2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (2/3/25)

One, two, three, four.

Recording in progress.

All right. Good morning, everybody. The time is 8:39 a.m. The day is February 3rd. It is a Monday today, all day.

And we We are back on the record and still in staff reports. I think we've got about a handful of staff reports left to complete this morning, and then we'll move into traditional knowledge reports and public testimony. So with that, I will go ahead and turn it over to Mr. Prior to teach us about the regional planning team process. Mr.

Prior, whenever you're ready. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Flip Prior. I'm the Aquaculture Section Chief with the Division of Commercial Fisheries.

And I'm stationed in the Juneau headquarters office. So my presentation today is on the RPT process. You've heard a lot of that in the last few meetings. Unfortunately, the only way I can do this is by going through the statutes and regulations, and I'm going to try to do that as painlessly as possible. My slides will be the regulation as they— the statutes or regulations as they appear in the book, but I'm just going to try to hit the high points.

So we don't have to go through everything word for word.

Our first guidance is the ADFNG mission statement, which directs the department to protect, maintain, and improve the resources of the state and manage their use and development in the best interest of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state. Consistent with the sustained yield principle.

Our statutory guidance can be found in Alaska Statutes 1610.375 through Alaska Statutes 1610.480. I will touch on a couple of the, uh, more important statutes. Uh, the first of note is 1610.375, which directs the commissioner to designate regions of the state for the purpose of salmon production and develop a comprehensive salmon plan for that region. Those plans are developed by regional planning teams consisting of the department and representatives from the appropriate regional aquaculture association.

Next, 1610.380, which is about regional associations. So the regional associations The commissioner shall encourage the formation of these regional associations for the purpose of enhancing salmon production. The regional associations will have boards of directors comprised— comprised of commercial fishing permit holders and at least one representative of each gear group of interest. Those can include stakeholders such as sport fish and subsistence harvesters, processors, community representatives, And lastly, an RAA must be a private nonprofit corporation.

Getting into the regulatory guidance, this can be found in 5 AAC 4300 through 5 AAC 4370.

The, uh, first regulation is the composition of the RPT. Which is by the AC 4310, and it says each regional planning team consists of 6 members, 3 appointed by the commissioner and 3 appointed by the regional hatchery association. If it will aid in the development of a regional comprehensive salmon plan, ex officio members can be added, and those are usually in the form of a non-voting member. And examples, examples of that in Southeast here is Douglas Island Pink and Chum holds a seat on the Southeast RPT, and that's a non-regional hatchery seat. Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development has a seat at the table, as well as the U.S. Forest Service.

The second key regulation is the RPT responsibility, and that is to draft a regional comprehensive salmon plan to rehabilitate natural stocks and supplement natural production with provisions for both private and public nonprofit hatcheries.

The RPT should consider the needs of all user groups and ensure the public has an opportunity to participate in the development of the plan.

And then each Regional Comprehensive Salmon Plan must define production goals by species, area, and time.

In Southeast, we have a unique situation in that there's a joint regional planning team that must annually make recommendations to the commissioner on salmon enhancement projects to comply with the allocation plan. And the allocation plan is 5AAC 33364. This is a special situation in Southeast because in 1991 At the direction of the board, the two regional associations were tasked with developing an allocation plan for all of Southeast. And then in 1994, the allocation plan was adopted by the board. And if you want more details about how that came to be, it's in the findings of the Alaska Board 94-148-FB.

Uh-oh.

Okay. Alaska has 13 designated salmon planning regions. 5 Of them are— have active fisheries enhancement programs. Those are Southern Southeast, Northern Southeast, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Kodiak.

We have 3 regions that are sort of semi-active, and that is Yakutat, Chignik, and Norton Sound. They have active regional hatchery associations, but they don't have salmon production programs. And then we have 5 regions of the state who chose not to utilize fisheries enhancement programs at all.

Now getting into the— how the RPT is utilized for regional planning. Users of the resource determine what fisheries enhancement is desirable. Fish and Game determines what is appropriate within the mandates to sustain natural production. The mechanism for cooperation is the regional planning team. RPT meetings are publicly noticed and open to the public participation by regulation, and that's 5 AAC 4350.

Meetings must be advertised at least 2 weeks in advance on the Alaska Online Public Notice System. In addition, meetings can be noticed with alternative methods such as posted on websites, email distribution lists, newspaper ads, et cetera. It's basically set up whatever's effective for that region. The provisions to include public participation is meant to ensure the programs are stakeholder-driven.

Now, what the RPT does— the RPT serves as an advisory role to the Commissioner on fisheries enhancement activities. This is very similar to what advisory committees do for the board. They're an added tool to get better information.

RPTs have 3 main functions, and 4 if we're in Southeast. The first is to draft a regional salmon plan and provide updates as needed, and those drafts are provided to the commissioner for approval. The second thing, the RPT reviews hatchery permit applications and makes recommendations to the commissioner. The RPT reviews and makes recommendation if the commissioner decides to suspend or revoke a PNP permit. And then in Southeast, the RPT provides an annual recommendation to the commissioner on production changes to comply with the Southeast Alaska Area Enhanced Salmon Allocation Plan.

Additionally, the RPT may be asked to provide support and review on enhancement issues for the commissioner. And examples of that would be reviewing annual hatchery management plans. They may look at permit alteration requests, or PARs. They may be consulted to by the commissioner during the hatchery loan process. And as the commissioner mentioned yesterday, he has tasked the Joint Southeast RPT with reviewing, reviewing the release strategies, release numbers, release locations, and then report those.

Findings by the end of the year with recommendations on what's working, what's not working, and impact on wild stocks and potential improvements to the salmon hatchery program.

Then circling back to their main duty of the comprehensive salmon plan, the process works that the RPT drafts a comprehensive salmon plan. That plan goes out for public review. The RPT then considers what the public comments were and may revise the plan. Once the RPT is satisfied with that draft, they send it to the commissioner for approval. The commissioner may look at it and decide it needs more work and send it back to the RPT, and that goes back and forth until the commissioner finally approves the plan.

All the comprehensive salmon plans, not just ones out for public review are available on the ADFNG website, and I put the link at the bottom of the slide.

And that concludes my presentation, and I could answer questions. Thank you. Any board questions? All right, I'll kick it off.

Um, on slide 5, I was just going to request a list of memberships for each of the RPTs in the state. So it doesn't necessarily need to be a list of names per se, but whatever gear group or stakeholder group, user group that they're representing on the RPT, please.

And with respect to Slide 7, when you are talking about Southeast and the joint northern and southern Southeast Regional Planning Teams shall make annual recommendations to the Commissioner, what is the form of these annual recommendations and the timing thereof? Like, is it a report that is published or submitted publicly or otherwise? When does that report come out? Is it consistent timing throughout the year? How does that work?

Please. Madam Chair, the RPT, the Southeast RPT, meets twice a year in April and December. The allocation memo is put together in our April meeting every year, and it's generated— starts with the operators putting together a list of changes or things they noticed during the year that may have effect on the allocation. And then we work at the meeting to refine that, refine that plan or what the recommendation is, and then that's submitted along with the summary for that meeting to the commissioner. When does that happen?

Is that May? Is that June? It's— Madam Chair, it's usually when I can get around to it. So it's been later and later. Now I have this new job, but I try to get it as quickly as I can after the meeting.

Can you give me an estimate? One month, two months, three months? Two weeks. Oh, two weeks. Okay.

And then with respect to the RPT sort of public process slide on slide 9, You note 5 AAC 4340 and ensure that the public has an opportunity to participate. And I'm just curious, in what way does that occur? You mentioned that the notification times can be— need to be, I think, a minimum of 2 weeks. Is that consistently the timeframe in which the notice occurs? How does the public get to participate?

Do they get to come to a microphone? Do they submit comments? Just if you could help me understand how that how that's incorporated better. Okay, Madam Chair. It's done a little bit differently at each of the RPTs.

I'm most familiar with the southeast one. I've been the chair of the southeast RPT since 2004. But with the job I have now, I participate in all the RPTs in the state. So the Southeast meeting I run, it's open to the public. They can come in and sit down and they can give— they can speak at any point during the meeting as long as we keep a controlled conversation.

Other, other RPTs have an agenda slot for public comment at either the beginning and/or both.

So it's done different at different RPTs. In your opinion, does that work well?

Madam Chair, I believe it does. Southeast, there are some RPTs that are better than others. I'm just, you know, that's just the way it is. Southeast meetings are very open, lots of comments from the public, lots of attendance. The last spring RPT meeting we just had, There were 50 people if you include people that were online.

So that's, you know, quite a group. But some RPT meetings, the public doesn't show up. There's almost always an option for a virtual attendance, but, you know, people have to get online and log in to participate. Yeah. And back to that sort of notification time— timing.

I mean, again, is there sort of an average? Is it typically the 2-week minimum or is it more than that in your experience? Madam Chair, I try to get it out as before the 2-week deadline to give a little extra time. But sometimes it comes down to the wire on a meeting, especially if it's one that the agenda isn't set yet or something like that. Madam Chair.

And then in terms of the notification, distribution. Do you use sort of the department's normal notification email list? Because I'm on that list and I don't recall getting RPT notifications. So I'm just kind of curious, is there a separate list that's kept, or how does the notification occur electronically? I mean, I get the newspapers and all the things, but is there— how do you distribute that notification electronically?

And to whom? Okay, Madam Chair, it's— while we post it on the website, it also goes through the online public notice system. So it's on the same as an AC meeting is noticed. I, for the Southeast, have a separate email distribution list that, you know, anyone who wants to be on it, just give me your name and I stick you on the list. And I have two lists.

I actually have one for the department and one for the public because it's too many people for one.

Other— and I'm less familiar with some of the other RPTs because I'm not chair, so that I guess my responsibility to do it. So I'm not sure how they carry that out specifically, but I know there's newspaper ads in a lot of places. Okay, thank you.

In your next slide, on slide 10, you said the RPT meets annually or as necessary. Do most of the RPTs, to your knowledge, meet annually, or how frequently do the RPTs meet around the state? Madam Chair, the active— the actively producing fish RPTs do meet at least once a year and most meet twice a year.

And kind of similar question with respect to the comprehensive salmon plan review. How often does that review occur? Madam Chair, not very often. All of our comprehensive salmon plans are fairly old. The—.

When they originally designed There was legislative funding to create the plans, and that is no longer available. So it's a little bit harder to work on the plans, but we do at, at the RPT meetings bring that up occasionally of we need to do some revisions, and it's probably going to come in the form of amendments at this point, just due to budget constraints. When you say not very often, what does that mean? Have any of these gone under a CSP since inception? Um, the Southeast Plan is 20 years old, and, uh, the last one that's gone under review was the Yukon Plan, and that kind of Dried up with COVID when COVID hit, it stopped the process.

So if any of the other regional RPT plans submitted or entered into a comprehensive salmon plan review with the ADF&G, any of them besides Southeastern Yukon? Okay. All right. Just, just an observation. And thank you very much for bringing this presentation.

Super helpful. It's something that I've been really interested in learning more about. But just a takeaway. Especially sitting in this chair and, and, and being real involved in Board of Fisheries meetings and things like that. I fully recognize that they are, you know, sort of different beasts, but consistency and how these things are.

Done is very helpful. And from what I heard from your presentation, that there's— it seems to be kind of individualized in terms of how each area, each PNP or RPT sort of conducts their business. And I think that having more consistency in that process will help at least provide the notification and the option to engage for the public in a little bit better way. And they can track it. That's just my my two cents, take it or leave it, but I know that when we deviate from our processes here without at least a public discussion about it, you know, it tends to be problematic.

So I would just encourage the department to try and, you know, inject a little bit more consistency in terms of how the RPTs meet, how that notification happens, and at least have a discussion around with the public about the best way for the public to engage in that process, whether it's written comments, whether it's whether it's an agenda item, whether it's throughout the meeting, I don't know. I mean, obviously you say that certain mechanisms work better for certain regions, and I defer to that, but I would just encourage that conversation to happen at least so that everybody has a good understanding of how it works, for whatever that's worth. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate the information today.

Good morning. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just give me a moment here.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and board members. My name is Kyle Hebert. I am the Herring Research Program Leader for the Southeastern Region, Division of Commercial Fisheries. I'll be presenting this morning on commercial fisheries in Southeast Alaska. You can find the slides of my presentation in RC3 tab 30.

In my report, I'm going to briefly touch on the important ecosystem considerations for herring. I'm going to give an orientation of the stock locations and the fisheries, but the bulk of my presentation will describe the main aspects of the management plan in Southeast. The threshold harvest rate policy is a topic of several proposals, so I'm going to spend a little extra time describing how that works toward the end. There are 20 herring proposals, many of which concern Sitka Sound and issues concerning appropriate commercial harvest levels. Those are proposals 171 through 177.

There are 3 proposals that concern Sitka Sound closed waters and commercial fishing areas. There are also 5 proposals that involve changes to where and how commercial spawn-on-kelp fisheries are conducted. And there are a few proposals that would affect all herring fisheries in Southeast by limiting fishery durations, capping catches, reducing gear, or creating co-management of fisheries with tribal governments.

I'd like to highlight the importance of herring in the ecosystem. Herring are a key food source for many other species, so they have a particularly important role in the ecosystem. They bridge low trophic levels to upper trophic levels by feeding on phytoplankton and zooplankton and then providing prey to predators like marine mammals, groundfish, pelagic fish, and birds. They are a short-lived species with relatively few fish remaining in the population after age 8. Though some may survive up to age 15.

Herring may become mature, mature starting at age 3, but some won't start spawning until age 4 or 5 or later. Abundance trends in herring populations are largely determined by annual recruitment, which at times may be punctuated by very high recruitment events. Recruitment in turn is— success is largely determined by survival in the early life history. Especially during the first few months— the egg, the larval, and the juvenile stages. So cohort strength is very influenced by ocean conditions during the early period of their life.

Although herring are well recognized for their important links between trophic levels, there's also a lot of uncertainty surrounding herring, and it's very difficult to quantify how much herring populations impact other species that rely on them. Or how much other species impact herring. And so consequently, a goal of herring fisheries management in Southeast has been to protect stocks by incorporating conservative elements into the management to provide a buffer against the potential risks from these uncertainties.

There are numerous spawning stocks that are scattered throughout Southeast Alaska, represented by these gray dots. However, there are currently only two herring stocks that have been consistently surveyed each year, Sitka and Craig, shown here. And consequently, these are the only areas where commercial fisheries have been prosecuted in recent years. These two areas are what we would consider outside water stocks with more direct exposure to the Gulf of Alaska. They've been at high levels, very high levels of abundance over the past several years.

Up to 2016, several other areas in the region had been surveyed every year for many years, and these are shown by the gray dots. However, in about 2016, funding constraints reduced the department's means to conduct regular stock assessments and fisheries management in these areas. The department has continued to conduct aerial surveys in some of these areas just to maintain a minimum of documentation of spawning levels. But the level of information that we have for these areas is much less than in the past. From the limited information that we do have, we know that most of these areas are at low levels.

For most of these areas, commercial fisheries have not been open for the past several years, in some cases many years, because populations have been below levels, below their threshold levels to allow fisheries. Not shown here is Yakutat, where there is also a small spawning population that the department has collected some data in recent years. But the department's never conducted stock assessments there, nor have there been commercial fisheries there, at least in recent times.

There are several types of herring fisheries in Southeast, including culturally important subsistence uses, which you heard about earlier in the subsistence overview presentation. In this report, I'll only describe the commercial fisheries. There are commercial sacro fisheries that use either purse seines or gillnets and they occur in the springtime as well, usually just before spawning starts. Sitka Sound is currently, currently the only active sacro fishery, and the gear there is purse seine. There are spawn-on-kelp fisheries where herring are seined and transferred to enclosed pound structures with hanging kelp, also in the spring prior to spawning.

Permit holders may also use open pounds, which have no webbing to hold the herring, and seining is not done. Instead, it relies on herring to naturally spawn on the hanging kelp. In total, there are 4 spawn-on-kelp areas. Hoonah Sound and Tenakee Inlet are in the northern permit area, and Craig and Ernest Sound are in the southern permit area. Craig is the only active spawn-on-kelp fishery, and, and none of the others have been active for several years due to low herring abundance.

Finally, there are bait fisheries that use pursanes, and those occur in the fall and the winter. And Craig has been the only active bait fishery in recent years.

These 6 management directives are in regulation, and they represent the core of the herring management plan in Southeast. The 2 that are highlighted are at the center of several proposals before the board, especially the ones I mentioned, 171 through 177. Number 1, stocks are defined by where they spawn. 2, The department and the board have established thresholds for spawning biomass below which fisheries are not allowed. Number 3, herring abundance must be estimated by the department to determine if the biomass exceeds the threshold and if fisheries may be allowed.

And to accomplish this, the department has in place a well-developed stock assessment program which includes aerial surveys of the spawn, in the springtime, dive surveys to estimate egg deposition. We collect age and size data, all of which is used in a statistical catch-at-age model. And this is one type of a more general class of age-structured models, which has historically been called the ASA model. That model is used to estimate and forecast biomass for the larger stocks in the region, and it also produces estimates of other important population metrics such as survival rate and recruitment. I'm not going to go into the details of the stock assessment program in this presentation, but there is a report on the Board of Fish meeting webpage under additional reports, and that contains the survey methods and information about the current stock status.

Number 4, fishery exploitation rates, commonly called harvest rates, are set between 10 and 20% of the entire mature biomass. In Sitka Sound, it's slightly different. The harvest range there is 12 to 20%, and we'll talk about that more later. And then finally, items 5 and 6 on the list are provisions to allow the department some flexibility where there's concerns of mortality that are not already accounted for in other parts of the management plan.

Thresholds— they are an integral part of the harvest rate strategy, and they should be considered jointly with harvest rates. Thresholds are in place to protect stocks by removing fishing pressure when stocks are at lower levels, to allow stocks to recover more quickly, and to ensure that an adequate spawning base remains.

One conventional method to set thresholds is to estimate the biomass that would exist in the absence of commercial fishing and then set the threshold at a percentage of that level. This is simply a baseline reference point that can be used to set appropriate levels to maintain stocks. You may hear later in the meeting references to average unfished biomass, and that's what this is referring to. This approach has been used in Sitka Sound and for some other areas in Southeast. In Sitka, the first estimate of this type was made back in 1997, but recently the department has updated that analysis with more recent data to better inform where to set the threshold.

And you'll hear more about that later in the meeting as proposals 171 and others are discussed.

Although 25% of average unfished biomass has been the convention used for many years for herring fisheries in Southeast Alaska and elsewhere, more recent recommendations have been to set thresholds higher than 25% unfished biomass as a precaution to protect herring from falling below levels of product— higher productivity and ensure adequate prey base for predator species.

Since there are numerous proposals concerning Sitka Sound, I'll describe how the biomass and threshold in Sitka Sound has changed over time. In this graph, the black line represents the total mature biomass in Sitka Sound, mature meaning herring that may spawn, usually age 3 and older. The blue bars represent the commercial fishery catch. So the difference between the black line and the blue bars represents that portion of the stock that went on to spawn, what we call the spawning biomass. And the orange line represents the threshold that was in place at the time.

The original threshold was set at 6,000 tons in 1977, and forgive me, the arrow points to 1979, but it was 1977 was the first use of the threshold. That was increased to 7,500 tons in 1983. And then in 1997, the department first conducted analysis, as I described earlier, where the threshold was based on a percentage of unfished biomass. That calculated value was just under 17,000 tons, which was proposed to the board at the time. However, the board opted to bump that up to 20,000 tons to provide a buffer for subsistence uses.

And at the 2009 board meeting, threshold was increased again to 25,000 tons in response to additional subsistence concerns, and that took effect in 2010. And that's the threshold that remains today.

A striking feature of this graph is the very large increase in biomass starting in 2019, which is in sharp contrast to previous years. And extremely different from estimates made back in the 1970s. Over the past several years, the Sitka Sound biomass has been at an all-time high since biomass estimates have been made by the department, which is approximately over the past 50 years. This recent increase was due to an unprecedented high recruitment event that we observed in 2019, which was then followed by another strong recruitment event in 2023. And these dominant cohorts have been consistently observed through the population since then, supporting the very high biomass you see in the graph.

The very low biomass estimates in the 1970s, we believe, is an accurate depiction of herring abundance at that time. The department has been questioned on the reliability of these estimates in the 1970s and 1980s. But based on the department's records of miles of spawn from aerial surveys, hydroacoustic surveys, and egg deposition surveys that were conducted at the time, we feel that there is strong and corroborating evidence that the Sitka Sound herring population abundance was considerably lower than at that time during the recent past. The low level of herring in the 1970s followed the very high harvest levels of the reduction fisheries. Which were conducted with minimal stock assessment and regulation.

However, since that time, herring fisheries have been conducted using abundance-based management with management plans and that connect allowable harvest to estimates of abundance.

To put the recent high biomass estimates into a longer historical perspective, they are presented here relative to biomass estimates made back to 1926. Which was near the peak of the reduction fishery.

However, to create this graph, a mixture of methods was necessary to estimate biomass because data from the 1930s to the 1960s was limited. The solid line on the right side of the graph that you see is estimated by the Department's statistical catch-at-age model, as in the previous graph. But the dashed line for the earlier years is from an external study by Williams and Quinn where they used a cohort analysis to estimate herring biomass during the years of the herring reduction fishery.

Because the reduction fishery was conducted on mixed stocks, primarily thought to be Sikka and Craig, but other stocks as well, the biomass estimates presented here are a combination of the two stocks, as that data cannot be separated for the reduction fishery years. And the catch, the blue bars here, is combined catch for all of Southeast fisheries. So although this graph is broader in scope than Sitka Sound alone, it is still useful for understanding the relative abundance of herring in Sitka Sound because the Sitka Sound stock has been the largest stock in the region and likely contributed most of the biomass and catch that's shown here in this graph. So based on western science, the data suggests that biomass in Sitka Sound over the last few years has been at the highest levels on record, approximately over the last 100 years. This graph also shows how harvest levels since the 1970s are substantially less than during the reduction fishery period, when harvest levels were very high, commonly exceeding 50 to 60% of the spawning biomass or greater.

And this is because since the 1970s, herring have been managed under more restrictive harvest rates and include thresholds, as you saw in that previous slide. It's also worth noting here that British Columbia herring stocks have had a very similar history and patterns as Southeast Alaska. They also had a large reduction era fishery in the 1930s to 1960s, which led to stock collapses in the 1970s. That was followed by a rapid recovery after they closed their fishery and instituted a very similar harvest rate strategy as has been used in Southeast Alaska.

There are several proposals that request changes to harvest rate limits, so I'm going to present— I'll finish my present in explaining how the harvest rates are determined in Southeast Alaska.

The 10 to 20% harvest rate range that is in regulations is intended to provide sustainability, to optimize yield, and and minimize fishery closures, and they include some built-in conservatism. These harvest rates were based on analysis of Alaskan stocks, which included— which concluded that a fixed 20% harvest rate of the mature biomass should be sustainable if used with an appropriate threshold. And by fixed 20% harvest rate, that means the harvest rate at 20% of the mature biomass should be sustainable regardless of the biomass level, as long as the stock is above its threshold.

In Southeast Alaska, the maximum harvest rate is set at 20%. However, there's a sliding scale that's also included that reduces that harvest rate as the stock declines until it reaches its minimum harvest rate of 10% when it's at threshold. As I mentioned, SICA's minimum harvest rate is actually 12% when it's at threshold, which I'll get to in the next slide. The sliding scale feature of the harvest rate strategy was adopted as a buffer and to build in a conservative measure to what was recommended by the original analysis.

However, there is growing evidence that harvest rates of 20% may be too high for some stocks. Recent results.

From stocks in British Columbia suggests that although a fixed 20% harvest rate with a threshold set at 25% of unfished biomass may be adequate for production— product— excuse me, for productive herring stocks, a maximum of 20% may be too high for stocks that may be rebuilding, that are in states of low biomass, or stocks of low productivity.

My final slide here shows how the sliding scale works and how harvest rates are set. There are at least 7 proposals requesting changes to this. The Sitka Sound harvest rate is set following the dashed red line, and harvest rates for all other stocks are in Southeast are set following the blue line, and the equations are for the setting the harvest rates are also shown in the graph. These lines show what the harvest rate would be set at as the biomass of a stock increases above its threshold. The allowable harvest rate is set higher when the biomass is higher, shown here increasing as multiples of threshold.

So at 1, when the stock is at 1, is at threshold. When it's at 2, that means it's twice, it's threshold, and so on up to 6 times the threshold, which is the point at which every stock will have reached its 20% maximum harvest rate. So the way to read this graph is when a stock is forecast to be below threshold, below 1, then there's no commercial fishery. When it's— when it's at 1, the Sika harvest rate would be 12%, and all other stocks would be 10%. When the stock is at twice this threshold, Sitka harvest rate would be 20%, and all other stocks would be at 12%, and so on up the line.

These values are determined simply by inserting the forecast value that the department generates into the harvest rate equations that you see here in the graph.

Notice that Sitka's harvest rate line is steeper than the rest of Southeast Alaska, reaching that 20% maximum when the biomass is at twice its threshold, whereas for all other stocks in the region, harvest rate increases more gradually. Um, although the Sitka line is steeper, it should not be viewed as an aggressive harvest rate. That's because we have more information for Sitka Sound herring than most other stocks, including knowing the harvest rate relative to its average unfished biomass. There's typically, uh, less data for the south— other southeast stocks, and the thresholds for those stocks may not have been set using an analysis like was done in Sitka Sound. So it makes sense that the harvest rates should be more conservative for those stocks.

And that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions. Thank you. Any board questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Back to slide 4 of 12.

