2025 Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Finfish – (Day 5)

All right, good morning everybody. The time is 8:40. The day is November 22nd. I think it's a Saturday, but I'm not entirely positive of that. We're going to go ahead and kick off this morning with deliberations on Group 3.

Group 3 is Norton Sound and Kotzebue subsistence commercial and sport fisheries. There are 16 proposals in this group, and we'll begin this morning with proposal number 28.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm Kevin Clark with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I'm the area manager for the Nome and Kotzebue areas. Sitting with me today is Aaron Kiernan. He is our regional commercial coordinator for AYK.

Joining me also is Luke Hensley, the assistant area manager. And Brendan Scanlon, who is the Northwest Sport Fish Manager. Madam Chair, Proposal 28, 5AAC01-170, lawful gear and gear specifications. Madam Chair. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments. Madam Chair. This proposal standardizes beach seine specifications in the Norton Sound Port Clarence districts. Currently, there is no regulations on what constitutes a beach seine in the Norton Sound area.

If adopted, this would specify what constituted a beach seine as far as length, mesh size, and mesh depth. In 2023, the board adopted regulations that gave the department emergency order authority to close specific areas in Norton Sound, Port Clarence to gillnet subsistence fishing when there is a conservation concern for a specific species of salmon, and then immediately reopen the subsistence fishery to beach seines with a non-retention and immediate release of species for which there was a conservation concern. The department has utilized this conservation tool on several occasions to close areas to gillnet fishing and immediately reopen the area with gear being restricted to beach seine with non-retention of specific species of salmon, which there is an abundance concern, and to allow for the opportunity to catch other more abundant salmon. There has been some confusion among subsistence users about what constitutes a beach seine and what the specifications for a beach seine are. Having no standardized beach seine requirement has allowed the use of any net regardless of mesh size, length, or mesh depth to be utilized using beach seining techniques, which often are at odds with the conservation aims of the department.

The department submitted and supports this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. I'll go ahead. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks for throwing this out there.

We've had some discussions about beach sands and gotten familiar with them in the last year. And I really like how they can be used for commercial fishing and catch and release for the sake of conservation. So I really appreciate that. And what I'm, what I'm hearing here is it sounds like The beach seines that are currently being used are really just made of gillnet gear, not actual beach seine gear. Could you— through the chair, Mr. Wood, there are a lot of guys who fish with what you would consider to be actual beach seine gear that is, you know, has more reinforced lead lines and the heavier duty mesh.

But there are subsistence fishermen who do use the net that they have available, which would be a gillnet. That would be specifically targeting with a specific size. Mr. Chair, are they—. Are they beach seining with that gillnet web?

Through the chair, that has happened and that does happen. Yes. Thank you.

So the issue that I heard with this, and I appreciate the clarification and the definition around what beach seine gear is because I think that attempting to beach seine with a gill net sort of is contradictory to the reason that you would be specifying beach seine gear only in the first place, right?

So I understand and get that. But I think what people are looking for, at least what I heard, is whether or not— like, for example, I heard whether or not they can use their old herring gear or they can rehang herring gear or what, what sort of alternatives aside from the gillnets people have available to them in the near term? Since what I heard loud and clear is that a lot of people don't have the means to purchase, you know, a beach seine. Do you have thoughts on that, or have you worked or spoken with the public about if they don't have, you know, sort of traditional beach seine gear and access to that thicker twine or that web?

What are— what can we do to work with folks to help get them there, not using monofilament?

Madam Chair, in regulation currently, the use of monofilament is already prohibited for both seine and gillnet webs and has been for decades. The gillnet question, I mean, the herring gillnet question in southern Norton Sound, they use— a lot of people will use their old herring gillnets to do salmon seine with. You know, they'll tear them up a lot, but, you know, they'll use them anyway. But those gillnets would be covered under this new regulation because that herring gear, you know, is like 2.5 to 3-inch stretch mesh, where the proposal is for 3.5. So that gear would be legal gear, as we discussed at the Unakleet— the Southern Norton Sound AC.

For people who don't have that gear, they would be required— when we close a fishery for the conservation of a specific season species and then reopen it with non-retention of that species, then there could be hardship in getting a net that's not like, say, a gill net that's 5.5-inch mesh when we're trying to save sockeye salmon and conserve on sockeye salmon. Madam Chair, thank you. And my follow-up to that— well, I'll just let it go there for now. Mr. Wood. So just to eliminate confusion here, currently your— this proposal doesn't ask to turn all beach seines web into beach seines.

Like, you will— everybody can still beach seine with the web they have right now, no matter what it is, whether it's gill net or old herring net or whatever. But when they're all of a sudden— you make a closure, and for conservation reasons, the only people that then could fish the next day when you reopen it are the people that actually have the legal sane gear. Is that— am I correct in that? Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yeah, we attached this to M of that regulation because that is the specific regulation where we can close any area of Norton Sound or Port Clarence and immediately open with beach sane gear.

And we're just specifying that the beach sane gear used in that application would be, uh, it would be applicable then. Um, that's the reason we had it in M to begin with, so that when we had a conservation concern, we would, uh, invoke that, uh, that we would invoke that regulation to where we could make, uh, so we can conserve a specific species of salmon and have non-retention of other salmon. So Um, yeah, that's the intent of the regulation, Madam Chair. Are there other gear types allowed besides beach seines in that scenario, like for example dip nets?

Madam Chair, uh, dip nets and cast nets are generally allowed, but the regulation is, uh, for beach seining, uh, for conservation concerns, is specific to Beast Stag gear, Madam Chair.

Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you. Just building off of that to further clarify. So, um, under this, this specific opportunity, no other gear type for subsistence would be provided during conservation. Okay.

And could I do a follow-up? Um, could I ask the subsistence division, does this, um, still provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence.

Through the Chair, Madam Chairman, Member Erwin. Well, the question is, that's the question you need to answer, is regional opportunity, that's a determination from the Board. If folks cannot afford, as Kevin mentioned, if some folks can't afford or don't have the means to get that particular type of gear, it might.

Impact your opportunity if they can't afford. But I believe Mr. Clark has mentioned that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Describe a scenario for me in which you would only open beach sand gear for subsistence purposes and disallow other types like, you know, cast nets or dip nets.

Madam Chair, the only—. We wouldn't necessarily do that because we generally open up dip nets and cast nets, uh, at the same time we open up, uh, the same time we open up. They usually open up concurrently. It's just another line on the emergency order. So, um, we generally do that.

We generally just restrict the use of— in reality, the use of gillnets during that time so that we can conserve the species. We have a stock of— we had not a stock, I'm sorry, wrong word there— that we have concern, you know, abundance concerns on. So those gear can be used. It's just an extra line. Then we generally do open it up to like cast nets and dip nets, but it's at the department's discretion, Madam Chair.

Okay, I guess that's kind of what I'm getting at, because it's sounding a little wonky to me if you would only allow beach seines in, you know, for subsistence opportunity. I understand the concept of moving away from gillnets. That makes perfect sense to me. But what doesn't make sense to me is disallowing these other, you know, gear types that can allow for some, you know, more selective harvest.

Madam Chair, like I said, we do have the ability to allow dip nets and cast nets and do. It just wouldn't be part of this regulation that we're talking about currently. This proposal just is just to set the beach seine specifications so that we can conserve the salmon that we're looking to conserve. It's basically so that in times of conservation concern, that somebody is not using a 5.5-inch gillnet if we want to beach seine, if we're trying to like conserve sockeye salmon. Madam Chair.

Mr. Wood. Okay.

To not be confused, I find just reading the first part of this proposal makes the most amount of sense. Defined beach seining gear specifications in effect with Norton Sound Port Clarence subsistence fisheries are closed when they're— so you're using the nets everybody's using now until they are closed, and then they immediately reopen with non-retention of specific salmon species as follows. And when they reopen, you can only go beach seining if you have beach seine gear. Is, is that correct? So you're no— you got to put your old web on the beach and pull out your legal beach seine gear, which won't kill the fish.

You just roll them up on the shore and then release the ones that you don't want to harm. That, that is the intent of this proposal? Through the chair, Mr. Woods, yes. Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So yeah, and my reading was similar to Mr. Woods where this provides opportunity where there would otherwise be a closure. And I take very, very seriously Norton Sound AC's comments, especially in the wake of Typhoon Merbach. And I think, you know, those storms aren't going to stop at any point in time, but If we want to conserve fish, we need to conserve fish. And I think this, I think this provides an adequate way where you can selectively harvest and preserve those fish that need conservation.

I would like to see more, more detailed requirements such as those in the Upper Cook Inlet. I think, you know, there's, there's a lot that can be done to improve on this in the way of best practices. But I do support the overall intent of this and I will be voting in favor. Mr. Owen. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain, for your comments as well. I agree with the sentiments of needing to get more— be conservative and consider what gear types we're allowing. I have a bit of hesitation with having the passing this regulation and then having the faith that the department will include the other selective gears when appropriate. I recognize that that's within the department's authority Part of me is hesitant with the interpretation of reasonable opportunity. I understand there are other gear types allowed, but within this specific opportunity, um, it is— I struggle to codify an opportunity that then we're relying on the department to provide additional gear type and other opportunities to ensure that that reasonable harvest opportunity is provided.

So Those are my comments for now. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, I, I see where this is going for conservation. I struggle with the, with the cost to user on this one, which is something we have to think about. And the other thing that I struggle with is like beach staining, like same gear is— shouldn't— I mean, by definition is not gillnet gear.

So unfortunately, that puts the cost to the user. Like, if you held them— if you held the user to the line, I mean, I think beach seining with a gillnet's not the same. So, and for conservation, but if you're subsistence fishing and trying to catch all the fish you can, it makes perfect sense. Like, I totally get it.

Yeah, I— and then to complicate things, you've got one AC up there for it and one against it. And so this is a tough one to parse out for me, honestly, because I totally can see the practicality of what's trying to be achieved here. But—.

Yeah, I hear you. That's what I'm struggling with too. You know, people are going to use what they have to catch food. And I— what I wouldn't want to have is the unintended consequence. Like, I'm all for clarification and getting definitions into the regulation.

That's a good thing. What I'm concerned about for this region specifically, given all of the things that they are dealing with, that we're arbitrarily sort of picking winners and losers, which is why I was asking the questions around what alternative gear types people are using or can use to get to that question that Miss Erwin had about, you know, are we providing reasonable opportunity. So, still struggling. Mr. Wood, then Mr. Chamberlain. [Speaker] Okay, one other thing.

So if we're trying to do this for the sake of conserving species is how often do you have to do this? Like, and what species are you trying to conserve? How about that? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Through the Chair, Mr. Woods.

We do it quite often, especially in Unukleet and the Shaktoolik Rivers, where at the beginning of the season to conserve king salmon, because we've had king salmon concerns there for quite some time. We will close gillnetting in the marine waters and then open up beach seining and cast nets and dip nets in the Unukleet and Shaktoolik Rivers with a non-retention of king salmon. We do that quite often. That was one of the reasons the AC— the Southern Norton Sound AC was concerned about whether or not they could continue using their old herring gillnet. Madam Chair.

Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Wood. Thank you. This is kind of a question for the department, although I believe it's partly been answered. So, yeah, as you— as the department stated, this, this would come in during times of king salmon and is meant to reduce king salmon mortality. If people were to use their old nets beach seining, would this— would that fact affect the department's willingness to reopen beach seine gear during times of low abundance or conservation.

I just, I just wanted to know, are we going to be unintentionally killing kings, or are we to preserve those kings, you know, under the sustainable salmon policy you're working towards a weak stock? Are we just going to forego harvest entirely for that? So I was just wondering what the, what the department Like if this were not to pass, how would that affect the department's handling of this as opposed to if it were to pass?

Through the chair, we would be more conservative. And it's not just king salmon. We've also used this regulation to conserve red salmon in the Port Clarence District and in the Sinook River because we had 3 years of below average escapement, and we didn't make the goal in the Pilgrim,.

River for 3 years, and we weren't anticipating any additional— uh, we weren't anticipating the run to improve. So preseason, we preemptively closed subsistence fishing and immediately reopened it with the use of beach seines. So, um, that is— this is something that we use. Now, if this regulation doesn't pass and any net can be used as a beach sanding being a technique and not necessarily a gear.

Given that, we would likely be more conservative, uh, with the— we'd likely be more conservative and err on the side of conservation, Madam Chair. Mr. Wood. Okay, and when is beach sanding being done on the sound or in the river?

Through the chair, both.

So you're beach seining with gillnet gear in the river, it's like on the edge of the river and then in the river, and then you close it for conservation in river. I think to me that, okay, for the sake of conservation, that matters to me that you're seining in the river.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you. So just to clarify what the, the department— you're saying that, um, without the— without defining beach sane, then you might still have to take conservative, um, approach to opportunities because of the, the, uh, the fact that you're using nets and gear that hasn't been specified as beach sane, known to help with conservation? And am I understanding the department correctly? Through the chair, yes. OK, final thoughts for me on this.

So I'm going to be supportive of this. I mean, I think it makes good sense to define the gear. I think what I wanted to do is have a conversation that delved a little bit more into the concerns that we heard from the public at this meeting and Committee of the Whole and during public testimony. I am comfortable doing this, recognizing that, you know, people might have to you know, get a little creative. But if, if the herring nets are allowed, they might not be as efficient as a traditional beach seine, but people can work with those.

You have alternative gear that the department has said that they allow concurrent with beach seine opportunity. And the idea is to try and get some of those gillnets or that monofilament that those gillnets out of the, out of the water for trying to either conserve kings, sockeye, whatever it is that we're trying, that we're working on. So I am comfortable with this given the discussion that we had. Like I said, I just kind of wanted to delve down into that based on what we heard in public comment, and I feel more comfortable that there is opportunity provided for subsistence. And I will open it up to see if there's any more comments.

