the sport fishery will continue to deteriorate for both guided and unguided anglers.
This has negative impacts for both user groups and will create a negative long-term effect for
Kasilof-based businesses and guides.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? If no action is taken, the quality of the experience for both
guided and unguided sports anglers will continue to decrease. This proposal would keep angler
effort more spread out across the Peninsula, especially during the early-run king salmon season.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This proposal will decrease overall guided angler effort on
the Kasilof, thus there will be overall less impact on fish stocks. In addition, beneficiaries
include: all non-guided anglers; guides that have in the past or in the future plan to only guide
upon the Kasilof River; guided anglers wishing to experience the Kasilof River fisheries on any
day of the week with a more manageable number of guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The small number of guides that wish to operate on both
watersheds on the same day will likely see some revenue loss.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Guides may not run trips on both the Kenai and
Kasilof Rivers on the same calendar day, regardless of the fact if the clients are the same or not.
Close the Kasilof River to all guided king fishing on Sunday (currently in place for July) and/or
Monday to follow suit with current Kenai River regulations.
Reasons for rejection: a small number of guides operate strictly on the Kasilof River, they are
already economically limited by the regulation that only allows one trip daily. There is little
reason to deliver a second economic blow to these guides when they have already been limited
due to the increase in cross-river traffic.
By not having Sunday and/or Monday as an option for guided anglers to fish for king salmon on
the Kasilof, that would mean there would be zero options for guided anglers to river fish for king
salmon on those days. This option will make scheduling though for many operations and will
only serve to increase the traffic on other days of the week.
Guides registered with Alaska Department of Natural Resources as a “Kenai River Guide” may
not guide on the Kasilof River on days that that any portion of the Kenai River is closed to
angling from a guided vessel.
Reasons for rejection: A possible solution with more negative economic impact to Kenai River
268
licensed guides. Will greatly help in alleviating the extreme crowds on Sundays and Mondays in
king season and Mondays during silver season, but will not impact overall river traffic the
remainder of the week.
When registering with Alaska Department of Fish and Game each year, guides must specify
either Kenai or Kasilof as the river upon which they will guide during the months of May, June,
July, and August. A registered guide may operate elsewhere within the state, but may only guide
on one of these rivers during these months.
Reasons for rejection: Another possible, yet very restrictive measure. Will have the most
economic impact on those guides that wish to guide on both rivers.
Cap guide numbers on the Kenai and/or Kasilof River drainages.
Reasons for rejection: Obviously, the most obvious way to get this situation under control.
However, it is unlikely to be put into place at this time.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-052)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 316 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area; 5 AAC 60.140. Freshwater guiding requirements for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area; 5 AAC 61.140. Freshwater guiding requirements for the
Susitna River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 62.140. Freshwater guiding requirements for the
West Cook Inlet Area. Limit guides to only one client or group of clients per day for Upper
Cook Inlet Rivers as follows:
During any one day, a fishing guide may guide only that client or group of clients initially guided
by the fishing guide that day; different or additional clients may not be guided.
ISSUE: Crowding and over all guide activity has caused many private anglers to leave various
fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet rivers. The increased development of two-a-day trips has had a
negative affect on crowding and environmental impacts on the rivers, such as increased
hydrocarbon discharge and boat wake habitat destruction. Removing activity associated with
two-a-day trips and changing out clients could remedy much of the problem. This increased
activity has had a negative affect on private resident angler participation because they are less
tolerant of trying to fish in crowded conditions.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? User conflicts will escalate as guide
dominance continues to grow, and conversely the unguided angler participation and harvest
percentages continue to decline. Hydrocarbon and habitat issues will remain problematic.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Resident private anglers who desire to fish in less crowded
conditions. All fishermen would benefit from this type of environment and habitat friendly
change.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides that currently run two-a-day trips.
269
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Reduce hours for guides.
PROPOSED BY: Dwight Kramer (HQ-07F-355)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 317 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict guides from registering for both Kenai and Kasilof
rivers as follows:
When registering with Alaska Department of Fish and Game each year, guides must specify
either Kenai or Kasilof as the river upon which they will guide during the months of May, June,
July. A registered guide may operate elsewhere within the state, but may only guide on one of
these rivers during these months.
ISSUE: Overcrowding on the Kasilof River, predominantly during the latter part of May through
the month of June. Most problematic days are Sundays and Mondays, and days that the river is
open to wild king harvest during the early run.
The majority of river traffic is that of guided anglers and has increased substantially over the last
8 or 9 years.
In times of in-season conservation actions of the Kenai River (as has happened frequently over
the last decade) or on days that the Kenai River is closed to guided salmon angling, a great
number of guided anglers descend upon the Kasilof.
Placing a large number of guides that normally spread out over the entire length of the Kenai
River in the much smaller Kasilof drainage creates an extremely crowded situation.
This increase makes management of the Kasilof salmon resources difficult for managers,
especially during the first run of king salmon. First-run king salmon management has become
very complex due to the increased pressure and both guided and unguided Kasilof anglers often
face more restrictions when the Kenai regulations become more restrictive in-season and guided
angling effort on the Kasilof takes an unforeseen steep rise. This negatively impacts both guided
and unguided Kasilof River anglers as well as the local business that rely on steady and
somewhat foreseeable regulations.
Little is known in regard to overall run sizes for second-run kings in the Kasilof, so it is difficult
to estimate the impacts upon these stocks, but it is extremely important to keep a conservative
sport fishing impact approach in place because of the lack of data.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations will likely continue to
become more complex. Non-guided anglers may feel the impacts of needed regulatory changes
to keep stocks intact. Impacts upon stocks not having BEGs in place may suffer from over-
exploitation as overall guided effort increases.
The quality of the sort fishery will continue to deteriorate for both guided and unguided anglers.
This has negative impacts for both user groups and will create a negative long-term effect for
Kasilof-based businesses and guides.
In years that the Kenai undergoes major in-season regulatory changes, impacts on Kasilof stocks
may leave escapements at less than optimum levels. This not only negatively impacts the stocks
270
in that season, but also impacts the fishery long-term.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? If no action is taken, the quality of the experience for both
guided and unguided sports anglers will continue to decrease. While on paper, it would seem that
guided river traffic would decrease if no action is taken and the angling experience deteriorates
to the point that anglers will not choose to participate; what occurs in real-world scenario is that
operators simply drop prices to retain interest in the fishery, creating a scenario of the same
impact and less economic return to the region.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This proposal will decrease overall guided angler effort on
the Kasilof, thus there will be overall less impact on fish stocks. In addition, beneficiaries
include: all non-guided anglers; guides that have in the past or in the future plan to only guide
upon the Kasilof River; guided anglers wishing to experience the Kasilof River fisheries on any
day of the week with a more manageable number of guided anglers.
Fisheries managers will have a better opportunity to measure and manage sport fishing impact,
especially in those years with additional in-season restrictions on the Kenai that serve to shift
guided angler traffic to the Kasilof.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides that normally operate on both watersheds will likely
see some revenue loss.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Several other options would help alleviate the issue
to a lesser degree and have also been proposed. This is perhaps the most radical of the currently
available options to the BOF, but would likely have the most impact upon decreasing river
traffic. Some of the other options are listed below and reasoning mentioned:
Close the Kasilof River to guided king salmon fishing on Sunday (currently in place in July) and
/ or Monday to follow suit with current Kenai River regulations. Reasons for rejection: a small
number of guides operate strictly on the Kasilof River, they are already economically limited by
the regulation that only allows one trip daily. There is little reason to deliver a second economic
blow to these guides. Such a proposal would only allow guides that only operate on the Kasilof
5-6 trips weekly during king season while guides working both rivers as currently allowed could
still run one or more trips daily on the Kenai and then run their allowed one guided trip daily on
the Kasilof. While overall “Kasilof-only” guide numbers will probably increase some, there is
no question that the overall guided angler traffic will decrease on the Kasilof River if guides
must chose between one river or the other. This decrease should alleviate any need for “non-
guided” days to make for a better experience for the non-guided angler. By not having Sunday
and/or Monday as an option for guided anglers to fish for king salmon on the Kasilof, that would
mean there would be zero options for guided anglers to river fish for king salmon on those days.
This option will make scheduling tough for many operations and will only serve to increase the
traffic on other days of the week.
Guides registered with Alaska Department of Natural Resources as a “Kenai River Guide” may
not guide on the Kasilof River on days that that any portion of the Kenai River is closed to
angling from a guided vessel. Reasons for rejection: A possible solution with lesser negative
economic impact to Kenai River licensed guides. Will greatly help in alleviating the extreme
crowds on Sundays and Mondays in king season and Mondays during silver season, but will not
impact over river traffic the remainder of the week.
271
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-049)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 318 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Restrict same day guiding on both Kenai and Kasilof rivers
as follows:
Guides must either fish on the Kenai or Kasilof River on a given day.
ISSUE: Same day guide fishing on the Kasilof and Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Strains the resource, adds pressure to
both rivers.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Less pressure on both rivers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? More fish for the future.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Kasilof River Land Owners Association (HQ-07F-059)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 319 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Prohibit Kasilof River guided fishing when the Kenai
River is closed to guided fishing as follows:
Guides registered with Alaska Department of Natural Resources as a “Kenai River Guide” may
not guide on the Kasilof River on days that that any portion of the Kenai River is closed to
angling from a guided vessel.
ISSUE: Overcrowding on the Kasilof River, predominantly during the latter part of May through
the month of June. Most problematic days are Sundays and Mondays when displaced guided
king salmon anglers from the Kenai River drainage come to the Kasilof.
Placing a large number of guides that normally spread out over the length of the open Kenai
River salmon fishing water in the much smaller Kasilof drainage creates an extremely crowded
situation.
This negatively impacts both guided and unguided Kasilof River anglers.
Little is known in regard to overall run sizes for silvers and second-run kings in the Kasilof, so it
is difficult to estimate the impacts upon these stocks, but it is extremely important to keep a
conservative sport fishing impact approach in the place because of the lack of data. The Monday
guided fishing effort in July and August is many times higher than what is seen on the other days
of the week.
272
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations will likely continue to
become more complex. Non-guided anglers may feel the impacts of needed regulatory changes
to keep stocks intact. Impacts upon stocks not having BEGs in place may suffer from over-
exploitation as overall guided effort increases.
The quality of the sport fishery will continue to deteriorate for both guided and unguided anglers.
This has negative impacts for both user groups and will create a negative long-term effect for
Kasilof-based businesses and guides.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? If no action is taken, the quality of the experience for both
guided and unguided sports anglers will continue to decrease.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This proposal will decrease overall guided angler effort on
the Kasilof, thus there will be overall less impact on fish stocks. In addition, beneficiaries
include: all non-guided anglers; guides that have in the past or in the future plan to only guide
upon the Kasilof River; guided anglers wishing to experience the Kasilof River fisheries on any
day of the week with a more manageable number of guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Kenai River-licensed guides that normally switch to the
Kasilof River on days that the Kenai River is closed to angling from a boat will likely see some
revenue loss.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Several other options would help alleviate the issue
to a lesser degree and have also been proposed. This is perhaps the most radical of the currently
available options to the BOF, but would likely have the most impact upon decreasing river
traffic. Some of the other options are listed below and reasoning mentioned:
Close the Kasilof River to all guided king fishing on Sunday (currently in place for July) and / or
Monday to follow suit with current Kenai River regulations.
Reasons for rejection: a small number of guides operate strictly on the Kasilof River, they are
already economically limited by the regulation that only allows one trip daily. There is little
reason to deliver a second economic blow to these guides due to the influx of guides that
normally operate elsewhere. The decrease of guided anglers on Sundays and Mondays per the
primary proposal should alleviate any need for “non-guided” days to make for a better
experience for the non-guided angler and decrease impact on stocks.
By not having Sunday and/or Monday as an option for guided anglers to fish for king salmon on
the Kasilof, that would mean there would be zero options for guided anglers to river fish for king
salmon on those days. This option will make scheduling tough for many operations and will only
serve to increase the traffic on other days of the week.
Guides may not run trips on both the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers on the same calendar day,
regardless of the fact if the clients are the same or not.
Reasons for rejection: Another possible, yet less-restrictive measure to help curb overall
crowding on the Kasilof, but obviously not an issue on the days that the Kenai is “closed” (via
angling from boat restrictions) to guided king salmon fishing.
Cap guide numbers on the Kenai and/or Kasilof River drainages.
273
Reason for rejection: Obviously, the most obvious way to get this situation under control.
However, it is unlikely to be put into place at this time.
PROPOSED BY: Robert L. Ball, Jr. (HQ-07F-051)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 320 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Restrict Kasilof River guided fishing on Mondays as follows:
No fishing from a registered sport fishing guide vessel on the Kasilof River on Mondays January
1 though July 31.
ISSUE: Kasilof River guided fishing on Mondays. From January 1 through July 31.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Kenai River guided fishing on
Mondays, from January 1 through July 31.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Quality of fishing will improve on what is now the busiest
day of the week.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Bank anglers and unguided fishing boats will benefit. Less
boats, less crowding. Safety will increase with less boat activity.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides would lose that day of revenue.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Kasilof River Land Owners Association (HQ-07F-060)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 321 - 5 AAC 57.140(b)(c). Kenai River guiding and guided fishing
requirements in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow Kenai River guides to operate on
Sundays in May and June, and no hour restrictions in May as follows:
Go back to pre 1998 guide hours. No Mondays in May, June, July. 6 am to 6 pm, June and July.
No Sundays, Mondays 6 am to 6 pm in July only.
ISSUE: Private anglers who wish to use the services of a guide must take off work to be able to
fish. I can fish multiple times a year with a guide for the money it would cost me to buy my own
boat and tackle. Prior to 1998, I could go with my guide after work or on Sundays, my only day
off in the summer is Sunday.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? I will have to continue to go not so
successful trips with private boat owners. I still have to compensate them with favors or pay for
gas. I hate feeling like I owe someone. I'd rather hire a guide and be done with the deal and I
usually catch fish.
274
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? I can't say it would make my fish better, but it would improve
my experience on the recovers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Alaska residents who don’t own a boat and work 6 days a
week could go with a guide in May and June when pressure is low. This action was taken to help
pressure first run kings, since this was put in place the first run escapement has been lowered and
the slot limit is in effect.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered recommending that all hours and days
be made to match private beaters, because I am a owner of this recourse just like the guy who
owns a boat. I decided that this would be too controversial to the private boat owner, who thinks
all of us that down on boats have less rights.
PROPOSED BY: Brian Waters (HQ-07F-210)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 322 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized
additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and
means for the Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Repeal the guide boat
prohibition on Mondays in the Kenai River as follows:
Simply remove the regulation from the book.
ISSUE: Repeal the guide boat prohibition on Mondays on the Kenai River.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Visitors who can only fish on a Monday
are prohibited from hiring a guide to take them silver fishing on the Kenai River.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Currently, if people want to hire a guide on Mondays they
have to go to Bing’s Landing and go trout fishing. A huge waste fuel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who want to hire a guide to go silver fishing on
Mondays.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-470)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 323 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 57.121. Special provisions and localized
additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and
means for the Lower Section of the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow guides to fish from
275
drift boats on the Kenai River in July as follows:
All drift boats are allowed on Mondays.
ISSUE: Allow guides to fish from drift boats on the Kenai River in July.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Restricted opportunity.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who fish with guides.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-469)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 324 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow a guide boat on the Kenai River to carry six persons
instead of five during the month of July as follows:
No more than 6 people in a boat.
ISSUE: Change passenger load limit for guide boats from 4 to 5 persons; the same as non-guide
boats.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? This is a huge problem for many guides.
We often have to split up family groups who wish to fish together.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fewer boats on river.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Families who fish with guides.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-466)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 325 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Designate one day per week on the Kenai late run to
guided anglers only as follows:
Designate one day a week on the Kenai River late run to guided anglers only.
