2025 Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Finfish – (Day 3)

Good morning, everybody. Time is 8:42. The day is Thursday, I believe, November 20th. And I would like to welcome Member Godfrey to the table. He has joined us, and so I would like to take the opportunity to have him introduce himself and then also put his ethics disclosure up.

Disclosure on the record, please. Welcome, Member Godfrey. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jared Godfrey. I live in Eagle River.

I will go ahead and do my ethics disclosure. I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I was born in Juneau. My family is originally from the Kodiak Islands. I'm a shareholder of Kodiak Regional Corporation, Fognac Native Corporation, UZi��ki Native Corporation.

I'm elected tribal council member of the native village of Port Lyons. I live in Eagle River. I have two children, 21 years old and 19 years old. Professionally, I'm a consultant with various clients, primarily in the broadband space and economic development, but nothing pertaining to fisheries. Recently, I accepted the position of campaign manager to gubernatorial candidate Shelley Hughes.

My son participated in the commercial fisheries of Bristol Bay and Kodiak earlier this year as a deckhand. I have no conflicts to declare regarding any matters in front of the Board of Fisheries during this meeting. Neither I nor any member of my family is party directly or indirectly to a lawsuit with the state of Alaska or any agencies of the state. These statements are all factual and true to the best of my knowledge. Thank you.

Any board questions? Quick question, can you tell me a little bit about what your responsibilities are as campaign manager for a gubernatorial candidate? Sure. Uh, as campaign manager, I oversee the volunteers and the deputy campaign manager who oversees Candidate Hughes's day-to-day schedule and essentially her calendar, and I oversee that person as well as fundraising activities and events, as well as attending events with Candidate Hughes, my schedule permitting, whether it's a roundtable or an interview or candidate debates. Do you see any issues with is candidate Hughes soliciting financial resources from industry or fisheries interests?

At this time, I do not. Uh, her first fundraiser will be next week in the Matsu Valley. In December, she'll have another one in Juneau. Whether individuals that participate in the fisheries industries are there or a representative body of fisheries, certainly they could be attending, but there's no direct solicitation to anyone engaging in fisheries. They can participate just like any Alaskan resident can in attending fundraisers.

Okay, thanks. And, um, certainly we've had a discussion with Department of Law and Consulted, and I don't see any conflict of interest for you at this time. Certainly you want to be cognizant of such things and err on the side of disclosure, which I'm sure you will. And obviously being cautious about your use of your position on this board and state resources on behalf of the campaign. But I know that you're an experienced hat at this.

And so I don't see any, any, any conflict of interest at this time. Are there any, any other board questions? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I would like— I've been on the Massachusett Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission for 10 years. I worked in and out with a lot of legislators, including Senator Hughes, and so when there is like fundraisers and stuff for the campaign in these certain areas, are these contributions directed towards her some in any way conflict like the contribution to the campaign to, to decisions?

Um, you know, I guess that's an interesting hypothetical. It would be easier if you actually were able to give me a specific hypothetical, but if there's a proposal also in front of the Board of Fisheries in the future, say in 2026, that, that she, the candidate Hughes, is specifically being asked to support or oppose, and there is somebody who is writing a campaign donation. Certainly that is a possibility. Um, that would be dependent on what she committed to doing or not doing to a— for a candidate who's contributing a donation. And in such a case, that would require disclosure from me to the Board of Fisheries, hypothetically, in 2026, in the event that happened.

That's adequate. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions?

Okay. Member Godfrey, I rule that you can fully participate in the meeting. Thanks for that disclosure. Any other business before we get back into public testimony? Okay.

All right, so we paused yesterday in the middle of public testimony. I'm going to do second calls right now and then we'll get back to our list. The first name on second calls is Mr. Albrecht. Good morning, sir. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair, board members, Commissioner, Director. Good morning, George.

I just have a few quick things here. Proposal 25 dealing with the icehouses, you know, I'd like to see that requirement of having a number on your icehouse go away, if nothing else modified. I think this was something that was migrated up from the lower 48, which is pretty popular down there. And they used it to, you know, people leave in ice houses and they would potentially burn them down.

Even down in the States now, they don't burn every house, ice house that's left on the ice. They figured letting that thing sink in certain places on the lake actually creates fish habitat. So they don't, you know, they don't always burn them down. So that was one of the deals. The second one was moving to youth fishery for the Chena River.

I support this. I think it's a great opportunity. It's sustainable and it promotes families going fishing. And I think that's a good thing that to keep families having a good activity locally.

And then the last thing I have is I understand the board does delegate authority to the department and you still have allocative decisions still. What has happened in the last probably 10 years in some form of the EO that was put out this year, they closed all the rivers. Flowing into the Tanana River in the non-subsistence area for king salmon conservation, but they restricted the use of bait starting the 25th of March. I don't even believe king salmon are in the Yukon River by the 25th of March, and we've lost about 3 months' opportunity to harvest and our fish like burbot, where bait is how you catch burbot. And, and that went to the end of September.

And then ironically, they came out with a chum restriction. You couldn't retain a chum salmon in the, in the same drainages till the end of December. The difference was, is they didn't restrict the use of bait. And so if it was a real concern about bait catching any kind of salmon, you would think there would be some consistency there. And so that's what I have, Madam Chair.

Thanks. And will you put your name on the record just for clarity? Yes, my name is Al Brent. I'm from Fairbanks. Thanks, Al.

Any questions? All right, thanks for your testimony this morning. Mark Richards.

Good morning, Mark. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, department staff. For the record, my name is Mark Richards. I do serve on the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee, but this is going to be my personal testimony.

I'm in support of proposal 15 and 16 from the Eagle Advisory Committee. My background before we moved to Fairbanks in 2015, my wife and I spent over 30 years living in the upper Yukon Country. About 60 Raven Miles north of Eagle. I raised a family out there, subsistence lifestyle. I've been writing op-eds about salmon concerns for 20 years and more.

Saw what was coming, encouraged the Lower Yukon people to abide by the closures so we could all have fish in the future. And I just, I look at Proposal 15 and 16 as there's just straight conservation concerns. And while the department opposes these proposals and they state that we haven't met the 300,000 chum escapement to open fishing again, I think when we do reach that— and this is a 2-year closure— we might not go very far over it. And I just think it's wise to just keep this— keep the chum season, fall season closed for a couple years, just straight conservation concerns. It's a hard one because I understand, you know, how it hurts people.

There was testimony yesterday today that, you know, passing this would regulate people into hunger. And I understand that. I lived that when we had to stop fishing for salmon, you know, when we moved on to other game and other fish species. So that's my comments on that. I wanted to talk about Proposal 18 and 19.

We have been talking to Andy Grisco, the fisheries biologist, for a number of years about this trigger. That was automatic because we're always going to catch 750 pike in the Chatanika harvest area. So this trigger was always in effect, and it just seemed meaningless that, you know, and as Mr. Grisham showed you yesterday, that there really hasn't been an increase in the pike harvest, whether that it's 2 fish or 5 fish. And so I'd like that to remain, that the 5 fish you know, only so many over 30 inches, and just do away with this trigger, repeal that completely. So that's what I have.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks. Any board questions? Appreciate your testimony this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. And thanks, big thanks to Art and board support for everything you guys do. Couldn't carry on these meetings without you. Agreed.

Is Miss Shirley Clark here this morning?

No Shirley?

Jasmine Vent.

Good morning, Jasmine. Welcome.

I think this is on, right? Okay.

Can I start with an introduction before I go? Okay. [SPEAKING IN INUPIAQ] My Inupiaq name is Siknaaq, and it means the sun. I have two Koyukon names. The first one is Bira'inslit.

It means we can depend on her. The second one is Hukutl, meaning she's right there for us all the time. I was raised in the village of Huslia. My mother's family comes from Ambler, and I'm a Koyukon. And Inupiaq, primarily raised by my Koyukon family on the Koyukuk River, a tributary on the Yukon.

[SPEAKING INUKIUT] So I was raised by my great-grandma. She was born in 1928. So with that being said, I was raised by somebody who predates not just the Alaska Board of Fisheries, but the state of Alaska itself. Her lifetime carries more knowledge than any regulation ever written, and the teachings she passed down are part of the traditional ecological knowledge that has guided our people long before management boards existed. I want to start out by saying that I believe in conservation.

I want salmon to come back just as much as anyone in this room, but I also believe in the right to feed our families when we have no other option. For us, salmon is not just a resource, it is food security, culture, and survival. So I'm here to speak on Proposals 15, 16, and 17. On Proposals 15 and 16, my concern is that these continue a pattern of excessive regulation on subsistence users, regulating us into hunger more so than we already are. These kinds of restrictions do not reflect the reality of our communities where people are already struggling with food insecurity and limited alternatives.

We're carrying far more of the conservation burden than our impact warrants, and subsistence users take less than 1% of the overall harvest. The problem is not the people trying to feed their families on the river. Meanwhile, other sectors including open ocean trawlers and fisheries under the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are not being held to the same level of accountability for the impacts on salmon stocks. And I think that imbalance really needs to be acknowledged, and so does the mismanagement by the state of Alaska that has taken place for decades. On Proposal 17, I strongly support amending Proposal 17 so that it applies watershed-wide.