Mr. Wood. I just would really like to emphasize how much I think beach seining can be used for the sake of conservation. Like, I I totally appreciate that. And especially if it's the right beach seine gear, and I acknowledge that not everybody can go out and just afford beach seine gear, but I think for the sake of conservation, it's an excellent way to still harvest a lot of fish and put the ones back in the water that you want to preserve. Right, and maybe perhaps over time, I don't know, but maybe over time, you know, we could look at programs or, you know, as folks recover, hopefully financially and otherwise, they can start making that shift towards the beach— beach seine gear.

Because I agree with Member Wood, I think it is just a better gear type in times of mixed stock management and weak stock management. So anyways, I'll stop talking. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll touch on the subsistence review for the Norton Sound Port Clarence area.

Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? No. Is this stock customer and traditionally used? Yes. The board determined that salmon in Northern Sound Port Clarence area are customer and traditionally used.

Can this be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes. The amounts reasonably necessary for subsistence in this area is 96,000 to 160,000 salmon.

Is the— is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide reasonable opportunity? I think the department has discretion to do that if they think so. So adoption of this proposal may result in additional cost for a private person to participate in the fishery if new gear needs to be acquired to comply with the regulation. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Questions been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 28. Chamberlain.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Irwin. Yes.

Stinson. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Carpenter.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 29.

Madam Chair, Proposal 29, 5AAC 01-180, subsistence fishing permits and annual limits for salmon. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would place an annual household limit of 25 sockeye salmon for the Sanook River in Subdistrict 1 of the Norton Sound District. Currently, subsistence fishing requires a Nome Subdistrict subsistence permit to participate, and there is no annual household limit on the harvest of sockeye salmon in the Sanook Seneca River. This would not significantly change the nature of the fishery and may allow for management to be more liberal with opportunity when forecasts indicate low abundance. The Seneca River was included in systems required to have subsistence permits to subsistence fish since 1968. Subdistrict 1, which includes the Seneca River subsistence salmon fishing, was operated from 2001 through 2005 under Tier 2 regulations.

Since 1997, the average of 22 households per year have reported subsistence harvest from the Sinik River. Harvest has increased in recent years, averaging 6 sockeye per household since 2015. Glacier Lake, a tributary of the Sinik River where the sockeye salmon spawn, has an aerial survey escapement goal of 800 to 1,600 sockeye salmon. Escapement has averaged 1,287 sockeye since 1978 and has met its escapement goal in 12 of the last 20 years. The department is neutral on this proposal due to no known biological concerns.

Currently, average subsistence sockeye salmon harvest, as measured through the permits, is well below the proposed household limit. However, there are years where a few individuals have harvested over the proposed 25 sockeye salmon annually. For their household limit. The amount of harvest taken does not appear to be tied to an overall abundance. This proposal would result in the reduced subsistence opportunity by creating an annual household limit for sockeye salmon in a fishery where no limit was previously imposed.

To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses by— if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

By limiting it to 25 per household, doesn't that allow you to then be more liberal in other areas?

I mean, allow other areas to enter into this?

Maybe I'm not phrasing this right.

From what I just heard, if you limit the 25 to 25 fish, you then can allow more areas to be covered with this.

Is that how I'm reading that? Through the chair, no, this would only be specific to the Scenic River. The— any limits in any other systems in the Norton Sound area in Subdistrict 1 would not be changed by this, and each household would be each— currently each household is allowed up to the subsistence limit on the permit in each given system in the Norton Sound Subdistrict 1 area. So this wouldn't affect limits in other areas or the fishers' ability to fish in other areas up to their permit limit. Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. [Speaker:JOHN] So this one gives me a bit of— chewing on this one's hard for me. As you've heard and as I've experienced, there are community harvesters in a lot of communities where, you know, myself being the example, we would go and harvest a large number of fish and give away about 80% to the community, to the elderly, to the disabled, and to those relatives who didn't have access to the fish. So this, I feel, would have a negative impact on that subsistence lifestyle that I think was fairly well documented throughout the Norton Sound and the Yukon River, um, and, and certainly exists in the Kuskokwim.

And it benefited after I moved away, my parents, my grandmother lived to 96 with having never dropped a net after 50 and her freezer was always full. I do have concerns over that. One, the other, but on the other hand, I'm looking where you've missed 8 of the, missed your escapement goal 8 of the last 20 years.

Yeah, it's, This one's a hard one for me. From a subsistence lifestyle standpoint, I oppose it. But yeah, from a conservation perspective, it's got some teeth. So I'm still chewing on this.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. And Mr.

Wood. I just don't see a reason why I can support this proposal at this time. I mean, I obviously take into account escapement goals being met, but, you know, when the department comes before the board and says that we don't have a conservation concern, and when I consider, do these regulations that we may adopt affect a person's ability to have reasonable opportunity to subsist, I think it takes away that ability. Considering everything we've talked about at this meeting and everything we've talked about at many other meetings around the state, you know, if there's a conservation concern in this area in regards to escapement, there are other types of activities that might take place that would be, you know, cut first before subsistence. So I can't get behind it the way it's written.

Mr. Woods and Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, so to help with this discussion, I think it's worth pointing out early that the AC, the Northern Norton Sound AC, there's a PC by the Native Movement and K'werek from this area, all support this conservative harvest limit in order to preserve the Sinook River red salmon. This will ensure subsistence fishing is preserved for residents of our region. So, and the proposal came from a resident of the region. And there's a lot there.

I see support here for this. So I don't— I don't have heartburn really supporting this right now. So, Mr. Godfrey, I would echo what Member Carpenter had just said about his reservations about this. I would Also supplement that with the department comments, wherein at the end it says, to meet the board statutory responsibility, the subsistence law should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if this proposal is adopted.

That, that kind of resonates with me along with the same comments that Carpenter said, so I think I will be opposed to this. Mr. Swanson. Well, not to belabor it, but I, I kind of go along with Mr. Wood on this, and I will support it. I have a couple questions. How are the escapements being assessed in the scenic and surrounding areas?

Madam Chair, uh, the Glacier Lake is assessed through aerial surveys, so we do annual area surveys of peak surveys of that system. Um, there are a few years where we weren't able to fly the system, uh, especially when— during COVID So that also, uh, adds into it. So, um, that's how we assess, uh, whether or not the escapement goal is met. And then we also will fly aerial surveys in season to, uh, take a look at the river and see if there is buildup of salmon. We usually do that in conjunction with putting our signs out for demarcating the closed waters.

Madam Chair. Thanks. I'm just— I'm looking at trying to see the map here in, in your oral report to gauge the relationship of Glacial Lake to the scenic and how far that is. So aerial assessments are not super great. I think we've established that.

And what I'm hearing and reading in the comments, especially the AC comments, is that there's question about, you know, what the level of assessment is and the confidence in the assessment given The visual observations of folks that are there on the ground that have not seen or did not see a lot of sockeye specifically in the Sinook. And so I think that they're worried that, you know, it could get overfished. So man, this is a tough one because I'm not for arbitrarily restricting subsistence. On the other hand, if the locals are asking for this, that's unusual and bears consideration. Um, Forest.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Just a comment regarding the accuracy of aerial survey assessments of salmon stock. So generally we would look at an aerial survey count as a minimum count. So there's likely more fish present in the system than you would see on an aerial survey. Thanks.

Okay. Second question related to aerial surveys, and I'll get to my members. How frequently are those aerial surveys conducted? Once, twice, weekly?

Madam Chair, uh, there's a lot of factors, uh, weather being one, uh, pilot availability being two. Uh, generally I try to get up there 2 to 3 times during the peak spawning time. Uh, usually I'll look at the first time I look at it to see where the fish are, whether they're up on the spawning grounds, whether they're holding off in the deeper water, etc. And then depending on how that goes, then I'll schedule additional flights, but generally 2 to 3 times. Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. And then Mr. Bonfanti. Yeah, would you repeat again the lower and upper end of that escapement goal? Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Woods, that is 800 to 1,600 sockeye salmon. So 800 or 1,600 sockeye salmon.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, I would just draw your attention to Table 29-1 in the staff comments, and, you know, looking at that, we're flirting with the low end the last few years, but 2025 looked to be all right. Um, Mr. Godfrey, and then Mr. Swenson. I'm sorry, Mr. Swenson. Well, since this has missed its goal 8, almost half of the time, in 8 out of 20 years, I think we need to err on the conservation end of this thing. That's my opinion.

I'm not counting 8, but, uh, Member Erwin.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Member Wood. I appreciate you bringing up the Coerig RC as well, because that's an important piece to add into this and those AC comments. Um, I guess what, what I'm struggling with is knowing that our local users are the experts who know that resource, who see that every day. And I, I do not question question what they're seeing in their river.

However, it is the duty of this board to ensure that we are providing reasonable opportunity and that there's not any unforeseen consequences, um, to our regulation to subsistence users. That's sort of where I'm balancing the local tradition, the local knowledge that's been brought to our attention and concern with the duty of the board. Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Board Member Erwin's comments were very eloquent and I share the sentiment. Just for the record, I'm very reluctant, generally speaking, to put myself in a place above the local users and those with local historical knowledge of the fishery they operate in. And but I couldn't have said it any better than Member Erwin did in the balancing act of when the board, or as a board member, I'm going to make a vote that would seem to be contrary to what the locals are using. That I do it specifically with the obligation or responsibility that comes with being a board member on something such as this and subsistence use and conservation versus limiting subsistence opportunities.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will reference my subsistence review from the prior proposal. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Okay. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 29. Carpenter? No. Erwin? No.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Wood? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

Chamberlain?

No. Motion fails, Madam Chair.

2 In favor, 5 against. Proposal number 30.

Madam Chair, proposal number 30, 5AAC01-175, waters closed to subsistence fishing. Madam Chair. Move doo-dah. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would move the subsistence net fishing closed waters boundary from the Scenic River— in the Scenic River— from the confluence of Boulder Creek, approximately 7 miles downstream, to Camp Creek. Currently, waters above the regulatory marker placed at the confluence of Boulder Creek are closed to subsistence net fishing. Subsistence fishing with hook and line attached to a rod and pole is allowed upstream of this line. If adopted, this proposal would increase the area closed to subsistence net fishing within the Scenic River. This would place fishing sites commonly utilized by some subsistence net fishers into closed areas.

Currently, the Sinik River is closed for subsistence fishing with a net above the confluence of Boulder Creek, approximately 3 miles downstream from the Nome-Teller Road. Prior to 2013, the upstream boundary for waters open to subsistence net fishing on the Sinik River was located at a marker approximately 2 miles from the mouth of the Sinik River. Additionally, accessing the Sinik River at its mouth requires boaters to travel approximately 25 miles from Nome and Norton Sound in a location adjacent to the Bering Sea, where seas can be unpredictable. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. There are no biological concerns with the current placement of the upstream boundary of the subsistence net fishing area.

Adoption of this proposal may decrease subsistence opportunity by closing areas currently open to subsistence fishing, including areas that are commonly used by subsistence fishers to fish with nets. To meet the board's statutory responsibility and to, to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Maybe this is a question for the sport fish side of things. So when I look at this proposal, you know, net fishing in a river is one thing. And obviously, if this were to be adopted, there would still be opportunity for subsistence with rod and reel, the way I take it, or that maybe that's currently the regulation.

But is there other activities like— is it— is this a big sport fishing area?

In the same particular location where we're talking about restricting subsistence.

Sure. Madam Chair, Brendan Scanlon, Sport Fish Division. On the Scenic River, the sport fishery really revolves around the bridge. There's not much boat traffic. It's really difficult to drive a boat there.

People will walk up and down from the bridge area, but typically it's right at the bridge and it's for really good dolly barn and grayling fishing there, and there's a little bit of salmon fishing there, but this boundary downstream is pretty much inaccessible to sport anglers. Thank you. Thank you. I think you just answered my question, because my question is going to be, what's the distance between the upper or the current upstream boundary and the highway?

Madam Chair, yeah, it's about 2 miles, 3 miles. Not so easily walkable. No, it is walkable, but it's— I wouldn't do it, Madam Chair. Okay, fair enough. I'm not familiar, so 2 miles doesn't seem like a long way, but I have no idea what the terrain looks like or what the river is like.

Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Wood. So yeah, I dug through the AC comments and there really wasn't a lot there. The only public comment I saw was Native Movement. And I know there are a lot of barriers to access between coming from this region out here to Fairbanks to speak before, but there just isn't a lot of information on this one for me to chew with. And it seems like this is a relatively inaccessible area, and I'm not seeing an overly compelling reason to restrict fishing to an otherwise fairly inaccessible area, subsistence fishing at that, for an otherwise inaccessible area.

I just don't see a compelling reason to make this move on this one.

Mr. Wood and Mr. Godfrey, has this boundary moved before?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yeah, the original boundary was about 2 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. That was put in place when the Tier 2 fishery was in place. From my understanding, it was to protect chum salmon spawning grounds. Then the, the boundary was moved by the board, I believe in 2013, from a petition from one of the local area users to move the boundary upstream to allow better access so you wouldn't have to go so far downriver to actually be able to fish.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I was also— I was just wondering if I was missing something here as far as what's the compelling reason to do this. And I would— now that I heard Member Chamberlain also say he wasn't seeing a compelling reason, the AC comments didn't give us much to go off of. I would echo what he said because I'm not hearing anything come out in deliberations that would indicate strong or at least mildly compelling reason to do this, so I will be opposed to it.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you. And building off of that, in lacking that information or additional input, in the department's comments it does say that the adoption of this proposal may decrease subsistence opportunity, and I'm not comfortable— I don't know that I'm comfortable doing that without additional information at this time. I'm going to go ahead and reference my comments from the previous proposal. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also reference my subsistence review from the prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Any errors or omissions? Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 30. Svenson? No.

