2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (2/6/25)

Recording in progress.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [Speaker] Just a quick announcement, folks. The time is 10:08, and I want to make some time to read through some RCs and get sorted out before deliberations. My intent is to deliberate Group 4 today, and so— but that's probably going to take a little bit of time. I'm going to say at least half an hour, but I'll come back on the record with a, um, with an update at around 10:45. We might begin deliberations as soon as 11-ish, but I will keep you all posted.

But we need a little bit more time to make sure that we have all the RCs sorted out and I get a chance to take a look at them. So thank you for your patience. A little bit more time. Thanks.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for your patience this morning. The time is 10:46. The day is Thursday, February 6th, and we're going to go ahead and begin deliberations this morning on Group 4, which is King Salmon. There are 32 proposals in this group, and we will begin deliberations with the Taku and King Salmon Rivers Chinook examine action plan.

Okay, thank you. I think what I would like to have done is I know we did this a little bit in staff reports, but if staff could please walk us through the action plans and make any recommendations there in on the record for deliberations, and then the board will make some decisions on the action plans. And we would like to do them holistically if possible, but I want to make sure the board has the opportunity to ask the department questions about elements of the action plan. Please.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Scott Forbes. I am the Juneau area management biologist. For the Division of Commercial Fisheries. So what we've got up here are the— is the actual language in the action plan.

And so we can step through here piece by piece. We'll start with the sport fishery, and I'll turn it over to our sport fish manager, Dan Teske. Thanks, Scott. For the record, I'm Dan Teske. I'm the Juneau area management biologist for for the Division of Sport Fish.

For the action plan here, we have one option, Option A, status quo. And this is the written language specific to the actions within the inside waters. For reference, the map is included in RC4, the written report action plan. RC4, Figure 4 on page 28 has the map showing where these regulations apply and what the restrictions are. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to go through these one by one. Okay, let's go through the options.

For the record, this is Scott Forbes again, the Division of Commercial Fisheries. So what I've got here—. I apologize for all the language. Again, this is right out of the action plan. This is Option A, or status quo.

So this would apply to the commercial drift gillnet, troll, and purse seine fisheries. And this is exactly as written in the 2022 action plan.

And the next slide here is Option B. This would modify the 2022 action plan. This is the preferred alternative. This has the slightly more— introduces slightly more flexibility into the drift gillnet fishery.

And in the troll fishery, it's, it's status quo, with the exception of closing down Seymour Canal through the month of July for king salmon river conservation. And then we did mention one strikethrough that needs to exist in this language that is up on the screen here.

Oh, I'm sorry. Also, the Persane fishery would be, would be status quo, and that's implementing non-retention of Chinook salmon until at least the third week of July.

This— what is the strikethrough language effectively do?

Uh, Madam Chair, for the record, Grant Hagerman, I'm the Southeast Alaska Commercial Troll Manager. So the, the language that's been stricken here is an artifact of the 2022 plan that was directly related to the Chilkat River that has been delisted. So that should have been omitted from the plan. It's just— yeah, just what's been stricken.

So does the board have any questions with respect to action number 1 in the sport fishery, option A, or action number 2 in the commercial fisheries, option A or option B? Are there any board questions? Mr. Commissioner, so this is the first I've seen this language remaining So we're striking the language that, that closes the commercial trolling through December 31st. So trolling will now open in this area through December 31st. And I'm just trying to wrap my hands around what that means in terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Through Chair, Mr. Commissioner. So correct. So the— this provision was to use the authority closing the winter fishery through March 16th. What also is not included here, which you don't see, is there was language that was specific to District 15 near the terminus of the Chilkat that remained closed through December 31st that we had as a conservation measure. That's not included in here.

District 15 reference has been omitted, but the remaining language that says remaining closed through December 31st was remaining. So that would— it would remain open, but it's, it's no longer part of this plan. It's not needed under this plan. That was specific to the Chilkat Stock of Concern plan. So those waters would be open during that time.

Thank you. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Seeing this for the first time just now.

So, Madam Chair, so that— this is specific to the winter trout fishery that would close March 16th. There are no spring trout fisheries that are provided, and as as you saw on the map in my oral presentation, in any of those areas for May and June. So those remain closed, those waters remain closed during spring as well, but would open during summer troll retention periods. So in July or August, if we did open Chinook retention periods, that those waters would open. Traditionally, there is very little troll effort in that area, just given difficulties with water clarity and tides.

We've had very little effort in those areas, but that would be something that would be open with this exclusion. That would be open potentially in the summer. And what would be the impacts on the king salmon bound for these two places potentially, since that's what we're considering right now?

So as— Madam Chair, so as, as part of this, we, we could see some increased harvest in the summer troll fishery. That's really what we're talking about in the summer retention periods. If there were vessels participating in that King opening, we could see some increase in harvest in District 15. Again, this is a, not really a troll necessarily area. We've traditionally not seen much effort there, but this would potentially allow harvest during those retention periods in that district.

So why would we be considering harvest in those areas on stocks that are under consideration for, you know, that have an SOC? Madam Chair, for the record, Troy Tinas, Area Management Coordinator. Let me see if I can clarify this a little bit. In short, we messed up when we're drafting this language and we left this— that part in there. And if you read it without the strikethrough, it says beginning March 16th, remaining closed to commercial trolling through December 31st.

It doesn't make sense as, as, as written there. It was, it was a part where we're going through the editing process and updating the previous plan that included District 15 for the Chilkat River. Since District 15 is no longer included in this Stock of Concern Action Plan, as the, as the Chilkat is no longer a Stock of Concern, it just was an artifact of that. It was an editing error. So this is just, we just wanted for clarity, you know, for adopting this language as perfectly as written, that it's just for the record that we're saying this, this sentence here should not be included.

So that's that part of it. As far as management in the District 15 area in the, in the troll fishery, even though, as we mentioned before, in our— even though it's not listed as a stock of concern anymore, we would still take conservative actions because we feel that run is still not recovered to the point where, you know, it's making escapement, it's delisted as a stock of concern, we would still take actions. It just wouldn't be part of an action plan. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. I guess I'll ask you this question, Troy.

So considering what you just said, are there any impacts in this particular area that you would potentially open based on escapement numbers, etc., etc., that would have an impact on the Taku River or the king salmon rivers that we're specifically talking about in this action plan?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that's a good question. There always can be some, you know, some harvest, you know, throughout Southeast Alaska at any given time of year. So Whether, you know, what the magnitude that impact is, it probably would be very minimal. And like I just mentioned, you know, we would not look to open that area during that time period just because of the potential impacts on the, on the Chilkat still, as well as other stocks. Just a quick follow-up to that question.

So what I think I hear you saying is, is that obviously this is a an area that would be open targeting Chilkat stocks. But you're also going to have to take into consideration if you open this through emergency order, that those escapement levels will have to be taken into consideration at that time, as well as the Taku and King Salmon stocks, and that you would utilize all that information before determining if this was warranted. Am I correct in saying that?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. Yes, you're correct. Thank you. How long has the Taku and the King Salmon Rivers been listed as stocks of concern, respectively?

Madam Chair, since 2018 for the King Salmon River and 2022 for the Taku. Thanks. Any other board questions? Okay, let's move on.

Madam Chair, Scott Forbes here again. This slide pertains to the personal use fishery, action number 4. This would go along as status quo and continue to, continue to annually be managed by the transboundary technical committee plan under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which includes delaying this fishery up to 3 weeks. Madam Chair. Okay.

And just for the record, action number 3, which was back to the subsistence fishery, the department noted that there wasn't any action necessary because both of those rivers are within the Juneau non-subsistence area. So I was, I guess, kind of surprised to learn, and I don't know why, that there was a personal— an in-river net personal use fishery that occurs on, on the American side, on the U.S. side of the boundary. And then there is a Canadian— is it— I don't know if it's a personal use or a commercial fishery that occurs in river on the Canadian side. Is that correct, Madam Chair? That's correct.

And what is the, the harvest typically— and we talked about this a little bit, I think, during staff reports, but I just kind of wanted to bring that back out on the record. What is the typical harvest in the personal use fishery for king salmon in the Tuckahoe River? Madam Chair, the, the recent personal use harvest since 2017, when we've been— when we've been delaying this fishery at least 2 weeks and up to 3 weeks, is 10 fish on on average per year. Prior to that, when we were not delaying from when it was July 1st through July 31st, it was closer to 30 to 40 fish per year. Madam Chair, I thank you.

And all that is negotiated outside of this process, correct? Madam Chair, that is correct. This is negotiated through the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Thank you. Are there any board questions with respect to Action 3 or 4?

Mr. Carpenter. Madam Chair, I move to adopt the Taku King Salmon River Chinook Action Plans with the following alternatives described in the 2025 draft action plan found in RC4. Action for Sport Fishery Option A, status quo. Option A, action for commercial fisheries including drift, troll, purse seine fishery. Option B, an action for the personal use fishery status quo.

Second that. Is there any board discussion with respect to the motion on the table?

I'll offer up that I think I'm comfortable with that. One of the things that I do want to discuss at some point, and perhaps it'll be after this motion, is the delisting criteria. But right now we have a motion on the table to adopt Option A, Option B, Option A, or sort of, or like I should say, status quo for Action Number 4. And I'm comfortable with that given the department's explanation. I do want to caution the department, as we've talked about on the record with respect to District 15 and Option B, that obviously the Chilkat, it's great to have moved it out of that delisting, but I, As you've mentioned, and I appreciate the commitment to managing that stock very, very conservatively for a variety of reasons.

One, to make sure that we have the best opportunity to recover those stocks and get them back to where we want to see them within the escapement goal, but also to minimize impacts on these two rivers as well, since we know that they're transiting in the same area.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'm, I'm also comfortable with Option B and, and taking the advice of the department. I think also with how this interacts with treaty issues as well, I think they've got a good handle on, on what they're doing here. So that's why I'm inclined to support their Option B.

So thank you. Any other board discussion?

Question. Thank you. The question has been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll on the motion. Madam Chair, I just have one quick clarification.

I presume the action to Option B that was in the motion included the strikeout language that was on the slide on the screen? Yes, it does. Okay, thank you. Uh, on the motion to select, uh, Option A for Action 1, Option B for Action 2 with the strikeout noted on the slide, and I've got that in my, uh, in my RC4 copy, and, uh, status quo for Action 4. Uh, Godfrey?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svensson?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Let's talk about the conditions for delisting these stocks, hopefully at some point in the relatively near future. The department would go through the criteria that they've presented, please.

Madam Chair, yes, Scott Forbes again. Would you like me to go through these Just read these conditions out loud? Yes, please. Okay. So these are the conditions for reducing restrictions or delisting stock of concern.

Number 1, if the lower bound of the BEG range is met or exceeded in 3 consecutive years or is met in 4 out of 6 consecutive years, the department may recommend removing the stock as a stock of management concern at the first Southeastern Yakutat board meeting after this condition is met. Number 2, management measures could be relaxed in specific areas or during specific time periods if updated stock composition and harvest data indicates areas and/or times when, where, and/or when restrictions are no longer needed to ensure the BEG is met. Number 3, in the event the upper bound of the BEG range is met or exceeded in 2 consecutive years, management restrictions may be relaxed or set aside. And finally, number 4, should the Transboundary Technical Committee determine that a harvestable surplus of Taku River Chinook salmon is available, directed Chinook salmon fisheries in District 11 may occur pursuant to the annual Transboundary River Management Plan under provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Madam Chair, thank you.

And just for clarity's sake, I just want to ensure that with respect to the delisting criteria, that it's kind of if one than 2, 3, or 4, but not— it's not a pick and choose between those delisting. You have to essentially make sure that the lower bound of the BEG range is met or exceeded in 3 consecutive years or is met 4 out of 6 consecutive years to consider any of the other elements. Is that correct?

Madam Chair, that's a great question. And I don't believe our intent or understanding is to meet criteria 1, then to delist under criteria 2, 3, or 4, you would have to meet criteria 1 first, Madam Chair. I think that's important to me because, I mean, we've gotten— my experience with the delisting criteria since my tenure on this board, I think we've tried to sort of make it more consistent amongst the, you know, the various action plans that the board has approved. And so, but I would be very uncomfortable with relaxing any of the restrictions until we have met criteria, that number one criteria. And I don't know, Commissioner, if you have thoughts on that.

Yeah, I'm just trying to— I, I Struggling with the language on number 4 since it's not on the screen. If Canada suddenly provides for harvest opportunity because we're above the B.E.G., I just want to make sure that we're not— can you read number 4 again?

Through the chair, Mr. Commissioner, number 4 is: should the TTC determine that a harvestable surplus Taku River Chinook salmon is available, direct it Directed Chinook salmon fisheries in District 11 may occur pursuant to the annual Transboundary River Management Plan under provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. So that would require bilateral agreement. Okay, I'm comfortable with that. Thank you. Okay.

But my point is, is that in the— is that an either or with respect to the delisting criteria? Because we're talking about it in the context of criteria for delisting. At this level. And I would be very uncomfortable allowing harvest or being— or any of the management measures that are proposed in 2, 3, or 4 for that matter, if in fact we haven't met that BEG range or exceeded in 3 consecutive years or 4 out of 6, which is consistent with some of the actions that the board have taken with respect to other action plans. So I don't want to see relaxed measures or harvest availability if we haven't met that first goal or criteria for delisting.

And I don't know how, how that fourth bullet— what the relationship with the first bullet is, if that makes any sense. That's where I'm struggling a little bit too. Um, certainly you have the authority to restrict harvest on the U.S. side of the border based on your stock of concern, but that does play into the fact that that doesn't mean that I can tell Canada that they're not going to hire they're not going to harvest above the BEG range. But we have some say in that through the bilateral committee process. So I just want the board to know that the action you're taking will constrain our ability to, in that realm, to harvest on the U.S. side of the border, but it cannot constrain what the Canadians may do on their side on this stock.

Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. And then I suppose if we were in some sort of a scenario like that, that people or the department was uncomfortable with or was constrained by, it could be presented to the board through an emergency petition. That's true.

And certainly we would relay as part of our Alaska position that we're still concerned about these stocks and their stocks of concern, and we're very uncomfortable liberalizing harvest opportunities on the Canadian side of the border. So that requires a bilateral discussion. Okay. So from my perspective, I'm just kind of looking up and down the table to see if there's any members that want to speak. But from my perspective, it would be very important to me, and I would be reluctant to agree to any of the other delisting criteria or delisting actions or actions within sort of under that delisting unless that first criteria were met.

I guess everybody's looking at that for—. I'm saying this very inelegantly, but yeah, you're right. Everybody's looking at that forecast right now, but we're all looking at that forecast saying, let's see fish before we liberalize. No, Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Woods.