I know our application won't match the scale of what's happening across the Yukon River system, and I think that's about fairness, food security, and real conservation, not just further regulating us more than we already are. And I also wanted to speak to the social impacts today of not having salmon in our communities and not practicing what we're used to.

And that's something that doesn't always show up in the data or the regulatory language, but we feel it every day in our homes. When there are no salmon, it changes the entire rhythm and the balance of our families. Fishing season is normally a time when we work together, parents, grandparents, and kids, all out on the river. It's how we pass down knowledge. It's how we teach responsibility and how we stay connected to each other and to the land.

And without salmon, those family dynamics really start to break down. Our homes feel different. There's stress, frustration, and grief. It affects our mental health. It affects how we interact with each other.

People argue more, people pull away from each other, elders worry about the future, and parents feel guilt for not being able to provide what was always provided to them. And I wanted to speak to that because in the last few days we've lost 3 young people in our region, and some of those deaths were to suicide. Can I finish? Okay. What if you have a concluding statement, please?

Okay. When families are stressed and when freezers are empty and when traditions can't be practiced, our community suffers in ways that aren't written in any fisheries report. These are real impacts, they're social impacts, and they need to be considered just as seriously as biological data. I'm 25, raising 3 of my younger siblings, and I know firsthand how hard it can be to choose between putting gas in the truck and putting food on the table for them. That's why when I say I believe in conservation, I also believe in the right to feed our families.

But when conservation falls hardest on the people with the least impact, the social, social consequences are severe, and we live with those consequences every single day. We live it while we're in these meetings. So to reiterate all of that, I really just want the same that a lot of people in this room want: a future where salmon return, where our kids and grandkids can fish again, where conservation doesn't mean going hungry, and where money is not prioritized over my people's lives. So thank you for your time and for hearing me today. Thank you, Jasmine.

Are there any board questions? Appreciate your testimony today.

Okay, that concludes second calls, and we'll get back to our list beginning with Janessa Newman and Charlie Wright with the Tanana Rampart Manly AC.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Janessa Newman. I'm Kwai Kon Dine and Inupiaq from Rampart and Tanna, and I have the honor to serve as the Tanna Rampart Manly AC Vice Chair. Our comments have been submitted as an RC, but I haven't seen that list quite updated yet, so I couldn't give you an exact RC number.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] When this meeting started 2 days ago, I had a very different testimony in mind.

But Tuesday evening, we learned a young girl tragically passed away in our small community of Rampart. So this is all that keeps coming to mind. But I'll begin by providing our AC's positions on Proposals 15 to 17.

RAC supports the intent of Proposals 15 and 16, and we believe that the current— we believe that the current management strategy is fundamentally inadequate and unfairly places the burden of conservation on subsistence users. We firmly believe that effective solutions demand equitable sacrifice from all sectors, especially commercial and marine fisheries responsible for considerable bycatch and interception of Yukon salmon.

RAC believes that 4-inch gillnets are harmful to all salmon runs and supports their eventual phasing out. However, we strongly object to focusing restrictions on in-river subsistence fishing, which account for less than 1% of the total harvest and would have a neg— negligible impact on stock rebuilding. Gillnets are the predominant fishing gear in our area. Removing the 4-inch net option without providing viable alternatives such as controlled 6-inch net openings severely compromises people's ability to feed their families, and their communities. This difficult choice is a reflection of decades of mismanagement, and as one of our members said, the problem does not lie with people of the Yukon River.

Therefore, RAC demands a more comprehensive and effective management strategy. Stock rebuilding requires a major role for Yukon River people in decision-making and will not be achieved solely through more restrictions in river. RAC unanimously supported Proposal 17 with the amendment to include non-salmon streams across the entire drainage. Ideally, some of our RAC members would like to see 6-inch opportunities in the mainstem because we believe using short and controlled 6-inch nets is the responsible way to enumerate fish especially when contrasted with the harmful use of 4-inch nets. People must have the opportunity to use larger gillnets for subsistence where available.

We fully recognize that bycatch and interception are not the sole root cause of this crisis. We live out on the land every day, and we fully recognize that an unpredictable ecosystem is also causing significant issues for salmon recovery. But the theme throughout our deliberations was significant frustration with siloed management plans and the difficult choices before us as the result of decades of mismanagement. Our positions reflect a collective frustration of the status quo And if we're ever going to truly rebuild stocks, the people of the river will need to play a very big role. Rebuilding will only happen when we have management plans that are holistic and adjust to the state of the ecosystem, but are also willing to address the equal pressures exerted by marine harvest.

Now, Back to my community and the loss of my cousin, I will use myself as an example.

I was born in May 1994, and about 6 weeks later my parents packed me up and brought me to fish camp above Rampart, and I've spent my summers there ever since.

In fact, my very first job was also when I learned how to count because I was responsible for counting the fish as they were pulled from the net. When I was young, we ate so much fish that I can remember literally eating the dry fish first so that I could be done with it and get it off my plate.

So my family was the 30% that fed the 70. And as an adult, I can really see how this upbringing has wholly defined how I carry myself as a human being.

I know now that fishing gave my family a template to raise me with, like a lifelong apprenticeship where the learning never ends. It's so much more than learning how or where to process— how or where to fish. Or how to process fish. Processing fish for our large extended families is like a big symphony of everything going exactly right, and even the very youngest have an equal role in that.

I learned by my family's example that working together requires us to be fluid and adaptable and to have critical thinking and conflict resolution skills. We worked long hours together because we don't waste anything. So we had to keep working until all the fish was done. And this taught us commitment and self-discipline. And to preserve our work, we had to pay attention to all of the ever— all of the small, ever-changing details to prevent fish spoilage.

Through this, we learned diligence and discernment.

There was still much to learn, even when chaos hit the symphony. For example, in 2017, when a nearby wildfire snuck up on us, instead of panicking, everyone kicked into gear. We got the water pumps running and the chainsaws working. And despite the helicopter overhead telling us to abandon our camp over their intercom, we stayed and we saved our camp. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] To this day, our cabin still bears the smoldering scar that reminds us of the perseverance and resiliency it takes to think on our toes and problem-solve even in a state of crisis.

Through fishing, our families help us forge the tools for life, tools for self-control, the ability to think creatively, and to keep to keep going through the ups and downs, and that everything in life is figureoutable. Fishing teaches us to hold our laughter and our joy as equally as we hold our grief. It teaches us to see life with gratitude and abundance. Since before I can remember, I have known that everything I do, every choice I make, and everything I am is connected to fish.

In this way, I believe that people like myself, like Charlie, like so many people in our communities were truly raised by salmon.

And this is all that my community wants.

To raise children who think highly of themselves and who know that they can accomplish anything they want.

Today my immediate concern is whether I can morally bring my own children into this world without fishing on the Yukon River.

And my concern is less about their standard of living and the ability to meet their basic needs, but without salmon I have zero context for how to raise children with integrity grit, and high standards for themselves as human beings.

Salmon is literally the mechanism that weaves the social fabric of our culture. They're the foundation of the social institutions of our communities. And I realize many of you might not have the context for what I'm talking about, but I do know for a fact that raising the next generation of good humans is as important to you as it is to me.

In conclusion, our AC strongly urges the board to really consider the power that they hold in some of the decisions that they will be making in this meeting cycle. Thank you. Thank you, Janessa. Any questions? Miss Irwin.

Thank you, Janessa, for your testimony, and I'm deeply sorry to Rampart community for their loss. My question is, you mentioned that 4 inches harmful, and that was a discussion during your AC meeting. Was that based on traditional knowledge or a department report, or how did that, how did that come to be? Could you explain a little bit more?

4-Inch mesh kills big female king salmon. They fall out. If you have a 4-inch net in and you're catching and releasing some kings, you know when you're checking it, all the big fish will fall right out as you're pulling it up.

So if you check your net every 2 hours, it's full of fish. You'll have 10 kings in there if you're having a king area. If you check it once a day, there'll be 1 or 2 fish in there. If you take a dip net and rub it down the sand on the inside of your net, you'll pick up fish off the ground. It does not catch small fish, they go through it.

The big fish fall out unless they have big teeth.

So that's why we don't like it. It kills more fish than it keeps. So it's not a good tool. Therefore, I think 6-inch mesh will be a directed fishery and it'll harm less fish. So I done— I don't fish 4-inch mesh no more, but when we started, I definitely done my own little fish tests, my little— my own test fishery with that net to see what it done, if it's any good, if it's harming.

So I haven't done it in a while, but I've been talking about this for a while and it's true. It kills more fish than it keeps and it's harmful. So if we had direct 6-inch openers, 6-inch mesh openers, then we would get that fish that we need, the sheefish, the big pike, whatever we can catch in that fresh water and be done and be out of there and harm less fish. That's our theory. Thank you.