Wood? No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Irwin? No.

Godfrey? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 31.

Madam Chair, Proposal number 31, 5AAC-01-175.

Waters closed to subsistence fishing. This is essentially the same proposal as we just went over. It closes— it moves the boundary.

Oh, go ahead. You can finish it. Go ahead. Nope, you did good. Okay.

Oops. This is— this is a— this proposal is essentially identical to the previous proposal, Proposal 30. The proposal would move the net fishing boundary from where it is now in Boulder Creek approximately 7 miles downstream to Cant Creek.

The effect would just be that there'd be more closed waters. Currently, the Seneca— the Seneca is closed for subsistence fishing above the confluence of Boulder Creek, which is about 3 miles downstream from the bridge. Prior to 2013, the boundary was actually about 2 miles upstream from the mouth. Access to the river is questionable and difficult at times. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal.

There are no biological concerns with the current placement of the upstream boundary of the subsistence fishing net— subsistence net fishing area. Adoption of this proposal may decrease subsistence opportunity by closing areas currently open to subsistence fishing, including areas that are commonly used by subsistence fishers to fish with nets. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if this proposal is adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 31 based on its action on Proposal 30. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 31. Proposal number 32.

Madam Chair, Proposal 32, 5AAC01, but dot, 10, 160, fishing seasons and periods. Madam Chair. Moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Glad I got it in order this time. This proposal would rescind subsistence gillnet fishing schedules in Subdistrict 1 of the Norton Sound District in marine waters west of Cape Nome. Currently, from June 15th through August.

15Th, subsistence fishing with a net in marine waters of Subdistrict 1 west of Cape Nome is open on a weekly schedule of 6 PM on Wednesdays through 6 PM on Mondays. If adopted, this proposal would potentially increase effort and eliminate closure windows to allow for escapement. Subsistence permits were first required in the Norton Sound District in 1968 for the Sinek, Snake, Nome, and Solomon Rivers. This was expanded to include all waters of District 1 in 1975. Weak abundance in Subdistrict 1 caused the department to switch management focus from commercial to subsistence fishing and to reduce sport fishing bag limits and possession limits to implement an annual household limit of 20 chums and 20 cohos in 1984.

By 1987, commercial fishing was nearly eliminated due to low chum and pink salmon abundance, and sport fishing bag limit and possession limits for chum and coho salmon were further reduced. By 1999, continued poor runs prompted the to impose a Tier 2 subsistence fishery in Subdistrict 1 with only 20 permits issued and an area— with area restricted to marine waters east of Cape Nome, and all other subsistence, sport, and commercial salmon fisheries were closed, including those for coho salmon. Salmon abundance improved, and by 19— by 2006, the Subdistrict 1 was open for subsistence fishing after June 15th. From 2006 to 2013, subsistence fishing in the marine waters of Subdistrict 1 was allowed 3 days per week from June 15th until July 25th, and then 5 days per week through August 15th. In 2013, the current subsistence fishing schedule of 5 days per week from 6:00 p.m. Wednesdays to 6:00 p.m. on Mondays from June 15th through August 15th, unless modified by emergency order, was implemented.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. Don't all jump at once. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, thank you.

How often do you modify the current subsistence schedule by emergency order in District 1? Does it happen regularly? Is it not— does it not happen at all? Is the subsistence schedule generally pretty steady? Could you maybe touch on that?

Through the Chair, generally we don't mess with the subsistence schedule. I haven't personally EO'd a change to it, and I don't think there has been one since 2013. We have pretty much followed the schedule as it is in regulation. Madam Chair. If I could just ask a follow-up question.

So if this proposal were adopted, I understand the department is neutral on it, but provide— this would provide more opportunity. I think you said that in your analysis. Is there a conservation concern if this were to be passed with this extra time that would be allowed during the subsistence fishery?

Through the chair, potentially. You know, it'd be a year-to-year basis. The department does have the authority to close this fishery based and set a schedule based on emergency order. Madam Chair.

Thanks. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'm trying to—. Is there—.

There seems to be some concern on, say, at least the Northern Norton Sound AC, through some of my reading, that they are concerned about pink salmon in that area. And you may have answered it through Mr. Carpenter's conservation, but is it pinks in particular you're worried about? Through the chair, Mr. Woods, it was originally done for chum salmon, so we don't have the same kind of concerns for pink salmon because they are very, very sporadic and can be huge, and then, then fall off significantly. But the original intent was to conserve chum salmon, basically salmon going east of Cape Nome. If you catch them in the marine waters, those are— we did tagging studies a couple decades ago that indicated that fish caught east of Cape Nome were going east of Cape Nome.

Then fish that were caught west of Cape Nome went west of Cape Nome. And that's the reason Cape Nome is a demarcation line. So basically, the stocks west of Cape Nome have shown more volatility. And so this— where the escapement windows came in and, and after the Tier 2 fishery was canceled. Madam Chair, thanks.

I'm just looking at your oral presentation. I think it was tab 8, and I'm looking at slide 5. Through kind of 8, I guess. And it looks to me like the map— I'm looking at the map of Subdistrict 1, and then I'm also looking at the following slide where you have all the Nome Subdistrict 1 escapement goals, and I don't see them doing super great, um, in the last couple years. Looks like Snake River chum were largely under, with the exception of 2022, since 2019.

Um, Nome River chum were under in 2024, '25. Eldorado chum under in 2025. And then Nome River pinks in the odd years were under in 2025. And then similarly, based on what you just said about sort of those fish moving east around Cape Nome, if I look then at Subdistrict 2, obviously the kings are not doing great, but neither are the Quinniak and the Tipuciilik River chum. Don't seem to be doing super hot either.

So I am not really in favor of expanding opportunity right now, especially if the department has the authority given sort of what the escapement goals are looking like right now. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just looking at this, I read through the Northern Norton Sound AC report and they were— it sounded, or based on what I read in the notes, they pretty firmly opposed this. And relying best on the locals there, I'm leaning towards no on this.

Myself, this one. Yeah, thank you. I'd just like to add to that that we did have a member of that AC that stayed around for the Committee of the Whole period and spoke to the AC's vote against it as well.

Any other discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 32. Carpenter?

No. Irwin? No. Godfrey? No.

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

No. Chamberlain? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

All right. I just got a request for a little Short break, so let's take about a 10-minute break and we'll come back on the record and continue with deliberations for Group 3.

All right, welcome back. Time is 9:50. We are back on the record. We're continuing with deliberations on Group 3. We are at proposal number 33.

Madam Chair, proposal 33, 5AAC01.172, limitations on subsistence fishing gear. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit the retention of king salmon by subsistence users when using beach seine gear in the Pilgrim River. Currently, the annual household subsistence limit for king salmon in the Pilgrim River is 3 fish. Fishermen may use either a gillnet, beach seine, fish wheel, or hook and line attached to a rod and pole while subsistence fishing for salmon in the Pilgrim River. If adopted, this proposal would restrict one gear type from retaining king salmon. This may cause enforcement issues if more than one group of subsistence users using different gear types and sharing share and mix harvests.

Excavating monitoring the Pilgrim River began in 1996 with the use of a counting tower, with the project shifting to a resistance board weir in 2003. Abundance of king salmon has varied greatly since that time, with 1,016 king salmon counted in 2003 and 6 king salmon recorded in 1999, with the most recent 10-year average being 65 king salmon. Subsistence permits in the Pilgrim River have been required since 1964, and salmon harvests have been incidental to directed sockeye and chum salmon fisheries. The Pilgrim River subsistence harvest of king salmon has averaged 12 fish annually since 1997. King salmon migrate to the Pilgrim River, transit through the Port Clarence district.

Subsistence harvest of king salmon in Port Clarence, not including the Pilgrim River, has averaged 73 fish per year since 1997. The department is neutral on this proposal because it allocates harvest between gear types and shifts the conservation burden between user groups.

Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. So this is a restriction on king salmon retention using bead sand gear.

Are there other restrictions that you've had in place in regards to king salmon retention and other fisheries? Do you— can you do this already by EO authority? Maybe if you could just touch on that a little bit.

Through the chair, we could generally with this fishery, the Pilgrim River is primarily a sockeye subsistence system. Sockeye is a major target for any subsistence users fishing in this river, and king salmon is incidentally harvested while they're targeting sockeye. So we have not made any direct closures or restrictions based on solely on king salmon, but we have had net restrictions and closures due— net fishing restrictions and net fishing closures based on the is sockeye salmon, Madam Chair. And then maybe just a quick follow-up. Has there— I'm not sure, maybe there's not a big sport fishing effort on the Pilgrim River.

I'm not sure. But is there— have there been king salmon opportunities have been restricted in regards to retention, catch and release only, anything like that?

Through the chair, Brendan Scanlon, Sport Fish Division. There hasn't been a king salmon recorded being caught in the Pilgrim River since 2003. It's a very small run and there's no directed king salmon sport Mortuary there. Thank you. A couple follow-up questions.

So where are the kings that are in this river or transiting this river headed, Madam Chair? They spawn there in the river itself below the lake, Madam Chair. Is there any escapement goal for those kings, Madam Chair? There is not. Why is that?

Madam Chair, the King Run there is a very, very small King Run. It's almost an incidental run. It's not a significant enough run for the department to assign escapement goals due to its low numbers, Madam Chair. Okay. I'm just looking at, again, at your oral report, which is actually very good, and I thank you for it.

And I remember now getting sort of stuck on this one for a second, right? Or at least the Point Clarence District King Salmon Escapement. It looks like the king subsistence harvest, however, is pretty darn low in river. I'm looking at slide 26, and I don't know what that number represents, but it looks like it's less than— 5. Is that about right?

Madam Chair, yes. All right, well, I wouldn't want to arbitrarily restrict sockeye opportunity for such a low number of kings that don't have an escapement around it, but the whole district, I think you said, is less than 100 kings. Madam Chair, generally yes. All right. Other board discussion?

Mr. Godfrey.

Do you have any data or even— even if not data, many anecdotal or empirical evidence that the beach sanding method catches the majority of these kings or disproportionately higher number of kings than the other methods used?

Madam Chair, teasing that out is a little bit difficult with subsistence permits. Basically, most, most fishing occurs in the Pilgrim River is by beach seine, and most users, local users anyway, already release their kings generally. There are also people who do gillnet in the river. But the harvest itself is really small. It's incidental to the sockeye fishery.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Chamberlain and Ms. Erwin. So as a preface, just a quick question for the department. Just clarify that I'm understanding this, the nature of the difference between regulations. So if you are Subsistence fishing by with any gear, your annual limit, annual household subsistence limit for king salmon in the Pilgrim River is 3 fish. But if you're doing it just by beach seining, you have to release all of the king salmon.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, that is the intent of this proposal. Okay. So, yeah, with that said, I I feel like this creates a disparate treatment between gear groups on this one. I understand this. I understand the intention behind this and the fact that the Norton Sound AC and the Southern Norton Sound AC, or yeah, both ACs support this.

I'm still having a hard time treating the gear groups differently on a subsistence fishery. Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you. I agree with Member Chamberlain and the difficulty in determining which user group is responsible for this load of conservation. I will also say that the Southern and Norton Sound AC both did support it, and this is a discrete stock, and we, in efforts to rebuild our overall populations, we also need to be really focusing and noticing these smaller discrete stocks.

And, and this is quite a, quite a small stock to be considering. So thank you. Mr. Swenson, the whole idea of the beach seining is letting fish go that you don't— that you don't want to keep. So I don't understand. Yeah, there's a difference here in gear type, but not in the sense that our philosophy is using that beach seining is— is allowing you to release those kings, even a small number.

And I—. I'm in support of this.

But, but I think my preference for this proposal would have been either to go to all non-retention for all gear types or only retain one for all gear types. But that's not what this proposal does. It singles out non-retention for beach seine gear only when you can still use gillnets and you can— I don't know if this is a rod and reel subsistence area. I'm seeing a nod that it is. So you can use all these other gear types and still retain canning gear.

And, you know, like I said, if this proposal had done something that was more blanket that applied to all gear types, I think I would have been much more inclined to support it. But that's not what I have before me. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I completely agree with that, and I think the intent was to have some conservation, and people were supporting it because of that conservation measure. But it really focuses only on one gear group, which— thank you for pointing that out, Member Chamberlain.

Any other comments? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 33.

Svenson? Yes. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? No. Carlson VanDort. No.

Erwin. Yes. Godfrey. No. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against.

Madam Chair. Proposal number 34. Madam Chair, proposal 34, 5AAC01.180, subsistence fishing permits, annual limits for salmon. Madam Chair. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would limit the Pilgrim River subsistence permit annual household limit to 1 king salmon. Currently, the permit law allows for 3 king salmon per household per year.

If adopted, this proposal would likely have no effect on the harvest of king salmon in the Pilgrim River, as the reported harvest is minimal and well below the proposed one king annual household limit. Excavating monitoring on the Pilgrim River began in 1996 with the use of a counting tower, with that project shifting to a resistance board weir in 2003. Abundance of king salmon has varied greatly since that time, with 1,016 king salmon counted in 2003 and 6 king salmon recorded in 1999. With the most recent 10 years averaging 65 king salmon. Subsistence permits in the Pilgrim River have been required since 1964, and king salmon harvests have been incidental to sockeye and chum salmon harvest.

Pilgrim River subsistence of king salmon has averaged about 12 per year since 1997. King salmon migrating to the Pilgrim River transfer Mm-hmm. Excuse me. King salmon migrating to the Pilgrim River transit through Port Clarence. Subsistence— the subsistence harvest of king salmon in the Port Clarence district, not including the Pilgrim River, has averaged 73 fish per year since 1997.