276
ISSUE: The unguided private angler wants their one day a week to fish without guides and in
less crowded conditions. Guided anglers should get the same opportunity to fish in less crowded
conditions, without interference of inexperienced boaters. Solutions to crowding should be
shared by all
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unguided anglers will continue to have a
day a week to fish in less crowded conditions while guided anglers have to fish every day with
inexperienced boater and crowded conditions. Burden of crowding should be shared by all users.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Guided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unguided anglers.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (HQ-07F-376)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 326 - 5 AAC 57. 140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Allow guided fishing 7 days per week with each individual
guide allowed 5 days per week on the Kenai as follows:
Allow guided fishing 7 days a week, but each individual guide would only be allowed to fish 5
days a week. Enforcement and reporting could be done with daily activity reports instead of end
of season reports.
ISSUE: Current regulations jam all the guides and guided trips into a 5 day period, spread the
use out over a 7 day period without increasing the total number of days a individual guide can
fish.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guided anglers will continue to be
funneled into small time frames for several fisheries. The Kenai Tues-sat, Kasilof, Cook Inlet
and west side fly outs on Sun. and Mon. You could reduce crowding and increase quality of all
fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Kenai River fishery, Kasilof, Deep Creek Marine and
west side fly out fisheries would all benefit, along with both guided and unguided anglers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Open all fisheries 7 days a week for all anglers.
PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (HQ-07F-377)
****************************************************************************
277
PROPOSAL 327 - 5 AAC 56.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Kenai Peninsula Area. Eliminate Sunday closure for guides on the Kasilof River as follows:
Drop the Sunday closure.
ISSUE: Sunday closure for guides on the Kasilof.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? People are prohibited from fishing the
Kenai and Kasilof on Sundays.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? People will have the option of fish with a guide on Sundays in
July.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Many people.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Status quo.
PROPOSED BY: David Richards (HQ-07F-467)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 328 - 5 AAC 57.140. Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements in
the Kenai River Drainage Area. Modify regulation prohibiting fishing by sport fishing guides
when clients are present on the Kenai River as follows:
(h) from January 1 – December 31, a person who is a sport fishing guide, as defined
in 5 AAC 75.995, may not sport fish while a client is present or is within the guide’s
control or responsibility, except when guiding a client with a disability; for the purposes
of this subparagraph, ‘disability’ has the meaning given in 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A) and
(C), as amended as of February 8, 1994.
ISSUE: Regulations prohibiting guides from fishing while clients are present currently exist in
the Kenai River Coho Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 57.170) and for the king salmon season
in Department of Natural Resources regulations (11 AAC 18.030). The regulation within the
Kenai River Coho Salmon Management Plan applies to all waters of the Kenai River drainage
from July 31 through October 31. The DNR regulation is a stipulation under a noncompetitive
park use permit for commercial activities and applies the waters of the Kenai River Special
Management Area during May, June, and July. The Kenai River Special Management Area does
not apply to those waters below the Warren Ames Bridge. This proposal would cover those
waters missed by the DNR regulation and simplify the existing regulations.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Guides could continue to fish while clients
are present in the Kenai River below the Warren Ames Bridge. The public and enforcement
officers will continue to search for fishing regulations under two different governing bodies.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
278
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Guided and unguided anglers will not have to compete with
guides who fish while clients are present. Centralized and simplified regulations benefit all users.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The small number of guides who currently fish when clients
are present below the Warren Ames Bridge.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-285)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 329 - 5 AAC 57.140(a). Kenai River guiding and guided fishing requirements
in the Kenai River Drainage Area. Align vessel registration regulations with DNR
requirements that allow for un-registering guide vessels as follows:
(a) In addition to the requirements of 5 AAC 75.075 – 5 AAC 75.077, and before providing
sport fishing guide services on the Kenai River, a sport fishing guide and vessel must be registered
at the Soldotna office of the Department of Natural Resources, division of parks and outdoor
recreation. Once registered, a vessel registration remains valid for the remainder of the calendar
year unless the vessel is deregistered with the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
ISSUE: ADFG regulations and DNR noncompetitive park use permit stipulations regarding the
registration/deregistration of a Kenai River guide vessel are in conflict. ADFG regulations do
not contain the language found in DNR stipulations which allow for deregistration of a guide
vessel once a vessel is no longer used to guide anglers at the end of a fishing season. This is a
housekeeping proposal.
Deregistering a guide vessel previously registered with DNR for the purpose of guiding anglers
on the Kenai River allows for the private use of the vessel for the remainder of the calendar year.
Deregistering a guide vessel is a common practice on the Kenai River. Many guides will
conclude their guiding season during August and deregister their guide vessels with DNR which
requires removing the required guide stickers from their vessel hulls. Once a vessel is
deregistered, the vessel may be used as an unguided vessel. This allows guides use their
deregistered vessels to fish with their family, friends, and relatives after the peak of the guiding
season concludes and the guides are no longer commercially operating.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? DNR and ADFG regulations will continue
to conflict.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who want to fish from a deregistered guide vessel.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers competing with other anglers fishing from a
deregistered guide vessel.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
279
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-286)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 330 - 5 AAC 61.112(5)(A). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Reduce open periods for king salmon sport fishing in
Alexander Creek drainage as follows:
5 AAC 61.112(5) in the Alexander Creek drainage,
(A) king salmon may be taken only on the weekends and the Monday following
each weekend from January 1 – June 30; bag and possession limit is one fish 20 inches or
greater in length;; after taking and retaining a king salmon 20 inches or greater in length, a
person may not sport fish for king salmon on that same day;
ISSUE: King salmon harvest levels in Alexander Creek are at unsustainable levels. The
department has conducted aerial surveys to index the number of spawning king salmon on
Alexander Creek since 1978. The escapement goal range established by the department for king
salmon escapements into Alexander Creek is between 2,100 and 6,000 spawning fish. Due to
low escapements of king salmon to NCI waters in the early 1990s the BOF took action to reduce
the sport harvest of king salmon for all NCI streams. As a result of continuing poor escapements
to Alexander Creek the BOF took further restrictive action in an effort to further reduced sport
fish harvest to this system. These restrictions included; closing king salmon fishing upstream of
Trail Creek and shortening the season from July 13 to June 30. In the three (3) of past five (5)
years, 2002-2006, Alexander Creek has failed to achieve the lower limit of the SEG, and for two
(2) of those years escapements were only slightly above the lower limit of the goal. During
2006, the escapement of king salmon into Alexander Creek was the lowest on record with only
885 spawning fish is being observed. Given the poor escapements to this system in recent years
it is warranted to implement further restrictive regulations that will reduce the sport harvest on
this system.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? King salmon escapements to Alexander
Creek will probably continue to remain below the escapement goal range.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, over time, the escapement will increase and stabilize and
continue to provide sport fishing opportunity.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? In the long term, all anglers and business operators (guides
and lodge operations) that would like to participate in this fishery in the future.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? In the short term , those anglers and guides that fish for king
salmon during the week or would like to harvest more than one king salmon per year from this
system.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Completely closing Alexander Creek to king salmon
fishing. This option is rejected however, as the department believes that northern pike
populations may have reached an equilibrium on this system and that a reduced sport harvest for
king salmon will likely be sustainable at current escapement levels.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-290)
280
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 331 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek as
follows:
Close Alexander Creek to king salmon fishing for four years, no catch and release.
ISSUE: Over fishing, low count on king salmon down to 880 from 2,500, close king fishing for
four years.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? King salmon will be down to a complete
loss. Pike overrun on creek eat smolt.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, improved fishing later on (like the Deshka River).
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Future fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Lodges.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Each lodge, foreign fishermen should have regular
guide.
PROPOSED BY: Francis Buckwalter (HQ-07F-003)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 332 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek as
follows:
Close Alexander Creek for 3-4 years and let it come back. Get the escapement we should have
not 800-2000 (like Deshka).
ISSUE: Over the past ten years the king salmon population has gone away.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? No king salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Just maybe, our grandkids will see.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Most Alaska residents, all fishermen and future
generations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A small percentage.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Closing May 15 - June 15, open June 16 - June 31.
Sometimes the fish come in late.
281
PROPOSED BY: Kris Draper (HQ-07F-005)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 333 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek as
follows:
No fishing in Alexander Creek for a few years.
ISSUE: Number of fish low.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will be no fish.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Lodge owners.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Ron Stark (HQ-07F-007)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 334 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Close king salmon fishing on Alexander Creek as
follows:
Close the Alexander Creek drainage and the confluence with the Big Su to king fishing until the
fish are able to withstand the harvest.
ISSUE: The declining number of kings in Alexander Creek.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? King salmon numbers will continue to
decline until they disappear altogether.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Gary S. Bell (HQ-07F-234)
282
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 335 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Allow 24 hour fishing for king salmon in Unit 1 of the
Susitna River drainage as follows:
Delete: [IN WATERS OPEN TO KING SALMON FISHING, INCLUDING THE DESHKA
RIVER, FISHING IS NOT ALLOWED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11 P.M. AND 6 A.M.
MAY 15 - JULY 13.]
ISSUE: Unit 1 of the Susitna River Drainage has a regulation prohibiting fishing in waters open
to king salmon fishing between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6a.m. This regulation is unnecessary as
evidenced by the fact that ADF&G issued emergency orders opening a portion of Unit 1 (Deshka
River) to 24 hour per day fishing in 2005, 2006 and will most likely issue a similar emergency
order in 2007. Further more, upstream in Unit 2 of the Susitna River drainage king salmon
regulations allow fishing 24 hours per day.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If nothing is done sport fishing for all
species of fish in Unit 1 waters open to king salmon fishing will continue to be unnecessarily
restricted and the regulation book will remain cluttered with this regulation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All sport anglers of Unit 1 would benefit from simpler
regulations. Anglers who would like to fish waters open for king salmon, for any species of fish,
between the hour of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. could do so. With pressure spreading over additional
hours, anglers would enjoy less crowding.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People choosing to start fishing at 6.a.m. may have to fish
longer before catching a king salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Alexander Creek, where king salmon escapements
have been low recently, could be excluded from this proposal. However, Susitna drainage history
shows this hour restriction has not been a very effective tool for increasing king salmon
escapement numbers.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-109)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 336 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Allow use of bait for king salmon fishing in Unit 1 of
the Susitna River drainage as follows:
Amend the Unit 1 king salmon regulation to read: from September 1 - May 15 [JULY 13], only
unbaited artificial lures are allowed in the flowing waters of the Susitna River drainage upstream
from its mouth to its confluence with the Deshka River.
283
ISSUE: Unit 1 of the Susitna River Drainage has a regulation prohibiting the use of bait during
the entire season when king salmon are present and open to fishing. This regulation was adopted
in a broad brush approach through out the Susitna Drainage to address lower than desired king
salmon escapements back in 1996. The problem is that even after king salmon production has
rebounded (with the exception of Deshka River) there remains no opportunity to fish with bait
for king salmon in the entire Susitna River system.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Anglers will continue to be denied even
limited opportunities to fish with bait for king salmon even though king salmon stocks are
currently healthy.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who would like Susitna River drainage
opportunities to fish bait for king salmon. Anglers fishing other parts of the Susitna River
drainage could benefit from less crowded fishing conditions whenever someone else chose to
fish the proposed area where bait would be allowed.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Aside from Deshka River, where bait is already allowed,
and Alexander Creek, where bait should likely not be allowed, Unit 1 can be characterized as
primarily a large glacial river providing little opportunity to harvest king salmon and very little
fishing effort except for a few small pockets where clear water rains into the main river.
Harvesting relatively low numbers of king salmon as they milled around before passing through
these clear water pockets would likely somewhat reduce harvests upstream at more popular king
salmon fishing areas.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The Board may want to exclude Alexander Creek
and flowing waters within 1/4 mile of its confluence with the Susitna River from this proposed
regulation change. This would maintain protection of Alexander Creek fish, and be an agreeable
solution.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-110)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 337 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Raise daily bag limit for king salmon in Deshka River
as follows:
Raise the Deshka River daily king salmon bag limit to 2 king salmon [1 KING SALMON].
ISSUE: For several years ADF&G has been raising the Deshka River king salmon limit to two
king salmon per day by emergency order. During 2005 and 2006 ADF&G increased the limit on
the Friday before Memorial Day weekend - a time when the most recent reliable information
justifying the Emergency Order can only be Deshka River Weir data from pervious years(s). The
announcement of the increased limit only happens 3 days prior to the action, giving sport
fishermen and sport fishing businesses very little time to plan ahead. If nothing is done, the
Deshka River king salmon sport fishery may continue to be managed in a manner than somewhat
minimizes benefits derived from the fishery.
284
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Deshka River king salmon escapements
have exceeded the goal range for the past 8 years, including several years when the river was
liberalized by emergency order to a two king salmon daily limit. If nothing is done, sport
fishermen will be left to guess when and if an emergency order will occur. Anglers fishing
before the emergency order occurs may continue to be unnecessarily restricted, since ADF&G
has past years’ weir data months in advance of when the emergency orders have been issued.
Use of emergency orders liberalizing popular sport fisheries often create unnatural crowding the
first several days of week after an E.O. is issued. Crowded fishing conditions often means lower
success rates, so emergency order liberalizations that have been made for three or more years in
a row should always be prime candidates for encoding into regulation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Deshka River king salmon anglers would benefit from
knowing the limit will be 2 kings per day. At this point in time there is obviously enough king
salmon to provide for this opportunity as evidenced by ADF&G’s use of emergency orders
raising the limit to that level over several years time, and several years of continued escapements
above the goal range.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Newspaper reporters and TV news reporters may lose their
yearly story about the “unanticipated” emergency order increasing the Deshka king salmon daily
bag limit to two king salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The Board of Fisheries could adopt a Deshka River
King Salmon Management Plan with weir count trigger points for such things as increasing or
decreasing the bag limit, allowing or restricting the use of bait, when to allow a king salmon
season extension, or when to extend the area open to king salmon fishing.
Weir data is often considered some of the very best fishery data available, but a weir operation is
expensive. On a stream with 10 or more years of weir data available it makes sense to utilize this
extremely valuable data to manage the fishery for maximum benefits. A management plan with
some of the above trigger points could maximize benefits from the fishery, while at the same
time letting the public know what to expect with varying levels of salmon returns. After all,
what is to be gained by keeping the public in the dark with emergency order regulations that may
seem to come out of the blue?
During the past few board cycles I’ve proposed and lobbied the Board to create a Deshka River
King Salmon Management Plan. I would be glad to see such a development, however, if the
board members chose to continue without one, I hope the long used two king salmon daily bag
limit can be adopted as a regulation that Deshka River king salmon anglers can plan and count
on from the start of each year.
PROPOSED BY: Andy Couch (HQ-07F-121)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 338 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Allow 24-hour fishing in Deshka River as follows:
285
Amend as follows: In waters open to king salmon fishing, excluding the Deshka River and all
flowing waters within one half mile from its confluence with the Susitna River, fishing is
not allowed between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. May 15 - July 13
ISSUE: Deshka River has a regulation prohibiting fishing in waters open to king salmon fishing
between the hours of 11p.m. and 6a.m. This regulation is unnecessary as evidence by the fact
that ADF&G issued emergency orders opening Deshka River to 24 hours per day king salmon
fishing in 2005, 2006, and will most likely issue a similar emergency order in 2007. Harvestable
surplus king salmon are available, as Deshka River king salmon escapements have exceeded the
escapement goal range for the past 8 years.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If nothing is done sport fishing for all
species of fish in the Deshka River open to king salmon fishing will continue to be unnecessarily
restricted from May 15 - July 13.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Deshka River anglers who would like to fish waters open
for king salmon, for any species of fish, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. would benefit
from the opportunity to do so.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People choosing to start fishing at 6 a.m. may have to fish
longer before catching a king salmon.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I prefer the proposal submitted by Matanuska Valley
Fish and Game Advisory Committee that would allow 24 hour king salmon fishing in all of Unit
1, however, if the Board decides not to adopt that proposal. I am providing this option specific to
Deshka River.
PROPOSED BY: Andy Couch (HQ-07F-122)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 339 - 5 AAC 61.112. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
1 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Extend king salmon season in the Deshka River based
upon escapement counts as follows:
5 AAC 61.022
When king salmon escapement past Deshka River Weir exceeds the escapement range
midpoint on or before July 10, then downstream of the weir, the Deshka River king salmon
season shall be extended through July 31.
