2026 Bristol Bay Finfish Meeting (1/14/2026)

All right. Good morning, everybody. The time is 8:50. The date is Wednesday, I believe, January 14th. We have 6 of 7 members present.

Our 7th member is stuck in a little bit of traffic on the Glen, and we expect to see him showing up here any minute. So before we get started with public testimony, I think Director Nelson has an announcement. Not an announcement, just a reminder for Advisory Committee members, we have a sign-in sheet at the end of the table. Please just do a quick sign-in on that sheet every day you're here. Thank you.

All right, thanks. And just a reminder to everybody in the room too, if you want to sign up for public testimony, the cutoff is 10 AM today, so you got a little over an hour to fill in your blue card and turn it into the board support table. So let's talk a little bit about how this is going to roll. When your name is called this morning, if you signed up to give testimony, please come forward to the microphone and state your name for the record and who who you represent if there's an organization. If you have written materials for the board, please identify those materials by the RC, PC, or AC number.

That's really helpful for us, and I will provide the board members an opportunity to get that paperwork in front of them, and that chart— that time isn't going to be charged to you or the AC representative who is testifying. At this meeting, the public will be given 3 minutes each to testify. Advisory committee— committees and regional advisory council representatives will each be given 10 minutes. When you begin your testimony, the executive director will give you a few minutes— a few moments, I should say, not minutes, moments to introduce yourself before starting that timer. And when the time is up, you will hear a beep of the timer.

Please stop speaking when the timer goes up or I will have to instruct you to stop speaking. You are speaking. It is definitely my preference not to have to interrupt you and do that. Um, can get a little awkward, but please be respectful and mindful of the timer. When you're finished, please remain seated so if the board has any questions, we can ask you some.

We also ask that you confine your oral testimony to the subjects under consideration at this meeting in as concise and direct a manner as possible. It is the intent of the board to deal with the merits of the proposals based on the general principles used by the board. The board The board does not deal in personalities. Thus, if anyone, you know, public testifiers will be admonished not to refer to people by name, any person, staff member, or board member. So just be respectful, please, and don't be calling anybody out by name on the record.

Advisory Committee and Regional Advisory Council reps should also fill out a blue card and indicate whether or not they will testify at the beginning or end of the public testimony. Please note on the card which AC you are representing and be prepared to describe the general membership of your committee. Also, please confine your testimony to the position of the committee— or, I'm sorry, the position the committee took on the proposals or issues and give minority opinions of the committee if there were any. And if you wish to provide your own personal testimony, please fill out a separate blue card and submit it to the board staff. If your name is called and you are not present to testify, a second call will be made.

If you miss both your first and second calls, you will not be able to provide testimony at this meeting. If your first call happens in an afternoon session, your second call will occur either at the end of the testimony list or the beginning of the next day's morning session, whichever comes first. And I will make sure to make regular announcements about those second call opportunities and when folks will get their second shot to provide testimony if they miss their first one. All right. Clear as mud?

Cool. Right now I've got a list that's been started in terms of the public testimony sign-up sheet. I understand Mr. Wilson with the Naknek Kwijak AC is going to go later in the day, so that brings us to our first testifier, which is Alexis Kwatschka from the Kodiak AC.

Good morning. Thank you for being here. Good to see you again.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board of Fish. If you don't mind, I'll do the AC testimony first and I'll follow with my own.

My name is Alexis Kwatschka. I live in Kodiak, Alaska. I've been an AC member for, I don't know, 25 or 30 years off and on. We, uh, last I counted, we had about 60 permits in Kodiak, and the AC felt like it was important to weigh in on a few. Um, the members, uh, um, picked the permit, the proposals they wanted to speak to, and, and that's what you're going to get from me this morning.

We had a pretty diverse group there, 11 of us present. It kind of represented a little bit of everybody from Bristol Bay fishermen to Kodiak fishermen. And we had a quorum. I haven't done this in a while, so bear with me. First proposal we took up was Proposal 44, limit the number of king salmon retained in a home pack and commercial fishery and the subsistence fishery and report all king salmon harvested.

We oppose this proposal because it was— the proposal was unclear, and it combines subsistence and commercial within one proposal, would prohibit crew members from keeping fish for household consumption. Home pack is widely used in our region. ADFG notes the high mortality for gillnet salmon released and no retention rules for Bristol Bay. So we oppose that because a lot of people utilize king salmon for home pack on Kodiak Island. I think it's the same in Bristol Bay for, for people that live in the community and can bring those fish home.

Second proposal is Proposal 50, incorporate fish quality considerations into the commercial salmon fishery management decisions in Bristol Bay. We have both the previous proposal we opposed 11 to 0. On, on 50, we oppose this proposal 11 to 0 as well. Proposal does not provide clear direction for department. Wood River and Naknek special harvest areas are designed to get fish out of the water, and this proposal would tie managers' hands.

Round hauling does not necessarily hurt fish quality, and quality requirements should be driven by the processor. The next ones we took up as a group. We took up the permit stacking 75 through 78, all permit stacking proposals in Bristol Bay commercial fishery. We took them up together. We oppose this 10 to 0 with 1 abstention.

The abstention, the lack of information. Do increasing operational costs justify consolidation in the fishery? The opposition said this would consolidate the permits by 50% and decrease access to fishing in small communities, reward people who overcapitalize and give them a larger share of the resource, increase cost of buying a permit, and makes it harder for young people and residents of small communities to enter the fishery. Permit holders can already run multiple permits owned by different people on one vessel. ADF&G noted 460 vessels had dual permits in 2025.

Next, we took up Proposal 81, allow the use of stationary non-entanglement nets to harvest. We oppose this 10-0 with 1 abstention. The abstention supports for new gear development, particularly to decrease release mortality of non-target species, but is not clear how the gear would work and why a commissioner's permit cannot be used to test the out. Opposition: This fishery is already fully allocated. Proposal is vague and it's not clear what this gear would look like or how it would work.

This gear sounds a lot like a fish trap. Fish trapping is illegal in Alaska. The last, uh, um, proposals we took up were 82 to 91, amend the vessel specifications. We opposed these proposals 11 to 0. The opposition.

AATC opposes increasing the length restrictions for Bristol Bay vessels, does not support clarifying regulations to make compliance more straightforward. AATC supports removing numerous exemptions, measuring the length, and going with simple regulation such as dropping plumb bob from each end of the vessel regardless of whether— and regardless of whether end is hull equipment are permanent or removable. That concludes what the AC took up in Kodiak. Great, Alexis. Thank you very much for your report.

Any questions? Mr. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your testimony. Um, I just had a question.

I'm a little bit unfamiliar with the method that you just mentioned at there at the end. Could you expand a little bit more on, uh, what a simpler regulation such as a dropping a plug bob from each end of the vessel would look like. I'm just not quite familiar with that. Sure. We had— Madam Chair, we had a pretty robust conversation about this.

There's a lot of frustration. These regulations are kind of applicable to all our fisheries. You know, there's a 58-foot limit in the same fishery, the 32-foot limit in Bristol Bay. And when we do these amendments for whether it's a swim step or a fish catching box The department, the troopers have a hard time determining what those regulations look like. We need a straightforward regulation that everybody knows what we're doing.

We thought we had that with 32 feet. We thought we have that at 58 feet. But then we allow for, you know, fish baskets and guards and planing surfaces and this and that. And then we're allowing industry to kind of lead us down the path of what they call 32 feet. You know, if your boat is 36 feet, it's not 32 feet.

Feet. So we need to have straightforward enforcement regulations that, that the state troopers don't have to argue with anybody about. And if you hang a plumb bob off the furthest end of your boat and the beginning for the, the forward end of your boat and you measure that length between the two, you know exactly what you are. And if it's 32 feet, should be 32 feet. If it's 38 feet, should be 38 feet.

It's 58 feet, should be 58 be. Make it clear. Thank you.

All right, thank you for, uh, the AC report. Would you like to provide your personal testimony now? Sure, go for it. I'll try to be brief. I, again, uh, Alexis Kwatschke.

You know, I, I've— I, I hunt, I fish, I trap. I, I grew up fish— fish wheel on the Yukon River. I've pretty much done a little bit of everything. Um, I have been adamantly opposed to permit stacking since it began. I was at the Salmon Restructuring Task Force meeting, telling them this is a bad idea.

It's a bad idea. I have not changed my opinion. I'm not going to beat it up. This fishery— I read all, all the comments last night— this fishery is already provided with outs. We've already seen massive consolidation.

We don't need to consolidate it any further. You're only going to hurt the little guys. It's, you know, this stuff is trickled down and it doesn't trickle down the bottom. The economic inefficiencies of these permits in these communities provide these communities And that's what we need to keep in place. I beat this thing up to you guys many times.

Vessel length.

Allow the troopers to do their job. Tell them what it is. If it's 36 feet, I'm gonna cut my boat in half and add 4 more feet to it. If it's 32 feet and I got to cut my swim step off, I'm gonna do it. Make it, make it one and done.

You know, don't allow industry and people to tell you what they're gonna do and why it's legal. You tell them what you're gonna do and make it legal.

Uh, enforcement. If you're fishing over the line, you're cheating. You know what? Let's update our enforcement. How about drones?

Let's change the regulation so we can have 4 guys sitting in King Salmon with drones flying around 180 miles an hour taking pictures and writing people tickets. I'm over it. If you're over the line, you're stealing fish from all of us. Get it done. Uh, king salmon, man, we're gonna be talking about king salmon forever.

And, uh, you know, I was thinking about it, you know, I've been putting in for Chugach sheep my entire life, I've been putting in for Delta bison my entire life. How about we start a, uh, drawing permit so we can generate some money and do something? Pick a point on the river, you may fish below this point, and if you fish above this point and you want to retain a king salmon, you to have a permit to do it. You can control how many fish you have. I think we can do that.

It's going to take a little bit of mess around. You can generate money. It's a novel idea. I don't know. Try it out.

I want to fish and I don't think we should trade off, you know, sport fishing. I don't want to play with my food. I want to eat my food. So give them a permit, let them take one fish and be done. If you're flying in with a Learjet, I think you can afford to buy one.

Thanks. Good luck. Thank you, Mr. Kwatschke. I definitely appreciate your conciseness and directness. There's definitely no misinterpretation of your thoughts, and I think that's great.

Any questions? All right. Thanks for being here.

Randy Alvarez.

Good morning, Randy. Thank you for being with us today.

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. My name is Randolph Alvarez. Everybody calls me Randy. I am here representing the Lake Iliamna AC. And I suppose I should give you a little history on our AC.

We're different than most ACs around the state. Our AC is comprised of, well, right currently, 7 members from 7 villages around Lake Clark, Six Mile Lake, and Lake Iliamna. And we had a meeting December— last December 19th and reviewed the proposal booklet and commented on most of the proposals.

Our AC has been operating— operates differently than most ACs around the state because each village in our AC appoints a representative for the village and they go to the AC meeting. We, we do not have elections at our meetings. For— we have 7 designated seats, one for each village. But at the next meeting, we are going to have 3 under undesignated, so we're going to have to be back to a 10-member board since we haven't been operating very much since COVID So we're kind of behind the times and we had a meeting. We had 7 members, but we had a— we only had 5, 2 were absent.

So we had a 5-member meeting and I will go through our minutes from the meeting we had.

Okay, we started with, I think we had about a 5-hour meeting, which is one of the longest we ever had because most of the time in the previous past, an airplane would have to go around, usually from Iliamna, pick everybody up, gather our members together and have a meeting in one of the villages. But since Zoom came in, we've been the last couple of times, I think it was, we've had Zoom. So it's— so we were able to have a longer meeting this time than we usually do because it's usually— don't have— we run out of daylight. But anyway, the first proposal that we took up was Proposal 44, the limit the amount of king salmon retained in the home pack. We oppose We support that proposal.

The vote was 5-0. The next proposal, 45, to extend the date in which the commercial fishermen register or re-register in the Naknekwejak District.

We support that proposal. The vote was 5-0.

You know, we support that because typically, especially in the last few years, the Kwijak has been getting later and later run like Togiak. About 30 years ago, the board excluded Togiak from the regular districts because they're so late that they're kind of a different district in the Bristol Bay area. But the Kwijak is also— has been getting kind of late. So we want— we would like this proposal extends the registration for— from the 17th until the 22nd, I believe. And this would work fine because currently the department has been monitoring or keeping the counting tower up on the Kwijak, which is right below Igia��iq.

About half a mile where they count the fish for escapement. They're doing that until, I believe, until about the 23rd, I think. So if they're— this proposal asks that the registration stay in effect until the 22nd. So the department's in the office anyway monitoring the escapements, so this would work fine them being able to do that. So we supported that proposal.

Number 46, amended dates in the Naktikwejak District, and that was kind of similar to this last proposal. We supported that 5 to 0.

Number 47, was also— we also supported 47, 5-0. Number— proposal number 48, modify the fish— the ratio between the set gillnet and the drift gillnet gear groups in the Kwee'jak Special Harvest Area, which you guys passed— you guys took up last year. We We oppose that proposal because currently what the board passed last year on the Kwejak Special Harvest Area, it kind of mirrors what's going on in the Naknek District Special Harvest Area. And our, our reason for that, for opposing it, is because we have the same people fishing the NACTIC special or the NACTIC district as the Kwijak District. So, you know, we don't— would not like to have it that it would be this.

We would like to see the same regulations in both areas, NACTIC and the Kwijak, because we have the same people fishing it.

Um, we oppose that one 5-0. Uh, proposal 49 was to modify the fishing In fact, I think it was— this is the same, same proposal. We also oppose that.

Number 50 was— we opposed proposal number 50, the fish quality in Bristol Bay. I think that's kind of a— we feel that's kind of a processor deal where they should make their boats do the quality to get paid well. Number 51, extra gear to be carried aboard the vessel in the Kwejak Special Harvest Area. We oppose that proposal. Number 52, Igik Special Harvest Area.

We didn't take any action on that.

Number 53, the close a portion of the Igik District because of illegal fishing. We opposed that 5 to 0. We opposed that. 54, Repeal the Nushagak River coho. We are 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60.

We didn't take any action on those proposals. We thought, well, it's It— we'll leave it to the Nushigiac people to comment. They can comment better on that than we can.

Number 61, repeal provision on commercial fishing.

We oppose that one. We went down to a forum. One person had to leave for a little while, so the boat was 4 to 0 in opposition.

Number 62, no action. Proposal number 63, Nuxiak King Salmon Stock Concern. We are opposed to that proposal, 0 to 4.

No action on 64. Boer 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. We did comment, we talked briefly about these proposals, but we took no action on them. Proposal 70, extend the northern boundary of the Ugashik District. We opposed that.

It was 4 to 0 in opposition.

The general district, we— proposal 71, the general district, we are opposed to that one. It was 4-0 vote.

Same with 73, same proposal. 74, Permit stacking in Bristol Bay, proposal number 75, we were opposed to that.

We feel that this proposal would be detrimental to the local people because when this— when permits, dual permits came into the fishery, it was because of some people in the region that did not have permits or did not have boats. They had a permit. So they were able to go fishing, go on board a person that had a boat so that then they wouldn't be able to use an extra, but extra 200 fathoms. But we feel that, or I feel, I guess I should comment on the committee, we feel that, that if we were allowed to be able to one person be able to fish 2 permits, own and fish 2 permits, that, that currently there are about a little over 400 boats that use dual permits, and that permit has to be in someone's name, either the, you know, the family member or a crewman. If the board were to change that regulation so that one person can own and fish two permits, I feel— or if we feel— that the amount of participation with dual permits would probably go from a little over 400 to probably about 600, because I know a lot of people that They're not doing that.

They don't want to do that because they would have to put that other permit into somebody else's name. And under the current state law and limited entry, that person owns that permit. He does not have to give it back to him. And I, I've known people in the past that did that, and, and they lost their permit because the person did not give them back the permit. So that's, that's the, that's what's currently holding the number from going jumping up to probably about 600 boats from about 400, and that would be detrimental to the, to the local people that have been able to get back into the fishery or have a, have a permit that doesn't have a boat.

So we are strongly opposed to that proposal. Mr. Alvarez, um, uh, the 10 minutes has been exceeded, but I want to ask you, are there any other proposals that you haven't yet reported on that generated a lot discussion at your AC. Okay, let's see.

The vessel length, that one there was also— we felt like the 32-foot limit has served well, and we believe that it should remain to a 32-foot limit. Adding on a trim tab on a swim step or whatever you want to call it on the back of the boat, the board passed that to, I think, 16 inches you can have on the back of your boat, that should not belong to the 32-foot limit. And also an anchor winch, you know, the anchor winch does not allow any flotation. It's just something to— the fairlead on the bow of the boat for the anchor to come over on it, that's, in our opinion, that's not— it shouldn't even have be a length of how long you can have it. But, you know, that all— and having a ladder on the back or bolting a keel, a hydraulic keel cooler on the back of the boat, we should be able to do that.

That should not be part of the 32-foot limit. But adding on all, you know, it— I think this— what the reason why it came up is because the jet boats have been adding all this other stuff, you know, getting jets and, and longer platforms underneath them to protect them, and it's caused all this. So I think our opinion was keep the 32-foot limit, the hull length the same. You know, you, you probably have to make some different regulations or amend some of the regulations on There is other stuff. That is kind of what we felt on that.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Alvarez? Thank you for your AC report and your long service on the AC. Just also note that we have 7 of 7 members present.

And would you like to give your personal testimony at this time? Yes, I would. Okay. Whenever you are ready. All right.

Thank you. My name is Randell Alvarez. I live in Iggyagak and have there for the last 42 years. I'm originally from Naknek. I was born and raised in Naknek and been fishing out of Naknek since I was 6 years old.

I was on the AC, chairman of the AC, when allocation came into being, and the meeting was in NACNIC that year, winter. This meeting took place in NACNIC and Chairman White was chair of the board. And he had, at the meeting, he told all the participants that we were going to have allocation and we need to caucus and try to come up with a figure, numbers, percentage numbers Otherwise, the board was gonna make them for us. And out of the 5 districts, well, Togiak was separate. So there's the other 4 districts, Nushigak, Naknek, Kuijak, Igik, and Ugashek.

Ugashek was the only district that the setnetters and the drifters were able to come up with a percentage number. And the board made percentage numbers for Nushigak, Naknek, Kuijak, and Igik. And that was about almost 30 years ago. And a few years later, we had to go into the Naknek Special Harvest Area because of the Kwijak disaster years. So then the board had to come up with a way of fishing in there because it was so small with all the drifters and the setnetters.

So what they did was The first opening they had the drifters in the Naktik Special Harvest Area. And then the second opening was for the Setnetters. And that went on all season. But what happened was Setnetters were getting half the fishing time and they ended up with about a hair over 50% of the catch for that season. So then the next, I think it might have been the next year, that the board took it up again and changed that regulation to 2 drift and 1 set net opening.

And that still accounted for about 30% set and about 70% drift. So then they took it up the next cycle and they came out with a 3 to 1, 3 drift to 1 set net. And it's been like that for probably about 25 years now. The NACTIC special harvest area. And this, it's been worked pretty close, it come out, kept about pretty close to what this 8416 is what the allocation is.

So we were opposed to changing that allocation number.

And one more thing I would like to comment on is The kings, there was a proposal to make a management plan for all the kings in the whole Bristol Bay area. Well, I live in Igiyaagik and we don't get hardly any kings up the Kwijak. In 40 years, I've seen 2 kings in the river. It'd be pretty hard to make a king management plan with only a couple of kings. So, you know, there's some rivers that have a fair amount of kings, like the Alagnak River, Nushiiyaq River.

And so we, we asked the board not to, not to make a management plan for the Kwijak for kings. And that's kind of what I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Mr. Wood? Yeah. Thank you for that. That's where local knowledge really pays off. Thank you, Randy.

Appreciate it. You're welcome. I told the board at my village, I says, I'm going to step down. I want you to appoint somebody else. So John Salmon got elected.

They appointed him, but he had surgery about a week ago. So I'm here doing this for him. So I just thank you for being able to do it. Thank you for your testimony today, Randy. Appreciate it.

All of your years of engagement in this space and the context that you provided too. Appreciate it. All right. Next up is Jimmy Kupchayak, Togiak AC.

Good morning. Welcome.

[Speaker:JIMMY KUPCHAIK] Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board, for this opportunity to testify. My name is Jimmy Kupchaik, and I'm the chair for the Tokiak Fish and Advisory Committee. The Tokiak AC met on November 24th and December 17th to review and take position on the Bristol Bay finfish proposals. The Togiak AC is opposed to proposals 71 through 74 that would reestablish a general district in Bristol Bay. The Togiak District has a small late run, and any additional intercept of salmon heading to our river will have negative effects on our small local fleet.

Many of our local residents rely on fishing as their only source of income.

We are also opposed to proposals 75 through 78 that would allow permit stacking in Bristol Bay. Allowing one person to own and operate two different permits with additional gear will have severe consequences for the people of Togiak who are interested in entering the fishery. We are opposed to Proposal 81 to use non-entanglement nets in Bristol Bay.

We are also opposed to Proposal 188 to allocate 15% of our unharvested Togiak sacro-herring to the Dutch Harbour food and bait fishery. There has not been any biological assessment of the herring biomass in years.

We also don't want to reallocate from a fishery that takes place in our backyard.

We are in support of Proposal 93 to increase fishing time in the Kuluqaq section of the Togiak District. The Kuluquaq section is roughly 40 miles from Togiak, and the weather is a significant factor when deciding to go fish in Kuluquaq. If the weather is bad during the 3 days the Kuluquaq section is open, it is dangerous to make the trip. And some of them have these small 18-foot lunts, and we had a couple accidents. But thankfully no loss of life.

We are also in support of Proposal 94 to remove the restrictions to the department's ability to extend fishing time in the Togiak River section of the Togiak District. There has been foregone harvest in the Togiak District in recent years. This proposal would give the department the ability to extend fishing time if there are concerns of over-escapement. We are opposed to Proposal 102 to allow bait in the Togiak River on July 11th and move the boundary from Kishiyak to Pungukpak. At the last Bristol Bay Finfish meeting, we comprised on what is currently in regulation.

Allowing bait earlier and increasing legal fishing area by roughly 5 miles could have negative consequences on our king salmon. King salmon are still running during this time and spawning in the area requested to be open. Atogiaak AC is also opposed to proposals 61 through 69 and do not want to see any changes to the current Nusikgak King Salmon Stock of Concern Plan. Some of our local residents and many family and friends fish in the Nusikgak District. We are also opposed to proposals 82 through 91, with the exception of proposal 85.

We oppose proposal 44 because subsistence should be the last user group to be restricted, and our local residents rely heavily on subsistence fishing. We are already required to report our catch. We are opposed to Proposal 58, 59, 60, and 54. We support Proposal 56, 55, and 57 as amended by the Nusigaag ACE. We are opposed to proposals 45, 50, and 95.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your very concise report. It was really good. Thank you. Any questions?

Would you like to give your personal testimony at this time? I am opposed to reallocating 15% of the unharvested tokak, sacro, herring, because in the spring I rely on herring roe and kelp, as do many of the villagers. And even though the commercial side of the fishery has been closed for a couple of years, we still have a hard time finding good quality herring, and it always depends on the weather. Like, all the scientists say that it's global warming, but for the past 2 weeks, I don't know, I think global warming got lost.

Also, I personally am opposed to permit stacking, because it'll just hurt the little guy and the villages that depend on fishing. Permit stacking, one person owning 2 permits and fishing 200 fathoms in one boat. And it'll just hurt that little guy that trying to start out. Like myself and my wife, we had to invest in the small, small business, and we have to fish in the Togiak District because of Historically, we've been fishing there for a crew member for a long time. Also, I'm in support of that increasing fishing time in Kuluukuk because of the weather.