The department is neutral on this proposal. The average annual subsistence harvest of king salmon in the Pilgrim River is less than 1 fish per household permit. Adoption of this proposal would reduce subsistence opportunity and increase the burden of conservation borne by subsistence users. Madam Chair. Thank you.

More discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I think this one more encompasses what we— what the desired outcome of 33 does in a more uniform manner, manner. And with that intent, and the support of the ACs, I— yeah, I'm comfortable supporting this one.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm almost feeling like 33 could have been wrapped up into 34, actually, but because it covers, from what I can tell, all gear types. So— and addresses the conservation that people all commented on them wanting from the king salmon harvest. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. So when I look at the effects of this, if it's adopted, it's really not going to change anything.

But when I consider the harvest that takes place in the Port Clarence district, is there a king retention restriction outside of the Pilgrim River that you could bring to our attention? Through the chair. No. So basically what we're doing is we would be restricting the people in the Pilgrim River to one fish subsistence and nothing outside of that area. Is that correct?

Through the chair? Yes. So I guess my position on this, while it seems like the intent of the proposal is worthwhile for sure, I don't think that based on what the department just said, that I can necessarily get behind it and create another regulation that's basically already monitoring itself. And the department has the authority if it sees fit. So I'm not going to support this.

Yeah, I'm, I'm— I appreciate the intent of it. I'm struggling to support it. Similar for the reasons similar to Member Carpenter, because number one, the overall annual take is less than one fish anyway. And what we're doing is just, you know, essentially penalizing those in river that might incidentally catch a king salmon or more than 3. Not that that would happen.

It doesn't sound like that's happening, especially if there's no— there aren't any restrictions or retention, non-retention in the marine waters. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure what the conservation gain is with this. And like Member Carpenter said, the EO authority exists. I get it and I see— I sort of generally see why the proposer submitted it, but it seems too discreet, if that makes any sense.

Mr. Godfrey and then Mr. Wood. I would agree with both the previous board members' comments. I generally, whenever I see a proposal that is a cure in search of a problem, a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist. I'm reluctant to support it, even though, as Member Carpenter said, you know, the net effect to the user groups would be negligible because the harvest is so low anyways, which essentially wouldn't make any difference to them based on the data that the department has of the reality of king capture. And in such a case, this seems like this proposal, if adopted, would be gratuitous.

And so I'm inclined to oppose it. Mr. Wood, no? Yeah, I mean, I think that again, if the proposed proposal that we had before us was more broad in that it restricted to retention of one king salmon in the river and also in the Port Clarence district, I would— that makes more sense to me. But this, as it's written, I don't— I don't think I can support. Member Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Any errors or omissions? Nope. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 34. Wood?

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

Erwin? No. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter?

No. Svenson? Yes. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against. Madam Chair.

Proposal 35.

Madam Chair, 5AAC01.172, limitations on subsistence fishing gear. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 35 with substitute language found in RC44. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, we have the language in RC44 in lieu of the original Proposal Number 35. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would remove the daily sport bag and fishing would remove the daily sport fish bag and possession limits for salmon by subsistence users utilizing hook and line attached to a pole or rod. Currently, regulations allow for the use of hook and line attached to a rod and pole as legal subsistence gear in all waters that flow into northern Norton Sound and the Bering Sea from Cape Prince of Wales to Bald Point. Subsistence users utilizing hook and line, uh, attached to a rod or pole are required to adhere to sport fish, sport fish methods and daily bag and possession limits. By removing the sport fish daily bag and possession limits, this would allow subsistence users to retain up to the amount allowed under subsistence regulation for household limits in an area closed to subsistence net fishing, which includes areas where salmon are susceptible to overharvest. This proposal does not address other sport fish means and restrictions.

However, some confusion may exist as to what methods and gear are allowed to be used when subsistence fishing utilizing hook and line attached to a rod and pole, which may cause enforcement issues. Hook and line— hook and line attached to a rod and pole as a legal gear for subsistence salmon fishing was approved by the board in 2001. Initially, hook and line, uh, and.

Attached to rod and pole subsistence fishing was restricted to areas open to subsistence net fishing in Subdistrict 1 with limits— with limits constrained on the subsistence permit with no other restrictions. Generally, waters closed to subsistence net fishing in Subdistrict 1 of Norton Sound include waters where salmon mill, hold, or spawn and are susceptible to overharvest. Sport fishing is allowed in all fresh waters of Subdistrict 1 under sport fish regulations. Unlike the salmon permits issued in some— Subdistrict 1, other areas requiring subsistence salmon permits do not have harvest limits. Hook and line gear was used in these waters without bag and possession limits, without regulations on means and methods, which unintentionally led to, uh, Excuse me.

At the time, regulations did not prohibit snagging because sport fishing methods and means for that area were not included. This is— this was an unintended consequence of expanding the subsistence permit area in 2004. In 2007, the board addressed this confusion caused by allowing hook and line attached to a rod and pole when subsistence fishing by allowing subsistence fishermen to to use hook and line attached to a rod and pole in areas closed to subsistence net fishing by aligning subsistence daily bag and possession limits with— and methods for use with hook and line attached to rod and pole with sport fish regulations. Currently, the department does not enforce daily sport fish bag possession limits on subsistence fishermen using hook and line attached to a rod and pole within the waters open to subsistence net fishing. The department opposes this proposal as written because it would allow the increased daily harvest with hook and line attached to rod and pole in subsistence— in this subsistence fishery in areas that are closed to subsistence net fishing.

These closed areas are easily acceptable— success— assess— easily accessible— sorry about that— from the road system and are recognized as areas where salmon either stage or spawn and can be susceptible to overharvest. Madam Chair. Thank you. Member Wood, would you like to speak to your substitute language, please? Yeah, thank you.

Well, this simple piece of paperwork here was hopefully to address the intent of the proposer that, that had submitted the original proposal 35. So working with, with that proposer and the department, we were able to come up with this. But I would like to now direct comments about how enforceable this is and the complications. To the Cap— Captain DeGraaff. Captain DeGraaff.

Member Wood, through the chair. Yeah. So currently in this area, those who sport fish and subsistence fish on rod and reel have the same bag limits. As the proposer commented, it was set up this way originally due to enforcement concerns that we had back then. And that concern hasn't changed.

The thing to keep in mind in this area when people are rod and reel fishing and let's say they have 20 fish in their possession and they don't have a fishing license or a subsistence permit on them, during our contact, there's no way for us to know in the field if they are sport fishing and over limit or if they're subsistence fishing without a permit. Both are a violation. We have no way to know that when we're out contacting them and to cite them correctly unless a person admits to what they're doing wrong or incorrectly. That is why the original regulation required the same bag limit for both types of fishing. In RC 44, it adds significant complexity with 9 new special kind of niche areas with differing bag limits.

It's going to be even more difficult to enforce when you create all these small areas where bag limits differ from outside that area. It muddies the waters for enforcement and can cause confusion with those that are resource users. On top of what I already explained, if we contacted a subsistence fisherman outside any of those areas as proposed in the RC, with more fish than allowed outside those areas, all a person has to do is say they were fishing in one of those areas and there's nothing that we could do.

On top of that, creating these special areas would require us to patrol those areas extensively to ensure folks are outside of those designated areas are following a differential bag limit. So the proposal went from hard to enforce to even harder to enforce with the RC language. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Again, just trying to be clear on what the proposer wanted to see. Now we know the difficulty and confusion in it. I recognize the intent of the proposer was also to not be, you know, push sport fishing into spawning beds and more delicate habitat. But nonetheless, because of the confusion and complicated— you know, 9 different citation like regs. I'm— I personally am not in support of this.

It's too complicated.

Yeah, I can't— I can't support it either. I mean, there's a reason why in most areas of the state sport fishing, you know, or I should say rod and reel, is disallowed gear type for subsistence fishing, is precisely for the enforcement complexity and confusion that it can cause, recognizing that this area is different for very specific reasons that have been recognized to the board previously. So be it. But I think it gets really tricky if you start to differentiate between the users. It's a choice what gear you're going to use.

And I don't think that the net gain is worth the enforcement problems that could arise. And, you know, the further, you know, potentially further harm the relationship between, you know, enforcement and end users.

Member Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

The question has been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 35 as amended. Carlson-Vandork.

No. Carpenter. No. Wood. Nope.

Godfrey. No. Svenson. No. Chamberlain.

No. Irwin.

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 36.

Madam Chair, Proposal 36, 5AAC04. 395, Subdistricts 5 and 6 of the Norton Sound District and the Unukleet River King Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would allow for catch-and-release sport fishing for king salmon when the subsistence fishery is closed to the retention of king salmon. Currently, king salmon— the sport fishing for king salmon in the Unukleet River is based on a tiered criteria. When the department projects king salmon escapement to be greater than the midpoint of the escapement goal range, the sport fishing annual limit of king salmon greater than 20 inches in length is increased to 4 by emergency order. When marine waters of Subdistricts 5 and 6 are open for 2 48-hour periods and the Unukleet River is open for 1— or is open for 2 36-hour periods without gillnet mesh size restriction to conserve king salmon, the sport fish bag limit and possession limit is 2 king salmon.

Only one of of which may be 20 inches or greater in length, with the annual limit of 2 king salmon 20 inches or greater in length. When the marine waters of Subdistricts 5 and 6 are restricted to gillnets with mesh size of 6 inches or less in the subsistence fishery, the annual sport fish and the annual sport fish bag and possession limit is reduced to 1 king salmon by emergency order. When marine— when the marine waters of Subdistricts 5 and 6 subsistence fishery is restricted to less than 2 48-hour periods, the sport fishery is reduced to catch and release only. When the department projects the king salmon return to be below the escapement goal range, the department closes the subsistence fishery to the retention of king salmon, and the sport fishery for— and the sport fishery for king salmon is closed. If adopted, targeted catch and release of king salmon fishing when there is an abundance concern induces additional incidental mortality from this catch and release methods.

The king salmon escapement goal established in 2005 of 1,200 to 2,600 king salmon past the North River counting tower in Subdistrict 6 of the Norton Sound District has been met in 7 of the last 20 years and is currently classified as a stock of concern. Directed king salmon commercial fisheries have not occurred in Subdistricts 5 and 6 since 2005. Any commercial harvest of king salmon in Subdistricts 5 and 6 since 2005 has been incidental harvest when targeting other species. Additionally, when the midpoint of the escapement goal is not projected to be met, commercial sales are restricted. However, fishermen may retain, retain incidentally caught king salmon for personal use.

The Subdistricts 5 and 6— the Subdistricts 5 and 6 Northern— Norton Sound District and Uniclyte.

The King Salmon Management Plan, which was last updated by the board in 2016, describes actions to be taken by the department for managing commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in a tiered structure based on preseason forecast and in-season salmon abundance. Current management practices uses preseason forecasts to determine if a harvestable surplus is available for commercial, sport, or subsistence harvest early in the run in June and switches to escapement monitoring information when when that information becomes available. Preseason forecasts have not allowed for a directed king salmon fishery and only limited subsistence fishing in marine waters for some years. When reliable estimates predict— project— when reliable projections are available, the department adjusts management actions to liberalize or restrict king salmon harvest based on that information. Generally, the department relaxes fishing restrictions aimed at conservation of king salmon based on historical run timing.

Usually by July 15th, king salmon are through the marine waters of Subdistrict 6, and the incidental harvest after that time is minimal. The department relaxes the restrictions— relaxes restrictions on fishing time, area, and gear in a manner that mimics the natural migration of salmon when relaxing the marine water restrictions, followed by relaxing the freshwater restrictions from 10 to 14 days later. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. This may allow for discrete fishing opportunities, catch and release only on king salmon by sport anglers when subsistence fisheries are closed because of biological concerns for the species. Additionally, incidental catch and release mortalities of king salmon would increase from this fishing— would increase from this fishing opportunity.

The department could still close any directed fishing for king salmon if there is a conservation concern at any time. Madam Chair, thank you. So I think what I heard you just describe is a management plan that has a suite of paired restrictions in it across user groups and gear types. And I wasn't on the board when that occurred, but I— in my experience, paired restrictions typically get into management plans with a lot of— we'll call it negotiation, and often accompanied by a lot of angst. I don't know if that was the case in this instance, but it seems to be a fairly complex management plan.

My question to law is, as written, is this legal?

Madam Chair, Eddie Lee for the record. Currently, as this regulation is proposed, I do think this is incompatible with the state subsistence law. You cannot have an open sport fishery when subsistence opportunities are closed. The statistics that were referenced earlier by, I think, Mr. Wisnowski as well as staff of an incidental mortality rate of about 1 to 4%. It wouldn't matter if it was 0% at this point.

It's still incompatible with the state subsistence laws. Thank you. Other board discussion? Given that analysis and guidance, then I certainly can't be supportive. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I just want to point out that I thought we got really valuable information during Committee of the Whole from one of the users and the AC regarding the river and what they're seeing in the river in terms of water levels changing and even the bird life and the fact that they're not even seeing smolt and whatnot. I I really respect that knowledge that you brought to us, even though that just makes me— reinforces the decision here for me. So thank you. Klaus? Yeah, for the record, Klaus Woodig.

So there's a nuance in the management plan changing language from 'and' to 'or.' And just for the record, I've heard say when the subsistence fisheries are closed And so the proposal is asking when only one of them is closed, they would still like to fish. So it's not a complete closure of the subsistence fisheries and then they can still fish. It's one or the other. If the marine water is— excuse me, I hope I'm getting this right, Claire— is open, but the in-river is closed, then they could still fish or vice versa. If the marine waters are closed and the river is open, they could catch and release.

So just a small clarification on some of the statements I heard. It's not complete closure of the subsistence fishery, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Godfrey. I would echo much of what Board Member Wood just said.