So I guess in terms of a motion, which I'm considering obviously, and we have to make, um, adopting the 4 bullet points with an emphasis on Number 1 is sufficient in your eyes, Commissioner? Yes, that gives me guidance. Thank you. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I am really unfortunately familiar with stocks of concern on the Susitna River and surrounding areas. And, and one of the biggest challenges has been kind of unwinding that once it's been implemented. And we recently have done that with sockeye down there. And what that took was more escapement and more harvest, oddly enough, in order to justify rewinding that whole process. And it's kind of, it's scary.

It seems like it's easy to get into it and figure out how to deal with it, but then how to back out of it. And I trust the department will really pay attention to that. Do it with the, with the most amount of caution as possible. And especially because it has so many implications, you know, internationally even. So thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the board adopt the conditions for reducing restrictions or delisting a stoffel specifically to the Taku River. Found in bullet points 1, 2, 3, and 4, with an emphasis placed on number 1.

I believe it's the Taku specifically. Am I correct? We need to deal— then we'd have to go through the exercise with the king salmon, delisting the king salmon for the Taku River criteria as well.

If it needs to be clarified with the addition of the King Salmon River, then that's my intent, if that's what's necessary. Madam Chair, these four criteria were for both the King Salmon and Taku. However, criteria 4 would only apply to the Taku, as Taku is only Trans-Brandon River and the Kingsham River is not. That would be the intent of my motion.

Second. Any additional board discussion?

Question. Question's been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll on the delisting.

On the motion to approve the delisting criteria as discussed.

Carlson, VanDort. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Wood.

Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Svenson. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Zeray. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Thank you. All right, I think that concludes the action plan discussion. We'll move on to proposal number 104.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Troy Tinnis, Area Management Coordinator for Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 104, 5AAC 29.060, allocation of king salmon in southeastern Alaska area, Yakutat area, and 5AAC 01.720, lawful gear and gear-specific specifications. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, subsistence salmon fishing is limited to residents of Alaska and to areas with positive and customary and traditional use findings. Hook and line gear is not allowed in subsistence fisheries in Southeast Alaska with the exception of sockeye salmon in Redoubt Bay subsistence fishery. A permit is required to subsistence fish and harvest conditions are established by regulation in terms of the permit. Up to 2 incidentally harvested king salmon may be retained while harvesting salmon under subsistence or personal regulations currently. There's a long history of customary and traditional use of king salmon in Southeast Alaska.

King salmon were traditionally harvested in spawning streams with traps, weirs, gaffs, and spears, as well as in open water by trolling or mooching. Directed subsistence fisheries for king and coho salmon have not been allowed since 1972, except in the Yakutat area and in the Chilkat River adjacent to Klukwan, allowed until 1999. Still, king salmon are an important component of salmon harvest for home use in Southeast communities and are harvested through a variety of methods based on location, regulations, and efficiency. According to household harvest surveys, excluding the communities of Juneau and Ketchikan, a small percentage of the king salmon harvest in Southeast Alaska is done under subsistence and personal use regulations. About a quarter of the king salmon harvest for non-commercial uses is derived from commercial harvest claimed as personal use, with the majority is taken under sport fishing regulations.

King salmon harvest in Southeast Alaska is subject to the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Each year, the preseason all-gear allowable catch of the king salmon— of catch of king salmon is determined by the Pacific Salmon Commission. That is then allocated among the commercial and sport gear groups according to regulation. The fisheries are strictly managed to not exceed Alaska's all-gear catch limit. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal.

However, the department opposes this proposal due to inherent management complexity and requirements to comply with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The department does not have the tools in place to sample subsistence harvest, determine stock composition for treaty purposes, or effectively monitor the in-season subsistence fishery harvest under— in order to avoid exceeding the Alaska all-gear catch limit. If adopted, this proposal would increase the complexity enforcement of hook and line fishing regulations. Commercial and sport fisheries harvests are closely monitored and rigorously sampled to meet terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, terms and conditions of Southeast Alaska Biological Opinion, domestic allocation. Sampling programs require extensive personnel and are costly to implement.

The department would need to develop and fund a program to sample the subsistence fishery. Finally, this constitutes a new fishery under the terms and conditions of Pacific Salmon Treaty, that the Pacific Salmon Treaty defines it as Southeast Alaska sport troll and net and therefore requires approval by the Pacific Salmon Commission. The fishery cannot be implemented until these discussions occur and the fishery is pursued— approved by the Pacific Salmon Commission. To comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, this fishery would need to be restricted to state waters because only residents are eligible subsistence users. Madam Chair, thank you.

Board discussion, please. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. In light of all that, my position on 104 is I cannot support it at this time. I think it's been demonstrated by the department that the sampling techniques that would be needed to be put in place to, to execute this fishery is, is not possible at this time.

I think, um, this does cause inherent management complexities. Um, it would be a direct violation at this time with the Pacific Salmon Treaty specific to the negotiated terms, and creating a new fishery would obviously be in violation of the current treaty. Um, the one other thing that I'd like to add that the department has in their comments is that resident anglers are provided a hook and line sport fishery for king salmon within the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan, which does offer opportunity. Thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I would echo everything that Member Carpenter said. I do want to say, though, I get the sentiment looking for 5,000 fish directly to residents, and I think this topic will be brought up in proposals to come. Because people would like that set aside, especially when there's— when there's residents are looking to have fish and the opportunity to harvest throughout the year. So with that in play, that's probably just teeing it up for the ones to come. However, I can't support this now for just the implications it has with the— just with the department and with the treaty.

I have a question. So what is the history of consideration of subsistence opportunity within the treaty negotiation? What is— what does that look like and why is it excluded currently?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make it clear the treaty does not expressly prohibit subsistence fisheries. In fact, the commissioners have shown that they are amenable to them. It was just that we didn't have that at the time that the treaty was built. So currently under Chapter 3, Paragraph 3(a)(i), it defines our fisheries as troll net and sport.

If we wanted to create such a fishery, we would need approval of the Commission. So I think that answers your question. But in order to have that fishery is the other issue. Is we would have to have in-season monitoring so that we don't exceed our catch— preseason catch limit. So it would introduce a little more uncertainty into that estimate.

And per the treaty and our requirements under the Southeast Alaska Biological Opinion, the ESA considerations, we would have to maintain our sampling of that fishery. Currently at 20%, and so the department would need to stand up a program. Okay, I have two questions in that space. Number one, would it be the intent of the department to introduce that concept of a subsistence fishery into that process? And number two, if it were to do so and it were approved, would there be funds available from the federal government to support the sampling and the program that you just described?

Potentially. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I realize I didn't do this, so for the record, my name is Dani Evanson. I'm an extended jurisdiction program manager with the department. So the first part of your question, if directed by this board and there was sufficient interest The Alaska delegation could carry that forward.

The treaty is being negotiated. The sampling program, we're in a period of federal— we're heading into a period of fiscal conservatism. So there would be concerns at the cost and the ability to do that because subsistence fisheries are fairly dispersed, and so our ability to get those fish sampled and to get in-season catch accounting would take some work. And it's hard to answer at this time whether we'd be able to secure funds, but certainly if directed, we would try and do so. Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah. So the commission is open to subsistence fisheries, but they need to be defined in the treaty. So there's a Stikine River subsistence fishery for king salmon that is currently closed because of Stikine is not meeting escaping concerns. We're facing the same issue right now with the Taku. The Federal Subsistence Board has established a subsistence fishery for king salmon, but the Canadians said, no, it's a new fishery.

So we're negotiating in terms of how do we approve that fishery because it's considered a new fishery. That would be the same process you would have here. You created a subsistence fishery, which is within your authority to do. We would then have to go back into the Salmon Treaty process and negotiate with Canada in the Lower 48 to say, okay, this is the stock composition that's going to be taken in this fishery. When it's in marine waters, it's going to be a little bit more complex because it's not in a river targeting our stocks.

And then we'd have to go through that entire process of getting that approved. The only way we got the taku fishery approved for a single year, when we're going to go through those negotiations again for next year, was to constrain our fishery a little bit longer to make sure that it wasn't harvesting king salmon in the Taku River. So we are supportive of subsistence fisheries, but when they're on mixed stocks, these questions of how you sample them to make sure that we're not now taking Puget Sound stocks become— especially on a new fishery— that we're sampling that at the 20% rate. So yeah, it would— it's— you could approve one, but it wouldn't necessarily create that fishery without additional treaty action. Right.

And I appreciate the constraint. I'm just kind of trying to understand why this doesn't exist and what the process would be to create one at some point in the future and what the department's position would be on the potential of, you know, advocating for subsistence opportunity within Southeast Alaska. I've always found it to be awkward at best in terms of how resident local/subsistence harvests are done on king salmon Southeast because of the gear type that's kind of required to help define it and control it, especially under McDowell. And recognizing that hook and line would be virtually impossible to enforce in a hook and line— I mean, in a subsistence fishery on king salmon in Southeast Alaska. So you're looking at net fisheries, essentially.

Potential other gear types. But most likely and most probably frequently would be used a net. And I'm— given the state of the stocks in Southeast Alaska at this time, the idea— and I asked some questions about this with respect to the Taku— the idea of stretching a net across a stream that has stock of concern for king salmon makes me very uncomfortable and nervous. Inconsistent with the actions and positions that I've taken with respect to other fisheries around the state. So I'm reluctant to support this as written at this time, but I would at least personally ask the, the department to bring the subsistence issue forward in your negotiations, recognizing that there is, you know, programmatic challenges and funding challenges associated with it.

But I think it would be at least a conversation worth having and having publicly because there is a priority in the state. And I'm not sure that we're meeting it in the way that perhaps we should be, specifically just through the sports support king salmon harvest. Mr. Commissioner, yeah, I'm open to having those conversations with, with the Salmon Commission. I'm just going to warn you that it's always going to be very difficult decisions when you start placing subsistence fisheries in marine waters that have a high intercept rate and have ESA considerations. It's going to be much easier to provide those subsistence opportunities on largely state-managed stocks.

Understood. I know it gets real snarly real fast, but I think just having the conversation would be helpful. Mr. Chamberlain and then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is also one I struggled with.

You know, I'm coming from an area of Alaska where there's a subsistence priority. And I, you know, as a lawyer, you know, if we have a subsistence priority, let's have a subsistence priority. But also as a lawyer, I understand how the Supremacy Clause works. This Yeah, this feels difficult. I understand the regulatory complexity, and it's easier to adhere to a legal fiction or a— to wrap this in.

But one of the things I should point out is that the local fishermen in Southeast Alaska are struggling to fight for a port portion of a sport fish allocation that is growing increasingly popular and will grow increasingly popular over the years. So I too would like to see a subsistence designation in Southeast Alaska. I understand the regulatory complexity, but if we prioritize it, I think we should prioritize it. I'm struggling with how to vote on this one because The pure fundamentals of having a subsistence priority resonate with me, but I do understand and take into full consideration the department's concerns and difficulties in managing this. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the sentiment the last two board members made. I think that providing subsistence in Southeast Alaska is important. And I think that it's been made and demonstrated by the board during this conversation that we would like the negotiating parties, while having these treaty negotiations in the future, to consider this and to look for funding sources for the sampling program. Having said that, I think it's important that we go through the state subsistence review criteria.

Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? Yes, a portion of this stock. Treaty king salmon can be found throughout Southeast Alaska, including Ketchikan and the Juneau non-subsistence areas. Um, is this stock customarily and traditionally taken for subsistence? The board has made a positive C&T finding for salmon.

However, those findings are not species-specific. Can a portion of this stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes, king salmon is managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and what amount is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses. And ANS has been determined as follows: District 1 through 4, 9,068 to 17,503 salmon, excluding the Ketchikan and non-subsistence area. District 5 through 8 and 10, Section 9(b), 4,120 to 7,345.

Section 9(a) and District 13, 10,487 through 20,225. District 12, 1,100 through 1,700 salmon. And District 14, 600 through 1,500. District 15 and 7, 174 to 10,414. Do these regulations provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence?

I mean, at this time, unfortunately no, which is trying to I believe this proposal is trying to get at, and obviously there's complexity associated with Pacific Salmon Treaty that will have to be negotiated into the future. And is this, is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide this opportunity? I think that will have to be a future board determination based on treaty negotiations and also the other user groups that are harvesting these salmon. And so Madam Chair, that, that, that's the salmon review. I think it was important to do that specific to this proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the Effen Cove, the Icy Straits, the Pelican, the Sitka, and the Upper Lynn Canal AC were all in favor of this. The Wrangell AC was in favor with amendments, and the Craig East Prince of Wales Island, the Juno Douglas, the Ketchikan, the Klawock, and the Petersburg AC were all in favor, along with about 150 public comments were in favor, with about 20— I mean, opposed, with about 20 in favor of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before we move off of this, I just kind of want to put a couple thoughts on the record. Number one, it frustrates me to some extent that the ANS is specific to all species of salmon and not to king. There isn't a component that's specific to king salmon because as we've heard throughout this week and just common sense of being an Alaskan, we know that king salmon are long utilized highly prized species to, you know, indigenous people, but also to all Alaskans. And so I think that, that— I think that if I'm doing a literal read of the subsistence reg, the regulations provide for reasonable opportunity as defined by all species of salmon. But I think the crux of this is whether or not there's that opportunity associated with specific to king salmon.

And I think what we're hearing is that the sentiment is that there's not. But we are constrained by laws that we have no jurisdiction around. But I think that moving forward, and I appreciate the department's commitment to, you know, talking and advocating in this space, and I would encourage the department to look for partnership opportunities outside of the department or with the federal government for funding to potentially try and develop this space. And maybe it's not just a straight-up subsistence priority. Maybe we can at least look at it initially or incrementally with— through, you know, community subsistence or educational subsistence permits to try and inject some of that, usage into the conversation.

I guess I'm kind of thinking out loud here. But that's kind of my feeling on it, lacking the ability to create a subsistence priority under the treaty right now. Madam Chair, I concur with everything you're saying. The complexity here is that in most of the areas of the state where we provide king salmon opportunities, It's not on shared stocks. And here we're talking about creating a subsistence fishery on largely a mixed stock fishery that is predominantly not our stocks.

And that's just— the treaty comes into play. We will— we can explore opportunities to provide subsistence priority on our state stocks. I think that's an excellent opportunity to start this conversation on moving. But it's not the foundation of this proposal, which is asking to create a new fishery on a mixed stock fishery that's under the treaty, which is very complex. Precisely why I won't be supporting this proposal.

