2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (1/31/25)

We'll get started in a little bit, folks. We're just waiting on a few RCs to come through with some substitute language, and then we'll get started. Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon. Hope everybody enjoyed their lunch. The time is 1:08. We are back on the record and we are going to conclude deliberations of Committee of the Whole Group 1 beginning with Dungeness Dungeness crab and proposal number 250.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Joe Stratman and I'm a shellfish biologist with the Division of Commercial Fisheries in Region 1. Proposal 250, 5 AAC 02.115 subsistence Dungeness crab fishery and 5 AAC 77.662 personal use Dungeness crab fishery. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

The proposal would reduce the minimum size limit for male Dungeness crab from 6.5 inches to 6.25 inches in the Region 1 subsistence and personal use fisheries. Current regulations define the legal size for Dungeness crab in Alaska, including Southeast Alaska, for all user groups at 6.5 inches or greater in, in shoulder width. The proposal were adopted, participants in Registration Area A subsistence and personal use Dungeness fisheries would be able to retain smaller male crab than will be legal-sized in the commercial fishery. Additionally, participants in the Registration Area D Yakutat subsistence Dungeness fishery would also be able to retain a smaller legal-sized crab. The state of Alaska manages Dungeness crab through 3S size, sex, and season management.

The crab fisheries harvest males only with a size limit that is chosen to allow the male crab to mate at least once before becoming available to fisheries, and our legal size has been 6.5 inches since 1963. The molt increment of 29.9 millimeters was independent of premolt size. The pre-recruit size class are the male crabs that will attain legal size during their next molt. The current size limit protects males to reproduce at least once before being available for harvest. The department opposes this proposal.

Legal size is based on male maturity and reproductive productivity of the population. It's an important part of 3S management and protects males, allowing them to reproduce at least once before becoming available in the fishery as a legal crab. Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Just a quick question for the department. Is the size limit for male Dungeness crab— is that a pretty standard practice in Dungeness crab management strategies the size that currently exists?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, yes, yes, 3S management is used in Dungeny fisheries from California to Kodiak. Madam Chair, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks to the department. When you do the stock, do you think you've got a decent enough stock assessment of of that crab to feel comfortable with?

I mean, I know you oppose this, so that's kind of the wrong question. But because a lot of comments out there, especially there was some really good ones from the Pelican AC about this, and it sounds like that.

They're opposed to it because they really don't want to start like digging into the, you know, the younger, more immature crab. Even though it would provide more opportunity for locals, it seems like it's just a little bit far reach. So that was noted also by the Sitka AC. And anyhow, I it doesn't seem like a good idea to start tapping into the more immature crab.

Through, through the chair, Mr. Wood, are the information we have to manage Dungeness in Southeast Alaska is fishery dependent. However, there has been research done in central Southeast Alaska that identified a pre-recruit size. Those are crab that are mature but but not yet legal in the fishery is 140 to 165 millimeters. And these are crabs that will attain legal size during their next molt. So the growth increment probability research done in Southeast Alaska sets that legal size so those crabs have at least one opportunity to mate before becoming available in the fisheries.

Madam Chair, thank you. Question. I was looking at the subsistence reg review portion of this, and there's no ANS set for Dungeness in Southeast. Or in the subsistence areas. Am I reading that correctly?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, there is C&T determinations for a variety of locations and there is no ANS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on the sort of whatever data we have related to subsistence uses, and for that matter, this is where we're talking about personal use. Are we— do we have any indicators that folks are unable to harvest Dungeness crab for subsistence or personal use in Southeast?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There's occasional concerns, but there's no widespread information saying that they're unable to harvest. Commissioner, I think the key question is this is asking to go down in size. So is there a need? Would the, would the change affect the opportunity that's currently being provided by the board?

It would expand opportunity, but it wouldn't restrict opportunity. That's what I'm getting at, is if there is any indicator that they can't currently meet whatever their needs are with the existing reg that would warrant the reduction so that there could be additional opportunity. That's the crux of my question. And I think the answer was no. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, the answer was no. Yes, the answer was no. Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Petersburg AC and the Wrangell AC were in support of this, and the Craig AC, East Prince William— Prince of Wales Island, the Ketchikan, the Kwak, The Pelican, the Sitka AC, and the Upland Canal AC were all opposed.

Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm going to go ahead and go through the subsistence review a little bit here. Um, criteria number 1: is this stock in a non-subsistence area? The answer to that would be no.

Um, is this stock customary and traditionally taken for subsistence? Yes. The board has determined under 5 AAC 02108 that shellfish, including Dungeness crab, and portions of District 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are customary and traditionally taken for subsistence uses. Can this portion of stock be harvested with consistent— with sustained yield? That would be yes.

What amount is reasonably necessary? The board has not made that determination for Dungeness crab. Do the regulations provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence? I believe they do have reasonable opportunity right now. And is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide that opportunity?

And I don't believe at this time it does. So just for the record, I thought that was important. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Godfrey, due to the department's rationale, which I find compelling in opposition to this, and the fact 6AC supposed it and the opposition list was more than twice the support list, I'll be opposing it.

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey. I, I will be opposing this too. I don't see any legitimate reason to reduce and create the exceptions in reg for how Dungeness Crab are currently managed. So I will not be supporting this either. Any additional board discussion?

Mr. Zirin— I mean, I'm sorry, Mr. Swenson. I won't be supporting this either. It seems to me that 60 years it's been done this way, and that doesn't always mean that that's the best, but in this case, I don't see any reason to be allowing smaller ones to be taken. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Thank you. The question has been called. Arizona Missions.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 250. Carpenter? No. Zareh?

No. Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Wood? No. Svensson? No. Chamberlain?

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 251. Proposal number 251. Though listed as 5 AAC 32.128, that reference— that's a typo.

That reference should be 5 AAC 32.110, Fishing Seasons for Registration Area A. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. The proposal would change the start date of the commercial Dungeness fishery from June 15th to July 1st.

There are 3 different season descriptions in regulation for the Southeast commercial Dungeness crab fishery. Most of the Dungeness fishing areas have summer and fall seasons. The summer season begins on June 15th and closes August 15th unless conservation concerns mandate an earlier closure to the summer season. If the proposal were adopted, the summer season would be 16 days shorter. Effort in the summer season in terms of permits fished and pots lifted might decrease by an unknown amount due to fewer days fished and permit holders' participation in other fisheries.

There have been many changes in the season dates throughout the history of the fishery. Until the late 1950s, a summer softshell closure for Southeast Dungeness crab fishery was in effect from May 1st to September 1st. That closure was subsequently revoked, and from 1960 to 1969, there was no closed season for the Southeast Alaska commercial Dungeness crab fishery. Since then, seasonal closures and changes in regional season dates have been implemented. The current summer season of June 15th to August 15th in much of Southeast Alaska overlaps a small portion of the primary male molt period, which runs generally from March to July.

Handling of crab in the softshell condition can cause death, leg loss, and decreases in growth. Determining prevalence of softshell crab caught in the fishery is difficult. Permit holders are encouraged to work with their buyers on landing marketable crab, and the majority of softshell crab are released on the fishing grounds and not landed or recorded. Department staff sample Dungeness crab dockside and get information on the amount of legal size softshell crab released on the grounds through their dockside interview. For land and crab, there is a delivery condition code for land and crab, Code 75, and allows for this accounting.

The percentage of crab harvest graded as softshell at the plant is generally low, less than 1%, and is slightly higher in the summer season. And Table 251-2 and staff comments detail that. Department is neutral on this proposal. Although the Dungeness crab fishery in Southeast largely avoids life history events for male and female crab, the current commercial summer season, June 15th to August 15th, overlaps a small portion of the male molt period from February to July in some seasons in some areas. Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I just want to say, like, of all the proposals in this section, I feel like I learned the most with the discussions around this one in particular.

I just— with the impact of sea otters and the condensed fishing area that people are pushed into, and then just the molt timing. But all that being said, it just feels like that the variability of that time of year, whether they're soft or hard, doesn't really justify moving it 2 weeks. Also because of how it intercepts just the other fisheries and can inconvenience people. And even though it was, you know, it was good to learn all that stuff, I feel very convinced that the processors, the fishermen, are aware of the soft shell and what's going on and still have the ability to move to other areas. But I, I appreciate the concerns of the proposer, and but I don't think it's valid enough right now to change the whole season unless I'm.

Hear other members convince me otherwise. Thank you. I have a question. So why is the date set at June 16th when the department knows that the male molt occurs between March and July?

Madam Chair, throughout the history of the— of all the changes to the season descriptions over the years, there has always been some commercial fishing that overlaps at least a portion of the male or the female molt period. You know, while the male molt period is defined generally as occurring March to July, you know, I hear reports from commercial fishermen that have noted softshell crab in October and November. And the table in the, in the staff comments, 25.1-2, shows the percentage of crab labeled with that softshell condition, and it occurs in small amounts throughout the summer and into the fall, Madam Chair. Thank you. So in sort of determining from a department perspective how hard these shells are, when they might be hardening within that sort of overlap period of time, you mentioned dockside surveys, correct?

Are you doing any— what is your dockside survey doing? The dockside survey— dockside sampling, they Madam Chair, go ahead. Dockside sampling, they, they get a length frequency or width frequency, I guess. They note leg loss and shell hardness, basically coating the shell is light or new or old. They also do interviews with the skippers to get information on that portion of the, you know, the crab that weren't brought in.

Sublegal males, males released on the ground, females. Egg clutch conditions, etc., Madam Chair. And how extensive is that sampling program? Is it all docks? I mean, where, where is it occurring?

How frequently is it happening? Madam Chair, it's done in all, in all ports where we have samplers in Southeast. I believe we have, um, we have samplers in 6 or 7 different ports that sample Dungeness. Periodically. And we, we, we, we assign sampling goals at the beginning of each season, and we try to spread out sampling effort throughout the region.