I found the Committee of the Whole, in particular one person's experience and observations over the years on the Kings and the predation from birds and all that, which is very enlightening to me not being familiar with that area. I found that pretty compelling amongst other reasons to oppose this, and so I will be opposing it. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals.

Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. And I would call the Question's been called. Any errors and omissions? Nope. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 36. Irwin?

No. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey? No.

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

No. Carpenter? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 37.

Madam Chair, Brendan Scanlon, Sport Fish Division. Proposal 37, 5AAC 70.011, Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Northwest Area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

Proposal 37 would close the Pilgrim River Drainage to sport fishing for king salmon. Currently, the bag and possession limit for king salmon in the Pilgrim River drainage is 1 fish, which must be 20 inches or greater in length. In Salmon Lake, its tributaries, and the Pilgrim River 300 feet downstream from the lake outlet, salmon fishing is closed. Much of the sport fishing effort in the Pilgrim River drainage is directed toward other species such as Arctic grayling and northern pike. Historically, the king salmon run in the Pilgrim River has been very small, with an average escapement of 98 fish.

From 2005 through 2024. In addition, the statewide harvest survey has no record of a king salmon being caught in the Pilgrim River sport fishery since 2003. Subsistence fishing opportunity for king salmon in the Pilgrim River exists in regulation with an annual limit of 3 fish. The department supports this proposal. There are no directed fisheries, escapement goals, or management plans— management targets for king salmon in the Pilgrim River.

Pilgrim River lies at the edge of the species range and does not produce a large harvestable surplus of king salmon. Madam Chair, quick question. Have you, have you been just EOing it closed for the last several years, or is that, is that what's been going on?

Madam Chair, we have been not— there's been no— since there's no recorded catch, the run is so small, we haven't done anything management-wise.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. So I guess my question is, trying to stay as consistent as I possibly can, what's the net effect of this then?

Uh, through the chair, I, I don't think there would be any. There's, like I said earlier, there's no directed fishery, just very small run, and there's no targeting of king salmon on the Pilgrim River.

Okay, thanks. So essentially what the effect of this proposal would be is that if somebody fishing on a sport fishing license got popped with a king salmon, there'd be a violation versus now there would not be one. Through the chair, that's correct.

Mr. Chamberlain. So on this river, it looks like there's a concerted effort by the Northern and Southern Norton Sound AC to try to either rebuild or protect the kings in this river. And I understand there's not a great concern on this, but as my dad's always told me, that ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So I understand the complexity of managing such a small stock. But with this one, I'm comfortable getting behind it.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. Maybe just one other question. The department— you talked in your your report just a second ago about this particular king salmon population. Obviously it's very small and it's unlike at the northern end of the— because there's no like recorded harvest and there's not like a directed fishery to a certain degree on it, is it even possible, taking into consideration what the AC said in regards to like protecting or helping rebuild the stock, is, is that even a viable conclusion in the long run if there was no harvest?

Through the chair, I'm sorry, are you asking that if, if we do close sport fishing and say restrict subsistence fishing for kings,.

Rebuild? No, probably not. There's nothing really to rebuild. It's been a small run for a very, very long time. Thank you.

Miss Irwin. Yeah, thank you. I can understand the lack of data and assumption to assume that this is going to actually benefit in the, in the long term with the way that we're seeing our kings throughout the state. I'm going to reference the Sustainable Salmon Policy 32.22(c)(5)(a)'s precautionary management approach. Approach and approach this proposal that same way.

Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I could easily go either way on this one, and I'm listening to my fellow board members, you know, right now. I mean, the department supports it. At the end of the day, its effect in practice may be negligible, and that's been reasons previously why I've opposed some of these But the ACs support it. The department supports it.

And even if it in some small way improves escapement, I'll get behind the AC support of it and the department's on this one. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I think that this, this proposer has also proposed two others that all aimed at the— for the sake of conservation. So I appreciate that, and I appreciate that for whatever, however good, how much it'll do, I'm supportive of this.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Reference my subsistence review as well. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 37. Chamberlain.

Yes. Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Erwin. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Carpenter.

No. Wood. Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against, Madam Chair.

Okay, let's do proposal number 38.

Madam Chair, proposal 38, 5AAC 70.030, methods, means, and general provisions, finfish. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would increase the maximum allowable hook size for multiple hooks when fishing for salmon.

To a gap between point and shank of up to 19/32 of an inch in the Northwest Management Area.

Currently, a person may not fish for salmon in freshwaters of the Northwest Management Area with multiple hooks with a gap between point and shank larger than half an inch. If adopted, this would allow anglers to fish for salmon with additional hook sizes that are included with many lures. Fishing for salmon using multiple hooks larger than half-inch gap between point and shank may increase the instance of intentional and unintentional snagging of salmon.

To reduce the snagging— to reduce snagging of fish in freshwater statewide, the board determined that multiple hooks, for example treble hooks, can only be used when the gap is half inch or smaller between point and shank. However, single hooks larger than half inch are allowed when fishing for salmon and non-salmon species. In the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim region, such as the Yukon, Tanana, and Northwest Management Areas, General regulations allow multiple hooks with a gap between point and shank of larger than half inch to be used for taking a fish other than salmon. The department opposes this proposal. This would increase regulatory complexity, and the use of lures with multiple hooks with a gap size larger than half an inch may increase the number of snag salmon.

Madam Chair, for discussion, Mr. Wood. Like to ask the captain how they actually measure the hook distance?

With a tape measure through the chair.

Mr. Irwin.

Thank you. Um, is there an understanding of what the purpose of the author's purpose of this was? Does the department have any insight that, that wasn't given to the board in an AC meeting or anything?

Through the chair, snagging is a problem in Nome, particularly in the Sinek, Nome, and Pilgrim Rivers. There's been no wildlife trooper for 5 years up until this, this last August, so the only enforcement being done was by Fish and Game staff.

We have seeds, large treble hooks, and rods outfitted with with obvious snagging hooks.

We have not written any tickets for store-bought lures that they're using for salmon up there. We have not been able to corroborate that testimony, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to that as well.

You know, I can't speak to the anecdotal information in the proposal about who was cited for what and what they were actually doing. But if you retain a hooked fish or fish hooked anywhere other than its mouth, it's snagged. You don't have to see somebody ripping a line to cite somebody for snagging. If they retain that fish, they can simply release it. In fact, I think the proposal— proposer had used that language.

Individuals are not making a snagging motion, just honestly fishing for salmon from the riverbank, casting and reeling it in. And if they snagged it, they're required to release it and they would not receive a citation, whether it's from AWT or Fish and Game. But likewise, as Fish and Game has mentioned, we've received many snagging complaints from the Nome area and would expect this proposal to result in an uptick in snagged fish. The gear being described increases the chances of snagging a fish, and it's substantially harder to successfully prosecute a snagging case than it is to prosecute an illegal gear case. In our experience, when a resource user is attempting to snag a fish with illegal gear, it's more common to cite the illegal gear and warn for snagging.

The proposal would make it harder to effectively enforce prohibitions on snagging. When you want to stop resource users from targeting a particular fish or manner of fishing, limiting gear is the easiest to enforce. We think if passed, this would increase citations. And just to kind of secondarily explain the staffing issue there, we have had no trooper there. It's been about 3 years in the Nome area, and we did just move a new trooper in there about 2 months ago.

State built some state housing so that we could put somebody there. So we do expect our enforcement in the area to go back up to where it was before and prior to that time. Thank you.

Thanks. I'm not a fan of snagging in general, and I just, even in terminal harvest areas on hatchery fish, I struggle with it. But it's also about the only way I'm able to catch a fish with a hook and a line. I've said that before, but I grew up with nets. Anyways, this seems like an odd proposal to me.

I'm, like I said, not a fan of snagging, and it seems that if the proposer wanted to use their favorite lure, they could just pinch it and make it a teeny bit smaller. I don't know, is that a possibility? Imagine with a pair of pliers, I can't imagine they're unpinchable. Anyways, so I'm not going to be supportive of the proposal. Mr. Chamberlain.

Yeah, thank you. And I'm— I agree with that. I also agree with the ACs on this one.

I would have to say the commentary around this proposal was by far the best among all the proposals this year as far as entertainment. So, but yeah, with that, I just can't get behind this. Thank you.

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

Errors and omissions? Seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 38. Carpenter?

No. Irwin? No. Godfrey? No.

Carlson-Vandork? No. Wood? No. Svenson?

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

All right, let's take a break to allow anybody who might be trying to get out of town tonight to check out of their rooms. I think checkout time is 11, so let's look to maybe come back on the record around 11:15-ish, and we will wrap up deliberations of committee, uh, of the whole Group 3. At that time. See you then. Okay.

All right, welcome back. We're on the record. It's 11:18. And we are continuing on with Committee of the Whole Group 3. We're at proposal number 39.

Proposal 39, please. Madam Chair, Brendan Scanlon, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 39, 5AAC.

70-011, Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Northwestern Area. Madam Chair. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would reduce the daily background bag and possession limit for sheefish from 10 fish with no size limit to 5 fish with no size limit in the Northwestern Management Area.

Currently, the background sport fish bag and possession limit for sheefish in the Northwest Area is 10 fish with no size limit year-round. In the Kobuk River drainage upstream of the Manalik River, the bag and possession limit is 2 fish with no size limit. And in the Selawik River drainage upstream of the mouth of the Tagagawak River, the bag and possession limit for sheefish is 2 fish with no size limit. Additionally, when a subsistence participant uses a hook and line attached to a rod or pole during the open water period, they must adhere to the sport fishing bag and possession limit of 10 per day. During winter, When subsistence fishing through the ice, there is no bag and possession limits when using hook and line attached to a rod or a pole.

If adopted, the sport harvest of sheefish in the Northwest Management Area would decrease, with the most significant reductions occurring in the winter sport fisheries in Selowick Lake, Hotham Inlet, and the nearshore waters near Kotzebue. Open water harvest would also likely decrease because participants using hook and line attached to a rod or pole must follow sport fishing bag and possession limits except when fishing through the ice. From 2014 to 2023, the average annual sport harvest of sheefish in Northwest Alaska was 187 fish, the average catch of 1,347 fish. Statewide harvest survey data indicates that most sheefish caught in the sport fishery are released, suggesting that anglers value high catch rates more than harvest opportunities.

Recent studies have shown that approximately 30 to 40% of all mature sheefish spawn.

Consecutive years. Couple this information with spawning abundance, we can, we can derive an index. In other words, an annual outmigration of 25,000 post-spawning sheefish in the Coburg River would equate to a minimum of 62,500 to 83,000 mature sheefish in the population. The department is neutral on this proposal. Data gaps relative to population sizes and annual subsistence harvest of sheefish complicate evaluation of sustainability.

However, similar estimates of Colby River sheefish spawning abundance obtained in between 2018 and the mid-'90s provide evidence that intervening harvests have been sustainable. When using a hook and line attached to a rod or pole, this proposal will reduce subsistence harvest opportunity during the open water period because limits are linked to sport fishing regulations. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence users if this proposal is adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

So I mean, I thought that the Committee of the Whole testimony from the proposer was very interesting. It was insightful to me because, I mean, we don't on this board deal with sheefish very often at all. And so I have had the opportunity to learn a lot about sheefish. But, you know, when I look at this proposal at face value, I mean, reducing the sport bag limit, considering that the numbers that you just talked about that are, you know, fish retained in the sport fisheries is fairly insignificant compared to what is being harvested in totality. So, but also the net effect would be is that You know, if you did reduce the sport bag limit, you know, you could also just say you're a subsistence user.

And so it's really not going to change anything. And so once again, trying to be consistent, if there's not a net improvement, I guess I just don't see a real compelling reason at this time. While I do appreciate the people that live in Kotzebue and up to Kobuk and Selawik and things like that in regards to, you know, I understand why the proposal came forward, I guess. I just— I'm not sure I see the merit in doing it right now.

Mr.

Wood.

Okay. So I guess I'll start with the fact that These fish are prehistoric and they're super cool. The fact that they only live in Hotham, you know, there's 5 different species in the state. They live in Hotham Inlet and they go, they spawn, come back and have, you know, it's the huge females that have, that only start spawning when they're 12 years old and they have 400 pounds of eggs in them or 400,000 eggs in them. I know, start a commercial fishery, right?

Anyhow, for the record, 400,000 eggs.

Anyhow, I think when, you know, it's our, we target the big fish 'cause it's cool. But those are the most, those are the females with the most amount of eggs. And since we don't have great numbers on these fish, we have this data gap. I think it's important to be careful.

Somehow seems to be sustaining itself throughout the years, however, you know, from— for a really long time. And I— but there should be some caution involved in this. And when I know this is sheefish, but I look at the sustainable salmon policy still at 59 point— or 39.222, and look at number 11 and look at the idea of expanding fisheries. And the harvesting effort that could be increasing significantly beyond historic levels. And so that's just one guiding point for me, is that if indeed there is greater participation now than there used to be, especially in this one certain area, then that needs to be— we need to be aware of it.

And then lastly, I'll just say that I think the intent of reducing the bag limit, I understand. But it really would only affect non-residents in this case, which is almost negligible. So really reducing the bag limit doesn't seem to really have much impact whatsoever. And I think what we're trying to get at is just understanding how much harvest is coming out of there ultimately, and if this population of sheefish will be impacted. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Swenson.

So as I'm looking through this, I'm seeing the current regulations that subsistence is tied to the sport fishing bag limits for rod and reel. I get the desire to conserve and to avoid waste, which is a very compelling reason, but again, with the way this fish is traditionally harvested where a small amount of— a small number of the population does harvest a large percentage of this. And also the cost of going out to catch the fish. You know, gas out there is expensive. Snowmobiles are expensive.