ISSUE: For the past 8 years from 1999 - 2006 the king salmon escapement through Deshka
River Weir has exceeded the top end of the biological escapement goal (BEG) range, yet
identifiable surplus king salmon may not be harvested from the Deshka after July 13.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The lower 7 miles is the most heavily
fished section of Deshka River, and anglers will continue fishing here on a daily basis into
August. Surplus harvestable king salmon will continue to be caught on a daily basis.
Regulations will continue to outlaw harvest of these abundant king salmon.
286
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This change, if adopted, would allow a season length
currently used on larger sections of the Klutina, Kenai and Kasilof Rivers on a more conservative
7 miles of Deshka River during years of high returns. Mat-Su Valley and Anchorage anglers
could fish for king salmon closer to home. Anglers fishing other rivers could enjoy less crowded
fishing conditions as a result.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People who prefer no legal sport harvest of surplus Deshka
River king salmon after July 13.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? ADF&G extended the Deshka River king salmon
season through July 31 on the lower 2 miles of river in 2005. More opportunity and harvest
could be allowed while still safeguarding the spawning escapement if the fishery was opened up
to the weir closure marker.
PROPOSED BY: Fishtale River Guides (HQ-07F-124)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 340 - 5 AAC 61.114. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
2 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Amend season dates for king salmon fishing in Unit 2
of the Susitna River Drainage as follows:
Amend Susitna River drainage, Unit 2 king salmon seasons as follows: January 1 through third
Monday in June, then each following Saturday, Sunday, and Monday through July 13.
[SATURDAY, SUNDAY AND MONDAY FOR THE NEXT THREE WEEKS]
ISSUE: The Unit 2 Susitna River drainage king salmon fishing season should be adjusted to
make season length more consistent on a yearly basis, more consistent with the Unit 2 artificial
lure regulations ending date of July 13, and maximize fishing opportunity, while ending the
season more consistently with most Susitna River drainage king salmon seasons which run
through July 13.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If nothing is done the Unit 2 king salmon
season length will remain inconsistent in length on a yearly basis, and on years with less season
length will provide less than maximum benefit, even though Unit 2 drainage open to king salmon
fishing are already protected by extensive spawning area closures and all king salmon fishing is
currently prohibited on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays in late June through mid-
July.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen who prefer a more consistent Unit 2 king
salmon season length that is easier to understand will benefit.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
287
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-108)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 341 - 5 AAC 61.114. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
2 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Allow multiple hooks two weeks earlier for king
salmon fishing in Unit 2 of the Susitna River drainage as follows:
In flowing waters of Unit 2 Susitna River Drainage, open to king salmon fishing, amend the
season unbaited artificial lures are allowed to May 15 - July 13 [JUNE 1 - JULY 13] and the
season only one unbaited, single-hook, artificial lure is allowed to Sept. 1 - May 14 [SEPT. 1 -
MAY 31].
ISSUE: The Unit 2 starting date multiple hooks are allowed in waters open to king salmon
fishing should be adjusted to match the starting date for king salmon hours on other portions of
the Susitna River Drainage. This a Susitna River Drainage king salmon regulation starting date
the Matanuska Valley Fish & Game Advisory Committee proposes adjusting for consistency.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If something is not done the starting date
for use of multiple hooks in Unit 2 will remain inconsistent with other king salmon regulation
starting dates throughout the Susitna River drainage. Currently there is no biologically
significant savings gained through the use of different dates, and multiple starting dates makes
regulations confusing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen who prefer simpler, less restrictive, fishing
regulations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some trout fishermen may have a perception they would
suffer, but since king salmon anglers catch relatively few trout, trout fishermen would continue
to catch the bulk of the trout, and there would likely be little change in the trout fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This Advisory committee is submitting one
additional proposal seeking consistency in Unit 2 Susitna River drainage king salmon regulation
dates.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-107)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 342 - 5 AAC 61.114. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
2 of the Susitna River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 61.120. Special provisions and localized
additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and
means for Unit 5 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Increase bag limit of coho salmon for
Alaskan residents in Parks Highway streams and Talkeetna River as follows:
Increase the silver salmon limit for Alaskan residents to three fish, in the east side Susitna River
288
drainages along the Parks Highway and the Talkeetna River. This will save time and money for
Alaskan residence.
ISSUE: The silver salmon limit along the parks highway was reduced to two fish during a
period of weak returns, sockeye salmon fishing has been shut off for the last two years in the
Susitna River drainage, and the only personal use fishery hasn’t been held in over 10 years.
Alaskan residents have to make repeated trips to the streams to catch their winter food supply.
With the current fuel prices this is placing a burden on many Alaskan families.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Alaskan families are being forced to
spend extra time and money on gathering their winter food supply.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Alaska residences that fish along the Parks Highway.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Establishing personal use fishery for sockeye
salmon, but Northern District stocks are suffering from low returns.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-364)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 343 - 5 AAC 61.120. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
5 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Delay bait restrictions on Talkeetna River as follows:
Bait restrictions go into effect on the Talkeetna River (below the railroad bridge) on September
15.
ISSUE: I believe the regulation to close the Talkeetna River drainages for the use of bait for
silver salmon fishing goes into effect about two weeks too soon. The lower Talkeetna River near
the confluence with the Big Su remains cloudy with glacier silt until it begins to freeze in the
mountains. There are fresh silver salmon arriving in the lower river until around mid-September.
It is virtually impossible to harvest any silvers in that gray water on artificial lures. For those
who can afford to head up the river to Clear Creek, it is no problem, but for the lower river,
fishing over. I have fished that area for many years and understand the need to protect the
rainbow, Dolly Varden and grayling populations from over fishing, and have no problem with
that. I also know that the trout population does not begin its migration downstream to winter in
the Big Su until the water in the Talkeetna begins to clear and get colder which usually happens
by the third week in September. So, I just think the restrictions regarding bait use go into effect
to soon. I don’t think this applies to other Susitna tributaries such as Montana Creek, etc. in that
those fish seem to have already turned and are in a spawning mode by the end of August.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nothing, but a quality fishery is
eliminated for those two weeks.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allows for a reasonable harvest of fresh silvers in these
289
waters.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Any fisherman who can't afford a boat or charter would
benefit. Local residents can still catch fish legally close to the town of Talkeetna.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one that I can foresee. Those who can afford to run
upstream to Clear Creek and other clear water tributaries can continue to do that.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Wayne Coggins (HQ-07F-471)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 344 - 5 AAC 62.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
West Cook Inlet Area. Close Chuitna River to sport fishing above old cable crossing as
follows:
Chuitna River and all tributaries are closed to all sport fishing above the old cable crossing.
ISSUE: By the next South Central Alaska Board of Fisheries cycle a coal strip mine as
proposed will be operating in the Chitna River watershed. Pac Rim Coal permits request the
dumping of over 7,200,000 gpd from its mining operation into three tributaries (stream 2002,
Middle Creek, and Lone Creek) that make up 32 percent of the water flow to the Chuitna River.
Hundreds of coal workers will permanently housed near these tributaries which produce up to
one-third of the entire coho production for the Chuitna River. The present mining plan will mine
up to 90% of these small streams. To protect the spawning areas and monitor the mining impacts
of the area the upper Chuitna River needs to be closed to sport fishing. ADFG and private studies
concerning the status of trout and salmon species will be invalidated by new exploitation rates.
The Chuitna is rated pristine and easily meets water drinking standards according to EIS
documents. Because mineralization is up to 900 percent higher in coal scam water as compared
to the Chuitna River the dumping and leaching of hydrocarbons, sulfate, manganese, zinc,
mercury, arsenic, lead, boron, nickel, and the resulting PH changes are critical for the State of
Alaska to monitor. Because I have seen the impact of overexploitation and related damage to the
salmon stocks in the nearby Theodore and Lewis Rivers these smaller streams and the upper
Chuitna need protection as soon as possible.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? With the opening of this major coal strip
mine and related roads the spawning areas of the Chuitna will be available to be exploited in an
area of limited enforcement. This River is the major subsistence and sport fishing river in the
Tyonek/Beluga area which needs to be protected at a time of unprecedented strip coal mining.
This is a proactive approach that has worked to protect the spawning rainbow stocks and King
Salmon in this same area.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? As a commercial fisherman I market salmon that directly
interact with the Chuitna River water that enters Cook Inlet. I am very concerned with quality of
my product and Alaska retaining Wild organic food for the marketplace.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Pac Rim Coal, State of Alaska Fish and Game, EPA, and
other agencies that will monitor the impact on coal strip mining to the Chuitna watershed fish
290
production. All salmon fisherman who presently fish the Chuitna River stocks.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Coal employees or local residents who would utilize new
roads to target trout and salmon populations in the upper reaches of the Chuitna River.
Helicopter guides on the upper Chuitna although they will still be able to utilize over 10 miles of
the Chuitna River.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Requesting Pac Rim Coal to ban employees from
fishing the upper reaches of the Chuitna River. Company enforcement would not be practical or
legal. Establishing a sanctuary much like Bristol Bay to protect our renewable salmon resources.
As a commercial fisherman who is trying to keep my fish site from becoming an energy port I
have limited resources to flight for this larger solution against a multinational corporation.
PROPOSED BY: Terry Jorgensen (HQ-07F-193)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 345 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Require unbaited, artificial lures year-round on the Little Susitna
River as follows:
Only unbaited artificial lures are allowed year round in the Little Susitna River. Maybe other
rivers if this same death rate is applicable.
ISSUE: The wasted fish due to hooking and releasing coho in the fall using bait. I went down to
salt water last year and was shocked to find a bunch of dead fish in the river mouth. Many had
visible hook scars. I call ADF&G and was informed that hooking mortality studies in the Little
Susitna showed 70 percent of coho died when released. This is a serious waste, which should be
stopped.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? People will release fish without realizing
they are just wasting them.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, hundreds maybe thousands of coho are wasted by catch
and release each year.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone as fish won’t be wasted.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People who fish with bait and waste fish
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Close the river, rejected because it isn’t necessary
PROPOSED BY: Tom Olsen (HQ-07F-235)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 346 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Allow use of bait in the Little Susitna River king salmon fishery
from July 1 -13 as follows:
291
Amend the Little Susitna River seasons as follows: Only unbaited artificial lures are allowed
Oct.1 - June 30 and July 14 - Aug. 5. Bait is allowed July 1 - 13 and Aug. 6 - Sept. 30.
ISSUE: To stabilize declining Little Susitna River king salmon numbers, and in accordance
with similar declines on the Susitna River drainage and Deshka River, regulations were adopted
for 1996 that prohibited the use of bait during the king salmon season on all of these waters.
Since that time, king salmon escapements have improved; however, Deshka River is the only
water where king salmon anglers can again use bait. Many anglers would like to once again have
an opportunity to fish bait for king salmon on the Little Susitna River as well.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Little Susitna River anglers will continue
to be denied even a limited opportunity to fish with bait for king salmon even though the king
salmon stock is healthy.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who would like a limited opportunity to once
again fish for Little Susitna River king salmon with bait. Anglers fishing other Mat-Su Valley
king salmon fisheries could benefit from less crowded fishing conditions whenever someone else
chose to fish Little Susitna River in early July.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This proposal is for a purposefully limited bait fishery at a
time when most king salmon have already passed through the lower Little Susitna River. While
king salmon harvests will be significantly less than if the bait fishery was allowed earlier,
maintaining healthy king salmon spawning escapements is the priority. No one should suffer.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? It is possible a king salmon bait fishery that opened
closer to the mid point of king salmon passage through the lower Little Susitna River (mid June),
would still provide adequate spawning escapements, however, the Committee prefers to proceed
cautiously.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-363)
****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 347 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Apply vessel restriction for fishing on Little Susitna River as
follows:
Canoe only from Houston to Burma access. Outboard restrictions to 25 horsepower or less, five
mile per hour limit or no wake for entire system from Houston to Cook Inlet.
ISSUE: Unsafe boating on little Susitna River system and ecological damage to river. I visited
the little Susitna in August, 2006 and witnessed boats traveling in the opposite direction on hair
pin turns populated with wader fishermen, and feared the boats more than the bears.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Loss of human life, significant erosion of
riverbank, silting in of the river and loss of spawning habitat, due to jet boat wakes.
292
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Spawning habitat will no longer be in jeopardy.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The salmon and the river itself.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guide and charter operations. They operate 18-20 foot jet
boats with 65-150 horsepower jet outboards and zoom the river with two to three boat loads.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Mathew Conley (HQ-07F-001)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 348 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Extend waters open to king salmon fishing near Eklutna Tailrace
as follows:
Extend waters open to king salmon fishing in Knik River drainage as follows:
Knik River drainage from its confluence with Knik Arm to a point 1/2 mile up-stream of
Eklutna Power Plant Tailrace, Including all waters of the Tailrace and all flowing waters
within 1/2 mile radius of Knik River.
ISSUE: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been socking king salmon in Eklutna
Power Plant Tailrace, and these salmon have been returning to the Knik River and the Tailrace
since the summer of 2003, but early in the season kings are available in the Knik River but not
moving up the low water channel to the Tailrace.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Anglers will not be allowed to fish where
most of the king salmon are staging early in the season. Our proposed solution would also allow
a larger fishing area later in the season when this small sporty fishery can be quit crowded.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who would like to catch and harvest king salmon
from this fishery earlier in the season, and business owners who would enjoy economic benefits
from the expanded fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. This seems like a practical conservative step.
PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-106)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 349 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Allow use of bait on Big Lake as follows:
293
It is time to allow bait to be used on Big Lake since the dolly population has recovered and can
support the addition pressure. The bait restrictions can be reapplied during the period when
burbot are staging for the annual spawning migration.
ISSUE: Big Lake located at waters of Fish Creek has been closed to the use of bait for several
years. The reason for closure had been due to the poor condition of the dolly pop the lake. It
appears that the dollies have recovered sufficiently to allow bait to be used. Dollies in the mid to
high 20-inch range are being caught on a regular bases and many in the 30-inch range.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Many Alaskan that don’t have the skill or
knowledge to use artificial lures or just does like using artificial lures will be kept off of Big
Lake. The bait restrictions were put on during a period of managers concerns.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The average consumptive user or young angle just starting
out that does not have the experience to use artificial lures.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? I can’t think of any one that will be hurt.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allowing scents on the lures or jugs or plastic baits
with scents.
PROPOSED BY: Thomas B. Knowles (HQ-07F-135)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 350 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Establish a spawning closure and decrease bag limit for burbot in
Big Lake as follows:
Under the exceptions for Big Lake, just above “Big Lake Arctic char/Dolly Varden daily limits”,
it would read: Big Lake burbot daily limits: 2 per day/2 in possession. Open to fishing for
burbot from May1 - March 15. All burbot caught March 15 - May 1 must be immediately
released.
ISSUE: Potential overharvest of burbot in Big Lake. Big Lake is currently the only lake in the
Mat-Su Valley open to ice fishing that is closed to fishing with bait through the ice. According to
area biologists, the reason for closing this lake to bait is to protect burbot stocks in the lake. Over
the past several years a growing burbot fishery has developed in this lake when the burbot gather
to spawn in March and April. Burbot become very aggressive and easy to catch during daylight
hours during this period, and are very vulnerable to overharvest. They also spawn in specific
areas of a lake, so can be easily overharvested before getting a chance to spawn. It makes little
sense to make bait fishing in this lake illegal to protect burbot, but leaving fishing open when
they are at their most vulnerable.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Burbot size and population in Big Lake
willl decline, reminiscent of the crash that occurred in Lake Louise.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
294
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Limiting the harvest now, and allowing the large burbot
to spawn, will prevent the population from crashing, allowing continued sustainable yield of this
fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Future generations of fishermen who will still have a
viable hook and release fishery to enjoy.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who enjoy harvesting burbot during the spring will
lose this opportunity.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? My first proposal addressed limiting the number of
fish kept year round, but allowed limited harvest during the spawn. This proposal goes further by
eliminating retention of burbot during their spawning time.
PROPOSED BY: Steve Runyan (HQ-07F-436)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 351 - 5 AAC 60.122. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm Drainages Area. Decrease bag limit for burbot in Big Lake as follows:
Under the exceptions for Big Lake, just above “Big Lake Arctic char/Dolly Varden daily limits”
it would read: Big Lake burbot daily limits: 2 per day, 2 in possession.