And weather nowadays, the weather is changing. We always have storms. And it's kind of dangerous for some of these people that fish in the Tokiak District. They'll fish in an 18-foot lunt, and when the weather's bad, it's pretty hairy going— trying to travel over there 40 miles in the open ocean. And— I think it would alleviate that department's concern of foregone harvest.

Same with the proposal 94. So that department can keep it open and control the overskip. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kupchayek.

Question for you. How long does it take to travel 40 miles in Alund?

Depending on the weather, if it's 10 knots, 15 knots, maybe almost 2 hours. You're traveling in the open ocean and there's lots of rocks. That's why Togak is known for the herring fishery that spawned there. Great. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Appreciate you being here today. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Tim Mickelson, followed by Ernie Weiss and Misa Weber. So is Tim Mickelson here? I thought I saw him.

First call.

Ernie, I knew I saw you somewhere in there. How you doing?

Welcome back. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Ernie Weiss. I'm a member of the Anchor JC. I'll go ahead and do that testimony first.

I'm here to give our report on the Bristol Bay finfish proposals. Our meeting minutes from December 2nd are in your packet under AC1. The Anchorage AC has 15 undesignated seats with 2 alternates, with a wide range of Fish and Game interests and experience represented on the AC, from trapping and hunting and wildlife viewing to sport fishing, subsistence commercial fishing, personal, personal use. We have had processor representation. I don't think we do now.

We also have former department employees on the AC. We meet once monthly from October to April. I'm not going to go proposal by proposal through my minutes, but at the end I'll certainly take any questions you have on specific comments we've made. We have two subcommittees, a fish subcommittee and a game subcommittee. And for these Bristol Bay proposals, The FISH Subcommittee met twice on October 29th and on November 12th in advance of the full committee meeting on December 2nd.

Process-wise, at the subcommittee, we vote on the proposals and there's at least one person on the committee who wants to go through every proposal. So we do that. Not my choice, but that's the way we do any unanimous votes at the subcommittee, then are advanced as unanimous votes on the on the full committee unless there's a request to pull a proposal. Then the full committee considers and votes on that. Proposal 75 and 185 were only considered at the full committee.

Full committee discusses and votes on any split votes of the subcommittee. The split votes were Proposal 51, 57, 61, 96, and 98, and all those remained the same oppose or support except for 98 at the subcommittee was opposed and flipped to support at the full committee.

The full AC supported 5 proposals. That's 54, 56, 60, 64, and 98. We opposed 27 proposals and took no action on 31 of the proposals for various reasons. They were either similar to previous proposals or we didn't have enough background information on the topic. AC wants to thank all the ADF&G staff that has helped us work through proposals at both the subcommittee and the full AC.

Board support: Layla Williams, Fishery Management staff: Travis Ellison, Stacy Vega, and Jay Balmer. Again, you have our written minutes and I'm happy to discuss any of our comments on any of the proposals. Otherwise, that would conclude my report for the AC. Thanks, Ernie. Were there any proposals that really generated some discussion and that the AC sort of dug into a little bit.

I mean, I would assume that some of those split votes ones, you know, were discussed quite a bit. And maybe if you could just touch on some of the issues that the AC really sort of dug into a little bit, it would be helpful. [Speaker:DR. STEVEN KRAFCHICK] Sure. I will mention Proposal 75 that we took no action on at the subcommittee, and then it came out that we opposed it 1 to 9 with, I think, 3 abstaining. And that's permit stacking.

And we obviously opposed that one. You mentioned 98 that flipped.

And the opposing comment was that once you restrict it further, then it's never going to go back and there is not a biological concern, but those in support said the kings are in trouble and wanted to support conservation of kings. And that was obviously a theme throughout. King people are concerned about kings, but at what cost to commercial fisheries?

If there's any other specific ones, I would certainly talk about those. Great, thank you. Any questions? Don't see any. How about your personal testimony?

Yeah, I will be brief again. Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Ernie Weiss. My personal testimony in support of board-generated proposal 188 that's going to be heard at this meeting but deliberated at the February meeting. And since we're going to be focused at Salmon, I just wanted to mention it briefly here.

And I think it's a good idea to increase the GHL for the Dutch Harbor food and bait herring fishery. There's a— with the Togiak commercial herring fishery not being prosecuted, there is a real need for bait herring in the local groundfish, and there is a lot of herring in the water. I have kind of a historical connection to this fishery. Back in the late '80s and early '90s, when I fished on my father-in-law's seiner each year after the June fishery. We would, while everybody else is going to port and get ready for the 4th of July and take that early July break, we'd be switching seines, putting our herring seine in the hole, putting our skiff on deck and making the run down the peninsula through the Unimak Pass, watching out for those big shipping vessels and traveling down 2 in Alaska from King Cove.

And every year, every day of the opening, we'd go out and catch our, catch our limit, which was basically filling the boat. And it's a clean fishery. And there was always— I have good memories. And I just want to mention that I support Proposal 188. And that's all I have.

Thank you for your time. Thanks, Ernie. Any questions? Appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Next up is Misa Weber, followed by Sam Volk and Fred Marenkovich.

And I will also note that you got about 20 minutes left to drop your blue card before the cutoff time to sign up for public testimony. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair and board members. Please refer to RC4.

If you're interested in reviewing my testimony later. Chamai. My name is Misa Weber. I'm a 4th generation commercial fisherman, but my ancestral fishing heritage goes back millennia. Firstly, I'm commenting on and opposing Prop 44 and the age-old resistance that subsistence fishermen have faced from the sport fish industry.

The proposal aims to limit subsistence kings. Though I do not think this proposal will gain any traction at this meeting, I still think it's important to reiterate to the public and to the sport fishing community that according to Alaska state law, subsistence has priority and preference. Food sovereignty is not our seasonal hobby or something we monetarily profit from. Understand that people here have fought endlessly to subsist on salmon on their own terms, on the tides that make sense to them, allowing their traditional knowledge to live on through their harvest. I would also like to note that the author of this proposal and the owner of the business is leasing land from Chugyung Limited.

I would like to remind this user group who is leasing land from Indigenous shareholders that it is not in their best interest to compete against their host. I urge the sport fishing industry community to remember their place in our ecosystem. You are a guest. Please act like one. Secondly, I am opposing Props 75 through 78 which allow for permit stacking in Bristol Bay.

Permit stacking would allow those with the largest capital to acquire 2 permits. This would, one, disadvantage locals who generally have lower income compared to the non-residential fishermen from the lower 48, and two, disadvantage locals who use the dual permit system to maintain stake in the industry. This would be yet another source of inequity imposed on our local and primarily Indigenous fleet.

This type of policy generally benefits the non-residential, disembedded players rather than the small-scale, local rural fishermen. Because I trust the board to represent Alaskans' concerns, I assume these proposals will not be seriously considered. Additionally, I do not support reopening the king management plan as we have not completed even one life cycle of a king. If it were to open up for changes, we would have too many confounding variables that muddy that data. Our region on the whole generally believes that we should maintain the status quo.

I also do not support vessel modifications. We regulate boat length by enforcing it. Please work your legislative network to budget adequate state resources for effective enforcement. If we want to sustain this fishery, our state needs to prioritize compromise AWT's presence and knowledge of Bristol Bay's fishing regulations. In case of compromise, I think Prop 85's gingerbread items, as mentioned earlier, are a reasonable solution.

I do not support Prop 61, 62, 64, 68, and 71. I do support Prop 63, 66, 67, and 188. Oh, I'm sorry. I do not support 188. I typed that incorrectly.

I would like to listen to the people of Togiak and their opinion, and I highly respect that. Weyana chuckmook for the opportunity to speak. Excellent timing. Well done. Thank you.

Any questions? Ms. Erwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms.

Weber, very much for your testimony. You mentioned that you do not support reopening the King Management Plan. As a local fisherman, how have you how do you feel that management plan has been carried out in the last couple of years? And have you seen any, seen any changes since that time? I think it's important to note that we haven't seen changes and this is a process and we need to wait it out for a while.

We do have sacrifice. Everybody has sacrifice to protect kings. You know, we have watched 1 million fish jump by in a day. On the fishing grounds waiting for it to open. We think it's, you know, it's a balance.

I think generally people believe that this is in the middle on conservation. It's a balance between, you know, not crashing our economy. And we are— if you were able to comprehend Tim's data, a lot, a lot of kings made it upriver on those days that we sat on anchor. And additionally, with Tim's data, even if every single user group stops fishing, we are still not making a statement. So the issue is much bigger than us.

The issue is climate change, which isn't mentioned enough. Human-caused climate change. We have intercept fisheries, we have trawling bycatching kings. So there are so many reasons that our kings aren't coming home. And I think we're making a pretty good sacrifice with the King Management Plan, and we'd like to see it through.

Thank you. Follow up on that a little bit. So my question is, is, you know, I heard in traditional knowledge testimony yesterday how locals have used the kings, how important they are for the use of kings. If we are consistently 20,000+ kings under that sustainable number, is the status quo really acceptable? And what happens when, you know, 3, 5 years from now that number gets smaller potentially versus improving?

What is the responsibility that you think this board has and that the community has? And by the community, I don't just mean like local community, I mean the fishing community has to, to make sure that those kings can recover. I think that's an important question to ask at the Alaska Peninsula meeting as well. I think sacrifices need to come from everybody, greater sacrifices from everybody. We are a terminal fishery and we're fishing our fish.

And so this bigger picture, all of these factors and variables affecting our kings need to be considered. I don't— you know, there's a large part in me where I would love to see us all walk away and let this this, the Let the King Ecosystem Recover. It's not easy to sit here and still feel this. I think as native people and as people who take care of the land, we're torn in two different directions right now.

But ultimately, we have seen early data that kings are making it upriver. We're just not going to see results in 3 years. We might not see it in 7.

I hope, and by the next board cycle, we are starting to see a difference. But again, there are so many variables out there in the ocean. It's not a hospitable climate for king salmon out there. We're seeing this across the state, in the world. And so at what point— we're just, we're just constantly balancing, balancing these issues.

And I would listen to the people of Bristol Bay. Like, the people of Bristol Bay generally think this is a good compromise for now, and then and let's readdress it at the next cycle. [Speaker:DR. LISA SMITH] I appreciate that. My concern is that it's not going to improve, and my experience has seen that it doesn't improve typically unless there's some, you know, some very explicit recovery goals put in. And if we're at a number where the science doesn't support that they will reproduce or recover, I'm just— I thought you gave great testimony, and I'm really interested interested in your thoughts on that, and perhaps we can talk more on the side.

So thank you very much for your, for your thoughts. Yeah, I'd love to. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

So my question is, in the last few years that this management plan has been enacted, have you noticed a difference in the number of kings ending up in your net or other vessels that you know of during this time with the changing of the dates, the different dates that have been open? And have you noticed significant changes of the amount of kings that are getting in your net? Yeah, and full disclosure, I didn't start commercial fishing in Bristol Bay until 2020, um, so I don't have historical data personally. But I know just in the few years before, we had massive king runs. People were loading their subsistence nets, and every time they'd cast a rod, they'd catch a king.

I haven't witnessed any of that. Um, we are— this extension, we know that as we've push the date further back, we are catching less. And we also have some evidence that BBSRI and the department can probably attest to as well, that the king run is a little bit earlier by a few days than it used to be as well. And if you know anything about Bristol Bay, every day makes a huge difference in run timing. And so they are spreading that gap a little bit.

We're fishing later, they're coming in a little bit earlier. But I could probably count on one hand how many kings we caught in the commercial fishing season last year, probably one hand, and they were probably all under 5 pounds. So we're not seeing a lot of king activity on the grounds.

Okay, thank you very much for your testimony today. Thank you. Next up is Sam Volk. And just a reminder, you got about 10 minutes to drop your card with the front table if you want to testify today. Hi Sam, welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Sam Volk. I'm a lifelong Alaska resident and Bristol Bay drift permit owner. I've also been subsistence and sport fishing since I was a child. I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to any changes to the Nushagak District King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan.

ADF&G staff reports have been clear: current sonar technology likely underestimates king salmon passage during during times of high sockeye abundance. We know a mark recapture sonar project is on the horizon to help address this. It would not be logical to tighten restrictions based on data that the department admits is currently undercounting fish. The current plan has been in place for 3 years. In biological terms, that is less than one full life cycle for many Nushagak King age classes.

We can't accurately judge the success of a plan until we see the later age classes of Kings making amendments now is premature. We need to give the original time— or the original plan— time to work. Since 2021, king salmon harvest has been fairly similar across subsistence, sport, and commercial groups. This parity has come at a massive reduction to the commercial fleet, which has seen a 75% reduction in catch compared to the 10-year average and a greater than 80% drop in their catch against the 20-year average. I understand this is taken in context of declining king salmon numbers as a whole, but it helps illustrate the sacrifice that the commercial fleet has already made.

It's my opinion that the user groups present in this room are doing their part— that subsistence, sport, and commercial fishing in the designated Bristol Bay districts. However, while we face more restrictions, the Amendment 80 trawl fleet continues to drag 20 miles west of our fishing district boundary in early June. This high-volume, low-value fishery drags gigantic nets along the bottom in 50 feet of water while king salmon are transiting the area to their natal streams. Streams. I'd like to see that fishery's impact considered in regards to the Nushagak King Salmon.

The Department of Fish and Game has already been more conservative in season than the management plan requires, as stated yesterday. Considering this, along with the upcoming sonar improvement projects, there is no biological justification for further restricting our local fisheries. Please vote no on these proposals amending the Nushagak King Salmon Management Plan Thank you. And I don't have anything more written, but I'd like to add that once again, this plan has been in place for 3 years. The average life cycle of a king salmon is 4 years, I believe, in the Nushagak River.

So no, we have not seen improvement in the numbers, but we would not really expect to yet as it has not been in place for a full spawning cycle. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you. And following on, on earlier questions, I I know there's a lot of finger-pointing at other groups and in other areas.

And you specifically mentioned the Amendment 80 trawl fleet. As you know, they're coming up on a vote for chum bycatch caps next month. And that process has been 5 years. Do you feel it's fair to wait? For other groups to act, especially in the federal waters, with the length of time it takes for the North Pacific— for those groups, for how long action takes to wait.

Yeah, I agree that it seems like action takes a long time in those groups, and it's a matter of kicking the can down the road and just always preaching more research and not really seeing change, is what the pattern has come to seem like. For clarification, are you asking does it make sense in our scenario to wait? Kind of in a similar vein, since the plan hasn't seemed to enact any change yet?

Well, following on that, I should clarify the question. Given— do you feel it Do you feel it's responsible to wait for other groups or other areas to enact change before you take— before you take action in your area? No, I don't necessarily feel that way. I don't know what sway this board or any of us have over that process. And if we're— if we wait on others to make change before we make change, I don't think that's necessarily a precursor.

Thank you. I think that's a wonderful answer.

Any other questions? All right. Thanks, Sam. Appreciate you being here.

Let's take up Fred Marenkovich.

Hi, Fred. Welcome back.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the board, my name is Fred Marinkovich. I'm representing the Bristol Bay Fishermen's Association and myself. I've been a stakeholder in Bristol Bay for over 50 years. The Bristol Bay Fishermen's Association represents permit holders who fish salmon in Bristol Bay.

Our mission is to protect the renewable salmon resource and promote economic sustainability for commercial salmon permit holders in Bristol Bay. Our comments and positions have been submitted in PC 31.

We strongly oppose proposals 44 and 61 through 69. The Nootchagak Stock of Concern Management Plan that came out of that process is working as intended. Since it was adopted, commercial fishing has been delayed when king salmon are most vulnerable. Fishing time has been reduced. And the exploitation of kings in the commercial fishery have dropped.

Several proposals before you today, including proposals 44 and 61 through 69, would significantly restructure this plan before it had enough time to be properly evaluated. Changing course now would undo years of collaborative work and limit management flexibility going forward.

In a few of these Nushagak management proposals, I see a hard date of June 28th floating around. Salmon don't know when their birthdays are. From my experience, hard dates seem like a very tough and restrictive management tool. They basically handcuff the department's ability to manage. I also participate in the Prince William Sound Copper River fishery.

In the last board cycle, as many of you are aware of, we lost a week of fishing time on a hard date. That was devastating. This was also put in place because of king salmon concerns. ADFNG also implemented in-season area restrictions to protect king salmon. The department did not need a Board of Fish proposal to pass to further restrict that fishery.

The department currently has the ability to manage and adjust Nushagak fishery as needed. I respectfully ask the board to leave the Nushagak District King Salmon Stock Concern Management Plan in place and allow it to be properly evaluated. In closing, I would appreciate if the board and enforcement would take a look at my own personal comment that I submitted in PC-1 35. This has to do with some inappropriate fishing practices that came to my attention this past season in Bristol Bay. I will be here for the duration of the period of the meetings and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and any other proposals.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thanks, Fred. Questions? I got a question for you since you brought up about the hard date. And I think this is a question that I would ask everybody in this room to consider in the context of the Nush SOC plan.

So the department's presentations yesterday illustrated that June 28th is the date at which they presume or expect that 50% of the Nushagak Kings have made it into the river. And July 3rd, I believe, or 4th, but I think it's the 3rd, was the date which 75% was assumed to have made it into the river. So if we're trying to pass Kings, right, and that's the whole point of this, right? My question is, do we rely on that science that the department has presented? And I'm not saying that's necessarily a hard date, but does it make sense that Sakai Drive, whether or not kings are moving into the river in terms of when you get to start— I'm not articulating this very well, but there's, you know, the science that we were presented yesterday indicates that 50% of the kings are moving past by June 28th.

How would you ask that the board consider that in the context of of your testimony? You know, I, I know that if, if you, if you would, if you delay these fisheries that long, I guess it depends on how much, how many you, you would have to look at, how many sockeyes are moving by, you know, before, because every year is, every year is different where, you know, and, and, you know, kings reds, the timing of each run is different year to year. So, I mean, if you have a massive amount of reds going by, you've got to figure that there's, you know, that amount of kings in there to be going by. And if that hard, you know, if you have a hard date on there and you let that many reds go up the river, I mean, it's a question that, you know, we were— you were asking yesterday quite a bit, you know, what percentage of reds or of kings are with these reds that are going up. And I mean, I don't have the— I don't have the answer to that.

All I know is that when, you know, it really affects the other side of that fishery when you let— when you— if you just like the way I can compare it to Prince William Sound is like, so we lose a week of fishing time, and there you're talking about a week of fishing time is actually, say, 2 12-hour periods. And, you know, economically that's pretty devastating to, you know, to the economic part of it, to me as a fisherman, because That's— was a big part of my— is a big part of my season. And so when you're looking at— when you're looking at Nooshiiyaaak and you're taking— and you're taking, say, instead of starting on the 22nd of June and you're talking about starting on the 28th of June, you're looking at— you're looking at like 5 days, 6 days of of— and that's not 12, that's possibly fishing, you know, every day, 2 periods a day, a good period a day, quite a bit of fishing time from a, you know, from a fisherman. A lot of fish and a lot of fish going by. So as many kings are going by at that time, I guess these hard dates, I guess, say from year to year fish runs just vary.

So, I mean, I know that's not a very good answer to your question, but I don't really have that. I know what you miss on the red side. You know, I'm not sure what you gain on the king side. No, I appreciate that. And, and I hear where you're coming from.

And that's the conundrum that we face at this meeting, right? You know, like, we have limited science on which to base our decisions. That is some of the science that we do have is looking at the timing of the kings and the average timing of the kings. And there is a lot of variability from year to year, from day to day, and from tide and wind conditions. I get it.

But we also have the stock of concern designation. And we can't ignore that. I get it. And so again, you happen to be sitting in front of me and you brought up some some things that sort of got my, my thoughts going. But I think I would challenge the room to think about that because that's, that's this board's conundrum.

That's what we're going to be tasked with making decisions on. So I really appreciate everyone's thoughts on that. And thank you for indulging me. Thank you.

All right, let's go ahead and take a break and we'll give board support time to update the, uh, public testimony list. We'll come back on the record in about 15-20 minutes. Thank you.

All right, welcome back, everybody. 10:51, Back on the record, continuing with public testimony. We left off at Michael Matheson. So we'll welcome Michael to the microphone, followed by Maurice Enright, and then Michael Jackson. Hi, welcome.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and the board. My name is Michael Matheson. I've been involved in the Alaska salmon industry since 1979 and a Bristol Bay drift permit holder boat owner-operator since 1996. I've also been in the Bering Sea crab and cod business since 1990.

I am a board member for the Bristol Bay Fishermen's Association, but I'm speaking for myself today. You can see my public comments under PC154. Regarding proposals 44 and 61 through 69, I oppose any changes to the King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan. The plan has only been in effect 3 years and seems to be working. We are starting to fish later and fishing less hours and catching less kings on a number and percentage basis.

I'm especially opposed to Proposal 61 and 62. A hard start date does not work and takes away the area manager's ability to manage. Starting on June 28th in 2025 would have seen 7 million sockeye pass the district at 5.1 pounds of fish and $1.70 a pound. That's over $60 million in lost revenue. More often than not, sometime in the June 20s range, the Nushagak area tends to get a couple days of hard southeast winds.

That naturally occurring event is what gets the fish moving through the district and starts the fishery, not a calendar date. Regarding the permit stacking proposals of '75 through '78, I am in favor. We are facing diminishing runs. The expected harvest of this coming summer is just over half of what we got just 4 years ago. We're also trying to catch less kings.

Removing gear and boats from the water helps all of the above. The existing fleet benefits and the kings increase their odds of making it up the river. The current practice is to lease a permit in a crew member's name for $15,000 to $20,000 on an annual basis. With permit stacking, a person could obtain a loan for a second permit and use that same $15,000 to $20,000 towards their loan payment 10 years later, later they would own something instead of having given it to somebody not fishing that particular year. To date, 70% of respondents to a Bristol Bay RSDA survey are in favor of permit stacking.

Regarding proposals 82 to 91 on vessel length, I support the Alaska Wildlife Troopers' comments to have a maximum overall length length, farthest point forward to farthest point aft. I believe that distance should be 37 feet. I built a new boat in 2022 with no intention on myself or my builder to violate any existing law. From the tip of my anchor roller to the very back part of my jet guard is 36 feet and 3 inches. Rounding up to 37 feet, I think, would encompass the majority of boats in Bristol Bay and also let people with older boats add on to increasing buoyancy and safety.

Also, as far as the 58-foot permit, 58-foot purse seine limit in Alaska, the anchor roller does not count towards that. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Can you please repeat the— you said 60% of Bristol Bay respondents of your— in your— was that a BBFA survey?

The Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association put out a survey earlier this this fall. 70% Of respondents are in favor of permit stacking. As of right now, only 242 people have responded, 13.4% of permit holders, and they are saying that's a plus or minus 5.8% margin for error on that 70% number. Thank you. And is the— does that survey delineate between Alaska residents and non-residents?

I He did not know. It was just a yes or no question. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Appreciate your testimony today. Maurice Enright.

Is Maurice here?

Moving on to Michael Jackson, followed by Shannon Ford Ward and Jason Whiting. Is Michael here? Come on, guys.

Giddy up. Hey, so I'm calling a few names to let you know when you're coming up, and to keep things moving along today, I would appreciate it if people kind of queued up closer to the front if your name is coming up so that we don't have to walk— watch you take your time walking down the aisle. Not you, sir, necessarily. But this is a— this is something that I just would appreciate people doing. Thank you for calling me, sir.

You don't know how much that means to me. All right. Well, thank you for being here. Welcome to the table. Please put yourself on the record and begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, board members, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Michael Jackson. I'm a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay. I own a boat and permit.

My wife owns a permit. And I've been involved in the fishery for over 37 years.

Kenai River Sports Fishermen Association Proposal 61 confuses me. I fished Alaska for 48 years captaining vessels, and yet I still can't find the Kenai River on any Bristol Bay chart. Why is it then that Kenai River Sports Fishermen Association is weighing in on Bristol Bay Stock of Concern management plan? Why do they want to take real-time management options available to the area manager options that are based on science research and replace them with a simplistic hard date that has not been researched and goes against every ACC, every commercial fisherman, and every stakeholder in the region. Why?