And last year I had the privilege of visiting Sitka and watching the herring fishery, which was pretty awesome, and learned something about this stuff. My question for you is, why are the inside stocks that you see there having a harder time of being able to be at the levels they used to be?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, that's an excellent question, and the shorter answer is we, we don't know. We saw a pretty consistent decline in herring stocks following a peak in about 2010. All of the stocks in Southeast declined. Um, the outside stocks, Sic and Craig, declined, but they didn't decline to low levels. Uh, but all the other stocks in the inside waters declined to quite low levels, um, pretty much at the same time, whether there were fisheries conducted on them or not.

There were some stocks where there were no fisheries, and those declined as well. So it's unclear, but it's likely that there is an environmental component here, the marine conditions. Speculation, but the answer is we really don't know what's— why that— why those stocks have declined.

So I just— in terms of what might prevent that from happening or rebounding, I was thinking, is it food? Is it predators? Is it water temperature? Is there any, any thought on what that might be in that early season, like predators and plankton blooms kind of all kind of combining to not allow them to rebound, or what are your thoughts thoughts on that? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, we really don't know.

We don't have information. We don't have data. We don't collect data on plankton availability, on the predators. We don't have an ecosystem model. So we're not— we really don't have ideas of why it is the case.

Thank you.

Staying on that slide, just quickly, so you got the two fisheries Sitka and Craig. Are there any other inside water fisheries that are occurring? I think you mentioned one in Yakutat. Madam Chair, no, there's, there's not a fishery in Yakutat. It's just Sitka and Craig.

There's no other. There haven't been active fisheries in recent years in the inside waters. Okay. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

So I'm going to kind of focus in on the Sitka Sound and the Craig commercial fisheries, because those are the only two that currently exist or have had any participation in the recent future.

So when I, when I, when I listen to you talk about sustainability and the harvest threshold, currently the state uses a sliding scale method based on the overall biomass or GHL for one of those particular fisheries. And I always thought that that was a beneficial management tool because the harvest threshold would be applied based on, you know, any particular survey— recent survey that was done. I'm kind of curious what your opinion is, and I know you talked about the Canadian thinking that maybe the threshold should be lower to provide long-term sustainability, but I— so my question is, Isn't putting something that's more stagnant in regards to harvest thresholds going to give the department less flexibility?

Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter, I'm not sure I understand your question yet. Are you asking whether— what the result would be of increasing a threshold? No, I guess my question is, is currently you harvest in a range of 10 to 20% based on the overall biomass of any particular area. If that upper limit were to be reduced, that is suggested— and I'll try not to focus on any one particular proposal, we can do that at a later time— But doesn't it narrow the range that the department has to use to maximize the opportunity while still maintaining sustainability in the fisheries if that number was reduced? Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter, it would reduce the range.

It would essentially reduce our opportunity harvest pressure from the stock. It would reduce that. So it would reduce the range, but that wouldn't reduce the department's flexibility or ability to manage the stock in any way. And I guess maybe a follow-up, and I'm sure you'll be available when we bring these proposals up, but in smaller fisheries like Craig, for example, compared to Sitka Sound, would reducing that number prohibit the department from opening fisheries of a smaller nature?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't. It would reduce— it may reduce harvest opportunity, but it wouldn't— the stocks would be open for fisheries if they were above their threshold. So they would always— if they're above threshold, they would have at least a 10 or 12% harvest rate.

Thanks. And just so that we all are clear about how these assessments are made, how do you, how do you do the annual mature biomass assessment? How is that done? Madam Chair, we, we collect data in the springtime primarily. We start with aerial surveys to map the spawn.

We follow that up with a dive survey to estimate egg abundance. We collect age and size data throughout the spawning season. We collect that data from the commercial fishery. And that all those elements of data go into a model. This statistical catch-age model I mentioned, and that is brings all those elements of data together and is used to estimate the biomass for the current year, hindcasting biomasses through the past years, and also forecasting one year in advance.

And that's what the GHL is based on for the next year. Thank you.

Is there anything that's done in season? And I know that happens real fast sometimes, but is there any— when allowed, when it's possible, is there any sort of in-season adjustment on the biomass threshold? Madam Chair, yes, that is an ability the department has. The department is out on the grounds in advance of the fishery and during the fishery monitoring the population with hydroacoustics. It's not a quantitative assessment, but the managers are out on the grounds daily and assessing the stocks to see how that compares to our forecast and are prepared to make adjustments.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, quickly. I could attest to that. And as— but I want to play it in reverse. I asked you the one question was why are they doing poorly, but then when you look at slide 8 of 12, are there any— is there any speculation why all of a sudden it just jumps up so incredibly like that in 2017, '18, '19?

'19. Like, is it—. So you know what I'm getting at? Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yes.

So that, that jump was a result of an extremely successful year class that was hatched in 2016. We first saw those fish as age 3-year-olds in 2019. And so why there was such a giant recruitment event is it— we can't say with certainty, but that giant recruitment was seen throughout the Gulf of Alaska, not just in Sitka Sound, but also we saw it in Craig, we saw it in Prince William Sound, Kodiak. They all had very large recruitment events that year, 2019. And we can't say with certainty, but at that same time was the tail end of the marine heat wave, kind of known as the blob.

That was wrapping up in that spring of that year. And so they're probably not coincidence that those two things happened. So it's likely that the marine conditions were extremely beneficial for early survival of that cohort for those first few months. And so that's probably what created that very large successful recruitment that's carried through the population for several years. Great, thank you.

Mr. Carpenter, just quickly, can you maybe touch on the idea— because we talk about Canadian research a lot, we've talked about it in other species— does the Canadian government conduct herring assessments similar to the way the state of Alaska does it? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, they have a similar stock sampling program. They conduct an egg deposition survey. They collect a lot of the same data we have. Their, their stock assessment, their, their analysis method is a little different than ours.

Their framework is a little different. It's a little more in-depth. They do something called a management strategy assessment where they have criteria set up where they have a threshold, what they call limit reference point, that they're trying to avoid with high probability. And they have these criteria laid out that they need to be above— avoid that threshold or the limit reference point with high probability for 15 years out. And they go through a simulation process where they explore various harvest rate possibilities, and as long as they can exceed that 75% probability of avoiding their limit reference point, their acceptable harvest rate.

So it might be a 5%, a 10%, a 15% harvest rate, and their managers then have these options before them and they choose which one they want to use. So it's similar, more, more in-depth analysis. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation this morning. Thank you.

All right, we'll switch gears here to Taku and King Salmon Rivers King Salmon Conservation Measures.

Welcome back to the table, gentlemen.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, and members of the public. My name is Scott Forbes, and I am the Division of Commercial Fisheries Juno Area Manager, along with my colleagues Dan Teske, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau Area Manager, and Grant Hagerman, the Division of Commercial Fisheries, Southeast Troll Fishery Manager. We will be presenting recent management measures taken in regional fisheries to reduce the harvest of Taku and King Salmon Rivers king salmon and options within the current action plan to continue this approach. Hard copies of this presentation are available in RC3, tab 31, and the draft 2025 action plan is found in RC4.

Here's a timeline of recent efforts to minimize harvest of king salmon originating from the Taku, Chilkat, and King Salmon Rivers. Management of regional fisheries that intercept these runs became more conservative throughout the 2012 through 2017 period as escapement goals were consistently missed. And fisheries restrictions were guided by the Lynn Canal and Chilkat River King Salmon Fishery Management Plan and Regulation and the annual Transboundary Technical Committee Management Plan, which structures management of fisheries on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border on transboundary rivers under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, including the Taku River. As Mr. Ed Jones highlighted yesterday, the Taku River King Salmon run is likely the most data-rich on the planet for a wild stock. With standardized escapement estimates beginning in the early 1970s.

Current assessment projects provide preseason forecasts and in-season run abundance metrics that allow fisheries managers to make informed in-season decisions. The 2018 Chilkat and King Salmon Rivers Action Plan incorporated management measures that were already being taken to reduce Taku River king salmon harvest, which would also reduce harvest of King Salmon River fish which are transiting through the same marine waters on their way back to spawning grounds. After not achieving the escapement goal for several consecutive years on the Taku River, it was added to the Northern Southeast Alaska Action Plan, which was adopted by the board in 2022. Most recently, the department has recommended continued stock of concern designation for Taku River king salmon, which has missed the escapement goal in 8 of the last 9 seasons, and King Salmon River king salmon, which has missed in 6 of the last 9 seasons. The department has recommended removal of the stock of concern designation for Chilkat River King Salmon, which has made escapement in 5 of the last 6 seasons.

This figure shows the annual harvest rates of Taku River King Salmon by regional fisheries that catch most of these fish. These harvest rates are somewhat smaller than those shown yesterday by, by Mr. Ed Jones, as they do not include harvest outside of Southeast Alaska, which is a small amount, in-river harvest in Canada, or a small amount of non-terminal net harvest in Southeast. So these, these three fisheries are the troll, sport, and the gillnet fisheries. The troll fishery is represented by the blue portion of the bar. The sport fishery by the orange portion, and the District 11 gillnet fisheries, which include both the commercial drift gillnet fishery and the in-river personal use fishery, by the gray portion on top.

The average harvest rate of the 2012 through 2017 period is approximately 13% and is designated by the vertical solid line, while the 2018 through 2024 average is approximately 4% and designated by the vertical dashed line. Recent management actions to reduce harvest of these fish have been effective.

This figure shows the recent 10-year average run timing of Taku River large king salmon through Taku Inlet, or when they have passed through the marine waters and are in river. On average, 50% of the run is in river by the end of May, and 95% is in river by mid-June. These are good dates to keep in mind as we walk through fisheries management actions taken to reduce harvest of these fish. Dan Teske will now discuss specific management of actions in the sport fishery. All right, thank you, Scott.

For the record, I'm Dan Teske. I am the sport fish area management biologist for Juneau and Glacier Bay based out of the Douglas office. I will go over quickly a couple sport fish management actions that we've taken recently recently to reduce harvest of Taku River and King Salmon River King Salmon. The management strategy here is to use EO authority to implement restrictions in District 9 through 14 that are nearly identical to those implemented from 2022 through 2024. Most recently at the work session, the Chilkat River stock was delisted and therefore the District 15 restrictions have been removed from this action plan.

However, the department will continue to use.

Authority to manage District 15, which is Upper Lynn Canal near the communities of Haines and Skagway, to achieve the Chilkat River King Salmon BEG. In addition, regional king salmon regulations established under the Southeast King Salmon Management Plan will apply in those areas once the restrictions expire. And now I'll quickly go through the next slide with the pictorial of this, trying to simplify things. So the strategy here to reduce the sport harvest of king salmon destined for Taku River and King Salmon River is to implement a no-retention in the migration corridors represented here by the red arrows. And having no king salmon retention in the sport fishery April 1st through June 14th, which tag recoveries have shown that's when those fish are transiting through.

Then in addition, in the terminal harvest area near the Taku Inlet, we wanted to provide additional protection, and that no-retention Restriction is in place through the end of June, so it gets a little bit of extra time for those fish that might be straggling in to Taku River to provide additional protections there. And then the area highlighted in gray here for the King Salmon River terminal area, we wanted to go even a step further and actually close sport fishing for king salmon in this area. And we run that closure through July 31st. And a couple reasons we do that is because this, this return is very small, just a few hundred fish. It's a very small river system, and it has a much later run timing than the Taku River fish do, so we provide that protection through the end of July.

In addition, I wanted to include an inset map here of the terminal harvest area, or the hatchery sport harvest area near Juneau, where some opportunity is allowed if there are excess hatchery fish present in excess of broodstock needs, and it's a relatively small geographic area and it's a popular fishery for Juneau to allow some king salmon harvest opportunity, predominantly on all hatchery fish. So with that, there's a lot more detail in the action plan in RC4. Particularly if you're having issues with reading this map, there's a much easier version to read in RC4 Figure 4, page 28. And with that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Grant Hagerman to go over the commercial troll fishery. Thanks.

Just a real quick clarification while you have this up. You said June 14th in the Taglu Inlet terminal area, no retention. Is it June 30th or June 14th? June 30th. My apologies.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

For the record, Grant Hagerman. I'm a Southeast Troll Fishery Manager. So for troll fishery management actions, the plan is to continue to manage under the provisions of the Northern Southeast Alaska King Salmon Stock Status and Action Plan from 2022. And those actions included that notwithstanding any remaining portion of the seasonal guideline harvest level, that all inside waters of Southeast in the winter troll fishery would close by emergency order March 15th, which is a full 6 weeks prior to the regulatory closure. Select waters of the outer coast in Districts 3 through 5, 9, 13, 14, and 183 may remain open between March 16th and April 15th.

And I just want to pause just briefly here for a point of clarification that actually— so in this provision, in the draft plan, there's language that, that details this closure extending through December 31st that should have been omitted. That should not be part of the plan. It's an artifact from the Chilkat Plan and should have been removed. It's not necessary for this. So we can, we can address that when we address the plans.

I just thought I'd put it on your radar.

So additionally, beginning May 1st, the spring troll king salmon fisheries in northern Southeast would be opened but reduced to portions of the outer coast located in Districts 13 and 183, with all the other districts remaining closed through June 30th. All of the terminal harvest areas open in northern Southeast. The initial openings were delayed till June 1st. The Districts 9, 10, 12, and 14 enhanced chum salmon fishery openings are delayed until June 15th, and when those open, they are closed to king salmon retention. An additional action for the 2025 plan is that we have added a closure of the waters in Section 11D or Seymour Canal to the troll fishery, closing the troll fishery from July 1st through July 31st.

So the next slide here is just a map kind of showing you these provisions of these actions where they're located. You can see there that the dark gray is the beginning in the winter fishery, the inside water closure. Those waters remain closed to troll gear through June 30th, as there's no spring troll fisheries that are provided in those areas. The black areas are, as I mentioned, the possible extensions of the winter fishery from March 16th through April 15th, located in those outer coastal areas. The red area here are the directed chum fisheries in spring that have been delayed till June 15th and are closed to king salmon retention.

Orange here is Section 11D. That's Seymour Canal. This is the new provision added for a troll gear closure between March 16th and July 31st. The blue areas are the spring troll king salmon areas that are open in northern southeast from May 1st through June 30th. And the difficult to see— I apologize for the extent of this map, but the difficult to see here yellow is the northern southeast troll THAs that have delayed initial openings until June 1st.

So if there aren't any questions with that, I'll pass this back to Mr. Forbes.

Thanks, Grant. Now we're going to talk about some options that are presented in the, in the current action plan for the more terminal drift gillnet fishery. The two options presented in the current action plan pertaining to the District 11 commercial drift gillnet fishery are Option A, or management actions written into the 2022 action plan, and Option B, the preferred alternative with management actions that have been utilized during the 2022 through 2024 seasons using the flexibility for reducing restrictions based on in-season stock composition and harvest data in the fishery, allowing District 11 drift gillnetters slightly more opportunity to target sockeye and chum salmon while keeping harvest of Taku River large king salmon at a low level. The bullet points have been aligned in this table to more easily compare the options, so let's go through these. First off, all the bullets in Option A end with multiple openings, as the language in the 2022 action plan is specific to statistical weeks instead of openings, which is not ideal, as stat weeks can vary by 6 days depending on the year.

The upcoming 2025 season has the earliest directed sockeye salmon opening possible, with the third Sunday in June occurring on June 15th. So when considering the average run timing, this opening will occur when approximately 90% of the run has passed through marine waters and is in river. In most years, the state will be later and more of the run will have already passed through. Option B calls for fishing a maximum of 2 days on the initial weekly opening, but then shifts to 2-day starts during the next 2 weekly openings with the possibility of time extensions based on in-season information. The second bullet includes less specific area restrictions through a smaller period for Option B, and I will show this on a map on the next slide.

The third bullet imposes the 6-inch maximum mesh restriction and night closures from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. through the second opening in Option B rather than the second or third opening. Finally, the fourth bullet reduces the timeframe that Section 11C would be closed by approximately one week. Section 11C is in the southern portion of District 11 and is only open in years of high pink salmon abundance. This restriction is geared towards minimizing harvest of king salmon river fish and aligns with the timing of restrictions taken in the troll and sport fisheries enclosing Seymour Canal through the month of July.

Here's a map showing where commercial drift gillnetting can occur in District 11 in the marine waters colored in blue. Section 11B consists of waters north of Midway Islands, which I'm sorry, probably does not show up really great. Let me see if I can— right here are the Midway Islands. So kind of where the cross-hatching ends and, uh, and it goes back into the normal blue here. This is all of this area up through Taku Inlet is Section 11B.

Section 11C are the waters south of this line in District 11.

Section 11C includes waters of the district south of Midway Islands. The Taku River empties into Taku Inlet in the northern portion of the map. And the King Salmon River can be seen at the head of Seymour Canal in the northwestern portion. Most of the returning Taku River fish come in from the northwest through the waters of Upper Stephens Passage between Admiralty and Douglas Islands. Some fish returning to the King Salmon River likely use this same route, but a substantial proportion probably come in from the south, as we see with other salmon species with origins in Seymour Canal.

A substantial area closure has been utilized in the initial weekly drift gillnet opening or two since 2016, and the area open to commercial drift gillnetting since 2018 is.

Shown by the cross-hatched section. As you can see, this restriction closes the main entry point of fish coming into Section 11B at Bishop Point and Point Arden. The area around Bishop Point has the most consistent effort in the fishery, as this is where the majority of all salmon species enter the fishery. This area restriction alone is quite effective at reducing harvest of Taku River King Salmon. In subsequent weeks, open area shifts north into Taku Inlet, using lines at Cooper Point and then Jaw Point.

So Cooper Point and Jaw Point are further up into the inlet. Cooper Point is here and Jaw Point is here. So as we get a little later into the season, as more and more of that runs through the inlet, we just kind of follow those lines, follow as those fish have come through Taco Inlet.

Section 11C is managed based on pink salmon and is only open in years of good returns to streams in Stevens Passage. Section 11C has only opened in 2 seasons since 2016, and king salmon harvest is minimal, with a recent 25-year annual average of 20 fish. Potential openings here will be delayed until the second week of July to minimize interception of king salmon returning to the King Salmon River.

I considered another figure here but thought a simple harvest table would more clearly show how recent restrictions in the District 11 drift gillnet fishery have reduced harvest of Taku River large king salmon. Actions taken in the last 3 years, which align with Option B management actions, have been quite successful at conserving Taku River large king salmon. The actions I discussed would have been recommended to add flexibility to this action plan regardless of the forecast for the upcoming season. I've been on the Transboundary Technical Committee for 20 years, and we've produced many forecasts with variable accuracy. The bottom line is, it's a forecast.

And even though the weather predicted for Ketchikan over the next few days looks sunny, I'm sure many here have a raincoat readily available. With that, we'll take any questions.

Board member questions. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. On slide, uh, what is the, uh, 2, sorry, 3.

You mentioned that by 50% of the return has happened by the end of May, and that by the midpoint of June, 100% are in. And is that correct? Yeah, so this shows the run timing through Taku Inlet into the river. Okay. 50% Of the run of large fish returning to Tahquah River are through the inlet and in river by May 26th.

Okay, thank you. So, one more question about— if you could go to slide 6, and then it'll be 6, then 8, looking at the sport fish management actions and then comparing that to the map in the troll fish management actions. I would I would like it if the sport fish management actions, that map extended further down into Chatham Inlet. I'm just wondering, like, are those fish only come in from the north and turn the corner, or are they also coming in from down below the Chatham Inlet that we can't see? Through the chair, Board Member Wood, the fish do come in from both directions.

I believe Mr. Fowler's slide showed a inside closures for nearly all Southeast Alaska. So that, that hash mark goes all the way down through the inside waters down to Ketchikan. It—. I just didn't show the extent because the vast majority of the fish do come through this area. And but, but to answer your question, they do come from north and south.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

So I thought it was interesting when you said on slide 10 that Section 11(c) was primarily used for pink salmon management.

And so when I look at the previous slide, on slide 9, on Option B where it says preferred, the last bullet point talks about Section 11(c). Close to the second week of July. And I'm trying to figure out specific to king salmon management, if 50% of the fish are through in May and the rest of the fish are through by June, why is this such an important factor if 11(c) is specifically used for pink salmon management?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that's a very good question. So the run timing that we were talking about with the 50% through by the end of May is for Taku River. The run timing for the King Salmon River up at the head of Seymour Canal is quite a bit later. As Mr. Ed Jones pointed out yesterday, 50% of that run is in river on July 1st. All right, that clears it up.

Thanks.

How much, how much activity, like how many permits are in Section 11B during the allowed time? Yeah, we've, we have seen a slightly reduced effort in recent years, but in these first, in the, the first couple few openings of the District 11 gillnet fishery, we're probably looking from between 20 to 70 permits on any, on any given week.

And then with respect to the troll fishery management actions, um, on slide 7, I think 1, 2, 3, 4th bullet says all THA openings in northern southeast delayed until June 1. I'm also kind of laying that against slide 3. I mean, would it make sense to delay that opening any further? In order to try and move some king salmon through? I mean, you've got drift nets that are being recommended through July.

Obviously the troll fishery catches, looks to me, recently some of the, you know, at least half. And I'm just kind of curious if you have thoughts on that. I know it's a THA, but just kind of Just curious.

Uh, Madam Chair, that's a good question. So the, the delay is, is to a point in the season where the majority of the stocks present at that time are Alaska hatchery. So by regulation, those THAs can open a month earlier than that, but it's been delayed because the, the majority— looking at code of war tag-based estimates— the majority of what's in those areas beginning in June are majority Alaska hatchery and not wild stock concerns. What does majority mean? 50% Plus?

More than 50%. That's still potentially 50% that are not, correct? There, there is still potential. I think, you know, in any of these areas there's still some potential, but I think the reduced proportions, I guess, and as you move further into June, that Alaska hatchery proportion gets higher and higher and there's, there's less of those wild fish as they're moving through. My next question is Slide 6, with respect to that sort of green inset area, I don't know, yellow-green, whatever color that is.

So that's considered to be essentially hatchery king salmon. And I'm assuming, and you mentioned excess, is that it's open if excess is determined in that area? Is that correct? Madam Chair, that is correct. In recent years, we've had some poor hatchery returns due to infrastructure issues at Diepack Hatchery.

So there has been a need to close a portion of that hatchery area, but in times when normal hatchery returns occur, we do allow harvest opportunity in that area. And that's a pretty clean fishery. We do have some shoreside sampling data showing that during the time when it is open to hatchery retention, it's above 90% up to 98% Andrew origin, hatchery origin stock. Thank you. Thanks.

I'm just was curious how that excess is determined. Just by— Madam Chair, I do work closely with the hatchery manager and we are in discussions certainly weekly, if not daily, on return strength to the fish ladder. And we are able to react fairly quickly and need— if needed. Thank you. Thanks.

And then my last question, back to slide 3, is about the PU fishery. How is that PU fishery prosecuted? Is it hook and line? Is it dip nets? Is it gill nets?

How are they— how are they fishing for those kings in river? Madam Chair, the personal use fishery are 15-fathom set nets in river between the Toccoa River Lodge and the U.S.-Canada border.

The—. It's a directed sockeye fishery. And we have been delaying that by up to 3 weeks in recent years. So,.

We've been, by emergency order, we've been delaying that to start mid-July and in mid-August instead of early July, instead of July 1st through July 31st. So yeah, would you like any more information there? Yeah, follow up on that. So just so that I'm clear, there's a 15-fathom setnet personally used fishery in river that's directed at sockeye, but clearly intercepts kings in the river in that late time period in July and August? Is that when it's prosecuted?

Yeah, Madam Chair, that is correct. Yes. Are there any other gear types that are allowed in the PU fishery besides setnets? No, no, Madam Chair, it's very specific to setnets. Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, but On the permit for the PU fishery, there's a permit limit of 2 king salmon. Is that correct? That's correct. And what's the reported king salmon harvest from that fishery?

Yeah, the average PU harvest in the recent time period is 10 fish a year. This fishery starts very late through that run timing. We're starting this fishery in mid-July. Very few Chinook salmon are below, below border at that time. But you're catching, according to your graphic, there's catching, you know, a pretty decent proportion of the total harvest in that PU.

Um, Madam Chair, the gray, the gray in those bars is the District 11. Thank you. The PU fishery would not even be—. Just reminded myself of that. Sorry about that.

Um, Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, so the start date of this fishery was even pushed back further at the last treaty meeting so we could further protect king salmon in that PU fishery. And in order to allow the federal subsistence fishery to occur, so we, we negotiated a later start date with the hope of conserving more king salmon. Thank you.

So you get the, the allowance, obviously they're allowed to, I think you said. Do you have any method of recording how many Kings are caught in the nets and not retained, and what the mortality associated with that would be. Madam Chair, um, nothing directly, but we do have in-river Canadian fisheries just upstream of the personal use fishery, and the TTC does have a net release and drop-off mortality rates that get applied to that fishery, and those We can apply to the set gillnet fishery if needed. Again, we are talking about a very small number of fish in that personal use fishery. Understood.

You can, but do you? Do we apply the, those net drop-off to the, to the 10 fish? It would, it would turn into decimal fish. So currently 10 fish in the last couple years, but I mean, as you move forward, I mean, ideally, you know, we're looking for recovery here. So I'm just curious how that would be applied.

Madam Chair, yeah, if, if that number was— yeah, we would apply that, that net drop-off or release factor to that personal use fishery if it were a number greater than 1. Before we were taking restrictions, when this fishery was July 1st through July 31st, an average Chinook harvest would be 30 or 40 Chinook. What is the number that's assigned to that net drop-off rate? What is that percentage? Uh, they're very low.

They're less than, um, that the, the release is, uh, in the, in the commercial drift, I believe, is, uh, 50% for, for commercial, for those fish that are actually handled and released. And the drop-off is, is smaller than that. I would, uh, I would need to look at our TTC tables. I'd be interested in that number. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. I don't see any further questions. Let's move on.