And there's also a temporal element to the goal, so we're sampling throughout the season, I'm sure. And I heard from the proposer, I think it was in either in public testimony or committee, that the ideal solution in their opinion would be to have sort of preseason surveys And I'm just kind of curious why that isn't possible. I mean, I'm assuming it's budgetary, but how that would happen as it does in other Dungeness fisheries. Ms. Rumble. Madam Chair, my name is Jan Rumble.

I'm the program coordinator for shellfish and groundfish in Southeast Alaska Commercial Fisheries. I just wanted to talk a little bit about surveys that we've done throughout the region because they're kind of related to the discussion we're having about softshell. We We acquired some federal money for about 3 to 4 years of surveys. I was on 17 different Dungeness surveys throughout the region. And basically, we went out and took biological samples.

And I know, as you heard earlier, we had a device called a durometer, which measured the softness of the shell. And basically, what we found out was that between years, between areas, and the difference in the molting was just It was so highly variable all around the region that it would be very difficult to implement any kind of preseason program. It would be very expensive and it would be really variable every year. So I just wanted to let you know that, you know, that has been done and that's kind of why we have this management plan that's pretty simple in a way, but— and not complex. Another aspect is that we had a tagging program where we tagged all kinds of different shell conditions, including soft shell.

And the amount of crabs that were caught in the commercial fishery, even of ones that were soft shell, was very high. They're, they're very hardy crabs in the whole scheme of things. So I just wanted to mention that because that's from personal experience. Madam Chair, thanks. And when you— these surveys that you were describing that you participated in, what time of year were those?

Madam Chair, all times of year.

Yeah, I guess so. I mean, the time, the time period that we're concerned with right now is sort of the end of that male molt season, I guess. Madam Chair, we conducted surveys in preseason in June. We conducted, you know, surveys in October, December, and February, which is very unpleasant, I have to say. But Yes, we found softshell was not as prevalent in the fall but did exist.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions to the department. I think one of the things the proposer expressed concern over, and I kind of share that, is not necessarily what, what's being turned in dockside, but what's being caught in the, in the pots. And then tossed back overboard when they're soft at the fishing sites.

Does the department have any information to track that or any mechanism to track that information?

Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, there is a code 98 for discarded at sea, and some permit holders use that code. And some just, just throw them back. But like I said, we get, we get information. Most of the information we get on that portion of legal-sized males that were released at sea comes from our port sampling program. Madam Chair, so, so what I'm hearing there is there's unreliable information there.

Do we have—. And Can you—. And I know it's been discussed, but I haven't heard a firm answer on this— what is the handling mortality rate for softshell crab?

Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, there, there is some information in the last paragraph of the background section on staff comments. It mentions handling mortality can be 50%.

And mentioned some leg loss. Madam Chair. One more follow-up. So, and I know there was a discussion of difference, and I'm asking because this proposal is hard for me.

Is there— what's the statistical variation, and is there information on statistical variation between softshell and hardshell in sampling between June and July?

Madam Chair, Mr. Chamberlain, we don't have that information.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, like Board Member Wood said when he opened up where he's leaning on this, unless he's compelled by deliberations of other board members and what Mr. Chamberlain just said, it's hard for me too, because when I see a proposal where the proposer knows it's going to cost fishing time, And that gets my attention because that's self-sacrifice right there. Right. So it's a— the theory behind this is you reduce mortality. So it's a conservation concern.

The proposer wasn't naive and knew the opposition would be heavy because it's going to cost fishing time. The department's neutral on this. That doesn't help me. There's 4 ACs that are opposed to it, 2 in support of it. But I would expect the agencies by and large to be opposed to it.

So that doesn't help me. So I'm like Board Member Wood. I'm listening to any other deliberations here because I'm struggling with this. I'm leaning towards no. But I— because the data is evasive and that's problematic.

And what staff just said about the variability as well is problematic, which then moves me to opposing it, but I'm still Switzerland right now. Mr. Swenson.

I think the proposer of this has done a good job and came up with some good ideas. Biggest sticking point for me is the processors. When they came and said that, you know, if we delay it 2 weeks, then we have to hire a bunch of additional people. We have 90 people. They can handle— if the crab starts at 15th, they can handle the crab and the salmon.

But if they push it off 2 weeks, then it gets into where they're handling the crab and the salmon, a bunch of it at the same time, which would cause them to have to hire a bunch additional people. And my concern with that is what's going on around the state in losing processors. I don't know, I'm kind of in the same boat of which way to go, but that is a, to me,.

It's kind of a— probably leaning a little towards the no because that just concerns me and if you lose your processors, you're in deep trouble. Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the discussion that's going on. At the outset of this conversation, listening to public testimony and listening to the department's comments, I am very sympathetic to the idea that the proposer brings forward specifically to the sea otters and what they're doing in the encroachment that is expanding on a daily basis, probably in Southeast Alaska, if not other parts of the state, that are having impacts on biological impacts in some, some situations on populations of different shellfish species.

But the one thing that I haven't heard is that, number one, the department has a biological concern, and that's very important to me when I make my decisions. Secondly, of all the fisheries that we have to make decisions on, specifically the conditions of things that are being harvested, The ability to turn— return crab back to their natural environment is very easily done in this situation. I'm not sold on the fact that the 50% mortality in handling of softshell crabs is very accurate in any shape or form, and I feel that there's— it's very anecdotal for the most part. The other thing that I consider is the effects that it's going to have not only on the processors and their ability to be able to be open and to handle all these different species that are brought forward. But I also think that, generally speaking, that the ability to prosecute this fishery and to allow for the participants in Southeast Alaska to participate in multiple fisheries.

I think timeliness is of the essence. And so unless there's a biological reason not to do so, I'm going to oppose this. Mr. Chamberlain.

I was listening so tightly to— or closely to Mr. Carpenter's comments, I forgot the question I had for the department. But I'm I think I'm leaning a slight yes on this one. Simply because I don't have information to second-guess the department's concerns over mortality. And I— and I feel a duty to the resource and to making sure that we do as little damage to the resource as we can.

I'm trying to buy time to remember this question. But I always come back to you. Yeah. And so at this time, I'm leaning a very slight yes because of the handling mortality and the duty to the resource. Mr. Wood.

Thank you. I was going back and rereading staff comments, and in here it says, unless conservation concerns mandate an early closure for the summer season. So you're, you're paying attention to this. And do you have conservation concerns in the area where this proposal is being described? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, we have a management plan and regulation which we use to primarily to address our conservation concerns.

We use the first week's landings to run a regression to get a full, full season harvest estimate. We hold that up against thresholds in our management plan. If we come below those thresholds in the management plan, we're obliged to reduce harvest pressure on the stock according to the prescriptions in the management plan. And, um, and the oral report there, I showed that we've had to do that. The management plan went into effect in 2001, and we've shortened the season in 2013, 2017, and 2022, and, uh, and took harvest pressure off the stock.

Madam Chair. Great. Thank you, Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the Icy Straits AC and the Ketchikan AC were in favor of this, and the East Prince of Wales Island, the Petersburg AC, and the Sitka AC, Wrangell AC were opposed.

And a pretty fair number more of people had Opposed. Thank you. I'm kind of split on this one, and I'll get to you in a second. On the one hand, you know, I appreciate Member Carpenter bringing back the Seattle discussion because that was kind of the impetus, I think, or one of the justifications used by the proposer in the first place about why he was submitting this, is that the reason that the issue exists is that typically when you encounter the softshell crab, you can move. And go somewhere else and you can target crab that hopefully in another area have hardened off a bit and are better for everybody, for the market, for the resource, for the fishermen, the works, right?

But that because of the encroachment of sea otter predation and the effects they're in, the fleet isn't able to move around as much and to perhaps move into some of those areas where at one time there may have been better crab to harvest. I heard mixed messages on that in public testimony. I heard members of the fleet saying, yeah, we can move around, no problem. I also heard that, no, it's, you know, we're getting, we're getting sort of concentrated in some of these areas. And when there's softshell crab available, there's, you know, there's catch.

The back end of the season doesn't interest me as much because it's the first 2 weeks that we're talking about here. And so that aspect of it doesn't— the processor's argument, while interesting, isn't that compelling to me either, nor is the issue of, you know, the participation in multiple fisheries. I also heard during the Committee of the Whole discussion that the fishermen will participate in the fishery in which there is most economic, where you're going to make the most money. So whether that's in the crab fishery or the salmon fishery, presumably you're going to do what you think is best for your bottom line and you move around. And that's the nature of business in general, right?

You're going to make choices. So while I can appreciate where that's coming from, again, if there's a conservation issue, as the proposer believes there is, because of, you know, particularly I think it was 2021 softshell harvest numbers, That catches my attention. The other part that, in terms of the biological concern aspect, which is where I think my vote is ultimately gonna come down in, you know, again, I feel like I'm getting a little bit mixed messages out of the department in and of themselves because it was characterized as a very hardy species, but a 50%, up to 50% mortality handling doesn't indicate that to me personally. So if you are potentially having a 50% handling mortality, anecdotal or otherwise, that's concerning of itself. I'm trying to think of another species where we would even tolerate a 50% handling mortality.

So that is causing me pause and I'm kind of struggling with it as well. And I'll continue to let my other members talk here, but I just kind of wanted to get some of my initial thoughts on the record. Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Swenson? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair, for buying me time to remember the question.

In public or in Committee of the Whole, we heard— I was given a little information on other factors that may influence the hardness of the shell, one of them being availability of food sources. So I'm guessing, or I guess my question to the department is What are the factors that indicate, that would indicate or predict hardness of the shells from year to year, to the extent we know them? And with respect to those factors, do we predict that they will improve or not improve? I hear the otter issue. I don't expect that to get better based on what I've heard.

But if it's a food web issue, I'd like to know what the predictive analyses of that? Thank you.

Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, I mean, we, we don't, we don't make forecasts for Dungeness, but it seems in years where, and it is a minority of the seasons, it seems like in years like 2021 when there were some soft crab at the beginning of the season, they tend to be cold winters. Water temperature may play into it. Also, I think some of the comments you heard about You know, when they're— these guys see softshell crab, usually they see good numbers. And I think, you know, if there's a large cohort of crab recruiting into the fishery, they're likely competing with each other for resources.

And, you know, while the molt's already occurred, it may delay the time it takes for them to harden up. Madam Chair. Mr. Swenson. The only other thing that I didn't mention, and it's been mentioned here, but The different areas, I mean, if it was, you know, 2 weeks and it was that way in all the different areas.

There was some kind of symmetry to it, it would make a lot more sense. But it seems like, from what I've heard, is that you can go to one place and they're hard, and another place they're soft, and it varies from place to place to place. So that makes it difficult too. Thank you. Department response.

Through the chair, Mr. Svenson. Yes, I mean, in addition to, you know, years where, like 2021, Every year, I mean, there is a spatial variability component to this throughout the region. Our crab fishery is different than offshore crab fisheries to our south. Fishery is concentrated in bays and creek mouths and river mouths and places like that. And there's a lot of variability within the region.

Crab will be light in one place and hard in another. You know, you heard in the comments there that people can move around and get away from them. Madam Chair, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. I was wondering if staff could expand a little bit on the 50% handling mortality.

So is that— was that derived from dead loss in landings, or is that from a laboratory study? That's so.

Could you just talk about where that came from? Through the chair, Mr. Bowers, that was a study done in Alaska in the '80s, and I'm blanking on the name of the person who did that study.

Describe the study. I mean, like—.

Madam Chair, I don't have that. I don't have the paper in front of me. Got it. Got it. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, I appreciate the discussion. I'm focusing on the conservation issue mostly.

I think with Dungeness crab specifically, because that's what we're talking about, I think that at any portion of the year that you tried to execute a Dungeness crab fishery, there's going to always be a percentage of softshell crabs. And I think I think the department stated that when they did these independent— this independent work at different months of the year.

So I think that that's an important thing to consider. But the most important thing for me to consider also is the fact that we have a management plan in place that gives the department the ability to restrict fisheries based on in-season data that's collected. And it appears from what they've said that they've done that on a routine basis. So for that fact, it even makes my position stronger, and I will definitely not be supporting it for all those reasons. Mr. Wood.

Thanks. In my notes, I had written down that 3/4 of it is caught— 3/4 of the quota is caught in the first month, and there's only about a 10 to 15% throwback rate. Could you verify that or elaborate on it?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, yeah, a lot of this crab is caught in the first month. I can't confirm that 75% number right now. You know, our management plan uses landings from the, from the first week of the fishery generally. Those— one of the variables in that regression we run is from the previous season, the percentage of the total season's harvest that was caught in the first week, and that number varies generally from 15% to 25%. Madam Chair.

Thank you. So last question for me, and then I think it'll be time to sort of move on, but How does the department manage for relatively high numbers of soft crab early in the season? How do you get those indicators? How would you have managed, or did you manage in 2021 for that issue? That's what, you know, the reason why we're having this discussion today.

Madam Chair, In 2021, we conducted our full season harvest estimate using the first week's landings. We were through our dockside sampling program. We were, we were sampling loads of Dungeness and getting interviews from fishermen on the amount of, of Dungeness crab that was legal size but, but not retained. We, we, you know, we have our authority in the event we, we, we have an issue, we could we can manage by EO if there's conservation concerns. But in the 20 years I've been working with crab, we've identified our conservation concerns through our management plan and our full season harvest estimate.

Madam Chair, one follow-up on that. Thank you for that. What would be the threshold that the department would consider, you know, closing, using that EO if there authority early as a result of, you know, significant or concerning indications of softshells.

Madam Chair, Jan Rumble for the record. We don't— I mean, these are, these are dockside interviews with people, so it's not exactly any kind of scientifically designed, you know, we get as much as we can from the fishermen and get an eye just trying to get an idea of softshell on the grounds. But it's just— it's not very scientific and it's not anything that we would want to rely on. [Speaker:DR. LISA SMITH] Thank you. And therein lies my concern, I guess, candidly.

Because if you're saying that we would exercise this if you had concerns, but then there's no real way that I'm hearing that you would be evaluating those concerns because of this imperfect way in which we try to make that assessment. And so that's the part that I'm struggling with. To Mr. Carpenter's conservation issue question and the biological sort of implication or, you know, piece of it, that's the part that I, you know, that is frustrating me. And you could probably hear it in my voice a little bit.

Mr. Bowers, please. Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So I think one thing to keep in mind about 3S management which is used coast-wide for, for Dungeness crab fisheries, is that you are— so you've got 3 elements: size, sex, season. So the size is inherently conservative in that we're not harvesting crab until they've had chances to— a chance to reproduce.

The sex is inherently conservative. It's male-only fishery. The season— you're debating whether or not that's inherently conservative. In the past, when the board has deliberated on this issue, you know, they've had conversations like this where they're trying to balance avoiding softshell periods and yet taking into account all these other factors related to other fishing opportunities. Economic opportunity for the fleet.

I think you can look at the catches that we've seen in this fishery as a metric of how successful it's been or not. You know, in recent years we've seen some of the largest catches on record in Alaska for Dungeness crab. So, you know, you're, you're going to have years like 2021 when there may be a higher proportion of softshell crab present in the fishery and others when there's, there's less. As, as we've heard, it's difficult to use shell hardness as a metric to manage the fishery in season or preseason. You know, off the coast of Washington and Oregon, where they do use softshell prevalence to determine season openings, it's imperfect there as well.

So I think it's important to look at at the, at the track record, you know, so, so harvests go up and down. But, you know, we've seen in recent years, we've seen very large harvests that suggest that the 3S approach that we have now is sustainable. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Ziray. And then Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I'm just going to weigh in on this one. I've been listening to everything all along here, and I just do not see a need for this proposal to pass at this time. I'll just leave it at that. But I've been listening to everything everybody's been saying from the beginning here. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.

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

Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No,.

Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson. No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff. No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 251. Svenson. No. Wood.

No. Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. No.

Carlson-Vandort.

No. Ziray. No. Godfrey. No.

Motion fails 1-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 252. Madam Chair, Jan Rumble for the record. Proposal 252, 5AAC 32.128, operation of other gear in registration area A. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 252 with a withdrawal letter from the proponent found in RC 43. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 252. And I would just kind of— so let me just talk about withdrawal requests. For just a second, just in case anybody was curious. So just because a proposer withdraws their proposal does not mean that the board will automatically just go along with the fact that they don't withdraw it anymore. Clearly around this table, nobody here right now I think seems interested in pushing the proposal forward, but I just kind of wanted to make that clear.

Sometimes that comes up, and I should have mentioned it earlier. Once the proposal is submitted, it belongs to the board and the board can either take it up irrespective of whether the proposer wants it passed or not at that point. So I just wanted to make that clarification in case there was any questions on that. But since no member objected and there didn't seem to be particular interest, then the wishes of the proposer I think were considered. So I just kind of wanted to throw that out there.

Just in case anybody was curious. So if I didn't say it, I am going to say it again. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 252, which moves us on to proposal number 253. 257. Sorry, thank you about that.

And this is a little bit out of order in the roadmap for members. I forgot to mention it earlier. And this is at the recommendation of staff. So we are going to take 257 up now, followed by 253, 254, 255, and 256. So 257 is just getting moved a little bit up the docket.

Proposal number 257, please. Madam Chair, proposal 257, 5AAC 32.128, Operation of Other Gear in Registration Area A. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

The proposal would allow a person or vessel to participate in the Registration Area A commercial Dungeness crab fishery if they operated commercial shrimp pots during the 14 days immediately before the opening of the commercial Dungeness crab fishery. Current regulations do not allow a Dungeness crab permit holder to participate in a commercial Dungeness crab fishery if that permit holder operated commercial subsistence, sport, or personal use pots of any type during the 14 days immediately before the opening, or used a vessel that was operated by the permit holder or by another person for the same One exception exists to this prohibition and regulation in operating other types of pot gear in the 14 days before the opening, but it only allows a person or vessel that operated commercial king crab pots in waters deeper than 100 fathoms during the 14 days immediately before the opening of the fishery to participate. If the proposal were adopted, there would be an exception to pot operation prohibition by allowing the operation of commercial shrimp pots during the 14 days immediately before the opening, similar to the exception that already exists for king crab pots deeper than 100 fathoms. The 14-day stand down prior to the Dungeness fishery had 3 objectives: to prevent stockpiling of crab, to prevent prospecting prior to the season start, and to facilitate enforcement of an orderly start. In 2022, the board adopted a proposal that moved the start date of the Potrim fishery from October 1st to May 15th.

The pot shrimp fishery was scheduled— that was scheduled to open in October 2022 was moved to May 15th, 2023. The summer Dungeness season typically has much higher effort than the fall, so the change in the pot shrimp start date made it difficult or impossible for pot shrimp permit holders to participate in the pot shrimp fishery and the summer Dungeness crab season with the 14-day stand down immediately before the opening. Currently, there are 40 permit holders who hold permits for both pot shrimp and Dungeness crab pot fisheries. Because spot shrimp and Dungeness crab habitat does not generally overlap and the gear specifications are very different, use of pot shrimp gear in the 14 days preceding the Dungeness crab fishery would be an ineffective way of prospecting for and stockpiling Dungeness crab. The department is neutral on this proposal and has no biological concerns, Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, I guess I'm trying to get a little guidance from the department here. I understand that you're neutral on this, but I'm trying to see what the downside of this would be. I mean, do you have any real concerns other than your neutral position specific to downside in regards to the way this proposal is written?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, no.

Okay, thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Zarey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to note that the Craig AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Petersburg AC, and the Rankle AC were all in favor, and the Sitka AC was opposed. Thank you. Mr. Wooden.