But I just kind of want to take it out. I'm taking the privilege to talk about it a little bit, as I am wont to do. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal would result in a direct cost to residents of Juneau and Ketchikan to participate in this fishery. And approval of this proposal is expected to result in additional cost to the department to sample and monitor the fishery. And I would call the question.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGrasse? No, Madam Chair. Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 104. Ziray?

No. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey? No.

Svenson? No. Wood? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Carpenter? No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 105. Madam Chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 105, 5AAC 47.020, General Provisions and Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Saltwaters of Southeast Alaska Area and 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, moved to adopt Proposal 105 with substitute language found in RC 80. Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it RC 80 with language in lieu of the original proposal number 105. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This proposal seeks to require equal management provisions between Alaska residents and non-residents in the Exclusive Economic Zone in order to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. RC-80 provides substitute language which, if adopted, residents would be required to follow non-resident regulations when fishing in the EEZ.

Generally, harvest by residents in the EEZ is low, with less than 1% of king salmon, 2% of lingcod, 1% of pelagic rockfish, 2% of non-pelagic rockfish, and 7% of the sablefish sport harvest by residents occurring in the EEZ. The department supports aligning sportfish management provisions to align with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Conservation Act, and the department is neutral on the allocation between residents and non-resident sport anglers. Madam Chair. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I brought forward RC 80 with help of the department. I think this is clarifying language that directly speaks to compliance within Magnuson-Stevens.

So I think it's a pretty simple correction, and I think it's something that was very important for the state to do. And so I'll be supportive.

Mr. Wood, I am as well supportive of it. It's— it had to happen, and so might as well make it easy. And the other part of it is, is, as I understand it, basically residents are held to the non-resident bag limit. And I'm just wondering, is it the— who comes up with the bag limit?

Through the chair, Member Wood, uh, in Southeast Alaska, a resident priority has been provided by increased bagging and possession, sometimes annual limits for residents, for king salmon, lingcod, sablefish, pelagic rockfish, and commercial shelf rockfish. So the board has established provisions to have a preferential bag limit for residents, and in this case, that would only apply in state waters now. When a resident angler is fishing in the EEZ, they would have to follow the non-resident regulations, which are generally more restrictive.

And who establishes those regulations?

I'll answer that question. You do. Thank you. I just wanted to know for sure.

Sometimes it's good to look the fool.

Okay, my question is, we've taken some action already at this meeting with respect to other species of groundfish particularly, and I just wanted to make clear on the record that the provisions, if adopted by this board in 105, and the substitute language would basically apply to all of those fisheries under which we've already taken action, and that we would sort of retro any language that needed to be included or clarified within those management plans to include the restriction, the commensurate restriction in the EEZ, right? Madam Chair, you are correct. This would now apply to all cases where we provide a preferential limit for residents. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Miss Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 105 as amended. Godfrey?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Zareh. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Svensson.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 108.

Madam Chair, proposal 108, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 108. This would require the existing structure— excuse me, this would retain the existing structure of the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan but cap the in-season transfer of king salmon allocation from the troll fishery to the sport fishery at 5% of the combined sport/troll allocation. The department would take in-season action to reduce harvest in the nonresident sport fishery If the sport fishery were projected to exceed 25% of the sport troll allocation, a suite of more restrictive regulations for non-resident anglers would be implemented. If the 9-year rolling average of the sport fishery were to exceed 22% of the sport troll allocation on consecutive years. The current king salmon management plan prescribes bag, possession, annual limits, and other management provisions based on the annual allocation of king salmon to the sport fishery.

Management provisions are established at the beginning of the season. An in-season action is not used to keep the sport fishery within allocation, but may be implemented to prevent exceeding the Alaska all-gear catch limit. Any unused allocation, the sport fishery would be transferred to the commercial troll fishery, and conversely, any overage in the sport fishery not to exceed the 25% would be absorbed by the commercial troll fishery. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. If the management regime the last 3 years, the department would have taken in-season action to reduce nonresident harvest opportunity during the 2023 and 2024 seasons.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I think, well, without a doubt, we've heard more from the ACs and public testimony than we have from the hunters. That they have 3 priorities, and those 3 priorities— one of the 3 is in-season management. And when you look back at the years that the department has managed this in season, between 2019 and 2021, they came really close to hitting that percentage. That being said, I think what we're asking the department to do and to give clear direction on down the road is to have in-season management. Management of both the sport and the troll fishery.

And with that, we need to trust that they've got it pretty wired. It's pretty— it's impressive, actually. And but that's kind of a leap of faith because there's a bunch of history here about percentages here, percentages there. And quite frankly, I can't keep track of all those percentages. Nonetheless, that's why I'm not supportive of continuing to try to change a management plan based on these percentages.

And I look forward to discussing more about what in-season management actually looks like.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. So I think that there— from my perspective, I think there are elements of this proposal that are workable and that I think are reasonable. That being said, what I don't like about this proposal is that it kind of keeps some of the stickiness of some of the existing management plan in there, particularly with respect to the rollover and the math. And it just seems that it's been an area of angst, at least in my experience, in my time looking at these management plans here in Southeast, particularly this one. So for that reason alone, I don't think I will be supportive of this proposal.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Generally, I agree with the last two comments. I think the current management plan has obstacles that really make it difficult to protect the resident priority. So for those reasons alone, I'm not in support of this. I think there's obviously other proposals that we're going to consider today, and so I take that into consideration. But I think trying to focus in on resident priorities is important to me.

So for those reasons, I won't be supporting Proposal 108.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Godfrey. I would concur with, uh, Mr. Carpenter and Miss Van Dort also on this, and I won't be supporting it either. Mr. Godfrey. I would echo what he just said about the two prior speakers, and same here. Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional cost to the department. And I would call the question. The question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Sill? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 108. Carlson-Vandork? No. Carpenter? No.

Wood? No. Godfrey? No. Svenson?

No. Chamberlain? No. Zareh? No.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. And just before we move to the next proposal, I am getting notes from somebody in charge of our sound system saying that board members need to get closer to their mics and speak into them more, please. Thank you.

Proposal number 109. Madam Chair, proposal 109, 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this would direct the sport fishery to be managed in season to achieve the annual sport allocation of king salmon. Residents will have a stable bag and possession limit of 2 king salmon at all allocation levels. Management provisions for non-residents will be established at the department's discretion to achieve the annual allocation, but will be designed to achieve 70% of the sport harvest before July 1st and the remaining 30% of allocation to be harvested after July 1st. The department will not close the resident fishery unless the commissioner determines that additional harvest reduction to the resident bag limit is necessary necessary to comply with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This eliminates the allocation sharing between sport and commercial troll fishery, with each fishery managed to achieve its allocation.

Any unused allocation— the sport fishery could be transferred to the commercial troll fishery. Management provisions for non-residents will be adjusted throughout the season to achieve the sport allocation by either increasing or decreasing harvest opportunity. At low allocation levels, it is likely that periods of non-retention for non-residents will be required in order to keep the sport fishery within allocation. At high levels of abundance, the sport fishery may not be able to achieve its harvest, its allocation. This proposal returns to a management regime where changes are made in season to achieve the sport fish allocation, but provides stable sport fishing regulations for non-resident— or sorry, excuse me, for resident anglers.

Historically, the sport fish harvest approximately 60 to 70% of the annual harvest before June 30th each year. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. The department has the tools to manage the non-resident fishery in season while maintaining static resident bag and possession limits. This creates a regulatory environment where frequent changes to sport fishing regulations may be required, including sudden non-retention periods. Harvest projections are subject to statistical variance, requiring the department to manage conservatively in order to avoid exceeding the annual allocation.

Madam Chair. Thank you. So for clarity, we have the proposal, the language found in proposal number 109 as written before us at this time. Mr. Carpenter. Madam Chair, I move we adopt substitute language found in RC 140 for proposal 109.

I second. We have a motion on the table to substitute language for 140 and a second. It is my language. I will speak to it. So this language was intended to sort of capture a lot of what we were hearing over the course of the week.

And it does a few things. It maintains obviously the net allocations up front. And then it adjusts as it currently is written in 140, it adjusts the TROL and the sportfish allocation to 75% and 25% respectively. It also provides the department flexibility to manage under the all-gear harvest in season. And my intent with this language offering it up was to consider the historical sportfish harvest to insert a resident priority within that sportfish harvest, since I was unable to pull it out in a separate allocation per our legal guidance, to slow down the early portion of the non-resident harvest so that the 20% allocation, which the residents are kind of forced into, um, would not be sucked up, for lack of a better term, and impacting— negatively impacting the residents' ability to harvest throughout the season.

And also to allow for— to avoid, I should say, what happened in the past with respect to an August fishery. And with respect to the language in 140, I would ask the department to further kind of speak to it and how they would manage it. And then we can go from there. Thanks.

Madam Chair, the substitute language found in 140, you accurately described it. The first thing we do is the sport and troll allocation has changed, moving 5% from the troll fishery to the sport fishery. So we've increased the sport allocation and decreased the troll allocation. In addition, Additionally, in paragraph 6, we've included language that would give the commissioner additional flexibility that any unused allocation in any of the gear groups could be transferred across gear groups, essentially to, to balance the books to ensure that we don't exceed the all-gear catch limit.

Moving on to 47055, the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan, we clarify that the sport fishery will be managed to achieve the sport allocation, uh, referencing 29.060, and that we'll use in-season management tools to do that, either to increase or decrease harvest opportunity to achieve but not exceed the allocation of the sport fishery. We go on to identify that the priority of the plan is to provide uninterrupted resident harvest opportunity in state waters. If the department projects that in-season regulatory action will be required to keep the sport fishery from exceeding this allocation, the department would first reduce bag and annual limits or season dates for non-residents. So essentially, the structure of the plan establishes a static resident bag and possession limit that ranges from 1 to 3. At periods of low allocation, the resident bag and possession limit will be 1.

Essentially in the middle ground, it's 2, and then high allocation levels, it's 3. The department would then project what the resident harvest is going to be in that season given the allocation and the expected harvest rates, and then the remaining allocation could go to the non-resident sector, which the department has broad authority to establish bag possession annual limits and season dates to stay within the sportfish allocation by adjusting the non-resident management provisions.

And then additionally, the, the last few paragraphs of the plan have been duplicated from the existing plan, that the commissioner has the authority to remove the annual limit for non-residents in hatchery terminal harvest areas, uh, that a harvest record is required when an annual limit is established And the commissioner may adopt regulations that establish reporting requirements necessary to obtain the information required to implement the managed plan facilitating our marine creole program. Madam Chair, thank you. And just procedurally, I just want to remind members that this is a motion to amend 109 to bring this forward. We have a motion and a second. It was not requested unanimous consent, so that's what we have before us.

If there is intention to amend this at some point, we are going to need to vote on that first motion right now to bring this language before for potential amendment. Is there any question procedurally? Okay. Mr. Carpenter. I would call the question on the amendment.

Director Nelson, please call the roll on the amendment.

The question has been heard. Do you want to speak to the amendment or speak to the substitute language or the amendment, the motion to amend 109 with the substitute language? To amend 109 with the substitute language. Okay. Mr. Swenson.

I want to speak to this because this has been a very difficult thing for me to wrap my head around. And I— the allocation criteria here, the history of each sports and personal guided and commercial. This is to amend the language, not discuss the language that is in there. The motion is to amend and get the language on the table so we can discuss it further. That is what I wanted to know.

The question has been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll on the amendment. On the amendment which would substitute the language in RC 140 for Proposed 109. Chamberlain. Yes.

Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Zareh. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. Godfrey. No. Carpenter. No.

Wood. Yes. Motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair. Okay, we now have the language in RC 140 before us.

We've had the department explain what the language does. And now we can discuss it.

Mr. Swenson.

Okay. I want to speak to this as I started before.

How this allocation criteria applies to this. The history of each personal use and sport guided sport and commercial fishery. Both have history, of course. The number of residents/non-residents who have participated in each fishery in the past and number of residents and non-residents who can reasonably be expected to participate in the future. It's expected to be a 4% growth year in the allocation for the sports fishery, so this needs to be addressed.

The importance of the fishery for providing residents an opportunity to fish for personal family construction— the sports provides this. The importance of each fishery to the economy of the state— both does this. Sport and troll Patrol. And the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which fishing is located, both bring. And the importance of each fishery in providing recreational opportunity for residents and non-residents.

Sports provides residents and non-residents on this.

The part that sticks out to me the most is the importance of the fishery to the economy of the state.

The sports fishery brings in 6 times to the economy that the trawl fishery brings in. Trawl. Troll. I'm sorry, I got it. Troll.

Troll. They're close together. I know the difference, as all you do too. So anyway, to continue on, the sports fishery brings in 6 times to the economy more money than the troll fishery, yet the troll gets 4 times as many fish.

I find this hard to— you know, the fish belong to all of us, everyone, and So it's important that this is a very important consideration. Also, you know, the troll fishery, trawl fishery, Jesus, trawl fishery, trawl fishery, good God, okay. The troll fishery, man, they take 100, they caught last year 156,000 fish to generate 37,000 pounds. Dollars. Million dollars.

The sport— Jesus, it's a lot of statistical stuff here, bear with me.

The sports fishery took in 39— caught 39,000 fish, and they generate $202 million to the economy. So this is, this is where I think it's important to have this 75/25 allocation changed. And I would also ask the commissioner how this 75/25 split will affect the charter fishery and the resident sport fishery— resident fishery.

So I'm going to repeat what Patrick said. So what I'm going to do, Commissioner, A little closer, please. What I'm going to do when— if this man— if this were to pass is there's now an in-season management requirement for the sport fishery, and the sport fishery is going to get 25%. You have defined for me what a resident priority means in terms of a bag limit. So we will figure out the calculation based on the allocation plan.

I will then ask staff, what do you expect to be harvested under one— under the right tier? If it's a 2-fish bag limit, for instance, last year, what do you expect to be harvested? Then I will subtract that off of the sport fish allocation and I'll be managing the charter boat, the non-resident sport fishery in season to ensure that the overall sport allocation isn't exceeded. So I'm probably going to be managing the the— because it's in season, I'm going to be managing the non-resident sport fishery conservatively so I don't go over the top of that fishery. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. And like I said, you know, the intention with crafting the language was that in the past, as we all know, this has been a very prescriptive management plan and My sense of that is that it hasn't worked real well, especially recently when we weren't applying the in-season management practice.

And I think that's led us to this place, and there's a lot of angst around that. So the intention with the language as it stands right now was to provide the department that flexibility to manage to primarily, first and foremost, the resident priority, and then to the allocation. For the sport, the nonresident sport, and also the, the troll fishery as well.