Because Proposal 61 is an allocation plan cloaked as a conservation plan. It's put forth by the Kenai River Sports Fishermen Association, who see an opportunity to reduce commercial harvests for the benefit of rich out-of-state sports fishermen at the cost of watershed residents and coastal communities. If truly concerned about king conservation, they could take their millions in lobbying dollars and fund a research study on the mortality rates of kings with catch and release. The Pacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory conducted just this study, with results being posted in 2024. They're on the record concluding that king mortality from catch and release results in a range from 15 to 40%.

RC-18 points out the fallacy of Proposal 61 as an effective replacement for the King Salmon Staka Concern Management Plan. Here are the numbers. If Proposal 61 was in effect for the 3-year period between 2022 and 2025, it would have resulted in an increase of 3,500 kings total, foregone harvest of 8.7 million sockeye, with a loss of $55 million in revenue.

The stock of concern management plan has only been in place for 3 years. The life cycle of a king salmon is 5 to 7 years. Why change something that hasn't had a chance to fully test the methodology and its effectiveness? Nobody denies that king salmon numbers are declining, but as Tim Sands stated in testimony, we could have suspended all commercial harvest in the Nushagak District and still would not have met escapement goals. This is not a harvest issue.

This is a biological issue. It's got many components. It's got warming oceans, predation, bycatch, and the fact that the forage fish that king salmon feed on have lost 50% of their nutritional value. What this means is king salmon have to eat twice as much just to maintain their size. They're not able to do this, and the results are smaller king salmon resulting in lower fecundity, meaning much less smolt stock migrate.

Let science dictate the path forward and let the professionals in charge of our river systems do their jobs and not some fixed date that hasn't been— not been proven.

I've made a living for my family in Bristol Bay, but more than that, I've made a life. I want to, I want to point out that Bristol Bay is a special place. It's the largest annual migration on the planet. I may not live in Bristol Bay, but Bristol Bay lives in me. Thank you, Michael.

Any questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Shannon Ford Ward, followed by Jason Whiting, Tav Amu, and Peter Angason.

Welcome, Shannon. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the board, I am Shannon Ford Ward. I am a South Naknek setnetter. I am also a direct marketer. I retain and keep all of my catch and sell it directly year-round. Seafood is my livelihood.

My family has been fishing for many generations. In the Gold Rush, they came to Alaska. We now have the 4th and 5th direct generations fishing on my exact site. My daughter is 9 and she's ready to take over. Last year, between my own business and various industry associations such as ASMI— I'm not employed by ASMI.

I'm a volunteer on advisory boards. I spend a lot of time with the public and love to seafood champion Alaska, its culture, its history, its richness, the wonderful things that we have to offer to the world.

I chose 3 things to focus on. I have many opinions and I'm happy to give them later if anyone's interested, but first thing I'd like to talk about is Prop 57, I support this. We have had increased gear conflicts between set and drift. A more orderly fishery is desirable. We don't want to have these conflicts.

Endangerment of life and gear lowers economic stability of our communities and families. Uh, it also negatively impacts the public perception of of our fishery, our fishermen, and our fine seafood products if we're fighting amongst ourselves. Alaska should stand for well-managed and sustainable resource management. I'm not in favor of adding extra laws, but perhaps we have had so many new permit holders and boat owners who may not understand or be aware of the area designations and the potential impact impact of interactions. On the stock of concern proposals 44 and 61 to 68, I am opposed.

A well-researched plan is already in progress after much effort, and if we make changes now, this may disrupt the data that's already been accumulated, especially due to the life cycle of the king salmon. Finally, on proposal 92, I oppose It's talking about closing our district by July 25. By July 25, we usually have a few direct marketers and locals who are still fishing, including myself. Often I'm the only one on our beach. You can ask our local Fish and Game office.

I'm the one who calls and reports one king, one pink, 2 pounds. That's the only data that exists. Yesterday there was testimony about not having the funding to have data at certain points of the fishery. By allowing these few small community members to continue to fish, we are getting data and not costing the department any additional funding. So that's a side benefit.

It's not impacting the biological returns. Escapement has been met, so there's no reason to close the district by July 25th. And I'm going to close there. I may have more time. See, perfect.

Thank you for the opportunity. Well done, Shannon. Any questions? Mr. Wood? Yeah, later in the season, what species are you predominantly catching?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, when we— when the sockeye finish, we start getting more pinks, and there's usually a little bit of a lull before the silvers come in, depending if it's odd or even year. And some years the sockeye continue to come in, but usually then it transitions to pinks and silvers.

Do you have a pretty good market for the silvers? It just— broad terms. Through the chair, Mr. Wood, yes I do, and I'm always sad when I have to leave early because I like them myself, and I really like promoting additional species beyond the expected and offering a wider selection to my customers. Plus they taste to me Um, just delicious. So I love them.

Thank you. Yep. All right, thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Jason Whiting.

Welcome. Appreciate the time, uh, to listen to what we have to say, Madam Chair and the board. My name is Jason Whiting, general manager of Brooks and Grovener Lodges, representing sledventure operators of Brooks, Grosvenor, Kulik, and Mission Lodges in support of Proposal 104. Um, just always wanted to clarify and add some depth for anything necessary. The fisheries detailed in these proposals are primarily catch-and-release sport fisheries for rainbow trout and other non-salmon species.

And so there's very minimal, outside of a small portion on the Brooks River where people are actively looking to take and harvest salmon. That may be needing a barbless hook or a barbed hook to help them in that process. On the topic of fishing with barbless hooks, we all understand direct mortality improvements would be small, but they would make a positive benefit and would fit very well into the conservative management system that already exists. This regulation would be an easy proactive way to actively maintain a quality fishery rather than being reactive and waiting for change in the systems before we try and make improvements. For fish release timing, all of these rivers, anglers and bears are in close proximity fishing together.

However, there's also a third party, the National Park Service, that gets pushed heavily by an outside opinion to limit and even close angler access on all of these rivers. A section of the Brooks River was closed this fall due to these exact issues of anglers and being able to get— giving fish to bears, in effect. Decreasing fish handling time due to barbless hooks will not only help maintain positive bear-human interactions but also help keep the rivers open. On the topic of guest or even visitor experience, the vast majority of anglers in these spaces are guided, and so with good guiding, less— even less skilled anglers have more than enough chances to be successful successful even with barbless hooks. And in our experience, a guest catching a fish with multiple hooks stuck in its face is far more detrimental to their experience being in remote Alaska than losing a fish that may or may not have been a result of a barbed hook.

In the end, it's a very simple-to-implement regulation that would benefit, benefit these fisheries. Thank you. Thank you, Jason. Any questions? Appreciate your testimony.

Thank you for being here too.

Tav.

Welcome.

Thank you, board members, for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Tav Aumoo. I represent myself. I live on Chugyung land in Dillingham. I grew up in Dillingham and Aleknik Gik, where my mom was an educator and my dad was a commercial fisherman.

My first season fishing in the bay was when I was 12 on my dad's boat, and I started running my, my own operation 6 years ago. I also have a master's degree in marine systems and policies from the University of Edinburgh. I am grateful that I have the ability to come to Anchorage to attend the Board of Fish, but want to say that by holding this forum here and not in Bristol Bay, where the decisions drastically impact the residents, whether they fish or not, It's disenfranchising rural participation and engagement in the process by holding these sessions in Anchorage. It is also creating the opposite effect by encouraging a larger proportion of outsider opinion and engagement. Fishing communities are going through very tough times these days, and stacking permits is a leap in the wrong direction.

Therefore, I strongly oppose proposals 7576, 77, and 78. I'm very concerned about the economic prosperity for rural Alaska. Particularly Bristol Bay. With permit migration and the graying of the fleet, we've seen the economic impetus of the commercial fishing industry steadily leave Bristol Bay. Permit stacking will increase the startup costs for new entrants and make small-scale operations less competitive.

High-power fast boats with large holding capacity are becoming the norm. The ability for a new rural Alaskan entrant to afford that sort of boat is substantial, and if they also had to compete with established boats that had stacked permits, permits, they would have next to no opportunity to have a net positive operation. Permit stacking would consolidate wealth and further deter local new entrants. I would like to highlight two research publications from 2020. Dr. Marcus Go's research points out that dual permit regulatory action succeeded in attracting young fishermen.

However, the new entrants are mostly from out of state. That is, from an Alaskan perspective, the dual permit regulations has attracted attracted the wrong kind of new entrants. And although there is general agreement that limited entry has helped prevent overfishing, there has been concern that limited entry may have contributed to the decline of local participation in some fisheries. The second piece is Alexander Kotlerov's research. He refers to permit sharing and stacking in Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay specifically, saying that this program was intended to make it possible for young fishermen to enter the fishery without the need to purchase a vessel as well as a limited entry permit.

Unfortunately, in practice, this program has helped more non-resident fishermen than resident fishermen. Bristol Bay should not stack permits. While I understand the impetus and value of dual permit operations, I think that has even itself proved to be a fallacy. Stacking permits would be a big mistake that would hasten the permit migration and increase the barrier to entry for new fishermen. If we want the sustainability in our fisheries, we also need sustainability in our permitting programs.

To reiterate, I oppose proposals 75 through 78. Thank the Board of Fish for holding this meeting, allowing me to speak. Thank you, Tav. Appreciate your comments. Any questions?

Thank you for being here today. Peter Angerson, followed by Jesse Rogers and Richard Wilson and Carol Viserjan.

Hi, Peter. Welcome.

Hello.

Thank you, Madam Chair and board of— the members of the board. My name is Peter Angson.

I am a local Wrister Bay drift fisherman. I have lived in King Salmon my entire life.

I also sat netted for 30 years.

I'm opposed to Proposition 75 to 78. Regarding permit stacking, allowing single person to own 2 Bristol Bay drift permits and fish an extra 50 fathoms of gear would take the little guy out of the picture. I'm the school of hard knocks.

It would be difficult for the local resident to to make a living. Many of our local folks rely on current D permit systems, system which would essentially go away. Permit prices would go up and greed would take over, and those who can afford to purchase an additional permit an additional permit.

BBEDC is essential in helping young local watershed residents entering the fishery. Their permit loan program has seen benefits with the current D permit system to help get in— help to help to get the younger generation involved in the fishery. This allows them to enter the fishery without taking the extra capital of purchasing and managing the entire fishing operation until they are ready.

I am also opposed to 82-91 to change the 32-foot boat length regulation. The 32-foot regulation is essential in keeping a fair and equal, equal fishery between the local and non-local locals, and has been in place for decades. I was the one who voted for that, by the way, would be named.

I encourage you to read if you haven't already. They have been— they can be found in RC 8. Changing the 32-foot regulation to allow bigger boats will cause bigger problems, and this place among the fleet will become greater than it is already. Is, and greed will consume those who are able to afford larger vessels.

What we'll have now preserves and preserve our life for the future of Bristol Bay to come. I support Proposition 55 to appeal the River Coho System Management Plan The department has not been encountering Coho salmon in Inushaagak for many years. It is impossible to manage Coho without data. We need data. Thank you.

Do you have a concluding statement? Because your time has elapsed. Okay. Well, basically, I'd just like to use common sense. I've fished all my life, 60-some years.

It's in my blood. But more so, I was going to show you something.

In the end result, this is our main purpose. When we could take home and Grandma could take home, you know, fish, as kohosamana, whatever they're catching. This is important. We need to preserve our king salmon and our salmon in general. But in order to do that, we have to look at the whole logistics of how and why all this is happening.

I could go even further, but I don't think I want to. But I think common sense has to prevail. Thank you, Peter. And I would encourage you, if you are going if you are going to be in town to stick around for committee of the whole because I think we would all benefit from some of your insights in the committee process. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Appreciate you being here.

Jesse Rogers.

Again, folks, please move to the front if I have— if you know you are coming up. As much as I appreciate the the walk. We got a lot of people to go through. Hi, Jesse. Welcome.

Hello, Madam Chair. Hi, my name is Jesse Rogers. I'm from Dillingham. I'm a watershed resident. I represent myself.

I grew up subsistence fishing in my mom's Yup'ik culture. Subsistence is one of the most important values my mom taught me. I spent part of my summers at my mom's fish camp. At Lewis Point First Village growing up. Lewis Point is approximately 12.5 miles east of Dillingham and Nishikak Bay.

We used to have no problems filling our smokehouses, fish racks, freezers back in the 2000s and most of the 2010s. The run is weak. It's not even half what it used to be. My mom still uses her— my auntie and her family still uses their Lewis Point cabin. And she said it's hard to get the kings she needs for her family and extended family.

Kings are fewer and smaller. My relatives from Nushtioq on the Nushgiak River said the traditional hotspots for getting kings don't apply anymore. They have to go other places to get them. The kings could be running deep. Maybe they're in the channel instead of running alongside the bank.

It helps to have the right wind for them to push strong. If you don't get the kings in One or two waves, they show up, then you're most likely going to come up empty-handed. Nowadays we usually settle for silvers to fill our smokehouses and freezers. I'm a commercial fisherman as well. I drift each summer.

Commercial fishing is an important part of my life. I would not be able to afford my year-round subsistence activities and provide for others if I didn't fish. I don't want to see any more restrictive Nishigaakingsound management plan like Proposal 61. Than the one we currently have. Keep the Nishnabeg management plan as is.

Management needs the ability to be flexible so there's not so much foregone harvest for the commercial fishery. In case of an early push of reds, we need that flexibility to be ready to go earlier. Closure to a date like June 28th is not great early on. We're all fishing ebb. I give credit and appreciate our Nishnabeg biologist, how he lets fish trickle each tide's opener so it doesn't become a line fishery in the Nushagak.

We need more time to understand the current, uh, King Salmon Management Plan. It's Juneau's job to help preserve the king run for future generations. For extending the 32-foot drift boat length regulation, our bay doesn't need longer boats. What reason for? Look at all the big boats on sale on the brokerage websites.

Interest payments and insurance are too high. Guys are selling big boats. When we were cycling back to smaller runs, having a longer drift boat regulation really hurt our region's local drift fleet. The fishery has really evolved with bigger, faster, shallower boats. 32-Foot regulation creates an equal playing field.

I don't see much issues with items that don't add extra planing surface and flotation as exceptions, like in Proposal 85. My last thought on permit consolidation. Proposals stacking with 2 permits, 1 owner, proposal 75 through 78, would only hurt rural Alaska and Bristol Bay region. We don't need any more outward migration of permits in our region that those proposals would do. Any young fishermen want to get in this fishery would only create a bigger gap and barriers to entry.

Thank you guys for your time. Thank you, Jesse. Perfect timing, you had 1 second left on the clock. Well done, sir. Um, Mr. And then Mr. Wood.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, Mr. Rogers, for traveling to testify, and thank you for sharing with us your testimony. So I just had a question regarding— you started off your testimony speaking about being subsistence fishermen and you and your mother seeing, um, that reduced number of kings in your area. Um, however, you're also a drift commercial fisherman, and so what this board has before us is, um, is a struggle between ensuring that we're providing reasonable opportunity for economic gain through the different fisheries while still acknowledging that there's a need to protect salmon. Being in both fisheries, do you have any suggestions or advice for the depart— for the— this board on how we continue to manage conservatively for kings but allow that opportunity?

Um, I think you guys are doing good. I mean, they're allowing for as much subsistence opportunity and Conservation and management, it could be a painful thing when the numbers are low. I think we just need another board cycle or two after this to evaluate that King Salmon Management Plan. I think it's doing its job, it's intended to do. It's not an easy position for sport fishermen and a drift and commercial fishermen including drift and setnet.

And I mean, I know early on we lose some time on the front end, but it's— it'll help, it'll help preserve our future King Salmon stocks.

Yeah, thank you. Follow-up. So, um, so you just said that, um, you might lose a few days in the beginning. So do you agree that there should be a later start date than June 21st? Um, no.

Well, our biologist is doing a good job, and I mean, like, we fish like, uh, like first 2 years on a storm, and this last year we didn't get pounded on a storm. And I mean, it wasn't the date, the 28th. I mean, usually we'd start around Father's Day in July— I mean, in June. So I think it's doing its job. I mean, we're going to miss probably like 20,000 pounds easily drifting.

And I don't know what it'd be for setting in, but we got to sacrifice a little bit on the front end to help get those king salmon up the river. Kwé Ana. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I remember Irwin actually asked my exact question.

It's nice to have you testify because you can tell you're caught between the rock and the hard spot up there. So having your perspective on how this current plan is working and how it affects you in both directions is really helpful. Thanks for your testimony. Thank you. Thanks for being here today.

Richard Wilson.

Welcome.

Madam Chair, members, other agencies.

Richard Wilson, lifetime resident of the Bristol Bay region and the watershed there. And I'm here this morning because I'm the one that submitted 45, 46, and 47. And it was meant to be a package deal. And the reason behind 45 is what I'm trying to do is see if we can change the dates from the ending registration date from the 17th of July and extend it out to the 22nd. And the 22nd date kind of mirrors the date we have for the conservation of kings were restricted under a mesh size of 5.5 up until that point.

And so I was working with the biologists of our area and helping to formulate some of my ideas here. And Travis was very helpful, and thank him for that.

So my attempt is just to slow down the traffic coming into the Naknekwejak because The season has been going strong. You end up on the 17th, the department is still trying to get, you know, our escapement numbers up the river. And we all know that the fleet is getting very, very efficient there. And so they've been in a in the past, the Naknek Cuijak starts off with a very low count of boats. They're moving to other districts because the Cuijak has a later run timing, and it used to be around the 4th of July, but now I think it's probably even greater than a week.

It's been delayed. So, so that's why I was encouraged by these other numbers to extend it on to the second before you have to drop the— up until that point, up until the 17th, a drifter still, still has to— if you're going to transfer into the Naknekwejak, you still, you still have to wait a 48-hour period. And after the 17th, that is gone at this— under current regulations. So extending it out to 5 days gives the department an opportunity to still, you know, with the traffic flow, be able to adjust the traffic flow. I mean, his escapement with the traffic flow, because a lot of times people are out there waiting, they see jumpers outside the district in our, in our, in our mixing area, mixing zone, and then it could be one tide and zoom, up they go.

And if And these other boats from other districts, if it's an open, open gate, they'll just come right in. And it makes it harder for our, our agency to try to, try to get our escapement goals. So that was— that's the intent of that, because our— like I said, the fleet is, is very good at what they do and very fast nowadays. They can move from one district to the next in a matter of— in a couple of hours. So that's the gist of my reasoning here.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard.

So, the 17th is currently the date in regulation. Can you give me an idea? And I know it's different from year to year about how many boats can move into that area after the 17th when the registration time— just generally speaking, is it a lot? Is it— is it— it obviously depends probably on what kind of run there is. But through the chair, um, yeah, it can be.

You know, it's the run timing, and every disc course we all have heard, it's all different, you know. So what happens is, uh, throughout the season, um, Fish and Game is you know, they have their numbers and you can look it up and you can see where the numbers are coming in on a daily basis. But after that, all of the canneries and their fishermen, they've got, you know, great communication with their fleet. And this allows them to give them recent numbers on who's there, what, you know, what the run is doing. And so things can happen real quick.

And it's— and being the last, one of the last runs in the Bay System, everybody else has had an opportunity to go between Egegak and Nushigak. And, you know, and the Kwiijak and Yugashik, kind of— the Yugashik is pretty small, but the Kwiijak, when everybody rushes to the Kwiijak because majority of those boats get get reared up in Naknek after they're done, after the fleet's done. Majority of the boats, if you've ever been in Naknek, you see all these boatyards just full of boats. So they're— No, I appreciate that. I appreciate the clarification.

And so the other part of my question was, you have 3 proposals here. Really what you want is the content in all 3 of those, you really would actually like it in one. Is that Am I correct in hearing you say that? Yeah, that's correct. In order to have to change the registration dates, I was helped out by Mr. our biologist there to notify me that I have to break this down into 3 separate ones because they all intertwine because of the allocation.

It would also be extended 'cause if it was the 17th, the allocation goes away.

And then that also creates a havoc for setnetters because there's no more allocation. I mean, that could, some years it does, all depends on if they're running on the beach or not. But, and then his ability to open and close the season. So they're all intertwined. Coming out for 45 minutes.

Thank you. Thanks. All right. Thanks for your testimony today. Kirill Basargin, followed by Jordan Larson, Zachary Larson, and Stosh Anderson.

Welcome. Good morning, board. My name is Kirill Basargin. I'm a 4th generation fisherman. I have been on the I have been an IPHC committee member for approximately 11.5 years.

I'm here to address the board that they are taking up too much power and not listening to the fishermen. There are only 4 main sectors: the subsistence, set net, drift, and sport. The local communities and fishermen elected the board to help set regulations on their behalf. Not their way or not the other way around where the board decides what is good for the communities and fishermen. It's unconstitutional.

The fishermen elected the board, not the government for the government. The Board of Fish was designated to represent, not to have power over and set laws or regulations without approval of local communities and fishermen.

The Board of Fisheries was elected by local fishermen community to help set regulations on their behalf, not to impose rules without their input. The Alaska Constitution, Article 8, Section 2 states the legislation shall provide in utilization, development, and conservation of natural resources. Alaska Constitution, Article 8, Section 2. A recent court order case, Loftstad v. Ramando, found that the Regional Fishery Management Council structure was unconstitutional because its members were not appointed by the president, highlighting concerns about the appointment process for fisheries management bodies.

Also, enforcement have been writing comments and setting regulations with which is unacceptable. They're crossing a line that is not of their concern. Enforcement is there to protect and serve, not to harass, assault, racial discriminate, or set laws in place. The enforcement was asked to protect against assault that has been violated, violated since the 1980s. Fishermen for fishermen, not government for government.

Enforcement taking over the fishery, running their own laws, harassing assault, incriminating, racial discriminating. We have evidence of this corruption. Enforcement promised the communities will not do this anymore. There was supposed to be a lawsuit in place by the communities of Alaska because there is evidence of troopers singling out, racial discriminating against fishermen. The communities sided with Paul Seaton when Paul Seaton was representing Kenai Peninsula.

Many communities forgave the enforcement that they have been corrupted since the 1980s the community never went through the lawsuit. The evidence is still there. Enforcement promised they'll quit. What's happening is even worse. Forgiveness was given, enforcement got worse because they got away with it again.

Enforcement started getting away with everything, picking sides, giving leeways to friends and family of their own, and prosecuting others which they hate. Enforcement becoming one-sided who they love and who they hate. This is unconstitutional and illegal. There will be consequences.

Thank you, Carol. Do you have a concluding statement? I do. Okay, quickly please. I'm lost.

Give me one second. Um, we are We're proposing 83. We have a yes. Leaving the fishermen stranded out without markets, so fishermen have to self-market to sell their own fish. Terrible weather conditions.

A 32-foot vessel in this area is a little small. A 35-foot vessel would be a little better for that. On proposal 62 is a no. I need a concluding statement, and if you don't have one, then I'm going to conclude your time, sir. [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] I actually don't have enough time to go through these proposals that we have, but since we are on a time crunch, this is where I end.

The conclusion is, look at the laws and regulations. The Constitution was set in place for the public to govern the government, not the other way around. The government was not in place to control fishermen. Fishermen, SETNET, are there to give the board recommendations so the board can follow through on their behalf. Thank you, sir.

Are there any questions? And I encourage you to stick around for Committee of the Whole we can get into your individual recommendations for each of the proposals when we get into the committee work. Appreciate it. Thank you. Jordan Larson.

All righty.