Follow up. Thank you, Charlie, for that explanation. My question is then Are there— so are there still concerns for, for the harm of 4-inch even whenever management is using it in these windowed periods and people are supposed to be using them in non-salmon or non-King areas? Do you still have concerns for 4-inch use even in those, those times of opportunity that the department's allowing?

In certain areas like around the Yukon River Bridge, there's a lot of people going out there from, from the cities. And they go and they fill every hole with nets. The enforcement has taken nets away, they have, but they give them back the next spring after they go to court. I don't like that myself. But it is, it is harming.

It's catching king salmon. If you open up, have a 4-inch opener in between pulses even, or at the end, the big pot-bellied females are coming along behind the pulse. They're always behind, the big ones, and that's what's getting killed, and that's what bothers me. Because we're having a hard time getting the salmon onto the spawning grounds. And to me right now, and my people, every egg counts.

So that's why we don't like the 6 to 4-inch mesh. We want to see more fish get on the spawning ground just like everybody else does. So we've got to start thinking proactively and get the right gear in the water, maybe have short window openings just to feed people. Like you heard earlier, it's not my job to take opportunity to eat away from people, is to make sure that they eat going on into the future into a sustainable system. Thank you.

Thank you, Charlie. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I want to follow up on Member Erwin's question because I, I want to ask you, is it your experience that the way the department's managing it now with these rolling closures and whatnot and trying to keep the, the mesh further in these sloughs, are you referring to those, those regulations currently and where these nets are allowed to be used that are harming catching the kings like you're saying?

No, if they got into a non-anadromous stream or slough or lake system, that's perfect. But they still don't catch a lot of fish. You're still missing fish. And so people have to keep going out there over and over and over again and not really bringing nothing home. So people are just half— can't spend that money on that gas.

It's a hardship for them. And if they put a 6-inch mesh in, they catch a big sheefish and a big pike and a big burbot, they can to eat for a couple days. Otherwise, it's hard on them. Everything you heard earlier that people have to decide whether they're going to pay electricity, fuel, or for food for the month, and this is no joke. It's hard.

It's hard out in the— if you want me to give you some prices, you heard prices in this meeting that's going on out there. It costs $20 just for milk. It's crazy, the prices in the general stores, and my village doesn't have a store. Yep. Thank you.

You answered my question. And I had one more for either of you from the AC perspective. We're hearing that a couple times the word management has come up. And I'm wondering, are you referring to management currently, in the past, in river, like commercial management, management out in the high seas, Could you be specific as to what management that you think has been the most harmful over the— either now or in the past that needs to be changed?

I think people in my communities from my ACR and have been incredibly frustrated with a siloed approach to management, not just in the last handful of years, but for decades. I don't feel— we don't feel management is responsive enough to what's going on. You know, people in our section of the river, we're the people who pointed out that ichthyophonous was a big issue, and still we were blamed for the fish not making it to Eagle. We said this. Decades ago.

So I think it's a really holistic approach to management, you know, recognizing fish that are bycatch or intercepted out in the ocean, reacting and being responsive to the realities of the ecosystem. The ecosystem that we have currently is very unpredictable, even for us.

Charlie. Yeah, Charlie, go ahead.

I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry, um, I really did. I had something to say and I lost it. Thank you.

Could I jog your memory? Um, the—. During your testimony yesterday, you said that, um, you used to go down the lower river and fish and finally had to give it up. Why was that?

Because I, I seen too many fish going away and that the upper river people are not going to have any more if we keep this up. I know that that trend couldn't hold, and, and they're using the really large mesh catching all the big breeders. And right now, I told you guys in my testimony yesterday that the king salmon are side-orientated, bank-orientated now, and they're hitting me in the boots when I'm standing by sonar and They can't catch them with a net. So the effects are there. I can say right now, if it's okay, that there's 3 things that's bothering us.

And until we accomplish changing that kind of management in those 3 fisheries, then we're not going to have no success. And it's hatchery and trawl and intercept fishery. That's the big problem right now. We all know that. So until we address those 3 things, this board right here and this process is going to have a hard time fixing the fishery on the Yukon River.

Period.

Okay. So from a management point of view, managing those 3 things in particular you think will help the most?

I think a really good start would be a reduction in 25% of all of them if you wanted to ease into it and see effect. I think that'd be a really great start. And just to show the effect, not to take everything away from people, and I don't want to do that. You know, I'd just like the fish to come back into the river and everybody to fish together and in harmony and work on these problems together. Not only the people of the Yukon River hold the burden on their shoulders of conservation.

Thank you. Thank you, Charlie.

Great. Thank you both for your testimony today.

Jacob Ivanov.

Good morning, Jacob.

Good morning. Will you be giving your AC or your personal testimony first? I will be speaking on behalf of NVU first. I know I had put myself in— actually had 4 slips, which I heard wasn't possible. So you're going to do—.

I'll go ahead and do myself first. Okay. So yeah, but I was asked to be on behalf of the tribe to speak for the tribe. Okay. So that's why I had several slips in there.

Got it. Understood. So we'll give you your 3 minutes and then you can do the AC. Okay, perfect. Thanks.

And so I'm gonna go ahead and be— good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm gonna go ahead and give you a small, a brief introduction, kind of give you an idea where I come from on my testimonies. I started working fisheries in 2002 as an enumeration coordinator, or counting salmon on the North River Tower. Following year, I was a crew leader. For the counting tower.

2004, '05, And '06, I worked with ADF&G on the telemetry project on the Unukleet River for the chum and the coho on the distribution within the Unukleet drainage. Then I started working for NSCDC in 2007 until 2020 as the senior crew leader— forgive me— as the senior crew leader in the Fisheries Research and Development Department. I started the Shakhtylyk Sonar in 2008. And I also served on the NOAA Alaska Salmon Research Task Force as the vice chair. And so my testimony is, I'm gonna go ahead and start my testimony now, is that since 2016 and beginning the heat wave, the heat blob in the marine waters, has caused major issues within the feeding grounds for the salmon in the marine waters.

And the heat wave that we had in 2019 with the major die-off when the chum and the pinks were floating down the rivers, the Unukleit, Shaktoolik, Koyuk Rivers, had put major stress on the salmon, especially the odd-year pinks. And that also decreased the amount of food in river. When I was growing up, We going out moose hunting in the fall time, we would have to use basically goggles driving in the rivers in the fall time because of the mayflies coming out and mating. And every bend had mayflies. You don't see that anymore.

You don't see any mayflies coming up. You don't have any concerns about any bugs hitting your face.

And the amount of, Murmuganzers within our drainage had increased as well. We'd see high populations feeding on the juvenile salmons within the river system. In 2021, which also helped reduce the pink salmon in our region, was that the high waters were causing the pinks to spawn on the banks and also the sandbars. And as soon as the river drained, all the eggs had dried out and that had caused a major disruption in our odd-year pinks. And we've had a very horrible pink return in '23 and this past summer in '25, one of the lowest returns we've seen in the pinks.

And also another thing that we've been also experiencing, and I'm sure you guys may have heard, is the, uh, the amount of Alexandrium in the waters. I don't know if you've heard that study by the by WHO, that they've had recorded the highest amount of Alexandrium cells per liter anywhere in the world. And FDA shuts down clam fisheries northeast in lower 48 when it comes to 3,000 cells per liter. And the lowest counts that they were counting was 30,000 cells per liter of Alexandrium in the Norton Sound area out by Dymede area, and as high as 180,000 cells per liter. And I've done some research on the effects of Alexandrium on juvenile salmon is that— and it was done in Chile on their Atlantic farm salmon.

Let me get some numbers for you so I don't—. That's your time, but I'm curious, like, what do you think that the effects of the Alexandrium is I mean, what— so cumulatively, you just relayed a bunch of sort of things that you're seeing. Can you sum it up or—. Well, I can— yeah, I was gonna give you some numbers with the Alexandrium. When they did the study in Chile is that when they had put salmon, mixed the salmon with the Alexandriums in the water, they've done— they had 3 different containers.

They had 250 cells per liter which had 57% mortality within 2 hours of being exposed to the Alexandrium. And at 500,000 cells per liter they had a 14% mortality. And at 1,000 cells per liter of the Alexandrium they had 100% mortality on the juvenile salmons. Interesting questions. Mike?

Yeah, just really quickly, what does Alexandrium do to them? Does it— is it like immediate suffocation, or how does it get in their blood? What's going on? It attaches to their gills and pretty much suffocates them. That's what you're—.

Yes. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thanks. And we'll Go ahead and let you start your AC testimony whenever you're ready.

For the record, again, my name is Jacob Ivanoff. I am the Southern Norton Sound Advisory Chair. Um, we've had taken some actions on several proposals, uh, starting with Proposal 28, lawful gear and specification beach staining gear.