All right, like, just taking a little quick poll. Let's take a quick 15, about a 15-minute break, and then we'll get going on this one.

Alright. Time is 10:29 and 38 seconds. We're back on the record. Troy, will you—. I think you got some answers for some of the questions that the board asked earlier.

Sure, Madam Chair. You had some very good questions during the last presentation. Just to provide a follow-up with some answers to those questions concerning the personal use fishery on the Taku River. I should state, I guess, for myself, for the record, name is Troy Tinas, Division of Commercial Fisheries Area Management Coordinator. I also serve as serve on the— as the U.S. chair for the Transboundary River Panel.

So anyways, getting back to the Taku River personal use fishery, the Transboundary Technical Committee applies a dropout rate of 4.6% to any in-river net harvest. So that would include the state personal use fishery as well as the Canadian gillnet fisheries that take place on the river just above the border. So in this case, if we look at the harvest of 10 Chinook salmon, king salmon— and it's also important to point out that those are total king salmon, they're not differentiated by size, we don't have that sort of detailed reporting in our personal use system— you apply that dropout rate to those 10 fish, it would amount to about half a fish, so round it up to 1.

In addition, the TTC also applies release mortality, which doesn't apply in this case, of 50%. So in the Canadian lower river fisheries, which when they're under non-retention and they're releasing fish and tracking those fish, they apply a mortality of 50% to those released fish in the Canadian fishery. Madam Chair, thank you. Appreciate that extra context. All right.

Any other questions for Troy before We let him go back to his more comfortable seat. Thanks, Troy. OK, let's talk about Northern Southeast Outside Summer Run Chum Salmon Action Plan review, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board and members of the public. For the record, my name is Anthony Wallach and I'm the assistant area management biologist for the Sitka Management Area commercial fisheries. And today I'll be presenting on the Northern Southeast Outside Summer Run Chum Salmon Action Plan review. And hard copies of this presentation are available as RC3 tab 32, and the written report is available as RC5.

Today I'm going to provide an overview of the Northern Southeast Outside, or NSEO, summer-run chum salmon index area. And then I will discuss the fisheries that harvest the NSCO chum salmon with a focus on the persane fishery. And then we'll also explore the key management considerations that inform the development of the action plan alternatives. And then finally, we'll dive into the details of each action plan alternative.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So here we have a map that illustrates the 9 index streams that comprised the NSCO index for the summer-run chum salmon, and that was through 2024. And I'd like to note that this year the index stream in West Crawfish Inlet right here has been removed from the index. These streams, they're dispersed across the Sitka management area from Portlock Harbor up by Black River all the way down to Whale Bay here.

The index counts within the subregion, they're primarily driven by 4 main systems, and those 4 main systems are Black River, The Sisters Lake head area right here.

West Crawfish Inlet head stream. And then also the Whale Bay stream.

And right now, currently, only the Black River has maintained its average production while the remaining smaller systems have shown improvement by reaching or exceeding the historical averages as of 2020. 2024. I'd like to point out that the southern Bairdoff index streams that were Whale Bay and West Crawfish Inlet, they play a critical role because if all the other index streams were at historical levels of production and these two continue to underperform, achieving that lower bound of the sustainable escapement goal would be highly unlikely. And As we learned yesterday, the West Crawfish Headstream has been removed from the index, and if the Whale Bay Great Arm Head continues its poor performance, achieving the SEG will remain challenging.

The NSEO chum salmon, they're harvested in various fisheries, and those fisheries include the subsistence sport, commercial troll, hatchery cost recovery, and the commercial persane. While we have data on the total harvest of each fishery, the proportion of the NSEO chum salmon in these harvests, they are unknown. And however, the fisheries occurring closer to the index streams, they're more likely to harvest the NSEO origin chum. The subsistence and sport fisheries, they likely contribute minimally to the overall harvest and therefore will not discuss in great detail. The commercial troll fishery primarily targets the hatchery-produced chum salmon in Sitka Sound and West Crawfish Inlet, with the fishing occurring in mid to late August.

And although the incidental harvest of The NSEO chum salmon is expected to be low in the Sitka Sound troll fishery. The troll fishery in West Crawfish Inlet likely harvests some NSEO chum salmon bound for that area. The hatchery cost recovery fisheries in West Crawfish Inlet are aimed at preventing the hatchery chum salmon from staging near the West Crawfish index streams, but they may also harvest some wild NSEO chum salmon. And our discussion on the commercial fisheries, they'll primarily focus on the persian fishery in Sections 13(a) and (b), and that is due to the historical harvest levels and the terminal nature of the fishery.

Here we have a map of the pink salmon fishing areas of the NSEO subregion, and these areas include the Portlock Harbor Cas Bay, Slocum Arm, Salisbury Sound, Sitka Sound, West Crawfish Inlet, and Whale Bay. And due to the geographic location of these streams, the fish migrating— the fish migrate straight from the ocean, and then they avoid major inside migration corridors, thus avoiding mixed stock fisheries. And this allows for management flexibility to permit harvest on the strong runs while protecting the weaker ones. Porlock Harbor and Cas Bay, they are typically managed together with the openings driven by chum abundance early in season and then later by the pink salmon numbers. Salisbury Sound openings target the pink salmon that are bound for Salisbury, Peril Strait, and Hoonah Sound systems.

But however, the time and area restrictions have been more stringent due to weaker pink salmon runs to Hoonah Sound.

The Sitka Sound has no NSEO index streams and several hatchery chum salmon release sites, and those sites are shown on the map in dark triangles.

And, uh, The common property seine openings, they're based on the pink salmon abundance, but the hatchery chum salmon are likely incidental harvests in these fisheries within Sitka Sound. The West Crawfish Inlet and Whale Bay pink salmon fisheries, they're the most terminal in nature, and management decisions consider the performance of both the pink and chum salmon returning to these areas. West Crawfish Inlet is a special case because it requires a balance between preventing stray hatchery chum salmon from entering the streams while protecting the wild pink and chum salmon. This has led to hatchery cost recovery and common property purse seine and troll openings, which inevitably result in the incidental take of the wild NSCO chum at unknown rates.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And then to focus on the persane fisheries within the subregion, I will discuss the past and present management actions that are related to the NSCO chum. Before 2024, it was believed that the time and area restrictions implemented to conserve pink salmon stocks would also conserve the weak and.

CO chum salmon escapements. And these measures included restrictive lines in Portlock Harbor and Cas Bay early in the pink salmon fishery, restricted time and area in Salisbury Sound to protect weak pink salmon escapements. And Whale Bay has remained closed since 2021, and there's been no pink salmon openings that occurred in West Crawfish Inlet from 2018 to 2023. But despite these efforts, the index goal was not consistently achieved after the 2019 season. And in 2024, there are targeted actions taken in the purse seine fishery to conserve the NSEO chum salmon.

And given the closure of Whale Bay and Salisbury Sound to protect pink salmon, the management efforts focused on Portlock Harbor, Cas Bay, Slocum Arm, and West Crawfish Inlet areas. These areas saw more restrictive time and area limits than would have been implemented for the pink salmon management alone. As the pink salmon run developed, time restrictions were gradually, gradually relaxed, but the area closures protecting the NSEO index streams remained in place throughout the entirety of the season. The West Crawfish Inlet. In West Crawfish Inlet, there is an unusually strong pink salmon run that prompted additional aerial and foot surveys early in August of 2024.

These surveys confirmed that the summer-run chum salmon had likely passed its peak, with most fish either in freshwater or protected by closed waters. And consequently, the time restrictions in this fishery were more conservative than necessary for pink salmon management.

And although the current index goal was missed in 2024, the revised NSCO summer-run chum salmon goal of 19,500 index fish was achieved in 2024.

When developing the action plan, there were several key aspects of the NSEO subregion and its fisheries that were taken into account. Maintaining management flexibility is crucial, especially for the directed purslane fisheries, and this consideration is realistic to two main factors. One, the terminal nature of the purslane fisheries, and and then the wide geographic distribution of the index streams, and that allows for targeted management actions. Another important consideration was the management of the hatchery-produced chum salmon in West Crawfish Inlet, and specifically this plan aimed to balance the conservation of the summer-run chum with the harvest of the hatchery-produced chum in hatchery cost recovery and common property troll and persane fisheries within the inlet.

And the goals of the action plan, they are to rebuild the NSEO summer-run chum salmon to levels that consistently meet the lower bound sustainable escapement goal, to reduce the harvest of the NSEO summer-run chum salmon, and to mitigate impacts of the hatchery-produced chum salmon. And then provide flexibility to management existing fisheries to allow harvest on pink salmon stocks while conserving the NSCO summer-run chum. Next, we'll go over the 4 different action plan alternatives.

For Action 1, involves the commercial fishery with the objective to reduce commercial harvest. And actions in the commercial fishery, they'll focus on the perséne fishery within the subregion. And the preferred management approach is to continue the 2024 strategy utilizing the department's emergency order authority to manage the persian fisheries based on overall salmon abundance.

Management actions would occur from statistical week 27 through 34, roughly July through mid-August, and specific time and area restrictions, they would depend on in-season assessments. Of the summer-run chum salmon that are returning to the individual NSEO index streams. And these actions would focus on areas near the chum salmon index streams in Cas Bay, Slocum Arm, and in Sister Lakes area, Portlock Harbor, Salisbury Sound, and the purse seine areas south of Sitka, which are West Crawfish Inlet and Whale Bay. Restrictions would not be implemented in Sitka Sound, and that's due to the high number of hatchery-produced chum salmon and the absence of the NSCO index streams. And as needed, hatchery cost recovery and common property purse seine openings would continue in West Crawfish Inlet to mitigate the straying of the hatchery-produced chum salmon.

And the fishery boundaries would be chosen to conserve the wild summer-run chum salmon that are returning to West Crawfish Inlet. I'd like to note that although West Crawfish Inlet head stream is removed from the NSEO index, this area is going to be continued to be managed based on the in-season run strength of the summer-run chum salmon. And this approach acknowledges the NSCO subregion's wide geographic distribution, the terminal nature of the persian fisheries, and the variation in productivities between the individual NSCO streams. This will allow for conservation of NSCO chum salmon when warranted and reducing unnecessary restrictions on the pink salmon fisheries. However, if the high commercial harvest rates of NSEO summer-run chum salmon are the primary factor contributing to the recent poor escapements, more prescriptive management measures may be necessary to improve the escapements.

The next action involves a subsistence fishery, and our objective is to maintain the subsistence opportunity As I mentioned early— earlier, there is minimal effort and harvest in the subsistence fishery of NSEO chum. Within the past 10 years, there's been less than 300 chum that have been harvested in this fishery, and as a result, there are no additional restrictions that are recommended for the existing subsistence fisheries in this area.

The next action involves the sport fishery. And the objective is to reduce the sport harvest. The sport fishery in the NSEO subregion, like the subsistence fishery, has minimal effort and harvest. The 10-year average annual sport harvest of chum salmon is approximately 2,400 fish in the saltwater. And There are no additional restrictions that are recommended for the existing sport fishery in this area.

However, the department does retain its option to use the emergency order authority to reduce the sport harvest of the NSCO summer-run chum, and that's if necessary by implementing in-season restrictions or closures in the specific areas within the subregion.

And then the final action alternative addresses the releases of hatchery-produced chum salmon at the Crawfish Inlet release site. The primary objective of this alternative is to mitigate the impacts of the straying hatchery-produced chum and the incidental harvest of wild summer-run chum. The three options that will be presented for consideration range from maintaining the current approach to ending hatch-reproduced chum salmon releases in Crawfish Inlet altogether.

But before exploring those options, I'd like to take a little closer look at the Crawfish Inlet and West Crawfish Inlet area. And this map illustrates here the two index streams in West Crawfish Inlet.

We have the West Crawfish Northeast Armhead that serves— it used to be part of the chum salmon index but has been removed this year. It is also part of the pink salmon index. And then we also have the West Crawfish North Arm Northeast Stream, which is part of the pink salmon index. And I'd also like to note with this stream, it also receives a wild summer-run chum. Run to that stream.

And then we have the Crawfish Inlet Special Harvest Area shown here in blue with the release site up at the head.

And then we have the Shamrock Bay SHA, which is shown here outlined by the dashed lines. And this area is open by emergency order when the chum salmon concentrations increase. And then we have the primary area within West Crawfish Inlet shown in pink here that is open to common property per se.

Harvests when necessary.

And that brings us to our first option, which is to maintain the status quo and make no changes to the chum salmon releases at Crawfish Inlet. The benefits of this action are to minimize disruptions to the existing commercial and hatchery cost recovery fisheries, and the detriments are that at current levels of hatchery straying and incidental harvest of the wild summer-run chum, salmon would likely continue.

The next option is one where the commissioner reduces chum salmon releases by up to 25%, and the benefit of this action is it may reduce hatchery straying and incidental harvest of the wild summer-run chum salmon by unknown amount. The downside to this approach is that the hatchery straying and the incidental harvest of the wild summer-run chum would likely continue, but at a potentially reduced level. This may also result in the reduced opportunity for common property troll and persene fisheries to harvest hatchery-produced chum salmon and would also reduce the hatchery cost recovery harvest opportunity as well.

And then that brings us to our final option. Which would be for the commissioner to prohibit releases of hatchery-produced chum salmon in Crawfish Inlet. The benefits of this action would be to eliminate— the elimination of hatchery straying and the incidental harvest of wild summer-run chum in the fisheries that target the hatchery-produced fish. The West Crawfish Headstream could be used again to assess the NSCO run strength, and the detriments would be the loss of the opportunity to harvest the hatchery-produced chum salmon in Crawfish Inlet by all fisheries.

And that concludes my presentation, and we'll now accept any questions. Thank you for the presentation. Board questions?

All right, I will ask a couple. So on slide 3, I was trying to take some notes, but you You mentioned something specifically about Black River. What was that?

Madam Chair, I just mentioned that Black River for our index streams and our index counts is one of the highest producers within the subregion. Thank you for that. Mr. Carpenter, I'll get to my follow-up question with that is what is the history of about how these streams are assessed. Like, what is the history of the indexing? Was, was there a time when you moved to this model where there were more index streams and some were removed over time?

And if so, how many and where and when and why?

Madam Chair, for the record, I'm Andy Piston, the regional salmon research supervisor for Southeast Alaska. So the index streams were originally chosen based on streams that had consistent counts of chum salmon over time at the appropriate time for peak timing. So that's really where the original selection of streams happened. And for a while, we only had 5 index streams. And a couple board cycles ago, we added some additional streams.

We added, I think, Kalinin Cove, Cas Bay, Slocum, I think those are the ones that were more recent. Oh, and Waterfall Cove. So we actually increased the coverage of the index a few cycles ago when we modified the index. Since that modification, what has been removed? Just the West Croft Fish.

Is there discussions to remove Whale Bay? No, that one hasn't. We saw strays in there on the biggest return year of crawfish, but we've sampled it since and we didn't— it didn't look like that was a continuing issue. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Um, my question was kind of specific to Whale Bay.

Um, what percentage of Whale Bay, uh, index area makes up the— over the— what percentage of the overall —total index is that? Well, typically, if you look at average pink counts for all these streams, Black River's the largest. It's, I think, around 7,000, 8,000 as an average count. And Sisters Lake, West Crawfish, and Whale Bay all are around 6,000, 7,000 or so. Okay.

And then the other, the other smaller ones usually have average counts around, you know, $1,000, $1,500 on a normal year. 'Cause when I kinda looked through the information that I had available to me, it seems to me that a lot of these index streams over time have obviously fluctuated. And is this just a, I guess this is your opinion, quite frankly, Is it a matter of water conditions, water levels, snowpack? You know, I mean, snow down here is different than what I'm used to in regards to, you know, having enough water for these systems in the summertime. But is that becoming an increasingly big thing down here?

Well, in certain years, 2018 for example, would be a year for some of the smaller systems I could see there being some problems, because we definitely saw that in other areas of Southeast. 2019 A little bit. More recently, I don't think we've had too many issues with, you know, extreme low water during the summer. There has been some limited cases of that in different parts of the region, but I would suspect it's more just, you know, marine environment, marine survival driving the overall trends we see across the entire subregion. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. So this one's interesting, but why do you think the, the fish that were released in Crawfish Inlet— why, what is the reasoning for why they came back in such high numbers for the first year and two or two?

Through the chair, that's a really good question, and I think we've seen that in other initial releases in the past where you get some amazing survival initially, and I'm not sure what the reason would be why that quickly it would decline to more average levels that we tend to see at other release sites. So I guess I don't have a definitive answer for that. Okay, so it— in, in this case, it was a matter of just really good ocean survival as opposed to how many— really, how many fish were released at that time? Through the chair, yeah, the release size hasn't changed. It's just they had phenomenal survival for those first few years.

Thank you.

How are the release sites selected? Is there criteria? What, what is that process?

Well, I think that goes through the RPT process and So I think they're brought up, I think, through the RPT process, the, the Hatchery Association would bring it up for consideration and then it would go through a process there. Is there any criteria that's established for, for that, or is it just like, we think this place is great? Well, I think it's through that process, a whole variety of factors would be looked at from You know, the strain would obviously be one issue, and that is something that was, you know, expressed as a concern for this release site during the RPT process. But does the department have—. Provide guidance on that, or some— Mr. Bowers?

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, so Mr. Piston's correct. The— essentially, the hatchery operator would propose a potential new release site, and then the department would evaluate that and Some of the factors we would look at would be the impacts on wild stocks, the impacts on existing fisheries or other uses.

And yeah, the RPT is used to make a recommendation to the commissioner on approval or denial. Mr. Pryor can add to that since he's, he's been intimately involved with the RPT process in Southeast. Where these have been permitted. Thanks.

For the record, Flip Prior, Aquaculture Section Chief. The only criteria left out was a reasonable segregation between wild stocks. How does the department determine the impacts on wild stocks in that process?

So if that's one of the criteria, one of the things that the department is charged with looking at, at the request of the RPT, How are you doing so? Madam Chair, new release sites usually require a test fishery ahead of time to see if— go in and set— make some sets with the seiner and see what fish are there during the timing that you would expect fish to come back.

That's usually done for 2 years before a site would be approved. Thanks, Mr. Wood. Yeah, I mean, this site in particular where you, where you released and where they came back to, is there any explanation why they didn't go back to where they released? And since the releases have been happening, have they returned en masse back to the original release site, or do they have— they always continue to go back up into the West Crawfish Inlet? Through the chair, we've— the release— the releases remain stable, but the, you know, the run sizes have decreased over time.

But we're still seeing, you know, when we sample the stream, we're still seeing, you know, hatchery fish moving into West Crawfish Inlet as well. And it's really, you know, the distance between those two sites is within what we've seen with all our studies across the region. Generally, you can expect to see some proportions of, you know, relatively high strain at that distance.

Follow-up? One last follow-up. So understanding that you had wild fish there and it was used as an index and the other fish are going up in there now and kind of, you know, overpopulating that original wild stream, how do you— what's your assessment on how do you come to the conclusion of how it's affecting the fitness of the wild fish ultimately? That's a really difficult question to answer, and hopefully the— you know, we have a study in play right now that's geared towards getting that exact answer, and hopefully, you know, hopefully it'll have enough power to detect those differences when the final results come out. So that, that would be the main answer.

Hopefully we'll actually get an answer to that. Coming up soon. Mr. Swenson. Any— we discussed the other night that this is kind of a strange area because the fish can— they come up in there and then a lot of them, they go up the wrong side there, but then they go back over into the other side. And so where do those strays basically spawn then if a lot of them go on the side, you know, and I'm— yeah, and then the waters are a lot alike.

It doesn't that lead to the problem with this imprinting too? Because, you know, they're so close together. So through the chair, I think that is part of the problem is the, you know, there's not a large stream up in Crawfish, so that could play a role in the imprinting. And then you have pretty, you know, they probably get fairly similar cues coming into the Crawfish area, and it's a pretty convoluted area for for the fish to navigate. And but as far as where they go to spawn, I mean, the idea is we want to harvest them all.

So, you know, we're, we're catching as many as we can in Crawfish. We've had those management actions to try to harvest more of them in Shamrock Bay and near the West Crawfish Stream. But beyond the harvest we're able to do, they, they likely go to From what we've seen with our sampling, they go to the nearest streams that can support spawning. So that's why I see them in the West Crawfish Index stream and the other non-index stream in the area.

And that's why you get such a high rate of this in this area especially. Okay, well, thank you.

One quick one. Is, is there any chance that predator density would impact where they go? Like if there's all of a sudden the predators are keying into this one inlet that they're actually chased, that that the fish are avoiding them to go up to—.

Through the chair, I'm not sure if that would play a role. I would think it would be temporary. I mean, I suppose if a pod of killer whales took up residence in Crawfish, it might have some kind of impact on where they want to be, but I don't think that's what we're seeing here.

To the actions that are presented, Here, Action 4, specific to crawfish.

Option A is status quo. What is status quo? What is the volume of release that is currently permitted?

Madam Chair, I think we're at 30 million. So that one site? That's correct. Why was the 25% reduction number selected? Was there a particular reason?

Was it just a— convenient number, or why was 25% being presented to the board? Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. So we were looking at 25% as, as an incremental step that we could evaluate. You know, we— this is the first time that we have taken an action like this to reduce permitted capacity.

So, you know, this would allow us to evaluate the effect of that and then take further action if needed. And I don't know if Mr. Chairman or Mr. Commissioner, if you have any additional comments on that. Thanks. So I think crawfish caught us off guard. You know, we went through the process, we put it in kind of an isolated area, but we saw string.

So now we're seeing strain. To me, the responsible action is not just simply to remove index streams of wild stocks that you've identified as stocks of concern as the management measure, but it's to take something additional. And am I going to shut down crawfish totally? I don't think that was a responsible thing to do given what's happening to the processing sector and everything else right now. And the fishermen are suffering because of market conditions.

So again, I think it took an incremental step here. 25% Seemed like a a number. We'll figure out whether or not that 25% actually is working or not. But in addition to that 25%, I've asked for kind of a review of the entire process here because something is missing here in terms of we got to where we got to right now. And that RPT process needs to have a good close look at it to figure out where we're going to go in the future.

But in the meantime, I thought 25% was the right number. Just did some quick math. That's about $7.5 million. I think, yeah, I think this— I think that in my thing I read last week, $7.5 million down. And how does that relate to the overall release in this particular region in terms of chum releases in total?

Madam Chair, Phil Pryor, Aquaculture Section Chief. It's not a huge drop. We tend to look at And when we're talking these numbers, it's eggs. That's our permitting standard. So 20 million eggs is a conservative increase, decrease— we don't decrease, but increase of 20 million eggs is considered conservative because we're looking at can we manage the returns on that.

And so the number picked here was enough of a change that we'll be able to detect changes to the fishery. But it's not a drastic reduction. Yeah, yeah, I guess I'm just trying to get a picture, an overall picture of how many releases or how many— what's the volume of releases in this region that NSORAP puts out? Is it 200 million? Is it— what is it?

I mean, because I'm trying to just— 30 million, I think, is what you said for this specific site, so. How does it— how is it distributed? What's the total? What's the— Madam Chair, I don't have that right off the top of my head, but I can easily get that to you. Okay, thank you.

All right, let's move on. Thank you for your presentation today. Let's talk about Hugh Smith Lake Sakai.

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. Beau Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Division of Commercial Fisheries. Um, excuse me. I manage the Districts 1 through 4 commercial net fisheries. Hugh Smith is located in District 1, and that is the district where they are primarily harvested.

Um, this oral report can be found under RC3, tab 33, while more detailed information for everything Hugh Smith sockeye can be found in the Hugh Smith Lake Sockeye Salmon Stock Status and Action Plan in RC6. I'll be reviewing in a little more detail the specific items presented in the Hugh Smith Lake Sockeye Action Plan that Mr. Piston presented for commercial and subsistence fisheries. Kelly Reppert will provide a closer look at the sport fishery. And Mr. Piston highlighted many of the relevant points in his presentation, and given the nature of the Hugh Smith sockeye harvest, we will primarily focus on the commercial fisheries options with little discussion geared towards subsistence and sport. And just some quick background on Hugh Smith's sockeye.

During the 2003.

Board of fish meeting here in Ketchikan, Hugh Smith Lake sockeye became the first fish stock in Southeast Alaska to be declared a stock, stock of concern under the relatively new, at that time, Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy. The lake itself is located on the mainland, 43 miles southwest of Ketchikan, in the pristine Misty Fjords National Wilderness Monument. The lake empties into Boca de Quadra Inlet via Sockeye Creek. And as you can see here, it's a very short jaunt from the weir to saltwater. I should further add too, as you see some of these maps as we get through the presentation, that Hugh Smith Lake right here is about 15 miles from the mouth of Boca de Cuadra, where the nearest commercial fisheries would take place.

So when looking at specific options for reducing the commercial harvest, there are 3 options presented. Option A would be no formal prescribed actions Option B could be considered status quo since 2006 when the stock of concern designation was removed. The department has in most years implemented those area restrictions prescribed from the original action plan. And then finally, Option C would increase time and area restrictions from the 2003 action plan.

So Action Item 2 is going to be the— Excuse me, I skipped forward too far. So when looking at the specific options for reducing the commercial harvest, there are 3 options presented. Oh, apologies. Action 2 would be the subsistence fishery. There's a positive C&T finding for Hugh Smith Lake sockeye and Sockeye Creek.

Current subsistence regulations provide for a 12 sockeye possession limit with no annual limit per permit. No change to the subsistence fishery is recommended at this time. Given the distance from Ketchikan, the very small percentage of subsistence harvest that does occur at Hugh Smith, this opportunity should be continued. And with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Ruppert with Sport Fish. Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Kelly Ruppert, the Sport Fishery Management Biologist here in Ketchikan.