ISSUE: Potential overharvest of burbot in Big Lake. Big Lake is currently the only lake in the
Mat-Su Valley open to ice fishing that is closed to fishing with bait through the ice. According to
area biologists, the reason for closing this lake to bait is to protect burbot stocks in the lake. Over
the past several years a growing burbot fishery has developed in this lake when the burbot gather
to spawn in March and April. Burbot become very aggressive and easy to catch during the
daylight hours during this period, and are very vulnerable to overharvest. They also spawn in
specific areas of a lake, so can be easily overharvested before getting a chance to spawn. It
makes little sense to make bait fishing in this lake illegal to protect burbot, but leave fishing open
when they are at their most vulnerable.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Burbot size and population in Big Lake
will decline, reminiscent of the crash that occurred in Lake Louise.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Limiting the harvest now will prevent the population
from crashing, allowing continued sustainable yield of this fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Future generations of fishermen who will still have a
viable fishery to enjoy.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who are harvesting 5 burbot a day will be able to
bring fewer fish home.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered closing the fishery completely during
the spawning time, and rejected this. It is already difficult, with no bait, to catch burbot at other
times of the year, so by being allowed to harvest some fish at this time of year, anglers can still
enjoy this fishery.
295
PROPOSED BY: Steve Runyan (HQ-07F-437)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 352 - 5 AAC 60.122(10)(B). Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the
Knik Arm drainages area; 5 AAC 61.118(10). Special provisions and localized additions
and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for
Unit 4 of the Susitna River Drainage Area; and 5 AAC 62.122(13)(C). Special provisions
and localized additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and
methods and means for the West Cook Inlet Area. Amend these regulations as follows:
5 AAC 60.122(10)(B) all Nancy Lake Recreational Area lakes[, EXCEPT NANCY LAKE,] are
open to sport fishing through the ice for northern pike using five lines; allowable gear is limited
to standard ice fishing gear as specified in 5 ACC 60.120(7); the fishing gear must be closely
attended, an all other fish caught must be released immediately;
5 AAC 60.122 (X)Anderson, Memory, Prator, Crystal, and Long Lakes (near Willow) are
open to sport fishing through the ice for northern pike using five lines; allowable gear is
limited to standard ice fishing gear as specified in 5 ACC 60.120(7); the fishing gear must
be closely attended, and all other species of fish caught must be released immediately;
5 AAC 61.118(10) Shell, Onestone, Whiskey, Hewitt, Donkey, Upper and Lower Vern, No
Name (Cabin), and Lockwood Lakes are open to sport fishing through the ice for northern pike
using five lines; allowable gear is limited to standard ice fishing gear as specified in 5 ACC
61.110(8); and if
5 AAC 62.122(13) Threemile/Takhalla [LAKE] and Chuitbuna Lakes; (C) open to sport
fishing through the ice for northern pike using five lines; allowable gear is limited to standard ice
fishing gear as specified in 5 ACC [61.030] 62.120(7); the fishing gear must be closely attended,
an all other fish caught must be released immediately.
ISSUE: During the 1996 Board of Fisheries meeting sport fishing regulations for northern pike
were liberalized in several select lakes where northern pike were recently documented. Seven
additional lakes were added to this list in 2002. Northern pike have continued to expand their
range both naturally and illegally, colonizing new waters, impacting both native and stocked fish
species. Even though northern pike are sought by sport anglers, northern pike in Southcentral
Alaska are considered an invasive species and are managed by the department accordingly. The
presence of northern pike in Nancy Lake was confirmed by the department in 2006. The
department believes northern pike are just beginning to take a hold in this system and there may
be a moderate impact to salmonid stocks in the near future. Shell, Onestone, Long, Anderson,
and Chuitbuna Lakes have outlets into major anadromous streams. Prator, Memory, and Crystal
Lakes are stocked lakes where northern pike have been illegally introduced. Adding these lakes
to the regulations which liberalize the number of lines an angler can use while fishing through
the ice for northern pike will assist the department with their efforts to reduce these populations
of northern pike.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nancy, Shell, Onestone, Long, Anderson,
and Chuitbuna Lakes will continue to be managed differently for winter pike fishing than other
lakes selected for management under a maximized harvest strategy. Lake stocking may be
eliminated in lakes where northern pike are prolific.
296
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who fish for pike in Nancy, Shell, Onestone,
Long, Crystal, Prator, Memory, Anderson, and Chuitbuna Lakes. There will also be regulatory
consistency between waters managed for invasive northern pike.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Over time, anglers looking to harvest large size northern
pike.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Control netting by the department. However, the
department has limited resources for implementing an effective control netting program in so
many locations, over such a large area.
Eradicating northern pike in landlocked stocked lakes through treatment with rotenone.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-289)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 353 - 5 AAC 61.118. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
4 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Increase number of lines allowed for pike fishing in
Shell Lake as follows:
Add Shell Lake to the list of Lakes within Unit 4 that allow five lines for ice fishing Northern
Pike.
ISSUE: The problem includes Shell Lake has been invaded by northern pike. Shell Lake is one
of the most important sockeye producing lakes in the Susitna drainage. Northern pike negatively
impacting the sockeye salmon population of the lake.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sockeye salmon production will decline.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All groups harvesting sockeye salmon.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Northern pike.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Brandon Sutherland (HQ-07F-083)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 354 - 5 AAC 60.120. General provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and
size limits, and methods and means for the Knik Arm Drainages Area; and 5 AAC 61.120.
Special provisions and localized additions and exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession,
and size limits, and methods and means for Unit 5 of the Susitna River Drainage Area.
297
Allow up to 12 lines for pike while ice fishing in Northern Cook Inlet as follows:
Change the regulations to allow ice fishing for northern pike using 7 to 12 lines per person in all
Northern Cook Inlet area waters except for the ones with existing limitations (Alexander [slot
and possession limit], Big [no bait] and Nancy lake [no pike fishing]) Changing the number of
lines from 2 to 7 to 12 would allow folks to set up to five tip-ups out for Northerns and still fish
with two jigging rods for other species. 12 is the maximum number that I feel a person could
closely attend effectively.
Amend regulation would read as follows:
Methods, means, and general provisions - Finfish
(g) In all confirmed northern pike waters [SUCKER, FLATHORN, WHISKEY, HEWITT,
DONKEY, THREE MILE, TRAIL, NEIL, KROTO, TRAPPER, FIGURE EIGHT, NO NAME
(CABIN), LOWER VERN, UPPER VERN, AND LOCKWOOD LAKES , AND NANCY
LAKE RECREATION AREA LAKES], except, [EXCLUDING] Alexander, Big and Nancy
Lake, seven to twelve [FIVE] lines per person may be used to fish through the ice for northern
pike only if…
ISSUE: Increase the number of lines allowed to use while ice fishing for northern pike to
eradicate the northern pike populations in Northern Cook Inlet area waters (Anchorage Bowl,
Mat-Su, Knik and Susitna Valley rivers and lakes.)
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Besides the obvious reasons like the pike
eating all of the natural and stocked fish in the area lakes, page 11 of the current ADF&G
Management Plan for Invasive Northern Pike in Alaska sums it all well: “The introduction and
proliferation of northern pike to watersheds outside their native range in Alaska have lead to
challenges in fisheries management. Pike predation on natural and supplemented salmonoid
populations have threatened economically import sport, commercial, subsistence, and personal
use fisheries and have interfered with natural ecosystem function.”
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No, it simply provides an additional option for removing
Northern pike from area waters with no additional cost to the State of Alaska.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? It’s a win-win situation for everyone involved. Sportsmen
who like to ice fish for pike will have a greater opportunity for harvest with the increased
number of lines. This increase in the total number of lines will more than likely increase catch
rates; this, lowering and in some cased eliminate threatening populations of salmonoid eating
pike. For the average fisherman, the reduction in number of pike in the lakes will mean that
more fish exist for them to catch. For ADF&G, their stocking efforts will not be wasted on
feeding the pike population for will they spend excessive amounts on netting, weirs or poisoning
bodies of water. The area economy will also benefit because the purchase of additional gear and
bait would boost local merchant’s revenue.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one except the illegally introduced pike population.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Any of the proposals in the pike management plan
will cost the State of Alaska money. This idea will not cost them anything and as an Alaskan
resident I think this is the way to effectively reduce the Northern pike population in areas where
they are a concern.
298
PROPOSED BY: Daniel Franckowiak (HQ-07F-324)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 355 - 5 AAC 61.120. Special provisions and localized additions and
exceptions to the seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for Unit
5 of the Susitna River Drainage Area. Liberalize methods and means for Northern pike in
fishing Deshka, Yenta and Susitna drainages as follows:
Allow baited hooks for northern pike after freeze up in all sloughs, ponds, and tributaries of the
Deshka, Yentna, and Susitna Rivers with exception of the main channels allow 5 lines through
the ice. No limit on northern pike November 1 - April 15.
ISSUE: The rapid increase in northern pike populations in sloughs, ponds and lakes that drain
into the Deshka, Yentna and Susitna Rivers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued northern pike population
growth is destroying salmon rearing areas by feeding on immature salmon.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Attempt to reduce northern pike populations.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All sport fisher persons.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Bruce E. Taylor (HQ-07F-105)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 356 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Establish personal use fisheries in selected Upper Cook Inlet drainages as
follows:
Establish dip net fisheries in Ship Creek, Bird Creek, Campbell Creek, Little Susitna, Jim Creek,
and lower the turn on point in Fish Creek to 50,000. All species of salmon may be retained.
ISSUE: No personal use fisheries in the Valley and Anchorage.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Personal use fisheries will continue to be
only in Kenai causing a lot of people to travel past fish to dip.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, can be caught close to home.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Alaska residents.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
299
PROPOSED BY: Tom Obrien (HQ-07F-240)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 357 - 5 AAC 77.527 (1). Personal Use Fishery. Establish a limit for hooligan
harvest in Cook Inlet as follows:
Allow not more than 1 1/2 five-gallon bucket (7 1/2 gallons) in possession.
ISSUE: Establish a limit for harvest of hooligan.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Twentymile hooligan stocks would
decrease.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Proposal would reduce waste - allow more fish to spawn.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dippnetters seeking a limited harvest.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who harvest as many as they can and have no regard
for the future stock of fish.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Chuck Maxon (HQ-07F-312)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 358 - 5 AAC 77.540. Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. Open a personal use salmon fishery in the Beluga area as follows:
Add Beluga to 5 AAC 77.540, “Upper Cook Inlet Personal Use Salmon Fishery Management
Plan”.
The permit requirements and reporting would be the same as 5 AAC 77.540 “Fishing seasons
and daily fishing periods”, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3).
The regulation for fishing periods would be the same as for the Tyonek Sub-district under 5
AAC 01.560 “Fishing seasons and daily periods,” paragraphs (b)(1) (A thru D)
The gear specifications and annual limit would be the same as 5 AAC 77.540, paragraphs (b)(5)
(A thru D) and (b)(6). Additionally, the net should not be attached by a method that would
prevent harvesting the fish at any time and having to wait until the tide goes out. The net should
be attached to a running line via pulleys or by attaching a weight (anchor), at the sea end, which
will allow the net to be retrieved.
The Beluga area would include those waters of the Northern District within the mean low tide
from a point one mile north of the northern edge of the Chuitna River north to a point one mile
south of the Susitna River. Personal Use fishery would be prevented within one mile of any river
and/or creek between these points.
300
ISSUE: Beluga residents have lost the personal opportunity to harvest salmon and do not have
adequate access to fish migrating Cook Inlet. Approximately 10 years ago this area was open as
a subsistence set-net fishery, but was removed and the only area that remains open is the Tyonek
Sub-district. The Tyonek Sub-district is south of the Chuitna (Chuit) River and access is not
available to Beluga residents because of private lands belonging to the Tyonek village and a gate
that prohibits road access. Three Mile Creek, at one time, used to have a strong enough run of
Sockeye (red), and Coho (Silver) Salmon to at least satisfy some of the needs of Beluga
residents, as a sports fishery. But due to the invasion of Northern Pike in Threemile/Tukhallah
Lake the salmon run in Three Mile Creek has been all but eliminated. Access to Chinook (King)
Salmon has also been all but eliminated due to access restrictions on the Chuitna River and the
closure to taking of King Salmon on the Lewis and Theodore Rivers.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Beluga residents are no longer able to
satisfy their needs for salmon due to restrictions and the loss of the local salmon to pike
predation. The only way to access the salmon is to cross private lands which are posted as “No
Trespassing”. This trespass would subject residents to legal actions even if the gate is open or
would e prevented access if gate is closed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes it would allow Beluga resident’s access to the higher
quality salmon and allow them to harvest high enough quantities for annual needs. Travel
distance would be minimal.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Personnel in Beluga.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Duane T. Gluth (HQ-07F-316)
******************************************************************************
301
KING AND TANNER CRAB (STATEWIDE EXCEPT SOUTHEAST/YAKUTAT)
PROPOSAL 359 - 5 AAC 35.408(b)(4) and (b)(5). Registration Area H Tanner crab harvest
strategy; 5 AAC 35.410(c) Fishing seasons for Registration Area H; 5 AAC 58.022(a)(11).
Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and special provisions for Cook Inlet –
Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area; 5 AAC 77.516(1)(B). Personal use Tanner crab fishery.
Establish and refine management criteria for sport and personal use fisheries in Cook Inlet and on
the Outer Gulf Coast including Resurrection Bay.
5 AAC 35.408. Registration Area H Tanner crab harvest strategy. (a) The provisions of this
section establish the abundance thresholds for the Tanner crab fisheries in the Southern,
Kamishak, and Barren Island Districts of Cook Inlet.
(b) In the Southern District, the minimum stock threshold for the commercial fishery is
500,000 legal male Tanner crab. The commercial [AND NON-COMMERCIAL] Tanner crab
fisheries will open only under the following conditions:
(1) if the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is at least 1,000,000
crab, the commercial [AND NON-COMMERCIAL] fishery[IES] will open to harvest Tanner crab
at a rate, in combination with the noncommercial fisheries, not to exceed 25 percent of the
estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab;
(2) if the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is at least 500,000,
but less than 1,000,000 crab, the commercial [AND NON-COMMERCIAL] Tanner crab fisheries
will open to harvest Tanner crab at a rate , in combination with the noncommercial fisheries, not
to exceed 15 percent of the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab;
(3) the commercial fishery may not open if
(A) the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is below
500,000 crab;
(B) attainment of the guideline harvest level would cause legal male Tanner
crab abundance to fall below 500,000 crab; or
(C) the estimated harvest capacity, calculated by the number of registered
vessels multiplied by the legal pot limit, and the estimated catch rate exceeds the guideline harvest
level during a commercial fishery of a minimum 12-hour duration;
[(4) IF THE RECENT FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE ABUNDANCE LEVEL OF
LEGAL MALE TANNER CRAB IS GREATER THAN 100,000 CRAB, THE NON-
COMMERCIAL GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL MAY NOT EXCEED 10 PERCENT OF THE
RECENT FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE ABUNDANCE LEVEL OF LEGAL MALE TANNER
CRAB;
(5) THE NON-COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WILL BE CLOSED IF
(A) THE RECENT FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE ABUNDANCE LEVEL OF
LEGAL MALE TANNER CRAB IS LESS THAN 100,000 CRAB;
(B) THE ESTIMATED ABUNDANCE LEVEL OF LEGAL MALE
TANNER CRAB IS LESS THAN 100,000 CRAB FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS; OR
(C) THE ESTIMATED ABUNDANCE LEVEL OF LEGAL MALE
TANNER CRAB IS LESS THAN 100,000 CRAB IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.]
(c) In the Kamishak and Barren Islands Districts, combined, the minimum stock
threshold for the commercial fishery is 700,000 legal male Tanner crab. The commercial fishery
will open only under the following conditions:
302
(1) if the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is 1,400,000 crab or
greater, Tanner crab may be harvested at a rate, in combination with the non-commercial fishery,
not to exceed 25 percent of the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab;
(2) if the abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is less than 1,400,000, but
greater than 700,000 crab, Tanner crab may be harvested at a rate, in combination with the non-
commercial fishery not to exceed 15 percent of the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner
crab;
(3) the commercial fishery may not open if
(A) the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is below
700,000 crab;
(B) the attainment of the guideline harvest level would cause the abundance
of legal male Tanner crab to fall below 700,000 crab; or
(C) the estimated harvest capacity, calculated as the number of registered
vessels multiplied by the legal pot limit and estimated catch rates, exceeds the guideline harvest
level for a fishery of a minimum 24-hour duration.