Madam Chair, board members, hello. Officer DeGraaff, we're Happy to have you here too, by the way. Go Troopers! Hello, Board of Fish. My name is Jordan Larson and I am the author of Proposal 102, also co-owner of Tokiak River Lodge.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For background, in 2022 at the Bristol Bay meeting, the board passed Proposal 29, which eliminated the use of bait, prohibited adult king retention, and restricted targeting of kings above Gishik Creek on the Togiak system. In 2023, at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting, the board passed Proposal 256, allowing bait for targeting species other than king salmon after July 16th, which we are greatly appreciative of. In hindsight, the board's decision in 2022 was also very positive and has created a beautiful catch-and-release king fishery that we love. Proposal 102 seeks modest adjustments to further balance opportunity and conservation while still minimizing impacts on kings and expanding opportunity for sockeye.

To clarify our intent and avoid confusion, here is what we are proposing. Adult, adult king retention will remain prohibited on the Togiak. We have no interest in ever proposing a retention season for adult kings. As a lodge policy, We do not support using cured salmon eggs to target any fish in June and July. Proposal 102 would expand the area for Ketchikan Alees King Salmon from the mouth of Geeshik Creek upstream to the mouth of the Pongapuk River and no farther.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies from 2009 to 2012 show that kings prefer deeper mainstem channel spawning habitat, with the majority spawning above the Pongapuk in the mainstem and in tributaries. Anecdotal sport angling evidence from the past decade aligns with this, indicating far more spawning activity above the Pongo than in the roughly 4-mile stretch between the Gishik and mouth of the Pongopuk River. The current Gishik boundary is ambiguous and poorly defined. The mouth of the Pongopuk is a universal landmark marking the start of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and is a more defined boundary that we feel would help enforcement Proposed 102 would open bait use 5 days earlier with the intent to target sockeye.

In late June and early July, our lodge is the primary sport fishing presence targeting Ketchikanalees kings, as other fly-in operations focus on the Nushagak or Good News, where king retention is legal. Overall angler volume on the Togiak is very low compared to other Bristol Bay systems. We've reduced our capacity from 24 to 14 anglers, and from June 21st to July 11th, have gone to spay anglers only in this time frame, significantly reducing overall encounters with kings and reducing pressure. By July 11th, the king run has dwindled significantly, which is when sport anglers pivot their attention to sockeye, chum, rainbows, and pinks. These measures are designed to minimize king interactions while pursuing sockeye with very low bycatch and mortality risks.

We fully understand concerns about Togiak king salmon impacts but Proposal 102 maintains safeguards for kings on a low-use river while other Bristol Bay systems still allow adult king harvest. Thank you. Thank you. So just that I'm correctly understanding, so is it— I'm reading your proposal here and I just want to make sure that I understand it. It's not dealing with area specifically.

It's just the moving the base allowance date earlier? It's opening bait 5 days earlier from July 16th to July 11th, and it is opening the area to target catch-and-release king salmon 4 miles from the mouth of Geesha Creek to the mouth of the Pongapuk River and no farther up. And just to clarify, yesterday on the map when the biologists were doing their presentation on the Togiak, it showed the Pongapuk potentially being open to king fishing per our proposal. I just want to clarify, the boundary would only be to the mouth of the Pongapuk. We have no interest going up that river.

Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions? Miss Irwin, then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for traveling, for giving testimony. I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to submit your testimony as an RC. You mentioned some of the geographical locations that I'm, I'm just not as familiar with, and I would like to familiarize myself myself so that I better understand your proposal? Through the chair, absolutely. And I did reference a U.S.

Fish and Wildlife study that's like 38 pages long, so I didn't submit it as an RC. I'm happy to give that to you guys if you would like it as well. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you for your testimony.

Um, I, I think the thing that I'm interested to know from your opinion is if you were to relax some of this Isn't it going to be difficult for enforcement if you're fishing, let's say, for rainbows?

How can enforcement tell that you're not actually targeting kings with bait? That's a great question. And maybe Officer DeGraaff can weigh in on this. That's something that I raised. That's a question I raised in our proposal.

Right. So I asked the question, if I'm above the Gishik and whether I'm using bait or whether I'm fly fishing for rainbows or chums, a lot of time there can be bycatch and am I going— are we going to get written a ticket for catching a king while we're targeting something else above the boundary? And the answer was, well, as long as the king is released into the water immediately, which is the regulation anyway, then the answer is no. So I don't— that's a question that we would like answered as well, absolutely. Well, I mean, I think I agree with you generally But I think that, you know, while your lodge may sure have the highest level of practices in place, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the case for everybody.

And so I think that it's— I'm curious if you— I understand the question. Thought about a little bit of a way to be able to disseminate. Sure. I certainly can't speak on the behalf of the other 3 outfitters that fly into the Togiak, but as I stated, You know, the traffic on the river really doesn't pick up until late July when they start coming in to floss reds. I mean, it's on most days through, I'll say, July 20th, we're not seeing any other sport fishing user groups on the river.

Okay, appreciate it. Do you need bait to floss reds? Absolutely not. Yeah, okay, just checking. Mr. Swenson.

Well, isn't a way that that's an enforcement might get in on this too? Too, but if you're fishing kings, you're going to— like around where I'm familiar with, they don't allow you to use, you know, if you're out there fishing with king gear, heavy line, big lures, it's obvious you're fishing for kings and not fishing for smaller fish. I'm assuming that that's taken into consideration here too, isn't it? Again, I think that would be a question for enforcement, but Absolutely, like, it's pretty definitive for most people that you're specifically targeting kings or not based off the gear that you're using. But my— the kind of the question I was posing is, if we're fishing for sockeye above the boundary with small marabou jigs, as we do, and a trooper flies over and sees that we've just released a king that we've caught in bycatch, are we gonna get written a ticket?

That's the question. So OK, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jordan. Appreciate your testimony today.

Zachary Larson, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and board members, other agency staff enforcement. I am Zach Larson. I'm co-owner of Togue Yaak River Lodge and co-author of Proposal 102. I want to thank you for your proactive approach to king salmon management within the Togiak Basin that started in '22 at the Bristol Bay Finfish meeting, followed by the passing of Proposal 256 at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting in 2023. Our goal in proposing the use of bait for an additional 5 days is not with kings in mind, but to further pursue sockeye by means other than flossing.

We have developed a conventional gear and bait program that we believe is applicable across the state bait to effectively target sockeye by anglers of varying skill sets that could largely take pressure off of struggling kings. I cannot stress enough that my preference would be to limit the use of salmon eggs as bait. If any board members were to amend our proposal to outlaw the use of eggs, we would be supportive of that, as that was something that we pushed for in Proposal 256 at the 2023 Lower Cook Inlet meeting. We believe in areas where bait and chumming are of issue, 102, Proposals 101 and 103 as examples. These issues arise from the use of salmon eggs, which proved to be deadly effective.

We understand that Proposal 102, as currently worded, would allow all types of bait to be used on the Togiak. Please know that for our uses, we further our commitment made in 2023 to not utilize salmon eggs as bait out of respect for the board and their decision to protect Togiak kings and out of immense respect for what kings provide to local communities. Our proposal is twofold. It also seeks to establish a clearly defined and practical boundary for targeting kings. Prior to 2023, anglers could target and harvest adult kings over a 65+ mile stretch of the mainstem Togiak.

Currently, anglers are only allowed to retain jack kings, which are harvested or targeted below the mouth of the Gishik River around river mile 14. Now, this proposal would move that boundary 5 miles upstream to the mouth of the Pongapuk River at the established boundary for the Togiak Wilderness Area. This equates to a roughly 9% increase in area to legally target kings, but an area not widely used as a primary spawning ground for kings. This is a conservative request in light of the 79% reduction of mainstem area available to sport anglers in 2023. Currently, kings encountered in this area must be released without being removed from the water.

Under this proposal, adult kings over 20 inches would still be required to be released without being removed from the water. In proposing this boundary, it is not with harvest in mind. It is to establish a universal boundary that aligns with our current guided sport fishing boundary for all species. We have changed our business model to align with the policies set forth by the board. From June 21st through July 11th, we have decreased our anglers on the water by 42%.

Our own policy— by our own policy, this time frame is now fly fishing only, catch and release for all species. Average king salmon interactions have gone from 50 to 100 per day corporately as a lodge pre-2023 to less than 25 interactions per day during that same time frame post-2023. We have reduced our king interactions by 2 to 4 fold. This model is sustainable and aligns with the conservation measures established by the board. Thank you.

Thanks, Zach. Any questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. You guys sure are ingenious. I love how you think out of the box. How do you access that area up there? You flying in or you— how do you get up there?

Yeah, so we personally fly into the village of Togiak and then we take boats upstream to the lodge, which is roughly river mile 6, and then we're accessing the Togiak Basin with jet boats. All right, thank you. Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony.

My question is, we heard some accounts earlier of some catch and release mortality of king numbers, 15% to 40%. Could you give me maybe an idea? It doesn't have to be percentage, but just a rough idea of, you know, you're working in this river system with catch and release constantly. What is that mortality looking like? What are you releasing kings that you know aren't going to continue to be able to survive, or what does that look like?

Yeah, through the chair. Yeah. King mortality numbers for catch and release interactions, they do vary widely across the board. I think it's important to note in those studies the means that were used to catch those fish, and the 15 to 40% numbers have come up in a number of different studies, but specifically where bait is used primarily, and bait singularly on a hook, not in addition to another lure. That was a method that was readily in use prior to our ownership and management of the lodge.

And I would agree that mortality rates on kings fishing salmon eggs specifically on a bare hook are incredibly high. With what we're doing now on fly gear or even just artificial lures in general, I would say that the, the state published numbers of somewhere between 6 and 10% are probably a lot more accurate. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Stosh Anderson.

Hi, Stosh.

Madam Chair, board members, good morning. My name is Stosh Anderson. I've fished in Alaska for over 50 years. I've fished in the bay for 50 years or so. 4 Generations of my family have fished in the bay.

I currently live in Kodiak, but I have lived in on the Kwijak River through the late '70s and through the '80s.

My written comments are PC8 for those who have had a chance to review them. Proposal 56. At the last board cycle, a legal definition was defined for the set-net sites on the Ekuk Bluff. I support that proposal and support repealing Section V, which is the sunset. Proposal 72, the General District RC-24 has been submitted, which base is based on Proposal 72, and I do support that.

Proposal 78, permit stacking. 80. I support permit stacking. I believe permit stacking is an economical way to achieve the CFEC optimum number study they done a few years ago, and I believe there's economic opportunity for all people to benefit and to participate in stacking.

80. I believe it's a good practice and traditional practice for setnetters to be able to co-mingle their fish and deliver. With one permit holder signing the fish ticket. I mean, it's— I don't think it degrades Fish and Game's ability to get the data. They can get the CPE rates pretty easy with the way this proposal is written.

Proposal 85. I do support a 32-foot limit, but I think Proposal 85 really addresses the issues properly with regard to the anchor rollers. It's listed in there. That's consistent with what is done in Southeast, and I think that's a very easy way to address the anchor roller issue. On the stern end of the vessel, there's a lot of apparatus that the fleet has done for both quality, safety, and, and other considerations.

I don't think it's wise to try to define it. I think that's very difficult for enforcement to enforce, but by defining an area that these apparatus can be in without increasing flotation, and the planing surfaces are defined to be not more than 18 inches from the overall length. There's little controversy in that. Is it 18 inches from the transom, or is it 18 inches from the overall length? And I think 18 inches from the overall length is the more appropriate number, and to use— that's what I got.

Thank you. Questions? Questions. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you.

Shannon Martin, welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Shannon Martin. I'm the executive director of the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association. I'm here today to testify on behalf of CRISA in support of our proposals 61 and 69. Krissa is a nonprofit dedicated to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Kenai River and Alaska's fisheries.

Conservation of king salmon is central to who we are as an organization. Krissa advocates for healthy fish habitat, sustainable sport fishing and personal use opportunities, and strong conservation measures that protect king salmon when stocks are in decline. We're governed by a diverse 20-member board of directors and supported by a professional consulting team with more than 100 years of combined fisheries management experience. Today, CRSA represents more than 4,000 members. Our board met to discuss the documented decline of Nishikagak King Salmon and voted to strengthen supporting— I'm sorry, voted to support strengthening the conservation provisions within the Stock of Concern Management Plan.

This decision followed conversations with stakeholders and a review of the available data. As with all positions Chris takes, our support is grounded in science and focused on rebuilding king salmon abundance so that these fish can once again fully reach the river and spawning grounds. Chris has realized over the years that management decisions in the rest of the state can have a ripple effect to other areas of the state. Therefore, we believe in regulatory consistency should be applied to all stock of concern action plans. We also believe regulations and management plans must be implementable, sustainable, and that the burden of conservation is shared.

In conclusion, we're here to advocate for stronger conservation measures on returning Nush-Kings in the existing Stock of Concern plan. We strongly support Proposal 61 and 69 and look forward to discussions this week. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Shannon. Any questions?

Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Martin, for your testimony. Um, you mentioned that for your authored proposals you had conversations with stakeholders. The testimony that we've heard coming out of the Bay today has been heavily in opposition, and so I was interested in what stakeholders did you engage with in writing these proposals?

Uh, we have stakeholders that are part of our membership that have fished the Nushagak and have been out to the Bristol Bay region.

Mr. Swenson. Shannon, I, I liked your comment that you're— and I think it rings true— that what happens here can also happen in all parts of the state. So by people not liking you here, I think that the stocks of concern and all those things should be universal in the state. So thank you for saying that.

All right, thanks, Shannon.

Up next is Kevin Delaney and Ray Beamsterfer. Welcome, Kevin.

Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for your service. My name is Kevin Delaney, and I'm a senior fishery management consultant for the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, and we are the authors of proposals 61 and 69. 61 And 69 seek to constructively address the Nushagak King Salmon Stock of Concern Action Plan. I want to start out by complimenting staff for the excellent oral reports presented at this meeting. I've been sitting through about 40 years of Board of Fish meetings, and the boys did a good job, the ladies too.

Secondly, I would like to state we recognize the work in good faith that went into the Stock of Concern Action Plan as it currently exists. Exists. I know most of those people, have worked with them for many years. That said, the plan as adopted and implemented in 2023, '24, and '25 has failed to meet the recovery goals that are stated in the plan. Additional restrictive measures are needed to be included by regulation in a rewrite of this plan.

Simply stated, we need to put a few more kings in the river. We need to put more eggs in the gravel. And we need to find the least egregious way in terms of loss of sockeye opportunity to do that. Proposal 61 seeks to do just that by holding off the onset of the commercial fishery until 9:00 a.m. in the morning on June 28th. This is the date that you find in the existing plan.

It's a very strongly supported date by historical records. This proposal achieves this by eliminating the triggers that would let the fishery go earlier in response to projecting a large number of sockeye bound back for either Wood or Nushagak.

A second aspect of 61 addresses the eggs in the gravel and the quality of the escapement by suggesting that up should a pulsing strategy be placed in regulation? I'll go back to my compliment to the staff. They're already working on this, and my opinion is that things that are done regularly should be in regulation so that people know ahead of time what's going on. It's transparency.

Again, that speaks to more eggs in the gravel. The department states in their comments that once a trigger point is met, the plan places the harvest of sockeye salmon above achieving the recovery goal for king salmon. There's no other way to look at that. We also— we agree with that. We also agree with the preamble language in the existing plan that speaks to maintaining opportunity for all user groups.

It's a balance, plain and simple, and therein lies the difficulty. If you're anything like me, you probably came away from the staff reports impressed that significant uncertainty exists, especially around enumeration. There is. What you did not hear—.

Just a concluding statement, Kevin, please. What you did not hear is the stock of concern designation is on unwarranted. You did not hear that we are consistently meeting the objectives in the Stock of Concern plan, whether it's the 55,000 SEG or the 95,000 in-river goal. You did not hear that this period of low abundance will be over soon. And you did not hear that there are no additional measures that could be taken.

In conclusion, the policy of management of sustainable salmon fisheries instructs us to invoke the precautionary principle possible in situations like this. I urge you to adopt Proposal 61 as an appropriate implementation of the precautionary principle. And thank you. Thanks, Kevin. Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Swenson.

Thank you, Kevin. So you have two proposals in here. You touched a lot on Proposal 61. I guess if you could briefly, like, touch on why you think the proposal you put in regards to 69 is so valuable. Madam Chair, through the Chair, Mr. Carpenter, thank you very much for that question.

As we travel around the state and look at regulatory construction, especially as it relates to the action plans around king salmon recovery goals, we see kind of an inconsistent approach. In each case, there are recovery criteria established by the board, but it's been various whether they end up in regulation or whether they simply exist in a finding or someplace else. And we're not going to get out of this king salmon decline and the troubles that it brings anytime soon, although, boy, I'd sure like to see that. But in the pursuit of regulatory consistency and transparency, I think it's really important that we put those recovery goals, like 3 years out of 5 achieving the ESG, whatever it is, in regulations so when a person picks up the book and looks at it, they know that. Thank you.

Mr. Swenson.

Thanks, Kevin, for your presentation. So I'm a little confused. So right now there's no hard date such as the 28th, is that correct? Right now in the existing Stock at Concern Action Plan, which frankly is very, very constructively put together, it puts all the targets up front and then gives you the tools.

What it says is that that the commercial fishery will not be initiated before 9:00 a.m. on June 28th unless a certain percentage of the projected run to Wood River or a certain percentage, 6 or 10%, I can't remember off the top of my head here, I'd have to look, is projected. And when it's projected The fleet goes in the water. And in the years, as you heard from the staff, since the plan was adopted, it's put the fleet in the water, I think, on the 24th or 25th, or last year on the night of the 22nd. But if you don't make that projection, if you don't see that large number of sockeye, then the season starts at 9:00 a.m. on the 28th. That date's already in the plan.

And it's very strongly supported by historical run timing. It's just past the 60— 55% point. Good number. That's how it works. So what if you raised it?

I mean, there's some triggers there now, as I understand it, for the— for the Nuche. Can you raise— those triggers could be raised then? Absolutely. Absolutely. And that was a pretty big part of the debate 3 years ago.

And between the staff and members of the original planning group that are in the audience here, you've got a lot of historical knowledge. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you, Kevin, for coming up from your home in Colorado and being here.

I also want to respect the number of years you've spent dealing with these Alaska issues. As a director yourself. I just was wondering, were you— I mean, since 2018, this plan that exists right now was put in process with a large number of stakeholders, including, you know, Board Member Ruffner, Marisky, and even Sport Fish Director Payton. Were you at the time part of those discussions that happened between 2018 and until present? I was not personally involved in the room, but back in 1992, I was a regional supervisor for the South Central Region, and I was one of the staff members that worked very closely with members of the public in Dillingham to adopt the original Nushagak/Molchatna King Salmon Management Plan.

Which stood the test of time, 1992 until 2020 or so, until the dramatic decline in kings. I know Jeff Ragnard— I'm not supposed to mention names here— but everybody that was on that team, with a couple of exceptions, are people that I've worked with for a whole career, and I kept in contact with them.

As you mentioned, there's a number of people in this audience that were part of that discussion as well. And we've heard a lot of testimony from them. So is it these proposals' point of view that that plan didn't go far enough in terms of the King Conservation versus Sakai Escapement? Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Wood, the data pretty much speaks for itself in that neither of the targets, neither the SEG range or the in-river goal range has been achieved in the years since the plan was adopted.

And so it's self-evident that if you— that additional restrictive measures need to be put in place if you want to achieve those targets. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Kevin. Thank you very much, We're going to invite Ray Beemsterfer up, and then we're going to conclude for the morning session. Welcome, Ray.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Ray Beemsterfer. I have been the salmon advisor for CRSA since the early 2000s, and today CRSA asked me to talk to you about their Proposals 61 and 69. Both of those proposals are intended to strengthen conservation of Nushagat Kings.

Since the stock of concern designation, the numbers have continued to decline under the current plan, and the last 3 runs were historically low levels. And we're now at the 7-year mark on escapement goals not being reached. And so the way to get out of it— more, more kings on the spawning grounds is the key to getting out of the hole that we're in. And the low escapements that we're seeing are going to prolong the low production cycle and create all the other associated management problems and costs. And at the same time, we're seeing huge sockeye numbers in the bay.

The catches and ex-vessel values have more than doubled in the last 10 years. This is the most heavily fished wild salmon stock on the planet, and the kings just simply can't sustain the same harvest rates that the— as the sockeye. But we do have very effective management tools for protecting the kings, and the dates, as Mr. Delaney talked about, and the stock of concern plan are the key. The the king and sockeye runs overlap, but the kings are about 10 days earlier on average. And so the biggest bang for the buck for the king production buck is to limit the commercial fishing in the early season when the kings are most abundant.

But the sockeye-based triggers that are in the existing plan have resulted in Nushagak commercial openers before 28 June 28th in every one of the 3 years since the existing plan was adopted, up to 6 days earlier in one year. And so Chris is asking the board to prioritize King rebuilding over sockeye opportunity by eliminating the triggers before June 28th, codifying the department strategy, limiting daily fish hours up to July 4th, and, and also clarifying the sport fishery management direction, where I think we heard yesterday there was some confusion in direction between the stock of concern plan and the regular management plan with respect to sport fishing. Thank you. Thanks, Ray. Any questions?

All right, appreciate your testimony today.

Thanks, everyone. I think what we'll do is take our lunch break now, and I will do second calls from the morning session at the beginning of our lunch session. So second calls will be for Tim Mickelson and Maurice Enright, both for his AC and personal testimony. And I believe those are the only second calls that I have. So let's come back together at 1:45, and we will pick up with public testimony beginning with those second calls.

See you then.

Welcome back, everybody. You had a tasty lunch. The time is 1:53. We're back on the record. I see 6 of 7 members present right now.

I know the 7th one is floating around. I just saw him a little bit ago. Okay, let's go ahead and pick up with our second calls and then we'll proceed down our public testimony list. So, Tim Mickelson, welcome. And you got 3 minutes, sir.

Put yourself on the record and begin when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, board troopers, for taking time to hear my concerns. My name is Tim Mickelson. I represent myself. I live in Wasilla, Alaska.

I'm a Bristol Bay fisherman, a boat owner, permit holder. My wife owns a permit that she fishes on our boat. Both my children own boats and permits, and we come from 5 generations of commercial fishermen in Alaska.

I started commercial fishing seining in Kodiak Togiak in the '80s and started fishing in Bristol Bay salmon and Togiak herring in the early '90s. I've been involved building Bristol Bay boats for over 30 years and have read 5 AAC 06.341, the vessel specifications, hundreds of times. I think I understand this area of the regulation quite well and was quite stunned by a few statements in the trooper's letters to fishermen a few years ago. The boat I built to these specifications and have fished without violation for nearly 30 years was all of a sudden no longer legal. When I showed the picture of my boat to the head trooper, stated— he stated that he would not have considered it illegal before the letter was written but was now firmly in a position that it was.

This brought me to a clear understanding of how differently fishermen and troopers view regulations. A fisherman views the regs through the lens of what is permissible, what can I do, and the troopers view it as what can't be done. A fisherman starts with what they need and then checks to see if it's allowed and creates a solution that fits in the regulation. An example of that would be In the proposals here, 83-5, they ask for the width of the jet intake to allow extra planing surface. As a fisherman, I would kind of take that backwards.

I would say, I want more planing surface, how can I get that? I can get as much as my jet intake is wide. So then I would say, well, how can I make my jet intake wider? Or how can I get a bigger jet? Or can I put more jets in?

It's just how, how we think as far as what we're trying to accomplish.

I spent many hours in discussions and emails with Trooper— trying not to do names. So here's my list of emails, and this doesn't include time I spent— I exhausted one of the troopers and he sent me to the head trooper.

And of the 4 issues that I had with the letter, We were able to come to agreement on 3 and we never did on 1. The message that I heard from them through all the stalemated disagreement was a frustration on enforceability of the regulation. Out of this was— I was impressed how important it is to have simple, clear, understandable language and that it be enforceable. As a fisherman, I need the troopers out on the ground enforcing regulations, not, not spending significant time and money fighting in court over what the regulations mean. So I wrote 4 proposals, one for simple clarification of— I believe that— oop, is that the time?