We unanimously supported that proposal, but during the meeting we were told that the members of the, um, other communities would be able to use the old herring nets as they were deemed not monofilaments. And so a lot of the concerns that we heard from neighboring communities, from Koyuk and Shaktoolik, is that they don't have the means and methods to purchase the necessary gear for the regulations. And so they were told that with this regulations, it would not have any effects on the old herring gear that they had from the past. So that's what made them make the decision to support this, because they were on the understanding that this would not negatively impact their ability to use the old Harran gear for beach staining, as many members of the other communities do not have the funds to purchase that. So we supported that with the understanding that they still would be able to use the old Harran gear.

Proposal 33, we supported that proposal, but, and more to support the Northern Norton Sound as we did not want to step in or on the Norton Sound, Northern Norton Sound AC, but we wanted to show support for that.

Proposal 34, we also supported unanimously in support of the Northern Norton AC's stance on that proposal. Proposal 36 was a kind of a heated discussion during the meeting, is that we understand that with the low returns of the Kings and the Unukleet Rivers, that it's gonna be hard on putting more pressure on the Kings during their coming in. We haven't had any returns in the North River, uh, going above 500 kings in the past 5 years. So with the— if this passes, or— we are concerned that with the amount of fishing pressure on the king salmons is, is not just from the river lodge, you're also going to have people from the community going out and support fishing on these kings, putting the stress and reducing the amount of kings going on to the spawning grounds. So we had 2 people in favor of that, 3 people against, and 3 people abstained.

The 2 people that supported it, one was a— is a guide, another one is— had made the comment that they are a sport fisherman and would like to be able to go sports fishing for kings. And 3 others, including myself, opposed Oppose that.

Proposal 37, again, that goes back to supporting the Northern Norton Sound's stance on that proposal.

That's all that we have, but if I can talk about Proposal 38. 33. I'm like, it's not in our AC, so I'm not going to talk on behalf of the tribe as the AC right now because of their stance and what I was asked to say for the tribe. Okay. Will you be here for Committee of the Whole?

Yes, I will be. Okay. That'll be a good time to do that. And you can—. That will be new information you can add to the discussion there.

Okay. Okay. And just so that I'm clear, you said the split decision in the AC was 36? Yes, ma'am. Okay, got it.

Any questions for Jacob?

All right, thank you so much for your testimony today. Thanks for your service on the AC also. Thank you. Next up is Virgil Umpfenauer. Where'd he go?

We'd like to give our AC comments first and then do our public— our personal comments. All right. Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Gail Vick and I am the chair of the Fisheries Subcommittee for the Fairbanks AC. So the comments that I'll give you today, they are in your— in the AC comments that were submitted on time. And I will just speak to the comments that are— that we took action on. So on proposal number 12, considering eel sticks on the Coast Quileute area, we supported that. On proposal 15 and 16, we supported that, and you heard earlier from Charlie Wright, which really exemplifies some of our reasons.

Um, but we— the AC gave me permission to support the amended version that you're going to get from Andy Bassich and EGLE. So that will be the version that we will also support. So for both 15 and 16, we took no action on 17, but we did have a general concern about 6-inch mesh on the main stem Considering this is not on the main stem, we were okay with that. Um, we did support 18 and 19, 20, 21, and 22. Uh, we supported, uh, 24 and 25.

And I want to say on some of the, um, items for Pike in the Tolovana region, we were a little worried, concerned about the feelings from the Mincho area, but I was on the Mincho, the Nana Mincho AC meeting, and was very glad to hear that most people were saying you can take as many Pike as you want because they were having a problem with it. Which is not the intent of the proposals, but it would put a little bit more sports pressure on there. Okay, proposal 25 and 27 we supported.

And proposal 43, to repeal the commercial fishing season for sheefish in the Kotzebue District, we supported that because we are very concerned about sheefish numbers and not having the data that we need to make the decisions to open it, commercial fishery. I know a little bit about that fishery, so we supported that proposal.

The Fairbanks AC recognizes the severe impacts of the Chinook and chum salmon crisis. We are committed to doing what we can to help rebuild stocks in the Yukon River drainage. And I'm going to turn this over to Virgil because he had a comment that he made at our AC meeting that I think is very pertinent. Thank you.

Did you want to read this? Your comment at the bottom.

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to do, Gail. Right at the bottom, the comment that you had at the AC meeting. Okay.

Okay, what I basically said at our meeting was there's no proposals regarding commercial fishing, and that's because there's no fish to fight over. That's why there's no proposals to do that. And then I've been giving a lot of thought to what I'm going to say right here, right now, and some people probably won't like it. But of course, that's how it always is when you're speaking before one of the boards. I haven't introduced myself.

I think most of the people in here know who I am. But my name is Virgil Lempfenauer. I came here when I came back, came back from Vietnam in the spring of 1971. I've been here ever since. But I've been involved in the fisheries for over 40 years.

I bought a fish wheel permit in 1984 and started fishing just downriver from here, not that far, about 7 miles. But anyway, I want to correct a couple of things that were in staff reports. One of them that just got left out though was when they talked about the Yukon River Panel, the Salmon Treaty. I've been on that thing since 1988, longer than anyone from either country. And we actually had an interim agreement in 1995 for 3 years.

It ended, you know, in 3 years later. And then the reason it ended was because we couldn't decide what the Canadian share would be after rebuilding because they had— we'd considered the run was just about rebuilt. For Chinook salmon because we needed to get over 110,000 across the border of Canadian origin Chinook. And so for the amount more than that, we had to figure out how we were going to divide it up. Anyway, the Lower Yukon, some of the guys in the Lower Yukon didn't want to give them any additional share, and so the Canadians walked out.

We were in Whitehorse when that happened. Then we didn't do nothing for a short period of time, and then two people I was on the Board of Fish at this time and so two people, or two of the public members, myself and I can't remember who the other one was that went, but we went along with a couple of the staff over to Whitehorse and met with the Canadians and decided we need to start negotiating again so that we can get a permanent treaty. Then we had the crash in 2000. And when, and when you had the crash in 2000, what really messed things up was that we didn't have enough. Our budget had been cut by 35%.

In fact, it was the whole board support budget got cut. So that was Board of Game, Board of Fish both got cut, plus ACs. And so we had to do AYK, Bristol Bay, and Area M all in one meeting, the cycle that you're on now. We did that in one meeting. I think 26 straight days.

There's people in here in the room that were at that meeting, some of the staff. I think maybe Art was at the meeting too, Mr. Nelson. But anyway, and so at that meeting, one of the things we did, because that's when we had our first big crash in the year 2000, right prior to that meeting. And in 2000 is when we also finally passed the Sustainable Salmon Policy. Regulation.

And so— but we had the worst run on record since they've been keeping records and able to count the fish for all species of salmon on the Yukon River that year. And so the board at that meeting decided we're not going to fish no more. This coming year there will be no fishery because outlook didn't look good. And so that decision was made by the board at that point. We directed to the department, there will be no fishery this year, period.

That's for commercial fishing. But what we did do is we did the board meetings, the committees totally different back then. We divided up the proposals and then one or two board members would be the committee and they would get members of the public from each group. All ACs could be on there and all RAC people could have one representative and then each group like Kenai River Sport Fish and the Cook Inlet Drifters would have one person on each. Anyway, that's how we did those committees.

So I naturally, being a Yukon person, did the Yukon committee when we did that. And prior to then, we had no windows in the lower Yukon for subsistence. I put windows in. And so that leads me to get into the part that I think is going to be controversial that I want to talk about. And our AC, the Fairbanks AC, has talked about hatcheries so much it's unreal.

This has already been something said about hatcheries at this meeting. The very first person to testify here today, or yesterday, did. And I bought fish as a commercial buyer 'cause I am a buyer and I have my own fish plant that I built myself out at North Pole and then I have one in town as well. But I bought fish all the way from District 1 to Dawson. I've even bought fish in Dawson, believe it or not.

But my main business is in District 4. 5 And 6, 4, 5, and 6, and— or where we used to be. But anyway, we haven't been able to fish for 6 full years now. And we're talking about the hatcheries a lot. And so Senator Sullivan, whose family was— has a fish camp downriver from the bridge on the Yukon, 35 miles, just above Hess Creek, and they were my And her— that's Senator Sullivan's wife's family.

They're from Rampart is where they're from. And I used to take my boats all the way down to the rapids from the bridge and get fish there, Rampart, on up.

And so Senator Sullivan formed— it was either 2 or 3 years ago— a group of people to try to determine what scientific needs we need to find out why the fish aren't coming back to the AYK region anymore and specifically to Alaska period. Like the king salmon. We have severe problems all over the place. Well, there was, I believe, 44 people on that thing, one board member, a couple of staff members that are in this meeting right now, myself, and a couple other members of the public that are, some of them, former department employees and et cetera. But what we ended up doing at the very end of this thing is we voted on what we thought it was.

And of the 40-something people, I think it was 44, I could be wrong, but 28 or 29 of us voted. And so I'm going to give the first 3 things, the 3 top things, and that was—. So your time is— but right before you get into that, I'm going to say, do you want to have your personal testimony sort of roll into this so you can keep going? Just roll into my personal testimony. All right, let's do that.

