2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (1/29/25)

Kind of into a new area. And this was a little bay that had been consistently productive for putting branches in and to set it aside for the user. So we felt like that was a good choice.

On the groundfish proposals, we noticed that a lot of the proposals are kind of housekeeping in nature. You know, we really move through those pretty quickly. Now, the, the way that they're fishing for black cod especially is a lot of people are moving to the pot fishery. To cut down on whale predation. And so, you know, a lot of the language needs to be changed to deal with the fact that they're now fishing pots.

So, you know, that was kind of a no-brainer. We went through those pretty quickly.

We heard a presentation about rockfish from the ADF&G staff, and, you know, we Just a little bit on rockfish. It's not really a thing that locals target. You know, people don't go out rockfish fishing. They're really long-lived species. And there's, you know, there's not a lot to eat on a rockfish and they're spiny and hard to deal with.

So they're not— they're not a species of choice that locals target, though, you know, they're really good. But it is a species that the charter fleet has turned to and kind of to fill the void that has been left when they can only get, you know, limited king salmon and limited halibut. So, you know, talking to our charter fishermen is something they spend quite a bit of time targeting rockfish now. And we had a biologist that came in who showed us a graph showing that, you know, a huge uptick in the amount of rockfish that were being caught by non-residents. So that was a, you know, I don't think it's there's a population problem yet, but we were kind of alarmed about that there might be.

And so we looked at some different ways with some of the proposals to hedge that maybe. We also noted that the commercial fleet has rockfish bycatch, but that's— they have a cap on their bycatch and they have been able to maintain and remain under their cap. So we don't feel like the commercial fishery has been contributing to the problem. Because they have been through education trying to get people off of areas where there's a lot of rockfish, and they've been pretty successful at cutting down on the percentage of their catch that's bycatch, rockfish bycatch.

We talked about the crab and shrimp proposals, of course, and we were opposed to moving the shrimp season. We, you know, the last cycle, we pushed through a proposal to move the shrimp season to the spring, and I'll talk about that more later when, uh, in personal testimony. But our groups thought that it was a good idea to let that show if it can really help the shrimp population recover. Sitka has had its main shrimp area closed for the past several years. Due to overfishing.

And we just heard an announcement a few months ago that they've closed another area that's south of town. I think the pressure shifted to another area. Now that's been overfished and closed. So we're really concerned about shrimp conservation. Sitka.

I just wanted to publicly thank all the AC members present for the incredible amount of time that each of you volunteers and how much care you put into providing good guidance for our board members. I especially appreciate the members of Sitka's AC and how they stepped up this fall. We lost a beloved member of our AC in October in a hunting accident. Tad Fujioka, many of you met. He was our representative to the Homer meeting a year ago.

And it was really hard to come back and continue meeting after losing Tad. We are so fortunate that some of our young fishermen have stepped up to help out with this meeting. Later you're going to meet Emily Scott, who took over as secretary for TAD. She represents Alpha. And Woody Sears coming— he's a— he's another member of our troll fleet.

I'm sorry, that's coming next week to represent us during finfish. And then Devin Calvin is member of the Herring Protectors and a really knowledgeable young man who is going to be attending for the herring session. Thank you very much. Thank you, Stacy, for the excellent report. Any questions from the board?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry for the loss. And also, I also just want to say I appreciate the amount of time and how detailed your notes are. As an AC, it really helps with making decisions.

I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me, ma'am. Oh, sorry. I just had a real quick question. You kind of alluded to it in the last part of your testimony specific to shrimp.

And obviously the Sitka AC feels that at least around the Sitka area that there's some declining shrimp populations and some areas that have been closed because of that. At any point during your conversations, did you talk specifically about the sport and the PU fishery around the Sitka area and the, the idea that the season was basically open year-round? Did you guys have any discussions based on looking at, looking at the season dates and things like that in regards to possibly helping contribute to the rebuilding of this particular stock? Yeah, we've had a long history of— around Sitka, there's a lot of charter fishing and the sport fishing would all be associated with charter boat clients. Locals do subsistence or personal use fishery, which is more liberal in the amount of fish or shrimp that they can retain.

So but both of those things are hammering the population. You know, the commercial shrimp quota in Sitka is really pretty small. And so probably those two are bigger contributors than the commercial fishery. We were in support of the ADFNG proposal to close all shrimping during the egg-laying time, and we felt like that was a good move. As far as the pressures and problems with population, that's kind of region-wide.

There's been a decline in— and the GHLs have been going down for years now. And the surveys have been showing that the recruiters are missing. So the younger, smaller shrimp that, you know, you normally when you pull a pot of shrimp, you'd see certain numbers of each age group. And across the region at the last meeting, the surveys were showing that those recruiters were missing in pretty alarming rates. Across the region, not just in the Sitka area.

So there's definitely pressure and problems region-wide. Appreciate it. It's very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Joe Willis.

Morning, Joe. Welcome. Still on? Oh, lucky me. Good morning.

Joe Willis representing the Southeast Fisherman's Alliance this morning. Good morning. We were established about 25 years ago. We're just north of 300 members. We boast an 87% Alaska residency.

We consist of a few big boats, but mostly we're the mom and pop gillnet troll crab fleet. That's where we fall in. Public record. My incredibly beautiful, talented, and amazing wife, who is an educator for 23 years in Petersburg and supports my fishing habit, and has raised our 3 children. When we're not out trying to make our living, we are living a subsistence lifestyle.

Our executive director submitted PC-468 on our alliance's stance on most of the proposals. We proposed 256. I kind of feel like 256 and 249 are kind of housekeeping, unforeseen circumstances from previous board action.

Mostly this morning, the department's RC3 Table 15 on the red crab around Juneau's. We oppose 242. Get into it as a committee as a whole. Why? If you guys need data that the department can find that, if you haven't had a chance to read PC 319, and then if you want just an amazing recount of the history of red crab, PC 361 is incredible.

On 243, we support that. Myself, you saw in the department that there's 59 different tiered Permits for different crab fisheries, or the king crab fisheries. I'm one of the 15 that has a K-49, which means Tanner Red is our endorsement. We started purchasing this with the help from the state in 2010. It's our largest payment every year, and we're still making that payment.

I've got to use that endorsement one time in 2017. That year we had.

Oddly, Russia dumped a bunch of small king crab on the market, but the market had a hard time selling our crab because— and they're— what they told us, what they fed us, I guess, is there's no consistency in our fishery and it's hard to market it when like, oh, we get it once every 8 years. And it's— so we feel like if this went through, there's a lot more emphasis on direct marketing now. We feel like all communities benefit from this.

And unforeseen would be the department gets probably the largest pot data survey ever at our dime. So I think we get incredible amount of data. Um, SIFA opposes any closed areas. There's some proposals for that. I have many reasons why we didn't get through at a Committee of the Whole, but I'm here to be done.

Good timing. Any questions?

Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. We will see you in Committee of the Whole. Nels Evans.

After Nels, we will have Norval Nelson, Barbara Cadiente Nelson, and Louie Holst.

Morning. Morning. Through the chair, I'm Nels Evans, Executive Director of Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. PVOA is a diverse mixed group, mixed gear fleet that participates in state and federal fisheries throughout Alaska and the West Coast. We provided public written testimony which can be found at PC392 for our full list of, uh, of positions.

I will focus my testimony to proposals 242, 243, and 156, as I will most likely not be able to make it for finfish comment period. PVOA is opposed to proposal 242 and its unnecessary reallocation of red king crab GHL from the commercial sector to the personal use sector. Proposal 242 relies heavily on the argument that there are plenty of other areas in Southeast Alaska where the commercial fleet can harvest red king crab. And that 11(a) and that the 11(a) fishery should be wholly used as a local personal use resource. This logic only works in theory, as in practice it would likely lead to the permanent closure of the commercial red king crab fishery in Southeast Alaska.

11(A) is a significant contributor to the annual stock assessment survey, as, as it's included in one of the 7 survey areas used by the department. And is an important input for the Juneau survey area. The Juneau area contributed 27% of the total Southeast Alaska stock assessment in 2024, with 11A being the largest portion of this assessment. There's no mechanism in the red king crab management plan currently that would factor in the historic influence that 11A has brought to the stock assessment to make up for losing it within future stock assessments if 242 were to be past. This would make it increasingly harder for us to reach that 200,000-pound threshold that triggers the fishery under the current management plan.

We already receive a minor 40% allocation of this 11(a)(GHL), but it has a disproportionate influence on whether or not we have this fishery. As you've heard already, this is already a marginalized fishery because we don't get it reliably. It kind of has a boom and bust cycle, as you saw in the graphs of that, or the historical stock graphs. So any way that puts further stress on the remaining survey areas is not something that we are supportive of. We have already lost 2 of our 7 survey areas to sea otter predation.

We don't want to lose a third survey area to benefit one community, disproportionately affecting the rest in the region. PVOA supports Proposal 243 and sees it as a way for the fleet to better utilize the red king crab stock in Southeast. Current management plan hinges on the 200,000-pound threshold is not based on a biological need, but was established by the markets in past actions saying that that's what they needed in order to open up the plants. As you heard in previous testimony, direct marketing has become more and more of a thing. Fishermen have more access to marketing their own catch.

So we see that 200,000-pound threshold for processing and operations as not being as stringent and important to the prosecution of this fishery. That 200,000-pound threshold— I would also just close that because I will not be here, we are opposed to 156. The hatchery programs are a huge boon to not only the fishermen but the communities. Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate you. Any questions? Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. I also noticed that somebody joined us, and I just wanted to welcome Commissioner Vincent Lang to the meeting.

Thank you. I was busy with the State of the State last night, so thank you for hosting me, and I'll be looking forward to the meeting. Thank you for joining us. Welcome, Mr. Nelson. Whenever you're ready, please begin.

Okay.

I'm going to do my very best to keep within the time limits. And I've typed my remarks so that I could do so. Yakei sutaaq. Good morning, Chair Carlson, Van Doren, board members. My name is Barbara Kedianti Nelson.

My Tlingit name is Eshkooka Kayanasaaq. My ancestral home is the Bear House, Hootsit, and the Valley House, Shanaakit, Kootsnoow Kwan. I am of the Brown Bear Clan, Teikwéidi, and a child of the Ilikano Filipino and Tlingwéidi Dog Salmon. I was born and reared in Suntukahini, where I've lived for 71 years. I'm married to Norval Nelson, 55 years.

We have 4 adult children and 17 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren. I retired from the Juneau School District in 2022, where I served my community of Suntukahini, aka Juneau, as a high school teacher and an administrator charged by my community to advocate for equity and inclusion in the education of our children and all children. I am co-owner of the F/V Star of the Sea Incorporated and our vessel Star of the Sea and Trinity, and am an officer of Star of the Sea, our family-owned fishing business. I possess a CFEC K69 Tanner Red Blue Brown King Crab Permit, which was earned by blood, sweat, and tears by my departed father-in-law, Ole Nelson, Sr. Ole and a handful of other fishermen were founders of the red crab fishery. In 11-A and surrounding areas some 65 years ago.

For full transparency, transparency, I currently serve on the board of Sealaska, the board of SEERCH, and I'm a trustee of Sealaska Heritage, a shareholder of Sealaska and Goldbelt, and I'm duly enrolled as a tribal member of Tlingit and Haida Central Council and Taku Native Tribe, also known as Douglas Indian Association. As a council member of TNT, I've been asked by our president Clarence Leidy to represent him, the council, and 800 members in our opposition of Proposal 242. Taku Native Tribe is actively engaged in developing the economy of Juneau, in workforce development, and addressing the need of food security for its members. The Territorial Sportsman's audacious campaign is and has been for decades to create an exclusive fishery for territorial sportsmen in 11A solely for their personal use and growing business interests. The territorial sportsmen exploit the 1,400 personal use fishers in this fishery by speaking for them and one for all in this campaign to close registration area 11A to commercial fishers.

But as clearly stated in their written proposal, the territorial sportsmen have not engaged with any stakeholders in their proposal to void and cancel the Southeast Alaska Red King Crab Management Plan, 5AAC 34113, and policies. There has been no public process to advance a fair and reasonable solution to serving the best interests of personal, sport, and commercial fishers. Yet the territorial sportsmen as a whole are not red crab fishery managers. They are not red crab species biologists. They are not statisticians.

They are not fishery economists. They are not fiduciaries of the resources and the economies of this community or state, nor do they openly declare their business interests as sportsmen of the red crab resources. The territorial sportsmen are lobbyists for sportsmen at best. They're charter boat operators. They are lodge owners.

They are self-serving for certain. Yet they blame the commercial fishers in their declaration of 14 findings in this proposal. Thank you, Miss Nelson. Are there any questions? Appreciate your testimony today.

Mr. Nelson, do you have additional comments? You have 3 minutes. Welcome. Yes, hello. Thank you, Madam Chair, and the board here for listening what we have to say today.

I'm totally against 242 on the crab there, and the Juneau area. 11-A used to be all of Gastineau Channel, Fritz Cove, Auke Bay, Portland Island Trench, Otter Point to Horse and Colt Reef. The line goes across everything north of there now we've given to territorial sportsmen. And sports people, goes on up to lean up to the president,.

Lena Point Trench goes to the north to Eagle Beach at Amalga Harbor. There's a line. Those areas are real good crab areas in the past, in the early '70s, '80s, '90s for the commercial fishermen. I spent a lot of years there with my dad. He made that fishery up there, him and a few of his Buddies, but we need that fishery to be able to get the count we need on the survey to get the 200,000-pound threshold.

Otherwise, we'll get no fishery in Southeast Alaska. And there's a lot of families, people that really depend on that. They have boat payments, insurance payments. House payments. We're dealing with poor prices in salmon and crab and losing crab and markets going to heck, canneries going belly up.

Okay, the second I want to talk about is the survey. When we made the deal about going to a 200,000-pound threshold, we had a group and we worked with Fish and Game. And we had the areas that, you know, Pipas Bay, Gambier, Seymour, Port Frederick, Tracy Arm, all those areas were in the portfolio. And Tracy Arm was taken out and Port Frederick was taken out. And those are real important areas to, we fish, my dad fished it the last time it was open 8 years ago.

It's been since we had an opening. And we fish Port Frederick. And my son Nick fish Port Frederick. And we did good. We did good, we brought crab home and sold them off the boat to the local community of Juneau.

And taking those two areas out of the portfolio, you can't come up with a threshold that we need to go fishing every year, not every 8 years. And I'm totally against that, and I want you to understand that you can't get a number without having some area. Thank you. I have a question for you. Do you feel that that 200-pound threshold is still important and relevant?

I think it is, yeah. OK. OK. Any board question? Any other board questions? Right. Thank you.

Gunashish boshidoo for being here today. OK, thank you. And I would ask you to please read the comments that Norval submitted to you. On January 9th. It is very important.

Up next is Louie Holst, followed by Mark Holst and Peter Neville Johnson.

Welcome, Louie.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and board members. My name is Louie Holst. I'm a resident of Sitka. I'm a commercial fisherman of 40 years.

I'd like to start talking to you today about the family-friendly dinglebar troll fishery. I'm opposed to Proposition 202. 202 Claims to clarify regulation regarding long lawful dinglebar troll gear, but in fact it completely redefines the lawful gear, changing how we operate and creating an unsafe working environment. 5 AAC 28.130 states only one trollie— troll gurdy line or hand troll gurdy line may be deployed in the water at any time. That's the meat of this current regulation.

202 Proposes to redefine it as an operational unit of, of dinglebar troll gear. And furthermore, only one operational unit of dinglebar troll gear may be on board or deployed from a vessel at or below the surface of the sea. This is what I take exception to. Currently, we have two crew members on deck when the Gertie troll line is brought to the surface. Crew member number 1 disconnects the train from the gurdy troll line, hands it off to crew member number 2.

Crew member number 2 walks that train over to the opposite side of the boat as it's dragging behind the vessel. Then crew member 1 deploys a second train, snaps that onto the single troll gurdy line, and sends it back down to depth. While this is happening, crew member 2 is servicing that that train. This is the difficult and dangerous part. That train with fish on is very heavy and must be pulled in hand over hand.

202 Will force us to change the way we fish, requiring us to get that train aboard, get the fish off, and redeploy that same train as fast as humanly possible. Shoulder injuries, back injuries, hook injuries will, will become commonplace. All my 4 children have grown up participating in this family-friendly fishery. I actually emailed you each a video of my 12-year-old son hauling a train aboard. You just, you have to see it to appreciate how difficult that is.

I would not have been able to afford to allow my younger children to learn in this fishery under these new current proposed rules. Younger, smaller crew members lack the physical strength required to service a train quickly. My children are now grown, but I currently have predominantly female crew. It's not safe or even possible for them to get a train in and back out at lightning speed. It's not fair to my female crew members to pass regulation like this that so strongly encourages me to hire the biggest, strongest individual I can find.

I'd like to go on to 199. Proposal 199 is a weather delay for the lingcod fishery. I'm opposed to it as written. A weather delay has to be in, in all areas or not at all. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Are you going to be around for Committee of the Whole? Yes. Okay, good. I have a question for you just to think about for the committee discussion anyways.

So if we're talking about this operational unit and, and how it's redefined and what you just described in terms of how you operate I see a couple of different things. One would be either it slows down your operation considerably, right? Right. Or we need to consider what the regulation would define, how you would define it, not necessarily for a unit of gear per se perhaps, but how would enforcement, you know, so how would you word it so that you could allow sort of that one deployment while the other one is being brought in. I don't know, perhaps you thought about that, or do you have language?

Yeah, I mean, if you'll allow me, what they're trying to— I believe what they're trying to accomplish is keeping people from operating two, one on each side of the boat. And 202, as currently written, has a section that talks about having all other troll girdies having nothing attached to it, no weights of any kind. It goes into detail. To cover all the, you know, no bars or cannonballs or weights. That seems perfectly sufficient to accomplish the enforcement goals that they're trying to accomplish with this.

I believe that the rest of it is just taking things too far. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? Appreciate your testimony today.

Thank you. Mark Holst.

Hello, Madam Chair and board members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark Holst. I have submitted written comments, PC 218. I'm a lifelong, lifelong Alaskan Southeast, and I've been fishing my entire life.

I'm the owner-operator of a 40-foot trawler called the October. I mainly want to talk about the directed lingcod Dingle Bar fishery. I oppose Proposal 199 as written. This proposal will have severe unintended consequences. Weather delay provision must either close all areas simultaneously or none at all.