Yeah, why don't you go ahead and conclude your statement and then we'll get into the details when we get into committee. Okay. Please. I don't know what my conclusion would be. I wrote 4 proposals, 86, 87, 89, and 90.

I would say in conclude— the gillnet roller issue is the one I could never come to conclusion with. And I would say I wrote one to try and make a compromise. Though I'm not happy with this, I'm struggling to make something that is more definitively enforceable. I— this— and would still apply to most legal applications. This issue truly needs some creative thought and cooperative collaboration.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Question for you, Tim. What was the issue that you guys couldn't come to agreement around with respect to? I think you said it was the roller.

Yes, the gillnet roller is defined in the regulation by use only. It has no definitive length that the troopers can measure. It's not who made it, what it's made out of. Anything. And, and they're, they're frustrated with that.

And I love it. I think it's beautiful as a fisherman, you know. I can make anything to keep the net from tearing up on my boat. But for them, the, the sole use is very hard to— unless you have a video of somebody using it for something else, you can't prove it that somebody's using it not solely as a gillnet roller as defined. What would they be using it for otherwise?

Uh, I've had hours of discussions with the troopers and they believe that it's used— I mean, used for other things and that it's illegal. Okay. So I'm more on your perspective, but If it's built with a shelf in it, it can be used for a shelf. If it's built out flat or long ways, it could be a deck area or used for storage of some sort. I see.

I gotcha. That makes, that makes more sense. Any questions? All right, Tim, thanks for your testimony today. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Mike.

Yeah, real quickly, I'm going to ask a dumb question, but so I've seen the propulsion system on, uh, out like a prop boat. But can you explain to me, I, I, how would, what, the intake, the amount of room you need between the motor, the intake, and then the, the reverse gate on a jet? Like, what is the distance you're talking about there? Um, because I'm trying to put it into perspective of like where the motor is, where the intake is, and where the jet is. Like, how much room is needed for all of that?

And are the boats bumped out further so they don't interfere with the holding tanks, holding space for the fish? And you— we can talk about this separately later, but just a rough description of the plane because of the intake, the motor, the planing surface, the driveline, da da da da. Why does it take up so much space? Are you speaking about the air intake for the engines or the jet intake? The jet intake for water, yeah, to be picked up and spit out the other end.

Uh, the jet intake is not— I mean, it doesn't significantly— it's kind of underneath your transmission and stuff. It doesn't take up space really. So is the reason— is it— so the space that's being taken up is between the driveline, between the motor and the actual jet, or like, what— or is the motor hanging out the back of the boat? Like, what's, what's going on there? Is it all just reverse gate thrust?

I'm struggling with the meaning of your question. Is this about the gill net roller and why it's out over top? This is about, about the things that stick out. It's going to require a long protracted answer. I'd prefer we take it up in committee, but if he's got a quick one, then let's go for it.

Clearly I'm confused. We'll take it up later. Thank you. All right, thanks. Thanks, Tim.

Um, let's go ahead with Maurice Enright.

Hi Maurice, welcome. Are you planning to give your AC testimony first or your personal? Yes. All right, whenever you're ready, sir. Okay, um, I'm just going to go over the proposals that we oppose.

And, uh, okay, uh, 44 we opposed, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 we had no action on, 52 and 53 we opposed, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 we had no action. Then '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70, all the way through '70, '79 we opposed. '80 We supported. '81 We opposed. '82, '83 We had no action.

'84 We had no action. '85 We supported. '86 Through '94 we had no action. '95 We opposed. '96 Through '100 we had no action.

101 We supported. 102, 103, 104 We had no action. 105 We opposed. And that's pretty much on the AC. I think that's the fastest AC testimony I've ever heard.

And would you put yourself and your AC on the record, please, just so that we know? My name is Maurice Enright, and I'm representing Lower Bristol Bay Advisory Committee. Thank you. And quick question, what's the makeup of your advisory committee and what communities are included in it?

You know, I don't have that right offhand, but there's Port Hyden, I think Igigik, Pilot Point, Ugashik. I think Naktik's in there too, I believe. Gotcha. That neck of the woods. Got it.

All right. Any questions for Maurice on his AC testimony?

Well done, sir. How about your personal testimony? That one next. Okay, get it all out whenever you're ready. Okay, again, my name is Maurice Enright.

I'm a Ugashic Village settler. I've been fishing Ugashic Village since 1980, so 45 years. And I'm opposed to Proposal 79, which is to extend from 800 to 1,000 feet into the river. And I did propose 014, RC 014, which is a letter from 2011-2012 when the gentleman had— was out 1,000 feet and he had steel cables. And it was, you know, and then the letter, it says it was obstructing navigable water.

And now they want to go back out to 1,000 feet and we'll be in the same boat. And when it says the two that proposed this and Yugashik Village sat in letters, that's kind of a false statement because I know there was three comments sent in that oppose it that had no idea— or two comments that had no idea that this proposal was even on the table. So that's kind of a false statement when it says all set, you know, you got your village setting it. Like I say, I'm opposed to it, you know, like, and it's a danger being out that far. Then also I was looking at the, uh, uh, RC-011, um, and it shows 1,000 feet, but this is a Google map, and, you know, and that's not a real good representation of 1,000 feet.

How do you know it's it's exactly 1,000 feet. You know, a better system would be using GPS. You know, I could personally do that when I go home because the river's frozen now, and I could take exact spots. But another thing on there, there, you know, there's 11 setnet sites in the village, and the first setnet site, he's learned to— the gentleman that has that site, he's learned to deal with the mud, and he does pretty well. He did pretty well last year.

And, and so there's 5 households or 5 permit holders who each have one post, one site. Another gentleman has 2 sites and he only posts one site. And then the ones who proposed this proposal have 4 sites. They post 4 sites. And when it says in the thing that they can't fish to their full potential, that's kind of a false statement again.

Because I mean, you got 4 sites, one person fishes next to me, and then the other one, there's 2 sites empty on either side. So when they say they can't put all their gear out, you know, and we only fish, you know, the incoming— when they say, let's say they open at noon, we don't actually start— our tide don't come in for another 2, 2 and a half hours. Until we start fishing. So basically we fish the whole incoming tide and then the top of the— I have the last net up the river, and once the tide turns, about an hour, hour and a half after the tide turns, the fish quit hitting. So we, we just, uh, pull the nets.

So like I say, I hope you vote no on this, and thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony today. Questions? Miss Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony and for traveling today. My question is, I heard in your testimony that you were frustrated that the author of the proposal included the Yugashik Setnetters and that didn't necessarily include everybody's opinions, as it sounds. But what is your real concern or issue with this proposal? You mentioned danger. It's a danger because once— If it's dark outside, I mean, you got to try to navigate around it.

If it's rough, you got to go around it. And the tenders, if they're out there 1,000 feet, the water is not even— because like Chignik Seiner, I don't know what they draw, 7, 8 feet. They won't be able to make it around the end of the nets. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.

Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Yeah, um, thanks for your service on the AC too. Okay, up next is Phil Basargen, followed by Matt Marenkovich, Maureen Marenkovich, and Reed Tenkley.

So, hi Phil, welcome.

Hi, Madam Chair and the board. My name is Phil Basarjan. I've been born and raised in Alaska, and I've fished the bay since late 1980s. I have a few proposals I want to oppose to or in favor for. Proposal 62, I oppose that because if we move the date because of the kings, half of the run pretty much will go up the river and it'll hurt majority of the young fishermen and they are our future.

So if we move the date, that'll be catastrophic for the young fishermen. And I support the proposal 72-74 to extend to do the general district. That'll help the young fishermen as well, especially when the rivers are full and the escapement is all fulfilled. That'll really help the fishermen especially who sometimes have breakdowns during the season and don't even get a chance to fish. So when most of the fleet leaves, they have a chance to actually catch up and at least make some of their payments versus losing boats or permits or even feeding their family and stuff.

And proposal— proposal number— oh, number 70, sorry. Extend the Ugashik line. Yes, that, that will be a huge favor for us because that will kind of, you know, kind of scatter the fishermen throughout the districts. That'll make Ugashik not a wild card like it is right now. It basically— you go there, it's a 50-50 chance you'll make money or you'll lose money.

So it's very risky to go there. If we extend the lines, that will actually give more opportunity to the local Yugashik fishermen and help fish the north line and put a big burden off the state troopers. So, you know, and there will be a lot of room to fish versus be all packed and along the shoreline there's huge rocks, so majority of the time we ripped most of our gear.

And I opposed this Proposal 66 of the King Salmon Management Plan because in order for us to do a management plan, we have to start from the whole bay of where the kings are coming from, where are they going, which area do they pass who intercepts them, who fishes before they reach the mouth of the river. That's a big, big thing we need to really look at, or else, you know, if we go just blame the drift fleet, you know, there's not enough data for that. So thank you. Okay, thank you. Questions?

Thank you for your testimony today. Matt Marenkovich.

Hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name, my name is Matt Marenkovich. I've fished in Bristol Bay as a drift netter for over 40 years. I've submitted 4 proposals for consideration. I feel the most important proposal is 95, which offers a test fishing opportunity in the early season and will create a safer fishery for the drift the West Fleet and their crew.

Proposal 95, as I submitted it, was too long and confusing. I have greatly condensed and clarified the explanatory section of 95. Please see RC 17. This version more concisely explains the intent of the proposal. I'd appreciate if this version were considered throughout the meeting process.

Uh, so please read 17. Um, wasteful fishing. Um, please consider RC 31. I just put that in. I don't know if it's showing today.

It suggests language for a proposal to stop an extremely wasteful fishing practice I've never before witnessed in all my years of fishing Bristol Bay. I witnessed this during the 2025 season, which after— which was after the submittal period for this Board of Fish. So please review RC 31 and consider the proposed language, language to be enacted at this Board of Fish. Vessel length. I'm in support of proposals 82 to 91, all of which deal with vessel length.

I'm the author of 84 and 91. With no single proposal from this slate is likely to be the best solution, it's clear there's a problem and it must be corrected at this Board of Fish meeting. Enforcement has clearly stated that they would like an enforceable regulation regarding length. All 10 of these regulations seek to clarify the currently vague definition that have led to the confusion regarding vessel length and its enforceability. Please work to find a balanced solution that allows for a clear and enforceable length definition that is acceptable to all interests.

That said, I personally am not married to any particular solution. I hope for a solution that works and doesn't create a future safety concern due to drastic unseaworthy modifications that must be made to satisfy the decision that will be made at this meeting. Late fishing illegal— late season illegal fishing in Igigiig. Proposals 71 to 74 all suggest versions of opening up the entire east side without northern and southern boundary lines. All 4 of these proposals cite this as necessary because of illegal fishing at Igigiig.

I offered proposal 53 as a solution to this problem. I honestly believe adopting RC 24, which is a consolidation of of proposals 71 and 74 would solve this problem just as easily. I support RC 24 as a solution. Regarding Nushagak Kings, a hard date of June 28th may seem like a sensible solution on paper, but it does not translate to the fluctuations of actual fish behavior. I oppose 44 and 61 to 69 also.

Also, I don't know the number, but the idea of bringing reef net fishing or whatever, fish weirs or alternative fishing practices in the Bristol Bay, I oppose that idea. And basically I said everything, but Madam Chair, I'd like to offer Mike Wood an answer to the question he asked Tim Mickelson. If— and I just want to say that I'm going to put in RCs that have diagrams of vessels and the engine component— components and a jet diagram. And it also shows length of vessels and what's sticking out and things like that. So you'll probably see that when it comes up tomorrow.

Yeah, thank you. I think it would help us that haven't been in these boats to get a picture of what it looks like. Yeah, thank you. Alright, quick question for you. So you referenced RC 31 and what you consider to be sort of wanton waste.

I think I might be sort of sticking words in your mouth, but you can correct me on that. And so they're stern hauling so they can get out of the way so they don't get in trouble for going over the line-ish and then getting back in the water with fish still in their nets. So they're putting the nets gets back into the water with a whole bunch of fish still in them. Yes. So I guess my question is, is what is— what do you think that does to the quality of the product?

It is terrible for the quality of product, right? So why are the processors buying that if it's so bad? It's just out on the fishing grounds, and it's— there's all kinds of things that fishermen could do to their fish aren't respectful to quality, and it's up to the fishermen to provide a quality product. And if the fisherman is notoriously horrible at providing a quality product, they'll get a talking to, or a— there's been processors that ask their low-quality fishermen to not fish for them anymore. So there's industry ways of working out quality And my concern with that was more of the waste of the fishery.

And if I may just expand a little bit on stern hauling. Stern hauling is basically when you have your net in your water, you're gonna either pick it up on the drum like most people do. You pull a little bit, you pick, a little bit, pick, a little bit, pick. Stern hauling, you can pull the whole thing in at once. If you do this in a way that's considerate to quality, it's not a quality-degrading way of getting fish aboard the boat.

It's just if you bring a big pile in, that's a problem. But when you— the instances where you bring the big pile of fish in, you generally don't want that to happen because it shuts your back deck down and there's a big mess and it's like, how do I deal with this? And so you don't want that, but guys have to do it because they're going to drift over the line or into a set net. Buoy or something. And that's when that instance happened.

So what I'm looking for in that RC is to just eliminate the notion that you could set your net back out into the water with fish in it. And is there an existing proposal? Do you see that? Would that might fit into, or is this just one that didn't make the deadline? Well, there is a proposal with that same ACC language.

And yeah, so it could go that way, but it's mostly— this suggestion on the RC is different from the suggestion on that proposal. So I don't know if you can keep them separate, but it does crack that open. Fair. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Any other questions? Mr. Swenson. I just have one quick question, and I have a jet boat, but I don't Do the most of the boats that are fishing— is the jet an inboard jet or is it a motor on the back with a jet? I've seen those outboard jets and 99.9% is an inboard engine driving a jet drawing off the bottom through the hull and extending through the transom and then doing the squirt business outside. So if they have an outboard jet, that comes into play into the 32 feet, doesn't it?

I would say right now you could have an outboard engine. And well, I see, that's the thing with this length. Good question. Ask the enforcement guys. Okay, I mean, that's how it is.

It's so difficult to define these. And I didn't mean disrespect from that, but it's just so difficult to define these things and all these nuances that come comes up that causes that confusion. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Maureen, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Board of Fish members. For the record, my name is Maureen Marinkovich. We're a drift, um, gillnet family. That's my husband Matt, and I, I mostly just came up to support I want to support Proposal 95.

It benefits everyone. I believe this does. And any negative feedback you might hear about Proposal 95, I think is like a personal remark, personal judgment. I'm not— it's kind of a thoughtful— it's a very thoughtful proposal. And it's— I want to liken it.

I don't want to be too cute, but to a paperclip. I think it's like a paperclip. Everybody loves a paperclip. Paperclips solve a problem. They solve a problem beautifully.

I believe Proposal 95 is like a paperclip. It helps people. It does not negatively affect the fishery as a whole. Someone may use a paperclip for another purpose, but generally speaking, this proposal elevates safety in the bay, which I'm all about. And I just didn't want you to just listen to the loudest voice on this one or the loudest opinion and to to really consider this one.

I think it's a wise choice to pass this initiative or this proposal, and I also think it could possibly save a life. There was a guy a couple years ago, you know, he threw the buoy wrong and he was beheaded or almost beheaded, or I just hear these things, so I don't know exactly what happened, but something horrible happened to a young man a couple years ago. And I was just thinking, you know, if Proposal 95 was passed, maybe that skipper would have been out there 'Cause if you can let a guy just go out and fish for a couple times, test the gear with your guys, you're not in a high-stress situation. It's more calm and you can just go through some of the basics like how to throw a buoy ball off the back of your deck and not throw it wrong and get it wrapped and entangled in around your body and kill you. So, that's just one example, but there's a lot of examples I just think where there's there's, you know, people, you know, you'll hear a comment like just you should be prepared.

I think just ignore those because I think, oh, and if you wanted to address some of the naysayers, maybe move the date a little bit on it. But I think overall Proposal 95 is a very excellent, deeply thoughtful proposal that you should consider that I didn't want to get lost because there's so many big issues at this Board of Fish. And then the last two things I was going to say is I believe RC 24 also is one to pass because it actually benefits the watershed community really well. And, and I thought you should make special note of RC 24. And then also Matthew talking about the wasteful fishing practice.

It's, it's one of those things you should nip in the bud. And because I feel like this 32-foot length thing just got out of hand and, and this is just one of those things that could also just sort of get out of hand with practices. And when, you know, they're trying so hard to have a high-quality fish education and things like this don't go against that. But that is all I have. Thank you.

Thanks. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Reid Tenckley followed by Thomas Tilden and William—. Boy—.

I don't know. I am going to stop there. I have got a tricky name too. Hopefully he will correct me when it is his turn. All right.

Reid, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair and members members of the board. My name is Reed Ten Clay, and I'm here representing my wife, myself, and our children. My wife's father is an Alaska Native from the Dillingham area and went to school via dogsled. My grandfather also traveled via dogsled, went to Alaska in the 1940s.

He was inspired by Jack London, and he thought the homestead life would be just about right for him. So they homesteaded on Lake Iliamna, and between our two families, we've fished commercially in season since 1946. We started in sailboats with linen nets, and now we zip around in aluminum skiffs with deck lights. My wife and I, together with our 3 children, operate a setnet site. We own and operate tenders.

We direct market our fish. Bristol Bay provides our sole source of income, as it does for several families who work alongside us. That lived experience is what motivated us to bring forward Proposals 50 and 81, not as reactions to crisis but as proactive efforts to strengthen resilience, improve value, and preserve a way of life that sustains the diverse communities across Alaska that we love. Please review my public comment PC243 for details about Proposal 81. I'm the author of Proposals 48 and 51 as well, which attempt to create improvements in the Kwijak River Special Harvest Area that we couldn't quite tailor at last year's meeting.

And I also really liked Richard Wilson's Proposals 45 and 46, which extend the registration in the Naknek-Kweejack District. What unites our families and many families like ours across Bristol Bay is a long memory of both abundance and scarcity. I was reading my grandparents' diaries this year, putting together some family, some family history memories, and my grandparents were told stories by the elders in the Iliamna area of when salmon were so rare and valuable that even the grass used during the processing was was saved to extract every bit of use from it to make soup from in the winters. These stories matter because they remind us that abundance is not guaranteed and that stewardship has always been central for survival. Today, Bristol Bay sockeye are abundant, and that abundance has helped stabilize fishing communities economically.

But it's important to be clear-eyed that stability is driven primarily by volume and not by price. Adjusted for inflation, ex-vessel prices remain low. That It means resilience is fragile, especially for smaller operators and communities where fishing is a primary or sole economic engine. At the same time, we are rightly concerned across Alaska about the continued scarcity of king and silver salmon, and I would encourage the board to view this challenge through a whole ecosystem lens. Recent peer-reviewed research published in, uh, 2024, so just 2 years ago, has shown that large-scale hatchery production, particularly pink salmon, can influence influences marine food webs in ways that may disadvantage wild salmon, including kings, coho, and sockeye, through competition for prey and altered ocean conditions.

I raise this not to assign blame, but to emphasize an important point: harvest regulation alone is a limited lever. While it matters, it operates much with— it operates within a much larger biological and ecological systems that extend far beyond any single river or region. If our shared goal is equity, sustainability, and long-term food security for indigenous communities, rural communities, and working families, then policy must account for these broad forces that are— that go far beyond our area. I'll just end in summary here.

I had a bunch of information about king salmon observations from the past few years, and I don't know if we can get to that later, or I could share it with you now, but that was it. Thank you very much. I think my preference would perhaps be to bring that up in Committee of the Whole Group 1 when we're discussing king salmon management plans. If you'll be around for that, hopefully tomorrow. I will.

I'd be very interested in hearing from you. Okay. Yeah, I gathered all of the data that we have reported on that. So very good. Thank you.

Any questions? Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you. Thomas Tilden.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Thomas Toldot. I'm a fisherman. I have long-lined halibut, fished herring and saind, and I designed my own boat and it's 32 feet.

And I had a Naval Architect review, make sure that it was seaworthy, and had it built. And I put in 18 ton of herring inside that 32-foot boat. And I think if I was able to pack any more, it would degrade the quality of fish. So I believe that 32-foot is a very good size for a Bristol Bay boat, particularly when you look at the amount of sandbars, the different kinds of current, and all the other things that might inflict the boat to either sink or to get out to a sandbar. And so I think the 32-foot should remain 32 feet, and, uh, I believe that it is sufficient.

I also wanted to talk about the general district. The general district, I believe, is an accident waiting to happen. The last time they opened it, they got 1.4 million fish. And some of those river systems are a lot smaller. The Ogochic River, the Snake River, the Klu Kuk are some of the rivers that can't sustain 1.4 million catch.

And the last time they did that, uh, the Agushik River did not get its treatment. Klu Kuk River didn't get its treatment. So we can't have that general district. That is very dangerous to have or even suggest a general district. I remember my dad Talking about years ago during the sailboat days, they opened it back then too and realized that it was a mistake.

And it's a mistake that we don't want to make. Permit stacking? Absolutely not. I believe permit stacking will work against us as locals. I mean, I watched the permits leave Bristol Bay.

I watched permits leave Alaska. And I said, why the heck is that happening? This is our fishery. Why are we losing it? Then I went to Seattle and I sat in Seattle in the hotel and I was going through the book, the phone book of Seattle.

And you could go through pages and pages of banking institutions and financial institutions that are available to people in the Lower 48. You come here to Alaska, you sit down here in Alaska, and you look at the banking institutions available to us. Nothing. One page. Wells Fargo.

It is— we are outnumbered. We are outgunned when it comes to financial ability to buy permits. And it's no wonder that we lost permits. It was very easy to do that. Then you go into financial aspects of the Bristol Bay, and it's a lot worse.

And then the final thing I want to say is the King Salmon Management Plan. I think you leave it alone, let it work. It's like bread. You set it and you wait for the yeast to work. And that's what we need to do now.

We need to make sure that, that this plan does not work before we kick it out and throw in a new one. I really believe that you give it time, it will work. I think there's moving parts out there that we have no control over that needs to kick in. And I'm hoping all this cold weather this last winter, I'm hoping that things will turn to normal. The warm blob out in the Bering Sea and the climate change that is affecting our runs will change back to normal.

But thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Appreciate your testimony today, Mr. Tilden.

William Kranchi. Man, I'm sorry, I've seen two different spellings of it, so at least it's not two different words this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is William Kranchi. I've been participating in the commercial fishery for 20 years, starting at 10 years old.

Over the years, I've developed a strong passion for the fishery a love for the watershed and the people who live there. In recent years, my wife and I have built a house in King Salmon and have now made that our home. I'm in strong opposition to Proposal 61 and other proposals which would make change to the current King Salmon Management Plan and add conservation burden to the commercial fleet. Recent king salmon conservation efforts The commercial fleet have had an enormous biologic and financial impact on the sockeye fishery. As seen in the ADF&G charts presented yesterday, the effect of the unprecedented sockeye escapement in the Nushugak drainage is largely unknown at this time.

It is likely that these proposals would result in even more extreme escapement numbers, which could be catastrophic for the fishery on both a biologic and economic level. The current management plan has several triggers which allows flexible management for the area biologist. It would not be wise to implement hard parameters which eliminate this flexibility. The commercial fleet has ceased intentional king salmon harvest for a generation and has moved to extreme measures to reduce unintentional catch. It only seems sensible that the next step in conservation would be to cease intentional harvest of kings from the sport fishing user group.

With respect to all other proposals, the Bristol Bay region and fishery is an intricate weave of components that all affect each other. A seemingly isolated change can have effects across the entire region. I see many proposals that contain unintended ripple effects. I support very careful consideration of any change to the fishery, as all parts are connected. I urge you to listen closely to the many participants, local residents, and ADFNG staff who possess a broad depth of knowledge.