For the sport fishery, Option A is to maintain status quo. There are no recommended actions being considered at this time because sport effort and harvest is very low. Under Option B, the department would use E.O. Authority to close sport fishing for sockeye salmon at Hugh Smith Lake and the saltwater areas in the Sockeye Creek estuary, though it's unlikely that either option will decrease Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon by a measurable amount. With that, I'll pass it back to Beau.

Thanks, Kelly. So one of the challenges with the management of Hugh Smith sockeye is the protracted run timing. Hughes-Smith are present throughout the summer, and the timing can and has been highly variable. So what you're looking at is a relative timing chart for Hughes-Smith sockeye arriving at the weir. And so this figure has taken dates and translated it to the midpoint of the start of a statistical week.

And there's not really anything statistical about a statistical week. These can fluctuate up to 6 days. So for example, stat week 28 ranges from July 3rd to July 9th. That's just entirely dependent on what day of the week January 1st falls. And so the average midpoint of the run is August 4th, and again, that's to the weir, which coincides with Stat Week 31, while 90% of the run is to the weir on August 31st, which coincides with Stat Week 35, which is typically when you would see the end of the directed persian fishery in District 1. and then 95% are to the weir on September 7th.

And so with that timing in mind, we'll jump into the specific options for commercial fisheries presented in the AP. So again, Hugh Smith is located, you know, centrally on the mainland shore of District 1, and like most seine fisheries in Southeast, the seine fishery is managed on the strength of pink salmon. Typically, the purse seine fishery in District 1 opens on Stat Week 27 or 28, usually the first Sunday in July. And then closes on or around Statwick 35. So this map shows the location of Hughes-Smith right here in the middle of Boca de Quadra Inlet in relationship to Ketchikan.

And then the blue hatch is kind of denoting the area that you would typically see open on a normal pink salmon abundance year, while the green hatch reflects the, the District 1, Section 1B drift gillnet fishery. The black or dark gray denotes regulatory closed waters. And then it should be noted here, what you're looking at in the center of District 1 is Annette Island. It's the only federally recognized Indian tribe— Indian reservation in Alaska. And the state does not have management authority within 3,000 waters— 3,000 feet of the waters around Annette Island and a few other small, small named islands.

Option A would be no formal action plan. The department would use EO authority to manage commercial fisheries based on overall salmon abundance. Management actions to reduce harvest of Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon would be implemented in the District 1 purse seine and drift gillnet fisheries and could include area restrictions. And then specific actions would depend on in-season assessments of run strength, general observations of sockeye and pink salmon abundance and harvest, weir counts, and expected or realized effort levels.

So now we're looking at a similar map presenting Option B. Option B is basically the 2003 action plan revisited and what has been implemented in recent years. This is a similar map as the previous one, but it notes a slightly smaller blue hatch, same open area that is better, better depicts what a typical open area would look like during stat weeks 29 and 30 when this would be triggered. As you can note up on the upper left, this, this is the backside of Gravina Island. The northern portion of this stat area remains closed currently through Stat Week 31 per the McDonald Act— McDonald Lake Action Plan that is currently in place.

And so Stat Week 29, this closure would be implemented if the weir is projecting out to be below the lower end of the escapement goal we close the mouth of Quadra from Quadra Point to Slate Island Light, south to Black Rock Light, and then due east to a point on the mainland shore.

Same, same, same, same option, Option B. If in Stat Week 39, or Stat Week, excuse me, Stat Week 31, the in-season projection is still below the lower end of the escapement goal, the Persane closure extends north and south of the mouth of Boca de Cuadra to Black Island to Black Rock Light, and then due south to Foggy Point Light. Additionally, the drift gillnet fishery in Section 1B, denoted by the green hatch here, is closed 1 nautical mile south of Foggy Point Light. And so Option C for the commercial fisheries would take the largest area restriction from the 2003 action plan, what you just saw in the previous slide that were in effect in Stat Week 31 through 33 and implement that area closure beginning in Stat Week 29. And then if by Stat Week 31, uh, the in-season projection is still below the lower end of the escapement goal, this area here would close.

Uh, this area has provided some significant opportunity for boats willing to fish slightly offshore, um, and so So those are the options, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'd just like to take a moment to try and capture some of the impacts that those different options may have. And so it's really difficult to quantify, you know, the impact that the options have on the traditional District 1 net fisheries, but observations of pink salmon escapement over time can give some rough estimates. And so first, just to highlight the numbers of salmon harvested in the D1 purse seine fishery. How it relates between species, and how Hu Smith sockeye play into that harvest.

The Hu Smith estimate is shown here on the table. Going back through 2014, and I should emphasize that the Hu Smith sockeye harvest estimate is derived through GSI. Going back to 2014, the total sockeye harvest has accounted for 1.7% of the total salmon harvest in District 1, Pershing. And of that total District 1 sockeye harvest, the 10-year average Hugh Smith composition of the total sockeye harvest has, has been 11.6%.

And then so the Hugh Smith sockeye composition of the total District 1 salmon harvest is approximately 0.2%.

So we then zoom out that to the regional level to provide some perspective on how District 1 purse seine relates to the broader regional level. With regards to pink salmon harvest. Southeast is managed regionally with constant communication between the, between the AMBs in each office. Vessels, vessels can also participate in any open area throughout the region, and it's not uncommon for a vessel to be fishing in the Ketchikan area during one opening and then fishing outside of Sitka or Juneau in the next opening. So this chart just shows the, the 10-year average pink harvest by district with numbers of pink salmon on the y and districts on the X.

And District 1 compared to the other districts, you can see over the last 10 years, it is the predominant district with the largest amount of pink salmon harvest over the last 10 years. If you recall from Ms. Everson's presentation, you know, we could extend this back to 1985.

District 4 still is the largest harvester of pink salmon, but in the most recent 10 years, District 1 has been. And then so zooming back into District 1 and the general levels of escapement into the largest pink salmon system, the Keter River in Boca de Quadra Inlet since 1985. You know, pink salmon management is somewhat subjective to the area manager. There are not escapement goals for individual systems. But rather at a broader stock group level.

And so the peak counts from 2019 through 2024 here on this figure represent pink count peak counts with Option B of the action plan in effect from Stat Week 29 through 33. An adequate target that I like to see for pink salmon into the Keta River is anywhere between, you know, 200,000-400,000 pink salmon. And so These blue bars that you're seeing here represent an aerial survey count. It's a, you know, our peak one-day, single-day count during what is thought to be the peak in-river abundance. And so the blue bars represented on the right y-axis are your peak counts in numbers of pink salmon.

And then the gray line is denoted as total District 1 pink salmon harvest on the right y-axis. And so it just paints a rough estimate of potential foregone harvest, you know, of over 1 million pink salmon in the Keta River in 2024. And obviously it would be expanded for the other pink systems in Quadra. But Keta was far and away outperformed most of those other systems. So slightly expanded.

But Madam Chair, members of the board, that's, that's all I got. And I'll take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Meredith. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Specific to the different options laid out in the action plan, which one of these options— well, I guess my first question is, depending on what the board were to do with this, how big of an impact are these options going to have on you to manage this pink salmon fishery specifically to control levels of escapement?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. While Hugh Smith currently— it recently got relisted as a stock of concern at the October work session. So while it has not been a stock of concern, I've taken management actions from 2019 through 2024, as you saw in Option B. So those actions have been implemented the last 6 years.

Option C takes that a step further, increases the total area beginning immediately in Stat Week 29, which is, you know, 2 weeks additional expansion to that, to that closure in District 1. And that's really the crux of my question is You know, obviously options, options C starts things earlier and there's expanded closure areas. And I guess that's my question. Will that have an impact on your ability to control the pink salmon escapement levels?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, it certainly will. To what extent? You know, it's really difficult to quantify. I'll leave it at that. And then I guess my other question would be on slide— if I could find it here real quick— I guess slide 11, where you break down the District 1 commercial purse seine harvest and then kind of the percentages associated with Hughes-Smith Lake.

Am I, am I taking that there is no chart that references the gillnet fishery that takes place because the percentages are just significantly lower in the on that harvest? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I, I kept this one focused for the board's interest in time, but there is a similar chart. It is not as— D1 per se harvest more, but that can shift on any given year. If these fish came through the same week, the same numbers on any given week, and came through the same point, it would be easy to manage for these. But it's, you know, it differs on any given year, and sometimes the gillnet fishery in District 1 does take a significant proportion.

But overall, when you average it out, the D1 purse st. harvest more. Thank you. So to follow up on that, do you have a similar table that is broken out by stat week for percentage of sockeye harvest present in both the purse and the drift net, gill net fishery. Do we have that by stat week in RC6, or is it by year? Madam Chair, we have in RC6 that information through the year.

I don't believe it's broken out by stat week.

I apologize. Table 3 in RC6 has that information, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other questions?

Mr. Wood. Wait, I just looked up the Keta River. In that inlet, what is the biggest producer? Is Keta the biggest producer of the pink salmon? Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Wood, I got it up here on the screen.

Keta River is— this is Keta Arm. Keta River is by far the largest producer of pink salmon. The Martin River is down here. It's a close second, but the Keta River this year was unlike anything I've ever seen, and it was bonkers for pink salmon. So it says the waters are closed there.

Why is— why is that? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, Quadra has numerous salmon streams. And if you scroll down here, you've got Badger, Weasel, Vixen. They're all prolific pink salmon systems. The Keita River itself is a, is a 4-species index stream for Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon.

It's very unusual too with regards to timing. Keita and Martin River are our first really pink salmon systems that we target pink salmon in early July. Those fish come in very early, and then as the season progresses, the remainder of the Boca de Cuadra systems are very late. And so you have this protracted run, not only with Hugh Smith but with pink salmon, to those other systems. While they don't have the same magnitude as the keeta, those fish, you know, the Humpback in, to the south of Hugh Smith, I've had peak counts for pink salmon on that system when I'm conducting a helicopter aerial survey for coho in early October.

Wow, thank you. I guess what I was getting at is why wouldn't it be possible to have a more focused harvest in specifically up in that inlet for at that time frame? So that's what I was getting at. Yeah, believe me, that's been a topic of discussion. Excuse me, through the chair.

Given, given that it's a 4 index stream for multiple species, it's just not prudent to go up there and harvest the abundance of pink salmon because of the incidental harvest you would likely encounter.

Okay, thank you very much.

I think, uh, it's about 11:30. I think we'll take a little bit of an early lunch break and come back with, um, and we'll begin our traditional knowledge reports and our public testimony this afternoon. So thank you very much. We'll come back on the record at 1 PM.

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Time is 1:10. We are back on the record and we're going to start into sort of the public portion, one of the public portions of this meeting. And we're going to start this afternoon with traditional knowledge reports followed by public testimony.

I'll give you a little bit of information about traditional knowledge reports since we haven't seen one before at a Southeast meeting. So relatively new to the board's process at this meeting, of course, is the inclusion of traditional knowledge reports from the public. The board recognizes local and traditional knowledge as an important aspect of best available science. As such, access to these knowledge systems should be an important part of informing board decisions through their close proximity and intimate, often longstanding relationships with fishery sources, the environment, and the ecological systems that are critical to fishery sustainability. The board endeavors to incorporate traditional knowledge more intentionally into its process by seeking and inviting traditional knowledge holders recognized by their community, tribe, or other organizations to share their experiences, their values, and alternative or independent observations and data collections directly with the board.

For the purposes of this meeting, the invitation has been made through this new agenda item. The board has provided the opportunity to sign up for traditional knowledge testimony relevant to the proposals and subject matter under consideration at this meeting. If you are interested in the full adopted board policy on traditional knowledge, I'd encourage you to go look it up on our website on the findings page. It is 2024-305-FB.

We experimented with this a little bit last year, and through our process committee, we're going to continue to solicit feedback on this approach and, and suggestions for how it might be improved for future regulatory board meetings. For this meeting, for session 2, the deadline to sign up for traditional knowledge consideration was noon on January 31st. So last Friday. So with that, we have 3 individuals that have signed up. The first one on my list today is Charlie Skolka Jr. with the hearing protectors.

Is Charlie in the room? Hi.

Welcome.

Turn your mic on, please. You have to hit that red button.

Mr. Charlie, klek-ah yu-hat-doo-ah-sohk. Kit-koon kai-da yu-hat-doo-ah-sohk. Guneesh-cheesh. Thank you all for having me. I'm super excited for this opportunity.

I've waited my whole life for this. In fact, I've been in training my whole life for this opportunity. And I encourage the board to continue this. Traditional knowledge is important. Traditionally, herring was harvested in Southeast in what I see as one of the most sustainable ways ever done since its inception.

Shortly after statehood in 1958, it was recognized as a commercial fishery. Or in the 1960s. Um, that first commercial herring roe fishery was in 1965, and it was done in the most sustainable way possible. Zero mortality rate. Done predominantly by Native fishermen.

There were 800 permits issued by the state of Alaska. In 1965 to harvest herring eggs on kelp. That fishery took place in 4 locations: Fish Egg Island by Craig, Pelican, I believe, and of course Sitka. And there was one more.

In 1966— well, back in '65, over 90% of those permits were held by Native Alaskans, Alaskan natives. In 1966, there were 1,100 permits issued.

Over 75% of those were Native Alaskans. In 1967, the fishery was shut down. The state said that we were depleting the kelp beds.

And the thought was after the kelp beds regrew, we would continue this fishery.

In 1964, they went one step further and they opened Sacro.

Originally there were 4 communities that we fished sacro in: Sitka, Craig, Heidelberg, and Pelican. Or excuse me, those were the places where the tarrying— the sacro fishery took place in Sitka, Juneau, Pelican, Kasaan Bay, Seymour Canal, and Kashakes. Over the course of time, seining was taken out of the picture in some of those places. Switch to gillnetting.

I got a really unique opportunity this morning to do some observations. I took off at 6 o'clock this morning from Sitka, and when we took off, I could see all the way to the Fairweather Range. When I landed in Juneau, I got a clear shot all the way up the canal. I could see as far as almost to Haines.

From there I flew to Ketchikan and I got to see all the way from Auq Bay, even got a glimpse of Cape Shakun today. My observations, there was no herring activity. There was nobody out there fishing. This time of year is a time when we would be out there bait fishing. I didn't see any of that going on.

That was just my report from this morning.

But in listening to the state's report, they had a bunch of amazing graphs. You know, over the years here, I was chosen because I've got kind of a unique perspective. My family's been involved in herring since time immemorial. We harvested for subsistence. Been a subsistence harvester for almost 60 years.

But I was also a commercial fisherman, a commercial herring fisherman for almost 30 years.

And looking back, I mean, we're not born knowing the difference between wrong or right. We learn those things over the course of a life. Lifetime. What really changed my mind about herring fishing was unfortunately on a day in 1981. I was on board the same boat, up in— it was actually the height of May and we were up in Juneau.

And with the help of Fish and Game, we successfully eradicated the Juneau herring stock. I was on board the boat that caught the last school of herring in Juneau. Shortly after that, it turned me on herring fishing, or the way that we're collecting these herring eggs.

Originally, there was a way more sustainable way that it was done.

I mean, when we look at the two fisheries, the collecting the eggs on kelp or branches, that's 100% sustainable. Mortality rate is literally zero. When we go and kill that fish to take its eggs, the mortality rate is 100%. And then looking at the fishery as a whole, when I quit fishing, the price was right around $2,000 a ton.

Now these guys are lucky if they can get an advancement of $150 or $200 a ton. You go out there and fish it as a meal fish or a bait fish, It's worth $350 a ton.

We've already entered an area where Japan themselves has openly admitted it, they don't use the resource anymore. So what exactly is this fishery all about? You know, sustainability, there is no sustainability when you're killing the fish to take the eggs. And I've heard things from both sides. I mean, I've got a lot of friends and family that are, that are.

Active fishermen, and I feel for them. They spent a lot of money, put a lot of time and effort into buying into a dying fishery.

And, and when I look around at what the state's doing, I see the state spending more money and putting more resources— time, people's wages— they're actually spending more money and, and using more resources than the fishery itself is worth. So it makes me ask, why are we still fishing? The market's gone. Japan has already recognized they don't need the saccrow anymore. There is a sustainable, you know, fishery that there is a market for.

That's the herring eggs on kelp. And I'm starting to hear rumblings and rumors and seeing proposals where The Sacro fishermen, the Saners, want to start selling herring eggs on kelp. Well, back in 1967, when you guys shut down that fishery, there were 1,100 permit holders put out of work. Over 75% of them were natives. And nobody said anything about it.

And now we're willing to put the entire future of the herring industry in jeopardy for 48 people.

And I feel bad for them. Like I said, they got a lot of money invested in this. But just the boat that the state is running around and surveying these herring with, if we just sold that one boat, there'd be enough— more than enough money to give every one of those permit holders a million dollars and buy back their permits. It would actually save the state money to shut down this fishery. But I'm not here to talk about that.

I was lucky enough to attend an advisory board committee in Sitka. I had worked on a couple proposals. One proposal, I can't remember the name, but it was a proposal to decrease the size of the net. Been a herring fisherman my whole life. You don't need a 9-strip net to catch sacro.

You need a 9-strip net to go out bait fishing. You don't need a 9-strip net to catch sacro. You don't need a 200-fathom net. So I proposed a 100-fathom net. I had neglected to put a depth limit on it.

So that proposal failed. One of the— the second proposal I helped work on was one for co-management.

It was accepted by your advisory board.

And there were some questions about that. What would co-management or co-stewardship look like? And I had suggested, well, if you want a working example, you don't have to go too far down the beach. All you have to do is go as far as Washington State, and there's been a working example in place for decades that left all parties happy. It's called the Bolt decision, and I encourage you guys to look that up.

The, um, the author of the Bolt decision is still alive. He's a lawyer from the Seattle area, still in practice. It would be cool to get a third party in and, and discuss this, because, you know, in order to, to keep this all herring going. We need to find out a way to work together.

And I think the Boldt decision is a good example of a working relationship between tribes and state. It's a perfect working example. It's been working for decades. And I encourage the board tonight, if you don't know what the Boldt decision is, please look it up. Um, yeah, there was another—.

Um, your, your time is up. You had 10 minutes. Oh my gosh. But I will ask and see if there are members with any questions for you. I, I did have one question, just one real quick question.

There was a report by the Fish and Game this morning, and there was some information left out, and I was wondering if we could get them to respond to that. There were some issues with their formula that they used And it was brought to my attention that they didn't share that information until after our advisory board committee meeting. And that information had something to do with their numbers being so far off that there was over 100% miscalculation. And that wasn't mentioned by the state when they did their— and I was kind of wondering why. Okay.

Relative to the forecast. Well, yes, we're under advice. Yeah, I understand. We'll have the— the board will have that opportunity to ask the department and we'll also have an opportunity to explore that a little bit more during the committee of the whole. Right.

So thank you very much for your, your report today and being with us to provide, to provide that perspective. One question that I do have for you. You mentioned that in '67 it was— was it a herring on kelp fishery that was shut down? Yes, it was. Interesting.

And yeah, there was a herring on kelp fishery that existed before the sacro fishing. It was predominantly done by natives. Do you know why it was shut down? The state of Alaska said that we were depleting the kelp beds. And now we know that kelp is one of the fastest growing plants on this planet.

You know, it's just another way to get at the resource. I see. Okay. And in doing so, they created a situation where the mortality rate for this fishery is 100%, the existing fishery that was there before the Sacro fishery. The mortality rate was zero.

All right. Thank you very much for being with us today. Yeah, thank you. And I really look forward to doing this more often. I think this is a great platform and I enjoy being given the opportunity to speak with you guys.

And I want to leave on a positive note. Yeah, I think this should all be positive and we should be working together. Thank you, Charlie. I'd also like to invite Robert Sanderson Jr. with the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to see if I can get by without these here. I'm really used to just going from what I know up here, but leadership wants me to read what I— was put together. With our leadership team up in Juneau.

My name is Rob Sanderson Jr. I am of the Haida Nation, born in Ketchikan, raised in Hyderburg, Prince William. I currently serve as the third vice president of the Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. I've been with the executive committee going on 20 years now. I had to go back and take a step.

I've been on here so long. So with that, I'm not going to really get too much into my introduction. I wear many hats. My native name, which was given to me when I was a young child, is Kusowa. And so that means talk too much.

That was given to me by my grandmother and my aunt, the matriarch of our family. So I guess, yeah, I guess I have to speak real quick because I'm under 10 minutes, right? So anyway, Like I said, Madam Chair, I serve as the third vice president of the Central Council of Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Tlingit Haida is the oldest, largest federally recognized tribe and state recognized tribe in Alaska, representing 38,000 tribal citizens in communities stretching over 43,000 square miles in Southeast Alaska Panhandle. Tlingit Haida maintains a government-to-government relationship with the United States and is a regional coordinator for collaborative stewardship programs with tribes, tribal organizations and corporations, government entities, nonprofit organizations, and other groups in Southeast Alaska.

Klinkit Naadaa applauds the Board of Fisheries in its effort to dedicate space for inclusion of tech knowledge. We look forward to seeing refine process or processes in how traditional knowledge as provided during these reports is meaningfully considered and weighed in regulatory frameworks, broad actions, fisheries management, and decision-making. In the same regard, Tlingit Haida expresses deep concern over the overlapping schedule for the meeting of the Board of Fish, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the Federal Subsistence Board going on at this time. The dual fisheries management system in the state of Alaska already presents challenges and barriers for effectively, for effective tribal engagement and participation, and these overlapping meetings highlight the reality. Many tribes have limited capacity to address meeting— to get to meetings in a timely manner.

Over 556 proposal— proposals to digest of hundreds of pages of technical reports to be informed of certain regulatory changes and important issues that have direct— that have direct impacts to our way of life. In addition, it is not feasible to travel and present at each meeting. And the state and federal, federal management bodies have to create an unfortunate situation where tribal staff and leaders have to choose where they will allocate their.

Resources, traveled and traveled to and delivered expertise to provide information or in-person testimony. There is no board representation on the Board of Fish from Southeast Alaska. I'd like to take this opportunity to provide you with an overview of the people of this place and our connection to the salmon. Tlingit and Haida prepared this information for a 2024 NOAA report in Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries, and much of the Kink salmon information guided and supported our amicus brief submitted on behalf of 21 tribes and Native corporations in the Wild Fish Conservancy 2023 lawsuit to close Southeast Alaska King Salmon Trawl Fishery. These following knowledge comments also reflect our written comments to the board, including our comments related to specific Board of Fisheries proposal.

Okay, now on to the traditional knowledge overview. For thousands of years, the Tlingit and Haida people have been stewards of wild salmon populations that spawn 43,000 square miles across what is commonly known as Southeast Alaska. Today there are 19 federally recognized tribes. Southeast Alaska tribes, for whom salmon is the foundation of their culture, existence, and economic well-being. The Tlingit and Haida peoples have occupied this region since time immemorial, with their history in the region dating back over 12,000 years.

The traditional Tlingit homelands stretches from beyond Yakutat in the north to Prince of Wales Island in the south. And the Haidas have occupied homelands literally past halfway down Prince of Wales out into Dixon Entrance out into Haida Gwaii. Including the salmon, including the southern reaches of Southeast Alaska since time immemorial, their history is documented that extends back to at least 12,000 years. Tribal communities in Southeast Alaska, Angoon, Douglas, Craig, Haines, Hoonah, Hyderburg, Juneau, Kake, Kasaan, Ketchikan, Klawock, Klukwan, Metlakatla, Pelican, Saxman, Sitka, Wrangell, and Yakutat, many tribal citizens who reside in each of these communities participate in Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries, especially In the smaller communities contributing to the region's annual multi-million-dollar salmon industry, the participation of tribal citizens throughout commercial sport, personal use, and subsistence salmon fisheries are virtually important for the societal, cultural, cultural and economic resiliency of Southeast Alaska coastal communities. Salmon are crucial are of crucial importance to Indigenous peoples throughout coastal Alaska, which is shown through our diet, artwork, and dance as well.

Salmon are the lifeblood of Alaska and are an irreplaceable resource for the world. Salmon have sustained Indigenous families in Southeast Alaska, again, for over 12,000 years and have served as the foundation of Alaska Native culture, commerce, and biodiversity. Salmon have been the most important resource for Tlingit and Haida peoples. Tlingit and Haida relations with salmon combine spiritual understanding with our traditional knowledge. The management of salmon fisheries has developed throughout the course of human history.

Due to social, ecological, and political challenges, traditional knowledge and spiritual belief led to practices that sustain salmon runs and farming systems that include allocation for use for clan groups, the governance which The salmon enhancement developed by the Tlingit and Haida was successful in sustaining the highly productive systems for thousands of years. Dr. Steve Langdon, who is an archaeologist with the University of Alaska Anchorage, writes that a special relation with places that are memorialized by the Tlingit and Haida—objects, stories, clans, dances, crests that represent the clan history and claims to the location, territory, or resource salmon stream ownership It was one of the most important forms of property held by clans. Salmon streams were under control of stream chiefs who exercised governance by determining who had access, harvest limiting technology, and location of harvest. In general, other Tlingit respected clan claims to streams, but if they were violated, the Tlingit Haida would use violence to protect their claims. Well, Southeast Alaska's fisheries have changed over the course of time.

Across these very important fisheries remain of utmost importance to Alaska Native peoples and their family. Since colonization, Alaska Native peoples have been reduced— have seen reduced access to the decision-making power of the management of fisheries and privatization of the salmon industry. Moreover, Clearcutting, logging has damaged salmon streams and commercial recreational fisheries complete for traditional and customary uses. Extravagated by human impact, climate change factors are adding additional stressors on our natural systems. These changes in ocean conditions are reducing salmon size and availability, resulting in the rational changes between Alaska Native peoples and salmon fishing practicing Maintaining continuity across salmon fishing provides food security and supports food sovereignty for Southeast communities.