If one area has a weather delay, the likelihood is very high that most boats will go to other areas that don't— they don't normally fish while they wait for the area with the weather delay. To open, causing the quota in areas with typically calmer waters and closer to town to get caught much sooner. This proposal as written seems to create some of the very problems it's trying to solve. I support Proposal 200. This is a fast-paced fishery, and mandatory check-ins are a great way to achieve the maximum allowable harvest level without any overages.

I oppose Proposal 202. This proposal as written goes far beyond simple clarification. The only clarification this proposal needs to say to achieve its enforcement objective is that all weights, including dinglebars,.

Cannonballs and other fishing weights must be disconnected from the troll wires of all other gurdies that are mounted on the vessel at any time. Anything more is regulatory overreach and unnecessary. To say that operating two trains while fishing with one line in the water, as per current regulation, gives bigger boats an unfair advantage is simply not true. I have personally participated in the Dingle Bar fishery when I owned a 32-foot double-ender, arguably one of the smallest boats in the fleet. I could have fished two trains if I wanted to, but I chose not to because I was alone on the boat and I made the choice to operate one train just to make things easier, knowing full well that it was less efficient.

I have also crewed with my parents during dinglebar season for years, where we operate one line in the water and two trains, one deployed down to depth and another trailing behind the boat being serviced. So why should we be penalized by outlawing efficiency in an effort to level the playing field with other participants who choose not to run multiple trains? That is not fair. This proposal— if this proposal is adopted as written, it will change the fishery and have unintended consequences, such as that it will become of the utmost importance to service the one and only train as fast as physically possible, causing serious safety concerns for families. I grew up dingle barring with my parents, and I loved it.

It gave me the opportunity as a kid to spend time with my family while learning a good work ethic and getting paid an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. And it's a very fun fishery. Would I have been physically able to pull a train in with hundreds of pounds of lingcod on it while dragging it through the water in a timely manner at the age of 13? Of course not. I was 13 years old.

Having the option of running two trains made this a family-friendly fishery, giving me and my siblings the time that we needed as kids to do what most physically fit adults could do much faster. Had these new laws in this proposal been in effect in past years, my dad would have been forced to either not participate in the dingledar fishery at all or leave me and my siblings in town and hire a crew. I do not want to have to make that same decision with my future kids. And I, I also oppose proposals 260 and 261. There are lots of communities sprinkled throughout Southeast Alaska.

If every community closed a currently open commercial shrimp fishery area, then the commercial shrimp fishery would effectively be over due to there being nowhere to fish.

Thank you, Mark. Mr. Carpenter has a question for you. Thank you, Mark. Thanks for your testimony. We don't often hear about this type of fishing, um, so it's, it's, it's very informative for me specifically.

Um, my basic question is, is that when you retrieve the train, if you're fishing off the starboard side of your boat, for example, and you bring that up to depth and you disconnect it and haul it to the port side. Effectively, that train is no longer fishing. And as you release the other one to depth to continue to fish, as you bring the one that was down and take the fish off— am I correct in my assumption? Is that pretty much how it plays out? The one that you brought up and are servicing, it absolutely has the ability to no longer fish?

Mr. Carpenter, that is correct. As it's on the surface of the water, typically most hooks have fish on it in good fishing. And lingcod, you know, they, they hang out on the bottom of the ocean. They're not on the surface of the water. So in effect, it could not possibly catch a fish at the surface.

All right, thank you. How fast is the boat moving typically when you're, when you're servicing and you're dragging that, that train behind you? Madam Chair, typically somewhere between 2 and 2.5 knots. Depends on the weather. Sometimes when the weather's not very nice out, it can be very difficult with the waves pulling as you're trying to pull it in.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Peter Neville Johnson.

Either, either seat is fine. Welcome, Peter. Whenever you're ready, just go ahead and hit the button and begin.

I'm Peter Neville Johnson. I've been a resident of Alaska for 36 years. I've been a commercial fisherman in many different commercial fisheries for 30 years. I'm presently a resident of Ketchikan, Alaska. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Wild Alaska king salmon stocks are in trouble across the board, with major declines in numbers and major decline in average king salmon weight dating to the 1980s.

Some people place the sole blame for the collapse of king salmon numbers and substantial decline in average weight on climate change. However, climate change did not begin in the 1980s. What did begin in the 1980s was massive increase of hatchery-produced pink salmon. Up to the 1980s, the average population of adult pink salmon in the Gulf of Alaska was about 200+ million pink salmon. By 2023, due in part to massive increases in pink salmon hatchery output, there were 753 million adult pink salmon in the Gulf.

Normal pink salmon population up to the 1980s has now tripled. There's a limited amount of food available in the Gulf of Alaska to feed salmon. This massive increase in pink salmon population has resulted in a substantial decrease in biomass of other salmon. Please review "From Diatoms to Killer Whales: Impacts of Pink Salmon on North Pacific Ecosystems," written as a collaboration between many scientists from the University of Alaska University of British Columbia and other institutions, published in 2023 and peer-reviewed. This study took massive amounts of hard data from nearly 200 different scientific studies and looked for patterns and correlations.

They found direct correlation between the massive increase in pink salmon hatchery outputs that began in the 1980s with both the decline in numbers of kings and decline of average weight of kings. They also found direct correlation between massive increases in pink salmon numbers and decreases in numbers and/or average weight of other salmon species such as coho, chum, and sockeye. Bristol Bay sockeye, while still showing good numbers, have hit an all-time low in average weight in 2024, and pink salmon numbers are found to correlate inversely with sockeye average weight. Massive increases in pink salmon population in this study are shown to also directly correlate with many other damages to the ecosystem, including massive seabird die-offs and decline of southern killer whales. In the 1980s, in a farming attempt, king salmon were taken from the Pacific Northwest to Argentina and Chile.

Escapees of these kings populated rivers there and have not only thrived in numbers, But those king salmon stocks have steadily increased in average weight, unlike Alaska, since the 1980s to now, with some kings there now reaching 80 pounds. Climate change is worldwide, including Argentina and Chile. What's different between Argentina, Chile, and Alaska is that there are no pink salmon in Argentina, Chile. Alaska Department of Fish and Game study in 2024 showed that the massive pink salmon hatchery output has made significant, substantial negative effects on both pink salmon numbers and wild pink salmon average weight. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Are there any questions? Appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you. Thank you. Goodish.

Goodish. John Johansen, followed by Kate Sullivan. And Tom Trailbush.

Is John Johanson present this morning?

John? No John? Okay. Kate Sullivan.

Good morning, Kate. Welcome. Good morning.

First I would like to thank you all Thank you all for coming to Ketchikan in the middle of the winter. Turn your mic on, please. Thank you. Thank you all for coming to Ketchikan in the middle of the winter, and I hope you brought warm clothes for the weekend. It's going to get really cold.

My name is Kate Sullivan, and I'm the executive director of the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fishery Association, also referred to as SARDFA. And SARDFA is comprised of sea cucumber, geoduck, and sea urchin dive fleet. We are an interesting association because we, when we were created, enabling legislation required that divers have a self-assessment tax that is collected at time of landing, and part of that money goes back to pay research and management costs directly to the Department of Fish and Game. And we are governed by— we have 3 committees that represent each of the dive fishing groups, and then we have a very active board of directors that's comprised of 7 permit holders and a person that represents the processing industry and another person that represents a municipality in Southeast Alaska. And today my comment will basically focus on the dive proposals referencing RC-018 and RC-019.

And our committees and our board voted on these proposals.

Proposals, some of which we created. So I'll just quickly go through these today. I will be here Saturday and can provide more detail at the committee level. So for Proposal 212, we support in very specific circumstances allowing 4 divers on a vessel. For 213, we support using the midpoint of the one-sided 90% confidence interval, and we believe that this could be used and still be conservative of the stocks.

We support 214, which is getting away from using an original biomass estimate and moving to a current biomass estimate. 214 Specifically proposes waiting 5 years before doing that current biomass estimate. And for 214 and 215, RC019, which is a map, shows that we basically have a, a very a tale of two different fisheries happening in our geoduck industry. And when we created a management plan in 1999, the ecosystems were very similar. Now we have two very distinct ecosystems.

And as you— if you look at RC019, the map, you can see that one area is greatly changed and one area is still very stable. And we feel that because our management has not adapted, it's time to have adaptive management for our geoduck fleet. And for our geoduck fishery. And I can talk more at length about Proposal 215, which is based on what they're doing in British Columbia to address the same exact issue. They've been doing it for several years.

They've conducted a lot of research. So there is evidence that you can have adaptive management based on ecosystem conditions. We support 216. It's just a language clarification. For cucumber proposals, we do not support 217.

We support 218. We're neutral on 219, 220. We support 221 and we support 232. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

What sort of tax percentage does your organization levy against the dive fisheries and what percentage of that goes back to the department? To contribute to the research? So we have different rates based on the fishery. So by enabling legislation, we're required to either tax at a 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, or 7%. And if we want to change that, we have to go back and change our legislation.

So right now in the geoduck fishery, we have a 7% tax, and that's because we have very high expenses related to paralytic shellfish testing. We have water quality testing. We have federal inorganic arsenic testing that we have to do if we want to ship to China, which is our main market. So we have a lot of expenses in that fishery. The sea cucumber and the sea urchin one, through a very, you know, specific process, are now reduced to 1% assessment tax because for years we were overtaxing the sea cucumber fishery.

And so we reduced that tax because we had money in reserve. In terms of a percentage, we actually have a 5-year cooperative agreement with the Department of Fish and Game that was just renegotiated, and we pay about $106,000 a year for sea cucumbers and about $25,000— and I'm sorry, I don't have my exact numbers with me— about $25,000 to $30,000 for geoduck management. All right, that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions?

Thank you for your testimony this morning.

Tom Trailbush.

Good morning. I submitted a little couple pieces or a little packet yesterday. I hope you got that. I think it was packet number 20. At any rate, I'm Tom Trebush.

I submitted Proposal 251. We all know sea otters have significantly reduced the crab grounds. The fleet is so condensed on opening day that there are very few places to move if the crab are soft. Shifting the opening to July 1st is imperative for the sustainability of the crab population and the fishery. 2021 Saw the highest ex-vessel price in Southeast ever, $4.25 a pound.

Participation spiked to 212 participants. That was the highest level since 2003. Ex-vessel prices have dropped since then, down to as low as $2 a pound. In 2023, participation dropped to 157. In '24, participation dropped to 160 from the high of 2021.

That's a 25% drop in the, in the, in the fishery of participation. So in those last 2 years, 50 permits that fished in weren't— excuse me, 50 permits did not participate, not even for the first couple weeks of the fishery, not even for the cream of the crop. Until the board recently changed the shrimp opening, I was faced with conflict every year of which fishery to participate in on October 1st, shrimp or dungeness. You're not allowed to fish both simultaneously.

Fish and Game comments state the current fishery timing has allowed fishers to participate in multiple fisheries during the summer months. This choice will still be available if the opening date is shifted. It's a business decision we make every year. Further comments from the staff reference 2001 and 2002 surveys that 59% of the legal crab caught in June were soft. And that the handling mortality of soft crab can be up to 50%.

So if we start the season on soft crab, a large percentage of those crab are going to die, reducing the overall harvest for the year. Uh, when we're sorting and throwing them back, the sublegal recruits are soft as well, resulting in killing off a large percentage of the next 1 to 3 years' worth of recruitment into the fishery. This is inconsistent with best management practices and for maximum sustained yield. Leaving the season status quo doesn't address the problem. Shifting the season will not result in a less productive fishery.

It won't change the 42,000 pots that are allotted by limited entry. Rather, it will be a great benefit to the sustainability of the resource and the fishery. Fishermen make business decisions every day. Manage the fishery, not the fishermen. And anybody have questions?

I'd love to answer questions. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, and I understand this is going to vary from year to year, but generally speaking, when the season opens— I think, I think it's June 15th right now— during the first week of the season or so, what percentage of the of pots that you haul have, you know, sublegal or legal-sized Dungeness crab in them that are still soft-shelled?

Well, every year is different, and the, you know, the soft crab abundance varies from year to year. But every year in June, there's soft crab. Just how much varies a lot. But, you know, if you get 15 legal crab that you could keep in a pot on a good season, when they're hard, you're going to throw back 2 or 3, 4 crab. On opening day in 2021, my first pot I hauled, we had 30 crab in the pot, 15 were legal.

I kept 1. I had 14 soft. I had 15 soft sublegal crab. And I was on the phone to the department going, you know, how can we slow this? Can you shut this down?

And And by statute, they can't shut the fishery down until it's been open for at least 28 days by the threshold mechanism they have set in place. So if we start fishing on soft crab, we're fishing on them. You know, some years are different. They're not soft every year, but there's, there's a portion is soft every year, but not to the extent they were in '21. But the department doesn't have the tools to shut it down on, you know, for, for the first week they get the fish tickets, we get 7 to 10 days worth of data, and by statute they can't close the fishery if their crab are soft for 28 days.

Alright, I appreciate that, and I assume that by putting July 1 in your proposal that you've kind of found that a couple weeks is, is— oh yeah, it seems satisfactory enough to solve a lot of that condition. Yeah, I mean Department data says that, you know, when the crab molt in the spring, that they are soft, you know, May and June. And they're, you know, they're hardening up. It's not perfect. Perfect would be preseason surveys.

But we don't have the— the department doesn't have the ability to do that at this point. And they don't have the ability to change the opening date. I mean, you can do surveys, but it doesn't do any good if you have a drop-dead date of opening on on the 15th. You know, if we had a flexible opening date, that ultimately would be the best solution in my opinion. You know, that way we wouldn't be fishing on them, you know, on the 15th of June or the 25th of June if they were soft.

We'd be pushing the season back and forth.

Mr. Swenson.

Through Madam Chair, so.

I understand. So that was going to be my question. Does the department do a survey of those crab prior to the opening? And you said they do not. Is that correct?

That's correct. Back, you know, back in the day, we were able to fish, and we started fishing on soft crab. There was always bays you could move to. You could move in, and the industry did. We always moved from soft crab off of soft crab.

The market wouldn't take them. And so that— but with the otters, they've moved in and squeezed us so much that we're all condensed on opening day. And if you can find a bay to fish by yourself, good for you. I mean, I haven't seen it. So we're basically fishing on top of each other.

And, and that's why it wasn't necessarily necessary for the department in the past to do a preseason survey. And I, you know, from what I understand, they don't have the funding or the staff to do it at this point. Well, it sounds like maybe putting it off would be a good choice. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, just to clarify, so the reason you are all kind of packed together is because the areas where you could go to find harder shell crab, you can't go to anymore because the sea otters have eaten them. Yeah, that's correct. I mean, we used to fish in Icy Strait and we would always wait until after the Fourth of July to move to the flats of Gustavus. Because they were always soft in the flats on opening.

And we'd fish other bays, we'd fish, you know, Dundas Bay or Glacier Bay or Idaho Inlet. Well, now the otters have wiped everything out, including the flats of Gustavus. So we were— in the past, we were able to move and pick and choose, but the otters have squeezed the area so much that we're all just condensed basically on the productive grounds.

Wow. So—. May I follow up? So you were, okay, I'm picking up what you're laying down here. So I mean, now you're in a totally condensed area and you realize, oh, these are soft crab, slow this thing down, stop, wait, is what you're asking for.

You don't have the option to go anywhere else 'cause there is no more crab over there. Basically, that's correct. I mean, back in the '80s and '90s in District 14, Icy Strait, We have, you know, 10 or 12 boats and we'd be spread out and we'd all kind of more go to the flats of Gustavus or after the Fourth of July because that was very productive grounds. All those bays are closed, or they're not closed, they're void of crab from the otters, and those same permits now have to go someplace else. So we're all being squeezed down, you know, down the line to the next best fishery or next best bay.

And so all those boats were all fishing in the current last season. One little bay, opening day, there was 7 boats. We had over 1,000 pots. I mean, on one little postage stamp. Wow, thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for your testimony this morning. Thank you. Naomi Sundberg. Followed by Stacy Wayne.

And Jeremy Leighton.

Good morning. Good morning. Thank you.

My name is Naomi Sandberg. I'm also addressing Proposal 251. The 2021 crab season had the highest ex-vessel price ever in Southeast Alaska, $4.25 per pound. Sadly, the majority of the crab were soft region-wide. The fleet fished on soft crab from the beginning and throughout the summer.

Processors ended the '21 season with poor quality, light crab in cold storage. This led ex-vessel prices to drop from $4.25 to $2.60 in '22 and further to $2 in '23 as processors were still working through the '21 inventory. As a result, both fishers and processors have suffered from the soft crab that were fished in '21. The crab resource undoubtedly suffered as well. Research shows sorting and handling of soft crab leads to a high mortality rate of up to 50%, half the crab handled.

This also damages the soft sublegal males, that season's breeding stock, and the next 1 to 3 years of recruits. This '23 summer season closed by emergency order 17 days early, as warranted by department projections, likely due to the mortality of sublegal recruits in '21. The 10-year harvest average for Dungeness is over 3.5 million pounds. This season, 1.7 million. This will be the lowest harvest since 1980-81, a 45-year low.

Washington, Oregon, and California all conduct preseason testing to determine when to open the season based on shell condition. Currently, Fish and Game conduct preseason surveys in the shrimp, king crab, and Tanner crab fisheries. These three fisheries combined have a harvest value of $7.6 million a year. Dungeny's harvest value, $10.5 million per year. At this time, the department is not able to conduct preseason surveys on Dungeny's.

The current statute has a date-certain opening of June 15th. Changing this to a flexible opening date would give the department more tools to better manage the fishery. In lieu of these current restrictions, the best option we have now to protect the resource is to shift the opening date 2 weeks to avoid soft fishing on soft, vulnerable crab. Up to 3/4 of the crab are caught in the first month of the season. In contrast, only 11% are caught in the last 2 weeks.

Shifting to a July 1 opening will have minimal impact on the overall catch. That 11% will still be in the water for the breeding cycle during the 6-week closure and available for harvest in October when it reopens. Therefore, without preseason surveys and a flexible opening date, shifting the season opening to July 1 will help protect the resource to achieve maximum sustained yield. Thank you, Naomi. Thank you.

Any questions? Mr. Swanson. Madam Chair, thank you, Naomi. Those statistics that you provided were really informative for me. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you for your testimony today. Stacey Wayne.

Welcome back to the mic.