And it takes a lot of time to do that. And so one of the things we have to pay attention to in a subsistence fishery is whether the juice is worth the squeeze. So if we're to cut that from 10 per day to 5 per day, that may prove is an economic disincentive for a lot of people to participate in that fishery, which the downstream effects for diet and well-being can be profound. So with that, I'm not inclined to support this. Snowmobile?

Sorry, I lived out of state for about 20 years. I'm just teasing you, I'm sorry. Mr. Swenson? I'll turn in my malachayek at the end of the meeting.

My only thought on this is when you have a limit and you're fishing or hunting, many times you're judged how successful of a guy you are by getting your limit. And I wonder, because I belong to a duck club in eastern Washington and I see this all the time, hey, I got to get my— somebody's— they all think they got to get their limit so they can come in and say, hey, I'm a big duck hunter and this and that. I don't know if this applies here. But for me, seems like 10 sea fish are a lot, and there's a lot of big ones that are the egg carriers. And I don't know if that gets into being a competitive situation with gatherers and that to do this, but I, I would think 5 fish is plenty.

And so I don't support this 10 fish limit. Mr. Pappas, thank you, Madam Chair. I need to— like to ask some clarification from a member. Wood, you did mention about the non-residents. Will you clarify, are you talking about non-residents as a non-state of Alaska residents, or you're talking about non-local residents that are state of Alaska residents that are qualified subsistence users?

Thank you. Non-state of Alaska. Thank you. Other board discussion?

Quick question then. So you said that the last abundance estimates were in the mid-'90s, is that right? Madam Chair, we have some sonar enumeration data of spawners in both the Kobuk and Salawik Rivers, and I have the number right here. 2018, The Kobuk sonar count was 35,000 fish, which was close to the mark recapture numbers in the '90s. And the Selawik, the 2016 sonar count was 33,000 fish, close to the 2004-2005 mark recapture estimates of 24,000 and 46,000 fish.

And what are the— I mean, I'm looking at harvest estimates. Are we seeing harvest going up, going down? I should probably put my glasses on and look at the table. Could you tell me? Sure, Madam Chair.

Sport harvest is not going up. Most of the fish released or caught in the sport fishery are released. A lot of sport fishery is recreational rafters who fly into the upper drainage to just float and fish or float and moose hunt and catch fish. It's impractical. To keep sheefish.

The small one, the small spawners are 15 pounds now. So in the open water sports fishery, harvest is very low and probably stay that way.

When 2016, when hook and line subsistence became legal gear, residents did not have to buy sport fishing license to participate in the hook and line fishery in the summertime. We don't have a really good handle on sport harvest. We get very few responses in the statewide harvest survey, but there seems to be a lot of fish around right now. Madam Chair.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I think the frustrating part of this one is realizing that the McDowell case that was— that we once had that said that all Alaskan— all Alaska residents are subsistence users, especially in this area. It means that any Alaskan resident can go into Kotzebue and go not that far out.

Out to the holes. That's in fact why one of the proposals is no fishing off the end of the airport here. And, um, and, and I'll go out and catch fish, and there's no, no bag limit. The only bag limit on a person going out there to a hole to use a rod and reel is the non-resident. And the amount of non-residents going out to fish through the ice in May, June, and July is probably pretty dang slim up there.

So, um, I— and like, like You said it, the department said there's not a massive amount of harvest up there throughout the summer. So I think a lot of people, from what I can tell from hanging out in Coldfoot and watching people go back and forth in planes to these upper rivers from there, is that they're out there sport fishing, mostly catch and release, not bringing back 10 fish.

Thanks. Sounds like perhaps what this fishery could benefit from is a little education about sheefish and their life cycle and what it means to catch a big one. And I mean, locals and non-residents alike, I think. I think that would be a positive thing, frankly.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will reference my subsistence review for the Arctic Kotzebue area and prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question has been called. Mr. Pappas? Yes, I've been reminded by staff that the comments we made on record here about which— who this will affect, of course, to 5 AAC 01122(a)(2), the bagging possession limits specified by the Sport Fish The sport fisheries bag limit is 5 AAC 70.030. So there is some relationship to being more impacts, and it was presented during the testimony from our staff. I can have them come up and provide more information if interested, but there is— if you want to decouple it, there will be impacts.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Any other errors or omissions? Okay. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 39. Svendsen?

Yes. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandork? No. Erwin?

No. Godfrey? No. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against, Madam Chair. Proposal number 40.

Madam Chair, for the record, Luke Hensley, Assistant Area Management Biologist, Norton Sound Kotzebue. Proposal 40, 5AAC01.130, subsistence fishing permits. Madam Chair. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 40 would require a sheefish subsistence permit for fishing through the ice in the Arctic Kotzebue Area. Currently, no subsistence permit is required in Arctic Kotzebue Area fisheries. The department has not restricted timing, area, or quantity of subsistence sheefish harvest. Sheefish are a long-lived, slow-maturing species, which makes them more susceptible to overharvest. They are an important subsistence resource for residents of northwest Alaska.

Cost and vast area make it challenging to estimate annual harvests. Household surveys have been sporadic and survey coverage has varied, but subsistence surveys were conducted each year between 1991 to 2004 and 2012 to 2014. Overall, harvest has averaged 32 sheefish per household for the years subsistence surveys were conducted. Subsistence harvest data collected by permits is considered reliable, high-quality data useful for gauging species abundance and refining management of the fishery. A permit program would add additional burden to subsistence users and require time and resources from department staff as well as enforcement assistance from the Department of Public Safety.

The department is neutral on this proposal as written, but supports developing a subsistence permit for Subdistrict 1 of the Kotzebue District to better understand subsistence sheefish harvest in that subdistrict. For the record, the board does not have fiscal or administrative authority to direct the department to issue permits. Currently, there is minimal harvest or abundance estimation information available for sheefish in the area. Residents have indicated that The harvest and effort for sheefish have been increasing in recent years because of an influx of users from outside the area fishing for sheefish through the ice. Harvest and effort data will aid the department in managing the population sustainably.

Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion. Ms. Irwin, could I please have clarification from the department on what portion of the, of the proposal then is not supported by the department? Is it just that you would support the developing of the permit just in Subdistrict 1? Madam Chair, the—.

Through the chair, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. So as Mr. Hensley mentioned earlier, um, the board doesn't have fiscal or administrative authority to require the department to issue a permit. That's something that we'll evaluate internally. You know, if the board adopts the permit requirement, we would evaluate our ability to implement that and, you know, evaluate data needs and, and just evaluate our capacity to do that.

Thanks. Thank you. Luke, do you have anything to add? No. Other board discussion?

Mr. Wood. Is there any staff or a way— wait, so if it's a sport fish harvest in the summer, we potentially have the sport fish survey that comes in so we have a good idea on what would happen in the summer? Is that one way of recording harvest from the sport fishing side of things?

Through the chair, that's all we have right now. We don't have any active creel surveys. There's no sport fish staff up there. Madam Chair. Is it possible during— in that high-use time that we're looking at in the Subdistrict 1 and 2, right outside, between the off-the-shore Kotzebue and the airport to have any kind of creel survey in March, April, or May, or is there no staff there?

Uh, there's— I'd love to do it, Madam Chair. I'd love to do that, but we don't have staff up there. The fishery is going on right now and it'll go through the end of April. Um, the influx is due largely to guiding and outfitting operations that take both state subsistence fishers and non-state sport fishers out to fish in the ice. Madam Chair.

Guided subsistence is occurring out there. Madam Chair, outfitted subsistence. So you can stay at the guide's house, use his snow machine, use his auger, and he can tell you to go over to where everybody else is and chip open one of those holes that has blood around it. I'm just checking. Thank you, Mr. Wood.

It was my aunt in Maine this year that showed me social media posts on this very thing. And I was blown away because I didn't think anybody knew about it. Then I watched YouTube. And I was kind of blown away at the background scenes of what was going on and what was left on the ice and whatnot. And the size, the number and size of the fish.

That's one way I learned was I YouTubed it. And that kind of blew my mind. I realize we can't ask that, we can't require the department to do anything. I would sincerely hope after they pay for monitoring and weirs and genetic surveys, that one thing they would prioritize would be, you know, a survey of some kind if it was possible, especially just in those two districts. But I know that's totally out of our hands.

But, you know, it is the older fish that— I mean, these fish are so old that if we hammer them early, then ultimately the damage we do on the front end is going to take forever to recover on the back end. And we've seen that with yelloweye rockfish. We've seen that with old halibut and even king salmon. So I am cautious. As humorous as this all is, I think it is worth having a huge amount of caution when we're yanking out these really large females.

Okay. Thoughts on this? We've got half a dozen proposals that in some way or another kind of expressed some level of concern around sheefish populations in the area, full stop. What I've heard today is that there aren't really any mechanisms for decent assessment of what the harvest is. The survey you said was not well responded to.

That's a problem. We need to get people engaged and feeling the responsibility of utilizing the resource by responding to the surveys. And if we can garner a little bit more information about what the subsistence users are harvesting, I think that would be helpful also, whether it brings a modicum of relief to those that are concerned about it without data or the department in and of itself.

So I would strongly encourage the department to develop something that starts to enumerate what the use is in the area, particularly because one, anecdotally, we've heard that, you know, folks are— it's an easy fish to waste. It's fun to catch. They like the big ones. But also the fact that there's a shift since the '90s, and certainly since the early aughts, to more dependence on these species because of the lack of salmon resources in some of these areas.

And surrounding areas, adjacent districts, regions, whatnot. So while the board can't compel the department or force the department to create a program or permitting requirement, what has been exposed to me at this meeting is that there's a, there's a real concern from locals and we're not doing a very good job of assessing the population or how much it's being used. So I'll stop there. Commissioner. Yeah, I think we heard you loud and clear.

There are all kinds of things we heard at this meeting about needing weirs and new escapement programs and other things. We'll, we'll, we'll get collectively together at the department and try to figure out how we can do it. I share a lot of your concerns with sheefish. There are older species. We don't know a lot about them.

And getting harvest, getting a handle on harvest is one of those things. So we'll think about it and figure out how we can best address that without you know, with the reality that we're not going to have a bigger budget than we've had in the past. So you heard it here first. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior Arctic Council view area proposals. If this proposal were to pass, adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate. Approval of this proposal will result in additional staff time to collect and/or harvest reports in the permits. Additional staff time would be needed for public outreach, would include advisory committee announcements, attending additional user group meetings, and advertising the subsistence permit.

And if there's nothing further, I'd call the question. Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 40. Wood?

Yes. Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandork. No.

Erwin. No. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter.

No. Svensson. Yes. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair. Proposal number 41.

Madam Chair, proposal 41, 5AAC01.120, lawful gear and gear specifications. And 5 AAC 70.011, Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Northwestern Area, Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would add bow and arrow as legal subsistence gear type in the Arctic Kotzebue Area for non-salmon species and eliminate the closed season in the Noatak River sport fishery for northern pike. Currently, bow and arrow are not included in the legal gear types allowed for harvest of non-salmon species in the Arctic Kotzebue Area for subsistence. Sportfish regulations for the northwestern area allow bow and arrow as a legal gear type for the harvest of suckers and burbot year-round, and for the harvest of northern pike and whitefish except sheefish from September 1st through April 30th, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 northern pike. If adopted as written, this would allow subsistence users to use bow and arrow to harvest all non-salmon species, including sheefish. The increase in northern pike harvested with bow and arrow would be sustainable because participation would likely be very low and harvest would still be limited to the daily bag limit of 10 fish.

Northern pike occur in streams throughout northwestern Alaska. No stock assessment to estimate abundance has occurred, but there are currently no abundance concerns. The importance as a subsistence and sport fish resource in the region varies by area. According to surveys conducted by ADF&G, Most subsistence use of northern pike in the region occurs in the villages of Solovik and Norvik. Statewide sport fish harvest survey indicates that the annual sport harvest of northern pike is minimal and mainly occurs on the Noatak River in most years.

The statewide sport harvest— sport fish harvest survey is not able to determine harvest by gear type, and the number of fish taken with bow and arrow in northwest Alaska is unknown. Typically, allowable subsistence gear types are those used in traditional harvest methods. Bow and arrow has not been previously documented as a traditional harvest method for non-salmon species in Northwest Alaska. Sportfish regulations currently allow for bow and arrow harvest of northern pike during an open season between September 1st to April 30th, although the original reason for the shortened season and regulation is unclear. The department is neutral on the aspect of this proposal that eliminates the closed season for bow and arrow sportfish harvest on the Noatak River because there are no biological concerns.

The department opposes adding bow and arrow as a legal subsistence gear type in the Arctic Kotzebue area because, as written, the proposal is exceptionally broad with regard to the harvest and area included for other non-salmon species such as sheefish and Arctic char, which may be, may be negatively impacted. Madam Chair, for discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. I mean, when I see a proposal like this, it's asking for a new subsistence gear type. Sometimes I pause because, you know, it's been well documented in this particular area for sure when the original C&T review took place that, you know, it's 2025 now, it was a fairly long time ago that this was not something that was brought forward during the review process that was a traditional use tool to harvest fish in this area.

So I'm a little cautious when I add new things like that without something to substantiate a little better than what this does. And so, well, it's probably going to have minimal impacts. I just, I'm just not real sure that it's necessary right now.

I suppose my issue with it is, is that it's broadly written, whether that was the intention or not. But also, when I think about subsistence harvesting, I tend to think about efficient ways to harvest. I don't know that a bow and arrow is a very efficient way to harvest it. Sounds like it's a little bit more sporting, which is allowed under the current regs. You just need to go get a sport fish permit or license, I should say.

So I don't know. I'm not really a fan of this one. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm reluctant as well. I'd like to see where they use one, a bow and arrow for this, and in these areas where they could catch pike and how they'd see them.