Yeah, I— because these were kind of lumped together in staff comments and all, and there was not a lot of public testimony or even references to them in the ACs and whatnot, I was more than anything willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the fishermen on this one. The department didn't seem to have any opposition to it, remaining neutral. So my inclination was to, to support the proposal. Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

I would tend to go along with Mr. Wood on this because, as he said, there was not much discussion. It doesn't seem to be a bother, and I'd go along with the fishermen also.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I call the question.

The question has been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 257. Godfrey?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svensson?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 253.

Madam Chair, Proposal 253, 5AAC32.128, Operation of Other Gear in Registration Area A. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move we take no action on Proposal 253 in light of action— or in light of action taken on Proposal 257. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 253. Proposal 254.

Madam Chair, Proposal 254, 5AAC 32.128, operation of other gear in Registration Area A. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 254 in light of action taken on Proposal 257. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 254. Proposal 255.

Madam Chair, Proposal 255, 5AAC 32.128, Operation of Other Gear in Registration Area A. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, the proposal would allow a person or vessel to participate in the Registration Area A commercial Dungeness crab fishery if they operated commercial, personal use, or subsistence shrimp pots during the 14 days immediately before the opening of the commercial Dungeness crab fishery.

As previously stated, current regulations do not allow Dungeness crab permit holder to participate in a commercial Dungeness crab fishery if that permit holder operated commercial subsistence sport or personal use pots of any type during the 14 days before the opening or used a vessel used by that permit holder or by another person for the same. If the proposal were adopted, there would be an exception to the pot operation prohibition by allowing the operation of, in addition to commercial shrimp pots, personal use pots and subsistence pots during the 14 days.

Immediately before the opening of the commercial Dungeness crab fishery, similar to the exception that already exists for operating king crab pots in waters deeper than 100 fathoms. This could increase pot gear on the grounds and make it more challenging for AWT to monitor pot limits associated with the pot shrimp and Dungeness crab fishery.

The background information would be the same on the previous proposals, and the department is neutral on this proposal and has no management or biological concerns, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Uh, um, and I guess just to clarification from the department, just for the public's sake and the board's sake, in light of what the board did with Proposal 257, the difference here is it's not specifically in the proposal talking about commercial only. There's also the addition of personal uses and subsistence pots that's suggested in this.

Is that, is that generally speaking, correct? Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter. Yes, it's different in the others that it would, in addition to commercial shrimp pots being operated in the 14 days before, it would also allow personal use and subsistence pots to be operated in the 14 days before. Okay. And then just to follow up to that, like I asked you with Proposal 257, now that the board has taken action on that, does the department have any additional concerns conservation concerns?

Do they see any underlying factors that might pop up specific to the board taking action on this one, even though you have a neutral position? Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter, I think, I think the difference with this proposal is that it would— there would, there would be more buoys in the water in the 14 days before, and we would defer to AWT on any concerns they might have on that. And then I guess, Madam Chair, I would ask for the Department of Public Safety to chime in if they have any concerns. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Mr. Carpenter, through the Chair.

Yeah, if this proposal would be allowed, I would imagine we would see a big uptick in POTS in there and us having to distinguish them. It would just add— we don't usually comment when a proposal adds a lot of work, but it adds complexity and a lot of work, I would believe, if this particular proposal were to pass versus those other few that are similar but only allow commercial. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, in a situation like that, would— could you mark the difference in pots by buoy or something?

Mr. Wood, through the chair. Yes. We'd also want to look up, you know, potentially try to look up registrations while we're out in the water. Sometimes we have the ability to do that. Other times we don't, to kind of figure out the intent of somebody fishing.

So yes, it would just— the sheer quantity of buoys is what the primary issue is, not necessarily the legality of it. Thank you. Okay. I'm thoroughly confusing myself here. So in the action that we took on 253, we removed that prohibition essentially.

Madam Chair, you removed the prohibition only on allowing commercial shrimp pots in the 14 days before Dungeness, right? So my question now is, is there an existing prohibition in that same time period for subsistence and personal use? And there is, Madam Chair. Yes. So what we essentially would— are considering here is restricting a subsistence or personal use fishery, but allowing a commercial fishery.

Am I misreading that or misunderstanding that?

Madam Chair, I don't think you are misunderstanding that.

So I'm trying to figure out if we allow a subsistence and a personal use fishery to occur within this time period. There will be more buoys in the water. I'm just wondering whether or not— I'm just trying to figure out, if we're allowing a commercial fishery, why would we— why would it be necessary to disallow a subsistence and/or personal use fishery, or why that would add enforcement complexity necessarily if, if the people are harvesting legally and are allowed to do so? I guess you're saying if this didn't pass, it would be a problem.

Madam Chair, our understanding is if this, this particular proposal passes, it will allow those other groups to be able to fish shrimp at the same time on top of the commercial that was just granted. That's my understanding.

Hence a lot more buoys in the water. Mr. Thank you. Mr. Bowers. So maybe I can clarify this a little bit.

So the subsistence and personal— sorry, subsistence personal use fisheries is open. This relates to what a person who is registered in the commercial fishery can do. So This would— in your previous action, you allowed a commercial fisherman who is registered in the Dungeness crab fishery to operate commercial shrimp pots. If you adopted this proposal, you would allow that same fisherman to operate personal use or subsistence pots. And light dawns on Marblehead.

Thank you. Now I'm clear, 'cause I was like trying to figure, I was operating under the assumption that for some reason the subsistence and the personal use was closed. No, the fisheries is open. It is not. Got it.

Yeah. Phew. Mr. Chamberlain. So I'm, and this is, this is a question I asked the group I was sitting with the other day. How can this go sideways?

Is there—. And how does this open the door for bad actors in, in the event we pass this? My— and I understand there are, you know, the, the prior rules were put in place for, you know, banking Dungeness crab before the, the start of the season. I don't see how that happens with, with shrimp pots. But is there a Are we creating a backdoor for bad actors?

I guess, and very broadly, just how can this go wrong?

That was for the department, my apologies.

Mr. De Graaff.

Mr. Bross, thank you for that clarification. I did misunderstand that. We'll be withdrawing our reservation, uh, in the comments. I, I, we don't foresee the— I think the big issue was prospecting, and knowing that that gear is incapable of catching that crab, there isn't a concern. Thank you.

I think we're all kind of getting a little wrapped around. Um, did you get your answer? Did you get your answer? I very much did. Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

I'll be in support of this in light of what the captain just said.

Mr. Wood. Okay, I'm trying to stop my head from spinning a little bit here, but to recap this, there can be a commercial crab fishery, commercial shrimp fishery, and then this proposal would also allow there—. And there, there—. That same permit holder to also have pots in the water for personal and/or subsistence in the same place at the same time.

Madam Chair, Mr. Wood. Yes. So, so this, this proposal would allow somebody who wishes to be fishing the commercial Dungeness fishery to allow— would allow that person to use addition to commercial pot shrimp gear, but personal use and subsistence pot shrimp gear in the 14 days preceding Dungeness. Madam Chair.

Mr. Chamberlain. Sorry to belabor this. If a person can do commercial and personal use shrimp pots, does are we creating a risk of them commingling those?

Mr. Chamberlain, through the chair, for the record, my name is Beau Meredith. I'm the area management biologist for commercial fisheries here in Ketchikan.

If I could just try and clarify the situation, a commercial dungeness fishermen seasons begins on June 15th. With the, with the change from the fall to the spring fishery for the shrimp fishery beginning on May 15th, you have permit holders who participate in both of those fisheries, right? So by taking action on 257, you allowed a commercial shrimp fisherman who is also a commercial dungeness permit holder to participate up into the start of the dungeness fishery. If a commercial pot shrimp fisherman chooses to participate in the commercial fishery and then he wants to personal use or subsistence fish, he has to unregister as a commercial fisherman prior to, prior.

To setting any personal use subsistence gear. Excuse me, Madam Chair. Thank you. So bottom line is, is that based on the action that we took on 257, I mean, we're— this isn't really a necessary proposal anymore. I mean, the shrimp fisherman, whether he's a Dungeness fisherman or not, if he wants to go out and drop commercial shrimp pots or subsistence shrimp pots or however he wants to do it, That's no— there's no impact.

There's on subsistence fishery or personal use fishery. They can do whatever they want. They're not— we're not restricting anybody else in that time frame either. So it's really just the fisherman's decision about whether or not if he's a Dungeness fisherman without having to unregister, if he wants to go drop some shrimp pots and if he wants to sell them, he can. If he wants to keep them for subsistence or personal use, they can do that either.

I don't see the purpose of this. Proposal. So I'm not sure that I don't have a problem with it necessarily, but I just don't know if it's necessary. And if the department can help enlighten me a little bit, that might help the board also.

Madam Chair. Yeah, you know, this— for somebody who wants to participate in Dungeness, if this proposal passes, in addition to participating in the commercial shrimp fishery, They could also set personal use or subsistence pots in those 14 days before the Dungeness fishery and still participate in the Dungeness fishery. But if they were an eligible subsistence or personal use user, they could do that anyway, couldn't they? Madam Chair, no. Current regulations prohibit operation of— for the Dungeness fishery.

Operate— the current regulations prohibit operation of any type of pot, commercial, subsistence, sport, personal use, in the 14 days before the opening of Dungeness currently, or use a vessel that was operated by that person or another person for the same.

There's a 2-week window that we're talking about here. So it's—. But didn't we just ditch that with 257 for commercial gear? For commercial gear, but not for citizens. Oh, I got it.

Mr. Carpenter, help us out. I'll try and help you out. Um, so there's a lot of this surrounds the registration date in which you have to Is there a registration date for the Dungeness commercial fishery?

Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter, no, there is not a registration deadline for Dungeness fishing. This became an issue when the— largely when the season date for the commercial pot shrimp fishery changed from October 1st to May 15th. Madam Chair, so I'm going to try and summarize this. So a person that has a shrimp commercial shrimp permit and a commercial Dungeness permit, what we did in 257, that allows him to participate in both of those fisheries now. Okay.