Each community in Southeast is supported by salmon fisheries, where of the 5 species of Pacific salmon accounted for 70% of the Southeast Alaska seafood production value in 2019. Protein sourced from salmon fisheries is culturally and nutritionally is significant to many tribal citizens that can be a lower-cost alternative compared to other sources of protein. And small rural communities in Alaska where grocery prices are often inflated due to shipping expenses, the seafood industry provides economies to scale and economic activities that lowers the cost of utilities, shipping, fuel, tax rates for residents in many Alaska communities. Fishing communities also benefit from marine infrastructure and support services which are more developed due to the presence of the commercial seafood industry. All of this to say, it is often difficult to quantify the economic importance of subsistence activities across this— could benefit our economic analysis.

For instance, the sharing and providing of salmon is not only a social practice, it has economic value as well. Many families in Southeast Alaska communities are interconnected and rely on subsistence economy. However, our salmon fisheries have dispelled tribal communities from sustaining or gaining access to fishing and place-based livelihoods. Thank you, Rob.

I gotta hold you to the time limit. Yeah, as best I can. I don't know how much you have left there. I had about 5 more bullet points. Perhaps you could— will you be here for committee?

Yep. I do have a question for you though. You mentioned, you talked about the salmon species that have, you know, this history, and I'm curious if there is a particular species of salmon that has a greater cultural traditional value or use than others in your knowledge. Well, it all depends on— in my knowledge and what I've learned in my lifetime and what part the state you live in. I'll just go with the pink salmon, okay?

This is something that the Haida have always known for years, okay? The day you catch the pink is the day you cook it. Because at that time it provides a lot of omega-3s right there. Pink salmon is actually one of the better eaten foods out there. You know, you take the king salmon that, you know, that Alaska Airlines always takes a big opportunity to market Copper River salmon.

But in reality, the Yukon salmon have more omega-3 oils in them because they have to take a longer journey up to get into Canada through the whole interior of Alaska. So therefore, they have more omega-3s in them and much better fatty parts on their belly, which the tribes really love to eat. So, and as far as the chum salmon, that they're really— and I'm not speaking for any particular tribe— but as far as the chum salmon go, Madam Chair, that is highly prized by the Interior tribes and also for providing for their dog teams up there along the Kuskokwim and the Yukon. So for the record, that's— that is a fact. And so with that, Commercially, well, you know, king salmon, sockeye, you know, everybody wants to target those.

But as we all know, you know, our fish are getting smaller. If you go back and look at the king salmon derby winners on the internet that won these derbies way before my time, you go back all the way to the '20s, '30s, whenever they started these derbies, you know, you had king salmon here in Southeast Alaska that were actually winning these derbies at 80, sometimes 90-pound fish. Nowadays a 40-pounder makes the news. So something's going on out there. Not to get off topic, Madam Chair, but there is some serious concerns within the tribes.

And this is just not a tribal thing.

Like I had mentioned earlier, or yesterday during my statement, I.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I come from a mixed bloodline like many of us do, and I'm proud of all my blood, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But my first and foremost— I'm trying to choose my words carefully here— would be for the protection of our tribal rights here in Southeast Alaska.

I mentioned that my father who was a very, very brilliant man in fisheries. I have connections in Craig, Klawock, Heidelberg. My great-grandfather, his name was Craig Miller. He is actually the man that Craig, Alaska is named after. And so my grandmother, you know, her mother comes from Wrangell, and she was Haida, but our people moved all over the place.

One of my great-uncles, was also a pilot during the Klondike Gold Rush, where a lot of the pilots that would come up from Seattle and Portland and San Francisco during that time frame in '96 through '98, all the way to 1900, he got a lot of these boats up through the Inside Passage because of his traditional knowledge on where rocks were because he was doing it since he was a little boy. But anyway, off topic, but as far as our salmon, It all really depends on the place where we live here in Southeast Alaska and the interior. Me, I don't eat really too much chum, but we do really love chum salmon eggs. They're highly— that's like eating an omega-3 bomb when you eat that stuff. And so we eat it with black seaweed and potatoes and, you know.

Thank you. Yeah. That sounds really good. I really wish I could have got through this, but we will submit it for the record. Thank you, appreciate that.

Any other questions? Commissioner, and then Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, I wanna thank you for your involvement in the lawsuit that was filed by the Wild Fish Conservancy. That really did help make the case in front of the judges that keep that fishery operational. And to Alice, I like the opportunity that you provide me in terms of coming to meet with your, with Tlingit Haida in Juneau when I come down there and have an opportunity to share perspectives.

That's nice. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you. Yeah, that was important, not just for the tribes, but for every fisherman that fishes king salmon. We understood that immediately.

And under the directive of our president, Richard Peterson, we were able to take that on. And not only once, but twice, and successfully defended it along with other good people involved. There are too many to count. But I will say that Tlingit and Haida took the lead. On a lot of things on that.

So not saying that braggingly, but you know, when we see something that is going to wrong our people here in Southeast Alaska, and just not with the tribes but our tribal permit holders and other permit holders, because we understand that Southeast Alaska needs to stay protected as much as they can as far as their coastal communities. And that's just not tribal communities, that's for all of our communities in Southeast. So Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Sanderson. And again, I'll echo the department's thanks on a larger level. Thank you for your leadership over the long decades of service. I wanted to touch— and I was just reviewing the public comments submitted by Mr. Peterson on behalf of Tlingit and Haida, and I know you're The individual tribes and communities encompass large areas in Southeast Alaska. Are there any particular areas where your membership is having difficulty accessing food security, or if there are certain resources you've been— you've had to move off of due to either conservation concerns or lack of access?

Good question. There's a lot. And I may— It may go off topic here, but, you know, Klinkenheide is involved in transboundary, okay? So that's one area that we also do in protecting our king salmon. We test every river in Southeast Alaska that's a transboundary river to Chilkat.

The Chilkoot, I believe, we also check, test for selenium in The Taku, the Stikine. The only river that we can't test, I mean, go up into and take water quality samples now is the Eunuch River just north of us here, about 60 miles away from us. And for some reason I do not understand, I have to believe that's because it's in the wilderness area. And, you know, yeah, could you rephrase part of that question again? I was like, my mind's floating here.

So, yeah, throughout the communities in Tlingit and Haida, are there any areas where you're having difficulties with food security or particular species you've traditionally harvested that you've had to move off of? Good question. And I want to go a little bit more than that. Yes, we've pretty much had to pull off—. [SPEAKING TLINGIT] to answer his question, please.

[Speaker] Okay, we've had to pull away a lot of times. Even in my hometown, we put a moratorium on ourself for a while to see what would happen with our sockeye systems on Prince of Wales Island, right? So that helps, but that's not, that doesn't go for everybody. You know, a lot of our places out there on the West Coast, being on smaller islands, you know, with climate change, a lot of these rivers are drying up. And it goes all the way down to Hardrock or even the riverbeds are just dry.

You can walk across them. And you're talking riverbeds that are mainly for a lot of chum salmon, and when we lose those, we lose a lot of our fish too. So I'm not sure if I'm answering your questions, but I also will go as far as to say that when our people are out there gathering to feed their families and our people, and this is well documented, that our Subsistence users in the state of Alaska take less than 1% of the total pie that's allocated out there in fisheries management for the state of Alaska. And so our people are continually harassed, you know, maybe have one fish over the limit and they're getting ticketed and fined. Just last year my brother went out and he ended up with getting two yelloweye and He was met down on our docks in Heidelberg by a trooper, and that's at the end of the road system.

Who wants to come all the way down 30 miles from Craig just to go check on our people to see if they're catching and what they're catching? And, you know, it was a heated exchange. He gave up one red snapper, you know, but those are the kinds of things that we're having to deal with too. So it was heavy-handed law enforcement directed at our tribal communities. And so I say it with the absolute truth.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sanderson.

Thank you for being with us today. Thank you. Thank you. Your report. Next up is Paulette Moreno with Sitka Tlingit and Haida Community Council.

Paulette.

Turn your mic on there.

There you go.

My name is Paulette, and I am a member of the Tlingit Nation. I live in the ancestral homelands of the clans of the Shee'kookwan and Shee'ksitka. I am a woman who have harvested our traditional foods of herring eggs for the past 15 years, and the focus of this traditional knowledge report— and thank you for the invitation— will be on the Yau, Herring eggs. Aniaksuusani, noble people born of this land. I thank those who are standing with me to assist me at this time.

To the Alaska Department of Fish and Game board chair and board members, critical decisions are before you. I join others to exercise our sovereignty as a nation and to ensure that are inherent rights to live, our way of life will always continue.

With respect and dignity, our way of knowing offers a focused balance for consideration. I support the following hearing proposals before you: 104, 109 with amendments, 110, 118 through 120, 135, 137, 173 through 179, 181, 188 through 190, I oppose the following: 109, 156, 113, 182, and 183. My voice is a collective representation of SITKA, Tlingit and Haida Community Council. I also have the blessing today of the Alaska Native Sisterhood, the oldest Native civil rights organization in the country, Grand Camp. In addition, I am a traditional and customary woman harvester and would like to express gratitude to the clans of the Sitka people.

I am also a member of the Herring Protectors. Our traditional knowledge, or ek, was taught to us by elders. They taught this to us to live our abundant life and to respect all things. It is with the deepest respect for the wisdom of those native elders that I come before you at this time and share with you a little of our traditional and customary practices. And this report is dedicated to those elders as their voices have come forward in regards to the herring.

At first, and as abundant voices, and then with cautionary tales of asking those who made decisions for us and about us and sit in powerful seats would make decisions for us. Now it is our people speaking at this time with the wisdom of the harvesters that go out with the wisdom of the clans and the people who are sharing with you that the herring, the yahw, is in critical danger of harm. We see this through our traditional knowledge. They are living beings and they are interconnected with our very essence. Unique to our culture, traditional knowledge is thousands of years of hands-on experience about the herring, salmon, and our other food sources.

We We have experienced this through the teachings of our ancestors. Today what is guiding our voice is the encouragement to the Board of Fish to treat these with the respect. Generations of knowledge have sustained herring and we always had an abundant source in many locations. We had traditional corridors that were undisturbed when the herring would come into these corridors. The herring are heading towards the Sound.

One of the few places left where they will come and spawn. There are traditional corridors that were left in a peaceful manner. That is part of traditional knowledge. It is no longer a peaceful manner of corridors in the past recent decades because now they are disturbed and they are interrupted in that flow. When we come forward, we gather herring eggs so that we could feed our people and many other people, not only here in Alaska but throughout the nation.

This is our way, our gift. I had brought herring eggs 3 years ago to many of the board members. This year I have not until your decision will be made, and hopefully our trees will be that much more abundant 3 years from now, because our trees, when we pull them up for herring eggs, sometimes they are empty and we go without.

We are the best holders of the stewards of this land and sea to urge you to listen to our traditional voices. How is it that we go about this? When the herring come in, we are taught by our people that it is a spiritual experience. I cannot share with you today all the sacred secrets of our people, but we are taught that this is an interconnected being that feeds and is very important to the world right now. So we are taught to treat it with respect and never to harm it.

When the herring come in, they are mothers, many of them. They are there to lay their eggs. They come into our shores and our shores are disturbed. I do not know this through reports and scientific knowledge. I know this through what our ancestors have taught us, and that is to look deep into the water to go out on your boat and turn the motor off, to look and listen and watch.

The herring's actions are behaving differently. The water temperature is also different. The spawning areas are disturbed. When we go out, it used to be a peaceful experience. Now there are many boats that come in, and it is their livelihood.

We understand that, but they come in and they disturb the process. They come right in by sets that are placed down into the water. Our men and our women harvesters and elders are saying that this today, right now, you will make decisions within the next 100 hours that will affect us and we will live by within time. Within a month or two, I will not be wearing this suit. I will be wearing my gear.

I will be gearing up like many other people, and we will be harvesting. There are only 40 to 60 If even that traditional harvester is still in the area, just 40 to 60, only about 10 of them are women. So we stand before you and our collective voice has been, and I would not speak for any that are much wiser than I, but our collective voice as women harvesters and as harvesters has been one that we are very concerned about the welfare of the harvest. So what is it that we are asking? That you consider the proposals that are submitted before you and that you do not take precedent action at the Board of Fish and Air, other areas of Alaska that will affect Southeast Alaska in regards to the herring.

We want traditional corridors left alone by commercial boats so herring can come in uninterrupted. Traditional knowledge understands this flow. We would like that to continue. We would like an accountability when there's mismanagement from the state of Alaska. We would like there to be reprocity.

We would like an apology made when data is incorrect because it may look on chart— good on charts and papers, but traditional knowledge tells us that the herring are in the way of harm, tens of thousands. It is not as sustainable, our elders would say, to go forward in the way— in this way. Teaching, this is what I really, really want to share with you. There is one particular proposal, 179. That proposal is to have a part of an area that is already a traditional area to the land of the Shee'koh-kwan people, of which I have a woman, a Kiksádi woman that stands by me here, Louise Brady, who also has a— started a grassroots organization called the Herring Protectors.

I have 1 minute left. So I would like to say that that is a traditional area. We have the right not only to hunt, to fish, and provide, but to carry on our culture and our way of life, to teach others. I have taught, as I have been taught, many people how to harvest herring eggs. What we have here is a set, a small sample of a set.

A tree would be much larger. We have to find the area now to be able to get a good harvest, to be able to teach and continue this way of life. We need these areas protected. We need the boats to stay away so that we are able to have a good harvest for the mother herring that are coming to give birth.

It is time. The elder spoke of this time to come when there is plenty. And then where there is a cautionary, and now there is only one stronghold in all of the state of Alaska that feeds our people. We have the right to our dignity and our respect. I encourage the board as you consider your vote that we are the deciding factor because we do not call it scientific knowledge, but traditional knowledge.

And I would like to say, gunalchéesh.

For this time to present. It's excellently timed, right on the money. Uh, Mr. Godfrey, I want to thank you for bringing the eggs to the board 3 years ago. It took something that was pretty abstract for me and made it less so.

And, uh, also just information, education you provided us 3 years ago on the process and answering our questions. That's really helpful. Thank you.

If I may respond, Madam Chair. You are very welcome. I'm glad that you enjoyed those herring eggs last year. And you had asked a question on how do we get the eggs on the wood, and I hope that I had answered in more of a.

A practice of how that happens, we use hemlock trees and the herring come through and they spawn on the tree. And if it is a good harvest, we are able to enjoy that.

Thank you for being with us today, providing your report, and thank you to all the folks that joined her today. Appreciate your being here.

Okay, we're going to do just a, a short break here. We're going to get ready for public testimony and I think pull some monitors and things like that so the board can see public really well. Thank you. About 10 minutes.

Okay. We are back on the record. The time is 2:14. Just a little bit of information about public testimony and how we are going to proceed through our list today and tomorrow likely. For folks that have signed up, when your name is called, please come forward to the microphone, state your name for the record and who you represent.

If you have If you have any written materials for the board, please identify those materials by the RC, PC, or AC number. I'll provide you an opportunity to— for board members to get those paperwork before, before them, and I'm not going to charge you for that time, either the person or the advisory committee representative who is testifying. If you spoke to salmon issues in session 1, Please do not speak to salmon issues in session 2. We have heard from you already. I think that there may have only been one that I recall, and I think it was just because they had to catch a plane out and wouldn't be here today.

At this meeting, the public will each be given 3 minutes to testify. Advisory committee and regional advisory council representatives will be given 10 minutes each. When your testimony begins, the executive director will give you a couple moments to introduce yourself before starting the timer. When your time is up, you will hear a beep. Please stop speaking when the timer goes off, or you will be instructed to stop.

When you're finished, please remain seated so the board members can ask you any questions if they have any. We also ask that you confine your oral testimony to the subjects under consideration in as concise and direct manner as possible. It is the intent of the board to deal with the merits of the proposals based on the general principles used by the board. The board does not deal in personalities. Thus, public testifiers will be admonished not to refer by name to any person, any staff member, or any board member.

Advisory committee and regional advisory council representatives should also fill out a blue card and indicate whether or not you will testify at the beginning or the end of public testimony. Please note on the card which advisory committee you are representing and be prepared to describe your general membership of the general membership of your committee. Confine your testimony to the position the committee took on the proposals or issues and give minority opinions of the committee, if any. And if you wish to provide your own personal testimony, please fill out a separate blue card and submit it to the board staff. If your name is called and you are not present to testify, a second call will be made.

If you miss both your first and second calls, there will not— you will not be able to testify at this meeting. If your first call happens in an afternoon session, your second call will occur either at the end of the testimony list or the beginning of the next day's morning session, whichever comes first. I'll do my best to make regular announcements about all the first and second call opportunities. And also, looks like we are getting a pretty good list of public testifiers. I'm going to call the public testifier up to the front, and I'm also going to give the next couple names that are teed up to provide testimony after that person.

Please make your way towards the front of the room if you are on deck to provide testimony, just to kind of cut down on the time that is spent in between people, you know, again, it might be fun to kind of watch you walk towards us, but if there's 150 people doing that and it takes a minute each, that's an extra couple hours onto the meeting if you do the math. So I would really appreciate it if you move to the front, if I give you sort of the— if I call your name and you're on deck. Okay. All right. Let's kick this off.

The first name on my list is Franklin James Senior. Followed by Larry Edfelt, Jason Manney, and Phil Doherty. Franklin, are you in the room today?

Okay. Going once. Mr. Franklin James Sr. Thank you.

Larry Edfelt.

Are you Franklin? Okay. I was like, gotcha. Sorry. Got it.

You're following directions. Thank you. Hi, Larry. Welcome to the board.

Madam Chair, board members, esteemed staff. My name is Larry Edfelt, and I resided in Juneau for 55 years. I'm a longtime member of the Territorial Sportsmen, a Juneau-based conservation organization. With more than 1,000 members whom I represent here today. I'll be speaking today in support of RC 84.

The Southeast King Salmon Sport Fishery is the only quota fishery in Alaska that doesn't close when the quota is taken because the department has promised the nonresident fleet there will be no in-season management. This means the fishery continues at the expense of other longtime users. The resident sport fishery was closed in August 2024 while the trawlers lost several thousand.

Fish worth $1.5 million because the department allowed the non-resident sport fishery to take the August share of the troll quota. In 2023, it was $1.3 million. That was contrary to your management plan, which allocates 80% of the available fish to trollers and 20% to sport, an allocation that has remained unchanged for 30 years. There are numerous villages in Southeast Alaska, and every one of them has a troll fleet and a sport fleet. Removing several million dollars from the troll fleet in order to allow more non-resident sport fishing hurts every village and is contrary to the citizenry's expectation of constitutional protection.

Closing the resident sport fisheries stops access to an important food resource for residents, all so that non-residents can have a larger share of the pie. Trollers have taken huge conservation hits through the U.S.-Canada treaty. Residents of inside waters have lost their entire spring Chinook fisheries due to stock of concern restrictions. Meanwhile, the outside waters non-resident fishery has had the same 3-fish annual king salmon limit for more than 25 years. They have not participated in king salmon conservation during this time of general coast-wide depletion.

The 3-fish limit has to be reduced or the sport fishery will exceed its quota annually, often before inside waters residents have even begun to fish. If you are contemplating a set-aside of a number of king salmon for residents, I caution you that we are likely to be opposed to that. We also feel the language in RC 089 is not adequate because it concedes the board's authority to set annual limits to the department. We prefer limits that be set in public forum. In closing, I ask that you take a long, hard look at RC 84.

It was written from a resident's perspective. More than 330 supporters throughout the region have signed on to the RC 84 or support its objective. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edfeld. Any questions?

Thank you for being here today. Appreciate you.

Next up is Mr. Jason Maney.

Too warm in here. Feels warm today. Thank you. Hi, Jason. Welcome.

My name is Jason Maney. I'm a dual permit holder. I have a hand troll permit and a power troll permit. It. There's a lot of king salmon proposals I'd like to talk about, but I'm not gonna because, uh, there's a lot of people behind me that are going to say the same thing.

The biggest one I am against is the reduction of egg take. I don't think a lot of people understand that our P&Ps live off that. I'm not a chum salmon fisherman myself, don't involve myself in that fishery, but I know that that's what pays for the king salmon and the coho production in this state. So that's my two cents. Going to be quick.

And I would hope you guys would think about us residents that have lost time and area in our fisheries. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Jason. Any board questions? Thanks for your testimony.

Phil Doherty, followed by Tom Miners, Amy Jo Miners, and Andy Kittams.

Welcome, Phil. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members, department staff. My name is Phil Doherty. I live here in Ketchikan, Alaska. I am the executive director of the Southeast Alaska Pursane Association, or SEAS.

SEAS is run by a 13-member board of directors with approximately 150 paid purseiners as members. We also have a number of processing companies and other companies that pay into SEAS on a voluntary basis to help pay the bills and my salary. SEAS has submitted PC470 to address our comments on the proposals of interest to SEAS. In the next minute or two, I am just going to do a real quick rundown of those proposals I'm not going to get into detail. The details are in 470, and we can get into details during the Committee of the Whole, if you will.

I'll start with Proposal 134. This proposal concerns Chinook retention penalties during periods of Chinook non-retention in the purse seine fishery. While SEAS agrees with the premise of the proposal, SEAS does not believe the board has the authority to impose a penalty within the proposal. Therefore, SEAS finds it hard to support the proposal as written. Proposal 156, I think we've all heard of this one.

This is the reduction within the Southeast Hatchery. Obviously, SEAS, as a commercial fishing group, one of the largest in Southeast Alaska, opposes this proposal in all aspects. Proposal 157: Establish— these are easy ones— establish a terminal harvest area for Burnett Inlet for common property fisheries when the number of chums in there exceeds Sarah's need for broodstock, I believe, and cost recovery. We support that proposal. Proposal 158: This proposal would clarify the lines of the Hidden Falls terminal harvest area.

SEAS supports this proposal. Proposal 167, this would increase the length of a purse seine net by 50 fathoms. SEAS opposes this proposal. And then to the northern, out— northern southeast outside chum stocks, SEAS supports Action Plan Number 1, Option A. Madam Chair, thank you for your time. Again, we have submitted PC 470 for much more detail.

I will be here all week to become involved in the committees as the week goes along. Again, thank you for your time. Great. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Appreciate your time today. Tom Minors.

Is Tom here this afternoon? Not yet. Okay. How about Amy Jo? Is Amy Jo Minors here?

Hi, Amy Jo.

Chair, board, and staff, thank you. I'm Amy Jo Minors, board president of Douglas Island Ping Pong Chum and the daughter of Lab McCauley, founder of DIPAC. I was born and raised in Juneau. I've served on the DIPAC board since its inception in 1976. I'm here to speak against Proposal 156.

My PC is 325. There was much thought put into designing what is now the McCallie Hatchery on Gastineau Channel to have the greatest impact on the salmon industry. We included areas designated for university research, space for students of all ages to come learn about salmon, and global outreach to educate visitors on the importance of salmon. The DIPAC mission to sustain and enhance valuable salmon resources of the state of Alaska for the economic, social, and cultural benefits of all citizens, and to promote public understanding of Alaska salmon resources and salmon fisheries through research, education, and tourism, is now almost 50 years in its efforts. For more information from the professor who used the space for university research.

See PC465 by Dr. William Smoker, author of 67 peer-reviewed scientific research reports and review papers in scientific literature. If DIPAC cuts 25% of our chum production, there would be significant consequences. Our budget is based on our chum cost recovery, and reducing production would impact our Chinook, coho and sockeye programs, joint projects with Fish and Game, and negatively impact the state of Alaska's treaty obligations. Sport and shoreline fisheries would feel this impact. Jobs will need to be cut, impacting our education and tourism work.

Fishermen will have less fish to harvest. Diepacks— chum production has been consistent for 30 years. High Ocean Biomass of Salmon and Trends in Alaska Salmon in a Changing Climate research by Wartheimer, Herd, 2018 concludes in part that hatchery fish provide a buffer to sustain fisheries with empirical evidence that large releases and returns did not limit the production potential of the wild stocks. From page 3, I know you understand the thorough public review process for Alaska salmon hatcheries and enhancement regulations. As noted in the 34-page document from ADF&G, it begins salmon enhancement and hatchery activities in Alaska are governed by statutes, regulations, policies designed to protect wild salmon stocks.

Further reading notes PMP hatchery permits require an extensive application process and considerable documentation and planning. I thank the department for a job well done.

DIPAC is indeed a notable success in Alaska salmon fisheries enhancement story. So talk to the fishermen, talk to our elders, talk to our community. You will hear the positive impact of DIPAC in our area economically, socially, and culturally. And a 25% cut to our CHUM program would be devastating. Please vote no on 156.

Thank you for your time. Well done. Any questions from the board?

I just want to say that as a student and a teacher in the Juneau School District, I have had the opportunity to visit DIPAC, and thank you for that, and hope I get a chance to visit again as a board member. I, I would love to see all of you come through and get a behind-the-scenes tour. It's pretty, a fascinating facility. Thank you. Thank you.

Andy Kittums, followed by Cheston Clark, Ian Bering-Mohler, and John Mohler.

Hi, Andy. Hello, Madam Chair. My name is Andy Kittams and my RC is 258. First and foremost— first and most important to me is your support for proposals 159 and 163. The Blind Slough sport king salmon fishery is very important to the anglers of Petersburg.

It is one of the handful of areas in Southeast where anglers can fish in freshwater for king salmon. Like many Petersburg children, it is where my passion for fishing began. At the age of 14, for my Eagle Scout service project, I led Troop 29 in rebuilding the half-mile access boardwalk to Blind Slough. Blind Slough is my place of relaxation, and I spend a few hours a day there every day in the month of June. Proposals 159 and 163 alleviate the harvest discrepancy between the predominantly non-resident saltwater anglers from the local lodges and the freshwater anglers who are mostly local.