Mr. Wood. Thank you. The first thing I'd like to do to speaking to the amendment of the language is before I address the management plan, which is 47.055, I would like to make a motion to change the numbers in the beginning of this plan that are 75-25 to 77-23, as in these numbers will be used in 29.060. So in the process of discussing this management plan and how it relates with the allocation, I, I really need to clarify that before we move forward with this. So What I'm asking is to amend the language to change it in B4 from 75 to 77 and then 5 to 25 to 23.

Second. Second. Okay, we've got a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion to amend to 77 and 23? Mr. Godfrey.

Yes, I would ask the member would, uh, explain his rationale and what he learned from stakeholders prior to coming up with this. Thank you. Um, what have I learned from stakeholders?

What I learned from stakeholders is this, um, this plan of 80/20 has been in play for 30-some-odd years, and it has adjusted A little bit incrementally over time from 17 to 20, actually just 3%.

In this deliberations over the past few days and weeks and in all of the testimony that's out there from the people and the ACs, which you send into us and we read, it all sinks in. There were 3 things that sunk in here. Number 1 was in-season management. That right there is a game changer. The third was resident priority.

And how do you do that? What does this new management system in-season look like when you are trying to get resident priority fish? And then thirdly, we have to discuss 26— 29.060, which is the allocation. And the reason I'm change— I wanted to change the allocation is because ultimately at this straight 80/20, the within-season management, the managers will not hit 20. They will hit 18 point something.

They might hit 19.2. But they will not hit 20. We hear all a lot about our historic percentage, da da da da da.

The only way to hit an 80/20 is to reduce one number and raise another number. So if it's 23, they will hit 20. And if we trust the managers, the department in this room, 'cause every, Every single one of the people in this room have helped create the management plan that's before you.

This didn't come from just some rando. And it came from the comments with the work of the department in this room. With that, I trust that the department will hold it to the 77-23, and that the residents will be prioritized. So this isn't a just— this isn't just a give. What this is is a management buffer that comes from the troll fleet to make sure that the residents have fish, especially in a time of low abundance.

And the whole conservation part of this is something I want to discuss here later in the proposal, but— or in this discussion. But just speaking to the plan and the allocation, that's my reason right now for wanting to change that number. And it is— I want to make expressly clear that that 3% that comes from the trollers, which is 80, should, if there's overage at the end of the season, should get looped back by EO in August for the trawlers to catch. That is my intent. And I guess from the 30,000-foot view coming into this, those are the numbers I finally was comfortable with to help the management do the very best job that they can do to make sure that there are guardrails on this, on this management, this sport fishing management plan.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Then Mr. Zarey, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I just, I forgot to mention something in my earlier comments. So the last management plan that you guys had that are currently on the books looks for averaging to make the sport fishery over time to maintain a 20% allocation.

This management approach that you're talking about now fundamentally shifts that. It directs me to manage in season to the allocation target, whatever you said, whether it's 20%, 23%, or 25%. But the management actions we're going to be taking in season are going to be on the non-resident component, where we're going to be managing that fishery in season to ensure we don't reach that cap through emergency order actions. So we're going to be very conservative going into the season so that we're not closing the season trying to prevent— but we're going to be managing that fishery in season. And the sector that's going to be managed is a nonresident sector.

So that's a fundamental shift that you guys are talking about in terms of how we're managing this fishery. Precisely. To the amendment, Mr. Zurey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to say that one thing that I've learned over all these days of listening to so many different opinions and stuff and to come to, you know, the point we're at right now where we're considering this, you know, change here is that every group, whether it be the non-resident, the residents, or the troll fishery, the trollers, that everybody is a part of a very hardworking lifestyle, which means a lot to each and every one of you. And to that, you know, we've heard a lot of testimony where one group will say you know, this is the reason why we should have this, and another, this is the reason why we should have that.

And I, you know, coming from where I come from, you know, there's a lot of arguments I've heard, and some of them mean very little to me because they, you know, when you say something like You know, the fish aren't worth as much to one group, but they're worth more to another. The amount of money going back into the economy and the state, you know, is so much more in one group. And what I see, you know, from where I'm from, you know, I used to fish for a large amount of king salmon. Not king salmon, we never used king salmon, but I'll use, but say chum salmon for dog food. And if you look at the amount of money that went back into the state per fish for that fishery was, you know, and to keep my fish camp alive, not just the dogs, but to keep my fish camp alive and for the family to cut and all that, it was very little money went back into the state.

So there's a lot of things like that, that every group, it's not just one group, that's one group saying that, but there are a lot of things said by every group that don't real— that it just depends on, you know, where you're from and anyway, I think that this motion, this amendment, this last amendment, it's a compromise.

And I would like to support it. It's not going to make everybody happy, but, you know, I just think it's a— if it could happen like that, I think it would be best for everybody and definitely in lines with what I feel is best. So thank you for that. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I'll make this brief. I'm going to speak to the percentages that were in the amendment 7723. This is a fundamental portion of the substitute language. These two numbers represent a different number specific to the substitute language. What it comes down to me is this.

There will be a substantial management change based on the language associated with these two numbers. I do not feel that this 3% buffer is going to guarantee the residents a king salmon priority when it comes to especially the inside waters based on the time of year that those seasons are open. When you take into account some of the actions that this board has taken in regards to action plans, which we just talked about earlier. So unless somebody can demonstrate to me that that can happen, I'm not convinced that by changing these numbers, even though it was a very open conversation with the two different people that are going to be affected by this, So for that, I can't support the amendment.

I'll speak to the amendment since it's amending my initial language. So the 75-25 I offered up to begin with to try and recognize that there's a fundamental management shift in how they're going to be managing, particularly the sport fishing season. It is much easier to— for the department to manage the troll fishery in season because the fish tickets that are getting delivered on a timely basis. It is a little bit trickier to manage the sport fishery in season, and I'll ask Mr. Fowler if this is correct in a minute, because of the way it's fundamentally managed through, um, the logbook data that's provided through the creel survey that happens over the course of the fishery. And then there's a lot of unknowns, particularly with respect to the non-resident unguided or even the resident unguided.

It's kind of tough to parse that information out. When I— when you're asking to go to that in-season management, and I think some of the issues that it presented in the past was that that unguided or that guided sport fishery, that charter sport fishery, has the ability to harvest pretty quickly. And, and so this is an attempt to prioritize that resident to slow them down. And that's why those— that, that language exists in there for the department and the commissioner to manage that fishery conservatively in the beginning to make sure that that doesn't impede the resident's ability to go out and harvest king salmon, particularly earlier in the season before the opportunity exists in the stock of concern areas, if opportunity exists in the stock of concern areas. So recognizing that it is difficult for the department to manage to a set allocation and they will always manage the sport fishery relatively conservatively.

Now, in my discussions, I wanted to pull out that resident allocation completely, but I was again informed that that would present challenges for law, and I certainly wasn't interested in jeopardizing the department's, the state's ability to maintain their delegated authority in EEZ waters. So this is kind of, I was instructed that in order to sort of provide for that opportunity, it needed to be within the sport allocation. So that additional allocation percentage was also intended to provide a little bit of a buffer so that we could try and hit that 20% of the sort of historical allocation but also provide some like clear guidance and allocation for that resident priority which had to be shoved into the support allocation. So that being said, I think that I am supportive of Mr. Woods' amended language to bring it to 77 and 23. And the reason that I'm supportive of that is because I think it is reflective of the overall sort of historical harvest in the sportfish sector, including the resident priority in times of mid— medium to low abundance.

And I think that that's the important part of this conversation. We're talking about medium to low abundance. So in the old tiers, which are now gone, that would be about F, I think.

And I could be wrong about that. And you can correct me in a minute. But that's the intent, is because this is when the rubber meets the road, is in these times of low abundance. When abundance is higher, and God willing, we'll have more success in treaty negotiations at some point, and this will hopefully ease a little bit. And I think that that would be a really good time to revisit this and have another conversation around it.

But that's what we're dealing with now. Supportive of the amendment to 7723. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I've been through about 500 to 1,000 mediations over the course of my career, and every mediator will tell you that, uh, he's, he's done a good job if both sides walk away equally unhappy.

And, uh, to Mr. Wood and Ms. Carlson-Vandort, based on the discussions I've had with everyone in the crowd following this, great job. It's hard to find anyone who's thrilled with this. But I want to give a little anecdotal example of where I came from. I came from the Kuskokwim River, and we were a heavy commercial fishing and subsistence community. There was a small sport fishery that the locals ended up being hostile to.

And eventually pushed them out of town.

And then the, the, our fishery collapsed due to market conditions. And when that happened, there were still fish in the river and we had— there was no diversity and infrastructure to otherwise capitalize off that, off of that valuable resource. And so I would encourage the groups going forward to continue this dialogue rather than having this discussion 3 years in the future over whether to adjust this 1 or 2%, but continue and find how to work together. Thank you. And I will be supporting this.

Any other discussion? Questions? Been called on the amendment. Director Nelson. On the amendment to change the allocations to 77% control, 23% sport.

Carpenter? No. Zareh? Yes. Godfrey?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We now have the language, RC 140 as amended, before us, and we can further deliberate. Mr. Godfrey? Yeah, I, I, we have an imperfect process and I don't think it can be perfected, but one of my problems is particularly very contentious proposals like this where you've got stakeholders with a lot at stake and very passionate on both sides is we come in here and we, we get their public comment, public testimony, committee of the whole based on certain language, use the roster breakdown of support and opposition And then the board pivots and we do something different. And now I don't know how credible the roster breakdown is of associations and individuals in opposition and support because I only found out about this this morning, which then causes me to give pause to supporting anything because Committee of the Whole wasn't debating this.

Public testimony wasn't debating this. Written comments weren't debating this. This was complicated. 20 Minutes ago when you asked staff, how do you go about enforcing this? I couldn't even follow him, you know.

God bless him, good luck. I'm not— I didn't come to Ketchikan with the intent of making any switches to the allocation of 80/20. I still don't. I support the amendment because the amendment, if the board passes, this is better than the prior amendment we just adopted. But I'll be in opposition.

I believe that the vice chair, the comments he made prior to voting on the amendment, I agree with what he said. I certainly support in-state resident sport fishery, and I certainly support in-season management. As the chair discussed, it's challenging with you know, one of the gear groups and the way that works versus another gear group. Again, it's imperfect, but, uh, for those reasons, because I have not spoken to a number of the stakeholders since we have adopted this amended amendment, so I don't know where they stand, if they're movable or they've moved. And I have this huge roster in opposition.

I don't know if some of them would come over or not, because that's not what they went on the record for. So I will be opposed to this. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. So now that we have amended language and the allocation numbers have been changed, I'm going to speak to the entirety of the substitute language.

Um, the first thing I'd like to say is I appreciate all the public comments that we heard in the Committee of the Whole participation.

One thing that I take into consideration in a pretty big way is the AC comments. When I look at the AC comments specifically on Proposal 109 as submitted in the board packet, it was pretty overwhelming in my estimation that the local advisory committees, to which there are a lot of in Southeast East Alaska, made a pretty significant determination on what their position was specific to the allocation in the 80/20 split. The general framework of this proposal I am in support of because I think the way that this language has been portrayed and the clarity in which the management plan has been outlaid is much better than what we currently have in regulation.

Specifically to one of the things that's most important to me in looking at is I look at the resident— the residents that live in Southeast Alaska and their access to king salmon, specifically in freshwaters, which is quite uncommon to the rest of the state of Alaska.

I don't feel right now that the residents have the ability, without expending large amounts of dollars and large amounts of time, to access the waters necessary in the early part of the season to be able to provide for themselves king salmon opportunities.

I think that this allocation, the way it's written with the 77-23, I don't believe that it provides enough buffer to the department to manage to, to have an unobscured sport fishery for residents. I think that the future, if this were to pass, will that will, that will play out. And once again, this issue will come back before the board like many other areas around the state to where we see constant conflict. We have a troll fishery that has a set amount of permits. They have massive, massive amounts of decreasing participation rates based on the economics surrounding the troll fishery.

We have a guided sport that unfortunately has not had any ceiling put on it. And I think it's very important for that industry to get together and work with the legislature to come, come up with some sort of framework, because I think if that doesn't happen, we are going to constantly be having this issue come back before the board time and time again. And so I think it's imperative that the industry work on that. The other thing that I wanted— that I take really highly into consideration when I make my decision on this proposal is when I look at the overall economic impact of both of these, the troll and the commercial guided, they both, both have a massive impact on the economy of the state of Alaska, specifically in Southeast Alaska. I think the comments that Mr. Swenson made, I think, at least in my eyes, were, were slightly different than the economic impact that I've, I've seen.

I think that the troll impact specifically on some of these very small communities in Southeast Alaska from Pelican all the way down to Ketchikan, mostly on the outer coast. It's going to have a big impact on the ability of a lot of these communities, and it's going to create conflict within these communities if this proposal passes as written.

The other thing that comes to my mind is where the comments from the representative that was here from Tlingit Haida and the amount of ownership of these troll permits that the 38,000 members of Tlingit Haida represent, and I believe the number was 31%. To me, that is a very significant number, and I believe that reducing the allocation specifically is going to have a giant impact on those communities in which those people will reside. So I've went through the allocation criteria. I think that we can apply the allocation criteria to both of these user groups. I think they both have demonstrated that they both create economic opportunity and they provide economic stability to the, to the state of Alaska.

I think when I look at the Sustainable Salmon Policy. And the one thing that I always go back to when we look at allocation issues is wild salmon stocks that are fully allocated, which undoubtedly this is, taking not only the alloc— the fully allocated nature of it, but also taking into account the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the implications that could be derived from that, not only with this proposal but also, also with future negotiations. And it basically calls for the idea that these expanding fisheries should be restricted in some form. And I understand that the allocation numbers are kind of addressing that, but I think it's important for board members to at least consider the idea, which we have in many other meetings around the state. So I'm interested in hearing other board comments, but I cannot support this at this time because I believe the 80/20 split is a very important factor in giving the department specific direction in how to set the nonresident allocation so that nonresidents continue to have a priority.

Mr. Wood. All right. Thank you.

I want to start by saying that when it comes to the allocation, Well, first the management part. The management part— we've been dealing with this for a long time. I feel comfortable with the department having in-season management. I feel comfortable with the, with the language around what will protect these fish that will be coming from the troll fishery to the resident fishery for them to manage it. I have serious heartburn over the 80/20.

And especially from, it was almost unanimous testimony from people here, 80/20. It was the ACs, almost unanimous, pretty much, 80/20. When you think back at the Tlingit Haida, And when the Central Council did their, oh God, it was called the appeal, their amici, right? I mean, it was trollers, it was Klinkahayda that had the most impact on that decision. And it was the briefs that were submitted I mean, the troll fishery, and especially Tlingit Haida, changed the course on that.