Many of these people have dedicated their life to support this fishery and have the wisdom, the insight, and the experience that is extremely valuable when deciding the direction of the future of the fishery. I ask you to listen very cautiously to those who have special personal interest, isolated experience, and disproportionately loud voices. Thank you for your service to the board, and I recognize that your decisions this week will greatly affect the future of Bristol Bay. In closing, I'd like to note, for the sake of conservation, I have abstained from subsistence harvest of kings. I have abstained from sport harvest of kings.

It doesn't sit well with me to see people traveling from all over the world to the Bristol Bay watershed to intentionally harvest the very fish that everyone in this meeting seemingly is trying to save. That's all I have to present. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great timing.

Um, two questions for you. Number one, is your last name Dutch? Yes. Mine too, but mine's way easier to say. Um, so, and then my second question is, you mentioned extreme measures taken by commercial fishermen to prevent king catch.

What, what are Can you give me some examples of what an extreme measure would be that you're thinking of? I would say it would be extreme to save, in some regard, 8 million— or save 3,000 kings while letting 8 million sockeye swim up the river, all the while another user group is intentionally harvesting a similar amount of fish that we have just saved by letting the 8 million sockeye go by. I would say that's extreme in comparison of the numbers of fish, and as well as the economic, you know, effects that that will have on the commercial fishery to the tune of, you know, $50 million on a year like this last year, $60 million. Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you.

Next up is John Jensen, followed by Kim Rice and Moses Kritz. Hey, John, fancy seeing you here.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members, Deputy Commissioner Mulligan, and esteemed staff and members of the public. My name is John Jensen. I'm here in support of board general proposal 188, and my testimony can be found in RC 25. The Dutch Harbor Herring Group is requesting to reallocate 15% of the unharvested to Togiak/Sakro herring guideline harvest level, GHL, to the Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery if less than 90% of the Togiak/Sakro GHL level is harvested by May 31st. From '23 to '25, there was no effort, and the couple years before that was a very reduced effort in the Togiak/Sakro herring fishery.

The herring/sakro fishery is, uh, spiraling downward statewide, and that's all due to shifting market conditions. The sakura product is marketed predominantly in Japan. The change in market demand is attributed to the fact that there is a declining interest in the traditional customs of consumption due to generational and cultural changes in Japan. This proposed change is not a fish grab between user groups, it's simply a rollover of existing underutilized resource that can be used in other product forms. In Alaska, there's a growing demand and interest for locally caught herring for bait.

A reliable, affordable supply of bait is needed for statewide pot cod fishery, increased demand to supply the resurgence of Bering Sea crab fisheries, and the longline fishery has found that this works as a good bait alternative to squid. And herring for food, there's a renewed interest in developing this resource for food products. The benefits include reducing high cost of bait when purchased from foreign countries, ensuring quality of the bait when caught and processed locally, ensuring a reliable self-sufficient source for an adequate supply of bait, and limiting extremely high shipping expense, avoiding possible tariff issues now and in the future, and possible expansion and use of markets for bait and food products, supporting a more favorable economic conditions for fishers of Alaska and the processors for the local coastal communities. This proposal is supported by Alaska users for bait products, seafood processors, Alaska coastal communities, workforce, etc., State of Alaska as a whole through fish tax revenue. The goal is to repurpose a portion of the Katowick Sakro Fishery to help Alaska fisheries become more self-sufficient by utilizing Alaska's abundant local herring resource and to provide affordable, high-quality bait that is essential to prosecute their fisheries.

Historically, since 1929, management plans for the herring fisheries harvest have supported and shared the use of a resource between management areas as stocks and markets have changed and evolved. With the decline of the Sacramento market, it is both necessary and beneficial to alter course once again so that we may continue to provide greater harvest opportunities, increase the value of the fishery, and attract additional markets and fishers to Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Mr. Jensen. Any questions?

Mr. Wood. Okay, I'm going to ask another dumb question, but the Togiak SACRO, if Dutch Harbor, if it's a reallocation from Togiak, are people from Dutch coming to Togiak to take that 15%, or is that 15% closer to Dutch? Like, so the whole stock is considered part of Togiak in a different area around Dutch. So are we having boats coming from Dutch Harbor to Togiak to take 15% of that and bring it back to Dutch, or is there some other harvest they'll be doing closer? No, it'll be harvested in the Dutch Harbor subdistrict area.

And you know, that area around the Unimak Pass and stuff, that's where it's been traditionally harvested. And, and it'll be tendered or brought by the boats to the processors probably in Dutch Harbor, maybe possibly False Pass. It's not harvested up in the Bering Sea, I mean up in the Togiak area. Thank you. All right, thanks, John.

Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Kim Rice.

Welcome.

I think I'm on here.

I'm kind of hard of hearing, so I'm going to have to take these off for a little bit. My name is Jim Rice. Madam Chair, members of the board, I fish in Agaigig since 1987. I fish with my family, my wife, my daughter, her, her husband. We have 4 permits in our operation, and I'm here to talk to proposal number 80.

We think this is a pretty good deal for the setnets. It doesn't cost any money. It doesn't catch us any more fish. It just allows us to operate a little more smoothly. Uh, we fish in a 25 by 10 skiff.

We fish all 4 permits out of there. So there is some mixing of my wife's fish, my fish. Uh, that happens. It's going to happen in everybody's boat. That fish more than one permit.

This allows us not to have to look over our shoulder. The troopers don't have to go, is that guy catching? Whose fish are those? But having like— I would have a permit co-op with my daughter. She could come in and pick my net and the beach is surfing.

She can't come in and pick me up to take me to the tender that I can see. It's right there. Uh, but the boat would fill up with water if she came in through the breakers, but she's on the outside. That would allow her to sell my fish on her permit. And it's all in the family.

All of our fish goes into one pot. We get one check from the processor and we divvy it up from there. It's not like like your car, my car. It's family. And you know, you don't want to admit that you're breaking the law, but the deal is, is get the fish to the processor as quick as we can so we deliver the best product we can.

So this is a— it's an easy thing. It's not a toxic proposal. It's not hurting anybody. It's actually sharing of resources. You know, I'm helping her, she's helping me.

You don't have to go, well, I got to get those fish in on this card. You know, one person could be in the boat selling fish, the other person could be driving down the beach to sell fish. So, and they're mixed. It's just the nature of the game there.

There's a House Bill 117 in the Alaska House right now that dittoes number 80. It's made it that far and got on the docket because it's a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's not hurting anybody. It allows us a little more freedom.

And the fish are the fish. Fish and Game gets the ticket and they've got all of our fish. It's all recorded.

I'm done. All right, good timing. Any questions? Kim, thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony today.

Thank you. I'll be here. Excellent. Moses Kritz, followed by Harriet Erbesargen, and then Nick Dowey and Jason Jason Ball.

Welcome, Moses.

Gotta get you to press the button. There you go, now you're on. Got it. Oh, I'm sorry. Nope, I can hear you loud and clear now.

Okay, thank you. Koyaanoo, Madam Chair and members of the board, for this opportunity to testify. My name is Moses I am a member of Togiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee. And also I started fishing when I was about 13 years old, crewing for my uncle throughout the summer. And at the end of the season, he handed sent me a $50 bill, and that was my payment for the whole season.

And but anyway, I've always been a drift fisherman throughout, up until I gave up my permit to my son as promised. And I took over my wife's setnet operation, and we— before that, she was fishing her setnet permit going back and forth between Togiak and Kallukuk on an 18-foot lunskep, 18 horsepower, with a crew member I remember with a 14-year-old, I think he was 14, which he's passed on now, but after I took over, it was all family. We brought our children to the campsites over in Kulukuk, which is about 42 miles, and it takes me On a good day, maybe hour and a half to 2 hours. But when it's rough and nasty, it takes about 3 to 4 hours to cruise on over to Kuluqaq and it gets nasty. But [Speaker:CHIEF] I am testifying on behalf of proposal number 93.

The local Togiak fleet of drift fishers and setnetters are concerned about the annual foregone harvest and over-escapement of sockeye salmon during the season. I support support Proposal 93 to increase commercial fishing time in Kulukuk section of the Togiak District. This was proposed by Togiak Advisory Committee and has strong support for local Togiak and Bristol Bay residents as well as Togiak Nusugak Advisory Committee and BBDC. Those are the two that supported our proposal.

And depending on the weather, most setnetters travel a 42-mile trek to Kuluukuk for an opener from 9:00 AM Monday until 9:00 PM Wednesday morning, which is only, what, 2.5 days of fishing time in in Kuluqok. The skiffs of the setnetters vary from 18-foot lund skiffs to 20- to 24-foot aluminum skiffs. And consistently there are at least 8 setnetters over the course of 3 to 5 years and about 2 to 3 Mr. Kritz, I have a question for you.

Is the proposal intended to extend the Kalukuk fishing time Monday through Friday for the entirety of the season, or just a portion like an early or late portion of the season? Do you know? Was that discussed at the AC? Respectfully. Yes.

Traditionally and historically, Kulukuk section of the District of Togiak was open from 9:00 AM Monday to 9:00 AM Saturday. And that is historical way of opening it. So that's why I'm testifying on behalf of it. The other reason is because Togiak has always, or between Togiak and Kuluqaq, it can get very, very nasty. One time I hit Right Hand Point with an 18-foot lunskip and my wife.

It was like between 12 and 14-footers.

Going over, passing right-hand point. And when, if you recall, was the change made to reduce that fishing time in the Kuluukuk District? I don't believe that, because, you know, where we fish in Kuluukuk, that one area, there's about 8 or 9 set nets there and not any of us catch any kings, king salmon. And there's no conservation problem with the kings right there. Okay, so that fishing time was reduced for king conservation purposes?

I'm not sure why they did that, but I think what they closed it for was telling us that it was an intercept fishery. If it was an intercept fishery, we would see, you know, we've never had no problem in Togiak Lake. Sometimes our over-escapement was like 500,000 fish. And it— and that's why we question that. And a lot of foregone harvest happening.

Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions? Sir, thank you very much for your testimony today. Appreciate you.

Your time elapsed, but I didn't know if you had Was there anything else that you wanted to include, or is that something that we could talk about more in committee? No. Okay. All right. But Togiak fisheries— Togiak fisheries has changed a lot.

There's no more king salmon fishery.

Chums are dwindling and silvers are following suit. And we're losing that. Thank you. Kweyana for your testimony today.

Next up is Harriton Basarjan.

Welcome.

Hey, it's Harriton Basarjan. Right, it's misspelled here. Yep. Alrighty, Harriton Basarjan, longtime fisherman from age of 10, and Gramps started '84-'85 and continued on, and Madam Chair and Board of Fish. Proposal 62.

I am a Bristol Bay fisherman and permit holder, and I oppose Proposal 62. This proposal places restrictions on local fishermen who are already highly regulated. This will flood the rivers without fishing without fixing the king salmon problem, excuse me, and already heavily regulated, while trawler bycatch and offshore impacts continues to be ignored. Proposal 56, I oppose this proposal. We already have enough restrictions on the drift fleet as we do.

We don't need another line that's going to shut us down. This will hurt our ability to catch fish when they are gone, costing us time to fish and costing us time for everything else and stuff like that. If drift— drifter gear is contacting the setnetters, that is already illegal. It is the state troopers' job to enforce the rules we have now. We don't need more boundaries or closures piled on the drift fleet.

The state troopers need to do their job as complaints file in as I read the reports. That's their job. They shouldn't be— they should be— shouldn't be complaining about anything else. They should be doing their job and so forth. I support establish proposal 71 through 74, a general district salmon management plan.

Makes room for everyone else to fish and allows us to fish peacefully. The rivers— when the rivers have met their escapement goals rules. So there's no risk to the salmon and there will be no illegal fishing as people yell out and blah, blah, blah. And the state troopers won't be enforcing the law not to restrict fishing.

Opposed? Proposal 67, gillnet increase.

Oh, shoot— and to increase their lengths because they're already plugged up with fish. Lots of times can't haul their fish properly. There's dead fish all over the place. I mean, they have plenty of fish catching. They're more open than us, many times, every time.

And I support to extend the Ugashik District because I fished there from age of 10. And every time we have problems there with law and everybody else, but we tend not to fish the lines then when people show up, when a big crowd shows up and doesn't give us fishing, ramming boats and stuff like that. Proposal 53, opposed to cut Igigiik District. I mean, why is that? Give everybody a chance to fish and keep the district in each spread out and everybody would have a fair chance to fish.

Proposal 45, opposed to transfer waiver, keep it the same regulations. Proposal 88, okay, should be good. You can go ahead and finish your statement. How do you feel about Proposal 88? I support removing the anchor roller specs.

I mean, it's for safety. I don't see what the difference— why would it be— what's the 32 feet? What are we supposed to shorten our anchor roller just for 32 feet? 32 Feet. So anchor roller doesn't do anything, just for safety and anchoring up.

All right, well, thank you. Are there any questions? All right, we're going to take one more before we take a quick break, so let's go ahead and proceed with Nick Dowey and Jason Ball. Thank you very much for your testimony today, gentlemen. Welcome.

Madam Chair, uh, good afternoon, Madam Chair and board members. My name is Jason Ball, and with me is my cousin, fellow ECA beach fisherman Nicky. Nick. Nicky only when we were kids, right? Nick.

Nicholas Dowey. We're here to comment on Prop— Proposal 65, PC-5, and RC-32. We have a unique story to tell. In 1955, our grandmother, our great-grandmother, and our grandparents, along with other relatives, began fishing on Ekuk Beach with set gillnets. This has been a family tradition that continues even unto today, today, with our sons and daughters actively fishing Ekuk Beach alongside us as 5th generation fishermen.

On Ekuk Beach, over 100 permit holders depend on a shore-based market. It— in its 100-year history, the processing facility has had a variety of owners. When my father purchased the facility in 2005, he made it his goal to provide a strong and sustainable salmon market for the harvesters of Ekuk Beach, many of whom rely on the services provided by the facility. In recent years, Chinook conservation efforts as well as a high influx of drift vessels have created challenges for the department in managing the allocation between set and drift gillnetters. That has— that was established by the board in the 1990s.

An unintended consequence of this ECOG beach— this has— sorry, an unintended consequence this is that Ekuk Beach has lost a significant amount of fishing time and harvest. Since 2020, we have lost nearly 46% of our historical harvest share. We're here to ask for your help in providing guidance to ADFNG on managing the Nushigak Sake allocation.

Specifically, we are asking that two actions be set in motion by by the board. The first action is a little closer to the mic, please, and also put yourself on the record. Uh, this is Nicholas Dowey. Thank you. Uh, the first action is to remove the Wood River special harvest area from the in-season calculations for the allocation.

The almost immediate opening of this special harvest area has skewed the harvest numbers. The special harvest opportunity is very restrictive to many setnet fishermen, especially for those in Ecouck, and was not part of the determination in the original allocation The second action is that the allocation plan be reinforced by the board to preserve our fishery. Without this regulated protection plan for our isolated and stationary operations, the future of our fishing community is in jeopardy. Since 2015, there has been a handshake agreement with— handshake agreement between management and the drift fleet, and that does not provide the necessary flexibility to manage for allocation during a stock of concern. Additionally, management efforts to reduce foregone harvest have also resulted in allocation as a lesser consideration.

We recommend additional lead time between drift and set and drift openings to better achieve our established allocation by allowing salmon to distribute through the district, which would likely also have a measurable effect on— not have a measurable effect on foregone harvest. We're also in support of proposals 56 and 57. To provide relief from encroachment by the drift fleet, which can cause setnet harvesters to lose fishing time and reduce their harvest. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. In the last 3 years, how is that King Salmon Management Plan in the early season impacted your beach and the allocation in particular?

So this is all outlined in the, in the RC, and that's for RC 32. But right now, over the last 3, 5 years, in the last 3 years, about a 46% loss in harvest share. Eekook has always traditionally been close to that 10% of the Nushagak District, and it's down to just barely above 5% now.

Yeah, thank you. Is that a loss because they're just holding off on fishing you sooner, like before they'd fish you like a week before the drifters, and now they can't because of the plan? Is— what other reason is there? A lot of reasons, again, are outlined in 32, but part of that is, yes, there's not those earlier opening opportunities, more windowed closures, just, just because you get to that point of so much mass moving and having to utilize boats at a much greater level and not being able to more succinctly manage for that allocation. So that amount of drift vessels obviously are taking a lot of opportunity from us.

Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

Well, Nick and Jason, thanks for your— Telling us about it. So basically, you're not unhappy with the allocation. You're unhappy with the way that the King Salmon Plan and other things that have come into play have hurt you not able to get that allocation. Is that correct?

Well, the The original message that netters received when the allocation plan was set up was to kind of protect us from a high influx of boats and making sure that we had an appropriate harvest share that, a harvest share that was regulated. So yes, with the different changes that have happened, it's not specifically the allocation plan that we're looking to address, but to make sure that ADFNG has, has the recommendation or more direction to be able to actually actually look out for us.

Okay, thank you. Miss Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you both for traveling and for being here and giving testimony. I was able to take a look at RC 32, and I was curious whenever I was reading it.

I understand that it's difficult for fishermen in Ekuk to transfer over to the Wood River Special Harvest Area, which, as from what I'm hearing and starting to understand a little bit about how this allocation is being carried out. That's supposed to kind of help give a little bit of a cushion for the, the setnetters to be able to get a little bit more allocation. But from what I'm reading, it doesn't seem as though there's a lot of setnetters in ECOQ that are able to take advantage of that. But there is a 64% increase in use of the special harvest area. So who is using that special harvest area?

Um, do you know who from what districts and areas utilizing that? And then what makes it so difficult that ECOC users can't use that special harvest area?

I can jump in. Yeah, go ahead. Through the chair, thank you for that question. Yes, obviously ECOC is definitely a little special in that regard. No skiffs, longer geographic distance.

You know, I've heard lots of, you know, obviously that has increased a lot in harvest share and And fishermen that have the equipment, have the knowledge and expertise, and are in closer geographic area are able to, you know, actually exercise that as an option. I have even heard it amongst my own fishing community that in a lot of ways this is almost allocative among— within a gear group because we just are restricted from fishing there. Yes, legally we can, but realistically No. And keep in mind too, we have 5 generations, 6 generations for some family on the beach where this traditional fishery and these multi-generational improvements and infrastructure improvements to facilitate that fishery would be completely abandoned. Thank you.

I'd imagine it would be difficult to drive your, your fleet trucks out there. So thank you.

Mr. Wood, and then Mr. Swenson. Yeah, thanks. I, I just want to clarify, you're restricted from fishing there, in your words, because you don't have a boat?

Through the chair, Mr. Woods. Yeah, that's, that's primarily correct. I mean, we do have skiffs, um, or some of us do, but that's not our primary utilization where we're at, so we're not really familiar with that area in particular, the Wood River area. We, we have fished it in the past, but it is logistically a problem with weather, knowledge of the area, and just competition for, you know, good fishing over there. That's become kind of its own super exclusive fishery.

Yeah, I mean, Mr. Swenson—. And I'm sorry. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Madam Chairman. If I may just add to that. Yeah, so probably only about 5 to 10% of the permit holders actually have skiffs there.

And then this also goes to that larger problem of supporting the onshore processor there. Mr. Swenson. So does the Wood River— that whole thing that happens up there Does that affect the king salmon that get— that are already by the sonar and on their way up the Nushagak?

This is probably not the best question for me. I would probably say, yeah, maybe talk to some more local knowledge and the department about those kind of concerns.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate your testimony today. Let's go ahead and come back on the— we're going to take a break, come back on the record at 3:30 and continue with public testimony beginning with Heath Lyon. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board.

All right, welcome back, back on the record. The time is 3:39. We're going to go ahead and continue with public testimony, beginning with our 41st testifier on the list, Mr. Heath Lyon. Welcome, sir.

Madam Chair and members of the board, thank you for hearing my testimony. I would like to thank you for your time and commitment to the fishery. My name is Heath Lyon. My wife Nancy Morris Lyon and I own Bear Trail Lodge in King Salmon on the Naknek River. I've been guiding the Naknek River since 1991 and a King Salmon resident since 1996.

I still guide 150+ days a year in Bristol Bay with most of my time on the Naknek River. That being said, I am not in favor of Proposal 96 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, and 104. I am in favor of Proposal 105. Proposal 96 will affect the lower Naknek River, which is not a big catch and release area. Hookup and landing percentage is way lower for kings and silvers with a single hook, especially if you use the half-inch gap like the upper river already has in place.

Proposal 97, I am not in favor of barbless hooks due to the enforcement. Same with removing fish from the water is open to interpretation. Proposal 98, the last board cycle the sport fishing user group gave up 2 kings over 28 inches. It could also put more pressure on rivers like the Allegnac. I've been— I have seen more pressure on the Naknek from Flat Lodges who mostly use the Nooshagak.

Proposal 99 and 100 is about moving lower markers for closure. As a lodge, we already do not fish the kings in that area, but it will affect local rainbow trout anglers from April 10th to June 8th. Proposal 101, as a lodge, it is nice to have a place where we can use bait for silvers when the water temperature gets too warm and the silvers do not want to bite. Proposal 104, I am again not in favor of barbless hooks due to the enforcement. Proposal 105, I do support this proposal.

We need to start somewhere. We need to— we need more information on all the king runs in Bristol Bay. I know each river will be different. With all that being said, the last 3 years on the Naknek, fishing for kings has been well above average. Again, I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Any questions? Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks, Heath. Did you— will you repeat that last part?

Fishing the last 3 years, fishing fishing has been above average on the Naknek for kings? Yes, it has been above average fishing-wise, and some of it's because less pressure. Okay, thank you. Mr. Swenson, did you see— now you, you went pretty fast there, which was great, but you said you were— you didn't agree with prohibit the use of bait, multiple hooks, correct?

It was— it was never bait, it was the multiple hooks on the Naknek. We don't have bait ever there on the Macknik. But you don't like— you like the idea of multiple hooks? Oh yeah, it— the plugs and stuff will run better. It's not in a catch and release really area, you know, as far as what we're normally doing to catch and release.

Uh, and with silvers, especially with even a treble hook, the landing percentages— I mean, it's night and day difference with— okay, thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Hayden Lynchide. Hi. I did it. Woo! Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and board. My name is Hayden Lynchide. I'm a second-generation commercial fisherman born and raised on Kodiak Island. I have fished Bristol Bay for 18 years, my entire adult life. I grew up setnetting on the south end of Kodiak, spending my childhood every summer with family at fish camp.

Best way to grow up. My wife and I are both drift permit holders and own a drift gillnetter in Bristol Bay, and she ran her own vessel for the previous 7 seasons until last spring when we had our first child. We now direct market our fish. I am here today because several proposals before you pose serious risk to Bristol Bay commercial fishing. Commercial fleet and families who depend on it.

Proposals 41 and 61 through 69 would change the current king salmon management plan for a fleet that has already reduced its traditional harvest of kings by roughly 80 to 90% over the last 20 years in order to protect those fish. At the same time, ocean conditions and other intercept trawl fisheries are major drivers of declining king salmon in abundance. I worry if we start to manage Nushagak for kings, my son may never have a to fish sockeye in the Nush. Area management biologist Tim— uh, area of the Nushagak has successfully managed one of the largest sockeye runs in the world, and we have seen remarkable returns under his management. With the current OEG and the regulations this board adopted in 2023, he must already balance many competing factors.

Further restricting the use of science and biology in his management toolbox risks long-term harm to the fishery. Fishery in all 5 districts.

Oops, sorry, I lost my spot. It could discourage participation in the Nushagak as a large portion of that run overescapes upriver in late June, pushing more of the fleet into 4 other districts which are already highly competitive, simply out of fear that their harvest will be lost over escapement in the Nushagak system. I also strongly oppose Proposal 57, which would restrict drifters with the GPS line from part of their traditional fishing grounds. This change would set a dangerous precedent and undermine longstanding regulations that already govern how drifters avoid setnet gear. The current framework can address gear conflict issues without carving away core fishing access.