Hello. Just to introduce myself as my personal testimony, I'm the author of the proposal 2 cycles ago that required region-wide reporting for subsistence and personal use shrimping in Southeast Alaska, as well as the proposal that set limits for take in the SIK area. I'm also a longtime commercial shrimper, longliner, and passed that netter. I'm— today I'm speaking against moving the shrimping season back to October and also against proposals 254 and 225— 254 through 257, the crab proposals to move the Dungeness or remove restrictions on the Dungeness season. I'll get into that later.

I wanted to report that shrimpers across the region were pretty positive about the spring fishery. We talked about this last cycle. There was concerns about the shrimp being soft and things like that, but those concerns turned out to be unfounded. We've not had issues with unexpected numbers of soft shrimp. The, the quality of shrimp has been really high in the spring, whereas before in October, the— about half the shrimp were egg-bearing.

It's really unusual to find a shrimp that is egg-bearing in— after May 15th. The pace of the shrimp fishery is slower. It's true in the spring, it seems to be in our region, but permit holders have been able to reach the guideline harvest limit in similar time frames in most areas. The shrimp fishery is closing 2 weeks to a month into the fishery. The only AC looking through the reports that was wanting to move the fishery back to October was the Wrangell AC.

Most of the others were in favor of keeping it in the spring.

One benefit that we, we talked about and has proved true is that the shrimp fishery is becoming more lucrative. In Sitka, for example, before the move to the spring, the price of shrimp was $10 to $12 a pound on the dock, and the past two seasons the price has been $20 to $25 a pound on the dock. So it's basically doubled. And that's because there's a strong restaurant and lodge market as well as lots of visitors to the community for residents that want to feed them shrimp. So we really sell out quickly.

Even the freezer boats sell out in a couple of weeks. We're hoping that the fishery has the potential to increase in value if we can manage the stocks and help them recover. Quinn reported in his report that the average permit value has gone from $18,000 in 2020 to $32,000. In 2023, probably due to that change to the spring fishery. Science supports keeping the spring fishery in the spring.

You saw the biologist report that although it's been too soon to really know if the move to the spring is helping the stocks recover, they are seeing evidence of those recruiters in the, in the test fish pots. And so they're very hopeful. This just needs more time to make sure that it's really working. We also saw from the scientists' report that a graph showing the year-long cycle of a shrimp and how the springtime is the optimum time to fish them because about 10% of the population will die off in the fall. Thank you.

Thank you, Stacy. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'd just like to clarify— have you clarify something you said, or maybe reiterate it. Did you say that this last season, that when the shrimp season opened, or that 50% of the females were still bearing eggs?

Did you say that? No. Thank you for asking that question. No, the cycle of the shrimp means that the shrimp are egg-bearing starting about in like late in the summer, early in the fall. They start to develop eggs.

By October when we were fishing them, they were heavily laden with eggs. About half the shrimp had eggs on them. They all release their eggs in April. So by May, it's really unusual to find a shrimp with any eggs on it. So we're fishing the shrimp without eggs in the spring, whereas before we were removing all of those eggs from the water and they weren't reproducing.

So it really didn't make a lot of sense to help the population recover. We weren't allowing the shrimp to lay their eggs by, by picking them out of the water in October. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Just, just want to let folks know that you got about 10 minutes to sign up for public testimony for the first session. If you intend to do so, I encourage you to get your blue cards in to the front table because at 10 AM we'll be cutting it off. All right, next up is Jeremy Layton.

Hi Jeremy, welcome.

My name is Jeremy Layton. I'm a commercial harvest diver. I've been commercial fishing in Alaska since 1989. Started diving for sea cucumbers and gooey ducks in 1993. I'd like to discuss the proposal 213, 214, 215 kind of in unison.

They're, they're all important to us. First of all, geoducks are a long-lived animal, and it's something that they brought up yesterday. But what they didn't bring up is that means that they have up to 100 years to spawn and to reproduce, which actually helps being long-lived.

Harvest size is achieved at roughly 5 years old. So at a young age, they're actually harvested. The average age in the, in the fisheries when it first started back in the early '90s was— they did some studies and it was roughly 48 to 48 years old. And that kind of brought it into their 2% harvest rate. It would take about 50 years to replenish the stocks if you harvested them, you know, as you were harvesting.

With otters, that'll change. You know, we need to come up with an equal— once they get an equilibrium with the harvest, the otters will lower that average age of the gooey ducks. And eventually, if that happens and these— this Fish and Game does more of these studies, that age or the harvest rate will probably change potentially— I guess it would depend on their views of it— would potentially change from 2%, and it could be maybe an average age of 25 years, which would give a 4% harvest rate. Debatable with the Fish and Game.

One of the things that we really need to do is start doing some age studies on these things. You know, I've offered to the Fish and Game to bring in some of the new recruits get some age study done on them. The fishing game says they don't have the money or the time to actually do the age study. You have to cut the shell, you have to cut— it's kind of like counting rings on a tree. You cut the shell open and you count them.

You get 50, 50 rings, it's 50 years old. And they don't have the time to actually get somebody out there to, to do those studies.

So the quotas in Southeast Alaska based on a 2% recovery, to me, seem manageable. Fish and Game has a Oh, wrong page, sorry.

With zero predation of otters back in the day, the biomass, or the total biomass of otters, it totally, what's the word for it, they have basically filled in every pocket they could. As otters, nope, sorry. Do you have a concluding statement? I've got about 20. Okay.

Are you going to be around for Committee of the Whole? Yes, I will. Okay, good. We'll get into it a little bit more. I do have one question for you, though.

Yes. You mentioned that there was a study that determined that there was sort of the 48-year average age. I missed it. When was that study conducted? I believe it was somewhere around the 1990s, either late '80s or early '90s.

And to your knowledge, has there been anything done subsequently? Frequently? They've done some minimal age studies, you know, taking a small amount. Back in the day, we had a meat fishery. It wasn't a live fishery, so they were able to just walk into any plant, say, hey, we need 1,000 geoduck shells, and they'd be able to hand them to them.

Nowadays, it's all live, so they get sent off, the shells go with them. So the only way they can do an age study is to go out and actually harvest specifically to, to get those age studies and destroy the animal. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Oh, wait, we got another question for you.

A couple questions. So, um, uh, how deep are— do you have to go to get these? And, um, have you noticed that the depth matters with age? So do you— can you go to a place and harvest them that the otters can't get to, and therefore they'd be older, or any kind of anything like that? So geoducks have been found down to over 300 feet.

The most of the geoducks are in less than 100 feet of water. And for a harvest diver, the shallower the better. But the age really doesn't matter by depth. You know, it's— they're broadcast spawners, so they happen to land wherever otters are digging up to 200 feet deep. So it's It's hard to hide from them.

Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Pardon me. So I want to go a little into the predation of otters and other pinnipeds into the— into this. And I'm seeing this across multiple species and across the state where we're seeing since the induction of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a lot of the the mammals that predate upon— on the fisheries have increased in a considerable number. And I think the geoducks provide a— and sea cucumbers kind of provide a very good example of that. And I'm wondering, and I think this was kind of where you were leading to, if you can elaborate a little on the history Like when this study was taken, when this study took place, did that, what was the otter level to the best of your knowledge when this study was taking place?

My understanding is zero, so, but we'll try to keep it brief. I know it's, I'm asking for a bit of a narrative and I don't want one, and I don't, but at the same time, I'm getting a feeling that as the marine mammal numbers recover, a lot of these— the crab and these type of shellfish are going to face a lot of challenges and downward pressure on the fishery. Am I incorrect in that reading? No, you're correct. They're gonna face a ton of pressure.

So otters were void— you know, are eradicated from Southeast Alaska for more than 100 years. So all of their prey had, had the ability to reach the maximum carrying capacity in each of the areas for each species. You know, with, with zero predation on a geoduck, they were able to spawn freely for 100 years, which allowed them to basically be prolific in all the potential geoduck beds. Same with crab, sea otter, or sea cucumbers and everything else. When they were transplanted in the early '70s, the growth rates were fairly fast, but they didn't start taking over areas.

So a lot of the beds of geoducks, they were just starting to see some predation. You know, sea urchins the same way.

I was doing urchins in the '90s, and we could, from one year after another, we were losing shoreline, 5, 10 miles of shoreline a year from otter predation. You'd go and you'd fish grounds, be able to fish there for the— I don't know, for months.

Plenty of sea urchins. The next year you go back in, oh, there's otters here. You jump in the water, there's no urchins left. So you just keep getting pushed down. And the same thing's happening with other, other species.

Urchins were just kind of the forefront and the easiest for them to get. So as they— as the otters move through, they pretty much eat themselves out of house and home and then move on simply because there's nothing left.

We're hoping at some point in time to find an equilibrium between all the species and the otters and still have a harvestable level for the, for the divers, is what we're eventually hoping.

Okay. Yeah.

Over recent years, do you see— and this is just based on your observations, I don't expect solid numbers— but do you see sea mammal levels continuing to increase or are they leveling off? No, they're increasing rapidly. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony this morning.

Let's go ahead and take about a 15-20 minute break and we'll come back and we'll begin with Emily Scott at about 10:15, 10:20. And get those blue cards in. You got about 30 seconds.

All right, welcome back, folks. Uh, time is 10:38. We're back on the record, continuing on with public testimony. We are at Emily Scott with the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, followed by Matt Kurtz, Eric Evans, Craig Northheim. Welcome, Emily.

Madam Chair and members of the board. Hello. My name is Emily Scott. I am the program and outreach coordinator for Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, and I'm also a commercial fisherman out of Sitka. Over the last couple of months, I've been serving as secretary for the Sitka Advisory Committee.

Through recording SICA meeting minutes and through Alpha membership meetings, I have learned a lot about how these proposals will impact our fleet and greater community. Alpha promotes sustainable fisheries and thriving fishing communities through research, education, and policy engagement. Our membership includes trawlers, longliners, seiners, gillnetters, crabbers, and shrimpers. Our members are community-based small boat fishermen who proudly deliver high-quality seafood to coastal Alaska ports supporting the rural coastal economies of Southeast Alaska and beyond. I am here to represent ALFA and our members' positions on groundfish proposals this week.

Some key priorities and concerns outlined in our comments, or RC6, include that we ask the board to stay focused on promoting resource health while providing resident harvesters ongoing historical access and preventing any reallocation. We support.

Proposals that clarify regulation language to help enforcement, safety, and management of the fisheries. These include proposals 191, 197, 200 through 202, and 211.

With regards to rockfish proposals, we recognize that rockfish, particularly DSR, are long-lived, slow-growing, and therefore easy to overfish. In 2009, Alpha launched a fishery conservation network to empower fishermen to reduce rockfish bycatch rates in the halibut and sablefish fisheries. Our members shared logbook and bathymetry data to identify rockfish bycatch hotspots. With these tools, our fleet reduced rockfish bycatch in both the halibut and sablefish directed fisheries. We recognize that resources are limited and conservation is everyone's responsibility, and our fleet stepped up to that responsibility.

No user group should get more because they have exceeded their allocation. We oppose proposals that reward allocation overages, 207 and 208. On sablefish proposals, I want to clarify that we have withdrawn Proposal 194 and we are supporting the department's Proposal 196 to reduce sablefish escape ring size as we defer to the department's research. And recommendation for a ring size of 3.5 inches. We are in accordance with the majority of the department's positions on these proposals and would like to thank the department and the board for your commitment to safeguarding our resources and continuing to ensure those resources are available to Alaska's fishermen.

Thank you for your time and dedication to this process. Thank you, Emily. Appreciate your testimony today. Have— has Alpha submitted an RC stating your intent to withdraw your support for 194? Yes, it's RC 6.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Matt Kurtz.

Hi, Matt.

Either one is all right.

Hi, good morning. My name is Matt Kurtz. I'm a fisherman based out of Ketchikan. This statement is in reference to Proposal 224 and 225 requesting a change of the spot shrimp fishery back to a fall management season commencing on October 1st. I oppose these proposals.

I've been a commercial dive fisherman in Southeast Alaska since 2007. I've made a living in the geoduck and sea cucumber fisheries throughout that period in time, and I've always wanted to include the spot shrimp fishery in my yearly fishing schedule. I was fortunate enough to purchase a spot shrimp permit in 2022, anticipating a possible season change. When that did happen, I set up my vessel as a direct market freezer processor vessel. Anyone in the shrimp fishery who has gone through the process of configuring their vessel in this manner and meeting the operational and procedural requirements set up by DEC understands that this is a complicated and expensive task, but an important one in terms of maximizing value.

A move back to the fall management season would make it virtually impossible for me to participate in the shrimp fishery, resulting in a loss in investments in my vessel and equipment at a time when fishery diversification for the commercial vessel owners in the state is becoming more and more important. I understand that the stakeholders in this fishery are very divided when it comes to the issue. Of a fall or spring management season. Although my experience as a shrimp fisherman is limited, it has never made any sense to me to harvest shrimp when they are laden with eggs. Since all juvenile shrimp ultimately progress in the life cycle to become egg-laying females as adults, there is no way to sex shrimp when caught in order to protect the reproductive capacity of the species.

By harvesting shrimp over a certain size, we are essentially harvesting the female population. The very least we can do is not harvest the ones carrying eggs. Fall harvesting includes a much higher percentage of egg-carrying shrimp, and it is my understanding that the biological abundance of the spot shrimp fishery or resource will recover favorably if we continue with a May 15th management season start date. A continuation of spring fishing will hopefully help ADF&G determine if the shift in seasons has been beneficial to our GHLs as well. I found the experience of selling shrimp directly to consumers tremendously satisfying.

Consumers are tremendously satisfied. Process— like most commercial fishermen in the state, for years I've handed over my catch to processors and brokers who have handled the logistics of getting my product to market. As a direct market vessel, I sold all my shrimp dockside in Ketchikan directly to the end user, and I've seen firsthand the value of wild-caught Alaskan shellfish. Feedback from my customers regarding quality of shrimp caught in May has been excellent, and although there are a few that miss the fall shrimp with eggs, the majority appreciate from a conservation perspective, the shift. Running a successful commercial fishing operation has always come down to two factors for me: hard work, or my ability to work hard, and the price that I get paid for my product.

And I believe that the May fishery is a move in the right direction in terms of building long-term value, and it's my sincere hope that the committee votes to keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Any board questions? Thank you for your testimony this morning.

Eric Evans, followed by Craig Norheim, and then Bo Dale.

Welcome, Eric.

Hello, I am Eric Evans and I'm a commercial fisherman from Petersburg, Alaska. I have fished Tanner golden red crab out of Petersburg for most of my life. Currently own a K-29 permit for red, blue, and golden crab and rely on this diversification that these fisheries provide to support my family and my business. I'm here before you to speak specifically about proposals 242 and 243. I'm opposed to 242 and its proposed reallocation of commercial guideline harvest level to the personal use fishery that benefits only one community while causing harm to Southeast Alaska as a whole.

The red king crab fishery is incredibly local, with only 59 permits issued with red crab designations, only 2 of which are held by out-of-state residents. 31 Are held by Petersburg residents, and the remaining 26 are held by other residents of the region. Proposal 242 would remove a statistically important segment from the annual stock assessment, so more likely than not lead to the red king crab stock assessment to always be below 200,000 pounds. The threshold needed to open a fishery. By reallocation, the commercial sector's remaining 40% of the 11A GHL fishermen and their communities would be left with one less means of diversification in an already tumultuous industry.

I support proposal 243 and the effort put forward by ADF&G to develop a proposal that would provide more harvest opportunity for red crab permit holders like myself. As shown in the staff comments on page 33. There have only been 3 red king crab fisheries in the last 20 years, 2 since 2012. Had this proposal been in place since 2012, there would have been 2 additional fisheries that would have occurred during that time, turning this fishery from one that you get to participate in every 5 years to one that you get to participate, participate in every 3 years. Creating a semi-reliable fishery that I can rely on.

This is far from ideal, but it's a step in the right direction. While I believe that having a harvest strategy that allowed for a fishery to occur at any level of harvestable surplus would be the best-case scenario, I recognize that this is a step in the right direction and gladly support it.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Craig Norheim.

Hi, Craig.

Good morning. My name is Craig Norheim. I'm a shrimp fisherman from Petersburg, and I oppose 222. As changing the personal use fishery to a closure of April and— or March and April, as that's an intricate time for the personal use people to catch their product. And on the 224-225, which wants to change the season back to the traditional October fishery, that's a fallacy.

The October fishery was introduced in '95-'96 when it went limited entry, and traditionally it always opened in May. My family's been in the shrimping industry in Petersburg since 1916. My grandfather ran the Board of Commissioners for Fish and Game for 20-some years, and I've fished consistently since '83. I took a little break and worked in Juneau for a few years, and I'm back shrimping again. And catching shrimp in May again is a wonderful product.

You don't get the eggs, as in the fishery in Canada. You're not allowed to take a shrimp on board the boat. It has to go back in the water if it has eggs. Not too many people are aware of that, and their permits are worth $500 grand. Ours are worth $30,000.

So that kind of tells you a little bit about the fishery, that buried shrimp or shrimp with eggs on it shouldn't be harvested, go back in the water. On.

226, The— I do not support 226 as the timing shows, and everything shows that we're catching all these shrimp in just a few weeks in the season, and the rest of the season it just lays idle, which tells me the numbers that they're using for their guideline harvest vessels might be a little bit short. Could probably be increased because the biomass is there. Shrimp aren't like just living in one spot. They're like a cloud on the bottom or a fog. They come in and they move around and they move all over the place.

And as you find them, you stay with them. And as they move away, you start searching for them. Well, the 8 to 4 timeframe for fishing really puts a hamper on a small boat. I'm one of the smaller boats in the fleet for the shrimp fishery. I'm a 20-foot skiff that I've had for 40 years.

And it works very well for hauling shrimp pots. I longline them and I haul my gear every day. But some days the weather's bad or the tides are high and all my buoys are down. I can't haul my gear because I can't get to them in the 8-hour period. If I had a 12-hour period like Canada, 7 in the morning till 7 at night, gives me an opportunity to get to my gear at least through 2 tides, 2 slack tides.

So for me, the 8 to 4 really hampers my operation. Where it is enhances the processor because he has to stop fishing to process. That's where this all started with the October fishery. I shrimped for a 75-day period 2 years ago, and I was the only guy left shrimping, and I didn't see eggs until the third week of July. To me, that tells us something.

Thank you. Thank you, Craig. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Obviously have a long history in the shrimping industry. My question to you is, how long has the 8-to-4 time frame for management been in place?