(d) The noncommercial fishery harvest guideline may not exceed 10 percent of the
recent 5-year average of legal male abundance when legal male abundance is below the
minimum stock threshold for a commercial fishery. Non-commercial Tanner crab fishing is
closed
(1) in that portion of the Southern District east of a line from Pt. Pogibshi to
Anchor Point
(A) if the recent five-year average abundance of legal male Tanner crab
estimated from the Kachemak Bay trawl survey is less than 100,000 crab.
(B) the estimated abundance of legal male Tanner crab estimated from the
Kachemak Bay trawl survey is less than 100,000 crab for three consecutive years; or
(C) the estimated abundance level of legal male Tanner crab is less than
50,000 crab in any given year.
(2) in the Southern District west of a line from Pt. Pogibshi to Anchor Point and
the Kamishak and Barren Island Districts west of the latitude of Gore Point; the estimated
abundance level of legal male Tanner crab from the Kamishak Bay trawl survey is less than
70,000 in any given year.
5 AAC 35.410 Fishing seasons for Registration Area H.
(c) Notwithstanding (b) of this section, the commercial harvest of Tanner crab in the
Outer, Eastern, and Central Districts is closed until the Tanner crab stocks have recovered and a
harvest strategy is developed by the department and adopted in a regulation by the Board of
Fisheries. When the noncommercial fisheries in the [Southern] Kamishak or Barren Island
Districts are closed to the taking of Tanner crab, the noncommercial fisheries in the
[KAMISHAK, BARREN ISLAND], Eastern and Outer and Central Districts shall also remain
closed.
5 AAC 58.022 Waters; seasons; bag, possession, and size limits; and special provisions for
Cook Inlet – Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area.
(a)(11) Tanner crab: may be taken only from [JULY 15-MARCH 15] August 1-
March 30, except that when the sport fishery in the [SOUTHERN] Kamishak or Barren Islands
Districts are [IS]closed to the taking of Tanner crab the sport fishery in the [KAMISHAK,
BARREN ISLANDS,] Eastern, [AND] Outer and Central Districts shall remain closed as
specified under 5 AAC 35.410 (c); bag and possession limit five male crab; minimum size is five
303
and one-half inches across the widest part of the shell, including spines; a shellfish harvest
recording form is required as specified in 5 AAC 58.026;
5 AAC 77.516. Personal use Tanner crab fishery.
(1)(B)when the personal use fishery in the Kamishak or Barren Island Districts
are [SOUTHERN IS] closed to the taking of Tanner crab, the personal use fishery in the Eastern,
[AND] Outer and Central Districts shall also remain closed as specified under 5 AAC 35.410 (c).
ISSUE: The current management of the sport and personal use Tanner crab fisheries in Cook Inlet
and the outer Gulf Coast of the Kenai Peninsula, is linked to harvest guidelines established from
legal male Tanner crab abundance estimated from the Kachemak Bay trawl survey. Ocean current
studies completed recently in lower Cook Inlet indicate that Kamishak Bay may be a better
indicator of Tanner crab stock status in Cook Inlet and outer Gulf Coast waters because Kachemak
Bay waters may be isolated from Gulf of Alaska currents and the crab larvae they transport while
Kamishak Bay is not.
Legal male Tanner crab abundance in the Kamishak Bay trawl survey increased substantially in
2006 compared to recent surveys and large numbers of smaller-sized Tanner crab have been present
in survey catches since 2001, indicating that the Tanner crab stocks in central Lower Cook Inlet area
can sustain sport and personal use fishing and the stock will continue rebuilding. Since Kamishak
Bay is “downstream” in the northern Gulf of Alaska currents that circulate along the outer Gulf
Coast of the Kenai Peninsula, trends in Kamishak Bay likely reflect trends elsewhere along the
outer Gulf Coast and Cook Inlet. Historic sport and personal use legal male Tanner crab harvests
from Cook Inlet and the outer Gulf Coast, not including the Kachemak Bay area, reported on
permits, averaged approximately 350 between 1996 and 2002. The maximum harvest from this
area during 1996-2002 was approximately 1,200 legal-sized male Tanner crabs.
Passage of this proposal would result in opening the sport and personal use fisheries in Cook Inlet
west of a line from Anchor Point to Point Pogibshi, and along the outer Gulf Coast of the Kenai
Peninsula, west of the longitude of Cape Puget and the latitude of Cape Douglas. The daily bag and
possession limit would be 5 legal-sized male Tanner crabs. A pot limit of 2 per person and 2 per
vessel would be invoked. A permit would be required to participate in the fishery.
The Board has not made a customary and traditional use finding for this stock, as required under AS
16.05.258 (a), and should consider doing so before acting on this proposal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Harvest opportunity will be forgone
needlessly.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public who wants to harvest Tanner crab.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-288)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 360 - 5 AAC 77.516. Personal use Tanner crab fishery. Open a personal use
bairdi tanner crab fishery between Gore Point to Cape Puget as follows:
304
From Gore Point to Cape Puget a personal use fishery open from Sept 15 through March 31, with
a detailed harvest report to be filed with ADFG. Five pot limit, 20 legal size tanner crab per day.
ISSUE: Bairdi tanner crab personal use fishery for the North Gulf Coast.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A traditional personal use fishery will
remain closed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? There isn’t any recent survey work on crab in this area. The
stocks haven’t been fished in many years. This limited fishery would produce a detailed harvest
report for ADFG. The North Gulf Coast fishing area is generally a considerable distance from
coastal communities, the 5 pot limit would allow for prospecting and reporting from these
remote areas.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? ADFG with the detailed harvest reporting, local fisherman
with a personal fishing opportunity.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Seward Fish and Game Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-350)
*****************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 361 - 5 AAC 77.557. Personal use king crab fishery. Allow personal use
fishery for golden or brown and red king crab in Prince William Sound as follows:
A personal use season for all species of king crab shall be open from November 1 till April 30 of
the following year in the waters of Prince William Sound. Waters such as the Port Etches closed
area shall remain closed. 1 pot of legal size and configuration as defined in the regulations per
person. 1 pot per vessel. Buoy or keg attached to the line of the pot shall have permitees’ name,
address, phone number, and vessel name or AK# written clearly and legibly in writing of a size
defined in the regulations book. Bag limit of five male crab of legal size as defined in the
regulations per person per year. A punch card permit must be obtained from the Department of
Fish and Game prior to fishing. Punch cards will be punched as soon as the crab are removed
from the water and put on board. The logbook will be filled out as soon as any non-legal crab
and bycatch is returned to the water. All crab not of legal size and sex and more than 5 of legal
size and sex shall be returned to the water immediately. The department biologists will decide
what reporting requirements will be on the permits. A logbook must be kept containing
information on latitude longitude where pot is set, water depth in feet or fathoms, and numbers of
any and all species of fish and shellfish. The department may add or delete any logbook
requirements as they see fit to help them with the biology of this fishery. All participants in this
fishery are required to register in person or by phone and fax with the department in Cordova,
Alaska or Valdez, Alaska before leaving port for each trip to set or haul their pot. The
department will decide if this is a written or verbal registration. Registration will include date,
time of departure, estimated time or return, and area to be fished. Area will be latitude longitude
and closest headland or body of water. After each trip permitees must call or in person notify the
department that they are back in port. Notification must be within 6 hours after opening office
hours or by a message machine if the departments machine answers.
305
ISSUE: Brown or golden and red king crab is closed to personal use fishing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? People will not be able have access to the
resource.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. I feel that users of a resource are a wealth of information
for biologists. Different surveys are expensive and therefore there is uncertainty whether or not
the powers that be will fund them in a timely matter or at all.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The people that would have access to this resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: David L. Daniels (HQ-07F-113)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 362 - 5 AAC 77.558. Personal Use Tanner Crab Fishery. Open personal use
Tanner crab season in Port Valdez as follows:
A personal use Tanner crab fishery will open from October first and close midnight May 30.
Two pots per person - only 1 person may fish their pots on 1 boat - 10 make crab of a size legal
when it used to be open - only 1 bag limit in possession - area to be open - The Valdez non
subsistence Area.
ISSUE: There is no personal use tanner crab season in Port Valdez.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? People will continue to not have access to
a natural resource that they should.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, other than their drag surveys the Department has no info
on Tanner crab in Port Valdez.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone wishing to have a few fresh crabs.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Open all of Prince William Sound.
PROPOSED BY: Delbert Ferrier (HQ-07F-043)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 363 - 5 AAC 77.558. Personal use Tanner crab fishery. Allow a personal use
tanner crab season in areas of Prince William Sound as follows:
Allow a season for personal use taking of Tanner crab in Prince William Sound in areas of
306
known crab abundance, particularly the Port of Valdez and Valdez Arm. Season from October 1
through May 30. A five pot limit. Information from the reporting process should be used for
management purposes.
ISSUE: Since the closing of all crab fishing in Prince William Sound there has not been any
legal method to harvest the abundant stocks of Tanner Crab in Valdez Port and Arm for
traditional personal use.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Tanner crab resource will be wasted.
Generations of young people will be unable to share in the gathering of food that has taken place
along the coast for years. Locals who have experience and knowledge of the abundance of
mature crab in the area will continue to believe that the department and the Board of Fisheries
will not listen to or care about local knowledge and concerns.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Resource management would be improved through the
gathering of information about stocks in areas that the department is unwilling to survey or
manage.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All people who have or would like to harvest this food
resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? None.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The status quo is a waste of the resource, and
detrimental to the history and traditional cultural values placed on food gathering, and the
traditional coastal lifestyle.
PROPOSED BY: Valdez Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-432)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 364 - 5 AAC 77.557. Personal use king crab fishery; and 5 AAC 77.557.
Personal use Tanner crab fishery. Open personal use crab fishery in Prince William Sound as
follows:
The Department must set minimum levels for each shellfish species so that if they are reached a
fishery may occur.
ISSUE: Lack of shellfish bio-mass guidelines where the department would regulate personal
use fisheries. Currently PWS seems to be the only area in the state that doesn’t have guidelines
for these fisheries.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued limbo where the department
has not set minimum levels where they could open various shellfish fisheries for personal use.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? There is currently no crab resource being harvested so quality
improvement has yet to come.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The citizens of PWS that use the waters for their personal
use.
307
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Bernard Culbertson, Thane Miller (HQ-07F-125)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 365 - 5 AAC 77.557. Personal use king crab fishery; and 5 AAC 77.557.
Personal use Tanner crab fishery. Open personal use crab fishery in Prince William Sound as
follows:
The Department should open all shellfish for some level of personal use until they have data that
will pass a peer review and explain the closures.
ISSUE: No personal use crab fishery in PWS.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of harvestable resources.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This does away with the continued loss of a harvestable
resource.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The citizens of Alaska that use Prince William Sound for
their personal use.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Bernard Culbertson, Thane Miller (HQ-07F-126)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 366 - 5 AAC 35.506. Area J registration. Repeal superexclusive registration as
follows:
Kodiak tanner crabs is a limited entry fishery - not super exclusive.
ISSUE: Rescind super exclusive designation for Kodiak tanner fishing.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Discrimination towards fishermen who
have earned rights to fish in other fisheries.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Any fisherman who has the means and rights to fish in
another district.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, it is already a limited entry fishery.
308
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Tary Middlesworth (HQ-07F-013)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 367 - 5 AAC 35.525. Lawful gear for Registration Area J. Implement
differential pot limits for big and small vessels as follows:
Less than 2 million pound quota: 60-foot 24 pots.
2-4 million pound quota: 60-foot 36 pots.
4-5 million pound quota: 60-foot 48 pots.
5 million & greater pound quota: 60-foot 60 pots.
ISSUE: Pot limits for Kodiak Tanner Season. Vessels over 60 feet earned their permits with
larger pot limits. Now they are forced to compete with the same pot limit as much smaller
vessels.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Vessels over 60 feet will continue to be at
a financial disadvantage due to higher expenses such as fuel, insurance, and crew numbers.
Larger vessels in the Bering Sea have larger pot limits for these very same reasons.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? No one. The proposal, if adopted would equalize financial
opportunity for all.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The proposal would allow larger vessels to
compete financially with small vessels.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.
PROPOSED BY: Tary Middlesworth (HQ-07F-012)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 368 - 5 AAC 39.690. Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab
Community Development Quota (CDQ) Fisheries Management Plan. This proposal seeks to
amend state CDQ regulation to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
(e)(6)(D) a person operating a vessel in a CDQ fishery may not exceed the CDQ group
allocation specified in this paragraph; [ALL] CDQ crab taken in excess of the CDQ group
allocation [SHALL BE] may be voluntarily transferred to an eligible CDQ group at the time
of the offload. If a CDQ group is unable to transfer the excess crab then the crab shall be
weighed, sold, and reported on an ADF&G fish ticket and all proceeds from the sale of CDQ
crab in excess of the group allocation shall be surrendered to the state.
ISSUE: In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was
amended to allow voluntary quota transfers among eligible CDQ groups to cover harvests
309
exceeding a group allocation after harvesting has occurred. Current regulation only allows CDQ
quota transfers before the crab has been harvested. This proposal seeks to amend state CDQ
regulation to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? State regulations will not be in compliance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? CDQ groups will benefit as they will have an option to
transfer quota when faced with an overage at the time of landing.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-272)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 369 - 5 AAC 39.645(d)(4)(D)(ii). Shellfish Onboard Observer Program. Amend
this regulation to read:
(d) during harvest of 30 percent of the total C. bairdi Tanner crab weight harvested by each
catcher vessel while operating fishing gear, during each registration year, or the department may
randomly select 30 percent of the catcher vessels harvesting Bering Sea C. bairdi Tanner crab
to carry onboard observers for 100 percent of the fishing time of each selected catcher vessel,
unless a catcher vessel harvests C. bairdi Tanner crab as incidental catch during directed fishing for
either Bristol Bay red king crab or Bering Sea C. opilio (snow crab), where observer coverage
requirements for those directed fisheries would apply to the C. bairdi Tanner crab incidental
harvest;
ISSUE: Modification of the existing observer-coverage regulation will be compatible with how
the department has assigned and paid for observers in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery. This
suggested regulation is similar to the observer-coverage regulation for Bristol Bay red king crab and
Bering Sea snow crab.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The existing regulation will not reflect the
current practice of assigning observers in the Bering Sea Tanner crab fishery.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands crab industry.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-268)
******************************************************************************
310
PROPOSAL 370 - 5 AAC 34.606(b) AREA O REGISTRATION; 5 AAC 34.806(b) AREA
T REGISTRATION; 5 AAC 34.906(c) AREA Q REGISTRATION; 5 AAC 35.506(f) AREA
J REGISTRATION. The traditional harvest timing and preseason registration deadline can occur
in the prior year which can require a participant to purchase a CFEC interim-use permit card for the
calendar year in which the vessel operator must file a preseason registration, and another for the
year harvest actually occurs. This proposal seeks to address that problem.
5 AAC 34.606(b) AREA O REGISTRATION.
(b) For the red [AND GOLDEN] king crab fisheries, the vessel registration deadline for
the registration year is 21 days before that vessel begins fishing operations. Before a vessel may
be registered under this subsection, the vessel operator must file a preseason registration form
with the department [FIRST] and obtain a valid CFEC interim-use permit for Aleutian Islands
king crab that references the vessel's ADF&G license number. For the purposes of filing a
preseason registration form for the red king crab fishery west of 179° W. long. a valid
CFEC interim-use permit is not required. The registration form must identify the vessel
operator's CFEC permit number and must be received in person, or by mail or facsimile, at the
department office in the Dutch Harbor or Kodiak by the deadline specified in this subsection.