What this proposal is doing is it is also going to allow him, if it passes, to either set a shrimp personal use or subsistence shrimp pot fishery prior to the beginning of that season. Am I correct there? So basically, this is just giving the person that owns those commercial permits the opportunity to participate in whatever he wants. Am I correct? Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter, there are 40 permit holders who operate or hold permits for— Well, it would allow anyone.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it would, it would, it would not just allow those 40 permit holders who have a commercial shrimp pot permit to fish commercially in the 14 days before Dungeness and still fish Dungeness. It would allow anybody wishing to fish in the Dungeness fishery the opportunity to operate personal use and sport gear in the 14 days before, Madam Chair. Okay, I understand it very clearly now. Thank you.

I'm trying to piece together my mind too. So I think the regulation was originally adopted to prohibit people going out prospecting for— but how many— this is about shrimping. So how many— can you prospect with the gear that you're thinking about opening up here for Dungeness crab? Is that even feasible to do?

Madam Chair, Commissioner, so the lawful gear descriptions for pot shrimp gear and Dungeness crab gear and regulation, they differ in a lot of ways. The tunnel size on pot shrimp gear is limited to tunnel eye openings that cannot exceed 15 inches. Tunnel size on commercial Dungeness pots is twice as large, 30 inches, which allows a legal-sized Dungeness to enter a pot with a, you know, a 30-inch tunnel, Madam Chair. So you really couldn't prospect with the gear we're talking about for Dungeness before the season using— if the board were to adopt this, Madam Chair, Commissioner Lang, it would be an ineffective way to prospect for Dungeness, right? And I think that's what Captain DeGraaff's comments spoke towards too.

I'm just— was confusing myself, so glad I wasn't the only one. All right. Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department. And I would call the question.

Gratefully, the question has been called, and I will go to errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on proposal 255. I had to double-check that. Chamberlain? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zareh? Yes. Svenson?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Gong. Thank you. Proposal number 256. Madam Chair, proposal 256, 5AAC 32.128, operation of other gear in registration area A. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on proposal 256 in light of action taken on 257.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 256. Proposal number 258. Madam Chair, proposal 258, 5 AAC 32.150, closed waters in Registration Area A. Madam Chair, move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. The proposal would open some or all areas currently closed to commercial Dungeness crab fishing in Registration Area A. There are 20 areas in Southeast Alaska, mostly near communities, that are closed to commercial fishing. For Dungeness crab.

If the proposal were adopted, this may increase commercial harvest by some unknown amount or shift effort to these previously closed areas and may reduce opportunity for non-commercial user groups. Multiple areas in Southeast are closed to commercial Dungeness crab fishing, most near population centers.

Regulations closing— first, closing areas to Dungeness crab fishing first appeared in 1978. In 1984, 3 more areas were added, and since then, more closed areas have been added and repealed from regulation. Most recently, in 2022, closed waters near Chinook Inlet, Whale Pass, and Natsahini Bay were added to regulation. Many factors have served to concentrate effort in the commercial Dungeness crab fishery, foremost among them the expansion of sea otter populations in, in Southeast. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal but supports allowing commercial fishing opportunity for Dungeness crab.

In areas where there is no conservation concern, if this proposal is adopted, the board should consider whether reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses of Dungeness crab will still be provided. Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, this, this is kind of a broad proposal looking at opening. It's kind of vague in some regards. Some or all areas close to commercial Dungeness fishery. I just can't help but reflect back on the public testimony and the Committee of the Whole testimony where we had a few different factors that came forward and talked about the impacts that it would have opening certain areas. And so I'm generally not a person that's in favor of passing something with broad implications like that.

So The one thing that I do consider, and the department read that into the record, is what reasonable opportunity and what the effects of this would have on reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses specifically. And I would refer back to my comments that I read into the record in specific to the subsistence regulation review. And I think a lot of that is pertinent to this conversation. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting it. Mr. Godfrey.

Similarly, during Committee of the Whole, I said in the earlier proposal today, you know, a big bite of the apple, and sometimes I think you got to nibble around the.

Edges because of the unknown factors at play. They could be extensive and reverberating in a negative way to the fishery and the communities that would be subject to some of these opening areas if they did get open. It's just too broad. It paints with too broad of a brush. There's too many unknowns, and it's just too sweeping without really being able to anticipate the probable unintended consequences, so I'll be opposed to it.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. You know, the Pelican AC kind of struck me reading their comments, and they were opposed to this, and they're pretty rural. And then there was public testimony from rural residents saying how just randomly, or just, you know, sweepingly opening things up could really impact them. And I'm really not down with that because I think something like this needs to be more incremental and maybe more specific to area by area rather than just all.

And because of the impacts that could have, especially on very rural areas. So, yeah, I'm not in great support of this proposal. Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Zarey. So yeah, I usually talk when we're dealing with regulations.

I think a lot of opportunity can be found if you switch your tool from a knife to a scalpel and you can make it more amenable to all user groups. And this proposal is more of a sledgehammer. I have a hard time agreeing to something so broad and covering such a wide area without addressing each area individually. So I will also not be supporting this. Mr. Zarey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the Petersburg AC and the Wrangell AC were in favor of this, and the Craig AC, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Elfin Cove AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Pelican AC, and the Sitka AC were all and the Upper Lynn Canal AC were all in opposition to it. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department.

And I would call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson— Director Wieda, I'm sorry. No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 258.

Svenson? No. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Ziray? No. Godfrey? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 259. Madam Chair, Proposal 259, 5AAC 32.150, closed waters for Registration Area A. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, the proposal would open all waters close to commercial Dungeness crab fishing and registration area A from October 1st to November 30th. There are 20 areas in Southeast Alaska, mostly near communities close to commercial fishing for Dungeness crab. If the proposal were adopted, areas that are currently closed to Dungeness crab commercial fishing would be open for 2 months out of the year from October 1st to November 30th. This may increase commercial harvest by some unknown amount or shift effort to these previously closed areas. This may reduce opportunity for non-commercial user groups.

October and November often have unfavorable weather conditions and effort would most likely be less than if these areas were open in the summer months. The background of this would be the same for the previous proposal, and the department is neutral on this allocated proposal but supports allowing commercial fishing opportunity for Dungeness crab in areas where there is no conservation concern. If this proposal were adopted, the board should consider whether reasonable opportunity for Dungeness would continue to be provided. Madam Chair. Board discussion.

Mr. Swenson and Mr. Carpenter. Well, I think this falls in line with the one we just had before, and I won't be supporting this because of the discussion we had. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Similarly, this is not quite as big of a broad stroke as the prior proposal, but I think in light of all the public testimony we heard surrounding potential impacts around some of the smaller, more rural places.

I will not support it at this time. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm, I'm going to stick with my decision on the last one as well and use the same comments. I would say that the department in their comments did say that they support allowing commercial fishing opportunity in areas where there's no conservation concern, but But again, I would like to know area by area before we open it, if, you know, if there is or isn't. So anyhow, I'm going to just stick with my original thought process on this, especially when I— yeah, again, a little broad for me.

Commissioner, I just want to make sure that people understand we support opening areas where there's no conservation concern. But we also don't want to open areas where it's impacting subsistence priorities. So both of those are key steps. It's not just because there's, there's no conservation. We got to make sure that we're not impacting subsistence too.

So, Mr. Godfrey, I'll be opposed to this for similar reasons as other board members have indicated. And also, you know, the opposition to this is dramatically larger than the support, quite impressively, actually. Thank you. I am only slightly less uncomfortable with this one than I was with the previous because there's a, you know, a time or a temporal aspect to it. And, and there may be potential for commercial operations in the fall in some areas which aren't being utilized, but that's not what's in here.

And so I appreciated the comments from members of the public about this really does need to be more site-specific. And if it were site-specific, if there were particular areas where a member of the commercial fleet would want to prosecute in the fall time, that that should be a conversation that's had and solicited input from regional folks and members of the community. Around which it would be proposed, just so that we can get an idea of whether or not there would be those types of subsistence impacts that we're concerned with as well. So I will not be supporting this one either. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I just like to reiterate a little bit what you just said. In public testimony, there was especially one testifier that did mention this explicitly in their testimony. And so I'm very— since I'm hearing what they're saying here, and so again, maybe choosing the area rather than all next time might be better preparation.

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

Questions called to errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Rita? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 259. Wood? No.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Zareh?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 260.

Madam Chair, proposal 260, 5AAC 31.136, closed waters for registration area A, 5AAC 32.150, closed waters for registration area A, 5AAC 34.150, closed waters in registration area A, 5 AAC 35.XXX, closed waters in Registration Area A. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. The proposal would close George Inlet, Carroll Inlet, and Thorn Arm to the commercial harvest of crab and shrimp east of a line from Mountain Point Light to the northernmost tip of Bold Island— to the southernmost tip of Bold Island to Cone Point.

It is unclear if the proposer intended to the closure for all species of crab or just Dungeness crab. Regulations currently allow for commercial pot shrimp fishery, commercial Dungeness crab fishery, as well as personal use and sport fisheries for both species in these waters. If the proposal were adopted, this would increase the number of closed areas in District 1 to commercial Dungeness crab and pot shrimp fishing while still providing for personal use and sport fisheries. This may result in foregone yield in the commercial fisheries and increased harvest in the sport and personal use fisheries. The proposed area includes 6 different stat areas in District 1 and also portions of 2 others.

There has been.

Some Dungeness crab and pot shrimp commercial harvest in the proposed closed area. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal, but opposes closing areas to commercial fishing where there is no conservation concern. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion? I have a question.

So just for the record, is the area considered for closure in a subsistence distance area.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Beau Meredith. I'm the area management biologist for commercial fisheries in Ketchikan. There is a CNT finding for Dungeness crab in, um, north of a latitude, so a portion of this is in a positive CNT finding for Dungeness crab only. Not shrimp. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you to the department.