Several years now, and it's, uh, it's travesty for a small guy. And so you're, you're basically— your, your biggest problem is, is that small boats like yourself have to basically very tightly influence in certain places. I understand that you lack the ability to haul your gear in an effective manner. It affects you much more than it does a bigger boat. Is that basically what your sentiment is?

It could. Okay. Thanks. Big boats could have the same problem.

Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Bodil.

Followed by Andy Kittums, Alan Reeves, and John Jensen. And folks, if you would, if I call your name and you know you're coming up, I would encourage you to move a little bit closer. So I mean, we enjoy your walk down the aisle, but keep her moving a little bit.

Bo, are you going to do your personal or AC testimony first? I was hoping to— oh, my personal. Okay. And then my AC. You got it.

Thank you. Morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Welcome to Ketchikan. My name is Bo Dale. I was born and raised here and I've lived in Ketchikan my entire life.

Both my wife and I are fourth generation Ketchikan residents and we are raising our three sons here in the First City. Our families moved to this area over 100 years ago, seeking the new fishing grounds. Living in Ketchikan does not qualify us for subsistence, yet we consume Fish and Game nearly every day. In the last week, dinner included crab, black cod, deer, oysters, moose, shrimp, and halibut. I try to harvest just enough to get us through until the next season.

Continued access to Fish and Game resources is vital to our way of life. Over the last century, we have endured economic hardships as industries changed. Our stubborn nature allowed us to adapt and continue to grind it out here on the rock. My grandpa used to tell me, "No matter what, you can always row out front and jig up a cod. One day that practice turned you into a pirate." It's these sentiments that led me to join the local AC.

Several years and countless meetings later, somehow I ended up as the chair. In a moment, I'll represent the Ketchikan AC and relay our positions on various proposals. For now, I'd like to speak to a few that are most important to me. On 198, to increase the daily bag limit for black cod, I support this proposal. In an effort to lower my dollar-to-pound ratio, I relish opportunities that maximize productivity when there's no conservation concern.

On 206, to allow residents to retain yelloweye, I strongly support this. The data shows that the resident catch is sustainable. On 207 and 208, to allow for the retention of DSR by non-residents, I oppose these. I worry these regulations would put my ability to legally retain DSR at risk. 209, To establish provisions for a resident priority within EO authority for pelagics.

I support this under the notion that all fish and game resources should be managed as such. On 250, to reduce the legal size of Dungeness, I strongly oppose this. This is an important resource to me, and I'm nervous about the impact the advancing sea otter population will have on it. I think we need to tread lightly here on 258 and 259 to open some or all areas closed to Dungeness crab fishing commercially. I oppose these.

I feel for the fishermen that have lost access to parts of their fishery through sea otter predation and area closures. Although growing up here, I would often go out to an area close to town with my family and enjoy good crabbing. After a commercial fishery, the crab were hard to come by. Once the area was closed to commercial crabbing, the crab came back and my children now enjoy the same experience that I did. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? All right. Would you like to begin your AC testimony at this time? Yes, please.

Thank you. Now for my AC testimony. The Ketchikan AC is made up of representatives from various user groups. We have participants from commercial, personal use, subsistence, and sport fish. Salmon enhancement, fish processing, the guiding industry, and our local tribal community.

One thing we all have in common is an interest in the conservation of our fish and game resources. To share our position on some of the proposals our group weighed in on for this meeting cycle, we unanimously supported all the proposals requesting weather delay provisions as a safety measure. On Proposal 193, in state waters of Eastern Gulf, allow permit holders fishing for groundfish or halibut with mechanical jig and hand troll gear to use a deepwater release to release Rockfish. We oppose this 9 to 4, citing enforcement complications and the creation of a loophole for bad actors to throw them back without sending them down. On the other hand, we believe it could save some rockfish, which is a resource we highly value.

On 198, to increase the daily bag limit for sablefish in the sport fishery, we unanimously supported this with an amendment to insert language to increase the daily bag limit for resident sport fishermen from 4 to 6, but to keep the nonresident bag limit the same. On 203, to establish unguided lingcod regulations, we unanimously opposed this. We worry that lingcod populations would not sustain the ability— would not have the ability to sustain this kind of pressure. And we believe that nonresident bag limits should be the same whether guided or unguided. On 206, to reopen the sport fishery for residents We unanimously supported this.

According to the department, allowing residents to retain yelloweye does not create a concern of overharvest. Yelloweye are an extremely valuable resource to us, and we would love the opportunity to retain them again. On 207, to allow retention of DSR by nonresidents with 1 daily, 2 annual bag limit, we unanimously opposed this. Fish and Game has illustrated that this would result in an overharvest. On 208, to allow the same with a 1 annual bag limit, We oppose this with a vote of 11 to 2.

The department has shown that this would still result in overharvest, but some feel like this opportunity could be sustained with the possibility of implementing reduced season dates for nonresidents. On 209, establish provisions for a resident priority within EO authority for pelagic rockfish. We unanimously support this. We support a resident priority in all fisheries. On 210, to reduce the bag limit for pelagic rockfish in Southeast Alaska.

We unanimously supported this with an amendment to read: Reduce the bag and possession limit for pelagic rockfish for non-residents to 3 a day, 6 in possession. On 212, to allow the number of geoduck permit holders able to fish from one vessel to be increased from 2 to 4 by emergency order. We unanimously support this. It gives the department another valuable management tool in their toolbox and allows permit holders to save on expenses to go mop up a small remaining quota. On 213, to modify the geoduck GHL— how the geoduck GHL harvest levels are calculated.

We supported this 7 to 1. We understand this would allow for a less conservative harvest. This is a heavily regulated fishery and it has means to prevent overharvest. This proposal would change harvest opportunities in some areas very little and in others a lot. On 214, to allow for areas that have been closed for 5 years as a result of the estimated geoduck biomass dropping below 30%.

Of the original biomass estimate to be resurveyed and potentially reopened. We unanimously supported this. The AC supports taking a second look at these areas. On 215, to give the department the authority to experiment with reduced GHL harvest levels in sea otter impacted areas where the current biomass estimate is less than 30% of the original biomass estimate, we supported this 7-0 with an extension. This would allow an opportunity for the department to go out and assess if a fishery may be possible after the impact of sea otters moved into an area where they previously were not.

On 218, to extend sea cucumber fishing beyond March 31st.

We unanimously support this. It provides opportunity for self-marketers if there's still quota remaining, even if processors are switching over to herring. On 219, clarify when a sea cucumber permit holder is in possession of the product they harvested. We unanimously support this. It creates clarity within the regulation.

On 222, adopt seasonal closures for subsistence sport and personal use shrimp fisheries. We supported this 8 to 1. We support the department's assessment and the need for this closure for all groups. On 223, to increase the tunnel size for sport, personal use, and subsistence shrimp pots. We oppose this 8 to 1.

This would increase the bycatch. On 224, to revert the shrimp pot season back to October 1. We oppose this 7 to 2. We'd like to give the department more time to evaluate the impacts on the recent change in season dates, but they have mixed opinions amongst commercial fishermen about which season is better. On 232, allow for concurrent possession of red and green urchin aboard.

We supported this 6 to 3. Harvesting urchins helps the kelp. These urchins are small though, and the roe quality is small— quantity is small. Doesn't really pan out commercially, but this might allow harvesters to have an opportunity to develop a market. On 250, to reduce the minimum legal size for Dungeness, we unanimously oppose this.

It's been 6.5 since the '60s. Legal size is based on maturity and allows males to reproduce at least once before legal to harvest. 6.5 Is legal across the board, and this would add complexity to regulations across different regions. On 260, to close George, Carroll, and Thorn Arm to commercial harvest of shrimp and crab, we unanimously opposed this. We thought this was too big of an ask.

We discussed amendments to modify the proposed area and to close the area to just commercial and sport crabbing. These amendments were not agreed upon. The question was called on the proposal as written, and we are unable to support it. On 261, to close Traders Cove to commercial and sport shellfish harvest. We unanimously supported this with an amendment to read close Traders Cove to commercial and sport shrimping and crabbing due to the fact that the proposal as written would close the area to other species classified as shellfish, and that was not the intention of the proposer.

Traders Cove is an important area to locals. It's close to town. There's a nice dock to tie up to for overnight trips. And the department has biological concerns for shrimp in this area. And unless there's a change, there may be measures taken that would affect GHL districtwide.

There are also concerns brought forth about a lodge that conducts daily crabbing excursions in the summer to that area and the impact that that might have on the locals' ability to access the crab. Lastly, on 262, closed sport fishing for Dungeness crab in Thorn Bay. We oppose this 4 to 3 with an abstention. Some were uncomfortable with making more boxes that people can't play in without knowing if there is a biological concern. Others supported the notion that this close to town area should be set aside for locals who are experiencing increased competition from advancing sea otter populations and from nonresident sport fishermen.

Thank you for your time and for allowing me to participate in this important process. Oh, thank you for your very thorough and very succinct report. That was great. Good. Any questions?

Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd also like to thank you for that. Both you and Sika have really detailed, long AC comments, but I really appreciate reading through them and taking notes. So thanks for all that time you put into it. Through the chair.

Thank you, Mike Wood. All right, thank you for your testimony today. Yep, thanks. Andy Kittums, followed by Alan Reeve and John Jensen. Hi, Andy.

My name is Andy Kittums and my RC is 258. I'm a commercial red king crab fisherman from Petersburg. This fishery is truly an Alaskan fishery, as 57 of the 58 permit holders are Alaskan, and most are from rural communities. The Alaskan commercial fishing industry as a whole is in turmoil. For only the second time, the state legislature has established a joint legislative task force to evaluate the fishing industry's problems and come up with solutions.

Many of the industry's identified problems are market-related or input-cost-related. This is not the case with the Red King crab fishery here in Southeast Alaska. The market— crab market is very strong. We fishermen have the gear to go out and catch the crab. And yes, most importantly, there are crab to be harvested.

As the official September 9th, 2024 ADF&G crab news release states, the Southeast Red King crab regional biomass estimates for the '24-'25 season are 1.63 million pounds of legal male crab and 2.47 million pounds of mature male crab. The 2024 Stock Assessment Survey estimates 117,103 pounds of legal male red king crab available for commercial harvest. So in 2024, the combined 4.1 million, million pounds of sexually mature male red king crab in Southeast Alaska, we commercial fishermen would have only been allowed to harvest less than 3%, which is a very small harvest rate. But there's a catch. Decades ago, when prices were poor, industry supported a 20— 200,000-pound minimum threshold to be implemented.

Fishermen didn't want to leave the dock on small numbers and poor prices. None of us could have foreseen that prices would reach the $20 a pound they are today. Yes, had we fished that 117,000 pounds in 2024, it would have been worth over $2 million. To the state of Alaska's fishermen. The economic trickle-down to our processors and coastal communities would have doubled that.

So let's move this arbitrary threshold. Simple enough. Change regulation, harvest the surplus king crab when available. Well, that's the next hurdle. ADF&G has concerns that they will not be able to keep the red king crab catch to 117,000 pounds in a competitive fishery.

This is where ADF&G's Proposal 243 comes in. Fishermen, processors, and ADF&G developed this proposal proposal to allow a controlled crab fishery which will keep the harvest at the prescribed level. It will give fishermen an opportunity to go to work, give local processors an opportunity to keep their workers employed. Everyone wins, and that's why Proposal 243 has widespread industry support. The Petersburg Borough Assembly unanimously passed Resolution 2025-02, which supported the Board of Fish Proposal 243.

And the Petersburg AC also unanimously supported the proposal. Thank you for your consideration of Proposal 243 and your support of your struggling Alaska fishing industry. Thank you, Andy. Any questions from the board? Thank you for your testimony today.

Alan Reese.

Welcome.

I think he turned it off accidentally. He might have left it on. There you go. Okay. Thanks for the chance to talk here.

I'm basically here. I'm a spot fish shrimp fisherman in Southeast Alaska. Fish Wrangell area, area 7-20.

Directly, your decision 3 years ago directly affected Wrangell dramatically. Dramatically. And not just speaking for me. We have about 25 shrimp shrimpers around Southeast in Wrangell and fish 3 different areas. Your decision to cancel to the spring killed one year.

We didn't fish for one year. There was 160,000 pounds of shrimp left on the table. It's a big, big price cut for all the fishermen in Wrangell and in all Southeast. So basically what that got was a free egg spawn, and I And I can see that coming up through the fishery. They're, they're just little guys right now.

In that area I fish, that's the area they survey, and they go down there. They've done it for about 10 years, and they go down and they fish 2 weeks before we did in October. This is, you know, 3 years ago. They fished before we do, 2 weeks before we do, then we fish. And the surveys for that in October for the last 3 years, they'd come back, oh, we're having a problem, the stocks are low, this and that, always a problem for 3 years.

And then we go fishing commercially and find the shrimp, all the sizes, no problem. Close the season at the same amount of time. So they switched this to the spring. I have— I brought my fish tickets and I got data showing the difference between fishing in October and fishing in the spring, and it's dramatic. The problem is they had that decision that made us go to the spring.

There was nobody that knew the effect that that was going to have on our fishery. Nobody. You guys, Fish and Game, hadn't done no studies or nothing. It just got done. So we dealt with it.

I got the facts. The problem is they're doing a study now in the spring, but they're not using the data that the commercial fishermen catch. My data is not something that.

Fish and Game use anymore, and that's a big problem because they like to play with the shrimp. That's their— they don't make the money. We catch them. They go down and play with them and study them and go down the same spot. I find them, and we got 12 days to fish.

We catch them. They're not using our data. They don't want you guys to see that. So when Fish and Game come here and they and they say, we're having a problem with this, you're not seeing my data. And I would like, when we have this meeting, I'd like to bring that to you if you want.

But another thing is softshell. Can I just say one more thing? One more thing, quickly, please. Fish and Game, you hear it here, softshell is a problem. You try to stay from crab, all the crabs and everything.

The department is putting us on a softshell product. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Are you going to be here for committee?

You bet. Great. Thank you for your testimony today. John Jensen.

Morning, John. Welcome back. Good morning, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be back. Madam Chair, board members, Commissioner Vincent Lang, and esteemed staff.

My name is John Jensen. I was born and raised in Petersburg and still reside there. I'm a third-generation commercial fisherman. I'm semi-retired at this time, but I'm operating a boat rental business out of Petersburg presently.

I have commercial fished throughout the state for more than 50 years in a diverse range of fisheries. I have sport fished, personally used, and subsistence fished for my whole life. I started fishing for red king crab in 1969 in the Bering Sea and started red king crab fishing in Southeast Alaska as permit holder in 1980, 45 years ago. 19 Of those years were fished, 25 not fished. With that being said, I support Proposal 243.

I would hope— hopefully would provide more fishing opportunity for the red king crab fishers in Southeast Alaska. As you know, you've heard already, there's 59 permit holders for this, for red king crab, and 31 are from Petersburg. I oppose 242, which possibly eliminate the commercial fishery in Southeast Alaska for red king crab. I would reference the comments provided in PC 319 and 361. They reflect comments I support.

And one other little piece of advice is take a close look at the allocation criteria on this proposal. It'll be— it'll mean a lot. Thank you for your time. Thanks, John. Any board questions?

Thank you for being here. Nicholas Orr for the Juneau Douglas AC, and then for Territorial Sportsmen, followed by Tom Carruth and Steve Thomason. Welcome, Nicholas.

There we go. So I should give my AC testimony first and then my personal testimony? Which would you prefer to go first? We just need to know. The AC testimony.

Okay, go ahead. And I will do my best at this. It was kind of given to me at last minute due to some health issues with someone on the board. Thank you for being here. I was going to go down how the Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee voted on a number of proposals.

We're not going to talk about any salmon or herring, so it should go a lot quicker. Proposal 192 was it was a Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee proposal to allow personal use black cod pots to be longlined. The idea was to get gear out of the water as far as skates versus— and because if you wanted to run multiple skates, you would reduce whale entanglement potential, less bycatch, and it's cheaper to run with bait. That unanimously supported. They unanimously supported 198 to increase the sablefish sport limit.

I think the idea was most of Juneau residents are using personal use regulations to harvest sablefish, so they found no issue with increasing the sport limit. On 2002, 203 to establish unguided link— unguided angler lingcod Regulations. We unanimously opposed that. The concerns over the growth from the bare bones charter fleet, or just the bare bones boat rental fleet, and the potential impact on the resource going forward. Proposal 2005 and 2006, we unanimously supported, which allow the personal use retention of— I shouldn't group those together, even though they're the same.

I'm sorry.

205, Allow personal use retention of peacock and rockfish in pots. We unanimously supported. It makes sense. You're pulling the pots up and it's limited bycatch, which was a department proposal, I believe. 206, To allow limited yelloweye retention by residents.

This was unanimously supported. The sense on the board was that local anglers don't generally target rockfish. Because there's not a lot of yield. Most of them on their— when they make a trip, are going to go for halibut. So by rockfish, including yelloweye, are kind of a bycatch sort of thing.

But an increased opportunity would be nice. 207, It was unanimously opposed to allow DSR rockfish by nonresidents. The concern was that nonresident targeting of yelloweye and rockfish is kind of how we ended up in the conservation situation. And this might impact residents if we go back to that. 222 Was 10 to 1 supporting.

That's the support of closure of sport and personal use shrimp as a conservation measure during their spawning time. I noted that there would be a March and April closure would leave 2 weeks for personal use shrimping before the commercial opener. That was the only other comment there. 225 To 224 and 225, we consolidated into 225. We oppose that 3 to 6.

That would change the date of the shrimp season. I posed the question about if you take a female, what's the difference if you take it in May versus if you take it in October? The department responded there's some natural mortality associated with the molting, and this would bring us in line with West Coast, other West Coast fisheries. And so people decided out of a sense of conservation and also they wanted to see how the shrimp how the data would potentially improve over the next several years, voted to oppose this. 230, Which is, I think it's 238, I'm sorry, is a Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee proposal for squid.

This was a, this was an AC proposal and it was also unanimously supported. I'll note that I suggested to the proposal author that maybe there should be some sort of limit or boat size limit or machine size limit before you go wholeheartedly into a new fishery with no data. But we still unanimously supported it because he's very enthusiastic about this squid fishery. And the idea was that maybe there seems to be a lot of squid and it could potentially benefit the community. 242, Which is the elimination of the commercial king crab fishery in 11(a), The non-commercial users present felt that the commercial uses of the king crab was responsible for the lower personal use limits and closures, and that the commercial users had the entire remainder of 11(a).