And in Tlingit Haida, there's 38,000 members, council members, that participate in the troll fishery. 61% Of them directly support the troll fishery, and 31% of tribal citizens have troll permits. I mean, and then for the state to adopt any kind of radical allocation change is a slap in the face to these Alaska residents.

I mean, I don't even know how to justify it. Because when, and what I'm struggling with is when you look at the system, mixed salmon policy, when it says most wild Alaskan salmon stocks are fully allocated to fisheries capable of harvesting available or expanding mixed stock fisheries unless otherwise provided for by the management plans and the application of the board's allocation. I mean, we, we are warned in two places up here in, in this book of expanding fisheries and the ability to not handle that expansion. That is my greatest fear around this non-resident fishery is that other than bag limits, they're in this— in this allocation, there's nothing reining them in.

And the testimony I heard from that side was, we need 3 fish, we need 3 fish, it's got to go 3, 2, 1. That takes nothing into context of the conservation of these salmon that are not going up, they're going down. And these are not just salmon, we're We're talking halibut. We're talking yelloweye rockfish, for crying out loud. You know, I mean, we are— and we're asking, we're saying, yeah, we're going to give a little bit more to you so that you don't go out of business.

You can take care of your expanding business. And we get promises that we're going to get certified in this and restrain our numbers like this. I know there are no guarantees. There's also no guarantees in the guiding business. I think it is almost unconscionable to guarantee you're gonna get Three Kings.

I've been a guide my whole, for 15 years of my life on Denali. 2 Trips a year. I never promised anybody the summit, ever. I promised them they were gonna get back down, they weren't gonna lose any fingers and toes, And some of the rewards I got for that was from like a woman doctor that said, "I wouldn't walk across the room to help you even if you had a sucking chest wound." Seriously. She was a doctor.

She was pissed she couldn't get to the top. But she had all her fingers and toes and I'm sure she's got a great story talking about the asshole that made her go back down. I'm just saying, I think from my perspective, this is equitable and I trust the department to manage this to the 20% and make sure that the residents get that fish. And to the guides, you might be the future as long as the tour ships keep coming up here and other circumstances on the planet don't stop this influx of people returning to this great state of Alaska because they watch too much reality TV. You know, you gotta, you gotta figure out how to pull this together, man.

And it can't be just a wing and a prayer and come back here in 3 years and say, well, guess what, we need more. Because you're taking from all of these remote residents Throughout the entire southeast state of Alaska. Wild remote places. And I was going to go through the allocation criteria, the 7 factors, but quite honestly, the troll fishery hits every bullet. Number 7, resident sport fishery and non-resident, it addresses.

But so you've got to create the groundwork here to fit into this allocation criteria even further in order for this to be comfortable. For the time being, I'll stick with this 77-23 idea, and I know— well, hopefully everybody will hate it, but that's, that's all I'll say for now.

Commissioner. So before we— you guys vote on it, I think it's a little bit important time to give a chance for Danny to figure out whether or not any of the things you're considering is having treaty or ESA implications and getting that on the record. And then I have a just a more just basic question under the management plan. It says under C, the bag and possession limits for not for resident anglers should be established as such. And then the 1, 2, and 3 just have bag limits.

So I'm presuming that the direction is that the bag and possession limit are the same since it's silent on possession limits. That's the way I'm going to read that. The bag and possession limits are the same with no annual limit. Thank you. I just want to get that on the record.

So if we could turn to Ms. Evanson. Ms. Evanson. Sorry, for the—. Mr. Wood. For the residents.

For the residents. Yes. Ms. Evanson.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Again, for the record, my name is Dani Evanson. I'm an extended jurisdiction program manager with the department, and I just wanted to take a moment to review this amended language for its consistency with obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Endangered Species Act. In RC 325, I laid out 5 obligations that we have to meet to make these consistent. Number 1, can the department manage to meet escapement goals?

The answer is yes. Can the department manage to stay below a preseason catch limit? This plan does that, and the addition of 2 things makes it easier. One is the in-season management of the sport fishery, and the second is the flexibility to transfer unused allocation by the department if as needed. Number 3 is we need to manage to not exceed an incidental mortality limit.

By my math in this It is not a substantial difference. We're talking on the low end of about 2,700 Chinook transfer from troll to sport, and on the high end, in a really high abundance year, maybe about 8,000 or thereabout.

Sport does have lower incidental mortality, and we would expect that to go down, mitigated by maybe a small increase in troll, but we do not expect that to be an issue. So yes, we can meet that requirement.

Can we maintain sampling rates consistent with those that have been observed in recent years around 20% or more? And the answer is yes. Now for the trickier bit, which is changes, substantial changes in stock composition and increasing risk to exceeding caps of ESA limited— ESA listed stocks, Endangered Species Act.

We do not expect the— this small of a transfer and how this plan is laid out where there is a target of 65% of the export catch before July 1. That is actually helpful in terms of stock composition and Endangered Species Act.

There are 6 stocks that we have exploitation rate limit cap on. We would expect from this 65% by July 1st, would have no change or very slight reductions for 2 of them and noticeable reductions in recoveries, in recoveries and exploitation for 3 of them. The 4th one we don't have the data for because it is not handled by the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon Commission. So I did request that my— that our treaty biometricians to do these analyses for a variety of scenarios, so I would be able to speak to it today. They gave me a normal probabilistic caveat, and, uh, about putting too much faith in these results, recognizing that endangered species are by definition rare, and they're rarer still in a distant mixed stock, uh, fishery.

So in other words, a few codomere tag recoveries either way could change things and just by pure dumb luck. But we do not expect this to affect the stop composition substantially or substantially or increase our risk of exceeding an ESA limit. Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Everson. Mr. Swenson.

Well, I would hope at the end here that you guys as a community can get along.

You know, in my sports background, when I play— I still do play basketball, but anyway, not competitively— but we have referees and they make decisions. And when it was all said and done, we shook hands and we were still friends in the end. And that's what I hope happens here, because I have heard from some of the constituents that, you know, I don't want to be— you know, they, they've become— they almost hate the other side, whichever side they're on. So I just hope that, uh, you guys can shake hands, uh, and, and, and live a good life together, because that's what this is all about. Thank you.

I'm going to offer a couple thoughts on the record, and then we can get to it, but to a couple of the points that have been made in the discussion. One, that this is going to increase conflict in the communities. There is conflict in the communities right now. That's why we're here. And I hope that this language does not exacerbate that conflict.

But— and I hope that it has the opposite effect as we take the time to see how this works functionally with the management and with the availability of king salmon. I also wanted to just touch on something that was said earlier with respect to the members of Tlingit and Haida, their citizenry. It is a 38,000 total citizenry enrollment. Not 38,000 that participate in the troll fishery. So that is my understanding.

I'm happy to be corrected, but the full membership is that of 38,000 citizens.

I am sensitive to the issue of the expanding fishery. And I want to recognize that. But it is the purpose and the duty of this board to allocate. And we have that authority to do so in recognition that this could be and likely might be an expanding fishery with respect to particularly the chartered sport fishery.

In thinking about this and in thinking through the allocation, And having the conversations that I've had, I too share the cautionary words that other members have spoken to in terms of this expansion. And then I think it behooves industry to try and regulate themselves before you are regulated out of your opportunity entirely. Potentially.

And it is also, as I think through the allocation criteria and elements of it, with respect to the allocation and the opportunity provided to sport outside of just the resident sport opportunity, would be to try and maintain these higher value, higher economic impact multi-day trips rather than shifting towards the multi-day, you know, sort of multi-trip-per-day cruise passenger visitor type of business model.

And that is why I crafted or worked to try and craft some of the language that I did. Whether that is successful or not will remain to be seen, but that certainly was my intent. It is also I believe within this language that that resident priority will exist in state waters. Okay. I want to make that abundantly clear to— in state waters is where this resident priority would apply.

Various members, I think I've heard, share varying degrees of confidence about whether the department can manage to that and whether or not that will occur. But the language provided in the RC is intended to do just that. With respect to the allocation criteria, there is clearly a long history of personal use, sport, and commercial fishery in this area. Particularly, I'm going to focus on the sport and commercial. I've talked about this in the past, and I'm frustrated with the fact that we don't have sort of a recognized subsistence fishery in this sort of sector and that it's lumped in with the sport fishery.

And I think that has confused and exacerbated some of the consternation and the debate within this space. And I would like to— I would have preferred to see that carved out explicitly, but I was told I was unable to do so.

Clearly, we've heard a lot, a lot about the characteristics and numbers of participants in the fisheries. We're well— we've been well informed from the troll fleet that they exist, they exist in the communities, they are stabilizers and backbones of our rural communities in Southeast Alaska, and that 85% of the troll participants are local to these rural communities, and that's incredibly important. Likewise, I wanted to acknowledge that there are residents in these communities also that participate in the charter fleet, and their kids go to school in our communities, and they buy food at the grocery stores to supplement their needs. All the things— these are our— these are also our neighbors. There is consternation with the perceived growth in the non-resident participation in this and ownership of lodges and charter fleets.

Within the space, and I want to acknowledge that too.

But as I've sort of thought a lot about this, I wanted to make sure to acknowledge that there is a significant number— I think I heard 60%— of the local charter guides and fleets are also local residents and participants, and that's important.

The importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain fish for personal and family consumption. That is what has been driving this debate and what has been driving the language. And certainly the intent is to provide that opportunity, and that is an explicit directive within the new management plan, within the language. The availability of alternative fisheries resources. This is kind of a little bit trickier, but there is opportunity for trollers on chum salmon and other species.

And in some cases, we've heard that those chum salmon are more valuable than kings in some years. Not always, but sometimes. And so I wanted to make that clear with respect to the alternative fisheries resources. Similarly, in the sport, they have opportunity on coho later in the season, but it is tough. When they're not present earlier in the season, and that's an important element of their business models as well.

The importance of each fishery to the economy of the state— I think there's been a lot of discussion on that. I won't belabor it, but I do want to just acknowledge that both sectors provide very important economic components to the state of Alaska and to each of the communities in which they operate. And then lastly, or the— and the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area as in which the fishery is located. I just spoke to that as well. The importance of each fishery in providing recreational opportunities for residents and non-residents.

And I think that's captured with respect to the EEZ language as well, that we are not removing the opportunity for non-residents to catch fish. Rather, we're holding those to the same standards in the EEZ waters, and, and they are held to bag limits within state waters as well.

So those are my comments. I just want to say that I appreciate the earnestness and the honesty with which each of, you know, with each of the people that I've had the opportunity to speak with about this issue over the last few days. I don't take that lightly.

This is a difficult one to vote on and a difficult one to craft. But in the interim, until we have more fish available to us, I am willing to move forward with this in this space. I am not comfortable.

But I think under the circumstances and given the feedback that I heard about the resident priority need, this is the path through that, at least in the near term. And with that, I will stop speaking. Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. And I call the question.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson? Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 109 as amended.

Svenson.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes.

Carpenter. No. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Ziray.

Yes. Godfrey. No. Motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair.

Thank you. I think we all need a little bit of a break. Let's go ahead and take a lunch break and come back on the record. Mr. Commissioner? Yeah, just before you leave this, I, I really appreciate the board's willingness to work with the department in providing me clear guidance in how to— in providing for the resident priority, but yet guidance in establishing what that priority is so that amongst the user groups they now understand that I have some flexibility, but I also have clear guidance from you as to how implement this management plan you passed.

So thank you all board members for working with us on, on the implementation plan. Let's come back together at 2:30.

Okay, time is 2:36. We're back on the record. We're still in deliberation of Group 4. We are at proposal number 110. 110, Please.

Madam Chair, Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator for Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 110, 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 110 based on the action it took on 109. Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 110. Proposal 111. Proposal 111, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan and 5AAC 29.060, Allocation of King Salmon in the Southeastern Alaska and Yakutat Area. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 111 as the proposer has withdrawn their support in RC148.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 111. Proposal 112. Proposal 112. 5AAC 29.060, Allocation of King Salmon in the Southeastern Alaska and Yakutat Area, and 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 112 based on the action taken in 109. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 112. Proposal number 113.

Proposal 113, 5AAC 29.060, Allocation of King Salmon in the Southeastern Alaska and Yakutat Area, and 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, move we take no action on proposal— are we 112? 113, Based on the action taken on 109. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 113. Proposal number 114. Proposal 114, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 114 as the proposer has withdrawn support shown in RC 145.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 114. Proposal number 115. Proposal 115, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 115 based on the action the board took on proposal 109.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 115. Proposal number 116. Proposal 116, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 116 based on the action it took in Proposal 109. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on on proposal number 116. Proposal number 117. Proposal 117, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 117 as the proposer withdrew support in RC145. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 17. Proposal number 118.

Proposal 118, 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 118 based on the action it took on proposal 109. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 118. Proposal number 119. Proposal 119, 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move we take no action on Proposal 119 based on the board's action on Proposal 109.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 119. Proposal number 120. Proposal 120, 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 120 in light of action the board took on Proposal 109.

Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 120. 20. Proposal number 121. Proposal 121, 5AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 121 and light on the board action on proposal 109. I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 121. Proposal number 106, 6. Proposal 106, 5 AAC 47.020, General Provisions and Seasons in Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Saltwaters of Southeast Alaska Area, and 5 AAC 47.055, Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 106 as the proposer withdrew support on RC 146. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 106.

Proposal number 107. Proposal 107, 5AAC 47.020, General Provisions and Seasons Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Salt Waters of Southeast Alaska Area and 5AAC 47.055 Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 107 as the board lacks authority. It also violates federal law under Magnuson-Stevens under National Standard 10.

I second that and ask unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 107. Proposal number 122. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, I'm Daniel Teske, the general area management biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 122, 5AAC 47.030, methods, means, and general provisions, finfish.

Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This would prohibit the removal of king salmon from the water whenever the retention of king salmon is prohibited in the Southeast Alaska sport fisheries. Currently, when retention of king salmon is prohibited, the department includes the language that any king salmon caught must be released immediately.

The removal of fish from the water is not expressly prohibited. In some locations outside of Southeast Alaska, primarily in freshwater, there are regulations prohibiting the removal of salmon from the water unless the fish is intended to be retained. However, the Southeast King Salmon fishery is primarily done in saltwater, and in these marine boat fisheries, the height of the gunnel and shapes and sizes of the boats vary. And if it has high gunnels and is away from the waterline, it may make release without removal from the water difficult for some anglers. The department opposes prohibiting the removal of king salmon from the water during periods of non-retention.