The non-resident harvest has boomed in the last decade, as there is currently no annual bag limit. Why go to Sitka and keep 3 kings a year when you can come to Blind Slough and keep 4 kings a day, every day? Stay for a week and leave our state with 28 fish.

This has turned our little local sport fishery into a non-resident meat fishery. The Petersburg AC held 2 meetings for these proposals, and they were the most attended AC meetings in Petersburg history. There was no dissension in the audience, and both proposals passed unanimously. I will likely not be here for the Committee of the Whole because I have to go brown crab fishing in a couple weeks. Please ask me any questions about Blind Slough you may have when I'm done.

Finally, I'm also a commercial fisherman and employ two Tlingit Americans, a Cherokee American, and my two sons. I support 168, which would close the loophole in current regulations that allow spotter planes in Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries. I oppose 156 as half my salmon income comes from hatchery chums. I oppose proposals 171 through 179, which would further restrict the commercial Sitka herring fishery. The rebound of Sitka herring stocks is a success story that should be celebrated by all Alaskans.

Current conservative ADF&G management obviously works, and the ADF&G should be commended for their efforts. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Mr. Carpenter. Thanks, Andy.

Thanks for your comments. This blind slew one is interesting to me, and I've been thinking a little bit about it. And I guess I'm just curious from your perspective, do the people that utilize this fishery in Petersburg today— and I understand it's executed under sport fish regulations— but do they, because it's kind of unusual in Southeast to be able to actually fish for king salmon in freshwater, Do they kind of look at this as a de facto subsistence fishery? And if so, maybe describe how people in Petersburg utilize it. Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, yes.

One of the reasons Blind Slough is so popular with the residents in the freshwaters is easy access. It's a 15-minute drive from Petersburg. There's a nice parking lot. There's a beautiful boardwalk to go down there, and You don't have to have a boat, own a boat to go do it. So yes, generally speaking, the people that freshwater fish, I would say, are on the lower income level and are using the fish for subsistence needs to fill their freezer.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Justin Clark.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Cheston Clark and I'm a lifetime Alaskan and Sitka resident. I'm also fifth generation Alaskan and raising a sixth generation with my kids.

My family has been part of the, of most industries in Alaska, from the Gold Rush to the pipeline and infrastructure construction and most of the fisheries.

My fishing career has, for the last 36 years, has ranged from the Bering Sea to the Southeast. I've been a crab fisherman in the Bering Sea, longliner throughout the state. Trawler here in Southeast and a tenderman in Bristol Bay to Southeast. I've even been an owner-operator charter captain in Sitka. I rely on the fishing for subsistence and personal use.

King salmon is my favorite fish.

Tourism and charter has grown at a very fast pace. And has no boundaries or control. There's been an explosion of non-resident anglers since the halibut was limited to a charter fleet. Whether a company adds a boat with the GAF halibut or bare-bones companies that continue to grow, the growth of non-resident anglers are taken away from other user groups as well as resident anglers. I support the 80/20 split and would like to see management to have and utilize the tools to manage the sports sector and the charters and charter sectors.

Losing the August king opening and third of the quota has been critical. At least the August fish— or the August is when the fish are in high abundance and are much larger and worth a lot more. Not a good time to get a reduction in the fisheries. I rely heavily on king salmon and the troll fisheries, especially since the collapse of the crab fisheries in the Bering Sea. There's so much to say and so much to pay attention to, but I cannot express more that it's starting to hurt to lose to lose our fishing opportunities to non-resident anglers, especially when it constantly changes and growing without boundaries.

I want security to the 80/20 split so that the trollers can properly run their businesses. There are many trollers that can't make it to the meeting due to the lack of income, and that is a result of the not having an August opening.

There are trollers living in every community in Southeast, and they all support their own communities. We rely heavily on our Chinook salmon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Well timed. You had 6 seconds left. I don't see any board questions. Ian Bering-Muller, followed by John Muller, Peter Neville Johnson, and Lindsay Johnson. Welcome, Ian.

Madam Chair, board members, my name is Ian Moller. I am from Juneau. I do not support Proposal 156. PC344 are my written comments.

I am 19 years old. I've been fishing since I was 3. With this old-timer sitting next to me.

I bought a Dungeness crab permit when I was 16 and bought my dad's gillnetting permit and 50% of his fishing operation last year.

I am $300,000 in debt, and hatchery chum are 60% of my operation.

Old-timers talk about the graying of the fleet and who will take over for them. Who's the next generation of fishermen, they ask. I am that next generation. I ask you to oppose 156 and give me a chance to survive as a commercial fisherman. Thank you.

Thank you, Ian. Any board questions? Mr. Wood. Just want to say thank you. Did well.

Thank you.

All right. Appreciate you being here and sharing your perspective. John.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. For the record, my name is John Moeller. I am originally from Unalaska, Dutch Harbor, and currently live in Juneau. I've been there since 1995. I am a subsistence fisherman and a commercial fisherman.

I am here today speaking against Proposal 156 and have written comments in your packet under PC 346.

There are 5 CFEC permits in the Mohler household, and commercial fish has always been a part of my family. I raised 3 of my 4 children on the boat with the hopes that someday one would take over. You just heard from my son Ian. He's my youngest, and he's taken over.

We have invested millions over the years in our different fisheries.

And our survival depends on a healthy marine resource. We understand and we accept that fisheries managers such as yourself must make policy from time to time to preserve these very resources that fill my smokehouse and my boat each year. We do hope, however, that these policies are based on science. My son and my livelihood depend on decisions made with the best available science. Proposal 156 falls short on relying on this sound science that we pride ourselves in.

And recently, a state— the Department of Fish and Game yesterday announced hatchery salmon are not definitively known as the reason for wild stock decline.

Recently, the Alaska Legislative Seafood Task Force released a final report on some of the work they've been doing over this last year. I want to quote a few of the statements in that report. First one: The seafood industry, which includes fishermen, processors, and communities, is in a state of crisis. It has been called a perfect storm by many. This is not an exaggeration.

The report further states: Fishermen have reduced seasons, processors face costly production expenses, labor expenses, and environmental obligations. Communities will face reduced raw fish taxes and increased costs providing support to the fishing industry. Quote 2: While Alaska's fisheries remain the gold standard for reasonable— excuse me— for responsible science-based management, the economic model that supports the industry is buckling under immense strain. And finally, Madam Chair, there's a statement in the report that salmon hatchery programs in particular contribute significantly to the production of salmon vital to the recovery of the seafood industry. Now is not the time to make wholesale changes to our Alaskan hatchery programs.

I urge you to vote no on Proposal 156. And in closing, Madam Chair, I thank all of you for your service to this board. Open for any questions you may have. Thanks, John. Any questions?

Seeing none. Appreciate your time today. And I can tell you're a proud father. Buttons popping.

Peter Neville Johnson, Lindsay Johnson, followed by Mark Holst, Louie Holst, and Karina Holst. Welcome, Peter. Thank you. I'm Peter Neville Johnson, 36 years Alaskan, presently Ketchikan, Alaska. 30 Years Alaska experience in many different fisheries.

Gunalchéesh and Doyukshun, thank you everyone for your participation, time, and efforts in this process. As set forth in RC 98, science from U of A, UBC, and others amply supported by quantities of hard data from many studies and peer-reviewed establishes a clear and direct correlation between the tripling of pink salmon numbers in the Gulf of Alaska since the 1980s and declines in king salmon numbers, king's average weight since the 1980s, also declines in coho, chum, sockeye numbers or weights, and other damages to the ecosystem. Bristol Bay sockeye average weights hit all-time low in 2024. The trade-off is direct. There's a finite and limited amount of food available.

Choosing to triple the 1980s pink salmon population by adding 400 million-plus hatchery pinks was also a choice to significantly reduce numbers and/or average weights of other salmon as well as other species. Net fishermen and processors presently benefiting from hatchery pinks on a cutback of hatchery pinks will most likely come out overall substantially ahead because of increased numbers and weights of coho, sockeye, chum, Kings, all of which are much higher value fish than pinks. Higher weight fish often also get a higher price. The choice is between more pinks or more much higher value sockeye, coho, chum, or kings. Before the flood of pinks preempted Alaska kings, we had profitable directed gillnet king fisheries in Southeast.

The state of Alaska will overall Sav substantial gain from significantly increasing the biomass and harvestable amounts of higher-value kings, coho, sockeye, and chum through the reduction in the amount of hatchery pinks. Pink salmon are a glut on the market. Some processors have refused to buy them at times recently. Subsistence users, sport fishermen, charter operators, other commercial fishermen, all of whose fisheries have been negatively impacted by the massive number of hatchery pinks, will substantially benefit from choosing more and bigger kings, coho, sockeye, chum, instead of more hatchery pinks. Politically, the number of people who will benefit from reduction in hatchery pinks outnumber the small group of people directly profiting from hatchery pinks by hundreds to one.

The Yukon River kings are unlikely to recover unless their average weight is brought back up as small kings have very poor spawning success on Yukon. Yet how is that possible when hatchery pinks are gobbling up most of the food? Argentina and Chile's king salmon have been increasing in both numbers and average weight since the 1980s. The difference from Alaska is there's no pink salmon there. A 2020— a concluding sentence?

One. In the best overall interest of Alaska and our ecosystem, please take actual actions to choose more and bigger kings, coho, sockeye, and chum instead of more hatchery pinks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Thank you for your time today. Lindsay Johnson.

Welcome, Lindsay. Thanks, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Lindsay Johnson. I'm a lifelong Alaska resident, salmon catcher, salmon eater. My family and I live in Deychuu, Haines, and on our 40-foot powered trawler, the Sea-Ca.

There's a photo of her in my written public comment number 233. There you can also see Mira in the pit and Milo holding a shark victim.

I made the journey down for this opportunity to sit before you because this feels like a tipping point for our fishery. We make a decent living trawling largely because subsistence is a big part of our way of life. That keeps our expenses low and we eat good food, mostly fish and game. I'm not much of a gardener, but we eat a lot of Chilkat Valley produce because my direct market salmon is a valuable trade item. King salmon especially are hard to come by in Lynn Canal the past few years, but the carrots and potatoes are abundant.

So all the stone fruits and strawberries. Okay. My kids are growing up knowing what it means to work hard and be safe on the ocean, that problem solving and good effort lead to reward. I know a number of now big kids who were raised out on boats, and they're some of the most competent critical thinkers and doers around. Southeast needs people like this.

I hope and work so that my littles can continue their experiential education. I also respect that local charter guides support families here, and watching the charter effort grow over the years, it's not surprising they're finding their pie slices unsatisfying. I'm glad to see Representative Himschoot's resolution to establish a Fort Sport Fish Task Force with an eye toward limited entry. In the meantime, you can uphold the 80/20 allocation and enable in-season management like all other gear groups operate under.

This, with resident priority, will promote sustainability of the resource and stability for residents throughout the region.

I have sat in a lot of circle times at my kids' school lately. And after greetings and announcements comes humor. So in that spirit, I will leave you with this.

What did the ocean say to the beach?

What? Nothing. It just waved.

Thank you. Thank you, Lindsay. Mr. Wood has a question for you.

Lindsay, quickly, could you tell us what the loss of fishing in April or August means to your direct market business?

Um, it makes a big difference.

I thought there weren't going to be any questions. I'm not sure if I can explain it succinctly. So I usually bring a couple trips a year, you know, a few days of fishing to my processor in Pelican. I have a specific processor who does a great job. We like keep the quality top-notch, and he sends it to my people around the country.

But Pelican is actually a long ways from a lot of places, especially the places where I'm good at catching king salmon, or better. So for example, last year I chose to fish far away from my normal honey holes, and I didn't catch as many kings as I could have, but I made a go of it, and I got fish to my processor, unlike the year before when I, I had to scramble and buy fish from other fishermen I trusted to deliver the quality product to my processor. So it was, it was an expensive thing, but it, um, it was important to be able to keep providing that fish to my customers.

So yeah, not, you know, there's, there's always uncertainty in fishing. That's part of it. I don't want to be a whiner, but it's, it's extra hard when you think there's going to be an opportunity and there's not. We're counting on it. Yeah.

Thank you. Mark Holst, followed by Louie Holst, Karina Holst, and Bob Duke.

Hi, Mark. Hi. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mark Holst. I'm the owner-operator of a 44-foot trawler called the October.

I was born in Sitka as the season was starting in mid-June, was on the water within days, and have not stopped fishing since. I'm very supportive of Proposal 109 with Member Wood's substitute language in RC 89. It seems to be a very good place to start. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] First point I want to stress is that I would encourage the board to equip the department with the tools necessary to manage the king salmon fishery to the historic 80/20 troll sport split after the net subtraction. The non-resident charter sector's demand for more king salmon at a time of low abundance ignores the impact of that demand on resident trollers and resident sport fishermen.

The economic impact the troll fishery has on Southeast communities is immense. Especially for many small rural communities. For more detailed economic report statement on Southeast Alaska, I would refer to RC 52 and RC 65. Currently, 85% of troll permit holders are local residents of Alaska, and I personally don't know a single entry-level troller like myself that is not a born and raised Alaska resident in a rural community. If trolling is open to the retention of king salmon, you can bet I'll be fishing to make sure I can make my payments and make ends meet.

I strongly oppose proposals 108 and 113. As somebody who fishes year-round, a 5% reduction doesn't just cut my income by 5%. I have fixed expenses: fuel, insurance, moorage, boat maintenance, etc. These are all expenses I have to pay on both high abundance and low abundance years. So that reallocated 5% represents a much higher percentage of my take-home pay.

I understand that the want for more fish for the predominantly non-resident guided sport fleet only currently exists during low abundance years. My question is, why on low abundance years should the guided non-resident sport fisheries guaranteed stability be favored over the troll fisheries stability when we have to reallocate to do so? Both the troll and the sport are, are quota fisheries, and trollers have always been managed in season to make sure we achieve our 80% allocation without any overages. All I ask is that this guided sport sector be held to the same standard that we are held to. I am not asking to take any of their fish.

I think it's important to note that when unharvested king salmon get transferred to the trawlers from either the net or the sports sector, it does not come at a cost to anybody. We are not taking anyone's kings, nor are we benefiting at anyone's expense. Those are extra fish that would otherwise remain unharvested. It's important to catch those under just to show the Pacific Salmon Commission that we are fully utilizing our allocation. Again, my only request is that the board provides the department with the tools necessary to allow us to harvest our historic 80% allocation.

And I thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you, Mark. Any board questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you.

Louie Holst.

Welcome back.

Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I'm Louie Holst from Sitka. I've been trolling for 40 years. My wife and I have homeschooled and raised our 4 children while commercial fishing in Southeast Alaska. I've seen a lot of changes in those 40 years, including the steady growth of the non-resident guided sports sector.

Non-resident king salmon harvest is continuing to expand, destabilizing the resident sport and commercial troll fisheries.

We are currently in a period of low abundance. Conservation is everybody's responsibility. The non-resident guided sport fishery needs to share in that responsibility. The 80/20 split must be maintained within season management. Resident sport opportunity must be protected within that sport allocation by controlling the non-resident guided harvest.

85% Of all troll permits are held by resident Alaskans. The troll fleet is the second largest fleet in Alaska and the largest fleet in Southeast Alaska.

The monies that we make trolling stays right here in Alaska. About 40% of my annual trolling income is derived from king salmon. Losing August king salmon opportunity the last 2 years has been devastating to the troll fleet. There are no high-value alternatives that can make up for the loss of these prized king salmon. I strongly oppose proposals 108 and 113.

They're both allocative in nature, seeking to take fish from the 85% resident troll fishery and give them to the ever-expanding non-resident guided sport fishery. Any payback is not likely for the foreseeable future. I also support 109 with Member Wood's RC 89 substitute language. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. And thank you for your consideration.

Thanks, Louie. Any questions? Thank you for being here. Karina Holst here, followed by Bob Janke and Christopher Hashiguchi. Madam Chair and members of the board, thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

My name is Karina Holst. I submitted PC 216. I'm from Sitka, born and raised. I grew up trolling with my dad. As a young adult, I worked 6 summers at Seafood Producers Cooperative.

I then married Louie, who you just heard from, and we raised 4 children fishing on our boat. I mean, you just heard from one of our sons. He's a fisherman now on his own. Commercial fishing is currently and has always been our sole source of income. I'm here to talk like them about king salmon specifically.

I strongly oppose proposals 108 and 113. These both seek to reallocate king salmon from traditional and very local Alaskan fishermen to nonresident anglers. I feel it's important to maintain the longstanding 80/20 troll sport allocation for king salmon, with each sector managed in season to stay within its own allocation. The past couple years, having one sector managed in season and one not managed has been tough on the troll fleet. We trollers are managed closely and well to stay within our 80% allocation.

I'm just asking that the guided sport sector is held to the same standards. We trollers do not have an alternate fish of high value to replace the loss of king salmon, and the financial impact is severe to the fishermen, their families, and their rural communities. Having a decent king opener can make or break your season financially. King salmon is a vital component for trollers' profitability. During low abundance years, our profit margin is very small.

The loss of even a few percent of our high-value kings means a much larger decrease in our income and our ability to make a living and pay our crew. Trollers have two summer opportunities to catch king salmon. It is devastating to be told midseason that your second opportunity has been given away. RCs 52 and 65 address the financial impact in more detail, and I'll refer you to those. I support Proposal 109 with RC 89 submitted by Member Woods.

Also, our family, as well as many here in Southeast, live a subsistence lifestyle. Witnessing the total shutdown of king salmon take last year for everyone was troubling. Protecting resident harvest should be a priority. Thank you. And I appreciate the time and effort you're giving to us.

Thank you, Karina. Thank you for being with us. Any questions? I have a question. Where's the Sitka Fountain of Youth?

I guess clearly—. No. Anyways, thank you for being here. Bob Jenke.

Hello. I'm glad you folks could make it this year. Me too. My name's Bob Yonke. I've lived on the same parcel of land for 54 years here in Unit 1A.

I've sport fished for king salmon, also held a troll permit, both since.

1971. In 1977 sport fishing the King Salmon Derby, I incidentally caught the new world record chum salmon before the hatcheries were here. I did personal use sport fishing for kings for 54 years here. I married in 1978 and we just celebrated our 47th year of marriage on January 27th, and my wife has been born here. We have two daughters in their 40s that live and work here in Ketchikan, and not for the tourist industry, and four grandchildren.

I have a brother here that will be 80 years old this summer. We all subsist on the best species of salmon, the king salmon. Last summer we lost 3.5 months of our 6-month sport retention summer season due to over-retention of kings by the tourist industry. And I believe it was 17,000 taken from the troll fleet, which is made up of 85% Alaskan residents. Prior to the tourist industry boom in the late '80s, the resident had priority with the state's resources by the state Constitution.

Hopefully we still have that priority. The folks that live here and stay year-round need a year-round retention of fresh king salmon to feed their families. In my opinion, the resorts, lodges, and charter fleet is not regulated enough to protect our fisheries. We seen this when we lost 2 years of rockfish retention. I was asked to be an AC member in the late '70s and I joined, and now I am again an AC member here in Ketchikan.

Also, I've hunted and trapped for the same 54 years here in 1A. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the board? Appreciate your being here and providing your testimony.

Mr. Swenson.

I've heard several of the people come up and they always refer to this, the sport fishery is non-resident. How many residents use the sport fishery, do you know? Not in numbers, but when this treaty was first brought on on the king salmon, and we got 20% of the total quota. There never was any numbers, you know, registered that fish were caught. Probably they didn't catch 20% of the total, would be my guess, because they were never shut down.

But, you know, the numbers I don't believe were kept very accurately. I know the last Board of Fish meeting for Southeast, the resorts and lodges refused to keep numbers of the king salmon coming over their docks. I watched that on YouTube when you folks had your meeting up in Anchorage. And so those numbers aren't being kept either, the rentals. And personally, I think all the rental boats and skiffs should have a sticker on them just like The charters do.

So people know years ago the charters had to have 12-inch commercial numbers on the side of their boats. That's what the charters had to have. But then that was taken away and the green sticker was replaced. So in my opinion, the charter boats are commercial. They still are commercial.

They make money. So. Yeah, I just would be interested to know if anybody comes up from— if they'd have any percentage of what the non-resident and the residents that use the sport fishery— I'd like to know what that is. Yeah, of the 20%, you mean, of the quota? Okay, thank you.

I don't know, but I think Fish and Game should know through charter boats how many they catch because they got to keep logbooks. All right, thank you. Yeah, thank you, sir. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Christopher Hashiguchi followed by Billy Vollandort.

All right, thank you for taking my testimony this afternoon, members of the board, Madam Chair. Um, [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'm a one-boat owner-operator out of Sitka. I have a young family with a 9-year-old and a 10-year-old, and my wife's a fourth-grade teacher. I'm here today to voice my strong support for the allocation of 1 king salmon per day, 3 per year, for the non-residents in Southeast Alaska charter fishery from May through July 15th. Um, this early season limit is of the utmost importance, in my opinion, to help maintain the Alaska charter industry as the most economically sustainable fishery in the entire world.

Uh, Southeast Alaska is a world-class fishing destination, and the charter industry plays a vital role in our local economies. We support small businesses, create jobs, bring in $271 million to our communities each year. At the same time, most of us— most ensure that our— or we must ensure that our fisheries remain sustainable and accessible for future generations. This proposal strikes a careful balance between the conservation and economic opportunity for our communities. The allocation of 1 king salmon for non-residents is a reasonable and fair measure It allows visiting anglers to enjoy the unique experience of catching a prized Alaskan king salmon while ensuring that the resource is not overharvested.

Limiting non-residents to 3 king salmon annually during this critical period helps protect the stocks in the peak spawning migration, which is essentially, uh, in essential to long-term sustainability. This proposal also recognizes the importance of the charter industry to Southeast Alaska. Many families, businesses depend on the revenue generated by visiting anglers. By allowing a modest harvest of king salmon, we can continue to attract visitors while maintaining the health of the fishery. This is a win-win for both conservation and our local economies.

In closing, I urge the Board of Fish to support a sustainable resource management program, the thoughtful, balanced approach that protects our king salmon resource while supporting the livelihoods of Alaskans who depend on the charter industry. Let's work together to ensure that Southeast Alaska remains a world-class fishing destination for generations to come. Thank you for your time. Mr. Swenson. Billy, I was going to ask the same question to you.

How much— how many of the charter fleet then are residents? About 60%, I believe. And then the other 40 are non-residents? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Christopher. Thank you. Billy Vollandorf followed by Jack McNamie.

Welcome. Thank you. Hello, my name is Billy Vollandorf. I'm a born and raised Alaskan. And have been flying in the Alaska fishing industry for 30+ years and in Southeast Alaska since 2011.

And I'm once again fighting for my job and here to oppose Proposal 168. Prior to 2018, salmon spawning was made up 50% of my annual income. Following the loss of fish spawning during common property openings, I was able to restructure my business model and now currently fly for a small group of boats during closures. For common property openings and fly aerial surveys for the Department of Fish and Game out of Sitka for salmon and herring. I do continue to spot for boats within hatchery openings, and this makes up a smaller but still important component of my business.

This allows me to continue to make my flying services available in Southeast Alaska. Thank you for your time, and I'll have more for the committee as a whole. Okay, Mr. Wood. Billy, just for perspective, how many plane spotters are out there? There's 3, 3 of us only.

And do you do anything other than just spot? Do you also assist in other tasks that the fleet requires? Like, no, just pretty much spot for fish and then fly for Fish and Game doing aerial surveys. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. Jack McNamie.

Good afternoon. I want to thank the board for working hard to sustainably manage our resources and for listening to my testimony. My name is Jack McNamie. My parents own and operate Angling Unlimited in Sitka, a charter boat and lodge destination. I grew up catching rockfish off the dock, digging in the carcass bins, and processing fish.

I started deckhanding when I was 14 years old and earned my captain's license when I was 19. This coming season, I will be guiding on the saltwater full-time. The wages I earned through these years of work helped me to graduate from college, earning a degree in Secondary Science Education this December. I plan to be working as a captain for the family business for many decades. I love it and know our business makes valuable contributions to the local economy, as well as providing a powerful saltwater wilderness experience for our guests.

I'm here today to support king salmon regulations that are sustainable to the resource and make the most contribution to the coastal communities of Southeast Alaska. I'm also here because I think each of us owes it to that resource to get involved. Many of the people who I will be guiding in the coming years have been long-term customers at Angling Unlimited, and have known me since I was a young boy. Every year when these customers come to enjoy the beauty Southeast provides, they not only provide a livelihood for myself and my family, but they are also supporting the communities of Sitka. Every morning on the way to the fishing grounds, I often begin conversation with, "What did you do last night?" The majority of responses I receive include eating at local restaurants, exploring local bars, and shopping for others who did not make the trip.

These exchanges highlight the economic impact charter fishing has on Southeast as a whole.

Regarding king regulations, anything less than a 3-fish annual limit in the first half of our season will begin to erode our ability to attract and retain these most valuable multi-day customers, which will turn our business model towards cruise ship business. That returns far less value to the community and truthfully a less rewarding experience for me as a captain. The long-term, high-value clients, many of whom become friends, will not fly to Sitka for our 2 king annual limit during the first half of our season when there are no other salmon options. As I've said, it's my hope to make charter fishing, specifically with multi-day trips, a long-term career. I encourage the board to pass a king salmon management plan that allows this to happen.

Thank you. Thank you, Jack. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you.

Justin Peeler, followed by Spencer Schutt.

Hi, Justin. Hi. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for being here. My name is Justin Peeler. I'm a second-generation fisherman and lifelong Southeast Alaskan.