There was objection from the commercial users that, one, they already had 40%— that personal use— the commercial users already only take 40% of the 11(a) quota, and they're already banned out of the Portland Trench and surrounding areas right there, which is typically regarded as some of the most productive king crab habitat in 11A.

Also, this would make future fishing for red king crab impossible for 11A if the 11A allocation were removed, although the point was also brought up that you would have to refigure how to evaluate red king crab going forward. That would be the solution to that if that was possible. So 7 to 4, that passed— or was supported, I should say. At the advisory level. And then 2 more and then we're done.

Proposals 253 to 257, we all have the same vote, 6 to 5 in support of. A number of people who voted for it held the position that this was like a housekeeping proposals, and the people who voted against it viewed that the department was aware that these regulations were in place when they changed the various seasons and that to change the shrimp season and were concerned about conservation and potentially prospecting. Those were those proposals. They all were supported 6 to 5, 253 to 257. And proposals 258, 259 was opposed 9 to 1.

This would be the opening of all Dungeness areas that are in Regulation Area A that are currently closed. One of them is on October 1st, I believe. What's October 1st and November 30th? But they're essentially the same kind of deal. And the rationale was that for opposing that was that non-commercial, that commercial users have the remainder of Stevens Passage and the protected very close-in waters should remain for locals only, as a lot of them are in very small boats and they have an opportunity.

It gives them an opportunity to catch the crab, given that the commercial fishers are very efficient in the outside the Gasconneau Channel and Auk Bay areas, which are the closed areas in Juneau. People also noted that there's still personal use crabbing going on during the October period. And that is all I have for.

With the AC. Thank you, Nicholas. What was the first proposal that you made mention of that was submitted by the Juneau Douglas AC? I believe it was 192. I hope my notes are not wrong.

Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

Nicholas, I want to thank you for, on each proposal, explaining each proposal, what it is each time, and you're for or against it, rather than just spewing off a bunch of numbers, numbers were for this, that it really helps me anyway. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, would you clarify again where the Juneau Douglas stands on Proposal 242 again and just clarify some of your statements you made? Yeah, so 242 was the Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee supported that proposal which would close 11A to king crab. And which— do you want me to just kind of re-go over that, or—.

Yeah, just a few thoughts, the notes you had down for your thoughts on that. I'm just trying to accurately represent what I remember happened since I got kind of thrust into this last minute. But I will. So the non-commercial users, so that would be everybody who is not a processor or a commercial fisherman, typically felt that the commercial use of king crab, the commercial harvest of king crab in 11(a) was responsible for the lower personal use limits and closures that we saw in 2007 I believe, and 2013. And the commercial users have the remainder of Regulation Area A to harvest king crab.

And that was the side that wanted to make 11(a) for personal use only. On the other side that did not support 242, because it was split 7 to 4, the commercial users said they are only taking 40% because it's been traditionally— I don't know how long this has been in effect, but I think at least 20 years of 60/40 personal use commercial allocation in 242. So they were saying they're only taking 40% of the 11(a) allocation and we're already prohibited from fishing in the most productive areas of 11(a), which is the Portland Trench, which is directly in front of Auke Bay, essentially. Also, this would make future prosecution of red king crab fisheries in Regulation A impossible due to the fact that 11(a) would be excluded. That was— those were the— that's what my notes say.

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And into your next testimony, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or on behalf of TSI and AOC? TSI and AOC. Let's see, I have two things here because I didn't know, so I have to get the right one out. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. My name is Nicholas Orr. I'm a lifelong Alaska resident and a 20-year Juneau resident. I'm a board member of the Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee as well as a board member of Territorial Sportsmen. Which is a member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, and I'm also the Southeast representative for the Alaska Outdoor Council.

TSI supports proposals 224 and 225 for two reasons. The first is conservation. The May 15th fishery is, by the department's admission, being prosecuted while a small percentage— the range the department used was 3 to 7%— of shrimp have not extruded their eggs. My own experience last year on May 18th was closer to 10%, but I think 5% would be a reasonable figure. We're harvesting 5% of the females that are in the process of extruding their eggs.

I fail to see how harvesting a portion of actively spawning females is more conservative than holding a fall season. A lot of the ACs that voted against this proposal did so in the name of conservation. To that, I would pose the question: does it matter if you harvest females in the spring or the fall? Because either way, you're eliminating next year's eggs. You can either see the eggs you eliminate with a fall fishery, or you harvest some of the actively spawning shrimp and not see most of next year's eggs, and that's the spring fishery.

I posed this question at the Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee, and the response from the department was that holding a spring fishery had the added benefit of harvesting shrimp that were going to naturally die to the stress of molting. My notes indicate that we were told that it could be as high as 20%, which— this seemed to convince a lot of Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee members to vote against the proposal. So I asked to see what data indicated this. I was given a study by Renssel and Prentiss, which is RC13. I submitted that here.

Where they put 32 shrimp in 8 tanks in a lab and 8 of them died. This was conducted once and doesn't mention what variables were controlled for. Given that the department's own research puts the spot prawn maximum age at 7 and possibly 10, this implied 25% mortality is way too— is likely way too high given how spot prawns are fairly low in the food chain. This is pretty weak science to be basing the— forming the basis for substantive regulatory change. The second reason we support this proposal is because it allows personal use shrimpers a reasonable opportunity at good shrimping in productive areas.

We support the 86/14% commercial/personal use allocation, but a spring season means poor shrimping in the summer months as it takes months for the shrimp to repopulate the fished areas. Personal use fishermen in small boats simply can't go out on a regular basis in the fall and winter months due to poor weather. On top of this, the Department's proposal 222, which would prohibit shrimping in March and April, combined with the spring opener, this would leave a 14-day period for personal use shrimpers before the commercial opener. We can support 222, but it needs to be coupled with support for 224 or 225. In summary, the spring fishery shrimps— fishes shrimp while they're still spawning and significantly reduces the opportunity for personal use fishermen.

That's it. Thank you, Nick. Any questions from the board? Mr. Swenson.

Nick, my question is, what if you threw all the females back that had eggs? As is done, I guess, in Canada. Is that going to be a real tough thing to do and take a lot more extra time? Wouldn't that solve this problem?

I mean, I don't think the commercial fleet wants to go through that given they have 400 and some thousand pounds of GHL to harvest. We certainly could as a personal use group throw back females, but we're not going to have a chance necessarily to get them. If you're talking about 222, but I'm talking about 224. The other thing is, and I asked the— I guess it's the executive director of the Spot Prawn Commercial Fishing Association in Canada— how— what about— what is the mortality on throwing these back? And he goes, well, we don't know.

That was honestly what he said. He goes, well, we haven't really studied that, and— but we do know that if it's warmer out, they do worse, and the longer we handle them, the worse it gets. And that's what he knew. He said, we're hoping to do some studies in the future, but he didn't have a good, uh, he didn't have a good answer. I, I think that they're kind of operating on the, the assumption that's like if you pick a leaf off a plant, it has a chance to regrow, but if you pull it from the roots, you know it's dead.

And so if you throw it back, well, it might survive.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.

Tom Carruth.

Followed by Steve Thomason and Keenan Sanderson.

Welcome, Tom.

You push the button. You're on. It's okay. Yeah. My name is Tom Carruth.

I'm a commercial fisherman. I do sea cucumbers. I'm here. I'm a—. I'm opposed to Proposal 217 to start fishing periods for sea cucumbers on Sundays.

I don't think it's a necessary proposal and I'm opposed to it.

I also wrote Proposal 218 addressing B of the Sea Cucumber Management Plan. I would like to add one line to the Sea Cucumber Management Plan to extend it past the closure in April to the, to the finish of October.

I would like the board to focus on the ADF and G may extend it. They don't have to extend it, but it just— it gives them flexibility if they would like to extend it to achieve the GHLs. And that's, that's what I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Swenson.

Shut me off.

What does the Sunday have to do with things? Is this a religious thing or is this just a— I'm just curious about that. Yeah, that's a good question. So, you know, I'm not entirely sure, but we have been fishing. I've been participating for 30 years in Southeast.

I've participated in the Kodiak fishery, Washington, and also California. The fishery for Southeast has always started on Monday, the first Monday in October.

About 10 or 15 years ago, it was October was, was Monday, and then November would start Monday, Tuesday. And there was a Board of Fish proposal then to go Monday, Tuesday, which increased participation into the fishery. And I think that's what this proposal would do by extending the fishery. So.

I mean, you have to— you'd have to ask the author exactly what they're— if they had a religious, you know, thing or whatever. But it's always been Monday. It's always started on Monday for 30 years. So. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. Roger. Mr. Wood. Yeah.

Did you say you wrote 218? Yeah, that's correct. And you would like to add some language to that? Yeah, so paragraph B of the sea cucumber management plan, I would like to add number 4, that ADF&G managers may extend the sea cucumber fishery past the March 31st deadline. So that they may— they don't, they don't have to— they may if they choose to.

If they're busy, they can't do it, then that's fine. But Generally, the GHLs are filled. 2022, There was probably 100,000 pounds remaining or something like that. And, you know, as a direct market boat, I just felt like, you know, I missed out on some opportunities there to market the fish. You know, we also pay for management too, you know.

So, yeah, I thought it was kind of unfair that I didn't get to continue the fishery, but that was because of the sea cucumber management. Tied the manager's hands and they weren't allowed, allowed to go beyond April. Other sea cucumber fisheries in other states do fish in those months and they fish in different months. And, you know, there's many different reasons. So, so I think the thing for the board to focus on this proposal, it's just one word.

They may extend it. They don't, they don't have to if they don't feel comfortable. They don't have to extend it at all, but they could if they felt comfortable with the situation that was going on. Generally, there's very few people in April doing it. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you for your testimony today. Steve Thomason.

Good morning, the board. Steve Thomason. I'm a commercial fisherman my whole life.

First time I've been at one of these, so bear with me. Glad you guys are here to listen to our opportunity to change things. I've been in this fishery, king crab, danner crab, Dungeness, for over 45 years running my own boat. And then before that with my old man. He was a pioneer, the red crab Brown King Tanner crab fisheries in Southeast Alaska.

I've fished from the Canadian border to Skagway King Tanner Dungeness. I've fished in California. I was part of the creation of the King Tanner Dungeness Task Force and participated for several years. This is the third golden king crab cycle that I have participated in the fishery. I'm— owned and operated Lax Specialties Seafoods in Wrangell and I currently own crab Alaska.

I have proposed 3 proposals: 237, 238, and 239. 237 Is to add a part of Sumner Straits to the southern Chatham Omni area, which is not utilized at this point in time. We'd like to be able at least take a look at it. It shouldn't affect anything as far as— I'll just skip that. 238 Is adding Cordova Bay to Clarence Straits area, which is not an open area for fishing brown crab at this time, golden king crab.

We propose to— 239 is split the northern area in half in two different areas. At this point in time, the area is 147 miles long. We'd like to split that to have the opportunity to fish the cycles that goes up in two different times, or CP, or their guideline harvest, which would split the harvest in half between the two places per se. I think one, they figure 80 6,000 pounds, other 63 on the lower end. Um, our AC unanimously supported my proposals.

They're not here right now, they'll be here this afternoon. Um, I'm against Proposal 242. I'm for Proposal 243, 244, 246, and 247. Um, I don't have much more to say. If there's anything you guys want, I'll be around for any of this stuff.

I'd like to be in involved in your meetings and so on and so forth. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate your being here.

Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Keenan Sanderson.

Welcome, Keenan.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Good morning, everybody. I'm first going to give a sort of fairly lengthy introduction and keep most of my intense comments for the committee of the whole later in the meeting. But I do think it's important for the board to know who I am and why I'm here. And then I'll briefly go over proposals that I support and oppose during this section. My name is— my English name is Keenan Sanderson.

My Haudenosaunee name is Hunchingood Kungaihosh, which roughly translates to the bright moon over the ocean, of which I was— two summers ago, I was adopted into the Aklanis Clan in Heidelberg, which is Raven, Dolphin, Killer Whale. I was born and raised in here in Ketchikan.

First and foremost, I've always been a lifelong subsistence fisher. I've power trolled for king salmon and cohos. I've engaged in the Clarence Strait black cod fishery using conventional gear. I was a pond fisher for a season and even was an IFQ fisherman for a day in the K'hai Maritime class many years ago. After graduating in K'hai Ketchikan High School in 2015, I went to the University of Alaska Fairbanks and got my degree in fishery in Ocean Sciences in 2019.

And nowadays, I— for most of my comments, I'll be wearing my hat of which is the president of the Ketchikan Tlingit Native Community Council. That's where most of my opinion-based things will be coming from. But I think it is also important to know that I'm also the Indigenous Food Sovereignty Specialist for the Ketchikan Indian Community where I do a ton of things. Working on policy with the tribe, but also securing grant funding to do research on various fish and wildlife things within the Ketchikan area, including zoonotic diseases, European green crab research, and ooligan or ooligan research on the Juneau or the Unuk River.

I—.

I would encourage the board to ask myself and the local tribal leadership here in Ketchikan all the questions you can related to subsistence in our area. And I apologize that I wasn't able to meet the deadline to do a traditional ecological knowledge report, but I'll definitely be doing that during the finfish proposal section next week.

And Like I said, I'll do a lot of my reasoning as to what— whether or not I support various proposals. But just to put on the record for right now, I support proposals 191, 192, 194, 196 if there is a distinction between residents and non-residents. I support 206. In practice, I support 260 if it's amended to a significantly smaller area, as well as 261. I am opposed to 203, 207, 208, 250, and I'm strongly against proposals 258 and 259 for a ton of different reasons.

I'm happy to answer questions related to those two specific proposals, but I will definitely be here for the committee as a whole. But just in closing, please use us as a resource to answer any specific questions related to our area because I think I think it's important for you guys to be educated on our species and our issues down here. Thank you. Thank you, Keenan. Any questions?

Appreciate your testimony today and look forward to your comments and discussion in committee. Rob Sanderson Jr., welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Rob Sanderson Jr. I serve on the executive committee of the Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

[Speaker] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to talk about Dungeness proposals 258, 259, which we oppose and the reasoning why. And I will be talking more at committee of the whole. First of all, my son is a hard act to follow sometimes.

Anyway, Madam Chair, I come from— I'm from Hyderburg, Alaska, and throughout my younger days, you know, I pretty much know these waters as good as anybody, not just down here in southern Southeast Alaska. When I was 18 years old, I was running a boat packing back black cod out of Pelican, Alaska. And so I've seen a lot of changes over the years, and one of the many changes that I've seen is the disappearance of our shellfish, Dungeness crab. And the reason why we're opposing this is because in 2022, my son and I both testified to secure Natsooni Bay, which is within sight of Hyderburg, for Dungeness crab, to close that down.

It has been southern Southeast Alaska and the many bays, Sodap Bay, Natsuni Bay, and all the village sites that we look after in the summer months, the Kaigani village sites. And they were located and put there for reasons, and that is because they were easily accessible to get crabs, clams, cockles, you name it. And so they were strategically put in these areas. And so Going out there and investigating our old village sites in the K'ay-gani area, our sea otter population has exploded in Cordova Bay, and it's wiping out a tremendous amount of resources: clams, cockles, abalone, Dungeness crab near my hometown. You know, we're barely getting enough Dungeness crab now to put on the plate.

And I've talked to tribal leaders out of Kake, Kake, Alaska, and they— there's nothing, you know. So, you know, adding a commercial fishery to a lot of our southeast villages, I think there needs to be more research done. I don't know all the latitude and longitude that goes into identifying these areas. I could name places, but that's just a lot to talk about as far as giving those specific areas. So with that, it's widespread destruction that's happening at an alarming rate.

There's a gentleman that spoke about that a little bit earlier, Madam Chair, and we just want a fair shake. You know, at that resource. You know, we can't even get clams and cockles in a lot of places around the names I've just mentioned. So I will be able to speak more at the Committee of the Whole, Madam Chair. So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Sanderson. Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a quick clarification. I forgot to mention I'm also part of the Ketchikan ACU. Thank you.

Jared Bright followed by Todd Bailey.

Hi, Jared. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jared Bright. I'm a lifelong Southeast resident.

I've been commercial fishing in Southeast for 35 years. I live in Petersburg. I participate in the Southeast Seine red and brown king crab, tanner crab, Dungeness crab, and Southeast sablefish fisheries. I also serve on the board of directors for Silver Bay Seafood Southeast, Southeast Seiners, Petersburg Vessel Owners, and Armstrong Keita Hatchery. I'm also the co-chair of the King Tanner Task Force.

I'm the author of several groundfish, shellfish, and shrimp proposals, mostly pertaining to slinky pots. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do own a company that sells slinky pots, but as I mentioned earlier, I participate in all the fisheries. I'm trying to make slinky pots legal for bait, and it is the desire to fish my own bait, not sell pots, that prompted me to submit these proposals. I will comment more on these proposals in the Committee of the Whole, but would like to use my remaining time to comment on Proposal 156 because I will be preparing for the upcoming Tanner brown crab season. And unable to attend session 2.

I am opposed to Proposal 156. We have the tools in place to deal with hatchery issues through the regional planning team process. Proposal 156 makes broad-reaching assumptions that arbitrary reductions in hatchery egg takes in Southeast Alaska will facilitate the recovery of Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim stocks. Current data shows that there's minimal impact on wild stocks from hatchery salmon. And to make such drastic reductions to hatcheries in Southeast Alaska that are incredibly beneficial to the fishermen and communities without data is not sound management.

Because I heard the gentleman earlier testify quoting an awful lot of science connecting pink salmon abundance with king salmon decline, I would like to point out that the pink salmon is a fraction of the Southeast Alaska hatchery production. And that's the end of my dialogue. Thank you. Questions? Do you—.

I have a question for you. Do you participate in the RPT process? I do not. Are you okay? Yeah, thank you.

I'm familiar, but I don't— I have a lot on my plate, as you guys probably do too. Fair enough. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony today.

Todd Bailey.

You need to press the button to turn the mic on, please. There you go. Thanks. Todd Bailey on the fishing vessel Aree't. I wanted to talk about my proposal 259, which would open up all the currently closed areas for Dungeness fishing during the fall season.