The department prefers the current regulatory language combined with the use of angler education to encourage best handling practices while not expressly prohibiting removal of king salmon from the water. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks.

Is there a problem with handling king salmon in the saltwater versus in river in terms of if if they're like physically more durable at one time than the other? Uh, through the chair, Board Member Wood, um, the mortality rates vary. There's a lot of variables, and it varies across different studies that have been done. The variables include whether it's, you know, freshwater versus saltwater, as you mentioned, um, and the use of bait, most importantly hook placement, and a variety of factors. But for the, for the Southeast marine fishery, we use an appropriate percentage of around 16% mortality for the marine king salmon fishery.

Thank you. Okay, thanks. Yeah, that's where I got that number 16 back when I was thinking incidental mortality. But, um, so why, why is it higher calculated higher down here than it would be, uh, in, in other areas like on the Kenai? That's, that's a higher number than we were using.

Uh, through the chair, Board Member Wood. Yeah, that's, that's a good question. As I mentioned, it's, it's highly variable depending on which studies you look at, but the CTC as part of the Pacific Salmon Commission has calculated that number for the Southeast marine fishery to be 16%. Okay, thank you. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. No, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, generally speaking, I'm a proponent of this. We took this proposal up in the Prince William Sound meeting for release on the Upper Copper River, and there were, there were good reasons why we didn't pass that proposal. I think it's, it's pretty clear with some studies that have been done that, you know, there was a study done on the Little Susitna River specific to coho that the mortality rate associated with netting fish and catch and release mortality is higher in the intertidal, the kind of the transitionary period before these fish are, are kind of set.

And, and so that does concern me. But I understand the difficulties on charter boats, the size of the boats that they're using. And, you know, trying to do this effectively without, without causing actually more harm probably than does good. So generally, I think handling practices are something that should, you know, the board should think about when it, when it votes on things like this. And generally, I'm in favor of those if the situation warrants.

But considering the testimony we heard and the difficulty kind of doing this in some of these bigger waters, I won't support it.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the department. You know, we have fisheries where we dip net, and the idea is to let go of species that don't, you know, that are not in abundance and stuff and keep the ones that are. And those fish aren't being hooked and all that sort of stuff, and they're not being played and reeled in, but they're being held for real minimal amounts of time in a dip net and then released.

Is the net, is that not a problem? Have you come across any problems with just like that kind of dip netting? You know, you're talking about problems with like using a net. And people have said on other proposals that, you know, they don't believe in netting a fish, but they're talking about a hooked fish. You get what I'm saying?

Through the chair, Board Member Zarey, I do understand what you're saying. However, this proposal is specific to sport fishing regulations and dip netting is not an allowed method and mean for sport fishing for salmon?

Thank you. I guess I was still asking the question, but I guess if we don't want to maybe talk about things not related directly to the proposal. So I don't know. I think it's related to the proposal, and I think it was a legitimate question that, you know, he's asking about what the net impacts are. People use dip nets.

What is the difference between the impacts from a potential dip net and how the nets are used and function in the sport fishery? I think that's what you were asking, maybe. Yeah. Thanks for the question, Madam Chair. This will be addressed in the next proposal, 123, that discusses prohibitions on netting and handling of king salmon.

But to answer your question, it's, it's highly variable depending on what kind of net is used, different conditions. I do know there are some nets that are, you know, better on the fish, the rubber ones without knots on them, as opposed to the twine nets or monofilament nets that can be a little bit harsher. So it's difficult to have an exact answer to this question. It's variable, but I think the intent for most anglers is to take care of the fish that's going to be released and not increase the chances of mortality. Thank you.

And so to be clear, there's no— there's no requirement right now to use the nets that we know are easier on the fish? Madam Chair, that's correct. There is no net regulation right now. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I like Vice Chair's comments.

I agree. I personally I'm not a fan of catch and release. It's not something I've ever participated in, nor will I. But be that as it may, I like the spirit of this proposal. The ratio of support to opposition is about as extreme as I've ever seen.

Almost. It's up there. And I want to be able to support it, but I'm struggling with it. The department's opposition makes sense to me. Even though they can't say with any precision on how minimal it would reduce mortality, for the complexity of it and the challenges of it, I'm gonna go with their expertise on this and I'm gonna go ahead and oppose it despite the fact I would love to see a reduction in kid mortality this way.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, I do give deference to the, to the department's comments and their position on this one, but I tend to agree with the public on this one for the sole purpose of deterring photo op fishing. I, you know, when, when handled lightly and put back in the water, there is low mortality, but the more fish is removed from the water, there, there does— there, the more handling there is, the more increased chance for harm there is. So I, I'm going to vote for this just because I've seen the photo-op fishermen on, on Facebook and social media.

I don't want to encourage that. So for that purpose and, and with deference to the sport, to the department's objections, I will still be voting yes. Mr. Ziray. Madam Chair, and for the record, there were 9 ayes in favor and 3 against. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ziray. I don't know. I'm kind of torn on this one, too. Like, I appreciate the spirit in which it's offered. I think my only concern with voting to approve this is that, you know, to some of the departments that there could be more harm done, given the configuration, the gunnel, you know, height of some of these boats that especially in a swell, especially if you're broadside, like I'm not sure that that's going to help any significantly.

But I do think just it's kind of irresponsible or not in the best interest of the resource if you know that there's gear out there that minimizes some of this harm and it's not being used. So I I guess in the future I'd be interested in seeing a proposal that speaks to that specifically in terms of what you can use to net a king salmon in the state of Alaska waters in general. But that's not what I have before me, so I don't think I'll be supportive. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, before I read costs, I was just curious if the Department of Public Safety had any enforcement concerns in regards to this before we move forward.

Yes, through the chair, one of our concerns, I'm thinking through this is, you know, we see somebody try and release a fish on a boat that's got a high wall there and they can't physically reach it and they choose their safety over releasing a fish in this manner. It's prescribed here and the discretion that we'd have to use, I could picture us quickly losing a citation like that in court when somebody's defense is their life, you know, or potential injury. So if it was passed, I mean, we'd have to think through a lot of discretion on using this, uh, or, or risk, you know, writing some of these citations and I think potentially having them tossed out or found not guilty because of a very plausible safety reason for not doing it. So that's kind of my initial thought as we think through it. Appreciate that.

Yeah, I'd like to just put on record that I really like the idea of these rubber nets. I think they would help considerably to eliminate damage to the fish. But from an all practical purposes, I think it would look pretty— it could get pretty sloppy out there with people trying to release fish over the gunnel. Of their boat like that. So I'm not in support.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Sills?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson? Call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 122. Carpenter? No. Zeray? No.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandork? No. Wood?

No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion carries, 1 in favor, 6 against— or sorry, motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against. Madam Chair, Proposal number 123. 3. Thank you, Madam Chair. Danteschi, Sport Fish.

Proposal 123, 5AAC 47.030, Methods, Means, and General Provisions, Finfish. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would prohibit netting and handling of king salmon in catch-and-release fisheries.

Currently, when retention of king salmon is prohibited, the department includes the language any king salmon caught must be released immediately. The netting and handling of king salmon is not expressly prohibited. Anglers that net fish on board a vessel or onto the shoreline to unhook king salmon before release would need to develop a new strategy in order to keep the fish in the water and minimize handling. Anglers would be prohibited from netting and handling the fish to, to measure or photograph their catch prior to release. The department opposes prohibiting the netting and handling of king salmon prior to release during periods of non-retention.

The department prefers the current regulatory language combined with the use of angler education to encourage best handling practices while not expressly prohibiting the netting and handling of king salmon prior to release. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion.

Mr. Godfrey. I'll be opposing this for the same general reason as the last one. Thank you. I do reference my comments on the previous proposal. Mr. Chamberlain.

I will be opposing this one because I do— I do agree with the department on this one.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'll oppose it as well. I think it's pretty tough unless you're a professional just to be able to get pliers on a hook and twist it out and without a net. So I'll just Not be voting for it.

Mr. Zeray.

You need to turn your mic on, sir. Sorry. For the record, 7 ayes in favor and 3 against. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate state and the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions, Director Payton? No error or omission.

I'd just like to remind the board members, on page 37 of our Southeast book, we put a whole thing in there on dos and don'ts on best practices for catch and releasing. So we do our best to educate the public on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 123. Svenson? No.

Wood? No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Zareh? No.

Godfrey? No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 124.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Danteschi Sport Fish. Proposal 124, 5AAC, new section. Madam Chair. Moved to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal seeks to open king salmon retention a week earlier for residents in areas that were previously closed due to wild stock conservation concerns when the preseason king salmon forecast for the Chilkat, Taku, Stikine, or Unuk River is anticipated to exceed the lower bound of the escapement goal. The department is neutral on the allocation of king salmon harvest opportunity between resident and non-resident sport anglers, but is opposed to increasing harvest on stocks of concern. Madam Chair, thank you.

More discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, well, I understand the, the idea behind this proposal, and I understand that the chill cat has— and the eunuch have had some restrictions lifted. Um, the way the proposal is written, specific to the Taku and Stikine, even though the Taku seems to be doing a little bit better, specific to the action plans that are currently in place, um, I think it'd be really difficult for me at this time to, uh, put pressure on these stocks, considering that there's not only stocks of concern, but there's also potential treaty implications in regards to putting more pressure on these. And so for those reasons, at this time, I don't think I can support it.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also be opposing this.

Having looked at some of the forecasts and how far they've been off in recent years, I, you know, this is an inexact science. So I would rather air in the sight of conservation.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Godfrey. I would agree with both the previous two board members' comments and will be opposing it for similar reasons.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. 3 Ayes in favor and 4 nays opposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zarey.

Yeah, I'm struggling with this too. I mean, if for no other reason than, you know, the issues that some of my fellow members brought up, but also they could potentially be in conflict with the delisting criteria that the board has in place for these stocks of concern. And in trying to inject some consistency into delisting criteria, I would be especially uncomfortable sort of going around that or accepting it, not ACC, but EXC, as is written in this proposal. So I can't be supportive at this time. Mr. Swenson?

For me, the word in there is anticipated. If it was said to be sure, then I would be more inclined to be in favor of this. Mr. Carpenter? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to to participate in the fishery and approval of this proposal not expect to result in any additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Still? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 124. Wood? No. Godfrey? No.

Carlson-Vandork? No. Zarey? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? No. Svenson? No.

Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 125. Thank you, Madam Chair. Danteschi Sport Fish.

Proposal 125, 5AAC, new section. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal seeks to close sport fishing for king salmon in Section 14A, the Cross Sound area, from April 1st through June to June 14th, when stock of concern status exists for king salmon stocks in northern Southeast Alaska. When establishing the boundary for the April 1st to June 14th non-retention period, the department considered the magnitude of harvest in the sport fishery, known migration corridors, and recognizing that the proportion of Southeast Alaska wild origin king salmon stocks present in the harvest generally declines with the distance from the terminal area. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you to the department.

So from my understanding, most of 14 is closed with the exception of this small area at the entrance of 14A. Is that correct? Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter, that is correct. And is that, is that the case for just the troll fleet or is that the case for sport fishing in general?

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, the sport fishery is open in that area, but the commercial troll fishery is closed in that area during this time period. Okay. And then I guess my second question, just for clarification, does the department The way they read the written language in this, does it speak to both residents and non-residents? Is that the— is that the ask? Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter, yes, as it's written, it does apply to all anglers.

Okay. And then I want to touch on one other thing. In light of the action plan that we took today specific to the taku and king salmon stocks, in which— in which we created an action plan and the criteria for delisting. Would this be something that the department has taken a different stance on in regards to their neutrality because of that action plan? And if so, would it be appropriate to show board— if the board so desired to show intent that something like this would take place while those two stocks had an action plan placed upon them?

Could you repeat the question, please? So in light of the action plan for the taku and king salmon and understanding the timing associated with the early part of this proposal, is it appropriate that— is the department's position still neutral? I understand that it's allocative, but I'm talking about conservation reasons specifically to the action plan. And if you could address that, and if it— and if so, if— is it important that we consider that in showing the department's intent while the action plan is in place, that maybe it would not become a permanent regulation but something that's also associated with the action plan? Uh, thank you.

Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter, I think I understand your question. Yeah, it would be the reference of the department to if the board did intend to include this in the stock of concern regulations, it would be preferred to add this to the action plan and implement it via emergency order rather than putting this in codified regulation. Hopefully that answers your question. Thanks. It does answer my question.

And that—. And I was thinking about this, and, you know, obviously we've taken this action plan, and obviously in the early portion, you know, I would assume that this particular area gets a fair amount of use just because of where it's located. I also understand that probably the places like Pelican and Elfin Cove and Gus Davis for local residents would be impacted greatly by the passage of this. And so I'm just contemplating in my head what's the the best way to move forward. I'm not in favor, I will say, I'm not in favor of putting this into regulation, but I'm very much in favor of including some direction to the department to include this type of management activity while the action plan is in place.

So if you want to touch on that, fine. Otherwise, I'll just consider it deliberation. Through the Chair, Board Member Carpenter, Yeah, so I think I'd probably defer to Department of Law here, but I think if, if it is the intent of the board to include this as part of a conservation measure for stock of concern status, I, I believe we would be able to potentially add that to the action plan and, and issue that closure via emergency order. That's my understanding. Thanks.

Commissioner, I think I'm a little confused here. So are you asking me to implement this under my commissioner's authority for conservation purposes, or would you rather have you adopt a regulation that while this— while the action plan is in place, that we're— I would be directed to take this action? I personally think it could be done either way. But if it's easier for you to give— for the board to give you that language, then that's fine as well. I would rather have you give me that language and say that as long as the action plan is in place, you know, this area is closed.

Okay.

Mr. Wood. All right. Well, that being the case, there was a lot of support from this, from public testimony. And Elfin and, and some ACs. So that was, that's what I had left over in my notes.

So I, hearing that and seeing how close it is to high population, and I'm in support of it, especially with the stock of concern. Yeah, Madam Chair, in light of the discussion and, you know, what the commissioner said, I think it would be appropriate to take a short stand down. Let me confer with the department on this and see if we can't come up with some sort of language to address this. Okay, we'll stand down briefly. Thank you.

Hey, we're back on the record. Time is 3:13. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. To Proposal 125, um, I move to amend the proposal to, to add that this would only apply while the Taku King Salmon Management Plan is in effect.

Second.

And just for clarity's sake, Taku River King Salmon River Action Plans, right? Stock of Concern Action Plan. Yes, please. Stock of Concern. The Taku King Salmon River King Salmon Management plan while it's in effect.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Is there any further board discussion on this? With that amend— or first, we have a motion. Sorry, we need a second.