I just wanted to reset the timer. All right, 3 things. I want 3 minutes. 3 Minutes, 3 things. I'm bated breath.

Okay, so I got 3 things in 3 minutes. Okay, the first thing we voted we thought was the most important thing causing the fish not to come back and to be way smaller and all these other things you've heard a lot of people talking about was competition in the marine pasture for the food. From hatchery pinks and chums. That's the thing that got the most votes. The number 2 thing was intercept fisheries, which is going to get addressed later in this cycle.

And the 3rd thing was trawlers. And damn it, I screwed up. I've got a video here, and I know one board member has it, and I know, I think, 2 have seen it. But I have a video here of trawler bycatch from a processor in Kodiak that the Coast Guard flew over here from— was given to Seashare and Tanneroff Chiefs. I distribute all the fish for Tanneroff Chiefs that they have to buy to send to the villages.

I'm the one that does all that because I have the freezer space and expertise to do it. Anyway, so they donated 4,900 pounds of Chinook salmon. And the Coast Guard flew those to Fairbanks. I took 2,900 pounds of them and I boxed them up approximately 29 pounds to a box for elders. Those fish were all for elders.

We distributed them. The fish were not good. The people were complaining. And so I told the lady at Tanneraw Chiefs, we'll fillet them and then we'll know whether they're good. We started filleting them and then we realized these fish are horrible.

They were not taken care of. They let them go bad. They were gaping. I got a video of them. I called one of the people from our area, our biologist here in Fairbanks for the fall season, and she came over and took pictures and videos and sent that stuff to the Commissioner's Office.

But anyway, so we flayed the rest of them and they all went to dog food. To dog mushers. That's where those fish went to. And so that's the third thing was the trawler bycatch. But they don't— and people in this room, lots of people in this room raised hell about taking all these— the bycatch of king salmon, the prohibited species, and sending them to food banks in Seattle.

Made them start doing some of it up here. Well, that's how they treated these fish. I don't know how they treat others, but I know this is how they treated these. And so I just wanted to point that out. That's the 3 things.

And our country has had— and there was someone, I don't remember who his name is, but in the early '90s that said, with all this increase in hashery production, what's gonna happen is we're gonna have a big international incident of ocean pasture. Who controls ocean pasture? And it reminds me of The range wars of the West, because I grew up in Arizona and the largest range war and where the most people killed in our country was the Pleasant Valley War in Arizona. And my 7th grade school teacher, her and Zane Grey wrote a book about this, To the Last Man, of the two main families, the sheep family, you know, raise sheep, and the cow family that raised cows competing for the pasture. On the open range and all the men were killed in both families except for one person.

And that was my 7th grade teacher's grandpa. But I'm done. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Any questions?

All right. Thank you, sir. And Gail— Commissioner? She does. Yeah.

Go ahead, Gail. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the interest of time, I'm going to read my statement so I can try to stay within 3 minutes. Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Gail Vick and I reside in Fairbanks, and these are my personal comments.

As the daughter of a Norwegian immigrant and a Scots Native American mother, I'm— my family history is entrenched in fisheries and farming. I came to Alaska in 1968. In 57 years, I fished all over the state from the Kobuk River down to southeast for sports, subsistence, personal use, and commercial. In 1991, I began policy advocacy for community fisheries and federal and state salmon, halibut, crab, pollock, cod, herring. Even though not a scientist, I served both years on both the Prince William Sound Science Center Board and the North Pacific Research Board AP.

And I am a founding member of ACREB. I have spent decades at North Pacific Council, the Board of Fish, the IPHC, and the Yukon River Panel working with scientists, tribal leaders, and fisheries organizations all over the North Pacific and the Pacific Northwest. I was a co-author on a 2020 peer-reviewed paper on salmon decline. I have studied salmon history around the world, and I have a massive library because I serve as the Fisheries Subcommittee Chair of the Fairbanks DC and facilitate a weekly coalition of Western Alaska concerned citizens. I look at fish numbers regularly during the season, at the trends and the historic comparisons.

Despite all this, I know only one true thing: it is going to take all of us to truly commit to saving wild salmon stocks, working together in a significantly different structure. The AYK is ground zero for recognizing that there is a finiteness to our ocean's carrying capacities. In 2024, the federally initiated Alaska Salmon Research Task Force identified a group of potential salmon decline factors including climate, predation, intercept and bycatch, competition for forage food, pathogens, freshwater and marine harvest and habitat. What all these factors have in common is that they are interrelated, not siloed from each other. AYK salmon share the North Pacific and the Gulf of Alaska and run the longest gauntlets from outmigration to return, and they are challenged by all these factors.

Climate conditions are putting pressure on salmon, but our man-made interventions are providing the cumulative impacts that have made Chinook and chum dramatically smaller, skinnier, and less abundant, less able to withstand environmental changes. We've lost our big genetics along with higher year classes. New challenges with increased development will I mean impediments to salmon streams such as unmonitored culverts. And the crisis is spreading. In short, we're in deep trouble.

Which leads us to the obvious. We cannot rebuild Chinook and chum stocks without giving salmon a safe passage home, meaning no bycatch, no intercept, no harvest, no competition for forage food, which is hatcheries. In addition, we need to monitor habitat, but that's a whole other issue. Recognizing that all this is not likely or possible, we need to be as aggressive as we can to get out of salmon's way as they struggle to get back home. This is our dilemma.

We continue to treat salmon loss in regional pieces, not wanting to tackle the big decisions that might actually help Chinook and Chum salmon survive. We continue to put the burden on in-river users despite the law, but wishful thinking and unsustainable decision-making to accommodate economic interests might very well extirpate some of our wild stocks. How will history view us in 20 years? Thank you. Thank you, Gail.

Questions? Appreciate— Mike, go ahead. Yeah, everyone, nice to finally see you in person. I've heard you on podcasts and what before in meetings, but now I get to see you. Thank you.

In talking with people throughout the years about the Yukon, I would like your perspective with the amount of time you've had on it. Virgil threw out his— the 3 main factors he thought contributed to the demise. But I would like to ask you to— what I also heard was management back in the day, and I'd like to have your perspective on where that may fit into where we're at now.

Is the question to ask about historical perspective on management? I'll clarify. Management, whether in river for commercial fisheries, management out in the open ocean. We've heard about that here in this room already, and I just would like your perspective on that in terms of how it contributed to the loss of salmon in the Yukon. Thank you.

That's a big question. And you've heard a lot of people today say that— tell you all the reasons why. But the real issue is that salmon, especially for the Yukon River, have to go through this really big gauntlet. And they hit every challenge that we have along the way. And that's from bycatch all the way down to intercept in and then more bycatch in the Gulf and back again.

But it's a combination. I mean, we all know that all of this is cumulative and we all know that all of this has to work together. So if we have— if we change our monitoring and our observation of habitat in the river, that will help a lot, as well as reduction in all these other major challenges. I have seen, because I have fished this state for so many years, I have seen so much wastage, so much— as a commercial fisherman for 21 years in Prince William Sound and working with other fisheries, commercial fisheries around the state, I have seen so many incidences of people really pushing the envelope and not— and the reporting that we didn't get, that we're still not getting, the genetics that we're still not getting. There are so many things that we can list right now to sit down.

And Janessa Newman was right, we all need to be working with people on the river as well as people in the marine environment. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Virgil and Gail, thank you so much for your testimony. Thanks for being here and thanks for all of the years on the AC as well.

Appreciate you.

Thank you. Andy Bassett with the Eagle AC.

Oh, he's remote, so we're going to— let's take about a 10-minute break and we'll get the Zoom set up for those two. Faces. Are they— he's ready, he's ready. Okay, let's go, giddy up.

Mr. Bassett, are you there?

Andy, are you there?

Let's take that— yeah, let's go ahead and take that little break.

Okay, we'll go ahead and take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back and we'll wrap up with those— the last two ACs.

Recording in progress.

Okay, I'm getting some audio now.

We can hear you now, Andy. We're on break so we can get everything together, but we can hear you. Thank you. Okay, I'll just stand by. Let me know when you're ready, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you, Andy. You're welcome.

Hi, good morning. Thank you for joining into the Board of Fisheries meeting. We have a phone number who is signed in that ends with 266. Could you please let us know who you are? Phone number ending in 266.

If you're just listening, that's fine. I'm trying to make sure you're not Is not one of our AC members here to testify.

All right. We're good. Okay, we're back on the record. The time is 10:07 to complete public testimony. We're doing a remote AC testimony with Mr. Bassett with the Eagle AC.

Mr. Bassett, are you online and can you hear me? Yes, Madam Chair. Audio check. Loud and clear. Go ahead and put yourself on the record and begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name, for the record, my name is Andy Bassich. I live about an hour north of Eagle on the Yukon River at a remote home site. I am the Eagle AC chair and have been the chair since 1987, with the exception of 3 years recently.