The current concern with the method of kind of ad hoc going from community to community, closing all the areas close to town, is not that the sport fisheries are taking too much. It's that not enough of the resource is getting used. When we're prosecuting the fall fishery, we pass by these areas close to town, you know, often the safest, most convenient places to fish, and we just don't see much effort there. And there's this kind of idea that, the commercial guys will clean out an area. And that's just not what, you know, our— the commercial fishery primarily removes just the large male crab.

The females and the undersized stay there. And like in District 11, we've seen a lot higher catch rates, and I believe it's because we've been fishing there, because we've been removing the large male crabs, that has provided less, for less competition with the remaining females and undersized.

There's, when we close these areas, we don't know how much, like, if it achieves the goals. Like if, you know, there's no surveys of sport crabs, so we don't know if it does actually increase, you know, the biomass there. If, you know, after it's closed, if they've been able to take more. And so there's no estimates of how much, you know, of this resource is locked up in these areas. You know, they're, you know, on high abundance years, you know, I feel like crab kind of occur in these survival cycles where everything just lines up and there'll be tons of crab around.

And so, you know, it could be, you know, half a million pounds in these areas.

So it just seems like approaching the way we share the resource would, you know, in this way would give 9 months of access for, for, you know, subsistence and sport, and then at the, at the end of the year when, when there's not much effort, open it for the, for the commercial fisheries.

Very good timing. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. I think at this time we will take one more.

Max Waratch with the Petersburg AC.

Welcome, Max. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I'm Max Waratch. I'm a Petersburg AC chair. I'm a commercial fisherman.

I gillnet and dungeness crab. And you can reference my— our minutes at AC-10. We have 16 committee members. Well, actually 14 standing committee members, and we include our 2 alternates. We have 16.

We have designated seats for archery, crab conservation, gillnet hunting, trapping, seine, sport charter, sport personal use, and a troll seat that is currently vacant. The rest of the seats are undesignated. We met 4 times in November for this particular meeting. Typically, we start at the beginning of the book or work our way through. This year we jumped around to accommodate the departments so they could have their appropriate personnel present at our meetings.

It's helpful to have them present, and they should be commended for their efforts. They did a really great job and helped us a lot. We don't take every proposal up as we go through the book. Members will move— they make a motion. So if none makes a motion, and if no guest requests that we take it up, it will go unaddressed.

This will explain our lack of effort on the dive proposals. We have no divers on our committee. At one point we had a designated seat, but after remaining vacant for a long period, the seat was undesignated. Petersburg has a large crab fleet. RAC was supportive of proposals that will increase commercial opportunity, including opening areas that have been closed to dungeness commercial— commercial dungeness fishing.

We supported Proposal 250. Which would change the minimum size for subsistence and personal use. We oppose the opening date, changing the opening date to July 1st in Proposal 251, as it would shorten the season since none of the other active crabbers on the committee, of which I'm one, could see any benefit.

We opposed Proposal 242 unanimously and supported 243, unanimously, because we felt that there was— our RAC is pretty— Petersburg is a pretty commercial place. We've got mostly commercial guys there. You can't— even though most of our undesignated seats— I have one, I'm a commercial fisherman— a lot of them are filled with commercial fishermen. We've worked hard to get rid of— to get rid of fishermen. We've worked hard to get sport fishermen that aren't commercial fishermen on there over the last few years.

Yeah, so if there's any specific proposals you'd like me to go over, I think I kind of covered the ones that seem controversial. I'd be happy to let you know what happened.

Okay, Mr. Carpenter, thank you for your comments. Thanks for your participation at the AC level. The last thing that you mentioned was your AC was opposed to Proposal 251, which is requesting to change the starting date of the Dungeness season to July 1st. Did you guys have any discussion at your AC meeting about the, you know, specifically as was mentioned earlier in the meeting about the potential large amount of soft-shelled crab that are being harvested and released in that fishery, you know, with the data as it currently is? Yeah, I've been a participant in that fishery for 35 years, and there's one other crabber that's probably been doing it for 15 or 20 at least.

And there's other people on there that also crab— well, there's another guy on there crabbing. He's been since before limited entry, and none of us felt it was a problem. When we see large amounts of softshells, I think it would— if you could go back through time, when you see large amounts of softshells at the beginning, it's going to be a big season. Those are our biggest years. The biggest years you see are the years we do see softshells.

That's always been the case. I mean, if I go out and prospect before the season, if I go out and I see like hard crab they're just hard crab and they're dark, they're not new shell. It tells me there's not a molt. And whenever I've done that and seen that, we've ended up having a shortened season. And we also talked about the fact that we also see softshell crab in August.

I've seen lots of softshell crab in July. They just come out in different areas at different times. And there's no calendar for molting. They molt and they come out and they're active. When they're available.

Yeah, we're definitely very opposed to changing that season. Thank you. A question for you, and then Mr. Swenson. So what do you think the impact would be on the fishery in those years where you see soft crab if, you know, if the season start date was delayed by 2 weeks? What's the impact on the harvest?

I don't know if there'd be a huge impact on the overall harvest. I mean, it would just, It'd be condensed. I think it'd be a problem for the processors that also process salmon because having its earlier season, you know, they have a plant available and work available they might not have come July when, you know, when our fish start running. I don't know if it would reduce the catch or not. I mean, I can't say for sure.

I'm— you know, it's hard to say. What is the impact on processors, in your knowledge, with higher amounts of softshell, if any? Well, they don't buy them. They just do not buy them. We don't bring them in.

We do release them. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't seen a study that shows a 50% mortality for discarded softshell crab. In the places you usually do see softshell crab, there's a high abundance of crab. And those places produce year after year after year. It doesn't— I don't think that— I think there's a very minimal impact for handling softshells.

And we also avoid them if we can't sell them. We don't want to haul the pots and waste the bait. We do move our gear to get away from them and come back at a later date. Thank you, Mr. Swenson.

Madam Chair, Isn't that— if you extended the season, I mean, aren't you only catching about 11% of your crab in those last couple weeks?

Through the chair, I heard somebody throw that statistic out. I don't know exactly if that's accurate. I know that some years I've done quite well in the last 2 weeks of the season. It just depends on where you're fishing and where you go. I mean, we're pretty mobile fleet.

I mean, at least I am. I move around a lot. I'll go hundreds of miles to find crab.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah.

So it sounded like from one testimony that it was— that the fishery is kind of condensed and it is harder to move around. Because of the limited areas where there are crabs. So you're saying you are able to move around and go find hard shell at that time of year? Through the chair? Yeah, I've been able to.

I mean, it's limited. It's a lot more crowded than it used to be. But there is a lot of small places that are out there, you know, in the range through Southeast that you can go. We have lost a lot of places. I mean, Kikoo Straits is completely gone.

I fished there. Rocky Pass is completely gone. I fished there. But Pipas Bay is now completely gone, and I'd fished there in recent years, and I've just slowly watched them dwindle away. We do tend to start in the same places, and we do spread out.

Some guys don't fish the whole season. Some guys will quit and go salmon fishing too.

So thank you. Mm-hmm. Fishner.

I got a question for you. You said your membership includes an archery seat. I've never seen an AC with an archery seat. Is there— Yeah. Yeah.

It's a pretty good archery seat versus a hunting seat. It's something that we requested because we could designate it and it was held by some— someone for a very long time and he retired and then it's like everybody wanted it. So we have a bow— we have a bow hunting area on McCough Island. It's kind of an urban area where you can't use firearms. It actually has a pretty good 2-deer bag limit and it's pretty long season.

So it's getting more popular all the time. So I just never heard that before. I heard hunting seats, but never archery seats. Thanks. Thank you, Max.

Appreciate your service and thank you for being here today. Thank you. Right. We are at lunchtime. Let's go ahead and break for lunch and we will reconvene at 1:30 and resume public testimony with Jeff Wedekind.

Okay, welcome back, everybody. The time is 1:34. We're coming back on the record and continuing with public testimony. Just want to let folks know that if you missed your first call today, and there was two, William Patterson and John Johanson. I will do your second calls when we've concluded our list, which I think we'll get through this afternoon.

So we're going to go through the public testimony list that signed up for session 1, and then I'll do second calls for those 2 individuals and anybody else that misses their first call here this afternoon at the conclusion of our list. Hopefully that's clear as mud. Anyways, let's go ahead and Carry on, and the first person on my list is Jeff Wedekind, followed by David Creighton and Todd Bright. So welcome, Jeff.

Hello, my name is Jeff Wettikine, and I want to start off by thanking you guys for being on the board and giving away your free time to help us make these important decisions. My family owns and operates Chinook Shores Lodge in Ketchikan. We've been in business for 20 years, and these are some proposals that I'd like to comment on. We're opposed to 258 and 259. Which would open areas currently closed to commercial Dungeness fishing.

I feel that opening these areas back up would once again ignite the contentious issue of there not being enough crab to support commercial sport and personal use in these bays and inlets close to towns and population centers. We oppose 260, which would close George Inlet, Carroll Inlet, and Thorn Arm. To crab and shrimp. This is a very large area, and without conservation concerns, I just don't see the point in that. We're kind of neutral on Proposal 261, which seeks to close Traders Cove to commercial and sport harvest of Dungeness crab and shrimp.

I personally crab and shrimp in that area, and I've noticed a downward trend in in populations of those two critters. And I'd kind of like to know if the Fish and Game has any additional information on that area. It seems like there could be a conservation concern there. We support 198 to increase the resident bag limit of black cod from 4 to 6 a day. We supported 205 to allow retention of peacod and rockfish in personal use pot gear.

And we support 206 to reopen the yelloweye sport fishery for residents. We also supported 208 to reopen demersal shelf rockfish to non-residents, but we would like it to include yelloweye and have season closures to keep the harvest within the sport allocation and to ensure that the resident— the residents don't get shut down during the season. For the last 5 years, the DSR sport fishery has been shut down And only about 10% of the sport allocation has been harvested. And it gives me heartburn on a personal level because at the same time the longline fisheries keep in up to 500,000 pounds of bycatch and selling that in the market. And we're not even using our allocation.

I also— I oppose— lastly, I oppose 203, which seeks to liberalize non-resident unguided lingcod limits. I wish we all had better limits. The size limits are getting so restrictive, it's hardly worth the target lingcod anymore. And it's another example of lost opportunity for the sport fisheries.

And even though non-resident unguided harvest is very small in comparison to the other user groups, I don't believe in further dividing the sports sector and picking winners and losers. Those are the only comments I have for today. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff. Any board questions?

Thank you for your testimony today. David Creighton.

Madam Chair, members of the board, good afternoon, and, uh, we appreciate you hearing our comments. My name is David Creighton. I'm a born and raised Alaskan and second-generation owner of Shelter Cove Fishing Lodge and Restaurant in Craig. My wife and I have lived in Craig year-round for 18 years, have 3 teenage children all involved in our operation, potentially a third generation. We as a family are huge contributors to the community of Craig.

Not only are we one of Craig's larger tax generators, we also contribute to.

Quality of life. We have involvement in school board, city council, coaching, the Craig AC. I've even been a scoutmaster. Our restaurant buys a couple thousand pounds of local seafood each season and supports 5 resident families with year-round employment and Southeast living wages. In season, I employ an additional 30, many of which are teachers and college students returning home.

I believe my family is a good representation of who lodge owner families are. Of the families operating lodges in the vicinity of Craig and Klawock, 89% are year-round residents, all supporters and meaningful contributors in our communities. I give you this information because I've read quite a few comments attempting to paint an inaccurate picture of who the majority of us are. Collectively, we support the major air carrier, boat shops, sporting goods store, fuel dock, and a bunch of other stores. Craig's third quarter sales tax revenue is nearly double quarters 1, 2, and 4.

I know my contribution percentage, and it's significant. I don't want to forget reliable donations to youth organizations. I truly think we're respected and appreciated in our communities. Craig residents just voted to increase local sales tax for summer months only to total 7% of our gross, intended to capitalize on tourism. I can't be here in the second session, so I have to address king salmon now.

One common topic of concern with our tourists is when resident king salmon opportunity gets reduced. Or cut. We should find a way to fix that. Residents should absolutely be a priority. June and early July are currently at our bare minimum for angler opportunity, translating to marketability.

We don't have other species to target. That's half my season. I lose half, I lose revenue, but I also see massive staffing issues. Our staff will be looking for other areas with longer seasons. I can't stay competitive by paying more because I just lost half my season revenue.

Other community businesses will struggle in the same manner. I could be content if we continued with the current King Salmon Management Plan. I think over time it would average out. It provides the front-loading and consistency and regulation needed to keep our clients coming. I feel the most recent 3 years didn't really get a fair shot at success.

I'd be in support of Seago's Prop 108. However, the payback provisions in there scare me. Sport's modest allocation won't allow this proposal to work for the long haul. In tiers of low abundance, that 22% is just a little too tight. Regarding rockfish and yelloweye, as a user group, I'd be excited to work with the department in collecting data in shallow water habitat through our logbooks and creel surveys.

If the board can support us with a potential rockfish season, I would like once again to urge the frontloading of our season as much as possible, avoiding spawn, to help our angling opportunity. As a board, I would really like to impress upon you that the sports fishing services industry is no longer the little guy. We generate approximately 13 times the revenue for the state's economy per unit of resource extracted. We're an economic staple to communities for government function and support a ton of other important service businesses. I assure you, any further cuts to king salmon on the sports side are going to make a big impact in Southeast.

Thank you, David. Are there any questions? Mr. Chamberlain.

If we're talking raw dollars per fish, either in terms of raw dollars or percentage of revenue, how much would you estimate per fish stays in-state? I don't know that I have that answer, but I would say the vast majority. Okay.

Mr. Swenson, I don't know if you would have the answer to this, but I'm through the chair. I'm sorry.

What is the value of the sport fishery versus the commercial fishery now in terms of dollars brought in? I'm just curious about that. You know, there, there is a document that's going to be handed to you guys later on, I believe, perhaps. And I know it's pretty big. I think those questions will be answered later.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, appreciate it. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks, David. I just want to clarify what you said.

You think that majority of what you harvest, in your harvest, stays within state. Is that saying that majority of your clients are Alaskans? And just taking their fish home? Actually, I interpreted the question as the dollars and not the fish. So the answer to that question is the majority of the fish head south with our clients.

The majority of the dollars that they bring into the state stay in the state. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Todd Bright. Followed by Sonny Kanoa and Kim Landeen.

Hi, Todd, welcome.

Turn the mic on, please. There you go. Hello, my name is Todd Bright. I'm a longtime Ketchikan resident and fisherman. I would like to comment on why I oppose Proposal 260, which would close George Inlet, Carroll Inlet, Thorn Arm to the commercial shrimp and crab fisheries.

I have fished shrimp commercially on a small boat in the proposed closure areas as a deckhand since 2012. Proposal 260 implies commercial fishermen can easily fish in other areas further from town. However, not all permit holders fish from vessels large enough or equipped to fish areas further from town. I fish with Sonny Cannon on his 22-foot Sea Dory. It takes us multiple trips to transport our gear to and from the grounds at the beginning and the end of the season.

We return to the dock daily to offload, ice up, and bait up. Because I fish on a small boat, our ability to participate in the fishery would be eliminated if Proposal 260 were to pass. This would have a negative financial impact on myself and my family. I would also like to add that as a year-round resident, I also fish in these areas under personal use regulations. I have never had trouble catching more than enough shrimp and crab in these areas to meet my and my family's needs.

My personal experience fishing in these areas does not support the proposal's claim that the area is overfished. I oppose Proposal 260. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for being here and providing your testimony today.

All right. Thank you. Tani— Sonny Kanoa. Oh, I'm sorry. It might be a little canon that's misprinted.

Apologies.

Good afternoon. I'm Sonny Cannon. I'm also here to give testimony to oppose Proposal 260, the closing of George Carroll and Thorn Arm to commercial shrimp and crab, specifically to shrimp. Over the last 14 years of fishing, we've developed A system to be successful after losing these inside areas to commercial opportunity would basically put us out of business with no areas to head to.

I've seen a rebound on the shrimp population and don't feel that the stock is of concern. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for providing testimony this afternoon.

Thank you.

I guess the sky decided to open up. Kim Landine.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to make a comment about seeing sun before walking into the building, and that is Southeast at its finest. Sunny one day and rainy the next. Oh, apparently it's snowing. I apologize.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Commissioner Lang, Vincent Lang, staff, we really appreciate you being here in Southeast Alaska. It's the amount of effort that you have to go to to understand these complex fisheries is mind-boggling. And your ability to do it in such a short time frame on your personal dime and personal time is deeply appreciated by all of you. So we thank you. For the record, my name is Kim Landeen.

I'm the assistant executive director of Southeast Alaska Guides Organization, or SEGO. SEGO represents over 300 charter fishing operations with guided saltwater trips in Southeast Alaska comprising nearly half of the state's total charter fishing activity. In 2024, Southeast guided anglers brought with them $271 million to the local Southeast economy, supporting 1,750 jobs and generating $11 million in local tax revenue. Despite our mostly resident-owned and operated small lodge businesses, two of whom you've just recently heard of, and their economic impact and social contributions to the region, our guided angler guests face increasing restrictions on halibut, which I understand is not part of your jurisdiction but part of the bigger picture. Rockfish and lingcod, to name only a few of the species.

These restrictions make it harder for our families to attract and retain business. We urge the board to protect and allow fishing opportunities of interest to our anglers who bring with them premium dollars to participate in the fishery. And retain with memory their own wild-caught Alaskan seafood. While halibut remains the primary bottom fish target for our user groups, stricter size limits have increased reliance on other groundfish to provide opportunity. These opportunities attract anglers to our state who spend— when they're spending time in our community, spend on average between $1,300 and $1,700 per day to participate in this fishery.

CEO supports reopening a DSR-directed sport fishery.

3 Fleet observations suggest that DSR populations are prolific within shallow water habitats. The current DSR low stock assessment is largely influenced by nearshore surveys conducted around the 100-fathom curve in the same areas where yesterday you were able to see that commercial fishing is showing an increase in bycatch levels with the ability to sell their bycatch. It is our understanding that when these commercial areas surveys occur and their estimates are extrapolated into shallow water habitats where sport fishing occurs, They are likely heavily underestimating the true DSR abundance in sport fishing areas. The department Option 2 presented yesterday for Proposal 207 and 208 would allow DSR retention, including yelloweye, for all sport anglers, with non-residents limited to half of the season. We urge the board to pass Option 2 for Proposal 207 and 208 to allow sustainable fish sport fishing retention of DSR while encouraging improved data collection to validate population health.