5 AAC 34.806(b) AREA T REGISTRATION.
(b) For the red king crab fishery [IES], the vessel registration deadline for the registration
year is 5:00 p.m. September 24. Before a vessel may be registered under this section, the
vessel operator must file a preseason registration form with the department [BEFORE A
VESSEL MAY BE REGISTERED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, THE VESSEL
OPERATOR MUST FIRST OBTAIN A VALID CFEC INTERIM-USE PERMIT FOR BRISTOL
BAY KING CRAB THAT REFERENCES THE VESSEL’S ADF&G LICENSE NUMBER.] The
registration form must identify the vessel and operator, [OPERATOR’S CFEC PERMIT
NUMBER] and must be received in person, or by mail or facsimile, at the department office in
Dutch Harbor or Kodiak by the deadline specified in this subsection.
5 AAC 34.906(c) AREA Q REGISTRATION.
(c) Before a vessel may be registered under this section, the vessel operator must file a
preseason registration form with the department [FIRST] and obtain a valid CFEC interim-
use permit for Bering Sea king crab that references the vessel's ADF&G license number. For
the purposes of filing a preseason registration form for Pribilof red and blue or Saint
Matthew blue king crab a valid CFEC interim-use permit is not required. The registration
form must identify the vessel operator's CFEC permit number and must be received in person, by
mail, or facsimile, at the department office in Dutch Harbor or Kodiak by the applicable deadline
specified in (b) of this section.
5 AAC 35.506(f) AREA J REGISTRATION.
(f) Before a vessel may be registered under this section, the vessel operator must file a
preseason registration form with the department [FIRST] and obtain a valid CFEC interim-
use permit for [BERING SEA] Tanner crab that references the vessel's ADF&G license
number. For the purposes of filing a preseason registration form for Bering Sea Tanner or
snow crab a valid CFEC interim-use permit is not required. The registration form must
identify the vessel operator's CFEC permit number and must be received in person, or by mail or
311
facsimile, at the department office in Dutch Harbor or Kodiak by the applicable deadline
specified in (e) of this section [BY THE DEADLINE SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION].
ISSUE: Current Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fishery preseason registration regulations
require a vessel operator to possess a valid CFEC interim-use permit card to complete preseason
vessel registration. Fishing seasons have been greatly lengthened for the rationalized crab fisheries
and all of the rationalized crab fishing seasons span parts of two calendar years. All rationalized
crab fisheries with the exception of the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery open annually on
October 15, however Bering Sea snow and Tanner crab harvest traditionally begins after January 1,
and continues up to the biological closure for the respective species. This traditional harvest timing
and preseason registration deadline occurring in the prior year can require a participant to purchase
a CFEC interim-use permit card for the calendar year in which the vessel operator must file a
preseason registration, and another for the year harvest actually occurs.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Vessel operators who have not participated
in the previous season may have to purchase two permit cards in order to participate, one for the
previous season in order to register, and one for the current season to utilize during fishing
operations.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessel operators who have not participated in the rationalized
crab fishery during the preceding fishing season.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-273)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 371 - 5 AAC 35.510. Fishing seasons for Registration Area J. Modify
preseason vessel registration for Bering Sea Tanner crab as follows:
You may pre-register by completing a pre-registration form. No card required.
ISSUE: The requirement that you must pre-register with a species specific previous year card.
If you choose not to fish one year, then the following year, in order to pre-register you must buy
a card you did not use. If you do not fish your quota one year and have no need for a card, how
do you pre-register the next year?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishermen already squeezed from
rationalization will have to spend over a thousand dollars buying a card they do not need and did
not use.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Someone who had their crab shares fished the previous
year and did not need to buy an interim use permit card.
312
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. With the reduced fleet, scheduling observers
should not be an issue.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Tary Middlesworth (HQ-07F-014)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 372 - 5 AAC 39.670. Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ) Crab Fisheries Management Plan. This proposal seeks to clarify the Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands IFQ crab fishery management plan. This proposal also adds two fisheries
to the list of rationalized fisheries covered by this management plan, and stipulates that
concurrent species harvest is only allowed for specific Bering Sea fisheries.
5 AAC 39.670. Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Crab Fisheries
Management Plan.
(b) The following fisheries are covered under the management plan in this section:
(1) Bristol Bay red king crab (BBR);
(2) Aleutian Islands red king crab (west of 179°¸ W. long.) (WAI);
(3) Aleutian Islands golden king crab (east of 174° W. long.) (EAG);
(4) Aleutian Islands golden king crab (west of 174° W. long.) (WAG);
(5) Saint Matthew Island Section blue king crab (SMB);
(6) Pribilof District red and blue king crab (PIK);
(7) Bering Sea [C. OPILIO TANNER] snow crab (BSS); [AND]
(8) Bering Sea [C. BAIRDI] Tanner crab (east of 166° W. long.) (EBT)[.]; and
(9) Bering Sea Tanner crab (west of 166° W. long.) (WBT).
(c) The following provisions apply to the fisheries specified in this section:
(1) a vessel participating in an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), Community
Development Quota (CDQ), or the Adak community allocation crab fishery must have on board
the vessel an activated vessel monitoring system (VMS) approved by NMFS;
(2) A vessel operator who is validly registered for one or more of the
fisheries list in (b)(1)-(9) of this section may authorize other vessel operators who are
validly registered for the same fishery to operate crab pot gear belonging to that vessel
[FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A CRAB FISHERY COOPERATIVE IS A
COOPERATIVE APPROVED BY NMFS BY AUGUST 1 OF EACH YEAR PRECEDING
THE FISHING SEASON; DURING A CRAB FISHERY COOPERATIVE],
(A) Before a vessel operator may operate crab pot gear belonging to
another vessel, the registered operator of the pot gear must file a cooperative gear
authorization form with the department authorizing other vessels to operate the crab pot
gear [THE MANAGER OF A COOPERATIVE MUST REGISTER THE VESSEL OR
VESSELS OPERATING FOR THE COOPERATIVE WITH THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE
THE COOPERATIVE BEGINS FISHING];
313
[(B) A VESSEL MAY PARTICIPATE IN MORE THAN ONE CRAB
FISHERY COOPERATIVE AT A TIME;
(C) THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CRAB POTS DEPLOYED BY THE
MEMBERS OF A COOPERATIVE MAY NOT EXCEED THE SUM OF THE CRAB POT
LIMITS OF ALL VESSELS PARTICIPATING IN THE COOPERATIVE];
(3) each crab pot deployed must bear the ADF&G number of the vessel that
registers the crab pot, and if deployed in a fishery with a crab pot limit, [THE] each pot must
bear a buoy tag registered to the vessel registering that pot; in addition,
(A) an active vessel may collectively operate and transport crab pot gear
of another registered and active vessel;
(B) when a vessel transports and deploys crab pot gear to the fishing
grounds for another vessel, the vessel registered with the crab pot gear must be active in the
registration area where the crab pot gear is deployed within seven days of the initial deployment;
(C) repealed 8/28/2005;
(D) a vessel's crab pot gear may not be deployed unless the vessel is
actively participating in harvesting the species in the applicable area;
(E) for the purposes of this paragraph, a vessel is considered active in an
area by becoming validly registered with the department and by VMS verification of the vessel
in the registration area.
(F) A vessel that has completed fishing operations as defined in 5 AAC
39.675 (b)(1)-(2) is not considered active in a registration area;
(4) No provision of this section allows an individual vessel operator to utilize
a greater quantity of crab pot gear than authorized elsewhere in 5 AAC 34 and 5 AAC 35;
([4]5) Vessel operators may only register to harvest EBT and BBR or WBT
and BSS concurrently;
(A) a vessel participating in concurrent fisheries for [BRISTOL BAY
RED KING CRAB] BBR and [C. BAIRDI TANNER CRAB] EBT may only use one species
allocation of crab pot gear (pot limit); the participating vessel operator shall designate at the time
of registration the quantity of pot gear registered and whether the crab pot gear is configured for
red king crab or [C. BAIRDI] Tanner crab;
(B) a vessel participating in concurrent species fisheries for [C. BAIRDI
TANNER CRAB] WBT and [C. OPILIO TANNER CRAB] BSS may only use one species
allocation of crab pot gear (pot limit); the participating vessel operator shall designate at the time
of registration the quantity of pot gear registered and whether the crab pot gear is configured for
[C. BAIRDI] Tanner crab or [C. OPILIO TANNER] snow crab;
(6) a vessel operator may have a species of king or Tanner crab from an IFQ
fishery and king crab from an Adak community allocation fishery or a species of king or Tanner
crab from a CDQ fishery on board the vessel at the same time; a vessel operator may not have a
species of king or Tanner crab from an IFQ fishery and a species of king or Tanner crab from a
non-CDQ or non-IFQ fishery on board the vessel at the same time;
(7) an operator of a vessel participating in an IFQ, CDQ, or Adak community
allocation crab fishery in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area must notify the United States
Coast Guard at least 24 hours before departing port when carrying crab pot gear;
314
(8) in addition to the registration requirements specified in 5 AAC 34 and 5 AAC
35, a vessel owner, or owner's agent, shall provide satisfactory proof of a current valid United
States Coast Guard Commercial Fisheries Vessel Safety Decal before a registration certificate is
issued;
(9) the operator of a vessel designated at the time of registration to operate the
crab pot gear of another vessel shall be considered the agent of the vessel registered to operate
the crab pot gear.
ISSUE: In March 2005 the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted regulations to implement the
rationalized crab fisheries. Regulations allow for vessel operators to operate crab pot gear
belonging to other registered vessel operators, however the regulations were found to be
cumbersome and difficult to interpret. This proposal seeks to clarify the Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands IFQ crab fishery management plan. This proposal also adds two fisheries to the list of
rationalized fisheries covered by this management plan, and stipulates that concurrent species
harvest is only allowed for specific Bering Sea fisheries.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations governing vessel operation,
crab pot gear deployment and concurrent fishing for multiple crab species during the IFQ, CDQ and
Adak Community allocation crab fisheries will remain confusing and open to misinterpretation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska
Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement will all benefit from regulations that clearly state board intent.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Vessel operators wishing to simultaneously harvest EAG and
WAG would be prohibited from doing so. This proposal does not modify the operational intent of
regulations governing vessel operation, crab pot gear deployment and concurrent fishing for
multiple crab species in the IFQ, CDQ and Adak Community Allocation fisheries originally
adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries in March 2005.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
This proposal seeks to clarify the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands IFQ crab fishery management plan.
This proposal also adds two fisheries to the list of rationalized fisheries covered by this management
plan, and stipulates that concurrent species harvest is only allowed for specific Bering Sea fisheries.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-271)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 373 - 5 AAC 35.506. Area J Registration; and 5 AAC 35.525. Lawful Gear
for Registration Area J. This proposal would define a directed and incidental Tanner crab
fishery for the Bering Sea based on the predominant species delivered, and clarify the conditions
of registration for the concurrent harvest of Tanner crab and red king crab, or Tanner crab and
snow crab. This proposal also clarifies that the harvests of Tanner crab east and west of the
stock assessment boundary at 166° W. long. are separate fisheries.
5 AAC 35.506. Area J Registration.
315
(i) In the Bering Sea District a vessel operator may register to harvest C. bairdi
Tanner crab under the following conditions:
(1) West of 166° W. long. in a directed C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery, or in an
incidental C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery while the vessel operator is simultaneously
registered for the C. opilio snow crab fishery.
(2) East of 166° W. long. in an incidental C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery while
the vessel operator is simultaneously registered for the Registration Area T red king crab
fishery.
(3) in a directed C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery occurring between 163° W.
long. and 166° W. long.
(4) A vessel operator may not be concurrently registered to harvest C. bairdi
Tanner crab east and west of 166° W. long. [DURING THE FISHING SEASON FOR C.
bairdi TANNER CRAB, A VESSEL OPERATOR REGISTERED FOR ONLY BRISTOL BAY
RED KING CRAB FISHERIES CONDUCTED EAST OF 168° W. LONG. MAY NOT
RETAIN C. bairdi TANNER CRAB. A VESSEL OPERATOR REGISTERED TO RETAIN
BOTH BRISTOL BAY RED KING CRAB AND C. bairdi TANNER CRAB IS RESTRICTED
TO FISHING EAST OF 166° W. LONG. A VESSEL OPERATOR MAY REGISTER FOR
DIRECTED C. bairdi TANNER CRAB FISHING ONLY IN THE WATERS BETWEEN 166°
W. LONG, AND 163° W. LONG.]
(j) For the purposes of this section
(1) a directed C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery means no less than 50% of the
weight of the landed catch reported on an ADF&G fish ticket consists of C. bairdi Tanner
crab.
(2) an incidental C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery is one in which less than 50%
of the weight of the landed catch reported on an ADF&G fish ticket consists of C. bairdi
Tanner crab. [A VESSEL OPERATOR MAY REGISTER TO, AT THE SAME TIME, FISH
FOR AND RETAIN C. OPILIO AND C. BAIRDI TANNER CRAB WEST OF 166° W.
LONG.]
5 AAC 35.525(c)(4). Lawful Gear for Registration Area J. This proposal would define a
directed and incidental Tanner crab fishery for the Bering Sea based on the predominant species
delivered, and clarify the conditions of registration for the concurrent harvest of Tanner crab and red
king crab, or Tanner crab and snow crab. This proposal also clarifies that the harvest of Tanner crab
east and west of the stock assessment boundary at 166° W. long. are separate fisheries.
(C) in a directed C. bairdi Tanner crab fishery as defined in 5 AAC 35.506(j)(1)
no less than 50% of the pots registered to a vessel may be configured for C. bairdi Tanner
crab.
ISSUE: Current regulations for the rationalized Bering Sea crab fisheries allow for the
simultaneous harvest of Tanner crab and snow crab in the Bering Sea District west of 166º W
long., and red king crab and Tanner crab in Registration Area T east of 166º W long. As
currently written, the regulation has caused confusion as to how a vessel operator may fish for
Tanner crab using Tanner, snow or red king crab pot gear and has allowed vessel operators to
target Tanner crab with pot gear not designed to harvest Tanner crab. This proposal would
define a directed and incidental Tanner crab fishery for the Bering Sea based on the predominant
species delivered, and clarify the conditions of registration for the concurrent harvest of Tanner
crab and red king crab, or Tanner crab and snow crab. This proposal also clarifies that the
harvest of Tanner crab east and west of the stock assessment boundary at 166° W. long. are
separate fisheries.
316
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations allowing the concurrent
harvest of Tanner crab with snow crab or red king crab will remain confusing and vessel
operators will be able to participate in a directed fishery for Tanner crab using pot gear that is not
designed for Tanner crab fishing.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
Alaska Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement will all benefit from regulations that clearly state intent.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. This proposal does not modify the operational
intent of regulations allowing concurrent harvest of Tanner crab with snow crab or red king crab
originally adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries in March 2005.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-269)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 374 - 5 AAC 39.670(c)(3)(A). Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) Crab Fisheries Management Plan. In rationalized fisheries, allow pot gear to be
transferred and operated by another vessel after vessel that originally registered the pot gear has
unregistered as follows:
(c)(a): add: “An active vessel, with a designated operator considered the agent, may collectively
operate and transport crab pot gear of another vessel following the vessel’s completion of fishing
in a registration area.”
ISSUE: In the Area T king crab fishery and the Area J Bering Sea snow and tanner crab
fisheries, vessels designated to operate the crab pot gear of another vessel cannot operate the gear
following the vessel’s completion of fishing in a registration area. Registered and active vessels,
under guidelines of collective gear operation and transport, should be allowed to continue
operating another vessel’s gear, following a vessel’s completion of fishing in a registration area.
This was part of the intent of the original collective gear hauling proposal adopted in 2005. This
will also aid smaller boats with less pot carrying capacity, to operate in cooperatives, as they can
travel to the grounds, in some cases without any gear, and immediately begin operating gear that
is located on productive grounds.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unnecessary inefficiency and
unnecessary fuel consumption that increases production costs. Fuel usage and costs could be
markedly reduced and there would also be a measurable reduction in the “carbon footprint” of
the fishery, which is rapidly becoming an issue with environmental organizations and poses
another threat for wild stock fisheries competing in global markets with farm tank and pen-raised
products. This proposal could help improve the “sustainability” profile of the BSAI crab fisheries
and products.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? After a vessel completes fishing in a registration area, it could
leave its gear on the grounds and designated operators could then begin operating baited,
317
productive gear. This can reduce unnecessary bycatch and handling mortality of crabs. This will
save time searching for new concentrations and improves efficiency and reduces operating costs.