I currently reside in Sitka, Alaska. My commercial fishing vessel, the Defiant, participates in most fisheries in Southeast, starting with crab, going on to herring, salmon, halibut, black cod. I want to talk to you guys about two things today. I kind of threw out what I had written. And after sitting here for the last few days and thought maybe that I would share some information that I know of on, on our hatcheries and RPTs and how they work and my participation in them.

First, I want to talk about herring. In our last Board of Fish a couple of years ago, myself, along with others, sat in a room and worked out with Sika Tribe of Alaska and work out our differences and talk things over. We decided to take no action. I believe over the last couple of years, the only thing that has changed is the venue. The stock is strong, the fisheries are both strong, and I think that it's time to take no action again.

Now on to the hatchery stuff. I currently sit as a president of the board of directors for Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. I've been the president for, I think, going on 8 years now. Before that, I was the vice president. I was involved in the whole process of Crawfish Inlet from the start, from the start to where we are today.

As a member of the RPT, we sat in a room in Juneau and we batted, batted around different ideas. How we got to having Crawfish Inlet was we asked the department to come up with a paper to give us sites where we might be able to do enhancement. So a couple of meetings later, they produced that paper and NCRW staff is going to submit that as an RC. I don't have a number right now. They just submitted it.

So Crawfish Inlet was one of the places that was on there. And on that paper, it'll list different reasons why— criteria why that was chosen, why the department chose that as a possible place. And so after the department chose that and SRA chose it, it worked well for us. It's close to Sitka, it's close to one of our main hatcheries. It made sense.

One of the things we were battling at the Board of Fish meetings before the creation of crawfish was allocation, allocation between gear groups. One of the solutions to allocation is either to get up, get out a tie-up line and tie somebody up or make more fish. We decided to make more fish and we pushed for more fish, giving the trawlers opportunity on a chum salmon production site and also providing the association with the ability to collect cost recovery. So as we went along into the process, you know, the fish started to return and we, we saw record returns. I mean, record.

Survival rates, 14.5% or something like that. It was huge. We had to react to that. We did. And significantly, the years after that, we reacted more by more aggressive fishing and more aggressive cost recovery.

Thanks, Justin. Let me, let me ask you a question from your position. And, and Sarah, I mean, there's an issue that's been presented at this meeting specific to West Crawfish. What is your recommendation? I mean, you've seen the suite of options that have been presented to the board by the department.

What are your thoughts on them?

Well, I would take Option A. I would, I would allow the RPT and NCRA and the local AB to work to solve the issue.

Okay. I mean, I can expand on that. I am just trying not to—. I am interested in your perspective here. We will get an opportunity to talk more about it in committee of the whole.

Maybe that is where this should happen. I would challenge you to come to the board with a little bit more explanation than just let us work it out. So, yeah, you can feel free to respond if you would like. Well, I think that there There's a lot of different things when we talk about the issue and what it is and what the numbers actually are. I mean, when you look at the information presented to you and you see these high percentages, you think that that's a lot of the fish, like that's, that's all those fish are going over there.

Well, they're not all going over there. There's a large majority of them that go right where they're supposed to go. And there's even more of them go there after a short period of time. And when we talk about those numbers and we talk about 80%, 90%, you know, of fish found in a stream, the actual number is not in the millions. It's not in the thousands.

We're talking, you know. Okay. Appreciate that. And again, you know, as we get into Committee of the Whole, I just, you know, thoughtfully look forward to conversations around You know, some of the policies that the department and the board has to work with— the sustainable salmon policy, the genetics policy, the joint protocol, those things— and would appreciate your thoughts and guidance as we have those conversations throughout the week. Yeah, and those are all things that I can just speak to the Southeast RPT, but those are all things that happen at every single one of our Southeast RPT meetings.

In fact, you know, we have a great chair who, who is very open to the public and people off of off of the RPT. He invites, you know, we get presentations brought to us from people that are, you know, to give us different aspects and different, you know, their side of the fence compared to what ours might be and stuff like that. He's, he's a very open chair and it's, it's worked well for us here in Southeast Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Then Mr. Wood.

OK, Justin, I just have a, it's a multi-part question. First is, would you agree it's imperative for hatcheries not to impair wild stocks? And then second, can you go through the RPT process when you identified the— when the high straying rate was identified, what discussions were had to address this, or whether it was needed to be addressed? Yeah, so the first part of your question is yes, most definitely. We need to take care of our wild stocks over anything.

The second part of your question, I would say that when we realized that there was an issue, we worked with our local AB manager and we encouraged them to allow us to do a more aggressive cost recovery fishery. After that was done, then we brought a purse seine fishery into the mix. And we also, you know, in those discussions we talk about our,.

Salmon stocks that are there. There's a coho stock that is there. All that stuff is all taken into consideration to have no impact on the wild stocks in that area. And, you know, we, we work through that and, and have gotten more aggressive, and, and we can continue to get more aggressive. Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Thank you. Are there other hatchery releases there other than chums? I believe right now we are permitted for king salmon, but you would have to ask our Rockstar staff whether or not we put any down there. Thank you. Okay.

Did you have a question? Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. Spencer Schuett.

Hi, Spencer. Hi there. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to listen and deliberate on testimonies from members of the public. You're providing an invaluable platform for all the user groups to give insight and experience to help in your decisions that will have a regulatory impact for the next 3 years.

My name is Spencer Schutt. I grew up on the Big Island of Hawaii. I first discovered Southeast Alaska in 2007, right out of high school, when I took a summer charter fishing job in Sitka. I immediately fell in love with the rawness of the land and the abundance of fish and wildlife, due in large part to effective management that ensures that there is ample abundance for the future. In Hawai��i, there is very little management and even less enforcement.

Invasive species and barren reefs are common from that. I decided that I would find a way to move to Southeast Alaska as soon as possible. Fast forward 18 years, I'm very happy to call Sitka my home with my wife and two little kids. I have a charter fishing business, uh, and I've worked for the same family-owned lodge for over a decade. In the fall, I, I work for the sea cucumber fishery, and I troll for kings in the winter to supplement my income.

King salmon are such a vital asset to our state. They're a renewable resource that with proper regulation and favorable environmental conditions will flourish. They are also a valuable resource to resident sport anglers who should have the ability to harvest Chinook year-round uninterrupted unless ordered by an EO. People from all over will travel here to catch them if there is ample opportunity to do so. These distant travelers come to our small towns, and when they are not fishing out on a charter, they are in town injecting outside money right into our economies.

Other than the commercial airline that they took to fly up here, all of that money they spend goes directly into locally owned small businesses. No corporate middlemen here. Isn't that the American dream? The trips that we offer are mostly 3 and 4-day trips. In May and June, the primary focus for their visit is king salmon.

A less than 3 annual limit in the first half of the season before silvers show up will have a profound negative impact on our local economy. Non-residents will take pause in traveling up here if they only have the opportunity to retain kings for 1 or 2 days.

The guided sports sector in Southeast is an economic powerhouse to our small towns. While only utilizing a small piece of the overall king salmon quota. Small businesses, municipalities generating tax revenue, and ADF&G collecting license and stamp fees for conservation will all be affected if these anglers stop traveling here. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

I have a quick question for you. So in your experience with your, with your customers, how much of it, how much of the experience is the catching and how much is it the keeping? Madam Chair, thank you for your time. I would say with multi-day trips, you can really get into a lot more of the essence of being around in the wild and where you are in Southeast Alaska. The catching is— that's part of it, and retaining is part of it.

That's where they partly come up here. You know, there's especially in Hawaii and other places, you don't get to keep the catch. You catch the fish, the fishermen keep it, and they take it and sell it. In Alaska, it's a, it's a catch and keep fishery for sports fishing, especially on a charter. So once you catch it, you get to take it home in theory.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thanks. So you said most of your customers that come up early come up for a 3 or 4 day charter. Um, and obviously there's been an annual bag limit in the past, and I assume there'll be something in the future. So if you have a customer that you take out for the first couple days that achieves their bag limit, let's say, or their annual limit, what the other 2 days when there's not as many other salmon species around yet, is it primarily just a catch and release fishery at that time, or are you targeting something else?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. Part of the sport fishing is, is there is some catch and release involved because of the nature of what we do. I'm a mooching captain, so I take people out and everybody's holding a rod and reel and fishing. We try to minimize, especially with king salmon, catch and release because of mortality rates. So once they get their fishing limit, they a lot of times they sit down for the rest of the day, drink coffee, take breaks.

We try not to— we try to limit the catch and release, especially on king salmon. Thanks, Mr. Godfrey. I was not going to ask this to every, every guy, but just for context, and I know you can't probably speak for the entire industry, but what percentage— and we can talk about in committee the whole two— but what percentage of your customers are repeat? And I don't mean year after year, but come back in a few years or year after year. Thank you.

Through the chair, Mr. Godfrey, I would say 80 to 85% are repeat business. Do you think that's— do you think that's similar to other guides? I would have a hard time talking through other guides, but I know that our— the company that I subcontract for has a very high return rate. Thank you. And we— and for an added note, we do— at our company, we, we have a very strong environmental policy where we have a 2, uh, 2-box limit.

And we also educate our customers on the different aspects of conservation in our state.

Mr. Swenson. So you work for a lodge then? Or an— is that correct? Yes, sir. So how many of the lodges have their own charter fleet versus that contract out to— resident guys or non-resident charters?

Through the chair, Mr. Spencer, I'm not sure on the, on the numbers. I know that in our company, about half of our operators for that I subcontract with are locally owned subcontractors, and I don't know about the other lodges. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time, Spencer. And I think we'll pause here.

Thank you so much. 20-Minute break and come back on the record with Travis Wilcox, John Woodruff, and Ryan Rinsha, I think. 20 Minutes.

Okay, welcome back. So back on the record, the time is 3:59, maybe a skosh more than 20 minutes. Um, okay, let's go ahead and continue on with public testimony. Up next is Travis Wilcox. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. Appreciate you guys being here today. My name is Travis Wilcox. I've been here since '94, been commercial fishing since '95.

Saanen, and I'm currently a troller. Been fishing the Mountain Point area since I got here in the '90s. Fishing wasn't so great then. I think it was 100 rod hours when we were derby fishing in there when I first got here. So it has gotten better.

The thing I wanted to bring to the attention today of the board was a new hatchery program that was implemented at the Whitman Lake Hatchery program that I found out about last year.

As a matter of fact, they were quite proud of this new program, and they were going on about how they are producing 25 to 27-inch king salmon.

For those of you that aren't aware, as a commercial fisherman, a king salmon has to be 28 inches long to sell. And everybody knows that 3% of our income goes into this hatchery program. And I'm sitting here today wondering why they would be proud to produce a fish that benefits basically nobody if you can't sell it. It seems to me these smaller fish are going to— I know we have a killer whale issue around here, and it sure seems to me like maybe we're starting to help them out. As to where we're getting put to the side with this program.

And I just can't emphasize— probably 45% of the king salmon I caught last year were under 28 inches. I could not sell a single one of them. So to miss that August king salmon opener and then have these hatchery fish not big enough to sell, I'm almost thinking about a different line of work.

That was my first big issue that was really bothering me. The other one is with the same hatchery, it seems like we go out and fish, you know, we're up at 2 o'clock in the morning fishing, you know, and the killer whales are in there all the time messing around with our bite and everything. But we'll get into a good evening bite and then go to sleep for a couple hours thinking we're going to get up in the morning, you know, to have a good fishery to make some money. And nobody gets anything. And it seems like about 9:00 AM I'll get a phone call from town and they say, "Yeah, the hatchery just brought 6 totes of king salmon into the hatchery," or into the, to the cannery and sold them.

You know, so I was like, "Well, are they in the round or, you know, did they take the eggs?" And they said they were in the round. So they're, it's almost like they're cutting them out from underneath us, it seems like, when they close that door. Because the killer whales are the ones that push them up into that hatchery. I've spoken to the biologists down there, and they'll leave at night, and there won't be a single king salmon in that raceway. And then they get back in the morning, and it's full.

And then we're out there fishing, we don't catch anything.

Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Are you gonna be around for committee? Great.

Yes. Good. Thank you.

Next is John Woodruff from followed by Ryan Refshaw and Benjamin Campton and Chuck McNamie. Hi, John. Welcome back.

Turn your mic on. Press the button. There you go. These technical things just kill me. Madam Chairman, members of the board, my name is John Woodruff.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I'm representing OBI Seafoods. I've been actively involved in Southeast Alaska fisheries for 40-plus years. This is salmon, all species, all gear types, roe herring, bait herring, food herring, halibut, black cod, crab, 4 species cucumbers, the lot. There's a lot on the table, as you know, for this meeting, but I want to focus on just one thing, and that's the economic stability of our business and how it impacts the viability of many, many of Alaska's coastal communities.

Our plant in Petersburg has operated since it was built in 1898. And it's had a few revisions since then, but it was and is and hopefully will continue to be a major economic— economic engine for the town of Petersburg. Each year varies quite a bit for us based on resource availability, market situations, those kinds of things, but we need minimum pounds throughput to allow the economics of our plants to work. And this is true for OBI, for us as a processor, But it's just as true for harvesters that we work with on a slightly different scale. And most of the process— most of the harvesters we work with in Petersburg are local residents and live with their families locally.

The hatchery system in Southeast, and as well as other parts of Alaska for our other plants, is a key element in providing raw products for us to work on and make into products that we can sell further into the marketplace. Without the hatchery salmon inputs, our Petersburg plant might very well drop below viable levels of annual production and be forced to, by economics, to shut down. This, as you might imagine, would have dramatic and drastic impact on the town of Petersburg since we are the major piece of the private sector Petersburg economy. And we're focused hard, believe me, we're focused very hard on making sure this doesn't happen. But there are lots of, lots of forces and factors involved.

I know there are lots of issues in this hatchery discussion, but the hatcheries have done a good job in managing their resource with minimal ecological disruption. So I urge you to continue to support them fully, knowing that your support also supports the economic viability of Alaska's coastal communities and the many Alaskan residents who live there. Thank you for your time. Thanks, John. Any questions?

Thank you for your testimony today. Ryan Refshaw, welcome. Thank you. Thank you to the Board of Fish for hearing my testimony today. My name is Ryan Refshaw and I am the owner and operator of a sport fishing charter business in Sitka.

I first went to Sitka in '98 with an opportunity to be a deckhand for the company Angling Unlimited. Working for Tom O'Haus and Chuck McNamee. For the past 24 years, I've been a full-time resident of Sitka, where I met my wife, who grew up there. We're raising our 3 children in Sitka. Like many Sitka residents, our family counts on king salmon as part of a healthy diet, and we know the importance of resident opportunity.

I have continued my close affiliation with Angling Unlimited, operating my own boat while primarily taking their clients fishing. A number of whom have fished with me for over 20 years. My work experience is not limited to the sport fishery. Like many residents of Southeast, I've spent my off-seasons working construction as well as commercial fishing. I've participated in the longline, tanner crab, troll, purse commercial fishing, herring fishery.

I feel these experiences have given me a well-rounded view of life in Southeast. Especially the fisheries and the importance each one has to the various user groups. I've also traveled out west to Dutch Harbor, where my wife's family lives and operates their own fishery-related business, and I've seen the large trawl boats and the huge factory processing ships anchored off their shores, and it gives me another perspective of the different levels of exploitation of Alaska's fisheries. The guided clients who fish for king salmon prize them for their excellent table fare, and highly value the small amount that they get to take home. My experience tells me that anything less than a 3-king limit during the first half of our season prior to the arrival of silvers will be insufficient to maintain current clients or attract new ones.

My family and I are fully vested in the Southeast guided sport fishing industry and plan to be for as long as it's viable. My son has been my deckhand for the past 2 seasons After this season, he will face a decision of what to do for a career, be it in guided sport fishing, commercial fishery, or both. It doesn't matter to me as long as he has the opportunity to pursue it. Like all parents, we hope he can make a living while staying in the town he loves, close to home. She choose to continue working in the guided sport fishery.

It's vital that we have a responsibly managed resource with full opportunity for residents and sufficient opportunities for non-residents to attract them to Southeast Alaska in pursuit of the fish of their dreams. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Any questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Benjamin Campen, Chuck McNamee, Nick Fama, and Richard Bates. Welcome, Benjamin.

Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. My name is Ben Campin and I'm a commercial troller based out of Sitka. I worked my way from fishing a small hand troll open skiff to a mid-sized power troll producing frozen at sea products. King salmon are the most valuable species I catch. From when I first started fishing until today, king salmon have been vital to my business's success.

In some years, king salmon have accounted for more than half of my troll season income. The past 2 years, charter fishermen were allowed to go over their allocation, and those fish were stripped away from the remaining August harvest of the commercial fleet. Not only did the commercial fleet lose the economic benefit of these salmon, but the charter fleet gained nothing. Their trips were already booked and sold for the year. Instead, the economic value of these fish were lost forever.

During these meetings, I've heard sportfish managers mention that they have the tools necessary to get up-to-date records of how many fish have been harvested.

Various species via the e-logbook program. With that in mind, why is the charter sector not managed in-season? In-season management is a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management, something that isn't just important to myself and my business but to all users of the resource. You may hear charter fishermen— that from, from charter fishermen that having in-season management would be disruptive to their businesses. I would argue that the charter sector should look at implementing a limited entry program or season dates to provide stability and and live within their means instead of relying on commercial fishermen's allocation as a bank from which to pull fish from with impunity.

I'd also argue that the past 2 years of getting short on our commercial allocation has been extremely disruptive to the commercial fleet and the loss of income, crew retention, and the uncertainty with processors having difficulty filling and maintaining markets. The commercial trawl fleet is simply trying to maintain the king salmon allocation that was in place when they made the decision to invest in this fishery.

[Speaker:JASON] As you are well aware, the harvesting power of the charter fleet and unguided rentals continues to grow year over year. Having a gear group who isn't managed in season, has no hard cap allocation, no season dates, and no limit to the number of harvesters is not a sustainable gear group. Changes need to be made. Unfortunately, a low abundance regime of king salmon may be our future for an unforeseen time. With that in mind, I don't support the idea of the charter sector borrowing fish from the commercial sector in low abundance years with the intent that these fish would be paid back during high abundance years.

These high abundance years are unlikely in the near future. The burden of conservation should be shared by all user groups. Thank you. Thank you. Any board questions?

Appreciate your testimony today. Thanks. Chuck McNamee.

Hi, welcome. Thank you, board members. I'm Chuck McNamee. My wife Jenny and I own Angling Unlimited in Sitka, Alaska. Angling Unlimited has been operating in Sitka since 1995.

My wife and I have 3 children, all very involved in the family business. My son Jack has testified earlier today. I have also attended several board— Board of Fish meetings over the years, and I appreciate all the time and effort you as board members dedicate to preserving our industry and the communities. Our business owns 7 charter boats, and we work with 4 other Alaska resident owner operators that we hire as subcontractors. Our business is set up as a multi-day fishing destination.

We fish only full days. And one trip per boat per day. Almost all of our guests fly in from the lower 48 and fish for either 3 or 4 days. We provide lodging and everything they'll need for an amazing day on the water. We do not, however, provide an evening meal.

Our guests support local businesses for dinner. I was proud to see the economic impact report that 89% of the $271 million brought in by our was brought in by our style of business model. When guests fly in and spend multiple days in Sitka, they inevitably visit the local restaurants, shops, and other businesses. Because of these community-wide benefits, it is extremely important to continue to front-load the King Salmon Management Plan to allow the majority of sport fish allocation to be harvested in the first half of our season and to have a 3-fish annual limit for non-residents during that time. We need that for our business to continue, continue making substantial contributions to the town of Sitka.

King salmon are the number one reason our guests book during the first half of our season. Yes, we also catch halibut and rockfish, but with increased regulations and day closures for halibut, king salmon are the big ticket. It has been suggested by some that non-residents be restricted to one or two annual king salmon regulation throughout the season. I can tell you for certain that people will not fly all the way to Sitka to fish for 2 days king opportunity, and this will force our business model to move toward catering to cruise ship passengers. And just so you know what that will look like, about 250 yards from where my business and our subcontractors moor our boats, on most days there are 2 large cruise ships tied up at the deepwater dock.

Passengers from these cruise ships walk from the cruise ship down to another dock where they're picked up by a fishing boat. And later return to walk right back up that ramp and back onto the cruise ship. They seldom spend a dime in town or support the other businesses. An annual limit of less than 3 will not have the effect on the king salmon harvest you would expect. However, it would significantly decrease the economic benefit of king salmon to the Sitka community.

So please keep this in mind as you determine the best use of the king salmon resource and the impact on the Southeast Alaska communities that are affected. Thank you. Thanks, Chuck. Mr. Carpenter. Thanks.

Thanks for your testimony.

How much of it— how big is the king salmon charter industry that is specifically connected to the cruise industry? You know, we've heard that that's kind of something that's kind of been growing a little bit over the last few years. Can you give me an example of how that works in Sitka? What percentage of the business is coming off of the cruise boats? Well, what I can give you is the cruise ship industry has been growing.

Over the past few years. But prior to that, the, the, our guests come up to fish multi-day, multi-species. That's what sells Sitka. They want to not only catch kings, which is the biggest part of it, but they also want to catch the other species. So earlier when you asked about the what do you do when they're limited out for king salmon, we move on to other species.

We don't sit there and hook and release. But the cruise ship industry There are a lot of people there and there aren't a lot of businesses at this point that do fish out of Sitka, take people from the cruise ships on the day trips. They're just— they weren't there since COVID That kind of all fell off. And then there's a few of them that are doing it now. But the majority of the business in Sitka are multi-day trips like ours where people fly in on Alaska Airlines and then they stay And they're, they're much, much more economically— they spread their wealth and their, their money in town much more so because of that, because they're in town longer.

Right. I appreciate that answer. I think that clarifies a little bit for me. And then one other thing that you said, you know, you think that it's important to maintain the, the 3-fish annual limit in the first part of the season because people come up for 3 or 4 days and they have an expectation. I assume that you operate your charter business, you know, for let's say half the year or whatever, you know, throughout the course of the summer.

How— what do your customers say when they come up at other times of the year when it isn't that bag limit or that annual limit? You seem to still be able to attract those people, don't you? We start fishing in the middle of May with our with our trips, and from the middle of May to about the middle of July, king salmon are the only salmon that's available in our area. So when they show up in late July and August, there's silvers available, there's other species in the water to catch. So the king salmon aren't the only salmon that's available.

Thank you. Mr. Godfrey. So when you say you, you know, if this proposal were talking about was adopted, you would lose your core customer base and you'd have to cater to the cruise ships. And then you explained why that's less than ideal. So currently, that would imply that the cruise ship demand is there.

The demand is exceeding the supply of guides because you could pivot to the cruise ship customer base. It's less than ideal, but you could do it because the demand is there. Is that true? I don't know if that's true. That would be the first obvious place for businesses like us to look to and to market to, because— but I don't know that that for sure is true.

But that would be the first place to look to fill in gaps where we wouldn't fill. And we have boats sitting on the dock, and if we have sitting at the dock and we're gonna Take people fishing however we can get them. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, um, so out of 2 months of king salmon fishing, uh, that you're guiding, once your clients get the king salmon that, that they came there for, what other fish do you fish for to, to burn the days? Say you say they limit.

So we'd normally fish for king salmon in the morning because we go by the king salmon grounds on our way to the ocean or whatever. But we also catch halibut and we catch rockfish and the fling cod are open, we'll try to catch that. But Sitka's got a very, very good fishery. And that's part of the draw for our people to come to Sitka is because we have multiple species and we can do that all in the same day. And that's also why the full-day charter is important because.

When we book full days, it allows us to do the multiple species thing, spend a little time catching king salmon, move on to different grounds catching something else, go sit in a bay and listen to quietness for a while. It's a great experience. That's why we've set our business up to do full days and not do partial days or do multiple trips per day, which can happen off a cruise ship.

So the client can go out and catch 3 king salmon and 1 halibut, or how does— how's— what's the limit there? Are you talking on a daily basis? Yeah, yeah. And on a trip, like, what— and then the box they send home, they could send home 3 king salmon and what else? If the limits for king salmon are 1 a day and 3 a year, which it has been in the last few years, If they're— that's the opportunity.

The opportunity is what we're selling. We're not selling— we don't guarantee anybody's going to catch 3 kings if they're there for 3 days, but we need the opportunity. Our business has the ability to make a lot of gains with a little bit of opportunity. But yes, if they can catch a king salmon every day that they're there, they could go home with 3 king salmon. The halibut limit has just been set to where I believe it's— they has to be under 37 inches or over 80, but it's also closed on Tuesdays.

So the other thing to keep in mind is if our guests all either arrive on a Saturday or on a Wednesday, if they fish 3 days, if they arrive Saturday, they're going to fish Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. If they arrived Saturday and they kept a king on Monday or on— excuse me, on Sunday and Monday, and we get to Tuesday, Halibut this year is closed for us, and if they can't keep a king salmon— I'm pretty good at entertaining people, but I don't know how I'm going to entertain them all day without being able to keep any fish.

All right, thank you for your testimony today. Nick Fama.

Thank you, board, for your time. Um, hello, my name is Nick Fama. I am a lifelong Southeast Alaska resident. Uh, I was first and foremost a sport fisherman throughout my childhood, and I now am an active commercial power troller. I would like this board to prioritize Alaska residents, subsistence fishermen, and commercial fishermen regarding the king salmon allocation.

Over my lifetime, there has been a significant increase in non-resident charter captains non-resident sport fishermen. As a result, non-residents have benefited from our resource at the expense of Alaskans. I ask this board to not allocate any king salmon from the troll fishery to the sports sector. Better in-season management and a reduced non-resident bag limit would be great tools to help reduce sport king salmon overages and also provide more opportunity for resident fishermen. To further clarify my position, I'm strongly opposed to Proposal 108 and Proposal 113.