I also serve on the Yukon River Panel since 2000. And I am the co-chair of the Communications Committee on the Yukon River Panel. I also have served on the Eastern RAC for over 22 years. And I'm here to give you an update on the Eagle AC actions. I want to thank the board for allowing me to testify remotely.

I know it's not usually done that way, but I I really appreciate that opportunity, especially given the fact that we have two very important proposals before you. After this AC, I would like to give a 3-minute personal testimony as well. And I would also like to be informed if there was any opportunity for remote attendees to listen in on the Committee of All proceedings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so the Eagle AC has two proposals in, uh, or on Proposal 15 and 16 on the Yukon River, but I want to go to Proposal 17 first and inform you that the Eagle AC was opposed to this.

We did have a split vote, uh, two support for Proposal 17. I, I and my GOFUN supported Proposal 17 and 5 opposed Proposal 17. I wanted to say that we strongly supported subsistence fisheries that targeted non-salmon species for the purpose of food security and salmon conservation.

We have a very strong concern for the overharvest of older age class fish, and that was the main objection to this proposal. These fish, once depleted, take decades to rebuild, and it's not clearly understood the stock composition and age classes for non-salmon fish that would be harvested in larger mesh gear in these areas. I'd like to point out that one of the most important factors in fisheries management is protecting your most productive fish. And if you look on Supplemental RC-12, that's some supplemental materials I have a few pictures at the end of that RC that show the potential for harvesting very large fish. As we heard through the sport fish reports, older age class fish can be anywhere from 16 up into the 20-year range.

Once these fish stocks are depleted, you greatly impact the productivity of a specific stock in that area. So the objection by our AC is that it's— we think that this should be looked into. We need stock assessment of those areas and some quantification of what these stocks might be able to handle as far as harvest. We all know that during these king salmon and chum salmon declines, people are turning to other resources. And I think it's super important that these resources be fully understood as to what kind of harvest pressure they can take.

Currently, 4-inch mesh will catch these fish. Allowing 6-inch mesh will potentially target the older age class fish. Smaller fish will swim through that, so it's targeting your most productive fish, and that's a problem that we're having with salmon as well, and I'll get into that with our um, my testimony on Proposal 15 and 16. Also, I wanted to alert the board, I did not see in your packages, but Eagle AC passed two resolutions on stock conservation concerns, one for king salmon and one for fall chum, asking that the Board of Fish in the state of Alaska place Mainstem fall chum and mainstem Chinook salmon as a stock of conservation concern. Looking into this, we found out that the state does not even have the means available for allowing the most important and stringent conservation protection of a declining stock, and quite frankly, we're kind of appalled that the sustainable Salmon policies have been in place for over a decade, decade and a half, and still there's no provisions or methods or methodology for utilizing that most important classification for protection of salmon.

So I don't know if you have those resolutions, but that is a real concern, and we would like to see the board work with legislation and the department to ensure that as quickly as possible those tools are given to the Board of Fish. In regards to Proposal 15 and 16, I just want to say that one of the things that I hear often, all the time, is the term bearing the brunt of conservation, and I think we need to change that, that narrative to all of us bearing or all of us shouldering the responsibility of conservation. And when I say that, it not only applies to the people on the Yukon River who have been doing this for decades now, it applies to all fisheries and it also applies to the production of hatchery fish that are being dumped into the marine ecosystem and are impacting all of our salmon and non-salmon species in the marine environment. So being responsible, shouldering that conservation, is incumbent upon all of us, and it's a more positive term, and it's something that we need to really change moving into the future. I also wanted to point out that Proposal 15 and 16 by the Eagle AC, it's, it's unprecedented.

I kind of did a quick search and I have not found too many ACs that have put in proposals to restrict themselves. So one of the things I want to strongly emphasize is that the Eagle AC put these in place because of the conservation concern for Fall Chum, which are near extirpation levels. They are in much worse shape than Chinook salmon on the Yukon River. I don't think a lot of people fully understand how depleted these stocks are.

And so it's very unusual for an AC to actually put proposals in that would restrict themselves. You heard some great reports from the subsistence division that showed a lot of the impacts of this proposal, food security issues, alternatives for food. And I wanted to also direct your attention on RC-12 to— there are some pie charts there that show you a little bit more detail on the Eagle community and its food needs. You will also note there that our caribou— I'd like to let you know our caribou are in decline as well. They're crashing and they will continue to crash for a few— for a number of years.

That is the second largest contribution for food security in our region. I also want you to know that Moose is at a very low density in our area. To my knowledge, there were only 2 people in the entire area in this community that got moose this year. And for the first time in my 40 years of living in the bush here, I have not seen any bears, black bears in this region, which is another alternative food source. So this area is becoming a desert.

For food consumption, wild food consumption for subsistence use in this area. The loss of salmon is vital. One of the threads of salmon throughout the entire Yukon River is it is the most important resource for all people living on the Yukon River. Summer chum, fall chum, and Chinook salmon. It is the lifeblood of people on the river.

So it must be protected and we must rebuild it. Our original proposals are much stronger. I want you to note that at our recent AC meeting we adopted some amendments to our proposal as suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Those should be before you.

It changes some of the language, taking away the dependence on the lower test nets as a trigger point and setting a date for the, for those, this proposal to kick in. The other thing that it did was it changed some of the meaning of this proposal to be assessed at in-season assessments as opposed to just a hard trigger point. We recognize that. I think one of the concerns that led to this proposal, or both of these proposals being put in place, is what we call oops management. That is a scenario where managers tend to look at the lower end of escapement goals and begin to open up fisheries for harvest at the lower end of escapement goals.

One of the things I want to point out that a lot of people don't really fully recognize is the vast distances that these fish have to swim. If fish entered the Yukon River in the equivalence of Washington, D.C., so let's just say a Paulchum salmon entered at Washington, D.C., the first recording of them would be, pilot station would be at West Virginia. The next place where fish would be monitored would be in western Nebraska, and the final spawning areas for a lot of these fall chum would equal the distance of Salt Lake. Some of these fish would go as far as Chicago to the north, and so I just want to give you that comparison to let the board know and understand the incredible complexities that managers have to deal with with very little assessment in that large geographic area. So I do take my hat off to managers.

I think they're trying the best they can. Oops, management. What happens is they open up fisheries— Andy? Yes, ma'am. Andy, your time has elapsed.

Okay. So thank you for the report. I'm going to ask if there's any questions around the table right now. I have a question for you. So, with respect to the amended language that you were referring to recently, um, with, I think, some, uh, input from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, was that for '15 or was that for '16? Uh, Madam Chair, it was through for both of them. Okay. There are amendments for both proposals. And has that been submitted as an RC?

Uh, yes, it was supposed to have been. It's in our AC minutes, and so it was supposed to have been— that language was supposed to be submitted to the board along with our AC minutes from our last meeting. Okay, all right, thank you very much. Any other questions? Andy, thanks for being available.

Appreciate, uh, your testimony and, um, your service on the AC, among all the other things things you do. Yeah, thank you. I was wondering, can I get some clarification on your committee process? Sure. Is that, is that going to be available to online people to listen in?

Uh, yes, it will be available to listen in but not to participate remotely. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You bet. Um, Mr. Nelson, I just want to note, um, that the two resolutions that Andy mentioned, um, in the committee report relating to stock of concern designations. Those were AC4 at the work session.

Since that's, since that's when the board makes those determinations, that's the committee that we submitted them for, or the meeting that we submitted them for.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Do we have Mr. Nance online? No, he had a work emergency come up, so he is not available, Madam Chair.

All right. And I think we don't have any second calls from this morning. No, maybe we had one. No, let's double check here.

Nope, nope, we got it. Okay, all right, well, that concludes public testimony, um, for this meeting. And, um, what we're going to do is take a bit of a break, and there's going to be an adjustment to our Committee of the Whole schedule, and I'm going to take up— we're going to take up Committee of the Whole Group 2 first and go through Group 2, probably pause for a lunch break, and then come back and do Committee of the Whole Group 1. And the reason I'm switching those two is because I hear that there's substitute language that could be being worked on. There's some conversations that members want to have over a bit of a break, and we want to make sure that if there is substitute language coming out of proposals in Committee of the Whole Group 1, that there's time for it to be submitted and, and for the public to take a look at it so that they can comment during the committee on any substitute language that may come forward.

So that's the purpose of that. So we're going to go take a, take a brief break, set up for Committee of the Whole, and then we'll come back and begin with Committee of the Whole Group 2. Thank you.

All right, we are back on the record. The time is 10:49, and we're going to commence Committee of the Whole Group 2, a little bit of information for those who are not familiar with their committee work process. We use the sort of New England town meeting style for our committee work. So committee meetings are intended to provide opportunities for additional information gathering, gathering, and at times for dispute resolution. Committees are not a forum for debate nor a platform for repeating information that's already been received through the public testimony.

During board committee meetings, advisory committee representatives may express both the official position of their committee as well as personal views. We ask, please just identify which of those positions you're stating. So just make it very clear which hat you're wearing when you add to the public record in the committee. The board recognizes the AC representatives as knowledgeable fisheries leaders and believes that they must be able to function freely during these committee meetings. During committee, the public will come forward and use the microphone near the front of the table.