When I read this proposal, is it crystal clear that the proposal is only talking about Dungeness crab, or is it talking about crab in general? I'm just not real clear on that.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, the proposer clearly closed it to shrimp and Dungeness crab, but it was unclear on whether, you know, Tanner crab or king crab were included in this. Mamcheer. And maybe just to follow up on that, can you just give us a brief description of how much commercial activity might take place, you know, in this affected area if it were to be closed.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I can read some of the information in the background section. The Dungeness crab harvest in statistical areas 10140, 10141, 10143, 10144, 10145, 10146, 10148 for the past 10 full seasons is 5,458 pounds. In the— there has been no commercial red or golden king crab fishing harvest in these statistical areas in the last 30 years. And no commercial, uh, Tanner crab harvest in the last 20 years. And there has been some pot shrimp harvest, uh, reading out of the staff comments.

The 10-year average for that commercial pot shrimp harvest in District 1 is 58,000 pounds by 19 permits, and the 10-year average harvest from the proposed closed area is 7,800 pounds of spot shrimp by 5 permits, or 14% of total District 1 GHL. Thank you. So what I'm hearing you say, and the reason I wanted you to speak to that, is there's, there's no significant crab harvest in this area. There's obviously some spot shrimp harvest, but the way the proposal is written, it kind of lumps everything together. And so I just wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Looking at the staff comments, there wasn't a conservation concern. And because this is allocative, trying to remove commercial from there, I got to— you got to kind of cruise down through the allocation criteria.

And well, first I'll ask, is— has the rural residents had any problem harvesting enough food out of there?

For personal use or subsistence? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, that's a difficult question to quantify.

You know, we heard public testimony to that there was no problem, and then we heard public testimony that they would like more opportunity. You know, the personal use permitting is difficult to accurately assess what the actual poundage is in that fine of an area. You know, sometimes your reporting comes back as District 1, um, or unnamed points that you're not familiar with. The best we can tell is that the personal use shrimp harvest from 2019 to 2033 was 800 pounds by 49 permits. So again, it's a difficult question to, to answer.

Okay. Thank you for that. Well, I'll just go down to the allocation criteria, the history of the personal use, sport, guided, and commercial fishery in this area. And it looks like the two of them are kind of cohabitating pretty well. The number of residents and nonresidents participating in the fishery, the importance of each fishery here, the importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain food fish and for personal use and family consumption doesn't seem to be impacted that highly.

And the importance of the commercial fishery to the economy of the state. So trying to prevent them from being in there altogether seems a bit unnecessary. So with that, I'll be a no on this. Mr. Zurey, then Mr. Godfrey. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The East Prince of Wales Island AC and the Ketchikan AC were in support of this, and there was no public listed as being in support. And the Craig AC, the Petersburg AC, the Wrangell AC, the Armstrong Abigail— no, excuse me, just the Wrangell AC, those 3 ACs were in opposition, and there was a large number of the public who commented in opposition. Mr. Factory, I'll be opposed to this for the same reasons that the department cited. Given lack of conservation concerns, shutting down opportunity, I will not support it.

Mike, just briefly, my comments is I'm just looking at the map here provided along with staff comments, 260-1, and, um, it seems to be a pretty significant area that's close to town that they want to shut down. And I would also just note that there There are also areas close to town that have already been restricted for the shrimp pot fishery and Dungeness crab specifically in this map. So I kind of feel the same way as I— about this one as I did about the last couple, but for the same reason but for a different group. I just don't see the justification to restrict the commercial fleet that heavily at this time based on the very limited justification that the board has received in terms of any impacts specifically on personal or subsistence users' ability to harvest. So I won't be supportive.

Mr. Chamberlain. Similarly, I'm, I'm leaning towards no on this one as well. I, I, and I take the, the Ketchikan AC's support of this actually very seriously because It does— oh, I'm sorry. I do take in a lot of the concerns on this one very seriously. But if this were to come forward, I would expect more of a record to be built.

And yeah, if you're going to change the current criteria, I would like to see more support and a stronger justification to make this closure. On that one, I, I will be voting no on this. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with the last two board comments.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton.

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers. No, Madam Chair. Director Vida. No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson. No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 260. Godfrey. No. Wood. No.

Chamberlain. No. Zareh. No. Carpenter.

No. Svenson. No. Carlson-Vandorp. No.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 261. Madam Chair, Proposal 261, 5AAC 31.136, closed waters in Registration Area A. 5AAC 32.150, closed waters in Registration Area A. 5AAC 34.150, closed waters in Registration Area A.

5AAC 35.XXX, closed waters in Registration Area A. And 5AAC 47.021, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, annual, and size limits. Methods and Means for the Salt Waters of Southeast Alaska. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, the proposal would close— would close Traders Cove to commercial and sport shellfish harvest. Regulations allow for commercial pot shrimp fishery, commercial Dungeness crab and Tanner fisheries, Tanner crab fisheries, personal use shellfish, and sport shellfish harvest in these waters. Traders Cove is within the Ketchikan non-subsistence area.

Various areas described in Southeast Alaska are closed to commercial fishing for Dungeness crab and areas described— oh, and also for commercial shrimp. Other areas near Ketchikan, the waters of Blankenboswick Inlets are closed to commercial Dungeness crab fishing and the waters of Clover Pass are closed to both commercial Dungeness crab and spot shrimp. If the proposal were adopted, this would increase the number of closed areas in District 1 to commercial Dungeness crab and pot shrimp fishing while still providing for personal use fisheries. This may result in foregone yield in the commercial fisheries and increased harvest in the personal use fisheries. This action would close sport fishing for all shellfish species in Trader's Cove and create greater disparity between sport and personal use regulations.

There have been commercial Dungeness and shrimp harvests in the proposed closed area. And further detail on this is provided in the written staff comments. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal but opposes closing areas to commercial or sport fishing where there is no conservation concerns. Adoption may provide personal use users with more opportunity to harvest crab, shrimp, and other shellfish. However, the department is concerned that it would further complicate shellfish regulations in Southeast Alaska.

Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Godfrey. I'll be opposed to this one for the similar sentiment as the last and the department's comments on this and the fact that on the record, those in opposition are a whole bunch and those in support are zero.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I just want to recognize too that it was brought up by the department, but this is in a non-subsistence area. I understand the desire of the local people wanting to protect their ability to access food. However, in the allocation criteria, the history of each personal use sport unguided fishery and commercial fishery, they've been cohabitating in this area for quite a while, and some testimony there said that because of the difficulty of getting in and out of this area in particular, somewhat keeps it somewhat restricted from commercial as it is, 'cause of how the tides flow in and out of there.

And then I just will also reference the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located. It's important to the economy, but also to the personal use people as well. So I just recognize that, but it seems like there is still a balance there and there's no like red flag saying that one is overtaking the other. So for that reason, I'll be no on that.

Mr. Zarey. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, there was zero AC support for this. The Ketchikan AC supported it with an amendment, and the Craig AC, Petersburg AC, Wrangell AC all supported— were in opposition to this in a large number of public comments in opposition.

Thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I call the question.

Thank you. I would just note that My notes, I had that the Ketchikan AC would support it if it were sort of targeted at shrimp, but either way, I'm, I'm not supportive of it. It looks like a lovely place. I'd like to go there sometime, and I understand why the locals would want to sort of maintain and prioritize their access to that, i.e., residents, I should say, versus non-residents. But I can't be supportive at this time either.

And the question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 261. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Carpenter? No. Wood? No. Godfrey?

No. Svensson? No. Chamberlain? No.

Zarey? No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 262.

Madam Chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 262, 5AAC 47.021, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, annual and size limits, and methods and means for the salt waters of Southeast Alaska. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. This proposal would close the sport fishery for Dungeness crab in Thorn Bay. The sport fishery is currently open year-round with a bag limit of 3 male or Tanner crab— sorry, 3 male Dungeness or Tanner crab in combination. Alaska residents could continue to harvest Dungeness crab in Thorn Bay under personal use regulations. Sport fishing for Dungeness crab was closed in 2022 through board action in the locations of Whale Pass, Kaufman Cove, and Klawock Inlet.

The department opposes closing the sport fishery in the absence of a biological concern, but is neutral on providing preferential opportunity between sport and personal use. This will likely reduce competition among users, but the department is concerned that the action would further complicate shellfish regulations by increasing the mosaic of closed areas for Dungeness crab. Thank you, Madam Chair.

For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you to the department. Um, obviously there's a sport and personal use access currently. Do most residents harvest under personal use typically?

Yes, through the chair, Member Carpenter, that is correct. The personal use regulations are much more liberal than the sport fishing regulations. There's little motivation for residents to harvest under sport regulations. And then another question, um, I was reading kind of in the, in the regulations about captain and crew of charter vessels and the crew not being able to deploy and retrieve, but their, but their clients could as long as they did that on, on their own. Um, is that, is that an attractive thing, um, that charter boat operators are doing in this particular area?

Is that Do you think that's why the proposal was brought forward? Just a little background, if you know any. Absolutely. Through the chair, Member Carpenter, I think it's rare for a charter vessel in Southeast Alaska to have paying clients that set dungeoness pots because of the requirement for the clients to set the pots and also retrieve them. It certainly happens in this area.

There is a small boat rental facility that probably runs mostly to non-resident anglers. And I think that's probably the driver of this proposal. And then just one final thing. I see that the department opposes closing this sport fishery, and I think it's pretty clear that you don't have a biological concern at this time specific to this area. For the record, is that correct?

That is correct. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah. How long is the sport fishery been operating in the area?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, the sport fishery has never been closed in the area. Never been closed? Correct. So, and you don't have any concerns over the status of the stock or anything in there? So, okay.

All right. Thanks. Let me go.

Mr. Godfrey. No, I'll be opposed to this for the reasons the department cited in their comments. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I just want— I guess with that, when it comes to the allocation, you know, the being able to have this opportunity available to all user groups, personal use sport, guided, and there's— it seems to be in a balance right now. I don't really see the justification for closing the sport fishery.