Vessels leaving the registration area and designated operators could be required to check in with
ADFG or Public Safety at the time the designation begins to alleviate enforcement concerns.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource will benefit; harvesters will benefit from
improved efficiency and public concerns about sustainability of marine and fuel resources will
be served.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one I could think of.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This addresses the original proposal submitted by the
Alaska Boat Company that was heard by the Board of Fisheries in March 2005.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-142)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 375 - 5 AAC 39.675. Crab Pot Gear Storage For Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
IFQ, CDQ, and Adak Community Allocation Crab Fisheries. This proposal seeks to clarify the
gear storage regulation for the rationalized crab fisheries.
5 AAC 39.675. Crab Pot Gear Storage For Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands IFQ, CDQ, and Adak
Community Allocation Crab Fisheries. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of 5 AAC 34 -
5 AAC 35, king and Tanner crab pots may be stored outside of a designated storage area
specified in 5 AAC 34.052 and 5 AAC 35.052 with all bait and bait containers removed and
doors secured fully open for up to 14 days following the completion of fishing operations in a
registration area. King and Tanner crab pots must be removed from the water or placed in long-
term storage if left unattended for 14 days or longer by the registered operator of the vessel
whose ADF&G number is on the buoy of the pot gear. [IN A REGISTRATION AREA] FOR
LONGER THAN 14 DAYS. BEFORE A VESSEL IS ABSENT FROM THE REGISTRATION
AREA FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS, THE CRAB POT GEAR BELONGING TO THAT
VESSEL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE WATER OR PLACED IN LONG-TERM
STORAGE. [A VESSEL OPERATOR SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN 72
HOURS OF COMPLETING FISHING OPERATIONS IN A REGISTRATION AREA OR
WHEN DEPARTING THE REGISTRATION AREA, AND WHEN GEAR IS MOVED TO
LONG-TERM STORAGE. A VESSEL'S REGISTRATION IS INVALID AFTER 14 DAYS OF
INACTIVITY IN A REGISTRATION AREA.]
(b) For the purposes of this section a vessel is deemed to have completed fishing
operations if at least one of the following has occurred:
(1) the vessel operator contacts the department to invalidate the vessel
registration for that species and registration area. This notification must occur within 72
hours of last operating pot gear in the registration area;
(2) the pot gear belonging to that vessel is removed from the water or placed
into long-term storage.
ISSUE: In March 2005, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted new regulations governing crab
pot gear storage in the IFQ, CDQ, and Adak Community Allocation crab fisheries. The gear
storage regulation was designed to allow for temporary deep-water gear storage while
minimizing concerns over lost gear, grounds pre-emption and unattended gear during the
lengthened fishing seasons permitted under the rationalization program. The regulation contains
318
vague wording and terms that are not well defined. This proposal seeks to clarify the gear
storage regulation for the rationalized crab fisheries.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations governing gear storage
during the IFQ, CDQ and Adak Community allocation crab fisheries will remain confusing and
open to misinterpretation. Crab pot gear may be left unattended on the fishing grounds for
longer periods of time than intended.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
Alaska Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement will all benefit from regulations that clearly state board
intent.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. This proposal is largely house keeping in nature
and does not modify the operational intent of regulations governing crab pot gear storage during
the IFQ, CDQ and Adak Community Allocation crab fisheries originally adopted by the Alaska
Board of Fisheries in March 2005.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-270)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 376 - 5 AAC 35.525(c)(4). Lawful gear for Registration Area J; and 5 AAC
35.526(a-c). Tanner crab pot marking requirements for Registration Area J. Repeal Tanner
and snow crab pot limit and buoy tags as follows:
Repeal the regulations cited above and maintain the traditional gear marketing requirements.
ISSUE: Area J Bering Sea snow and tanner crab pot limits and buoy tag requirements are no
longer needed to control effort in the fishery. Since the inception of the rationalization program,
the fleet has decreased from 189 vessels in 2004 to 80 vessels in 2005-2006. Total pot usage has
decreased from 14,444 pots in 2004 to 12,734 pots in 2005-2006. The average number of pots
used in 2005-2006 was 172 pots, far below the limit of 450 pots. A similar pattern of pot usage
has continued in the current season.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Tracking and replacement of buoy tags is
always a problem for the vessel operators and ADFG and DPS enforcement costs will continue
and these are much higher than the revenues generated from the program.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The crab fleet and likely the DPS enforcement costs would
be reduced.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one I could think of.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
319
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-143)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 377 - 5 AAC 34.825(h). Lawful gear for Registration Area T; 5 AAC
34.826(a). King crab pot marking requirements for Registration Area T; and 5 AAC
34.051(b)(c). King crab gear marking requirements. Repeal Bristol Bay pot limit and buoy
tags as follows:
Repeal the regulations cited above and maintain the traditional gear marking requirements.
ISSUE: Area T king crab fishery pots limits and buoy tag requirements are no longer needed to
control effort in the fishery. Since the inception of the rationalization program the fleet has
decreased from 251 vessels in 2004 to less than 90 active vessels utilizing in 2005-2006. The
average number of pots used per vessel in 2005-2006 was 177, far below the pot limit of 450. A
similar pattern of pot usage has continued in the current season.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Tracking and replacement of buoy tags is
always a problem for the vessel operators and ADFG and DPS enforcement costs will continue
and these are much higher than the revenues generated from the buoy tag program.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The crab fleet and likely DPS enforcement costs would be
reduced.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one we can think of.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-144)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 378 - 5 AAC 34.825(a). Lawful gear for Registration Area T. Allow 20 pots
configured for groundfish to capture bait for use in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery as
follows:
On page 108, 5 AAC 34.825 (a), add similar language from page 148 subparagraph (d) that
applies to tanner crab pots, adjusted for king crab pots: “except that up to 20 groundfish pots, as
defined in 5 AAC 28.050 (e), may be used as part of the legal limit of king crab pots. King crab
taken from these groundfish pots may be retained.”
ISSUE: Use of up to 20 groundfish pots to catch bait while fishing in the Area T king crab
fishery is not permitted; however, it is permitted in the Bering Sea snow and tanner crab fisheries
(page 148). This is a request for a parallel regulation for the Area T king crab fishery.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Increased costs for bait will continue.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
320
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessel operation will be more efficient and save on bait
costs, reducing overall production costs in the fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one I could think of.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-141)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 379 - 5 AAC 34.053 (2). Operation of other pot gear. Allow 20 pots
configured for groundfish to capture bait for use in the Bristol Bay red crab fishery as follows:
Allow for up to 20 groundfish pots, as defined in 5 AAC 28.050 (E) may be used as part of the
legal limits of king crab pots. King crab taken from ground fish pots may be retained.
ISSUE: The regulations do not allow for cod (groundfish) pots for bait to be used during Bristol
Bay Red King Crab Fishery (BBRKC) fishery. This practice is currently allowed during the
Bering sea tanner crab fishery under 5 AAC 35.525 (a)
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishers in BBRKC fishery will continue
to buy or go without cod for bait.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It could allow for faster fishing of pots /hanging bait in them
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All BBRKC fishers.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Derwin H. Hostetler III (HQ-07F-071)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 380 - 5 AAC 34.910(b)(1). Fishing seasons for Registration Area Q. Develop
Pribilof red king crab management plan as follows:
Develop guidelines for a fishing season plan for red king crab that utilizes the flexibility inherent
in the crab rationalization program and cooperatives, that can result in the deployment of
minimum number of vessels and pots; observers on all vessels; and electronic catch reporting
and if needed; ADF&G emergency closure authority in the event of excessive bycatch of blue
king crab. Also, ADFG could implement closure of the same blue king crab protection zone, that
is currently in place during the fishing season for tanner and snow crab fisheries surrounding the
Pribilof Islands.
ISSUE: The need to develop a fishing season plan that would allow for reopening of the Pribilof
Island red king crab fishery that incorporates mechanisms from the new crab rationalization
321
program that would minimize impacts on the depressed blue king crab stocks.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Foregone harvests of red king crab due
to conservation concerns of the blue king crab stocks which to some extent overlap the habitat of
red king crab. The 2006 BSAI Crab SAFE document indicates a potential harvestable surplus of
over 500,000 pound of red king crab. (BSAI Crab SAFE 1-4 and 3-1). In addition, continued
negative economic impacts on the communities of St. Paul and St. George and traditional king
crab harvesters will persist. These BSAI communities would benefit from the additional
economic activity generated by reopening the Pribilof Red King crab fishery. Saint Paul and the
local CDQ group, the Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association, as well as other interested
parties such as APICDA and ACC have taken proactive steps to rehabilitate the Pribilof Blue
King Crab fishery. These parties have contributed funds to develop Pribilof Blue King Crab and
red king crab rehabilitation programs being undertaken at the Seward Sea Life Center/Alutiiq
Shellfish Hatchery that seeks to hatch blue king crab larvae under protected conditions to
increase survival rates, and then release the juveniles into their natural habitat to restore
depressed populations. Such efforts at conservation and fishery management should be
recognized and rewarded by ADF&G.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. By implementing guidelines as proposed above, not only
will bycatch and other conservation issues with blue king crabs can be addressed, but the red
king crab fishery can be pursued in a manner that incorporates the latest management practices
and technologies and is sensitive to the resource and conservation guidelines.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Historic Pribilof Red King crab harvesters. The community
of Saint Paul and the Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association (the local CDQ group) which
owns 100 percent of the Pribilof Red King Crab CDQ quota.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No parties have been identified that would negatively
impacted by the above proposal.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-139)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 381 - 5 AAC 34.917(a)(2). Saint Matthew Island Section blue king crab
harvest strategy. Reduce or repeal Saint Matthew blue king crab minimum total allowable
catch for fishery to open as follows:
Either reduce or eliminate the minimum TAC for St. Matthew Island to reduce foregone harvests
if the MSST level is achieved and a harvestable surplus develops. The current harvest strategy
still incorporates conservation measures that protect minimum mature male and female biomass
thresholds to ensure stock reproductively. The crab rationalization program and cooperatives
have resulted in minimizing the number of vessels and pots deployed on the grounds and along
with IFQs, enable managers to open fisheries now with low TACs without the fear of a large
fleet exceeding the TAC and impacting pre-recruit males and mature females. The St. Matthew
fishery already provides for observer coverage on all vessels and this will insure effective
monitoring of the harvest.
ISSUE: The minimum TAC for the commercial St. Matthew Island blue king crab of 2.5
322
million pounds could result in foregone harvests and unnecessary economic impacts to
traditional crab harvesters and the communities of St. Paul and St. George. The 2006 survey
indicates a continued increase in stock abundance and the total mature biomass of males and
females is just slightly below the MSST level for reopening of the fishery. (BSAI Crab SAFE 1-
4 and 3-2).
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued negative economic impacts on
the communities of St. Paul and St. George whose crab dependent economies are reeling from
low crab TACs and traditional St. Matthew Island king crab harvesters who have been unable to
participate in the fishery since 1998.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. In a positive manner as new management practices and
technologies are applied in a fishery that has been closed for rebuilding since 1998, in a way that
maximizes conservation benefits and minimizes bycatch concerns.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Northern Region crab processing communities and
traditional St Matthew Island king crab harvesters.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? We are unaware of any persons or groups that will suffer as
a consequence of reopening of this fishery.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Crab Coalition (HQ-07F-140)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 382 - 5 AAC 39.145. Escape mechanism for shellfish and bottomfish pots.
Increase biodegradable cotton thread size for golden king crab as follows:
The solution for the Eastern and Western golden king crab fisheries is to allow for the
biodegradable cotton twin to be 120 thread.
ISSUE: The rationalized fisheries of the Eastern and Western Aleutian Golden King Crab
fisheries are being prosecuted with a longer soak time than before rationalization. This longer
soak time reduces the discard rate of sub-legal and female crab. The tidal and current conditions
in the Aleutian Islands are much stronger than in the Bering Sea. The longer soak time can result
in the 30 thread biodegradable cotton twin degrading faster than 30 days and pulled pots have no
crab in them.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The industry will continue being forced
to change twin every time a pot is pulled and expect that a percentage of pulled pots will have
lost the twin and all crab will be gone.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it allows the harvester to let their pots soak long enough
to allow for sub legal and female crab to escape. A much higher percentage of crab retained in
the gear will be retainable. The industry will continue being forced to change twin every time a
pot is pulled and expect that a percentage of pulled pots will have lost the twin and all crab will
be gone.
323
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All of the crab harvesters in the Eastern and Western
Aleutian Islands golden king crab fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other sizes of twine were considered and tested.
They did not seem to be sufficient.
PROPOSED BY: Linda Kozak (HQ-07F-434)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 383 - 5 AAC 34.xxx. New section. Increase harvest level in the golden king crab
fishery as follows:
The current harvest rate for Aleutian Islands golden king crab (AIGKC) was established in
March 1996, when the BOF combined the two areas, they also started managing the AIGKC as
two separate stocks and they established as policy, a harvest rate for the stocks. The TAC is
currently capped at 5.7 million pounds. I would like to respectfully request that ADFG and the
Alaska Board of Fisheries review the harvest rate in light of fisheries performance, observer data
and recent survey information to assess if the TAC can be reasonably increased based on current
mature stock of abundance, fisheries performance and observer data.
ISSUE: Catch per unit of effort has increased considerably in the Aleutian Islands Golden King
Crab Catch Fishery to the point where fishermen are convinced that the TAC can be increased
without impacting mature female and male productivity and the future sustainability of the
resource. Observer-based data analysis from the 2005-2006 fishery in the Eastern District shows
an average SPUE of 27.1 crabs per pot. This represents a 56.6 percent increase in SPUE over the
2004 fishery. An estimated 34 percent of all golden king crabs captured during the 2004/2005
fishery were discarded as bycatch, a decrease in bycatch of 21 percent from 2004. Similarly, in
the Western Subdistrict, the CPUE increased 87 percent over the 2004/2005, while 48 percent of
the total catch was discarded, a decrease in bycatch of 17 percent from the previous season.
(ADFG Summary of 2005/2006 Mandatory Shellfish Observer Program…February 2007, pages
8-10). Although the decrease in bycatch might indicate a decline in pre-recruit crabs, the entire
rationalized fleet in the Eastern District of 7 vessels switched to larger 9 inch mesh in the tunnels
and doors in the 2005/2006 fishery. This has increased escapage of smaller animals, more sorting
being done on the bottom, rather than on deck. This not only saves time and improves efficiency,
but also reduces the number of bycaught animals and handling mortality and it can misrepresent
observed data to show a decrease in pre-recruit crabs.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Potential foregone harvests of legal size
male crabs and lost revenue to the fleet and the State of Alaska.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? There is a distinct possibility that more AIGKC could be
made available on the market.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The AIGKC fleet and the State of Alaska.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one I could think of.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
324
PROPOSED BY: Bing Henkel (HQ-07F-148)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 384 - 5 AAC 39.675. Crab pot gear storage for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
IFQ, CDQ, and Adak community allocation crab fisheries. Increase time that golden king
crab gear may be left unattended prior to storage as follows:
The solution for the Eastern and Western golden king crab fisheries is to allow for the gear to be
left unattended for 45 days.
ISSUE: The longline fisheries in the Eastern and Western Aleutian Islands golden kings crab
fisheries are fully rationalized. The soak time has increased substantially. The requirement that
stipulates vessels to put pots into storage if left unattended for more that 14 days is not applicable
to these fisheries. It is common to allow the pots to soak up to 30 days. While a vessel is
offloading crab in port, the pots should be allowed to be left soaking. Then upon returning to the
fishing grounds, the vessel can immediately resume pulling gear.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The industry will continue being forced
to put pots into storage if they will not be returning to the fishing grounds within the 14 day
window. This is a lot of needless time and work for the fleet, as well as wasted fuel and fishing
time.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All of the crab harvesters in the Eastern and Western
Aleutian Islands golden king crab fisheries.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Changing the requirement to 30 days was
considered, but it was felt that 45 days was more appropriate in granting some flexibility so that
crab harvesters would not commit a violation.