Both of these proposals would allow the potential for a non-resident charter captain guiding a non-resident sport fisherman to harvest a king salmon at my expense. Thank you. I have a question for you. So how should the board consider the resident charter guide?

I've thought about this and it's really hard for me to guide that, but I can't find the balance when the resident sports sector and the charter sector are all grouped together. I don't— I haven't put much thought into that, but I do know I— my passion comes from being a resident sport fisherman, and I have many friends and fully support our resident charter fleet. I mean, they're phenomenal fishermen. It's just there's been kind of a bigger fleet mentality that's taken over that I've seen over the past, I don't know, maybe 5 years, where all of a sudden, uh, you see advertisements where it's, I need a captain, I need a captain, I have more boats, I need a captain. It's just like, where do we cap this?

How do we cap this? Um, and I just really want to advocate for our residents. Well, thank you for that, and I appreciate your, your honesty and your answer. And I kind of challenge everybody to start thinking around those lines because I think that that's going to be an important part of the conversation in the next few days. So appreciate you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Richard Bates, followed by McKinley Kellogg, Zach Foss, and Jackie Foss, and Max Foss.

Welcome, Richard. Good afternoon. My name is Rick Bates, and I am a resident charter captain. First of all, thank you for the job that you do in navigating through such a complex issue.

The king salmon fishery we are discussing here today is complex. There are facts, figures, pie charts, line graphs coming from every direction, and the emotion is high from all user groups. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to sort through the provided information you get both internally and externally. That being said, what needs to be accomplished through this process? We're all here to determine the best use— excuse me— we're all here to determine how best to use a valuable resource.

King salmon provides a living for many Alaskans. While we automatically think of fishing, there are many other facets to the Southeast economy that rely on salmon without the use of a boat, a rod, or reel. The task at hand is to carve a path forward that most Alaskans, as well as all other invested groups, As a charter captain, I spend my summer taking people fishing who have arrived from all over the country and world. The draw to Alaska is different for each group, with a common thread among all: the opportunity to catch a king salmon. We must continue to use the resource wisely if we are to thrive in the long term with this fishery.

Charter operations use very little resource, yet provide an enormous amount of money to the economy provided by our clients who come here for king salmon. I could stand here all day and drone on about facts and figures. What really matters is this: the charter fleet has traditionally been managed to a small percentage share of the fishery. We maintain that number nearly perfect over the long term, as records show. Within that, our clients provide economic stability and growth to the Southeast economy year after year.

As an Alaskan resident, I urge you to proceed with an eye towards continued ample opportunity and stability for others to enjoy this fishery we all love so much. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Rick. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, Rick, I've— one thing I've been kind of struggling with in, in trying to get, uh, get this, and I want to— I want to look at a more descriptive value, and this is something for the rest of the audience over the next few days One of the big determining factors, you know, that I'll be considering is, you know, you look in the crab fishery where they were talking catch per unit effort. What I want to look is for every unit of resource we're extracting, how much money is staying within the community? And if you were to give an estimate of that, what would that be and what would the basis of it be? Thank you. I do not have those numbers, but I know those numbers are forthcoming.

I should very— and this is to the rest of the audience— I should very much like to hear that.

Thank you for your testimony today. McKinley Kellogg.

Hello, members of the board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is McKinley Kellogg. I'm a year-round resident. My family owns and operates Chinook Shores Lodge here in Ketchikan.

I just wanted to use my time to briefly talk about why sport— sport fishing businesses are so important to our small towns. Despite public perception, a lot of us were operators, are locals. I started working at our lodge as a teenager. It helped me get through college, and now 100% of my yearly income comes from our lodge business. I also have a lot of family members around Southeast who are commercial fishermen or were commercial fishermen before.

My dad and my husband are included in that. So I often hear that commercial fishing is just not what it used to be, and sadly it started going that way before the sport industry began to boom. So, um, for us, for my husband and I, we're able to live here year-round because of the sport fishing industry, because of our lodge, and because Southeast Alaska is such a popular destination for sport fishing. Um, now that we're, we're going to be raising our family here, it's important to us and I think just the community that we have more stable job opportunities for young people, especially in town and especially involved in our fishery. To put a number on it, last year our lodge had 15 employees and 14 of them were residents and several of them were local high schoolers.

So, um, our industry is also great because in addition to getting to be involved in the fishery, our local kids get to learn about customer service and sales and networking from talking with our clients all summer. So we've helped our, our local kids get to college. We've also helped them log sea time to.

Become charter captains themselves one day. So just to wrap it up, I just wanted to give my perspective as someone who wants to live here long term and wants to raise a family here. I think typically a growing industry is a really good thing for a small community, and the sport fishing industry has a lot of potential to keep young people here and keep young people involved. And I would hate to see that squashed just because we're afraid of it growing a bit. So Thank you.

Thank you. Any board questions? Thank you for being here today. Zach Foss.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair and board. I'm Zach Foss. I'm a trawler from Sitka, Alaska. I submitted PC 178.

First of all, when I will skip that. Thank you. I support an 80/20 split within season management and to keep the sport allocation with a resident priority. King salmon accounts for 40% of my income, and my profit margin in any given year is between 40 and 45%.

And I support my family of 4 with this money. There's a lot of talk about possibility of commercial fishermen be able to diversify into other fisheries. To make up for the king salmon that were taken away from us. And just a picture of that, a coho salmon is relatively worth 9 coho to 1 king, and then 17 chum are worth 1 king salmon. There's just not enough time in the season to catch enough of these other species to make up for the loss of a second opener.

With this second opener, it also provides us a chance to redo the first one some years because it's fishing and it's a big ocean and a big area in Southeast here. And sometimes you're on the wrong end of Southeast when the opener happens and you, you know, you run for the other end but you don't make it or, you know, there's all kinds of things that can happen. So the August opener is another opportunity to make money every year because the first opener isn't successful for everyone. Kind of in closing here, I'm very concerned about the priority given to nonresident guides over residents. The guided sport industry is asking for a fee 3 fish bag limit, and that was normally only reserved for high abundance.

We're not in high abundance. We're like mid-tier at best.

The board and the guided sports sector have the opportunity to remedy this at this Board of Fish, and I hope they do so.

Thanks, Zach. Questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Jackie Foss.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Board of Fish, Madam Chair, it's nice to see you in Southeast Alaska. My name is Jackie Foss.

I'm a year-round resident of Sitka, Alaska. I'm a commercial trawler, sport fisherman, and subsistence harvester. This is my home. I'm the author of Proposal 109 and I wrote PC175. I support Alpha's comments, which are PC6, and I recognize the strong work of ATA, TSI, and the Ketchikan AC for the work that they put in on the King Salmon Management Plan.

The intent behind Proposal 109 is an 80/20 split between commercial troll and sport fish with a resident priority to that sport fish allocation and in-season management of the nonresident fleet. To ensure resident priority of that 20%. And when this number was devised in the '90s, it was meant to cover all sectors of the sport industry— resident guide, non-resident, and resident sport. The intent of Member Woods' RC 89 aligns very well with the intent of my original proposal. And thank you to Member Woods and the department staff who worked on that.

I really wish that there was enough king salmon for everyone to get what they want. That's not the case. And so you're faced with a really tough decision. And I've heard some lodge-based guides say that a reduction in annual limits might have to require diversification in the experiences they offer. And that sounds a lot like they have to shift from focusing on king salmon to getting by with chum, the very thing that commercial trawlers have been asked to do and been trying to do.

And I want to talk a minute about May and June and RC 27. Slide 11, the department grant proposal shows where the troll fleet is allowed to harvest king salmon in the extremely limited areas during May and June due to stocks of concern. This is not where we target treaty fish, but hatchery fish. The Ketchikan troll fleet is off the water until June 8th, and so the trawlers have taken cuts. So this is for our hatchery openings, not for treaty fish.

So it represents a reduction in opportunity. To make money in May and June. King salmon is the lifeblood of a commercial troll fisherman. And I can tell you that we need more fish too. And we could ask for the 34,000 kings that were reallocated from the troll fleet in 2004-26, but we're not, because that's not the way forward and that's not the values that I hold as a troller and a community member.

And so the last 3 years really were a roller coaster for all of us. In 2022, both troll and sport were under their allocation. And then '23 and '24, sport went over. And in 2024, that shut down the resident sport fishery. My husband alluded to this being a significant portion of our income, and my entire family's here, here at this meeting because of how important that is to us.

I'm normalizing crying in public meetings. And so we are teaching our children that we speak up for what is right, how to engage in the processes that impact our livelihood and our future. And yes, we fish chum when we couldn't fish king salmon. And we appreciate that our hatcheries provide this opportunity to survive this loss of income. Thank you very much for your time.

Appreciate all of you being here. Thanks, Jackie. I'm glad you're here too. I have a question for you, just— and I don't necessarily anticipate an answer from you right now, but again, something to think about. And then I hope we can talk about more over the week is how should the board account for the economic shift over the past 30 years?

Which economic—. Please, the shift in the sport fishery, the shift is sort of in the economy of Southeast Alaska. It's changed. You know, I've been a 30-plus, 40-year resident nearly of Southeast Alaska, um, and I'm just— as the board considers this, I mean, you're referencing a policy or, or an allocation that, you know, dates back to the '90s, you know, nearly 30 years ago. So like I said, I don't expect an answer for you now, but these are the things that I'm struggling with and would appreciate, you know, having conversations with.

And if you have an answer now, I'd welcome it, but I don't want to put you on the spot. Well, I'll take an opportunity when I'm presented with one. I don't have an answer of how to do that, but I will say sometimes things are more important than money and the lifestyle and the backbone of Southeast Alaska is something to be maintained and preserved. And I admire the people who choose to make a living fishing in a different way than I do. I think everyone has— should have an opportunity for a business.

And we need to consider how those businesses are managed by the state and the federal government. And so I don't— I don't have a great answer. But I also have to think about, is money the only thing that should be driving every decision that we make? And I am a fisherman and a commercial one at that. So of course, I'm going to say something about money not being the most important thing ever.

But it buys eggs. It helps my son go to wrestling tournaments. And but it doesn't— it doesn't change the lifestyle that I've chosen. Okay. Thank you.

Max Foss.

Welcome, Max. My name is Max Foss and I am from Sitka, Alaska. I am a resident sport and commercial fisherman. For the first time ever that I know of, the fishing season was cut down early due to non-residents taking too many king salmon, causing me to stop bringing fish home and causing my dad to not be able to fish the second king opener, therefore taking food out of my family's mouth. Thank you for coming.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us, Max. Appreciate you being here. Any questions? Thank you.

Clay Besanek, followed by Steve Merritt and Charlie Piercy. Hi, Clay. Hey there. Clay Besanek. Live here in Ketchikan.

Came up in 1983 and got on the back deck of a crab boat and realized Alaska was where I belonged. Bought my first salmon permit in 1983 or 1988 here in Ketchikan Southeast. Funny thing is, I was thinking the other day as we're talking about the enhancement stuff, I grew up on a little lake in Minnesota called Walker Lake, and it drained into Otter Tail Lake. It was about a 5-lake system.

And every spring, the walleyes would migrate up and they would net them, mix the girls with the guys, and voilà, you know, you have incubated eggs hatching in a little hatchery there. And so I guess I've been around salmon hatcheries since probably '72 is when I remember, maybe '70, 1970, going down there. Now we're talking about 156. Well, I don't have a problem with enhancing fish here. In Southeast as long as it's done right, because none of us would be in this room today if it weren't for fish, right?

We all love fish. We're all passionate, some more than others. But bottom line is we care about the fish. So for that reason, I would ask the board to let the system play out with RPT and the commissioner. And I have full, full trust in the people that put this system together, that they can work out the stringing problems and whatever needs to be done.

We have a brilliant, brilliant staff at Fish and Game, and we have a— we have some really awesome people that serve on the NCR board and the SER board, not just because my son's one of them, but the— but to get to that, I think the solution will be in the midst of all the people here today that are caring about that. And if not, it'll be dealt with otherwise. But I believe in enhanced fish program. I mean, there's been years where 100% of the fish I've caught have been enhanced fish. I just go down to Nakot, which is our release site, and stay there for 30 days and then hop back on a tugboat or do whatever I'm doing.

And so they're vital to our economy here, not only with, you know, the fish we catch But the work that Sarah does in the wintertime, I run tugboats and we run 4 loads of feed out to Neets Bay and to the other hatcheries. So they've become a, they've become a big part of our economy here. And if it's not done right, nobody wants them. But I think we do them right. So I let with 156, I trust the process to take care of that.

The other proposals I kind of had a little bit of angst. I'm on the Ketchikan Advisory Board here also, was Proposal 143, increasing trout limits. I mean, I'm not the greatest trout fisherman in the world, but it seems like there's a finite amount of trout in our area, in our region here. And I'd like to see a lot more studies done, and I'd like to see the studies on paper before everything's increased. And that's— is that 3 minutes?

Holy crap. And then 165, no with the gillnet opening. Thank you. Goes fast, doesn't it? Any questions?

Thank you. Steve Merritt.

Madam Chair, board members, I'm Steve Merritt, a trawler living in Craig, Alaska. I've been testifying at these meetings on the issue of sport allocation since 1992. This is about my 10th meeting. I've submitted two proposals, 111 and 114, but have withdrawn my support for 114. I oppose proposals 108, 113, and the current sport plan.

In 1992, this board gave the sport fishery an allocation of 17% based on their highest historic harvest. In 1996, the board was persuaded there was a need for a generous allocation of 20% for potential charter expansion. In later cycles, there were proposals from the charter sector to increase that allocation, but those boards didn't agree and required the charter fishery to live within its means. Increasing the sport allocation is a popular idea in the charter fleet, but it lacks forethought as in solving the growing, more serious problem The deterioration of their relationship with the local people. Since the number of resident anglers has remained nearly the same since 1984, increasing the allocation will mostly increase non-resident participation.

As the population of non-resident fishers grow, resident sports and other user groups becoming more and more frustrated with the negative impacts of this charter fishery. Favorite local fishing spots have been overrun with guideboats. And the pilfering of trollers' historic allocation has angered many. The current King Salmon Management Plan has done nothing but generate hate and animosity since it was adopted. This plan also conflicts with this board's charge to the 1992 Chinook Task Force—Troll Task Force—to develop the Troll Chinook Management Plan that's in place today.

They were to strive for an optimum 20-day season with a 10-day minimum and to minimize incidental mortality to the greatest extent practical. Because of this, proposals that add to troll non-retention days are normally opposed by the department. This plan and both Proposals 113 and 108 add non-retention days to the troll fishery. The current sport plan also conflicts with the Sustainable Salmon Policy, whereas Impacts of fishing, including incidental mortality and other human-induced mortality, should be assessed and considered in harvest management decisions. There is no doubt that in the past 2 years, the sport fishery being allowed to substantially overfish its historic allocation and take troll allocation has resulted in increasing the incidental mortality of the troll fishery, and it has a real potential to victimize the net fisheries in the same way.

Reallocation of fish from these historic fisheries or allowing this sport plan to continue invading those historic allocations will always have the same result. For all these reasons, you should fail Proposals 113, 108, and adopt an entirely new king salmon management plan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Steve. Any questions?

Mr. Wood and then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. So when this plan came together in '92, were you there? I was there, but I was not part of the task force.

Were there any discussions about how to create boundaries or parameters around the sport harvest? Was that even a thing back then, or like limited entry or season dates or anything like that? To first, or did no one just foresee it? Growing exponentially? I, I think at that particular— the startup, the focus wasn't on limiting them because there was plenty of fish.

And later on, as I said, they gave them 20% because they wanted to have a potential to let them expand more. As far as limited entry of the charter fleet, There is a bill in the House now, but it has been— you can't do it through this board. It's a legislative action. So we'll have to see what's happening. But there's no doubt we need it because you can't have one expanding fishery in amongst a bunch of others that are under limited entry.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, I just want to correct that. It's not a bill in the legislature. Representative Himschute has introduced a resolution to form a task force to explore. Okay.

Lead to the creation of—. I stand corrected. He does it to me all the time. Mr. Carpenter, I just thought over expectations on what's happening here.

Did you say you withdrew support from a proposal that you, that you submitted? I do, and I, I— it was Proposal 114, and I have that officially in my comments, PC333. So I hope I don't have to submit an RC. Would it be—. It would be helpful if you would, but I think you put it on the record, so thank you.

Okay. So Steve, thank you for your considered comments here today. Thank you. And I kind of cracked the door with Jackie, and I will ask you a little bit of an expanded question again. So you were referencing these 92 and these— you know, this allocation plan.

And what happened, you know, 30-plus years ago. But how does the board sort of consider and account for not only the economic changes that we're seeing, and I think she answered that portion, but I'm gonna expand it a little bit too, because you touched on the abundance changes that we've experienced also, and also the treaty changes that we've experienced. So is, and I think I heard you say we basically need a new management plan, but I just wanted to verify that, and if you had any thoughts about The circumstances of our fish populations and sustainability and economies have changed so much, and I just would really appreciate some thoughts about, and like I said, it doesn't have to be now, but how the board should be considering all those aspects. [Speaker:CHIEF_HAROLD] Well, treaty negotiations have been kind of a disaster, I'd have to say. And we got to get better at that.

So as far as the income changes for the state, fish prices have increased for the sale of king salmon and other species. So, so I'm not so certain that there's been a huge decline in in the revenue that this commercial troll fishery donates to the state and all that. And the 85% resident, you're gonna hear that a million times. But I'm not sure that if you quickly adjust.

Adjust the situations we got, the management plan, based on the assumption that the tourism is going to take over. That's subject to the same things that commercial fishery is on a different scale. Um, recession in 2008, the commercial fisheries were truly the only thing that really survived that. The guiding industry went down because It was recession. So I would caution on making adjustments to management plans and such based on what you think might be the trend today.

And COVID is another example. Wiped out the guiding industry. Points well taken. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.

Charlie Piercy.

I apologize if I'm not pronouncing correctly.

You did well.

It's getting late in the day for me.

So I'm Charlie Piercy. I've done a lot of things in my life. I've been chairman of SPC. Seafood Producers Co-op, SARA. I actually was on advisory committee when I first came to town in Ketchikan 40-something years ago, so, because the chairman wanted off and I was young and stupid.

But anyway, I can answer a few questions for you. I put them at the bottom of my list. I don't know if I'll get there. Magnussen Stevensax, I can solve that problem for you and I can tell you why the resident angler effort is decreasing. So my problem I wrote down here, I'm an engineer by trade, so I look at solutions and problems and numbers.

The problem is that the resource reallocation that happened last couple years of 35,000 fish. Now, I'm gonna tell you why it occurred. It occurred because in 2003 board in this town, allocated a 1-year time delay on their season bag limits. In other words, they can figure out their bag limits from last year's catch and set them for next year. That doesn't work in any control system that I know of, except for maybe this, and it only worked because the resource was high and it's been declining ever since, and it's like trying to heat your house on last year's fuel bill.

Sometimes it won't work.

So you gotta fix that time delay. Consequences of this in your charts from the deal is you didn't get a unique river harvest, but in 2003 it was 10,000 harvest fish and it met over-the-top escapement deal, and it's been going downhill on a 1/x curve ever since. And now you're looking at the last 6 years and saying, "Wee, whoopee-doo, 26 fish made us change the regime change here." I hope you don't change your management from conservative.

The other thing that's occurred because of this is overcapitalization of an industry that's growing in on— well, you lost the timber industry here, and it's growing into that hole. Economic-wise, plus you had a charter industry— or excuse me, a cruise ship industry that came.

District 1 and 2 down here where we live, I bet you the catch per unit of effort is way different than the one off of Sitka. We keep hearing from Sitka charter guys. So I'm going to give you a couple economic numbers. That 35,000 fish is worth $3.5 million. And Mr. Wood, that's in Lindsey's case, is about $3,500.

If she's average. If she's a good fisherman, it's more. And if you add the 1.5 or so markup on her product, it gets into $5,000 to $7,000. We're done. Anyway.

Thank you. Are there any board questions? Thank you, Charlie. Are you going to be around for committee, I hope? Yeah, I got a lot of things for you.

Okay, well, looking forward to hearing them all. You need a paradigm shift in your management. Thank you.

And you need a clock on your screen.

I know, I kind of miss our old timer where we had the 1-minute warning button for sure, the yellow. Yeah, it's on the website. Why can't you put it up there? Got lots of young people here know how to do that.

All right.

Harriet Wadley. Hi, Harriet. Welcome. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for your time. My name is Harriet Wadley.

I've got the fishing vessel Vulcan. I've been fishing southeast Alaska for 35 years. The main reason I'm here today is to protect my livelihood. I'm in support of Proposal 110 written by the Alaska Trollers Association, which keeps the sport fishery within its 20% allocation.

I am one of the better fishermen in the fleet. Even with this experience, right now I am having a hard time paying the bills.

Losing my August king salmon fishery has probably cost me around $50,000 for the last 2 years, and that could be more or less depending on whether I landed on fish.

Because of this income loss, I've worked through my savings for the last 2 years, and this year I had to get a loan for $40,000 to pay for an engine rebuild and a gear rebuild. And I'm still in the hole right now. And part of this is because I've lost that second August king salmon opener.

I can't afford to lose that fish. The last two years shows me that. Losing that money is costing me my business. Can I make it up somewhere else? Yeah, if I land on kings this winter, I might be able to dig myself out of the hole.

But that August fishery makes or breaks the troll season, period. Especially if you don't land on fish the first opener. You have to have that second opener just to pay bills, just to pay maintenance, just to break even. I break even on my troll season for what I put into the boat. My profit comes on my dive season.

And if I can't dive, uh, Yeah, then I'm just breaking even. That second opener is huge for me.

So basically, I'm in support of the 110, which keeps that sport fishery within its 20%. I'm adamantly opposed to 108 and 113, which increases the sport harvest allocation. The guided charter industry has refused to limit their numbers. I'm not at these board meetings a lot. But 25 years ago I was there, I brought this up knowing this was coming.

10 Years ago I was at meetings, I brought this up telling the charter people, you need to limit your numbers, this is coming up. Without any limits on participation in the charter fleet, the only limit right now is economic, and that's what they're feeling right now. They're feeling the economic pain because they've grown outside of what the fishery can tolerate. Uh, for Fish and Game stats, guide licenses are up from 222 in 2014 to 377 in 2023. I mean, they're growing, unlimited growth.

I mean, this year they want more of our allocation. 3 Years from now, if they keep growing, they're going to want more of our allocation. We need to stop this now. I can't survive with less than what I have. And I'm not sure about the guided sport fishery, but a lot of this is out-of-state guided sport.

So I'm definitely in support of the local fishermen being able to fish. Is that my time up, or—. That is your time. All right. Mr. Godfrey has a question for you.

Any question? Yeah, 2 questions. One, how many years have you been commercial fishing? 35 Years. 35 Years.

And the other question is, as you kind of shared your financial situation right now and the need for $40,000 loan for an engine rebuild, for context or frame of reference, in all your years in a career of commercial fishing, Have you had similar down seasons consecutively going, looking back, or is this that dramatically different? Um, actually, I usually catch fairly well. So what you're experiencing now, you have experienced to this degree? This is unique for me. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time today and your testimony. Yep. Thank you. I think we'll take one more.

Sandra Marker here. Hi, Sandra. Welcome.

Madam Chair, board members, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Sandra Marker. I'm born and raised Alaskan from Craig, Alaska.

I am a commercial fisherman with over 35 years experience from Prince Wales Island to Bristol Bay. I'm also a member of the Craig A.C. For the past 32 years, my husband and I have been commercial power trawlers. We trawl for king salmon and cohoes. Not only a job, but a way of life for us. It's how we feed our family, not only financially, but it also sustains our family diet through the winter.

We take home a portion of our fish for personal use that we smoke and freeze and jar. We share with our extended family. Family as well. In my time as a commercial fisherman, I have never felt more of a need to come to this meeting and voice my concern as I do today.

Since 1992, we have watched the sport fishing charter industry do nothing but grow and grow over the years. Charter boats are increasing in numbers and increasing the size of their boats as well. They've gone from 4 passengers to 6, with the majority of their customers being non-residents. The sport fishing charter industry is largely unregulated in Alaska. As trawlers, we start fishing on July 1st.

We start by fishing 70% of our quota share. Alaska Fish and Game keeps a very close eye on this fishery so we can avoid going over that 70%. The 30% remainder of our quota is saved so that we may have a second opening in August, again under close scrutiny. Of Alaska Fish and Game, we are allowed to fish for a few days in August to catch our remaining quota. For the past two seasons, 2023 and 2024, our second opening has been taken away from us due to the sport fishery going over their limit.

Trollers have lost out on millions of dollars of revenue from those lost openings, revenue that would have remained in Alaska.

With this upward trend of more and more non-resident fishing coming to Alaska, our second king salmon opening cannot and will not be guaranteed to happen for commercial trawlers. Clearly, king salmon in Alaska is a very contentious subject for the entire state. In parts of Alaska, residents struggle to even catch enough fish to feed their families. And so this— in Southeast, we are lucky that we have this opportunity to fish. When making your decision for the new king salmon proposal or king salmon management plan, I urge you to please keep in mind the needs of Alaska residents over the needs of nonresident fishermen.

In closing, I'd like to say that I would like to keep the 80/20 allocation. I strongly oppose Proposal 108 and 113, and I highly support Proposal 110. Thank you, Sandra. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. All right. I think we will pause here for the day. In the morning, I will do second calls for Franklin James Sr. and for Tom Minors, and then we will pick up with first calls at Kai Montoon beginning at 8:30 tomorrow morning and we'll work our way through the list. Looking forward to hearing from all of you tomorrow.

Thank you.