I'd be curious about that. Maybe they could use it shooting through a hole in the ice or something. But anyhow, that's all I have to say. Mr. Chamberlain. So I've seen bow and arrow used as a subsistence means in the Kuskokwim.

There are times when the fish just aren't biting. They're lazy and they don't go after them. And so it has been used in the past. And I have no real grief over adding bow and arrow is an allowable subsistence use. But I do think I share Member Carlson-Vandort's concern that this is overly broad.

And so based on that and that alone, I— yeah, I can't support it.

Godfrey. I would agree with the points Mr. Chamberlain just made.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would reference my subsistence review comments from prior proposals. Adoption of this proposal is not acceptable expected to result in the additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department.

I'd call the question. Question's been called. Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 41.

Godfrey? No. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Irwin? No. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails 0-7.

Madam Chair. Proposal number 42. Madam Chair, proposal 42, 5AAC01.125, waters closed to subsistence fishing, and 5AAC03.350, closed waters. Madam Chair. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments. This proposal would close marine waters of Subdistrict 1 in the Kotzebue District to subsistence and commercial fishing adjacent to the runway in Kotzebue. Currently, there are no closed waters for subsistence users and commercial fishers in Subdistrict 1 of the Kotzebue District. The end of the airstrip for the Kotzebue Airport nearly reaches the waters of Kotzebue Sound.

Concerns have been raised about fishing activity attracting birds that may be struck by arriving and departing aircraft, creating a safety hazard in the area. Since 2014, the department has closed the area adjacent to the seaward end of the runway to subsistence and commercial fishing to address these concerns. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Any more discussion? Well, to me, it seems like a safety issue and seems like there's other places to fish that won't, you know, affect the ability or the access to fish for subsistence fishing in the area. Seems like a pretty, pretty simple thing and just sort of sets into reg the current practice of the EO and save you guys a little bit of paperwork. Mr. Wood, Ms. Irwin. I agree.

There's— it's a safety issue. There's a lot of places to go fishing and it— the planes go right over your head. I mean, it's the runway just basically right off the end of the runway is over the beach. So I think For that, I support it. I also like to note that the Kotzebue AC supported it.

Mr. Owen, thank you. Member would put onto the record my comments about the Kotzebue AC. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, just one clarification.

From the department.

This, this is to close down this area for a good reason, I think, to subsistence and commercial fishing. Would sport fishing remain open though?

Through the chair, yes, but there's almost no marine effort in open water for sport fishing up there. It's—. They'd just be casting off the beach, hope to catch a chum or dolly that would swim by. But I've never seen anyone fish in that area of sport fishing, Madam Chair. Okay.

Well, thanks for that clarification. It just— I was kind of curious why that was left out, but your explanation is fine. And so that's all I have right now. Mr. Carpenter, do cost. Okay.

I will do cost adoption. This proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. And I call the question. Question has been called. Any errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 42. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Irwin?

No. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against, Madam Chair. Proposal number 43.

Madam Chair, proposal 43, 5AAC03.610, Fishing Seasons. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would eliminate commercial fishing for sheefish in the Kotzebue District. Currently, the commercial sheefish fishing season in the Kotzebue District opens on October 1 and closes by emergency order with a 25,000-pound quota. Gear is restricted to set gillnets no more than 50 fathoms in aggregate, 12 meshes in depth, 7 inches or less mesh size, and nets may not obstruct one-half or more of the width of any waterway. Concerns of overharvesting sheefish by commercial and subsistence fisheries led the board to set an annual commercial harvest quota of 25,000 pounds in 1980. Subsistence harvests have remained unrestricted.

Commercial fishing primarily occurs through the ice in Hotham Inlet near Kotzebue, using gillnets from 5.5-inch to 7-inch stretched mesh. The lack of markets and the decreased need for sheefish as food for dog teams limits commercial activity. Since 1990, the reported harvest and effort in the winter commercial fishery peaked in 1991 with a harvest of 8,224 pounds, and since then harvests have generally been less than 1,250 pounds. Spawning population estimates from mark recaptures of sheefish in the Upper Kobuk River were 32,300 in 1995, 43,000 in 1996, and 26,800 in 1997. Tag recoveries showed that these stocks mixed in Hotham Inlet winter habitats but maintained fidelity to their spawning areas.

The department is neutral on this allocative proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. Miss Irwin. Thank you.

A question for the department: do we know how many commercial permit holders utilize this fishery? And if so, is there any idea on average how many— the poundage that each of those commercial fishermen catch? Yes, thanks for the question. Through the chair, the participation of this fishery has been very low. The maximum number of participants since 2000 was, was 3, and it's usually 1.

And the harvest is required to be reported on fish tickets, so we do know the poundage of harvest. As mentioned in the department's comments, it's averaged less than 1,200 pounds in the last several years. I'm sure—. Thank you, Mr. Wood. What kind of permit do you need to go commercial fishing?

Madam Chair, for the record, I'm Kevin Clark. Through the chair, Mr. Woods, yeah, basically you need a miscellaneous finfish permit in order to fish for sheefish commercially. If there is not a buyer available for you, then you generally would need a catcher-seller permit also to sell those fish. Madam Chair. All right.

I guess my thoughts on it are the market is kind of taking care of the issue itself. And when I asked the proposer— I think it was the proposer— well, the person that was here speaking to the board during committee in favor of this, he also mentioned that there's really not much of a market for this anymore. It seems unnecessary to take that opportunity away from one person considering that based on the information we have from the department today, there doesn't seem to be a conservation concern. But we've— I will also reference my previous comments about trying to get better information about the populations of sheefish and the usage. Other comments?

Mr. Godfrey. I think your comments are very well said. I mean, the argument, I suppose, for this one is conservation. Perhaps, yeah, that's not a glaring concern at this time. Number 2 is the argument as well, this is such a minimal, minimally participated purpose for commercial, you know, catch of sheefish, it, it really doesn't impact hardly anyone.

But then you flip that argument on its head and say it's so minimally utilized by almost anyone that why would you bother to take it away from the 1 or 2 people that have occasion to do it? Because to your point, the market took care of it. So I don't see the conservation purpose. And if there's barely a market and barely any participants, participants in this area in the commercial sheefish fishery, then let it be. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. This proposal was written by the Kotzebue Sound and AC. And so they supported this. And I have a lot of deference for ACs, especially when they write proposals and submit them.

I realize that this is not a huge amount of harvest, nor does it seem like there will ever be a potential for a huge amount of harvest. But I do think this was a measure on their part. Maybe the intent was to say, hey, without the numbers of how many sheefish there are actually out there, we need to be cautious potentially. I'm speculating, but when an AC writes this and submits it, it just makes me think.

Mr. Bowers and Mr. Swenson. Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add that, you know, there's, there's a 25,000-pound guideline harvest level and regulation, so that's That's kind of a cap, a maximum. If the department had conservation concerns, we could open a fishery with a lower GHL. Thanks.

Thanks, Mr. Swenson.

Seems like, you know, we start out in these things and I've sat here and watched, and I mean over my lifetime, limits go start, you know, bear limits in Southeast 2 down to 1, king salmon 5 to 2, to this, to that. And the bird numbers, the emperor geese were 6 a day and 12 in possession when I was a kid. Now you can't even get a permit this year.

I don't know why we always want to start so lenient and then we regret it. So I support limiting this. And I'm against this commercial fishing. I think we need to take a— it starts with just a little take here and a little take there, and pretty soon, wow, there's half of them left. Now we gotta really do this and that.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. Yeah, I'll just also kind of preface or say that, um, I think I also heard that there's a ton of waste, or there has been historically, um, from other user groups that, you know, just like to catch them. And I think that they addressed some of that in the past by requiring them not to be left on the ice and all the things. So again, I think the market takes care of it. We have— it's the harvest is well below the GHL.

And but again, better, more recent numbers would be helpful. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one small comment. You know, when you look at the amount of harvest in the commercial fishery in the last recent times, 1,250 pounds of fish, I mean, We're talking about 100 to 150 fish.

Most likely it's a very low number. And so I think with what Director Bauer said, the department has the ability to control the GHL if they have a conservation concern. I'm more than happy to leave this on the book at this time. I'll reference my subsistence review for prior proposals on impacts that this could have or not have on subsistence. And adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery.

And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I would call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Director Pappas? No, Madam Chair.

Director Payton, I don't think this is a sportfish issue. No, Madam Chair. Department of Law? No, Madam Chair. And Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Just for funsies, making sure you guys are still awake. All right, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 43. Irwin?

No. Chamberlain? Yes. Godfrey? No.

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

No. Carpenter? No. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair. Thank you.

That concludes deliberations for the AYK meeting. Let's take a very short break, 10 to 15 minutes. Let's get the miscellaneous business agenda RC'd, and then we'll come back on the record in about 15 minutes, hopefully not much longer, 20 minutes. To, um, to take up miscellaneous business.

Welcome back, everyone. Our final agenda item for this meeting is miscellaneous business. We have RC45, which is out. And available for people to take a look at on the web. That is our miscellaneous business agenda.

There are 3 items on the agenda. One is a board-generated proposal for Josh Hartman.

Herring Food and Bait Fishery, GHL. The other is to discuss, review draft Administrative Order 360. And finally, additional stock of concern discussion. Beginning with miscellaneous business agenda item number 1, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that the board adopt the framework found in RC 26 to create a board-generated proposal to be heard possibly at the Bristol Bay meeting. I'll second that. Would you like to speak to the board-generated proposal criteria and why you think it's necessary to take this up out of cycle, Mr. Carpenter? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, sure, I'd be glad to.

So I looked at this that would was brought forward in, in the form of RC 26, and the first thing I actually did was looked at the board criteria to see if at all any of the 4 bullet points met. And I think after thinking about it a little bit and looking at it, I think criteria number 1, is it in the public's best interest? Example, access to a resource.

I think that when you read the information in the text that's provided as to what the reason is to bring this forward now, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. So specific to the public interest in, you know, the far reaches of the Alaska Peninsula, I think that it's worth consideration on my part to bring this forward to have the board consider taking this out of cycle. And so that's generally the justification that I've used to do this. Any other board discussion? Couple of questions procedurally.

And I don't know if this is for you, Member Carpenter, or for Director Nelson. If the board accepts this BGP, has the supplemental notice— this will affect two, potentially two areas that are in cycle this year. One is Bristol Bay and the other is Aleutian Islands.

Has the supplemental notice gone out yet for the Bristol Bay meeting, and could this be added to the call without additional regulatory cost or, you know, administrative cost? Thank you, Madam Chair. No, the supplemental has not gone out yet. I kind of particularly held it back because we had enough time following the completion of this meeting to get it out in time to be in effect for the Bristol Bay meeting. So now this could get added to that supplemental notice and it would give us the legal coverage without additional cost.

Okay, then maybe the second question is for you, Mr. Bowers, about whether or not this should be at the Bristol Bay, the Aleutian Islands, or both, like heard initially at Bristol Bay and then deliberated at Aleutian Islands.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think you could, you could go either way. You know, I think you would maximize the potential for public comment and input by hearing it at the Bristol Bay meeting and voting on it at the Alaska Peninsula Chignik meeting.

You know, this is essentially reallocating fish from the Bristol Bay area to the Alaska Peninsula area. So there's going to be stakeholders in both regions interested. So yeah, I think that would be a fine approach.

Mr. Wood. I'll just add that based on what Director Bowers just said, I think the fact that we'll be dealing with Bristol Bay and South Penn, or the peninsula this year, I think it would be appropriate timing for this.

Any other comments? I guess I'm not a big fan of BGP. We've done a couple of them consecutively here on herring issues. Out of cycle. I'm going to put that on the record just for funsies.

I hear Member Carpenter's— and don't necessarily disagree with him about the public's best interest. Essentially, we have got a GHL in Togiak that isn't being utilized at all. And, you know, if we are going to consider moving that, I want to have a lot more information about what that means. I don't know that there's urgency or that the current processes are insufficient. That could have been developed as a proposal for this cycle.

It wasn't for whatever reason. So that starts to get into, oh, well, I missed the deadline a little bit, and oopsies, I'm going to just go see if I can get a BGP done. So I, you know, I'm not a big fan of that and don't appreciate it usually.

And then the last point is, will there be reasonable and adequate opportunity for public comment for the affected users? And I'm more comfortable with this one just because this is— these meetings can be noticed to add this without additional administrative cost. And I guess if you're going to do a BGP and maximize the already scheduled public meetings, that this was you know, a good time to do it, so to speak. So I am interested in other members' comments, if there are any, and then we'll take a vote.

All righty.

Hearing none, seeing none. Oh, sorry, Mike. It's all right. I didn't have my hand up high enough. I think the other board-generated proposals that we've had for herring food and bait is because they've— or not board-generated proposals, but out of cycle— has been because this is kind of a— it's been a new thing, actually.

And so the fact that we're having this cycle right now, Bristol Bay and then the Aleutian Peninsula, seems appropriate. Otherwise, it could be 3 more years, or we will do it out of cycle again for this, you know, in another year or 2, potentially. So For that reason, it makes sense. And also, I've kind of been supportive of these food and bait fisheries because it just provides— it's local bait. We're not buying from foreign countries for our bait.

And it provides another source of employment for fishermen in an off time of year. So that's why I think it meets that criteria of public interest. Just for— it was a BGP. It was. Okay, stand corrected.

Anything else? All right, Director Nelson. What? I just have a clarification. Go ahead.

To request. I know the motion as it was made was to have it considered at the Bristol Bay meeting, so that's, that's what I'll be moving forward unless there's an amendment to it. So, well, the board, the chair gets to schedule exactly when it gets heard, and I think based on the discussion, you can amend your, your motion if you'd like, but my intention would be to hear it at Bristol Bay and deliberated at Aleutian Islands, Chignik, Alaska Peninsula. I'm fine with that. Is the second okay with that?