So for that reason, I won't be in support of it. Thank you. So I can really appreciate the spirit in which this is brought. I remember some of those discussions from the last cycle with related to some other communities nearby. And so just Mr. Fowler, you said that this is primarily unguided sport fishing that's happening.

Madam Chair, to be clear, I— it's a little bit subjective. I don't have hard numbers on this, but, uh, our local management biologist, just knowing the area, probably suspects that most of the sport fishing activity is unguided, uh, non-residents. Okay, so it's not It's not like, like you said, it's not lodges necessarily going out and having their, their clients pick dungeepots, set and pick dungeepots, and then taking them back and essentially feeding clients at their lodges. Madam Chair, I don't believe so. I'm not familiar with all the businesses in the area, and I guess depends on your definition of a lodge, whether that is— there are lodges that provide both rental services And there's lodges that also provide guided sport fishing activity.

Right. Thanks. Just in my mind, I mean, that starts to.

Cross a little bit of a definitional line as I think about sport fishing for residents and non-residents, personal use. And I can appreciate why, again, why locals would feel perhaps pushed out to some extent, their ability to harvest some of the resources that they've been long— had long access to, presumably. But This is a little tougher for me, frankly, and particularly because it was brought by the folks from Thorn Bay, and I'm interested in hearing additional discussion around it. And what kind of assessment— I mean, I know it's really hard for the department, I don't even know if you could, but it's lacking some kind of survey or assessment information from the department, it's really hard to know what the quantities are. And really the only source of information that we have is that which is communicated to us by the locals, by local knowledge.

And unless the department has sort of quantifiable user information about this particular area, my inclination is to lean on that local knowledge, but perhaps you can help me or enlighten me a little bit more. Absolutely, Madam Chair. So the Statewide Harvest Survey does collect information on Dungeness crab. The 10-year average for the greater area of the East Prince of Wales Island is approximately 4,800 crab annually— Dungeness crab annually. So the department doesn't have harvest estimates for this specific area.

But when you include the entire east coast of the Prince William Island, that's 4,800 annually.

Okay. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I mean, I'm thinking about this a little bit more now because generally speaking, when the department doesn't have conservation issues, And, you know, that kind of is something that I take very seriously. But I tend to give a lot of deference to advisory committees.

I mean, they're made up of a broad spectrum of people throughout the community. And it appears to me that for an advisory committee to bring this proposal forward, there's obviously some sort of conflict that they're looking to have the board resolve. And I wish there would have been more conversation around this during Committee of the Whole. It would have maybe given me a little bit more perspective. But this is really a toss-up for me at this point because I don't— I don't want to restrict sport fishing unnecessarily.

But I also without some real hard data in regards to the people that live in Thorn Bay specifically having the ability to, you know, collect enough through personal use. I don't want that to happen for sure. So I think I'm leaning yes at this time. Quick question, then I'll go to Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Wood. So I'm looking at the map, the figure in 262-1, and the proposed Dungeny crab sport closure area, um, and I'm just wondering what effects would that closure have on opportunity?

You know, is there still opportunity maintained for a sport fishery outside that closed area? It looks like there's some point in Tolstoy where there's even road access. I'm just kind of curious, would this just preclude all sport fishing in the area, or is it just kind of carving off a little bit to create ease of access for folks that are local? Yes, Madam Chair, I think I know where you're going. I think there is opportunity outside of this area.

It's just a matter of a little bit farther.

Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain, then Mr. Wood, then Mr. Swenson. So I'm having trouble digesting this one. And I understand the local's concerns and taking the local AC's opinions very seriously. However, this is highly allocative because we are essentially cutting off one of the user groups entirely from this region.

And looking at the allocation criteria, It's hard to find a basis for this within the allocation criteria without showing that there is a lack of opportunity for certain people to do that. And particularly if there is a business, a local business within Thorn Bay that does rent out boats. We may be potentially altering that, that business permanently. And I don't have enough on this. And mirroring what Mr. Carpenter said, I wish there was more of a record on this one.

And I, I feel like this is a very consequential decision we're being asked to make, and I don't have enough information that I can in good faith make a drastic change within this bay without more information. I'm leaning no on this one, and it's a very soft no, but I fear, you know, there may be some unintended consequences that I just don't know of on this one. So I'm leaning no. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Um, you know, I pulled out the map and I finally have an idea where I'm at, uh, and it's a really small spot. And, and then it is brought by the AC for a reason. I wish there was somebody like you all are saying that from the AC to testify why they put this proposal forward. And if there is, uh potentially a growing sport industry there that could impact number 6 in the allocation criteria, the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located. It's really important.

I mean, it could have— it's such a small area that a little bit of hard new added sport fishing could really impact the locals in this area. Especially with all the road access around the bay. I mean, gosh, this is a really— this one's a tricky one because, I mean, to say no, no sport fishing, I, I mean, that people need that area to, to bring food into their house and to have that food just go away through— I, I don't know. This is— this one's Tough. I wish somebody had been here to testify from the AC.

Thank you.

Mr. Swenson.

I'm kind of confused by this one too. So fish, the fishing game, you guys are saying that staff are saying that Most people don't sport fish for Dungeness crab, correct? I mean, they're not out, because if they are, they gotta pull the pots, put 'em in, pull the pots themselves, right?

Through the chair, Mr. Swinson, Alaska residents have the opportunity to harvest under personal use regs, so that most residents are fishing under those regs. Non-residents, it is rare for, well, the non-resident sport fishery for Dungeness crab in the region is about 1% of the Dungeness crab harvested in the region. So the magnitude of the sport harvest is low. So we don't see a lot of non-residents harvesting Dungeness crab. But sport fishing activity for Dungeness crab is known to occur in this area.

So when we see that these ACs against this, that's confusing because you would think that they'd be for it. Closing it to sport fishing if they live there. That's what I'm somewhat confused about. Am I looking at this wrong? Yeah, yeah.

If I might, there was one AC that was against it. There's 3 ACs that were in support of it. Okay, thank you.

As I— Mr. Zarey. Yeah, just for the record, the Craig AC, the Klawock AC, the Wrangell AC, And of course, the Prince William— Prince of Wales AC were all in favor of it, and the Petersburg AC was the only one in opposition to it. Thank you. I'll offer a little bit. There was, I think, an AC rep that did speak to this, which is why I have in my notes that this was brought by and supported by the people of Thorn Bay, and I think that that AC representative also was speaking on their behalf.

More I sit here and I think about and I listen to the debate, the more, the more I lean towards supporting this. And the reason I'm doing so is because, again, you talk about the 1% of the low number of, of sport fish harvest of Dungeness crab, but that's a really broad metric. And again, in.

Lacking those harder numbers, I'm inclined to listen to the local knowledge that is imparted to us through the AC process and the public testimony. Apparently there is a problem, in their opinions, here. I'm inclined to believe that. I'm also looking for opportunities per the allocation criteria, making sure that there is still sport fish opportunity within the this area, but perhaps it's just outside of Thorn Bay proper where the most local use and consumption occurs. And there is access.

It doesn't look like it's a terribly far way to go. That would be unduly burdensome to a sport fisherman who wants to, you know, go set dungey pots in the area, but not perhaps right in the front yard of Thorn Bay where most local usage occurs. So yeah, I think I'm leaning more and more towards supporting this and for all the reasons I just articulated, but most important of which is that I have to rely on that local knowledge that's given to the board. It is literally what we have available to us and our charge is to use some of the best available or the best available knowledge available to us. Sometimes that's not as robust as we wished it were, but that's what we got.

So I think I'll be supporting this. Other members?

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

Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 262.

Zareh? Yes. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey?

No. Svensson? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Motion carries 5-2, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Nelson. That concludes deliberations on Committee of the Whole Group 1. Let's take about a 25-minute break and then we'll come back and begin deliberations on Group 2. Thank you.

Okay, we're back on the record. The time is 3:58. We are about to take up deliberations on Committee of the Whole Group 2, commercial subsistence sport personal use groundfish. There are 21 proposals in this group, and we will begin this afternoon with proposal number 191. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman.

I'm the groundfish project leader in Southeast Alaska for the commercial fisheries. Proposal 191, 5 AAC 28.175, Logbooks for the Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would amend logbook requirements for vessels fishing for groundfish with pot and longline gear. Additional logbook fields would be required for vessels fishing for groundfish with longline gear, and logbook requirements would be updated to include vessels fishing for groundfish with pot gear. Current groundfish logbook reporting requirements do not include all the information that is necessary for management and stock assessments. With recent regulation changes allowing pots in state-managed sablefish fisheries, the logbook reporting regulations need to be updated to include vessels fishing with pot gear. This would provide consistency and regulation for logbooks.

The department submitted and supports this proposal. Additional information will be available to department staff who depend on timely and accurate logbook data to make management decisions. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion, please. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you. Yeah, I support this proposal. It's, you know, information that the department wants and needs to manage the fishery. And so I don't, I don't see any reason not to support it.

Mr. Wood. I agree with that as well. The more information, the better. And so I appreciate this happening. Especially in a timely manner.

Thank you. Mr. Godfrey. So as not to belabor the point during this committee, though, or this deliberation, I'll be supporting this and probably the most, most of these that are submitted by the department. And I'm not going to go on the record to say it every time for the sake of expediency, so I'll say it now.

Thank you. I think, Mr. Sorey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island, the AC, the Elfin Cove AC, the Fairbanks AC, and the Ketchikan AC, and the Sitka AC all supported it, and there were no ACs in opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this The proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions, Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Weeda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 191. Chamberlain? Yes.

Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Ziray? Yes. Svensson?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Madam Chair, proposal number 192.

For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll, and I'm the assistant management biologist in Southeast Alaska for the commercial fisheries.