There are, however, several proposals that could benefit the Bristol Bay region as a whole. I believe it is time to allow vessels to own and operate two permits in one person's name by destacking As a young person, it's one of the ways I found success in the fishery. I've been able to compete on an old '90s platform with having a little extra net. Um, and I think it could help move the fleet toward the optimal range of 800-1,200 vessels that the CFEC identified in a study in the 2000s. Um, and I'd love to see another one of those if we could fund that.

I also I also support the concept of an Eastside General District and am in favor of Proposal 72. After July 18th to 20th each year in N'Gashik and Igagik, the lack of consistent enforcement has led my wife and me to end our season early because a significant number of fish are harvested outside the district with little to no visible enforcement by the state troopers. That makes it difficult for fishermen who want to remain legal to also remain competitive, and it effectively concentrates late season harvest in the hands of a select few. And then finally, I'd like to address the newer larger vessels in the fleet. One of the proposals, I think it's 8136, just have some clear regulations so the troopers know what to enforce and, uh, what we know to expect as fishermen.

It's just still so— yeah, there's no hard lines on a lot of the vessel lengths. No, that's my time. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions Questions, Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you. Uh, when you said there were fish harvested outside of the district, can you elaborate on that a little more? Yeah, so in the Igugigik District, you know, you have a southwest and north line, and, uh, typically it's not— and Ugashek as well, I fished there late— but particularly the north marker just gets— you're not fishing close to the marker anymore. People are hundreds, if not hundreds of feet, if not tenths of a mile over the line. And I think the Alaska State Troopers, I don't know if it's a funding problem or what, but they lack enforcement abilities because they pretty much just leave after July 18th.

And you'll go up there where I can usually make a good living, harvest fish legally. It's not possible. I mean, unless you want to be a criminal, it's not possible. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for your testimony today.

Oh, did you have one, Mr. Carpenter? Okay, thanks for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Next up is Kyle Lintz, followed by Aaron Peters, Kavik Anderson, and Kelly Cass. Hi, Kyle. Welcome.

Yeah, Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Kyle Lintz. For the record, I support Proposal 85. Have, although I'm afraid that it might not be enforceable. After reading the trooper's comments, I have amended Proposal 83 with the proposer's permission. Please reference RC 27.

38 Feet plumb bob to plumb bob. We need regulations that are clear and enforceable. The rumors around the coffee shop is that there are reputable, reputable boat builders that are gearing up for court battle. I understand the state is between a rock and a hard spot on this length issue. When the Alaska Wildlife Troopers issued their letter in 2023, my prop boat was on the naughty list for having stern thrusters that were attached to the planing step.

I worked with the troopers and made modifications to bring my boat into compliance.

The north line of Ugashik should be expanded to the 3-mile line. This would match the south line of Egeak and provide room for fair and equitable fishing I support the general district and would like to clarify that the last time that this district was opened, it was before the season. And this year it's proposed that it would be opened after all rivers have met their escapement goals and the— and after the 17th. I do not support 61. The current Nushagak King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan was adopted in 2010.

2023. Large king salmon return to spawn in 3 to 7 years. Hopefully we will be able to see positive effects of the plan this summer. We have a good plan in place. Now let's give it time to work.

A few minutes ago, Frank kindly clarified the language in the regulation book that was the basis of RC 26. I would still like to comment on the trawl issue. The Amendment 80 trawl fleet comes into Bristol Bay every spring in May and June when king salmon are beginning to return for spawning. These are indiscriminate killing machines that represent one of the dirtiest fisheries on the planet. They are only taking from Alaskan resource.

The fish are landed at sea and they pay minimal taxes. The state of Alaska values yellowfin sole at 4 cents per pound. The tax rate is 5%. I have included a screenshot of 7 draggers performing their acts just 20 miles from the Nushagak Bay in May and early June, just as our sacred Chinook salmon are coming home to spawn. It is the timing of this yellowfin sole bottom fishery that I find particularly alarming.

It is exactly when mature Chinook salmon begin to concentrate in the salt waters of Bristol Bay. These Goliath killing machines fish 24 hours a day with nets that could contain the entire drift boat fleet. The user groups gathered here today are all affected by Chinook salmon conservation. We Alaskan fishermen are bearing the burden of conservation while the Amendment 80 fleet goes unchecked. I urge the Board of Fish to work with the Commissioner to use his votes on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to close the Northern Bering Sea trawl area for spawning king salmon conservation.

Thank you. Thanks, Kyle. Any questions? I got a quick one for you. Why would boat builders be gearing up for lawsuits?

Are you as plaintiffs? Apparently. I think that, uh, they feel that some— my understanding— that's a good question. My understanding is that, um, maybe some boats have been built recently that they feel should be legal. But if the regulations are clarified, then those boats would become illegal.

And so if a guy just paid $1 million for a boat and then the next year it's found to be illegal, then that's kind of a tough situation for somebody. Fair. I'm just trying to figure out why that would be the builder's fault and not the person who commissioned build. I don't know. Okay, thanks.

Yep. Oh, Mr. Swenson has a question for you. Does that trawl fleet— I just found out today, or was told today, that when the trawl fleet out there, they're actually, as they make their sweep, when they get close over there, they're actually— the end of their run is in state waters. Is that correct? On when they're fishing for these sole?

Well, it's my understanding that they can deploy their net in federal waters and then they can, they can scoop in through state waters and then they can, they can pull their net in federal waters. But these are all good questions. You know, their nets are so large that even though their vessel AIS is on board their boat, their boat could be in federal waters while their net is in state waters. Wow. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Lint. I really appreciate you bringing this up. I've heard this from numerous fishermen, and of course here probably isn't the right place for us to address it, but just even learning about this and the timing of the year is super important, and hopefully the message gets across. So thank you for bringing it up.

Thank you for your testimony. Erin Peters.

Welcome.

Afternoon, Chair. I'm Erin Peters. I'm from Naknek. I grew up there. And I just want to be on the record against anything over 32-foot.

I am against dual permits. As a local, I mean, I've fished all my life. I grew up with my grandma, fishing with her, my mom, my dad, and then when I started my own family, started them out, I've got 2 drifters and that would be a son and a grandson that are the drifters and then I got a son that's that's a setnetter with me and 2 grandsons. So, and it's really hard staying in this and living out there.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Miss Irwin has a question for you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. Um, your boat and your family's boats, would they be affected by a 30— a hard 32-foot regulation You know, we're hearing that there's additional gear that some folks have on the back of their boats and stuff. Would your families and— they knew it was 32-foot. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.

Thanks. Kavik Anderson.

Hi, Kavik. Welcome. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Chairman. Board of Fish.

My name is Kavik Anderson. I grew up in Bristol Bay. I've fished there for a long time. I've been running a boat since I was 19. A lot of time up there fishing, got to see all sorts of different ideas.

I'll keep it simple. 56, Yes. 57, No. 59, Yes. 60, No.

61, No. 62, No. 63, No. 65, No. And that's it.

If you have any questions, more than welcome to answer them. All right. We're getting concise here in the last couple. Any questions? Thank you.

Kelly Cass followed by Kyle Gleason and David Fardy.

Hi, Kelly. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and board. My name is Kelly Cass, Bristol Bay fisherman. I would like to talk to talk on oppose number 44 and 61 through 69. I'm here really to talk about the permit stacking number 76 that I, I do support.

And I'd like to just give you a perspective of mine. I have a dual permit boat. I'm one of the 464 that have dual permits. My son's been my dual permit holder since he was 10 years old. He's 23 now, graduated from college, and he may not come back fishing because he's smarter than I am.

And so that puts me into a quandary on what is going to happen with my second permit. And how do I— a permit that's, you know, owned in the family or whatever. I've run out of kids to put it in their name, somebody they trust. And so without having having a stacking ability, now I potentially would have to give my permit to a deckhand in their name and then they own it rightfully, right? And potentially never get that permit back.

And so that's something that, you know, weighs on me heavily. And, you know, there is— I was going through the CEC handbook and, you know, since the '70s there's been The minimum number of permits that have been transacted is 43 and the most is 170 in a year. So there's always been permits for sale available. And Bristol Bay watershed residents, they have the best opportunity to get money for a dual permit. Alaska residents have the second best opportunity and then everybody else has the third best opportunity.

So I feel that being able to permit stack would allow others like me to not have to work in this gray area where potentially we may lose a significant part of our investment in the Bristol Bay fishery. And that's why I'm supporting proposal number 76, and I will comment on other issues during the committee meetings. Thank you. Thank you. Clarification.

So when you're talking about those folks that have the best opportunities to purchase permits, I'm assuming you're meaning through, like, state resident eligible loan programs? Yes. You know, potentially, they're Native corporations, the CFEC, you know, other opportunities that might not be available to a non-resident of Alaska. Thank you for that. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Kyle Gleason.

Welcome. Thank you. Madam Chair, board members. I support Proposal 95. It's good to give us a chance to do a test run to make sure our gear works and people are safe.

I support RC24 and an open district for the drift fleet after the 17th if adequate escapement goals have been met. Uh, David Vardy will speak more on this. Um, most importantly, I and every user of the Bristol Bay watershed that I have spoke to and met in my travels, um, oppose the 61. Lodge owners, subsistence fishermen, drifters, research biologists— like, you go down the list. Um, I've never seen our divergent fishery so unanimously against something, and I'm a little bit dumbfounded that, um, there's been as much inquiry from the board as there has been.

I guess— I don't know, It just seems like the people are saying, "Man, this isn't right." The scientists are saying, "Hey, this isn't right." We have reduced the exploitation rate of king salmon by 50% with the existing Nushagak king regulations that are in effect.

That's down to 10% harvest by the commercial fleet of the king salmon run. The king salmon stock has things happening to it that we don't fully understand. We can't have seen any of these fish come back yet because they're not old enough. If they were jacks this year, we wouldn't have been able to tell on the sonar. So these fish still need the time to come back to see if this plan is working.

Um, and then also, if we're only harvesting 10% of that returning, um, run of kings, that's not a large enough depletion of the run for us to be having an effect component that would lead to its extermination. So the issue is bigger than the commercial fleet. The issue is something that we're still trying to understand. That's all I have to say. Thanks.

Um, quick question for you. So the issue that I'm concerned about, or that I'm mulling, and I'm interested in hearing from folks about, is not so much extermination. I don't think in my mind that's not what I'm particularly concerned about. What I'm interested in is in— is recovery. Yes, there's a difference, right?

I agree with you, and we will not have a chance to see if recovery has happened yet because the fish aren't old enough yet, right? If we had jacks returning this year, we wouldn't know because they're so small, and the sonar— the biologist can't tell the difference, right? So we have yet to see if the plan works. And also, like, if we have hard dates where we can't open open the river until, you know, this year's run came in sooner by 4 days. And the biologists— it's so nuanced, man.

We need to give our experts every lever they have available to them to let them use their expertise to protect our fishery, right? They're the experts here, not people that aren't experts that maybe are from a place whose rivers aren't doing so great. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions?

All right. No, no, no, no clapping. None of that. I will shut it down.

All right. Next up is David Vardy.

Don't play the grandstanding game here, folks. Okay? Hello, Madam Chair. Hi, you need to get near the microphone, please, and turn it on. There you go.

Thanks. Sorry. Hello, Madam Chair and board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. Um, my name is David Vardy.

I'm a lifetime fisherman from Everett, Washington. I own a drift boat and a bay permit for Bristol Bay. Uh, real quick, I oppose Proposal 53. Um, but I think it's proposer for writing and submitting it and later supporting RC24. Taking away fishing area from commercial fishermen in the Iggygik District would likely cause more gear conflicts along the beach from Red Bluff to the existing north marker boundary line due to the close proximity to the shoreline and remaining setnet that late season fishing efforts mainly are conducted.

The Alaska Wildlife Trooper public comment states that it doesn't think Proposal 53 would reduce what is already occurring. And so without that comment, that wouldn't lead me into, um, what brings us up to RC 24, which is a collaboration from the authors of Proposal 71 through 74, which is an east side exclusive late season fishing district expansion plan designed to mitigate illegal line fishing opportunities by eliminating vessel corking opportunities over lines that run perpendicular to tidal currents with consideration for escapement. Um, I also think that Proposal 95 needs to be considered heavily. It's, it's really small. It hurts no one, benefits everyone.

I think, you know, district unregistration is an opportunity to work things out before the season happens. This is a really short season, but it's really heavily capitalized by everyone who is a member of it. And that's all I have. Thanks, Dave. Any questions?

Thanks for being here to testify today. Appreciate you.

Brady Boone, followed by Mickey Sharp and Frank Woods.

Hi, Brady. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Brady Boone. I live in Homer, Alaska. I started commercial fishing with my dad at the age of 12. And have been out there for the past 27 years.

In regards to king salmon stock of concern, and in my years of drift fishing, we are not the cause of king salmon declining. There are the same number of boats and permits now as there was 30 years ago when king stocks thrived. Like Tim said, if you take all the nets out of the water, the king escapement would still not be met. How are we not talking about factors outside the Bristol Bay fleet? What are the trawlers catching outside the boundaries in May and June as the kings are returning?

What research or impact do the orcas, sea lions, salmon sharks have on the kings as they are a main food source for them? What reason is there no more king sport fishing on the Kenai River, or even catch and release for that matter? The mortality rate of releasing a king on a rod and reel 15 to 40%. When looking at the Nushagak Sport Fishing websites, they boast on having 30 to 40 fish days and some up to 100 fish days. You may, you may not be taking that fish home to eat, but you are killing 15 to 40% of those kings.

Not to mention, most guides are out-of-state residents taking advantage of our local resources. I am in favor of permit stacking. This fishery is hard to make a living as is. Is whether you have a single permit or dual, you benefit from dual boats. Every D boat takes 100 fathoms of net out of the water.

10 D boats equal 1 mile of net out of the water. More fish for setnetters, drifters, sport, and subsistence people. In regards to boat length, the regulations need updated as they are outdated. Keep the hull length at 32 feet. Take away the anchor roller language as that is a safety for the vessel.

Put in nothing past the length of 32 feet that adds flotation.

I am in favor of the general district to alleviate the late season grind, spread the fleet out, and relieve the burden on the troopers having to enforce late season. Thank you for your time. Thanks for your testimony, Brady. Quick question for you to this vessel length issue, right, and, um, keeping language that specifies that you can extend beyond the 32 feet as long as it doesn't provide flotation. Isn't that part of what is the rub right now?

I mean, people arguing over what is providing flotation and what isn't. Correct. So why are we still getting fined for it or citations? Right. So if you're proposing to keep— I just— I'm failing to understand how that solves solves the issue of people are still allowed to fight over the definition of what may or may not be providing flotation if we keep it in beyond the 32.

Well, for flotation, if you have a Jet Guard or something, you just have to have physical holes drilled in it so it can't provide flotation. That would be easy, right? I'm just asking. Well, that's part of what the rub has been, right? And that people are, you know, have been arguing about what provides floatation and what doesn't.

And there's surface there, so just because there's small holes in it, does that mean that it provides no flotation whatsoever or some? Well, it would sink if it had holes in it. It would hold water. At different rates potentially, right? Faster or slower?

I guess. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out my— what I'm interested in is finding a solution that isn't one that is going to be debatable, right? And that the argument doesn't perpetuate. So I'm just trying to figure out what that looks like eventually.

Any other questions? Miss Irwin, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. You said that you support the general district and you made a comment about how it could make enforcement easier.

Could you expand on that for me? Well, if the general district is open, we can fish outside the normal limitations that we are at now, there would be no— we wouldn't need enforcement there because we would be able to move along freely. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. I appreciate it. Mickey Sharp.

Hi, Mickey. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. For yourself, but Thank you for the opportunity for me to testify. My name is Mickey Sharp from Twin Hills. I oppose Proposal 188 as it deprives local community residents of a resource that is critical for subsistence and ecology of Togiak Bay. We thrive on subsistence herring roe and Kelp.

It is healthy to eat and good for marine mammal as well. Also has not been enumerated in recent years, making the 15% reallocation a bit arbitrary. And Proposal 188 would further deprive economic opportunity from the local Togiak fleet.

And I do support Proposal 193 to increase fishing time in Kaluka section for the Togiak District. I believe it will be only fair for fishermen to have it increased because Monday through Wednesday limits the harvesting opportunity for a small vessel fishery that is exposed to the open ocean of Bristol Bay.

I often hear that the running Qalluquk hits, but it is unable to harvest at the peak, depriving economic opportunity from local fishermen and leaving many with unsatisfied unsatisfying fishing seasons. Catching fish is the key to keep thriving communities in Bristol Bay. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Questions?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you, Mickey. How many fishermen do you think fish that area in a season? Uh, it's— I think it's kind of gone down a lot. But because of most of the weather and due to the closure, it only seemed like a few days, which it is like a few days, you know.

A lot of times it always depends on the weather mostly, and for just about every year I hear a lot from a lot of settlenders, they They say that a lot of times, just, just when the fish were hitting, that was when the closure would, would be closed on Wednesday.

Uh, yeah, so going from Monday to Friday rather than Monday to Wednesday just gives you more time to choose the days to go fishing where the weather's better. Is, is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes, I, I think that'd be a lot a lot more better opportunity because it's kind of a slower run and a lot of us do a lot of scratch fishing over there mostly.

And is there a tender there or do all the fish have to go over to the other village? Yes, the tenders, they switch places, you know, from the Togiak they run to the Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Frank Woods, welcome back. Thank you.

Okay, mic's on. I'm prepared. I'll start backwards and go forward from this point on, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair and Board of Fish. For the record, my name is Frank Woods, born and raised in Dillingham.

I am the proposer of 58. That's our alignment proposal. It basically addresses the management hand being tied by the King Salmon King Salmon Management Plan that's in place right now. We're no longer— basically, I'm going to address them opposed to 61. And in reference to RC43, the table in that King Salmon Management Plan addresses a catch record from 1966 to 2022 when we implemented that plan.

The commercial fishery took 80% of the— of those fish from '66 to 2022. The subsistence fishery consistently took across the board 14.5%. The sports industry started getting recorded from the '80s to early '90s. They take 5.5% historically. The commercial fishery has taken a 95% conservation hit in, in that time frame.

So you're asking more conservation from the commercial fishery. I think that's, that's, that's a problem. What's happened is now we're, we're faced with the plan, and that's RC32, the performance of that assessment in the King Salmon Management Plan. I'll leave it there. We can take that up in committee.

What I'm here for is I'm opposed adamantly to 188. It's a board-generated proposal for the, the Dutch Harbor and bait fishery and the herring, and it's out of our area, but you are addressing it at this meeting. I made a living off the Koyak herring fishing since 1983. I was the last gillnetter to deliver fish in that fishery. I asked the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to address your RC 26 and your, your asking of this thing because they're asking to increase bycatch in that fishery.

I also would also caution that we as, as public are getting impacted, number one, by the increase of dollar value of the, of the bait fishery because of tariffs that were implemented politically. The second thing is that opportunity. I sat on a joint board between this Commercial Fisheries Commission and this, this board. There are board members that sat on that Herring Revitalization Committee that tried to enact something, to enact a fishery that would be viable. We haven't done our job yet.

We haven't done an age composition. We don't have a sustainability stamp, and we don't have time and money to do it. I'm against number 1, lengthening boats. Number 2, D permits. D permits provide an opportunity for the people that was originally intended for— people couldn't afford to stay in the fishery.

By adding a D to my boat, making it permanently possible for me to own and operate 2 permits, I double or triple my income. That means I— from a— it makes an average fisherman into a highliner. And a highliner into a super fisherman, and that super fisherman automatically becomes a superhero. Okay, thank you. I'm, I'm done at my— I'm looking forward to the committee process.

So thank you. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you.

When you're saying— are you're saying that with, uh, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, there'll be more bycatch of the herring? So without knowing numbers. We don't know, like, they could be taking herring then that they're not now. So the, the proposal before the North Pacific Commandery Council and the Better Utilization Co-op, or the 5-member, uh, trawling industry asking for bycatch to increase their efficiency in the pollock fishery— that fishery is asking for an increase because they want to avoid chums. Now, I brought that forward because I sit as chairman of the Koyasak Waller's Commission at impacts right in front.

What they do is they fish indiscriminately from April 15th, 12 miles offshore. Somebody asked about the 3-mile zone. They, they border and run— they used to be able to go into state waters, but they shut that down in 2009. But they border state waters and they run that trawl fishery with 10 or 12 trawlers for 90 days scraping the bottom for the elephant trawl indiscriminately. They're asking for an increase in the pollock fishery in a neighboring— but that's where the herring— if you look at the herring, Togiak Herring Management Plan, we don't have an age class composition.

I would caution increase in quota for somebody else without an adequate biomass estimate. Oh, there's lots of herring, but who's keeping track? Once we give it to somebody, we can never take it back. Back. I've seen that happen too many times.

Also, there's no age class composition. How is that Dutch Harbor getting qualified by the— when there's no biomass, how do they know what quota they're getting of 15% or 7%, right? And I'll stop. Thank you. A good question.

Thank you. All right, Frank, thanks for your testimony today.

I have no doubt you will enliven committee. All right, next up is Conrad Schaud, followed by Miro Schaud and Tony Zuck.

Hi, Conrad, welcome.

This seems to be highlighted. Thank you, Madam Chair, Board. My name is Conrad Schaud. I've been fishing Bristol Bay for 40 years. I'm here to oppose all those prepositions that wanna supposedly protect kings.

3 Seasons ago, all stakeholders adopted a plan to aid the recovery of the kings in the Noshmoochontna watershed. There are some impatient parties out there that would like to see lots of big kings right now. But miracles don't just happen. With the current plan, we let millions of sockeye escape to let as many kings as possible make it to the spawning grounds. The kings spend 4 to 7 years out in the ocean before they return.

Tim Sands has been managing the Nush District for a long time and knows best how to apply all the existing rules and regulations to ensure the optimum fish numbers. Let him do his job. Better counting methods for kings would certainly help him with that. I hope you consider all the overwhelming evidence, science, facts presented by the biologists and experts in making your decision about this so important issue. We don't need outside special interest lobbyists telling us what to do.

We split hairs in Bristol Bay to allow the maximum king escapement and we know that the trawl fleet targets the area just west of Cape Constantine, and we know that their king bycatch is substantial. I encourage you to come up with a proposal reflecting RC 26 guidelines to stop this major predation on our kings. I'm in favor of Prop 7 to extend the Yugashik North Line. I think it would be a win for everybody. I'm also in favor of 71 through 74 for the general district late in the season.

Let's let everybody catch fish when the enforcement is done and only the outlaws play Russian roulette over the north line. Let's get rid of those lines and have at least a Eastside General District. I'm in favor of permit stacking. It's a free buyback for a fishery that has way too many permits.

Proposition 82 through 91, 32-foot limit. The current and maybe antiquated 32-foot limit is not working. While one guy gets a ticket for an anchor roller that sticks out a few inches too many, Another guy has a jet sticking out 8 feet past his stern and gets away with it. Let's come up with an all-exclusive length limit with no exceptions. If we can't do that, we need to come up with very clear language like Prop 85, to where a boat builder doesn't have to consult the crystal ball to decide how big a roller, a chiller tube, and most importantly, the jet and its guard may I oppose 57.

We don't need more boundaries. And I'm in favor of Prop 95. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any questions?

Appreciate you being here for your testimony today. Miroshad? Hi, sir.

Welcome. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Button so it turns red right in front of you on the mic. I press it. There you go.

Perfect.

My name is Miro Shad. I'm born and raised in Alaska, and I've been fishing in Bristol Bay since I was 9 years old. I'm a lifelong resident of Alaska. The salmon of Bristol Bay have been one of the most most important parts of my life, and I appreciate all of you taking the time to hear our thoughts on these important matters. I would like to encourage you to reject Proposals 44 and 61 through 69, and I would like to express my support for Proposal 71.