Yes, second that. All right. That's unanimous. All right, Nelson, go for it. And just one additional clarification is that if this passes— well, there's—.

I'm kidding. I'm kidding. There's, you know, obviously there's a— there's a clearly written regulation, you know, in the RC that we'll work with Shaleen to see if there needs to be any changes to that. But otherwise, There's other parts that need to get converted to the proposal format, like what's the issue you want the board to address. And so I would suggest that we'll probably work with Mr. Carpenter to see what needs to get pulled from the RC to build the rest of the parts of the proposal form, if that's okay.

He's saying yeah. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks. All right. Final action to create a board-generated proposal from RC 26.

Chamberlain?

No. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Irwin?

Yes. Svendsen? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Wood? Yes. That motion carries 6 in favor, 1 against, Madam Chair.

All right, let's talk about the AO-360 scoping and call for proposals. I think the Commissioner has left us. Director Nelson, you want to intro it? I believe Mr. Felko is online to speak to it. Yes, Madam Chair.

Please, if you haven't taken a look at it already, please turn to RC42. We've got some information there for you. We also do have Joe Felko with the Department online. He's the Department's lead for implementation of AO 360, and he'll provide some additional information after I get the ball rolling here. Um, you'll recall from the October work session when you reviewed the regular call for proposal that we will be issuing soon for the 2026-2027 meeting cycle, that, uh, we gave the board a heads up that we— that, that the commissioner was working with the governor's office to find the best suggested approach to implementing AO-360 for the board's regulations.

But at that time during the work session, we weren't quite ready. They hadn't come to a decision that was agreeable to the governor's office about it. And so we let you know that we may come back to you with a recommended approach to it. And that's what we have here. We have a draft of a call for proposals.

Not change the regular call for proposals that you already issued. This would essentially be another call that would run kind of parallel to the, to the regular normal call for proposals. And so we've got a draft of that for you to review, and then we also have a draft of the proposal form for you to review. And the packet lastly includes the full text of Administrative Order 360 for your information. So with that, I'll turn it over to Joe, and Joe can provide the bulk of the information and and we'll come back and discuss the rest of it.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Felkel, are you online? I'm online. Can you hear me all right? Loud and clear. Please go ahead.

All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Board. I'm Joe Felkel. I'm here today in my role as the agency regulatory liaison designated by the Commissioner to support the Department and Boards in implementing Administrative Order 360. As you are aware, the Governor issued AO 360 in August to initiate statewide regulatory reform.

The overarching goal is for all executive branch agencies, including departments, boards, commissions, and public corporations, to reduce discretionary regulatory requirements by 15% by the end of 2026 and by 25% by the end of 2027. The intent is, and I quote, to improve the quality, transparency, and efficiency of the state's regulatory environment. We all know the boards operate under a unique regulatory structure, one that doesn't always fit neatly into a one-size-fits-all approach. Recognizing this unique structure, the Commissioner and I have been working closely with the Governor's Office and Department of Law to identify a practical approach that fits within the board's process while still meeting the Governor's goals.

The first step in implementation is to gather input from the public, affected industries, and community organizations. The Administrative Order directs agencies to solicit input on which regulations are the most burdensome and to hear from the public on their ideas to simplify regulatory requirements. Fortunately, the Board already has a well-established mechanism to receive public input. We propose incorporating scoping for AO-360 into a single call of proposals across all Board of Fisheries regulations. With a specific focus on regulatory reform.

Proposals that are determined responsive would then be included in the appropriate proposal book for the Board to consider during the normal 3-year meeting cycle. Before you today for consideration is RC-42, which includes a draft call for proposals and proposal form, as Art mentioned. We designed the call and proposal template to be similar to what you and members of the public are familiar with. It includes language from the scoping notice prepared by the Department of Law, and it also clarifies that allocative proposals are not being sought through this scoping process. Allocative proposals will continue to be solicited through the regular call for each annual meeting cycle.

This special call seeks proposals that may clarify existing regulatory obligations, reduce costs for the public, industry, or government, improve or streamline procedures, application requirements, and review processes, for example, reducing the time required to apply for a license, permit, or benefit; reduce administrative burdens; streamline permitting procedures; improve communication procedures; provide greater transparency with respect to standards, decision-making, and rationales for application processing; or to clarify interagency roles. The new proposal form will help guide the public in submitting their regulatory reform ideas. It includes checkboxes for the person submitting the proposal to identify which meeting they would like the proposal to be considered, and a revised question asking for a description of how the proposal supports the goals of AO-360. The instructions for completing the form have also been updated slightly to reflect this.

After the submission deadline, the department will process the proposals and include them in the appropriate proposal book moving forward. As the agency regulatory liaison, I will also assist in tracking these proposals and in developing a draft regulatory reform plan for both the department and boards to help meet the targets set. I won't sugarcoat it, this is a significant undertaking. Alaska's Fish and Game Code spans over 2,600 pages, much of which you have helped construct and fall under the board's authorities. We believe integrating AO-360 into the existing board process is the most efficient path forward instead of reinventing the wheel.

This effort is non-discretionary, and all executive branch agencies are grappling with how best to implement the objectives of this AO. We've put a good deal of thought into this, which, let me tell you, has been quite the fun endeavor. The goal with this approach is to avoid additional meetings, minimize workload, and align implementation with the Board's established process that you and the public are familiar with. With that, we have come full circle, if you will, and I'll take any questions on AO-360. Thanks, Joe.

This is Mara, and I have— I do have a couple of questions. My first question for you is, looking at the application or the form that the department has proposed, will there be the same non-responsive process in the department's review of the applications with the chair, whoever that is, and the Department of Law?

In my discussions thus far, yes, we do plan to review them for responsiveness, and I My understanding is it would follow the same process. And then my second question is, are there budget discussions occurring? Because this could significantly add to the number of proposals. I mean, certainly we won't know until we get them, but we typically schedule 3 years out, and that's something that the board will have to consider at its subsequent near-term and outlying work sessions. Is there budget discussion?

Would there be a budget available for additional board days to deal with the AO-360 call? Yes, Madam Chair. I mean, budget constraints are definitely a consideration. Part of why this approach has been developed is to help alleviate some of those concerns. The governor would like scoping to be done this coming year, but the action taken on those proposals can be aggregated over the board's normal meeting cycle.

So as you stated, it's difficult to speculate how many proposals we will receive. And so as we receive them and if there is a need to extend meetings, we will have those budget discussions. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Felkel?

Okay, Joe, thanks very much. I don't see any additional questions around the table. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the board adopt the language found in RC 42 that addresses the Administrative Order 360.

Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved.

Thanks. Appreciate your being available, Joe. Of course. Mr. Nelson, go ahead. I just have one additional clarification.

You know, this additional call for the 3— AO-360-related proposals will go out in parallel with the normal call for proposals, probably in about 3 weeks or so. And so if there are any additional changes we need to make to this, I, I think the proposal form might— could use a little more help. We had to put it together pretty quickly, and so my suggestion would be, you know, we'll work with you, Madam Chair, on any additional changes if we make them before this is issued. So Thanks. All right.

I think that concludes that agenda item. Moving on to agenda item number 3, additional stocks of concern discussion. Member Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I make a motion to designate the Quinniack River Chinook as a stock of management concern, which would initiate an action plan by the department to be taken up by the board at the March 2026 meeting.

And with a second, I'm happy to speak to it. Second. Thank you. New information was brought before the board during this meeting. With regards to the escapement numbers for the 2025 year for the Quinniac River Kings, when the department was putting together their stock of concern memos, they did not have this information before them.

At that time, the escapement goal had not been met in 5— in 4 consecutive years. However, 2025 also not meeting escapement made it 5 out of 5 consecutive years, which meets the department's criteria. I'd like to refer staff to tab 8 Slide number 11, as well as tab 3, page 13, which shows that since 2010, the escapement goal on the Quinniac River has not been met since 2010.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, for the record clarification, since 2010, the escapement goal has only been met 3 times. When we look at the average between 2011 to 2020, The average run size is 171. In the last 4 years, that average run size is 77, with a 55% overall reduction. I think it's important for us to continue to protect discrete stocks, um, and see what management might be able to come up with as actionable steps to support the rebuilding of this population.

Question for you, Miss Irwin.

Um, I might have missed it. Did you say you wanted— your recommendation or your motion was to do a stock of management concern or yield concern? Stock of management concern. It meets the criteria for that. And what are those criteria?

Could you read those into the record, please, for the board? Yes, ma'am. The definition of management concern means a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite use of specific management measures, to to maintain escapements for salmon stock within the bounds of the SEG, BEG, OEG, or other specified management objectives for the fishery. Per that, within that lies the chronic inability definition, which that definition means the continuing or anticipated ability to meet escapement threshold over a 4 to 5 year period, which is approximately the generation time of most salmon species outlined in the Sustainable Salmon Policy. Okay, thank you.

Does the department have a response, please? Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Not necessarily a response per se, but just some additional information on expectations, I guess. So I spoke with the commissioner about this agenda item before he left, and, you know, typically the board considers stock action on stock of concern designation at their work session.

And that's already happened this year, and the board did take action on stocks of concern there. Clearly, it's within the board's authority to designate stocks of concern. So, but I did want to relay that, you know, if the board were to designate Quinniac River Chinook as a stock of management concern, we would need to evaluate our ability to develop an action plan at this late date. For that stock. So we can't commit to having an action plan ready for the March meeting right now.

Fair. I mean, I understand that you lost essentially a month of time between the work session, but this is also what happens when we don't have current numbers, unfortunately. Okay. Appreciate those comments. And any response or any other discussion?

All right, hearing none. Mr. Nelson, on the motion to designate Quinniack River Chinook salmon as a management stock of concern.

Godfrey. Yes. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Irwin. Yes. Carpenter. Svensson.

Yes. Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Are there any other additional miscellaneous business items to come before the board?

Not to my knowledge, Madam Chair. Board member comments?

Quiet bunch here this afternoon. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one thing that came before me. When we were— in my time on the board, and it hasn't been very long, we have been invited to several, several locations to visit hatcheries, other fisheries, and, and those tend to be along the, the coastal ports among our higher-performing fisheries.

One thing I would like to— and, and one thing that also became apparent, and it's through no fault of the board, is an unfamiliarity with what it's like to grow up in kind of bush Alaska and the Yukon and Kuskokwim Delta and the more remote villages along the the Yukon, which the middle and upper Yukon, I, I still, uh, my, my experience on there is very limited. Um, and there's a— I, I think there's something to be said for, uh, getting out and meeting the people where they are and seeing what life is. Because if you've never been to Nunavik, it's, it's a different experience than anything you'll see in any other fishing port. Or if you've been— if, you know, if you need to go to Rampart, you're going to get your mind blown by just the way life is and how dependent those communities are on fisheries. So one thing I would like to see, and it's more of an outreach to the community, is I'd like to see some effort to get, or get the board members informed on life out there because it's very humbling and it's very challenging for a lot of people.

Thank you. Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to deeply thank and show the gratitude for everyone who traveled here to testify to our meetings, who stayed during Committee of the Whole for additional questions, all of the authors who authored proposals, and those of you who have stuck with us up until the very last day through miscellaneous business. So I really thank the public for their engagement in this process.

We can't do it without you, and we can't do it well informed without your participation. So thank you. Thanks. To Member Chamberlain's comments, I couldn't agree more. And matter of fact, about a month ago I had a conversation with the commissioner about board education and the fact that there is no budget for board members to travel to visit and have eyes on the fisheries and in the communities that our decisions affect.

And the only way we are able to do that are either through our own pockets, which I do regularly, or through the generosity of organizations that will sponsor and host board members to come and visit the fisheries. There's nothing that replaces being able to see the geography of the regions and the areas and the fisheries, to see how the gear interacts with the geography, to see how the people use the gear as they're interacting with the fish and and the geography and the hydrology of the areas. So I recognize fully that we are in times of budget constraint, but it really does a disservice, I think, to the members as well as most importantly to the public if we don't have that ability to come and see how your fisheries and your communities function. So I agree with you 100%. It's something that I will continue to soapbox on and talk about with legislators that I meet, with the commissioner whenever he'll entertain my company, and folks that I think are really seeking that depth of knowledge from this board.

So thank you for your comments. Any other board comments? Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'd like to echo Member Erwin's comments about all the time and energy people put into these proposals and coming here personally to educate us and bring your stories from out there here. I can't tell you how valuable that is with getting us to understand the real issues.

I also want to throw out there that I appreciate the organizations that allowed me to listen in and learn more about this. For 3 years now, I've listened in on the Yukon River Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association calls, and that they've been really accessible to me. I was able to go out to the Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Workgroup last year in Bethel. That was something that was brought up by this board, and went out there and sat in on that meeting, and that really helped educate me. And I just— and I'll also echo Mr. Chamberlain's point.

I mean, getting out and seeing these things is just invaluable. And the connection you make with people and the food is awesome. So, and the land. So anyhow, I really thanks for your time being here and teaching us a thing or two.

All right. And as a chair of this board, I also want to extend my gratitude to everybody that showed up to participate in this process, to those that were listening online that were engaged even though they couldn't be here in the room. People that submitted public comments, the advisory committees that met and gave us guidance on how these regulations may or may not affect their communities, and always to the staff that showed up and helped inform us in, in a professional manner, and always especially to board support who drag all of this stuff up here, set us up, fill our binders and all the things. So Thank you so much. Thank you to the community of Fairbanks for hosting us, to Pike's staff for taking care of us and keeping us well caffeinated and warm.

So with that, I say we are adjourned at 12:49.