If you intend to speak or speak frequently, please, please move towards the front of the room so that, so that either a line can form behind the speaker at the podium or just kind of to minimize the wait time in between comments while you, you know, stand up and take your time to walk to the front of the room from the back of the room and everybody is blinking and staring at you. So if you intend to speak, just please come forward and make the walk a little bit shorter. Please don't refer to anyone by name in a derogatory manner. Again, we are looking for new information only. Please don't repeat what has already been said in public testimony.

If people start repeating the same points or it starts to get into a tit-for-tat sort of debate situation, the committee chair is going to move on to the next proposal. If substitute language is being developed or if you feel it should be developed, please speak to what that substitute language should say or what it does say and what you— or what you think it should say. So again, substitute language— this is an opportunity for really to talk about the changes that might evolve out of the public testimony ceremony and staff reports and all the information that we have heard thus far. So at this time, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to the committee chair, which for this group is Mr. Chamberlain, and he can give you any additional instructions that he would like. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you did a wonderful job covering the ground rules. So just a bit— I'm going to have the department read out the proposals as I list them. As the department is reading them out, if the sponsor could come up and jump it right up to the mic and take over as soon as the department is finished reading, that will make for a more efficient run. If you do want to speak for or against a proposal, please line up behind the sponsor.

If I don't see anyone behind the sponsor, I will assume testimony is done. So we will move on. I am trying to make this as efficient as possible. As possible. We've got, uh, 10 to knock out before lunch.

So I'm going to start with the Chatanika Pike Sport Fisheries. I'll start with Proposal 18.

Mr. Chair, Andy Griska, Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Tana Area Management Biologist. Proposal 18: This proposal would eliminate the provision of the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan to reduce the sport fish daily bag and possession limit when subsistence harvest is 750 or more northern pike in the Chatanika harvest area during the period from January 1 until these waters are free of ice. Additionally, the open season for sport fishing would be changed from June 1st through October 14th to April 15th through October 14th. Mr.

Chair, thank you. Is the sponsor here to speak on this, or would anyone be willing to to speak on this? Seeing none, we'll move on to Proposal 19.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 19. This proposal would eliminate the provision of the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan to reduce the sport fish daily bag and possession limit when subsistence harvest is 750 or more northern pike in the Chatanika Harvest Area during the period from January 1st till these waters are free of ice. Additionally, the open season for sport fishing would be changed from June 1 through October 14 to May 1 through October 14. Mr.

Chair.

Thank you. Is the sponsor here or is there anyone who wants to speak on this? Going once. Going twice. All right.

Let's move on to 20. Mr. Chair, proposal 20. This proposal would modify the provision of the Mentor Flats Northern Pike Management Plan to reduce the sport fish daily bag and possession limit when subsistence harvest is 750 or more northern pike in the Chatanika harvest area during the period from January 1 until these waters are free of ice, only to include waters of the Chatanika River drainage upstream of and including Gold Stream Creek. Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Would anyone be willing to speak to Proposal 20, either the sponsor or anyone supporting or opposing? Seeing none, we'll move on to the Tenonah Drainage Sport Fisheries, Proposal 21. So, Chair, Proposal 21.

This proposal would allow catch-and-release fishery for northern pike and prohibit the use, the use of bait and barbed hooks in Harding Lake. Mr. Chair. Okay, going once, going twice. All right, let's go to 22.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 22. This proposal would allow catch-and-release fishery for northern pike in Harding Lake. Mr. Chair.

Okay, let— does anyone wish to speak to this? All right, 23.

Mr. Chair, Brandy Baker, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. I'm the assistant area management biologist for the Tanana River. Proposal 23. This proposal would increase the bag and possession limit for northern pike Volkmar Lake to match the general regulations of 5 fish, of which only 1 fish may be 30 inches or longer.

Mr. Chair. Thank you, Brandy. Would anyone like to speak to Proposal 23?

Ms. Vic?

Oh, Gail, I think it's a podium right there.

I think you're—. Oh, there you go. I got it.

Oh, if you can bear with me because I don't have— I put that— hold on, I apologize.

I put it in the proposal book. Okay. The issue on Volker Lake was that—. Gail, could you pull the microphone down a little bit? Oh, sorry.

Thank you. Yeah, that was— we had a support as amended, and Mike Kramer, one of the AC members, said that to the background bag limit from May 1st to October 1st and retain 2 fish bag limit with 1 over 30 October 2nd to April 31st. So that was the language we adopted with that amendment. Thank you, Gail. Are there any questions for Gail?

Oh, and can you put your name on the record? Uh, for the record, my name is Gail Vick. I chair the Fisheries Subcommittee for the Fairbanks AC. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Any further comments on 23? All right, let's move on to 24. Mr. Chair, proposal 24.

This proposal would eliminate the youth-only fishery for Arctic grayling that occurs during 4 weekends, 8 days in June and July. Mr. Chair, thank you. Does anyone wish to speak on 24? Okay, seeing none, let's move on to 25.

Mr. Chair, proposal 25. This proposal would repeal the registration requirement for ice houses that are not removed from the ice daily in the Tanana River area. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Would anyone like to speak on 25?

Seeing none, 26.

Mr. Chair, proposal 26. This proposal would modify regulations for Arctic grayling in the Shaw Creek drainage and in the Tanana River within a 2-mile radius of the Shaw Creek mouth to match the general daily bag and possession limit of 5 Arctic grayling. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Would anyone like to speak to 26?

All right, let's move on to 27. Mr. Chair, proposal 27. This proposal would modify management of Rainbow Lake, which is a stocked water, and increase the daily bag and possession and in Rainbow Lake for all stocked finfish species combined from 5 to 10, of which only 1 may be 18 inches or greater in length. Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to 27?

Well, I do want to apologize to the public for this committee taking so long. With that, I will turn the chair back over to Ms. Carlson-Vandort. I was going to get a break.

Mr. Chamberlain, I think you're giving former member Orville Huntington a run for his money in terms of chairmanship.

Okay. Well, that completes Committee of the Whole Group 2.

Anyways, I think what we will do is go ahead and break for lunch at this time. And we will come back on the record to begin Committee of the Whole Group 1, which I suspect might generate a little bit more discussion at 1 o'clock. So 2-hour break, 1 PM, back on the record for Committee of the Whole Group 1. Thanks.

Hello, folks. Hi. Just wanted to let you all know that we're just waiting on some substitute language to drop, and then we'll get going with committee. So, standby. We're hanging out for a little bit longer, working on some language, and we'll get it out to folks quickly, as quickly as possible.

Thanks.

All right. Thank you all for your patience. The time is 1:50. We are back on the record. We're going to commence Committee of the Whole Group 1.

It looks like there are a few people out in the audience that may not have been here for my group Committee of the Whole sort of instructions. So I'm going to quickly repeat them also for the online public record as well. I don't know that it was caught the last time.

So Committee of the Whole parliamentary procedures for committee work will follow the New England Town town meeting style. Again, the committee meetings this, this time is intended to provide opportunities for additional information gathering and at times for dispute resolution. Committees are not a forum for debate or a platform for repeating information that's already been received through public testimony. During committee meetings, advisory committee representatives can express both their own positions and the official positions of their committees. They just need to make sure to identify which position they're stating.

So just be real clear about which hat you're wearing when you come to speak. The board recognizes the AC reps as knowledgeable fisheries leaders and believe that they must be able to function freely during committee meetings. There goes my nameplate.

Also, during the committee meetings, we ask that the public come forward and use the microphone near the front table. It's on a stand right over here. You are welcome to form a line behind the speaker at the podium. And also, if you intend to speak, in order to minimize wait time, please move forward to the front of the room or kind of stand and start to form a line if you know you would like to speak or if you are going to be speaking frequently, because that saves us the time of, you know, enjoying watching you walk down the aisle. So we have got time this afternoon, but certainly we appreciate being able to keep things moving.

Also, we appreciate people not referring to anybody by name and certainly not in a derogatory manner. Again, we are looking for new information only. Please don't repeat what has already been said in public testimony. If people start repeating the same points or start getting into a tit-for-tat back-and-forth debate, the committee chair is going to move on to the next proposal. If substitute language is being developed or has been developed or you feel it should be developed, please speak to what you think that substitute language should say or what it does say.

So one of the reasons we were delayed or the reason we were delayed getting going this afternoon is because there's two pieces of substitute language that were being worked on that the sponsor and the chair really wanted to make sure the public got a chance to have eyes on. To discuss right during this committee meeting before we undertake any potential substitute language changes to the proposal in deliberation. So we were waiting for that to get posted online. The RC numbers for substitute language to proposal number 17 is RC 30, and also the proposal 15 substitute language is RC 31. Those are both available online.