We are optimistic that our user group, if given the opportunity, can work with the department to begin forming a clearer picture of the true health and biomass of DSR and shallow water habitats. Thank you for your time and for being here in Southeast. Thanks, Kim. Mr. Swenson. Thanks for being here, Kim.

Absolutely. So, so the sport fishery is bringing in approximately $271 million, correct? That is correct. 201 Being direct impact, 271 being direct plus indirect, including spending at restaurants, that kind of stuff. And the allocation is what for the trollers is— can you tell me what that is versus the—.

Madam Chair, we're not speaking about finfish. She's talking about groundfish and shellfish. Oh, okay. Okay. That's fine.

Thank you. Absolutely.

Thanks, Kim.

Don Spiegelmayer followed by Brian Ringraisen and Ellen Hannan. And apologies if I mispronounced. Everybody does. I know how it feels.

My apologies if this isn't as polished as it should be. I wasn't going to speak to anything today. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and board members. Welcome to Southeast. My name is Don Spiegelmayer and I represent OBI Seafoods.

I'd like to address Proposal 251, start date change for Dungeness crab to July 1st. OBI Seafoods opposes this proposal. I'd like to start by saying we are the largest buyer of Dungeness crab in Southeast Alaska. We feel if the date change was to come into effect, this would adversely harm the fishermen that also fish for salmon. We in Petersburg have a fleet that is extremely diverse and hold many different cards, allowing them to fish in different times of the year.

The current management policy, with the start date of June 15th, allows trawlers, gillnetters, and seiners to compete in both fisheries simultaneously. In talking with my fishermen, they have stated to me that there is an abundance of soft— if there is an abundance of soft crab in an area, they move. There can be a large difference of hardness from bay to bay and flat to flat. These harvesters realize that soft crab and small crab is the future of their fishery and do their very best not to catch them. They are the guardians of their fishery.

I would say the biggest threat to Dungeness crab, if you guys have heard, is sea otter predation, not soft crab. Another point of interest from a process— from a processor standpoint is the processing ability and total capacity of our plant that our plant can move through in a day. With a June 15th start date, this allows us to move through the bulk of the crab that usually happens in the first 2 weeks of the season. We call it the cream without adversely affecting the ability to process chum salmon that starts to ramp up around the first week of July. We all know that the cost of labor has increased dramatically over the few past years.

How we combat some of that labor cost is to move our processors from the crab line to the salmon line fluidly. This allows us to keep labor costs to a minimum, and in that saving allows us to keep the price of the catcher fleet competitive. The current management strategy, which includes a size limit of 6.5 inches and seasonal closure during peak molting and mating periods have been effective in maintaining— sorry, I lost my spot— sustainable crab populations. The fishery is closed during the female molt and mating period from mid-August to the end of September and during most of the male molt period. Altering the season's timing without comprehensive data on molting cycles could disrupt the balance, potentially leading to unintended economical consequences.

And also Proposal 243, we fully support, and 242, we, we oppose. Excluding commercial harvest in Section 11(a) would disrupt the current balance and have severe economic repercussions. Processors depend on constant and predictable supply chain. Which the commercial fishery provides. A blanket reallocation would reduce the ability of— I only got like one sentence left— would reduce the availability of high-value red king crab and jeopardize the livelihood of fishermen, processors, and other industry stakeholders.

Thank you. Board questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. So when we hear about the soft crab, hard crab, and if there's a two-week difference or not, will it make a difference?

Is it you, the processor, that judges whether it's too soft to— or too hard— or when it's hard enough, you know, so that the fishermen know? Well, most of these guys have been doing it for a very, very long time. They know a hard crab versus a soft crab. We also send tenders out on the grounds and they grade crab as they come on board. So the 2 weeks— like I said, the 2 weeks difference A lot of these guys just pick up and move.

And they find hard crab. And that's what they want to target. And they know that we have certain standards as a processor. Light crabs mean light meat inside the shell. And it also doesn't transport well.

It doesn't pack well.

Yeah, so that stays pretty consistent. The fishermen know well enough when it's just coming— when it's too soft, and then they're ready to— because 'cause they can't keep them, right? They're throwing them back. And you can't market something that's too soft. Is that how—.

That's correct. It's our standard, OBI standard, to only purchase crab that has hard shell. Yeah.

And is there any in between? Like, how quickly do they go from soft to hard? Like, I'm familiar with lobster where they're like empty shells, like there's no meat in the claw kind of thing. You know what I mean? I mean, and then that doesn't grow overnight.

So I'm just wondering, like, would 2 weeks really make a difference? Like, how do you, like, how do you know when they're like a profitable hard shell that's full of meat versus no meat? Well, when you grab a hold of it, and if it's, I mean, if it's firm, if it feels like a pop can, a soda can in your hand, it's not, it's not firm, it's not hard shell. So So when you feel it, you know. I mean, and to answer your question, will 2 weeks make a difference?

I don't think I can answer that. I'm not sure. I know that for us as a processor, the 2 weeks would make a substantial difference in labor and timing as far as being able to get product through our plant. Thank you. So let me follow up on that.

I have a question. So OBI doesn't buy soft crab at all? No, ma'am. So what happens when you're— when you're pressing on the shells and determining it's soft and you're not going to buy it? Like, what happens to it?

Does it just get dumped overboard? It gets returned. And okay, so you're literally physically manipulating the soft shells to determine—. It's not like you're grabbing and smushing it. You grab a leg.

So when you grab the backside of a leg and you feel it and you— and you can feel it on the shell, you can feel it on the claws, and you can feel it on the leg. Okay. And most of these guys, they're, they're, they're not bringing in— you're not talking piles and piles of softshells. If you, you know, a 1,500-pound delivery, if you get half a dozen, that's, that's probably a lot. And it gets tossed.

Say again? And it gets tossed. It gets put back into the water. Yeah, it gets tossed.

Second question is, how many— what's your tender operation look like? So if these guys are moving around and they're going farther out or moving around the bays to avoid these areas of softshell crab. Meanwhile, at the same time, sort of combating, you know, areas where otters have kind of taken over and crab are unlikely to be present. Sort of, how does, how does the tender fleet service the, the fishermen, and what is the cost associated with this, with, you know, providing that tender service for that fishery specifically? It's expensive.

Okay, um, I don't know what my— I can, I can have our accountant give you dollars per pound if you want, or cents per pound, but it's, it's extensive. We usually, um, we run sometimes 3 tenders, and if it's a big season, we'll run 4. We bring.

Into the plant every 3 days. Hopefully with somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 pounds. So the more they're moving around, the more expensive it is. Yes, for sure. Thanks, Mr. Swenson.

So what percent of those crab— the crab come to you in that last 2 weeks? I knew you were going to ask this. It really depends on the season. I can remember— I don't remember if it was '22 or '23, but the crab seemed to come out the last couple of weeks of the season in, in the summer, and we had a, we had a large percentage of crab show up for the guys that stuck with it. I don't know if I have a number for you, sir.

I mean, is it, does it vary a lot, or is it, man, because I've, we've heard the number that 11% come in that last couple of weeks, and I was just wondering if, if that's true Then how is that tough for you guys to handle that crab? Because that should be toward the end. Usually by that time salmon season slowed down. So it's, so it's not an issue. We have plenty of workers, if that's what you're asking, sir.

So you have plenty of people to handle the crab in those last 2 weeks? We do. And then. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Thanks for joining. Brian Ringresen.

Hi Brian. Good morning. Good afternoon, excuse me.

Madam Chair and the board, I would like to say I would wholeheartedly support Measure 198, raising the black cod limit from 4 right now to 6. Can I have you put your name on the record, please? I'm sorry. Brian. Brian Ringisen, Ketchikan, Alaska.

20-Year resident, 33-year charter operator, one-boat operator. And I own a small lodge here in town.

Back in 2009, there was— or before 2009, there was no limit on black cod. And we went to the limit of 4. It changed a little bit on the possession limit for residents in the spring, I believe it was, of 2009. And it's been the same since. We've got a good biomass of black cod in the local area, and I believe it's very underutilized by the department numbers that we've received as far as resident harvest sport fishing.

They're very good fish, and it just makes it a lot easier for people to get what they need to put in their freezer, potentially in 1 or 2 trips instead of having to go out 2 or 3 trips, possibly, or 4 trips. On proposal 261, I would like to have the support, hopefully, for closing Trader's Cove down to the harvest of shrimp and crab and make it to where it's only for personal use, subsistence. It would be resident personal use and subsistence only. There is an issue, and the department has made so in their comments at our AC meetings, that the shrimp biomass population up in West Beam and Traders Cove is not very well, in a very good condition. You've heard plenty about the sea otters in the local area, and it might be a way to get ahead of those a little bit on keeping more crab in that particular area for the locals of the community.

It is one of the two areas that's closest to the north side of Ketchikan for us to go harvest a fair amount of crab. I would also like to oppose 203 and show my support for 206. And with that, I will thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Ellen Hannan, Craig AC, followed by Patrick Baum with the Elfin Cove AC.

And Ellen, are you going to be giving the AC or your personal testimony first? Can I start with personal? You may. Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Ellen Hannan. I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I've lived 40-plus years in Craig and the outside waters.

Commercially, I have salmon trolled, fished halibut, black cod, herring pound, as well as gillnet salmon. Subsistence, personal use, and sport fishing and hunting are what my family and I do for food and fun. My personal thoughts on these proposals are that we need to make sure that fish stocks are available for future generations. We need to pay attention to biological concerns and provide priority for year-round residents. A major consideration for future proposals are the expansion, expansion of cruise ships into Southeast Alaska, especially rural Southeast Alaska.

A small number of cruise ships came to the Klawock/Craig area last year, and the number is projected to triple or quadruple next year. More visitors will, without a doubt, put more pressure on the fisheries resources. So I ask you to consider that on some of our limited proposals before— if we have to wait 3 years for a new cycle, that's something to think about.

Proposal 192, allow pots to be long-lined for personal use. I'd like to make sure that subsistence is added to this proposal because the permit is the same in our area, commercial and subsistence. Subistence, and it just depends on where we fish whether it's customary and traditional or subsistence fishery. Proposal 206, supporting yelloweye fishing for residents. A whole lot of things came up on that for us talking about yelloweye because we had some proposals about quillback that I'll talk in a minute, but if we've got yelloweye for residents, I think that's going to take care of the issues.

And Proposal 222, This is where the shrimp season would change, where people in the winter couldn't fish it, or after February 28th. We thought as our group they would hurt some year-round residents who like to catch some shrimp in late winter when there are fewer boats on the water. And probably it's a very small group of people, but if there are a way to provide that for the year-round residents at that time, be great. Okay, those are my personal comments. Okay, thank you.

Any questions? Mr. Carpenter, could you clarify please the first statement that you made about— was it proposal 198? 192. 192. About longlining pots?

Yes, 192. Okay, thanks. Yeah, the longlining of personal use black cod pots, or I guess it says groundfish.

Okay. If you'd like to give your AC report. Okay. Thank you. Again, I'm Ellen Hannan.

I'm the chair of the Craig AC. We have 15 members. Our notes under— are under AC 1 in your online information. We have members who represent trapping, hunting, hunting guide charter, sport fishing, longline fishing charter. Gillnet, shellfish, herring pond, subsistence, and trolling.

With that said, we all wear multiple hats. We all do lots of things. For today's testimony, I'm not going to discuss anything that we had no action on or that ADF&G proposed we thought was housekeeping and we unanimously supported it.

The proposals or comments on those are in our notes if you need— if you already have them. Okay, to jump in. Proposal 250 reduced the legal size of Dungeness crab for subsistence and personal use. We were unanimously opposed to take more crab that are already being heavily predated on by sea otters. Proposals 253 to 257, changing the rule about not being able to run pots 14 days before the Dungeness season— it was varying kinds of pots— we supported all of those unanimously.

Proposal 258, open/close waters to Dungeness fishing. Opposed that unanimously. Proposed— proposal 262, close sport fishing for Dungeness in Thorn Bay, we passed that unanimously. Proposal 192, allow pots used for personal use, bottom fish to be longlined, pots can be longlined in commercial, and as I noted, my personal subsistence should be added there, we supported that unanimously. Proposal 193, deepwater release options for jigging or troll.

We oppose that unanimously. Um, our commercial fishermen who troll and do things said they usually are not in that situation where they're going to be catching many, um, fish to be able to do that. Proposal 196, reduce the minimum size or escape for escape rings for commercial sablefish pots. Supported that unanimously. Our representatives, a couple of them that are sablefish fishermen, so they have a really big age class of sablefish coming up that's just a little bit smaller and it would help them out.

And that was, I think, supported by Fish and Game as well. Proposal 198, increase daily limit for sablefish from 4 fish to 6 fish. We would support that if it was amended to residents only. And we support that unanimously. Proposal 199, we had a 10 to 3 on that.

And that was about— from Fishing Game about changing the starting time with the gale warnings for the lingcod fishery or groundfish. The minority concern in this was that the proposal could.

Promote more small boat participation, which could result in safety concerns, 'cause delaying the opening would prevent a weather problem later.

Proposal 200, reporting harvest for lingcod, that was supported unanimously, a good idea for accurate data to help manage the fishery.

Proposal 201, clarify lingcod bycatch overage, This was unanimously opposed due to the word "may be subject to law enforcement action." We felt this should be more exact. Proposal 203, lingcod changes to— for unguided non-resident anglers. We opposed that unanimously. Conservation issues about lingcod. Proposal 206, reopen yelloweye for residents.

Supported that unanimously. Support from Fish and Game, as evidenced in staff reports, about to have a yelloweye season. Excuse me. Proposal 207 and 208 were one of our members' and our AC proposal about quillback, and frankly, we would have not made those proposals if we knew we could have had yelloweye in that. So, but it's there.

So we were 9 opposed and 4 in support of 207. Support from— oh, excuse me. Minority opinion was for more opportunity to catch fish, especially for charter clients. And then similar on the proposal 208, 7 support, 6 opposed. This was originally proposed with coolback because we did not have a yellow light season was possible.

Majority opinion in this one was for more opportunity to catch fish, especially for charter clients. We spent a lot of time talking about coolback. Proposal 209, pelagic rockfish for residents. I believe that was specifically for the Sitka area resident priority. We supported that unanimously.

Unanimously. Proposal 210, black rockfish reduced limit. 9 In support, 4 opposed. Minority opinion was for more opportunity to catch fish.

Proposal 212, geoduck boats to be able to fish 4 permits from a boat with emergency open order, share expenses when the limits are low, it supported, we were supporting that unanimously. Proposal 213, 214 were geoduck assessments and guidelines. We had biological concerns and we opposed them unanimously. 215, Uh, GuiDeck reduced GHL in sea otter impacted areas. We opposed that unanimously.

And sea cucumbers in proposal 218, opposed that unanimously, biological concerns. 221, Prohibit sea cucumber harvest in aquatic farm sites.

We supported that unanimously.

Okay.

Proposal 222 was opposed unanimously. This was the shrimp season closing on February 28th, and then our concern was that closing part of the winter season would decrease opportunity for year-round residents who like to catch a few shrimp when there are few boats. 224, Change shrimp season back to fall. We felt like there's not enough data yet to evaluate the change from the fall to the spring season. We oppose that unanimously.

Proposal 225, change shrimp season, same thing.

Um, 226, reduce the shrimp season GHL by 20%, opposed unanimously. And 227, allow shrimp permit stacking and we oppose that unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you, Ellen. Any questions?

Commissioner? So I have a question regarding yelloweye rockfish. So did you guys talk about your confidence in the yelloweye rockfish assessment and, and the willingness to start liberalizing rock— yelloweye rockfish harvest, especially The fact that some of that yelloweye rockfish harvest is going to occur near local communities which have a different stock assessment than the, the outer waters in the EEZ. It has seemed that yelloweye are fairly abundant in our area, even from the last time when they did the commercial surveys. They didn't get to some of their survey areas in our area.

We have quite a few yelloweye. So there was a lot of confidence we have quite a few yelloweye in the area. Our concern still is that we don't want to go over and get to a problem area where there aren't any yelloweye, you know, where we get shut down again.

But yet the quillback proposals were because we didn't think yelloweye was an option because it got taken off the table last time. Okay, thank you.

Ellen, thank you for your testimony today and thank you for your service on the agency. Thank you. Appreciate you being here.

Patrick Baum, followed by Curt Whitehead. Hi, Patrick.

Good afternoon. I'd like to begin by saying gunaxsheesh to the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people of the Ketchikan area. Gunaxsheesh for allowing me to be here on your land. Gunaxsheesh to the Sanyaa K'wan and the Taunta K'wan for allowing me to be here to speak today. And gunaxiish to the chairman and board members for taking the time to be here.

It's very much appreciated. My name is Patrick Baum, and I'm representing the Elfin Cove Advisory Committee. I'm the chair of the Elfin Cove AC. I'm a lifelong Alaskan, born in Fairbanks, nowadays a resident of Juneau. Been a troller for the last 20 years and also recently appointed board member for the Alaska Trollers Association.

Our AC is a mix of user groups with the charters, residents, and commercial fishermen all represented. The Elfin Cove AC is one that is just getting on its feet, and we had a number of years of inactivity, and just this last September we've become active again. So this has been a pretty big learning curve for us. So sometimes bear with us. And we thank you for that.

So I'd like to go through some of the proposals or through the proposals related to groundfish and crab that we were able to discuss and vote on and add some verbal comments that did not make it into our written comments. And so starting with Proposal 191, amending logbook requirements for vessels fishing for groundfish with pot and longline gear, we, we supported this. And as with the idea that the more information that our department has, the better they're going to be able to help and regulate these fisheries and manage them. Proposal 193 for in-state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska area allow CFC permit holders for fishing for groundfish or halibut with mechanical jig and hand troll gear to use a deep water release mechanism to return rockfish to the ocean. We opposed this, and our reasoning behind this was our members, their experience with these deepwater release mechanisms, they decided that it wouldn't be something that would be viable in the commercial fishery and just wouldn't be functional.

Proposal 199, to add a weather delay provision that would postpone the opening date of the directed demersal shelf rockfish and directed lingcod fishery. If weather forecast meets gale warning or higher criteria in management areas of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. We supported this, and I, I heard some of the other comments that were, that were voiced today about this. I wanted to clarify our reason for supporting this was in the, in the wordings that I received, that it says for all Eastern Gulf of Alaska fishing areas. And it wouldn't be something that is just happening for specific zones.