And I ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, we have before us the amended language for proposal number 125. Or the 125 with the amendment. I will speak to it. Thank you for offering the amendment because I was interested in this proposal primarily for the reason that we heard in Committee of the Whole testimony that the folks that are in closest proximity to this were largely in favor, not wholly, but largely in favor of that.

So I think it is appropriate to attach this closure of this particular migration corridor, known migration corridor, when, when there are issues with the, with this Taku and also the King Salmon River. So I would be supportive of the proposal. Other more discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I'll speak to it too.

You know, I thought about this a lot and I'm not trying to affect the people that live closest to this area, but The amend— the amended language is specifically based on conservation reasons, and it only— it's only going to apply while these action— this action— these action plans are in place. And so I think hopefully in the near future, the department will be able to come to the board and withdraw those action plans while stocks recover. And so for those reasons, I'll be supporting it.

Mr. Godfrey. I, I was leaning towards opposing this, but for the reasons that Board Member Carpenter just stated, he persuaded me to also support it.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Cost of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct costs to the department. I'd call the question.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Miss Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain McGrath? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 125 as amended. Godfrey?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Zeray? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svensson, yes.

Carlson-Vandort, yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 126.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dan Teske, Sport Fish. Proposal 126, 5AAC, new section. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 126 based on the action the board took on 125. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 126. Proposal number 127. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm Kelly Ruppert, the Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 127, 5(a)(c), new section.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Proposal 127 would allow residents to harvest 1 king salmon per day, 28 inches or greater in length. During the month of April in Ketchikan.

The department is neutral in the allocation of harvest opportunity between residents and nonresidents. The King Salmon Sport Fishery in District 1 has been managed conservatively in accordance with the Eunuch and Chickamin Rivers Action Plan since 2018. The action plan measures were designed to reduce harvest of Alaska wild origin king salmon stocks during the time period when Southeast wild stocks compromise— comprise a large portion of the harvest. While still providing some fishing opportunity and shaping the sport fishery around areas of higher lassa hatchery concentration. King salmon returns to the Eunuch and Chickamauga Rivers have improved, and both were removed as stocks of concern at the October work session last year.

While escapement goals have been met in recent years, this would not have been possible without the conservative management actions implemented through the action plan. The total run sizes for the Eunuch and Chickamauga Rivers continue to be below historical averages, and conservative management actions will continue as needed to ensure escapement goals are consistently met. The harvest magnitude of a resident fishery occurring in April is expected to be low, but Alaska wild stock king salmon are likely present in the fishery at higher rates than when compared to midsummer. If adopted, the harvest of Alaska wild king salmon is expected to increase by a small but unknown amount. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

To the department, I'm trying to look at the opportunity that might be created here for residents at an earlier portion of the season. And, and I heard what you say— said about the Chickamauga and Eunuch Rivers in regards to, you know, they have been delisted. And, and you also said that there's a probability that some wild stocks will be harvested. But, um, if the board were to pass this, do you think that based on stock assessments, and obviously escapement levels would be taken into account, Would, would you take authority to restrict the fishery even if we opened it in regulation based on the information that you have? I guess at this point in time, through the chair, Mr.

Carpenter, are you asking if you provided authority, would we use that authority to take action to open for residents? Yeah, if we provided you authority with creating and also creating this proposal, would, would that alleviate some of the concerns, or is it just the inability to quantify what's going on in the sport fishery at that time of year? Would it, would it be invaluable? I think given, given the— through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, given that this is the first season after delisting, we do plan to continue with status quo management implementing the same closed and non-retention areas and timeframes. We do plan to provide opportunity in hatchery areas, and we'd like to see our local escapements consistently meeting escapement for consecutive years before further liberalizing the fishery.

Okay, well, I appreciate you saying that. I mean, having said that, I think it's a little bit premature to do this then. I think we need to look at things over a few more years and hope that those escapement levels continue to increase and that maybe in the future more localized opportunity in the month of April will be available. But right now, I just don't see that happening. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you for answering that the way you did. I'm, you know, hopefully in a few years to come here, there's inside rivers that will rebound enough to give residents the opportunity that we hopefully have in this management plan and look forward to that. But since this has only been the first year of delisting, it seems like we'd be jumping the gun to allow there to be harvest on it. And if there are other opportunities in hatchery areas, that could suffice for another 3 years. So I'll be— I don't support it.

Please help me remember, when were the Enoch and the Chickamauga listed as stocks of concern originally? Madam Chair, 2018.

Yeah, I think I tend to agree with my fellow members here. It seems a little, little premature, and I'd like to see a little bit more stabilized returns before we increase opportunity on those stocks. Mr. Zray. Thank you, Madam Chair. And for the record, there were— Ketchikan AC was in favor of this and 5 public comments in favor.

And the East Prince of Wales Island and the Elfin Cove AC and about 100 public comments were opposed. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Miss Still? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 127. Zareh? No.

Chamberlain? No. Godfrey? No. Svenson?

No. Wood? No. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Carpenter? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 128.

Madam Chair, for the record, Kelly Ruppert, Sport Fish Division. Proposal 128, 5AAC, new section. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 128 based on the action it took on 127. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 128.

Proposal number 129.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Grant Hagerman, Southeast Alaska Commercial Trawl Fishery Manager. Proposal 129, 5AAC 29.090, Management of the Spring Trawl Fishery. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would increase the number of days per week in the Yakutat Bay spring troll fishery from 1 to 2 days. In 2006, the board established regulations that allow the department by emergency order to open a spring troll fishery for 1 day a week during the months of May and June in Yakutat Bay to harvest 1,000 king salmon. The regulations specified that the fishery may open dependent upon the projected in-river, in-river run to the Situk River king salmon. Following the establishment of this regulation, the projected king salmon return to the SeaTac was below that threshold that would allow a spring troll fishery to occur for 7 consecutive years.

In 2012, the board revised that SeaTac River management plan that removed the in-river run strength as a trigger for the spring troll fishery to occur. And since that time, trollers have harvested that seasonal allocation during one single season in 2013, with a 10-year average of about half of the allocation at 504 king salmon. The department supports this proposal as it provides additional opportunity for Springfield permit holders fishing Yakutat Bay to reach that seasonal harvest limit without additional king salmon being allocated. Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter, to the department, would— if the board were to pass this, do you believe that you could open the extra day to be consecutive with the Monday that it's currently being open?

Through the chair, yes. Yes, we could. Okay. Thank you.

Quick question for the department. So I'm looking at the table 29-1 and the staff comments, and I see where that 2014-23 average is about half the allocation. And I also see that particularly in 2024 that there was only 16 permits that harvested about 233 fish. My question is, is it What do you think is more of a factor, the low participation or an absence of kings? I'm just curious, how's the performance of the SATEC?

Madam Chair, thank you for that. Yeah, I think the kind of the reasoning behind that decrease in harvest is related to effort there. But again, only having one day a week weather can play a big factor. And so that's part of the decrease in participation. With, with increasing to 2 consecutive days, the potential for them to be able to fish one of them would increase.

But to answer your question, I think that largely we're seeing a decrease in that harvest or low harvest levels because of the number of permits fished or participation. And I think the one day has kind of dissuaded them from that. And you are comfortable with the escape and growth performance of the river?

Madam Chair, yes. Thank you.

For discussion, Mr. Wood. Yeah, I, I like the idea of adding a day. A lot of times the weather's bad, so fishermen loses and fish wins. So I think if there's another day for them to go out, it looks like the amount of people participating in it and the fish available are there. And given the fact that— yeah, so anyhow, I'm supportive in letting them try to have another day to go fishing.

Mr. Ziray, then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were 4 ACs in favor and none opposed and about equal support between the— on the PCs. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm supportive of this. This is a very localized fishery. A lot of these people that are participating are using very small boats or open skiffs, and so I think providing a little bit more opportunity for harvest in this particular region is a reasonable idea. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expect to result in additional direct cost to the department.

I call the question. Mr. Godfrey, did I see your hand wave? I was just expressing I agree with the sentiment that's already been on the record with the other board members in support of this. Thank you. Question's been called.

Are there any omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Miss Still? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 129. Carpenter? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Svensson? Yes.

Chamberlain? Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 130.

Madam Chair, proposal 130, 5AAC 29.100, management of the summer troll fishery.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Proposal 130 would modify the target harvest for the first summer troll king salmon retention period from 70% of the summer allocation to 100%. By modifying the summer to a single retention period in July, it's likely overall king salmon retention days would be reduced, consequently increasing mortalities associated with additional non-retention days.

Provisions of the Troll Task Force plan adopted by the board in 1994 were intended to help ensure summer troll king salmon season of at least 10 days, minimize incidental mortality by reducing periods of non-retention, and to maximize the value of the troll product. Under terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Pacific Salmon Commission implemented a limit for incidental mortality of treaty king salmon and also requires that any proposed significant management changes that may alter the stock or age composition of the catch or incidental mortality be discussed within the PSC before implement. The revised Southeast Alaska biological opinion published in October 2024 established new stock-specific limits for king salmon stocks or stock aggregates listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A large-scale reallocation of summer troll retention periods will alter the stock composition of the catch and may increase risk of exceeding those ESA limits. The department opposes this proposal due to the potential increase in the incidental king salmon mortalities associated with reducing the overall number of troll king salmon retention days during the summer and potentially alter the stock composition of the catch, which increases the risk of exceedance of the take limits of ESA-listed king salmon.

Madam Chair, for discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think part of the comments here, I mean, I appreciate the department's comments and their concerns. I think one of the things that's stated in there is This is a significant change to the summer troll management regime will require discussions at the PSC and increase the risk of exceeding PSC limits for incidental mortality. So considering that, I tend not to be inclined to support this.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I get the sense that this proposal was put in somewhat reactionary, and but I We would like to hear from the department about the— just the idea of how lumping all these fish into one group to fish on all at once, how that could potentially impact this mixed stock fishery.

Ms. Evanson.

Thank you for the question. For the record, my name is Dani Evanson, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager for the department through the chair to Member Wood. Southeast Alaska Chinook salmon fishery is a mixed stock fishery. We have different stocks moving through at different times. So we have already shaped our, our fisheries somewhat because we've been protecting our own stocks and moving off of spring fisheries and pushing our fisheries later into the summer onto different stocks.

Stocks. We do see a markedly different stock composition between July and 6 weeks later in August. So, um, certain stocks like Washington Coast stocks, Oregon Coast stocks tend to come in more in August than they do in July. We also have done analyses on ESA-listed fish, and, um, the greatest impact there by transferring The 30% to taking it in one big block would be on Snake River Fall Chinook and may increase our risk of exceeding that cap. What I will say is this is not a trivial number of fish.

Looking at Table 130-1, we're talking about 22,000 or so fish being moved into July, up to over 70,000 Chinook. 7 Being taken in one block. Madam Chair. Thank you. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair.

Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 130. Svenson? No. Wood? No.

Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Zareh? Nope. Godfrey? No.

That motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 131.

Madam Chair, for the record, Grant Hagerman, Southeast Alaska Commercial Troll Manager. Proposal 131, 5AC 29.100, Management of the Summer Troll Fishery. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 131 with substitute language found in RC 139. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it RC 139 language substituted for the original language in Proposal 131. This was language requested by the department. Will you please put your staff comments on the record and speak to the substitute language, please?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the amended language would allow the department to open a limited harvest fishery in place of a competitive opening in the years when the estimated opening length of the second summer troll king salmon retention period is less than 3 days, and additionally to allow for multiple limited harvest fisheries to occur during summer if the remaining annual troll allocation or the remaining fish on the Southeast Alaska Allgear allowable catch. Current regulations that provide for summer troll king salmon limited harvest fishery were adopted by the board in 2015 in order to fully utilize the available troll king salmon allocation. Since 2015, the department has opened a limited harvest fishery during 3 seasons: in 2019, 2023, and 2024. During these years, the limited harvest fish— troll fishery was a useful management tool to assist in the taking of both remaining troll and all-gear king salmon allocation that would have otherwise gone unharvested.

The department supports the amended language, and as it improves the management flexibility and may provide an opportunity to implement both limited harvest fishery as a second summer king salmon retention period, or multiple limited harvest fisheries in a season when small portions of both both the troll and all-gear annual PSD king salmon allocation remain. Madam Chair, thank you. And I'm remembering where this language came from. It was actually considered to be rolled into 109, the RC language, at one point, but thought it better to pull it out. So thank you for the little reminder.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, question to the department. If this is implemented, you know, one of the concerns was, is that you know, some of these people would have to travel long distances to come to a Fish and Game office to register or whatever they had to do. Can you emphatically state that there will be some consideration given to the fleet to be able to either call in or register electronically, some form like that, so they don't have to bear that expense?

Through the chair, Member Carpenter. Yes, I think we are We'll pursue options for that. As discussed, the vessels that were on the water at the time that would like to participate would need some means to register via phone call or online permits available in area offices. I think we'll try to make as much available as we can. I appreciate you saying that.

Having said that, I'll, I'll be supportive of the substitute language and So, you know, I'm glad to hear that you're able to work with them and come to some sort of resolution to that registration process so it's not expensive. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm super supportive of this, especially in conjunction with the actions we took with the new in-season management with the King Salmon Management Plan, because if there is leftover allocation at the end of the summer, that can be used to be EO'd out to the August troll fishery. And, and so running it this way garnered a lot of support from the public. And yeah, I'm all for it.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were 6 ACs and 100 PCs in support, and there were 3 ACs and and only 3 PCs opposed to this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I agree with both Member Carpenter and Member Woods' comments and assessment of this, and I think, you know, considering the actions that the board took earlier today, that this makes good sense.

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Still?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 131 as amended. Godfrey? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zareh? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 132.

Madam Chair, proposal 132, 5AAC 29.140, size limits, possession, and landing requirements. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, the proposal would modify the measurement method and size restrictions for spring troll fisheries during May and June from 28 inches from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail to 26.5 inches from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.

Additional troll king salmon harvest during spring troll fisheries may occur as the new measurement method may provide for a harvest of king salmon that would have not met legal requirements under the current minimum size definition. The current 28 minimum size limit was established in 1977 to reduce the harvest of salmon that were 2 years or less of ocean age and direct the harvest towards mature fish. The size limit aligned with the minimum size limits in the southern U.S. at that time. Spring trout fisheries are intended to target mature Alaska hatchery origin fish while minimizing harvest of non-Alaska hatchery origin and wild Southeast Alaska king salmon stocks. Like other salmon species, king salmon do exhibit morphological changes as they begin to mature.