They are posted on the website right now. I'm looking at them. So I would encourage you, if you have interest or want to speak to those proposals, to take a look at that language that was sponsored by Member Erwin and, and feel free to discuss it during this committee group. I think that is going to wrap up my comments here, and I will turn it over to Chair Wood to, to get going on Committee of the Whole Group 1. Mr. Wood.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think the chair just said it all, um, but I would ask that the proposer come up first and speak to it if they'd like. In this— some of these cases that will be difficult. Um, please, new information, but again, the most important part is stand up, start walking, and either get in a line or sit up front so we don't have to wait, okay?

Because we have a whopping 6 proposals to talk about. But just—. Yeah, so right now I'm going to beat Kurt's record here, but RC 31 is talking to Proposal 15 and RC 30 is talking to Proposal 17. So please get an opportunity to look at that and comment on that because we have heard people's responses to how they felt about 15, 16, and 17. So that will all be new information for us.

So, okay, we'll get started with the first one will be Proposal 12. Oh, good. Something new and different. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, and Mr. Chair— Chairwood. My name is Sam Decker. I am the Kuskokwim management biologist. With me is Erin Tiernan, the regional management coordinator. We have proposal 12.

This will add eel sticks as an allowable subsistence gear type for fish other than salmon. Mr. Chair, thank you. Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this proposal regarding eel sticks? Oh, come on.

Okay, well, the department put it out there, so I guess we'll just move right on to Proposal 13. Ding!

Good afternoon, board and Madam Chair and Mr. Chairman. I'm John Chyflik with Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division. Custodian manager. And with me is Klaus Woodig, regional management coordinator. Proposal 13 would close king salmon sport fishing in the Kuskokwim drainage upstream and including the Holitna River from July 26th through April 30th.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Anyone like to speak to this for or against? Come on.

Okay. I guess we are just going to move on. Okay. Again, Mr. Chair, John Scheiffluch.

Proposal 13 is what we just—. Oh, go ahead, Chair Maury. What did you say the dates were on 13? July 26th through April 30th.

On proposal 13. Yeah.

Why does mine—. Got it.

Okay. Well, we'll just move on to 14. We'll revisit this if necessary. Okay. Go right ahead.

Okay, Mr. Chair. Again, John Shyhook with Sport Fish Division. Proposal 14 would eliminate bag and possession limits for sheefish in the Knechtog Good news on the Roelich Rivers.

Thank you.

Would anyone like to speak to this proposal? 16. It's about sheepshead. Ah, gosh, we're cruising. All right, we'll move right on to 17.

Or no, 15. This should bring some comment.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Matt Olson. I am the Area Management Biologist for the Yukon River Fall season. And next to me is Aaron Tiernan, the AYK management coordinator. Proposal 15 would close the harvest of Fall Chum salmon for 2 years in the mainstem Yukon River.

Thank you. So this Proposal 15, we've heard from the public about that, but now we have substitute language found in RC 31. So if anyone would like to get up and speak to this, please, please do.

Before we jump into this, I'll have Member Erwin speak to the language found in RC 31. Thank you, Chair Wood. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the substitute language that's before us. Um, in RC 31, you will find substitute language for Proposal 15. Through public testimony, this public testimony process, we were hearing a lot of opposition to Proposal 15, um, and there is the need for meaningful action to be taken for these false chum stocks, as it's been identified.

Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, thank you. Yes.

Okay, so my edits Yes, thank you, Chair. My edits are to include traditional knowledge as best available science and data in the department, and also to— for the board to remove— consider the removal of the stock of management concern when the escapement goal, the mid-range of the escapement goal of 450,000 is achieved in 3 consecutive years and is expected to be met or exceed in future years. It will also close commercial sport and personal use directed mainstem chum salmon fisheries in District 5. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone like to speak to this?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Craig Chiflik, speaking on behalf of the Yukon River and Tribal Fish Commission. We uphold and support the rationale and the substitute language drafted by the Yukon Caucus.

Members of the Yukon Watershed gathered, listened, and presented— heard presentations from the US Fish and Wildlife and insights from ADF&G Yukon area managers and reached consensus and approval of the draft language. We agree that the action plan via RC-31 should replace Proposal 15. And what is important to highlight, the caucus reached consensus on the amended language and really uplift and support the intent and importance conservation measures regarding the inclusion of traditional lands in the stock of concern designation and the process for exiting that designation.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Anyone else like to speak to this?

You guys are making my job pretty easy up here. Okay. We'll move on to proposal 16.

Proposal 16. This proposal would prohibit the use of 4-inch or smaller mesh gillnets in the mainstem Yukon River after fall chum salmon are detected in the Lower Yukon Test Fish Project.

Thank you. So people would like to speak to this?

Any new information on Proposal 16. We are flying through this. Okay, we'll go right to Proposal 17 then, please.

Proposal 17 would allow the use of 6-inch or smaller mesh set gillnets in Hamilton Slough, the Unuk River, and the Ingrukar River from September 1st to September 30th during times of salmon conservation.

Anyone like to speak to this? We have an RC 30.

Anyone like to— would like to comment on this new RC, this new language? Go ahead, Miss Irwin. Thank you, Mr. Wood. May I speak to the substitute language, please? Thank you.

The substitute language states that During times of salmon conservation, 6-inch mesh may be used in freshwater bodies that the department has identified as non-salmon spawning habitat through the best available scientific data and traditional knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Go for it. Yeah, good afternoon again. For the record, still Craig Chyeluk, still with the Yukon River Tribal Fish Commission. We agree and support The amended language in RC 30 that replaces proposal 17. Again, we had a really good discussion upstairs and I think we came to a broad consensus on both RCs.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Hey everybody, my name is Shane Ransbury. I work for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I'm the Fishery Assessment Biologist, and I was the one who did a lot of the review for the 6-inch opportunities that happened this year, and I made the maps for them and things like that. And in relation to the RC to change the language, when it says non-salmon spawning habitat, just be aware that I looked for areas without salmon.

I didn't look for non-salmon spawning habitat. So, you know, if you want similar to what happened this year, it might make more sense to say non-salmon areas or something of that metric instead of restricting it to spawning habitat. So thanks. Any questions? Okay, thank you.

Any more comments on Proposal 17 and RC 30. Go ahead. Just kind of throw this out there to members of the public, given the last couple of commenters. So would there be— would the consensus be affected if the language were amended to say something along the lines of where salmon are not present versus salmon spawning habitat? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd be curious whether or not Yukon River Tribal Fish Commission had thoughts on that as well, and, and, and the gentleman here.

Madam Chair, I think that would be reasonable, especially because if you're saying where— well, so I looked at where they were transiting, and then I looked at spawning habitat areas. And so if you looked at the AWC and you just said where, where is— where are they present under the AWC, that would expand it to like a lot more closed areas. For non-Sammon, but I do think it's still worth mentioning that, you know, that you should close where they're transiting through. Um, so sorry, just your name again for the record, Shane? Oh, sorry, Shane Ransbury.

Hello, good afternoon again. For the record, Craig Chyflik, Yukon River and Tribal Fish Commission. I don't believe that's necessarily a concern. What we are most encouraged is the utilization of best available science that includes indigenous or traditional knowledge, providing that opportunity built off of the precedence with Matt and Dina so that the tribes have the opportunity to identify. I think that's of— that was— that's my recollection of what was the most important part of those changes in the amendments is just creating that opportunity to build the relationships with the area managers from that tribal perspective.

Utilizing indigenous and traditional knowledge and just creating that opportunity for relationship building to continue based off of what I heard was very successful. Well, more successful this last year. So, but that specific— we didn't get into that level of detail. But what's most important is that recognition of traditional knowledge and for our tribes to identify and work with the managers to continue to build those relationships.

Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Chair. This is Holly Carroll. I'm the federal manager. And just to truly clarify, there's only one word that we would like to strike, and that's spawning, because we're letting people fish anywhere where they know non-salmon to be. So it can just be non-salmon.

In fact, we don't want people fishing right where they're spawning, right? So it's just about striking the one word, spawning, which would limit us to the areas we could open. So removing the one word lets us be as flexible as possible.

Thank you.

Any more comments?

All right. I think we can call it a wrap if no one else wants to get up and just say hi.

All right. I don't know. Thank you everyone for your patience. Good job. And especially Member Irwin, thank you for all your effort.

And I'll pass the gavel back to Madam Chair. So an hour of language for 8 minutes of committee.

Impressive. Okay.

Okay, all right, we get any OK, back on the record. So I just was having a little sidebar to see if we're going to break for the day or move into Committee 3. My understanding is there's still people that are expecting to want to participate in Committee 3 that are on the way here. And so we're going to stick to our agenda. So what I'd like to do is break for the day.

However, if there is work that needs to be done in any substitute language, if there's any changes that need to be made, I would ask that staff stick around. Check with members, members communicate with staff, Department of Law, and anybody else that they'll need assistance with to, to make any adjustments or create additional substitute language so that we don't have any further delays in the morning. And we will plan to deliberate groups 1 and 2 beginning tomorrow morning. Anything else from me? All right.

Thank you very much. We'll see you at 8:30 in the morning for deliberations.