And that's our understanding of it and why we supported it. And, you know, we got a lot of fishermen and people that have been on back decks plenty of times, and it's not much fun risking your life out there sometimes. Proposal 200, to adopt catch reporting requirement for directed lingcod fisheries. We supported this 13 to 0. Because of the more information that we can have, the more better.

Proposal 201, clarify lingcod bycatch overage requirements in the Southeast District fisheries for longline halibut and salmon troll fisheries. We supported that for the same reason. More information is going to lead to better management practices. Proposal 202, clarify that only one line can be used for dinglebar gear in the lingcod fishery. And we supported this, and I also wanted to just touch on that after hearing some of the comments from earlier today.

And our understanding of supporting this is that one line in the water at a time, and being trawlers, a lot of what our advisory committee is, we've used single lines going down into the water. And this, I understand where some of the folks that have been commenting on this have issue with it, and it is in the— the author's.

Operational unit of the Dingle Bar Troll Gear that appears to be the issue. And I can understand that, and the more I read into this, it seems as that it is relatively clear that the operational unit being the train snaps on to this one line that is being referred to as only being able to have. So, We are supporting that one. Proposition 203, establish unguided nonresident lingcod regulations. We oppose this.

And, um, yeah. Proposition 204, allow pots to be longlined in state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska commercial Pacific cod fishery. We're in support of this. The pot fisheries are becoming more and more prolific, and they make a lot of sense. Proposal 205, allow personal use retention of Pacific cod and rockfishes, including thornyhead rockfish in pot gear.

We supported this under the, the understanding that these fish coming out of the pot gear really have no chance of survival and throwing them back makes no sense and keeping them does. Proposal 206, to reopen the yelloweye sport fishery for residents. We took no action upon this one. This was a a 5-5 vote with a couple folks abstaining. And I believe that was through the, the ideas that, that our residents would very much like to be catching some of these and that there's abundance issues and overfishing issues that some of us aren't maybe not too familiar with or unaware of.

Proposal 207, allow retention of demersal shelf rockfish by non-residents. We oppose this. And those through the overharvest potential. And also Proposal 208, very similar to Proposal 207, was also opposed for the same reasons. And Proposal 209, to establish provisions for resident priority within emergency order authority of pelagic rockfish.

We supported this one with the idea that we, Elfin Cove AC, very, very much supports the residents and we would really like to be prioritizing them in all fisheries. Proposal 110, reducing the bag limit and possession limit for pelagic rockfish in Southeast Alaska, and this is opposed.

Proposal 211, to clarify regulations regarding fish ticket documentation of rockfish overages in the groundfish and halibut fishery, and under the, the idea that the more information we have is better. We did not have an opportunity to look through the dive and shrimp fisheries, which aren't so much in the Elfin Cove area, so we skipped over those ones. And then as far as the crab proposals go, we only weighed in on two of them, of proposals 258 and 259. and we opposed both of those. The, some of the areas, uh, hope to open some of the, some or all areas close to commercial Dungeness fishing and registration area A, and some of those areas are around Elfin Cove. And our experience as users out there is that there is no crab there, and it really would make no sense to open a commercial fishery there.

And, um, and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. I just want to take the time to say that it's great to see the Elven Cove AC resurrected. I remember the discussion at the joint boards, and it's great to see you guys active.

And also want to thank you for assuming the leadership position and, uh, and sort of getting it going. So thank you for being here for your report. And I'll ask if there are any other board questions. Mr. Godfrey, at your very last comment on the area you were not interested in creating a fishery, an opening there, because there's no crab there. Is it the collateral damage you'd be concerned about?

'Cause if there's no species that's the target species in an area, who cares? Like, people can go fish it and fail. But you would oppose it 'cause of bycatch?

Trying to recall the group decisioning behind this, and I believe it was just basically because of there's nothing there. And the thought behind opening a fishery when the target species is nonexistent just really didn't sit well in people's heads. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your report. Thank you. Curt Whitehead.

Hi, Curt. Are you going to begin with your personal testimony or AC testimony? No, ma'am, just the, uh, Klawock AC testimony. Okay. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you very much for your service on this board.

My name is Curt Whitehead. I'm the secretary of the Klawock AC, the Craig AC, the East POW AC. Following is my testimony for the Klawock AC. Proposal 194: Reduce the minimum inside diameter of slinky pots to 3.5 inches on pots used to take sablefish in subsistence, commercial, and PU fisheries. We supported unanimously.

Unanimously. More anglers are using these pots because it limits bycatch. Decreases predation from whales, and anglers can leave their pots unattended a bit longer than with longline gear. Proposal 198: increase the daily resident bag limit from 4 to 6 of black cod. We support unanimously.

Fishing for sablefish is a lot of work. More folks are using slinky pots due to the lack of bycatch and being able to soak pots and then hauling them afterwards. Instead of using rods and electric reels. The harvest levels from residents is negligible. This will increase food security, and there is not a resource concern of black cod at this time.

Proposal 203, establish unguided non-resident lingcod bag limits to match resident bag limits. We oppose unanimously. This would complicate the regs, negatively impact the resource, make it harder to stay within the GHL. This would equate to a large increase in lingcod harvest and significantly alter our harvest levels. One glaring issue with our current management of nonresident lingcod bag limits is trying to catch the perfect size lingcod that is 30 to 35 inches, which results in higher release mortality trying to find the perfect size keeper.

Proposal 205: Allow personal use retention of peacod and rockfish in pot gear. We support unanimously. This will help with food security and allows food folks to eat the bycatch caught in pot gear instead of discarding them dead over the rail. Proposal 206: Reopen Yelloweye Sport Fishery for Residents. We support unanimously.

This resident-only harvest will help with food security, limit release mortality, and will be welcomed since it's been closed for several several years. It was also suggested that an annual limit would be prudent, and we are surprised ADF&G didn't recommend an annual limit. A side note is that releasing rockfish at depth in a timely manner results in very high release survival. Proposal 207, allow retention of DSR rockfish by nonresident anglers, failed in a split vote, 5 to 1. This is the exact proposal that Craig Acy proposed at the last Board of Fish cycle and was passed for residents only.

ADF&G does not have accurate info on DSR other than Yelloweye, yet ADF&G supports Proposal 206, which would reopen Yelloweye to resident anglers. Traditional knowledge shows that we have a very abundant and healthy population of Copper and Coolback rockfish. We don't agree with ADF&G's data. We know what we see and catch, and it differs from ADF&G's data. It makes no sense that non-resident anglers can't retain even one DSR fish.

We catch quillback in almost every habitat type in depths down to 400 feet whenever you drop a piece of cut bait to the bottom. The popular sport fishing salmon areas do not have many rockfish because there are many anglers fishing these areas daily, but all you have to do is move a few hundred yards to the nearest rock pile and you'll likely find them. If passed, the Board of Fish could always change it back to the next cycle if ADF&G gets updated data showing a conservation concern, but Currently there is not a conservation concern.

Proposal 208, allow retention of DSR rockfish by nonresident anglers, passed in a split vote, 4 to 2. Um, basically the same comments as above. Um, traditional knowledge proves these species are readily abundant in all of Southeast Alaska. Some charter operators release upwards of 30+ rockfish, DSR rockfish, nearly every day, and we aren't even targeting them. The majority of the guides avoid these species because they don't want to catch them since we can't keep them.

ADFNG doesn't always get accurate data for whatever reason. Many anglers underreport their rockfish data. The differences in gear and technique will also show a marked difference in DSR catch. Most boat captains do not want to catch copper or quillback, so they either troll, mooch with herring, or anchor up and use larger baits, all of which limit DSR catch.

209, Establish provisions for resident priority with authority for pelagic rockfish. We supported unanimously.

Proposal 210, reduce the bag and possession limit for all anglers of pelagic rockfish in Southeast, passed in a split vote, 4 to 2. Taking home 5 a day on multi-day trips can be excessive if boats are able to fish every day. But the minority pointed out that 5-a-day bag limit is important if we have weather concerns that limit us from getting our preferred— to our preferred spots. Several other charter operators also voiced this exact concern and understand ADF&G's concerns, but we have issue with reducing it all the way down to 3 a day.

Proposal 222, adopt seasonal closures for subsistence sport and personal use shrimp fisheries. We opposed in a split vote, 5 to 1. We could be jumping the gun on implementing this when the change in the commercial shrimp pot fishery just recently happened. The total catch of the subsistence fishery for these two months is only 3%. This will negatively impact subsistence users that are largely year-round residents who need food security, and this will prohibit them from harvesting shrimp in the months of March and April.

The one member that was in, in the, in minority supported this proposal because the shrimp bear eggs at that time. Proposal 223, increase the tunnel size for sport, personal use, and subsistence shrimp pots. Supported unanimously. If passed, this prop will allow anglers to use pots that are currently manufactured in Alaska with the 16-inch Rectangular opening. These pots have vertical crossbars on the opening that prevents bycatch.

The regs up north in Prince William Sound currently allow these pots in their fisheries. This prop will reduce the complexity of regs, reduce bycatch, and allow anglers to buy Alaska-manufactured pots. This exact pot in question is currently on display in the entryway. Proposal 250: Reduce the minimum size limit for male Dungeness crab to 6. 6.25 Inches.

Opposed unanimously. If passed, this will not allow male crabs to mate prior to harvest. The current reg of 6.5 allows male crab to spawn at least once prior to being harvested. Proposal 251: Change the start date of all Southeast Alaska commercial crab fishery summer season to July 1st. We took no action, but we had good discussion, which I'll share with you.

There's no consensus from biologists or commercial anglers on exact timeframe when crabs molt. If passed, this would negatively impact some of the commercial crabbers. We're thankful to have smaller areas in our communities prohibiting nonresident and commercial fishers so locals can harvest what few crabs we can catch that survive the sea otters. Our chairman spoke at length about the tribe's extensive work they've been doing to proceed with a management program for the sea otters. The sea otters have devastated our shellfish populations in waters less than 150 feet.

Crabs still survive in deeper waters, but wherever there are otters, they have virtually eliminated those crabs in the 150 feet. Multiple Alaska tribes have been gathering data on the issue for the last 15 years with the goal of being able to manage sea otters themselves. And finally, Proposal 262, close sport fishing for Dungeness crab in Thorn Bay, but still allow personal use fishing for crab We support unanimously. This will create a small area in front of the community of Thorn Bay where the locals can catch crab without competing with non-residents. The regs that prohibit non-resident anglers from crabbing in front of our communities are all driven by the sea otters.

That concludes my testimony. Thank you, Curt. Any questions? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Curt.

Thanks for your testimony. Very well done.

You mentioned something when you were talking about spot shrimp and the proposals to close the season for sport, personal use, and subsistence. And you talked about the levels of subsistence harvest that took place in, over a course of those 2 months. Do you think most people are utilizing subsistence or Which system do most people in your area utilize? The subsistence permits, the personal use permits? Do you have any idea on that?

Or is the 3% really just a nature of how people are reporting?

That's a great question. I think the majority of the anglers are fishing under sport fish regulations. They're fishing under subsistence if they are putting out a halibut longline. And then as far as shrimping, the bag limit for residents is so liberal that I, I guess I've always kind of assumed they're fishing under sport fish regulations. But the main point is, if this passes, the real residents of Southeast are the ones that are going to be affected.

And you're talking March and April. It's literally 3%, maybe it's 6%, but it's a very small percentage. And those people that live there at that time need that food. And that's when a lot of them will get the shrimp, is in the springtime. And also after May 15th, that's the commercial fishery.

So after that, nobody's going to go shrimping, or very few. And then we're into the summer, and the summertime you see those shrimp migrate down to colder water and the quality of meat isn't quite as good. So yeah, we were, we were definitely opposed to it, mainly for food security reasons. Well, I appreciate that. And I also appreciate the fact that, you know, when the board deals with the area of subsistence, you know, there, there are different tastes around the state and a lot of people enjoy shrimp with the eggs on them.

And if that would be something that would impact subsistence, particularly in a negative fashion, I would like to really consider that, you know. So I appreciate your insight. There was definitely two members, subsistence lifelong folks that said that exact same thing. They're like, hey, we actually enjoy and eat the eggs.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. No personal testimony today? No. Gotcha.

Okay. All right. Well, that concludes my list. Let's go back and I'll do second calls for a couple of folks that missed their first calls. This morning.

Um, first up is William Pattison.

Hi, William.

Good afternoon, Chair, and welcome to Ketchikan. My name is William Pattison. I'm a born and raised Prince William Island resident. I'm here today representing the East POW AC, and you'll find all of our notes under AC2. Our AC is represented by 5 different communities and is very diverse.

I'd like to start today with Proposal 223, increase the tunnel size for sport, personal use, and subsistence sport pots. Since this proposal originated in our AC, this proposal, if passed, will continue to allow anglers to buy Alaska-made shrimp pots that are designed for current shrimp regulations in the Prince William Sound area without any modifications. This will simplify the regs and reduce bycatch because the vertical structure bars in the openings help prevent bycatch by reducing the surface area. Unlike the traditional round openings like the one I'm holding today, we have provided an actual shrimp pot for everyone to view to help understand the issue at hand. It is located on the other side of the double doors in the back of the room, and I'll happily be there throughout the day to answer anybody's questions if people want to view it to help understand what the pot looks like.

I'd like to move on to Proposal 222, adopt seasonal closures for subsistence sport and personal use shrimp pots or shrimp. Having a commercial shrimp fishery in the fall is unsustainable. BC just south of us has a sustainable fishery because it is a very— it is a spring fishery. We are willing to give up 2 months as long as the commercial fishery stays in the spring.

We supported this proposal with the amendment is that it stays as a May 15th opener with— for commercial fishermen, for us to give up the 2 months in the spring. Proposal 224-225: revert commercial shrimp pot season from May 15th back to October 1st. We oppose this unanimously. There has only been 2 years' worth of data in the new spring fishery. We are seeing positive signs in the fishery.

Members from the communities of Hollis, Cassand, Kaufman Cove, Whale Pass are saying the shrimp populations are increasing in their area and are getting bigger in size, giving more food for their families. Proposal 226 provides further conservation in the shrimp pot fishery by reducing all GHLs by 20%, reducing the number of pots allowed by 40-50%. We oppose this. We already switched the seasons and see no reason to further restrict when there has only been 2 years' worth of data and the new season and locals have seen positive impacts. We need more time to see how the fishery will improve on its own.

Proposal 228, slinky pots in the shrimp pot requirements. While this is a good way for small boats to participate.

Paint. These are compact, small pots. When folded up, they stack nicely, but this will put people at risk with small boats in heavier water and, and so forth.

Proposal 266, crab fishing traps, allow additional gear types in personal use fisheries. We were against this in a split vote, 11 against and 1 saying no, because the snare bait boxes don't have any way for the cotton twine to break loose. So it's like a monofilament line. And so if nothing gets in there and if somebody loses it on a rocky bottom, right, it's just continually fishing where stuff can get hung up in it over time. And for that, I'll close for today.

And thank you again for allowing me to testify in front of you.

Thank you, William. Any questions? Mr. Zarey. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

On Proposal 228, you— I heard your— some reasoning there, but did you— did you oppose that or did you go along with that? Which one? 228. Proposed 228. 228.

Mm-hmm. It was a split vote. 11 Yes, 1 no. The The reason for the one no is there's loops on the monofilament line with no biodegradable way for it to break. So if it was lost, it would continue to fish.

If that makes sense. Thank you. Yep. Yep.

All right. Appreciate your report today. Thank you for being present to give it to us. Second call for John Johansen.

Welcome, John. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is John Johansen from Klawock, Alaska. I'm a lifelong fisherman, Alaska fisherman. I started fishing black cod 51 years ago with pots with my dad.

So, and I'm the reason why Clarence Straits can use pots. Or longline. We— my wife and I currently own 3 permits, and I would like to support 195, which opens in March. I got a hold of Noah, and the black cod are genetically the same from the Bering Sea to Southern California, and I don't feel the state needs to waste their time or money on a survey in Clarence Straits holding us up from having a March opening when they're doing federally the tests are right outside Cape Mewson and the Bartolome Hole and all the tags. And when I was a kid before the 200-mile limit, the Japanese and Korean hooks would migrate into Clarence Straits with the cotton galleons hanging out of them.

So we don't need to do it and it would give us more opportunity. And then most of us are sayners. And we want to go fish chums in June, and that's when it currently opens. So then we're left in real lousy weather in the fall doing it, trying to get it caught up. I'm also against 198, even though Curt Matley is a personal friend of mine, just for the simple reason it's going to be a toe in the door and they're going to be— well, now they're sports fishing with pots for black cod.

I thought sports fishing was hook and a line. So I'm heavily invested in this. I have 3 permits and I've been doing this a long time. And I— when I was a kid, it was open year-round. I'm not saying open it year-round, but there's no reason to think that this is a different stock of fish.

That's what's out in the ocean. I've got tags from Sitka and Canada and all over. They migrate all over and they're coming— they come in both sides of Prince of Wales in the Clarence Strait. Rights, not just through Dixon entrance. So that's my testimony, and thank you.

Thank you, John. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here.

Okay, taking a look at my notes, I think that concludes public testimony for today. Thank you everybody who provided your comments to the board. We're going to take just a couple minutes and make a decision about whether or not we go directly into community of the whole or we wait and start on agenda as we have on our agenda for tomorrow morning. So stand by for just a couple minutes and I'll make the announcement here shortly. Thank you.

Okay, so ordinarily I would keep this meeting going, but I think that because we have— I'm trying to pace this properly so as not to be too disruptive of folks that I know that have travel plans for session 2. So I think what we're going to do is adjourn for the day, begin tomorrow with Committee of the Whole Group 1 work, and stick to the agenda at least as we have it, you know, written out for tomorrow. But I would encourage folks to use this time to have conversations around any substitute language. This is kind of a bit of a time gift here, so talk with board members if there is amended language or amendments that you'd like to see in, in these groups that we can work on drafting some of that substitute language to have a robust discussion in committee if possible. That's certainly my preference.

Also, those that are present that are interested in having those conversations about topics, particularly king salmon management plans at all in Group 2, I would also encourage you to take the opportunity to have those conversations about what some of the sticking points might be in those management plans and see if there's any points of agreement and, and certainly keeping board members apprised of those conversations, myself included. So we're going to go ahead and, and pause here for the day and begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 AM with Committee of the Whole Group 1. And I believe the chair of that committee is Mr. Godfrey. So we'll start tomorrow morning at 8:30. Thank you very much for your time today.