They— that can affect overall length, which current size restrictions are based on. The department opposes this proposal as it modifies a longstanding standardized measurement regime that applies to both commercial and recreational fisheries regionwide by varying size restriction measurement requirements among commercial troll seasons. Increased size restriction violations may occur when different measurement methods are used between adjacent seasons as opposed to year-round. I'm sure. Thank you.

More discussion? Mr. Wood. Would Trooper speak to this? Captain. Mr. Wood, through the chair.

AWT is neutral on the method, but if the board passes this proposal and if this is more accurate, it reduces error. Consider it statewide for consistency. Our big issue is going to be consistency on this because now you're going to have different user groups keeping potentially slightly different length salmon. Likely be some enforcement on this due to confusion from the public due to a very specific change for one user group. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Given the testimony that went— that was— we had, it's really educational to learn about how, how the tailfin changes once it comes out of the water and bed and ice and all that. And given the fact, given the proposer that put it forward, I'm sure that there was only conservation in mind when this was put forth. So, but given the fact that it could be really kind of difficult to enforce for one fishery as opposed to another, like having two different standards, maybe now isn't the right time to implement this. But it sure does have some merits that are worth considering.

I'd like to hear more from others.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Godfrey. Well, I think we've heard—. I, as I recall hearing earlier, that the fish are more valuable the bigger they are in terms of price and so on. So I don't see any reason to lessen the size of this. So I'm not going to be in support of this.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I was moved by the public testimony. I was unaware of the factors at play here. So it was educational for me, uh, and even against— I was inclined to vote for despite the department's opposition, but State Troopers just probably made me change my mind. And maybe this is something that's better suited for a statewide, for consistency, if we're going to do that.

So I'll listen to what others have to say. Commissioner. So I'd like to ask Public Safety a question here. So I understand being consistent in measuring fish differently within a fishery like the Southeast Alaska Troll Fishery. But why would it matter to have a different way of measuring fish in Southeast Alaska versus measuring fish in Bristol Bay, for instance?

Help me walk me through that one a little bit. Well, our understanding, this would change the measurement standard for just troll— the trollers in Southeast. That's correct. I'm trying to figure out how that potentially affects measuring troll-caught fish in the Gulf of Alaska. So the first conflict we see is just primarily user groups in Southeast.

So now you're going to have one standard with one group and a different standard with another. We don't care if it's one way or the other, but it would— our push would be for consistency doing that statewide. Ultimately, if this passed, it would be enforceable. We just see that there would be increased enforcement action due to some of the potential confusion. That clarifies our position.

Yeah, I think it does a little bit. I'm just confused why it would have to be statewide, why you couldn't just make it across Southeast Alaska for trolls. But that's okay. I understand it. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah. To the department. So we're talking about the spring, particularly, you know, in this particular proposal.

What percentage of the troll fisheries in the spring are conducted only in THAs?

Or maybe you could change— maybe I could rephrase the question. How much opportunity exists outside the THAs in the spring season?

Thank you for that. Through the chair. So currently there are about, I think, 16 spring troll areas that are open during May and June outside of terminal harvest areas. There are, I believe, 5 or 6 terminal harvest areas for troll where they're able to fish in those as well. They're kind of open concurrently.

But as I presented earlier in the oral reports, they've had, they've had a lot of restrictions in those spring areas in May and June. But there are not many and they're pretty limited. But if that answers your question as far as how many areas are open. Yeah, it does. Because I think if the, if the areas that were available to the troll fleet in the spring were mainly focused on THAs, I'd have much less of a concern with this.

But I understand going in and out of THAs into open access areas outside of that, I could see where that could become a problem. So I was also moved by the public testimony, and I didn't know actually that there was— what happened to the King after it had rigored and been set in ice for that long that there was that significance of a difference. And so I'm sympathetic to that fact. I just don't know right now that I'll listen to whatever the board members have to say, I guess. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. I mean, it seems like this would be directed mostly towards hatchery fish that are going to go die anyhow. So is, is there a way that this could work? Because I mean, if this is predominantly focused on these terminal harvest areas, and it seems like having more opportunity to catch them rather than just, you know, going into the mud would be better for the department. So through the chair, Member Wood, so Actually, current regulations in the terminal harvest areas already allow the department the flexibility to reduce the size restriction of king salmon.

If the stock composition is majority, over 50%, documented Alaska hatchery fish, that the department may reduce that size restriction from the current measurement method overall, tip to tip, from 28 inches to 26 in terminal harvest areas. That's something that we already have the authority to do. Not in the spring troll fisheries. Those are outside the terminal harvest areas. But once those fish are in the THAs and the majority of the composition is Alaska hatchery, we can make that size reduction.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you for that clarification, which leads me to another follow-up. Like the other board members, I'm struggling with, you know, if If we're going to harvest hatchery fish, let's harvest them. But I do like uniformity in regulations. My question is, what percentage of these fish, even in the terminal harvest areas, are non-hatchery fish?

And I see in the department comments there was reference to the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

I may have missed it, but can you refresh on what the implications of that are?

Through the chair, sorry, could you repeat the first half of that question?

I think the first half is what percentage of the salmon in this, in this, this terminal area are non-hatchery fish? Through the chair. So generally these terminal harvest areas are maybe 25%. You know, it does vary by area and by month that they're open, but roughly 25% or less are non-Alaska hatchery origin.

Commissioner. I was going to— Madam Chair, to Board Member Chamberlain, again, for the record, Dani Evanson, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager. I just wanted to clarify the question on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. And the answer is this does not— is not impacted by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I may have jumped the gun a little bit with the language in the staff comments.

But what I will say is if we were to head down the road to reducing size of fish, that's something we would want to do a number of analyses on and properly vet. That would impact the Pacific Salmon Treaty both in terms of IM stock composition and a number of other things.

So let me just clarify. So, well, when we thought about this a little bit more, All we're— we're not changing the size of the fish that's harvested. We're just changing how it's measured. So it's a measurement of fork— of head to fork is the same fish measured as head to tail. So we're not— as long as we're not changing the size of the fish, we're not impacting the treaty implications as to stock composition and everything else.

It's just giving the fishermen the opportunity to measure the fish in a different matter. So let me ask this question. Would this create inconsistent legal retention lengths in regulation for Chilkat King Salmon across different time strata or different fisheries, i.e., the spring troll versus the August versus the winter?

Madam Chair, thank you for that. Yes, this would. And that's part of the opposition to this, where you have adjacent seasons. This is, this is specifically asking for spring troll in May and June. Spring troll ends June 30th.

July 1st, we move into the summer season. June 30th, July 1st, you have two different size measurements that would go into regulation. That's an interesting question. It does. And I was very interested in the testimony that we heard, particularly in Committee of the Whole on this, because yeah, I learned something too, and it caught my attention for sure.

But I just worry about enforcement. I worry about creating all this inconsistency in regulation that creating the opportunity for ticketing when there was no intention, all the things. It just seems kind of messy to me. I understand the reason why they would want to do that, but I just tend to land on the side of consistency and Reg. So I'm struggling to be supportive of the proposal for that reason, and especially if you have the EO to modify the retention length, legal retention length for those THA areas.

I don't know. I'm not quite— I don't think I can get there. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood. So down the road, is this something that, that could be workable if it, if it was to be not just applied to a spring fishery, just the overall, like you said, in a statewide?

Or would that— does that have implications with the Pacific Salmon Treaty and all that? Like, there's a lot to work out here if you were to change the actual measurement.

Through the chair, correct. I think down the road this, this could be a potential change. I think the department would probably want to, you know, investigate if there were stock composition changes that have— would have treaty implications with, with this change for year-round and not just in the spring seasons, if that's what you're asking. It is. Can I follow up though?

Um, so hatchery kings are kind of considered, uh, free in treaty, quote unquote. Is that correct or not?

Through the chair, mostly. Most, most of the Alaska hatchery contribution does not count against the troll allocation. Most, not all. Okay, I'm just wondering if, if, if we're letting If they can harvest them at 26 inches in a terminal harvest area and then— and but they can't outside of that.

I mean, like, I guess, I guess it's enforcement issues. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Still?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 132. Carlson VanDort?

No. Carpenter? No. Wood? No.

Godfrey? No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain?

No. Miserere. Nope. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair, proposal number 133.

Madam Chair, proposal 133, 5AAC 29.140, size limits, possession and landing requirements. Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Move it. Move the board take no action on Proposal 133 based on its action on Proposal 132.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 133. Proposal 134. Madam Chair, Beau Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist, Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 134, 5AAC 39XXX, new Section unlawful possession of king salmon.

Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 134 as the proposer has withdrawn support shown in RC117. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 134. Proposal 169.

Madam Chair, for the record, Grant Hagerman, Southeast Alaska Commercial Trawl Manager. Proposal 169, 5 AAC 29.120, Gear Specifications and Operations. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would allow the use of fishing rods in conjunction with downriggers by hand troll permit holders during the spring and summer commercial trawl seasons. Allowing the use of hand-operated downriggers or gurdies in spring and summer in in conjunction with the fishing rod as permitted under current regulations during the winter season would allow hand troll permit holders operating fishing rods the option of using hand-operated downriggers or gurdies to assist in the depth control of deployed gear. In 2006, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted regulations that allow for the use of 2 downriggers in conjunction with 2 fishing rods in conjunction with 2 downriggers for hand troll permit holders during the winter fishery only. Since the winter fishery differs in many aspects from the spring and summer, adoption of these gear changes during that part of the season were less of a concern. Guided sport angler effort decreases to annual lows in the winter, reducing enforcement concerns with sport client bag limits and personal use harvest reporting when vessels are duly registered for commercial hand troll or guided sport.

It was the finding of the board that because of the seasonal differences, operation fishing rods in conjunction with downriggers would not significantly affect the hand troll harvest during winter and consequently adopted the proposal as amended, excluding spring and summer. The department is neutral on the allocative aspect of this proposal, which may increase the number of fish harvested by hand troll gear. And I would defer the Alaska Wildlife— to the Alaska Wildlife Troopers for specific enforcement concerns. Madam Chair, Captain DeGraaff, please. Madam Chair, AWT is neutral on the proposal in regards to the allocation, but there is an enforcement concern with the possible increase of quasi-commercial fishermen participating in the fishery and having to determine if they are commercial or sport fishing at the time of contact.

With allowing fishing rods to be operated in conjunction with downriggers, it is likely that both guided and non-guided sport anglers would participate in a commercial fishery to bypass bag limits. Seen in sport fisheries and still use fishing rods with downriggers. A registered commercial hand troll vessel fishing in waters closed to commercial fishing could claim they are sport fishing when contacted with fishing rods in conjunction with downriggers deployed, creating additional efforts for enforcement to confirm if they are lawfully sport fishing. Though this method is allowed in the winter fisheries, it is much less of a concern as the overall effort towards sport fishing is reduced significantly in Southeast during this time. If the board does accept this proposal, it should clarify, as it does in the winter season under 5A(C)(29)(120)(J)(2)(and)(J)(3)), whether the downrigger must be powered by hand or if other mechanical means can be used.

Our public comments in our memo have remained the same over several past board cycles for similar proposals, but I'd like to add a little more information based upon questions that we had from the public. We've seen an increased number of operations in northern, central, southeast area that are marketing commercial trolling opportunities to nonresident fishermen that are looking to harvest increased bag limits of king salmon. Although not illegal without the use of downriggers, the use of downriggers will complicate and increase enforcement needs. It will require AWT to have to address more complaints from the public, sorting out what particular fishing practice a vessel was operating under during the busiest part of the year. We'll be asked to respond to local and remote locations to find out if they're operating as an HT vessel or as a charter vessel at that particular time based on their location and bag limits.

AWT would also have increased enforcement needs patrolling spring and summer boundary lines and ensuring charter vessels are charter vessels and not HT vessels outside of boundaries. With the current change in industry, AWT is already challenged with enforcing some fish ticket reporting requirements when these fish have been claimed as personal use, taking fish when they've actually been sold to clients claiming to be crew members. These investigations have proven to be time-consuming and logistically difficult. AWT concerned that there will be a substantial spike in commercial hand troll permits purchased by charter operations once they've realized downriggers can be utilized, thus providing a more common sport fishing method used in the charter industry. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Captain. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

You know, I looked at this proposal at face value at first, and last, last night I worked with with a couple of users from Yakutat to look at potential opportunities.

We— I had discussions with department staff and the Department of Public Safety, and we just— we could really come to no resolution. And having listened to what the Department of Public Safety just said in regards to what the regulatory complex nature of this would end up being, I'm not interested in creating a new user group. And it seems like that's something that has the potential to happen. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this.

Other board discussion? Mr. Swenson. I would agree with Mr. Carpenter, and I also would agree with the troopers that this is going to— could be a real headache. So I'm not supporting this.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question has been called.

Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Powers? No, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sill? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson? Mr. Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 169. Carpenter?

No. Zareh? No. Godfrey? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood? No. Svenson?

No. Chamberlain? No. That motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Director Nelson. That concludes board deliberation on Group 4. Let's pause for a second and make a decision about if we're going to go into Committee.

Okay, thank you. Recognizing that it's 4 o'clock, we probably could get started on Group 5. It's been a long day, and I think what we'll do— we are on our agenda, so I think what we will do is stick with the, with the published agenda, begin Group 5 Committee of the Whole at 8:30 in the morning, probably take a break, and then move into deliberations on Group 5 at some point tomorrow based on how the committee goes. So tomorrow might be a little bit longer day, so get your rest and we will resume tomorrow morning, 8:30 AM, with Committee of the Whole. Before I let you guys go, though, there is something that I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge.

And I just became aware this afternoon that there has been someone who has been a long-term board aficionado that is retiring from public service. And Mr. Oudveldt, Mr. Larry Oudveldt, has served in various years, lots of different roles, and including 7 years of service as a member of this board. He has also served as a member of the Alaska Pacific Salmon Treaty Team, as a member of the Territorial Sportsmen, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his time, his service, and would like the board and those present here to recognize and thank him. And, uh, we'll miss you at these meetings, Larry. Thank you for all of your work.

If you are so inclined, I would be happy to share the privilege of the microphone with you. But if you are not, I understand that too. If you would like to say a few words, you are welcome to. Not to catch you off guard or anything.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's always like putting on an old pair of slippers to come to a Board of Fisheries meeting. I think I've sat in almost every chair around the table here at one time or another, starting in 1966 in Kodiak. This is a meeting I did not want to miss, and I'm really happy that you guys came to a conclusion this morning that made everybody unhappy.

Anyway, thank you for the recognition. I appreciate it very much. Thank you, everybody, for being here. Thank you, Larry. Appreciate you.

All right, we'll see you tomorrow morning at 8:30.