PROPOSED BY: Linda Kozak (HQ-07F-433)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 385 - 5 AAC 35.XXX. Eastern Aleutian District Tanner Crab Harvest
Strategy. This proposal seeks to establish a harvest strategy for the Eastern Aleutian District
Tanner crab stock by creating a new regulation to read as follows:
5 AAC 35.XXX Eastern Aleutian District Tanner Crab Harvest Strategy. (a) In the Eastern
Aleutian District, a commercial Tanner crab fishery may open only if analysis of preseason survey
data indicates that the subject population:
(1) meets or exceeds the threshold level of mature male abundance specified in (b)
of this section, which is one-half the long-term average of mature male abundance; and
(2) in a section of the Eastern Aleutian District, is sufficient to provide a guideline
harvest level of 35,000 pounds or more as calculated under (d) of this section.
325
(b) The threshold levels of mature male abundance, in numbers of crab, for the following
sections of the Eastern Aleutian District are:
(1) Akutan Section 200,000
(2) Unalaska/Kalekta Bay Section 65,000
(3) Makushin/Skan Bay Section 45,000
(c) In the Eastern Aleutian District,
(1) the registration deadline is 5:00 p.m. December 24.
(2) the vessel operator must register with the department before fishing in any of the
sections and may not be simultaneously registered to fish in more than one section at a time.
(3) the commissioner may close, by emergency order, any section based on fishery
performance.
(d) If the commercial Tanner crab fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District is opened under
(a) of this section and the threshold level of abundance
(1) is equal to or less than the long-term average of mature male abundance, the
guideline harvest level will be no more than 10 percent of the molting mature male abundance and
no more than 30 percent of the legal size male abundance;
(2) exceeds the long-term average of mature male abundance, the guideline harvest
level will be no more than 20 percent of the molting mature male abundance and no more than 30
percent of the legal size male abundance.
(e) In implementing this harvest strategy, the board directs the department to consider the
reliability of the estimates of abundance of Tanner crab, the manageability of the fishery, and other
factors deemed necessary to be consistent with sustained yield principles, and to use the best
scientific information available.
(f) Nothing within this section prohibits the department from opening a commercial fishery
for Tanner crab in the General Section of the Eastern Aleutian District if preseason survey results
indicate that a harvestable surplus of Tanner crab is available and harvest rate would not exceed
20% of the molting mature male abundance or 30 percent of the legal male abundance.
(g) The long-term average of mature male abundance, in numbers of crab, for each of the
following sections of the Eastern Aleutian District are:
(1) Akutan Section 400,000
(2) Unalaska/Kalekta Bay Section 130,000
(3) Makushin/Skan Bay Section 90,000
(h) For the purposes of this section
(1) “long-term average of mature male abundance” means the long-term average of
the estimated abundance of male Tanner crab greater than 114 millimeters in carapace width:
(2) “molting mature male abundance” means the estimated abundance of 100
percent of newshell, and 15 percent of oldshell Tanner crab that are more than 114 millimeters in
carapace width.
ISSUE: The Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab fishery does not have a regulatory harvest
strategy. The EAD Tanner crab stock is surveyed annually and since 2004 the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game has managed the fishery using elements of the harvest strategy created for Kodiak
Tanner crab.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab
fishery will continue to be managed based on principles contained within the Kodiak District
Tanner crab regulatory harvest strategy.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
326
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Participants in the Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab
fishery will benefit from having the department’s management policies for this fishery clearly
defined in regulation.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-275)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 386 - 5 AAC 35.505(c). DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRATION AREA J
DISTRICTS. This proposal amends this regulation by adding new paragraphs to read:
(c)(1) Akutan Section: all waters west of Akun Head (54° 17.58’ N lat., 165° 37.58’ W
long.) and east of North Head (54° 13.5’ N. lat., 165° 51.08’ W. long.) to the three nautical mile
state-waters boundary and north of a line from 54° 07.63’ N. lat., 165°39.88’ W. long. to 54°
08.36’ N. lat., 165° 38.36’ W. long.
(2) Unalaska/Kalekta Bay Section: all waters west of Erskine Point (53° 58.55’N. lat.,
166° 16.30’ W. long.) and east of Cape Cheerful (54° N. lat., 166° 40.33’ W. long.) to the three
nautical mile state-waters boundary.
(3) Makushin/Skan Bay Section: all waters south of Cape Kovrizhka (53° 50.67’ N.
lat., 167° 09’ W. long.) and north of Spray Cape (53° 36.83’ N. lat., 167° 09.33’ W. long.) to
the three nautical mile state-waters boundary.
(4) General Section: all remaining waters of the EAD not contained within (1)
through (3) of this section.
ISSUE: This proposal seeks to place into regulation the harvest sections utilized by ADF&G for
management of Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab. Current regulations define the Eastern
Aleutian District, but do not describe the smaller harvest sections that are currently being used for
management and stock assessment.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab
fishery will continue to be managed by emergency order using the geographic boundaries described
in this proposal.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED
BE IMPROVED? No.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Participants in the Eastern Aleutian District Tanner crab
fishery will have harvest sections outlined in regulation and the department’s management policies
for this fishery will be more clearly defined.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
327
PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-274)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 387 - 5 AAC 34.910(d)(1). Fishing seasons for Registration Area Q; and 5
AAC 34.915 (b). Norton Sound red king crab harvest strategy. Start open access Norton
Sound king crab fishery on June 15 as follows:
5 AAC 34.910 Fishing seasons for Registration Area Q.
(d)(l) from 12:00 noon June 15 [JULY 1] through 12:00 noon September 3 (summer season);
and
5 AAC 34.915 Norton Sound red king crab harvest strategy.
(b) [NOTWITHSTANDING 5 AAC 39.690 (e) (7), THE COMMISIONER MAY, BY
EMERGENCY ORDER, OPEN A CDQ FISHERY IN NORTON SOUND, WITH AN
ALLOCATION OF 7.5 PERCENT OF THE FORECASTED GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL
FOR MALE RED KING CRAB, TO BEGIN AT 12:00 NOON JUNE 15, OR NO LESS THAN
72, HOURS AFTER THE COMMERCIAL BEACH AND GILLNET HEARRING FISHERY
IS CLOSED, WHICHEVER IS LATER, THROUGH 12:00 NOON JUNE 28 (SUMMER
SEASON). AFTER JULY 1, THE COMMISSIONER MAY, BY EMERGENCY ORDER,
OPEN A CDQ FISHERY FOR THE HARVEST OF ANY REMAINING ALLOCATION
AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE CMMERCIAL RED KING CRAB FISHERY.]
ISSUE: The Open Access Norton Sound red king crab fishery opens on July 1 while the CDQ
fishery opens on June 15. The Norton Sound crab fleet is small boat fleet with most boats being
32 feet or under. The CDQ fishery is prosecuted by a small portion of the Norton Sound crab
fleet and provides a limited volume of product to market prior to July.
Over the last several years the Norton Sound GHL has risen. As the season runts later into
August more double shelled crabs are encountered. Moving the Open Access fishery start to June
15 and placing the CDQ fishery at the end of the open access season would remove most of the
fleet from possibly of fishing on double shelled crab. If large numbers of double shelled crab are
encountered Fish and Game shuts the fishery down. Currently if the fisher is closed because of
double shelled crab the entire fleet suffers. If the Open Access opens June 15 and double shell
crab were encountered in the CDQ fishery and was closed only a small number of fishermen
would be affected. Since CDQ fisherman fish both Open Access and CDQ it is likely that a
shortened CDQ fishery would have a smaller economic impact to them then a shortened open
access fishery.
A CDQ Fishery that takes place after the open Access fishery in most years will take much less
time to prosecute then the current two week season that is set before the season. This further
reduces the risk of a large number of double shelled crabs being caught.
The main processor has invested time and money in building a fresh crab market for Norton
Sound crab. The processor is able tot get the fresh CDQ crab to the market during the end of
June but then has a three to five day break before fresh open access crab is on the market. This
break comes right during the important July 4 sales window. Fresh CDQ crab is already sold and
fresh open access crab is not available yet.
The main processor has a limited daily processing capacity and a limited number of days per
week to ship fresh crab out to market. By opening the open access season on June 15 the
processor and fishermen have more flexibility to schedule deliveries and processing. This will
328
help improve quality and maximize the value of the fishery.
The past regulations were adopted when this fishery was a large boat (100’ and over) Fishery.
For the last decade the fishing fleet has shifted to a small Boat (42’ and under) with the super-
exclusive registration. The earlier season is favorable for the small boats because of the safety
factor i.e. long daylight, better weather, and higher boat traffic.
Historically in the Norton Sound area there is a good weather in the month of June. Historically
August is the time when the larger storms start to hit the area. By starting in the Open Access
season on June 15 the entire fleet would be able to take advantage of the historic good weather
window. This same time also coincides with that long summer daylight allowing the fleet to fish
in the cool evening hours when the ocean is generally calmer. A June 15 opening date would a
line the Norton Sound Section access with the opening date of the Kotzebue Sound section to the
north.
Climate change appears to be taking place in Norton Sound. The ocean ice is melting sooner and
it appears crab are migrating offshore earlier in the spring. Over the last several years molting
crab have been encountered in different numbers at the end of the season. This would indicate
that the molt may be happening sooner also.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Status quo will remain. The opportunity
to sell a larger amount of Norton Sound crab into a favorable market will be missed.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by starting the season earlier there is less of a chance
that the season would still be open when crab begin to molt (double shell). A significant
percentage of the harvest would be available in the market prior to July 4.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Norton Sound commercial crab fishermen and processors
by having more time to harvest crab. The fishermen with small boats will have a better chance to
fish during a time of year with good weather.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Steve Ivanoff (HQ-07F-137)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 388 - 5 AAC 34.915(b). Norton Sound Section red king crab harvest
strategy. Modify openings for crab fishery in Norton Sound as follows:
5 AAC 34.915. Norton Sound Section red king crab harvest strategy.
(b) Notwithstanding 5 AAC 39.690 (e) (7), the commissioner may, be emergency order, open a
CDQ fishery in Norton Sound, with an allocation of 7.5percent of the forecasted guideline
harvest level for male red king crab, to begin at 12:00 noon June 15 [, OR NO LESS THAN 72
HOURS AFTER THE COMMERCIAL BEACH AND GILLNET HERRING FISHERY IS
CLOSED, WHICHEVER IS LATER,] through 12:00 noon June 28 (summer season). After July
1, the commissioner may, by emergency order, open a CDQ fishery for the harvest of any
remaining allocation after the closure of the commercial red king crab fishery.
329
ISSUE: The Norton Sound Red King Crab CDQ fishery can not open until June 15th or 72 hours
after the Norton Sound Herring fishery closes which ever is later. This regulation was put in
place to address the enforcement concern of having the Norton Sound herring and crab fisheries
open simultaneously with only a limited enforcement presence. The Norton Sound herring
fishery is no longer a large fishery and the Department leaves the fishery open continuously. The
Norton Sound herring fishery is now likely to be a fishery to harvest bait for the local fleet and
will need to remain open past June 15. The main effect of this regulation now will be an
inconvenience to the Norton Sound Crab fishing fleet.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Opening of the Norton Sound red king
crab CDQ fishery will be delayed if the Norton Sound herring fishery is open past 12:00 noon
June 12. This will reduce the opportunity to harvest the Norton Sound red king crab CDQ
allocation.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, this will help insure that the CDQ harvest is completed
before June 28 and placed into the fresh crab market prior to July 4. The Norton Sound open
entry red king crab fishery closure is frequently based on the beginning of the male molt,
precluding any more fishing for the year.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Norton Sound red king crab fishermen.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (HQ-07F-116)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 389 - 5 AAC 34.920(d). Size limits for Registration Area Q. Reduce size limit
for blue king crab in Norton Sound as follows:
5 AAC 34.920 Size limits for Registration Area Q.
(d) In the Norton Sound Section, only male red king crab for and three-quarter inches or greater,
and male blue king crab five [AND ONE-HALF] inches or greater, in width of shell, may be
taken or possessed.
ISSUE: The legal size for blue king crab in the Norton Sound Section is 5 1/2 inches. This size
restriction is based on the legal size for St. Matthews Island Section blue king crab. The Norton
Sound king crab are smaller than their southern relatives. Legal size for Norton Sound red king
crab is 4 3/4 inches compared to southern population with legal size of 6 1/2 inches. Legal size
for king crab has been based on size at sexual maturity plus two molts. Survey work conducted
in 2005 and 2006 collected size measurements for Norton Sound blue king crab. This data
supports a reduced legal size requirements to 5 inches for Norton Sound blue king crab.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Development of a blue king crab fishery
will proceed slowly. The harvested biomass may be missed, however there are commercial
closures around the inhabited island of the section.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, blue king crab with new shells will be available for
330
harvest. Currently only a few king crab in their terminal molt reach legal size.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Norton Sound commercial crab fisherman.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (HQ-07F-114)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 390 - 5 AAC 34.925(b), (d). Lawful gear for Registration Area Q. Modify
escapement mechanisms for crab pots in Northern Sound fishery as follows:
5 AAC 34.925 Lawful gear for Registration Area Q. (b) In addition to the requirements of 5
AAC 39.145, in the Pribilof District, [AND] the Saint Matthew Island and Norton Sound
Sections of the Northern District, escape mechanism requirements for king crab pots are as
follows:
(3) in the Norton Sound Section, each king crab pot must have four escape rings with an
inside diameter measure of 4 and one-half inches placed within one mesh measurement
from the bottom of the pot, with two escape rings on two sides of a four-sided pot, or if the
pot has no escape rings as specified in this paragraph, then the lower half of one side of a
four-sided pot must have a side panel composed of not less than six and one-half-inch
stretched mesh webbing
(d) In the Norton Sound and Kotzebue Sound Sections during the winter commercial king crab
season, a king crab pot
(4) in the Norton Sound Section, each king crab pot must have four escape rings with an
inside diameter measure of 4 and one-half inches placed within one mesh measurement
from the bottom of the pot, with the two escape rings on two sides of a four-sided pot, or if
the pot has no escape rings as specified in this paragraph, then the lower half of one side of
a four-sided pot must have a side panel composed of not less than six and one-half-inch
stretched mesh webbing.
ISSUE: There is no other escape mechanism required besides the 18 inch biodegradable twine
for pots used in the Norton Sound king crab fishery. This addresses the issue of lost pots ghost
fishing, but does not address the unnecessary mortality of handling sublegal male and female
crabs that have no way to escape pots before they are pulled to the surface, sorted and discarded
to drift to the bottom. The future of crab stock is thus subjected to the risks of predation, injury
and disfigurement. Unnecessary mortality and loss of value are occurring to these crabs. Over
the last couple of years fishermen have reported seeing an increase in the number of sublegal
crab with broken or missing legs.
Legal size was compared to escapement ring and escapement mesh size required in other king
crab fisheries around Alaska. After comparing this to the smaller legal size in Norton Sound
escape rings of 4.5 inches or greater and escapement mesh of 6.5 inches or larger is warranted.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Large numbers of sublegal male and
small female crab will continue to be subjected to unnecessary risk while being pulled to the
331
surface and returned to the water.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, when crab reach legal size they are less likely to have
missing legs and so can be sold graded as number on fancies.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Norton Sound commercial and subsistence crab fishermen
will benefit from a healthier crab stock.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.
PROPOSED BY: Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (HQ-07F-115)
******************************************************************************
PROPOSAL 391 - 5 AAC 34.925. Lawful gear for Registration Area Q; and 5 AAC
02.607. Subsistence fishing gear. Require galvanic release or other thread for Nome winter
crab fishery as follows:
A galvanic release or thread that breaks down quicker. This is less salty and cold water - so
something that works in this area.
ISSUE: The 30 thread cotton string required for the escape of crab from pots incase they are lost
doesn’t breakdown, it lasts for years. I have two year old pots used each year, and know of pots
older with the tread still intact. Many pots get lost some years; over 100 last year; and close to
that this year, when the ice goes out in winter.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The lost pots keep catching crab, the crab
are caught without the escape working. I do not know what will happen in the long run, but it
doesn’t seem good.
WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS
PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. No lost pots still catching crabs without an escape open.
WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The crab fishery.
WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.
OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?
PROPOSED BY: Kevin Bopp (HQ-07F-085)
******************************************************************************
332