In regards to Proposal 71, I strongly support this. In the late season, once all the rivers have met escapement goals, there is no need for boundaries that confine fishermen to districts which often incentivize fishermen to push outside the boundary lines. There is no reason to continue to restrict fishermen to these small areas once escapement goals have been met. It creates conflicts and encourages illegal fishing. Adopting a general district like this also eliminates the need to enforce those boundaries.

This is the best way— this is the way— this is way past due and would undoubtedly encourage many fishermen to fish longer and presumably curse a lot less at their fellow fishers. In regards to proposals 44 and 61 through 69, I believe we need a much more accurate way to properly count king salmon as opposed to statistical extrapolation before any more regulations are passed based on scant science. Every king salmon-focused proposal is based on insufficient information. We, we must have better ways to assess the king salmon numbers before restricting any fishers. ADFNG, despite their best intentions, are handicapped by insufficient funds for research and unable to do the good science we all would love to see.

I would like to reiterate what the biologists have said, which is that even without any gillnets in the water, the king salmon population would not all of a sudden appear again. There are bigger factors than set and drift gillnets at play. Also, last but not least, I strongly encourage the board to generate a proposal reflecting RC 26 guidelines. It is widely accepted the trawl fleet has had a negative impact on the Bristol Bay salmon run, specifically the king salmon. With the, with the trawl fleet still raking Bristol Bay seafloor every year, nobody can in good faith make decisions about the king salmon run because there are so many question marks in regards to what sort of bycatch the trawl fleet is actually destroying.

Please protect the salmon that support so many of us by keeping the trawlers outside of Bristol Bay. Thank you. Thanks. Any questions? Appreciate your testimony today.

Thanks. Tony Zock, followed by Chad Sorensen and Jamie O'Connor. Hi, Tony. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Tony Zock. I'm the Regional Fisheries Director for the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, BBEDC, and I own and operate a setnet operation in the Nushagak District. I've lived in Dillingham year-round for almost a decade.

Please reference RC 6 for BBEDC's positions on proposals. I want to touch on some of the proposals that will impact local Bristol Bay watershed residents. BBEDC is opposed to proposals 61 through 69 on the Nushagak District King Salmon management plan and feels strongly that there should not be any changes to the current Stock of Concern management plan. This plan was the culmination of 5 years of work by a Board of Fisheries-sanctioned committee involving all user groups. Since adoption, the plan has delayed commercial openings and reduced fishing time during periods when king salmon are most vulnerable.

Only 3 years have passed since the plan was implemented, which is not enough time to evaluate biological ecological responses given the 4 to 7 year life cycles of king salmon. Proposals 61 and 62 would have especially far-reaching consequences with little additional king salmon conservation for Nushagak District commercial fishers, especially local watershed residents, some of which depend on commercial fishing as their only income to make it through the winter.

BBEDC is also opposed to proposals 82 through 91 regarding 32-foot drift vessel length. The 32-foot vessel length regulation has been a cornerstone to leveling the playing field among local and non-local fishermen that has been in place for decades. We feel there should be no changes to the current regulation and have submitted RCs 7 and 8 as backup to our position. Any increase to the 32-foot overall vessel length regulation would result in further capitalization of the fishery to the detriment of those trying to live in our region. There seems to be a common theme to many proposals submitted this cycle: change the regulations to make an illegal activity legal.

BBEDC has been and remains strongly opposed to permit stacking proposals like 75 through 78. If one of these proposals were to pass, those who can afford to buy a second permit will. This will make the already difficult endeavor of buying into the fishery even more challenging. I feel I have to note that I work directly with local Bristol Bay watershed permit holders, and the vast majority are opposed to permit stacking.

BBEDC also opposes proposals 71 through 74 to reestablish a general district salmon management plan. The local Togiak fleet comes to the forefront of the mind. Their small late runs could be negatively impacted by intercept in a general district. This will also complicate the department's ability to assign catch to river of origin, as noted in their staff comments. Again, trying to change the current regulations to make an illegal activity legal.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thanks, Tony. Quick question for you.

So I have heard a lot and I have seen some RCs come through that sort of ratchets back this general district concept to Eastside late season once escapement goals have been met. Would BBEDC have a similar opposition to that type of a proposal or scenario? Madam Chair, I am sorry, I don't know if I understand your question. So I know that previous iterations of the general district were earlier in the season, and I fully understand and appreciate the comments that were made by the department in terms of catch apportionment and, and things like that. And it was baywide.

But what I've heard brought up more recently in this meeting thus far and some of the RCs that I've seen come through are proposing— I'm not sort of an east side late late season general district. So I don't know if that would impact Tawodiak as much. And if the escapement goals have been met, if the, you know, the catch apportionment portion is as important. I don't know. And so I'm just curious if that kind of a scenario, if BBEDC would have an opinion on that or if you have any concerns around that scenario.

Thanks, Madam Chair, for the clarification. I, I still think we would concerns with the Togiak District. Their run is much smaller than the rest of the bays, and it's later as well. So any intercept to that district would be something I think we would be opposed to. Has— do Togiak fish swing down that far?

Madam Chair, I think that's probably not the best question for me. Okay, thank you. Fair enough. Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. You mentioned this, but I, I didn't get the full answer. So in your testimony, you mentioned about increasing the vessel length. How would that affect, uh, the local fleet? Uh, thank you through the chair.

So it would— any increase to the 32-foot overall vessel length would increase the disparity among the fleet. Fleet, the disparity is— it's already immense. I'm preparing— I have an RC prepared that shows that the current disparity with 2025 numbers from CFEC data put together by Northern Economics, or databases from Northern Economics, I should say, excuse me. But the disparity that already exists among the fleet between the watershed resident fleet and the nonwatershed resident fleet is, is immense. And any increase to the overall 32-foot vessel length would only increase that disparity to the— and, you know, some of these boats already cost over $1 million, and some of the boats for sale that are newer and bigger cost $500,000.

A local watershed resident isn't going to be able to afford even one of those secondhand boats. And if we're talking about making bigger boats The people who can afford to build them are going to build them, and it's going to, like I said, create more disparity among the fleet. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Yeah.

Thank you, Tony. Appreciate you being here today. Thank you. Chad Sorenson.

Hi, Chad.

You hear me? Yep. My name is Chad Sorenson. Um, my family's been fishing in Bristol Bay for 3 generations. I fish— started out as a mud farmer, setnetter, and now I'm a drifter.

Um, I have seen some immense changes in my life. I currently reside in Kenai, and I have witnessed in Kenai the fight over the king salmon fishery and the haves and the have-nots. I am really worried that we are starting that road right now.

We have an opportunity here to look at the playbook of what has happened in other parts of the state and apply those lessons to some decisions that you guys have in front of you right now. I implore you guys to look at that. That being said, I do not support this change of the NUSI GAAK, uh, king salmon management that's been put forth. You got to trust the science. You guys have people that are experts.

You guys have people that know what they're doing. If you don't have the right people in the right job, then why are they there?

Why are they there? They are the right people to do their job. Let them do it.

The next thing I'd like to address is the general district. The general district on— specifically on the east side, I would support immensely. I started out with a little Rossin. I, full disclosure, have one of those million-dollar jet boats. I fish hard.

The district right now in Igigik is not— I'm going to pick on Igigik specifically— is not enforced by the cops. We've recently— we had to shut down the district because of a safety factor. If we remove the boundaries, if you want to go fish up on Red Bluff, great. If you want to go to the Middle Bluff, great. Take a picture, live the life.

It eliminates all the constraints of what the heck is going on here with lack of enforcement. Enforcement off record supports it. The biologists support it. The canneries support it. Common sense comes into play and says let it try Put a sunset clause in it.

We're going to do it for 3 years and then it goes away. And then we can reevaluate it. We got nothing to lose doing that. The last one is permit stacking. Permit stacking is a self-regulated area to reduce effort.

Cook Inlet is doing it. Cook Inlet has had it for over 10 years. It works.

Least look at the set— setoners, have the opportunity to let them do it. Family-run operation. They got permits within the family.

They're not competing. Why not let them try it? Let us try it. Put a 3-year sunset clause on it. There's argument that the locals watershed will struggle to get permits.

Well, I own I own property in Nigigik myself. I own a house. I could call myself a local resident there too if I wanted to. I don't. I call Salatna Keenai my house.

But the local residents have opportunities through local corporations to get financing for permits.

That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chad. Any questions?

Thanks for your testimony today. Appreciate it. Next up, Jamie O'Connor, followed by Christine O'Connor, Sean O'Connor. Let's just take them all up. John O'Connor, in that order.

The O'Connor Show for the next 20 minutes. We'll try to make it a good show, Madam Chair. All right. Thanks, Jamie. Jamie.

Good morning, or good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Jamie O'Connor, and I'm a fifth-generation setnetter raised in Dillingham, now living in Ekuk and Homer. I'm testifying on behalf of the Ekuk Beach Fishermen's Association, representing 70 setnetters who have organized to advocate for a sustainable, orderly, and equitable Bristol Bay fishery and the long-term resilience of watershed communities. We are a place-based fishery. 70% Of Ekuk fishermen are Alaska residents, and 43% live in the watershed.

Our gear is deployed using fixed line and pulley systems operated with onshore vehicles. We do not operate skiffs. These operational realities matter for the safety and for how management decisions play out on the ground. EBFA supports proposals 56 to make our GPS-based seaward boundary line permanent. Additionally, we support 57 to improve clarity, enforceability, and safety by establishing predictable spatial boundaries between gear types.

In Bristol Bay, the health of our fisheries and communities is inseparable. We are proud food producers. Bristol Bay supports the largest wild sockeye run in the world. Which forms the foundation of our regional economy. There are no alternate economic bases in our communities.

EBFA supports the combined Nushagak Chinook Management Plan and Stock of Concern Plan unanimously adopted in 2023. That framework was the result of 5 years of intensive good faith work by all Nushagak user groups. Chinook are a long-lived fish. And meaningful evaluation requires time aligned with their biology. Reworking the foundational elements of that plan only 3 years into implementation would undermine public trust and undo years of collaborative conservation effort.

We encourage the board to help us raise awareness of the issues driving statewide decline in Chinook. You are a powerful voice able to highlight the impacts of climate change, trawl bycatch, habitat protections, and carrying capacity of the Pacific, to name a few. ECOG fishermen take Chinook conservation seriously. Long before mandates, our fleet reduced mesh size, forewent directed king openings, and prioritized catch accountability. Since adoption of the plan, early season fishing opportunity has been reduced by more than 35%, a significant conservation contribution by by a small place-based fleet.

We do ask the board to address one critical implementation issue. Persistent missed allocation of more than one quarter of our long-established 26% has resulted in real and compounding impacts on families and infrastructure in ECOG. In 2024, our longtime processor exited the fishery, citing uncertainty and erosion of setnet opportunity. Alaska's best seafood stepped in to keep the plant operating, but that stability remains fragile. We request that the board reaffirm that allocation is an important element of the Fishery Management Plan and to confirm our belief that the department already has the tools it needs to accomplish this goal.

EBFA is asking for stability, clarity, and follow-through. Thank you for your time and for your service to Alaska's fisheries and fishing communities. Thanks, Jamie. Any questions? Miss Irwin.

Thank you for your testimony. Um, so just to clarify, you're not looking to make any changes to the allocation numbers. You're just looking for the board to reiterate to the department and managers to carry out the allocative plan as it's written. Through the chair, thank you, Hanahi. Yes, that is our request.

So We are not looking to reopen the allocation plan. We agree with it as it stands and as it has long stood. We are just hoping that the department can reprioritize managing to those targets.

Thank you. And I just thought of this now, but with this idea of this late East Side district opening potentially, do you foresee that as an option or opportunity for setnetters to get a little bit more of that allocation that they're missing? Hmm, it's very theoretical. Sorry. Through the chair, thank you.

You know, that one I don't see connected to us in allocation. So an important element of our fishery is that we're very place-based. We fish with trucks and track vehicles using a pulley system that's always anchored in place, and so we are—. We're not mobile. Global at all.

And so we as a, as a group voted in opposition of the general district. We have concerns about its impact on other districts. And I think that's as far as I'll go in the theoretical, but I appreciate the question. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.

How about Christine O'Connor?

Welcome to the Board of Fisheries. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Christine O'Connor. I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I'm a setnet permit holder on Ekuk Beach, and I've been fishing there for more than 40 years.

I'm also a member of the Ekuk Beach Fishermen's Association, newly formed, and I align myself with the comments of our chair O'Connor. I would like to focus my time today and offer comments strongly in support of Proposal 57. I'm one of the 27 co-proposers. I want to focus on two things today: the problem and how this proposal solves it. The problem is ongoing gear conflict between drift and setnet gear along Ecock Beach and Clark's Point, and it is getting worse as more and bigger boats boats focused on the Nushagak.

We fish in extreme tidal conditions. Our nets are secured with running lines and permanent anchoring devices. These systems remain in place even when there is no net in the water, and they are under enormous tension. When a drift boat or net contacts our lines, even briefly, the damage can be catastrophic. Lines and nets break, anchors pull, and crews on the beach are put at risk of recoil by our heavy lines.

When this happens, we don't just lose gear, we lose entire tides and sometimes entire seasons because some anchors can only be reset on the lowest tides of the year. These incidents are not rare and they happen repeatedly. Drift vessels routinely tow nets between our setnet sites, weave towards shore and cross running lines. And they're often pushed uncontrollably, uncontrollably by strong tides and winds. Importantly, this problem is well documented by enforcement.

The Alaska Wildlife Troopers confirmed that gear damage complaints from setnetters are among the most common calls they receive in this area. They note that this proposal would reduce conflict and improve enforceability. So Proposal 57 provides a a simple, enforceable, common-sense solution. It uses boundaries that already exist in regulation to create predictable separation between the gear types, which prevents conflict before it happens. This proposal supports an orderly fishery by creating enforceable regulations.

We will be able to pursue our harvest in the traditional areas where we have always fished, and our drifters will continue to fish along Ee Hawk Beach fish, just without damaging setnet gear or creating safety hazards. So in closing, Proposal 57 restores order and safety to our fishery. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Swenson.

Would not 57 help you in your allocation, or would it? I'm asking you a question. Would— if the drifters cannot fish in that area, doesn't that help you with your allocation? Through the chair, Member Swenson, for my operation, not really. There in my public comments, 175, there is one example where our net was ripped out and we missed an entire tide of heavy fishing, about 8,000 pounds.

In the grand scale of a season, That's important to us, but in the scale of the Nushagak allocation, I don't think it's meaningful. Well, if they weren't in there at all, would that solve your problem of your gear problem and also help your allocation? Through the chair to Member Swenson, it would definitely solve the problem of the gear damage, but what we see right now, ECOC B2 is the only area where drift gear types can literally be bumping the anchors and the buoys of ours. So they're already— they wouldn't be moving further than— much further than the boundary where they are now. Um, so I don't think it's going to meaningfully move them.

They're not supposed to be in between our nets anyway because they're supposed to be a 300-foot separation and 100-foot from the side. And that's routinely being broken. So I guess where that was pushed out, it could have some effect. But the focus for me on this is the orderly fishery. Do they get any of the fish that you would normally get if they weren't there?

It was— that not an issue. If they're towing in between our nets, there is a point when they do this weave in and out of the setnet sites. Which often results in entanglement. But at that moment when they're coming on the upstream current, they're probably blocking a few fish at the very end of our net if they're— as they drag inside. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'm familiar with setnetting, but I'm not familiar with setnetting this way. So When it says prohibit operation of drift gillnet gear inside the line, is everybody's anchor and running line set at a certain distance outside from the beach? Through the chair, Member Wood, they are set within that boundary, the current GPS boundary.

We just have to be inside there, and they're generally probably pretty close to that boundary because you want to go out as far as you can. But It's not a rigid line where you put your pegs here, here, and here. You just have to be within that boundary. Okay. And lastly, so, you know, in our fishery, we can't have nets end to end and we have to have them 600 feet apart where we fish.

So you can— sounds like you can have your nets 300 feet apart, but nets— your district is the only one that doesn't have the distance of 100 feet, is it, away from the other nets? So are we talking about— when you're talking about separating gear from seineurs, are you talking about just your outside anchors? Are you actually talking about that 100 feet from your net? Through the chair to Member Wood, one, our setnet sites have to be 450 feet apart, and then the drift net is not supposed to be within 300 feet So that's what I was referring to. We are the only area, to my knowledge, and that there isn't a buffer distance outside of our gear of 100 feet.

So what we see is, and what we're trying to prevent, is drift boats, drift nets, lines literally going over the top of our nets, our lines tangling in our blocks. And that's the whole goal, is just trying to prevent that happening. All right. Sorry. We can get into this later.

But that's part— that running line and where that outside anchor is, is part of your lease site. That's as far as that can be. No ands, ifs, or buts. Regardless of where that net is on your line. Through the chair to Member Woods, that is correct.

We each have a site lease that sets your boundary along with the outer GPS boundary and you have to to stay within your site lease with every bit of your equipment, and we do.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you. Sean O'Connor.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Sean O'Connor. I am an Ekuk setnetter and I'm also aligned with the comments of the Ekuk Beach Fishermen's Association. I was born and raised in Dillingham and have spent most of the summers of my life fishing at Ekuk Beach.

I'm a 5th generation fisherman there and my family's been fishing on that beach ever since. Fishing on Ekuk Beach has become an integral piece of my family. I now live in Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula and have noticed very significant difference differences in fishing methods and fishing migration patterns in Cook Inlet, especially compared to the Nushiac District where I grew up. I am worried to see a Kenai sport fishing group wanting to dictate how Bristol Bay is managed. As I'm sure the board is well aware, the dynamics of managing a Cook Inlet fishery and a Bristol Bay fishery are very different.

I strongly believe it is a dangerous precedent to allow an out-of-region group to dictate how our fishery is managed. Because of this, I am strongly opposed to reopening the King Salmon Conservation Plan and Stock of Concern plans before the average 7-year life cycle of a Chinook salmon. At the moment, we are unable to accurately count the king escapement, so it would be premature to increase restrictions based on unreliable sonar data. But if you do feel it must be modified, it is important that the burden is equally shared between both the sport and commercial fishermen. 7 Of the Nushkiak District.

I am in support of the proposals 56 and 57. As the numbers and size of jet boats have been increasing in Bristol Bay, so has the damage to the setnet operations on Ekuk Beach. It has become commonplace to have gear damage that can take a site out of commission for some of the most productive fishing times of the season, costing both the owner of the site and their crew thousands of dollars and causing serious danger to anyone present on the beach at the time of the damage. Thank you for your time and the efforts you put into this board process. Thanks, Sean.

Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Thank you, Sean O'Connor.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. Appreciate your time and consideration. I also am a lifelong settler at Ecuk Beach.

I support all of the testimony of Jamie for the EBFA, Sean and Chris. I support Proposition 56 and 57. I agree with RC 18 and RC 26. I strongly oppose 61 and 62. I agree that leaving the King Management Plan in place and unmolested, if you don't mind me using that phrase, is a very good idea for at least the full life cycle of a king salmon.

I believe that the collaborative effort that went into that plan by the people that were involved is the— is a very good solution for the problem. We have to wait and see. We don't have the data. As you all saw, the sonar counts with the shadowing and all that goes on doesn't give us unfortunately, the data we need to make those adjustments. We need to revise our accounting and get our enumeration in order before we adjust that plan.

I believe I'm also the author of Proposition 56, which was just to remove the sunset for the GPS line, which is just our outer limit for the Senate. It's not a limit for drift. That's, that's my wife's proposal, 57. I also am a coauthor of 63 where I stated previously I strongly agree with leaving the King Management Plan in place. But if you do decide to open it, please look at 63 and keep the regulation balanced, keep the fishing time paired between the user groups and just keep it balanced.

The collaboration and the motivation that that will incentivize will help us to keep this fishery a sustainable fishery.

With that, I'll come to a close. Thank you. Thanks, John. Any questions from board members? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony today.

Thank you. Next up is Sonya Rutvik Ewing, followed by Fritz Sharp. Hi, welcome.

Can you hear me?

All right, Madam Chair and members of the board, thank you. My name is Sonya Rutvik Ewing. I came here today from Walla Walla, Washington, but I've spent every summer of my life on Ekuk Beach. I'm a third-generation fisherman on Ekuk Beach. My grandparents, who were Dillingham residents, started fishing fishing there in the 1950s.

My grandpa, Dr. Libby, often fished as well as treated injured fishermen, either in his cabin at Ekuk or his office in Dillingham. And he even delivered some of the people who are here today. Um, my parents, my sisters, and I still fish the same sites and the same exact cabin, same place as my grandparents did, and we are now passing on that legacy to the next generation with my nephews and niece.

I align my views with the comments from Jamie and the Eekipeach Fishermen's Association, as well as the rest of the O'Connors who went before me. I strongly ask that we do not open the king management plan, as others have said. Halfway through the life cycle of a king. I would, however, love the department to be able to refocus on allocation in our district, which they do have the tools to do that without reopening the plan. We on ECAQ Beach have drastically felt the effects of not reaching our full allocation the past few years.

Regarding Proposal 57, which I support, I agree with the comments of Christine, and I fish on the mudflats where the tide goes in and out hundreds of feet every tide. We put our peg anchors 1,000 feet out, and that's out in the sticky, sticky mud. And if any of you don't know what that mud is like, it's, it's a workout to get out there. Um, definitely over the years we have sustained broken lines lost buoys, fouled blocks, and damaged nets from drift boats going over our lines that go out in the mud. It seems to be increasing in frequency over the past years, and it's whether our nets are out all the way or in, we're just still seeing a lot of damage.

This is dangerous, especially when we have children and elders on the beach, those ropes can snap and go really, really hard. Um, it's very costly to fix, and it also takes a lot of man hours to go repair all of those things out in the mud. This is— 57 offers a boundary that's easily enforceable, and it would be incredibly helpful. Um, in closing, I guess I will say that fishing is a part of of who we are. It's in our blood.

It connects all of us in Bristol Bay. I have cousins who are driftnetters. I have friends and family who fish in other districts, and I also have friends who are in the sport sector. And I believe that all of us really just want to see Bristol Bay fishing continue safely, fairly, and sustainably into the future. Thank you.

Thanks, Sonia. Good timing. Any questions? No questions. Appreciate your testimony today.

Thank you. Fritz Sharp.

Hi, Fritz. Welcome. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the Board of Fish and Wildlife, thank you for this opportunity to address you.

My name is Fritz Sharp from the village of Twin Hills. I started fishing at a young age like everyone my age who fishes from the village, but due to RA, I had to quit fishing, but still have family involved with the fishery, and that's why I'm here.

I want to commend those involved with yesterday's traditional this knowledge session and making time for it on your busy agenda. Thank you.

I found it very good information even for myself.

One thing my father made sure I knew about was the many natural weather indicators that he had learned from others in Togiak and from his own observations. There used to be reliable weather anomalies that indicated danger, but we can no longer trust some, some attribute, some attribute that change to climate change.

This is why I'm supporting Proposal 93, allows time for safety for the size of bow pickers that are used in District, uh, Togiak District. I'm also supporting Proposal 94 that gives the Commissioner flexibility to make adjustment based on strengths of returns. Something I thought was still the case. In '88, when Togiak had its best return ever, July was wide open for a whole month.

But I also wanted to go on record opposing proposals 61 through 68, 44, 95, and especially 102. And I'd like to also voice my support for the TOGIEC AC report and their conclusions and their recommendations. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, sir, for your testimony today. Any questions?

Thank you for traveling and being with us today. Appreciate your testimony. All right, I think the time is It is about 5 o'clock. We are about two-thirds of the way through our testimony, so we will pick up tomorrow morning at 8:30 and complete our public testimony portion, beginning with Dan Dunaway, again at 8:30. I don't believe we have any second calls for the morning.

If that is wrong, let me know as soon as possible. I'll see you tomorrow morning at 8:30. Thank you so much.