Proposal 192, 5AAC 77.674, Personal Use Bottom Fish Fishery. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would allow pots used in the personal use sablefish fishery to be longlined in Southeast Alaska under the personal use sablefish permit. A single permit holder would be allowed to longline their 2 pots to the same groundline, or up to 8 pots total on a groundline, when 4 more permit holders are on board the same vessel. Current regulations prohibit the longlining of pots in the personal-use sablefish fishery but allow longlining of pots in the subsistence and commercial sablefish fisheries. The proposed regulatory language may increase sablefish taken by pot gear, reduce gear loss with longline pot gear relative to single-line pot gear, and reduce bycatch mortality, uh, relative to longline hook and line gear. As less bycatch is caught in pots.

The department supports this proposal. Longlining 2 to 8 pots in the personal use fishery does not present concerns for the resource and mirrors existing regulations for subsistence and commercial fisheries. Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I like this proposal a lot. It's very efficient. It's fast, it makes sense, and I support it. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I would also, I would also mirror those comments. I think this is something similar that we did recently in Prince William Sound, and so I think it's a good addition. Thanks. And just to be clear, we're talking about sort of traditional pots. What kind of pots can they use to longline in these fisheries?

Madam Chair, this would be any groundfish pot, so it could be the old style conical or a new slinky pot. Madam Chair, we really need to get that definition in because we might have some 3-mile-long slinky pots strung together. Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Icy Straits AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Klawock AC, the Petersburg AC, the And the Sitka AC, the Upper Lynn Canal AC, all were in favor, and only the Ketchikan AC was opposed.

Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions been called.

Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bauer? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain?

No, Madam Chair. Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 192. Carpenter? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Svensson? Yes.

Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 193.

For the record, my name is Sari Ershman. Proposal 193, 5AAC 28.171, Rockfish Possession and Landing Requirements of Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would allow Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission permit holders fishing for groundfish or halibut with jig and hand troll gear in state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska area to use a deepwater release mechanism to return rockfish to the ocean. Currently, permit holders must retain, weigh, and report all rockfish caught. Removing the full retention requirement and making release devices optional would likely result in rockfish being discarded at the surface, reducing their survival due to embolism mortality. The department opposes this proposal. Vessels fishing with jig gear, which may use up to 150 hooks at once, often have small crews of just 1 or 2.

Hand-trolled vessels do not have a hook limit and also operate with crews of just 1 or 2. Releasing rockfish back to depth within the recommended 2 minutes of surfacing would be challenging given the number caught in these commercial fisheries. This proposal would also reduce the accuracy of rockfish mortality accounting, as we have no reporting requirements for bycatch discarded at sea. Increase regulatory complexity for permit holders, and complicate enforcement of retention rules. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I was supportive of this in Prince William Sound, but it was a little bit slower operation and, and maybe not quite as deep.

And, and knowing the proposer, probably well thought out and figured to give it a shot here. But given all the reasons that the department has put into their comments. I think I definitely support the department's opposition to this, so I will not be in favor.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. I will mirror Mr. Wood's comments. I think this is quite different than Prince William Sound, which I also supported, and I appreciate the author considering these different ideas, but at this time I can't support it. Mr. Chamberlain.

I, yeah, I likewise will be opposing this. I do, I do applaud the author's intent behind this. But if we're releasing dead rockfish, that leads to bad facts and bad facts may lead to bad management. So, yeah, I'll be opposing.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the Petersburg AC supported this and a large number of individuals. And the— on the opposition was the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Effingold Cove AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, Sitka AC, and that's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ziray. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in approval. This proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the Department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 193. Svensson? No. Wood?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Zaray? No. Godfrey?

No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 194. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll.

Proposal 194, 5 AAC 1.720, lawful gear and gear specifications. 5 AAC 28.130, lawful gear for Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. And 5 AAC 77.674, personal use bottomfish fishery. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

This proposal would reduce the minimum inside diameter of circular escape rings from 3¾ inches to 3½ inches on pots used to take sablefish in the subsistence, commercial, and personal use sablefish fisheries in Northern Southeast Inside and Southern Southeast Inside subdistricts. The proposed regulatory modification is based on the results of an escape ring size selectivity study conducted during the department's sablefish surveys in 2019 and 2020. This study tested size selectivity and capture efficiency of sablefish utilizing different escape ring sizes, including 4 inches, 3.75 inches, and 3.5 inches, and no escape rings. Results of the study show that 3.5-inch escape rings maximize catch rates of mature sablefish while still allowing immature fish to escape when compared to the control and two larger escape ring sizes. The department submitted and supports this proposal.

Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I support this. I think it aids in conservation and some— and sustainability. So I will support it.

In your selectivity study, I'm just kind of curious, did you do like how— what— what age are sablefish mature? Let me ask that. Madam Chair, I think sablefish mature around age 4 to age 6. And so the bulk of the catch in these fisheries are— do we have any idea where they're at in their maturity? I mean, how old they are, how many times they've spawned?

Madam Chair, if this proposal were to pass and the escape ring size is reduced, the size at maturity is about 63 centimeters. So 50% are mature by that size. So around age 4 or 5. So a lot of them are, you know, younger sablefish, especially with these large recruit classes. But they have had time to reproduce.

What is—. What is the difference? I mean, what do you— what is the department's estimate and how much more efficient or how more— how many more sablefish could be caught with a quarter-inch reduction?

Madam Chair, in our C3 tab 18, slide 21, the blue line is 3.5-inch escape rings and the orange line is 3.75-inch. It's about 80 fish different in the pots that we set. So a pretty sizable amount is retained within the pot by reducing it just a quarter of an inch. And with, with, with that, with that additional level, there's no, there's no conservation concerns associated with that relatively significant increase in harvest potential? Madam Chair, no, there's not.

Can you tell me why?

Currently, the commercial fishery is allowed to discard sablefish in our state waters. So if the fishermen choose to retain larger fish, they can discard the smaller ones, as is currently in regulation. Okay. Just kind of curious, what's the mortality associated with that discard? I believe we use 16% handling mortality for hook and line gear in the commercial fisheries.

Thank you. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Uh, yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I would just make the comment I'm comfortable with this.

Um, black cod are extremely hardy. Um, you know, I think that, uh, the mortality associated with it from my personal experience is, is actually pretty low. So I think that this is a good move forward. I think, you know, the department obviously supports it based on the information that they've gathered and the tests that they've done. And so for those reasons, I'll support it.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I agree. Any other board discussion? Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, the Petersburg AC, and the Sitka AC all supported this, and the Pelican AC was the only one in opposition.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal may result in some additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery if the person wishes to reduce their escape rings. This additional cost would— to purchase escape rings would probably be $3 per escape ring. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department, and I would call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 194. Wood?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Svensson? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 195.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 195, 5AAC28.110, sablefish seasons for Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal seeks to align the Southern Southeast Inside Subdistrict, or SSEI, pot and longline sablefish fishery season with the federal individual fishing quota season, which runs mid-March to early December. Currently, the SSEI sablefish fisheries open June 1st through November 15th. Since 1988, the department has conducted annual surveys between April 28th and May 30th to assess relative sablefish abundance and biological composition before the fishery opens. The department opposes this proposal. If the season were extended, these surveys and historical survey information would be compromised by fishery removals occurring before before and during the survey periods, disrupting stock assessments and quota calculations.

Poor weather, sablefish spawning, and reduced staff availability prevent moving the surveys earlier. Madam Chair, for discussion, please.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Um, this, this actually might be a question for Director Bowers more than the local staff. But I'm trying to think of the differences between this particular situation and what we did in Prince William Sound where we did align the seasons. But I understand that the black cod fishery down here is much more dynamic and, you know, it's quite different, especially when you talk about gathering survey information and things like that. So when the staff opposes this down here, I would assume that those are the main reasons.

Am I correct? That's correct, Mr. Carpenter. So, you know, in this area there, there is a state stock assessment. And so we want to have that separation between the two fisheries to allow for the stock assessment to occur. In contrast, in Prince William Sound, there's, there's no state stock assessment.

And so that the state guideline harvest level doesn't rely on that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Other board discussion?

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you for that. Um, for that reason, I think, uh, I'll be opposing it as well. I think, uh, not losing continuity is important. So, um, yeah, I'll be voting no.

Mr. Godfrey? I'll be voting no for the department's Reasons.

Just right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The—. There was no ACs in support of this, and the opposition was the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Petersburg AC. Those are— thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 195. Godfrey? Nope.

Wood? No. Chamberlain? No. Zareh?

No. Carpenter? No. Svensson? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 196. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 196, 5AAC 28.130, Lofill Gear for Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that the board take no action on Proposal 196 with— through withdrawal comments by both of the Alaska Longliners Association and Southeast Alaska Alliance and RC57.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal Number 196. Proposal number 197. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 197, 5 AAC 01.714, limitations on participation in subsistence finfish fisheries, 5 AAC 28.180, prohibitions for Eastern Gulf of Alaska area, and 5 AAC 77.674, personal use bottomfish fishery.

Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 197 with substitute language found in RC 60. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it in lieu of proposal number 197, the language found in RC 60. Staff comments, please. This proposal would clarify and improve separation of sablefish caught in the commercial fishery from sablefish caught in the subsistence and personal use fisheries for all gear types.

This would prohibit operation of subsistence and personal use gear from vessels that are commercial fishing for groundfish until all commercially harvested groundfish are offloaded from the vessels and 72 hours have elapsed and the vessel has unregistered from the commercial fishery. It would prohibit operation of commercial gear from vessels that are subsistence or personal use fishing until all subsistence or personal use fish are offloaded from the vessel and 72 hours have elapsed before commencing with commercial fishing. It would prohibit subsistence or personal use caught groundfish from being sold in a commercial fishery, and it would prohibit vessels with a commercially caught groundfish overage from retaining the excess as subsistence or personal use. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Clear separation of these fisheries aids with enforcement of regulations and would improve the accuracy of harvest reporting for fishery managers.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Does the department have any comments with respect to the substitute language? Was that the substitute language summary as well? No comments, Madam Chair.

Okay. Member Wood, you have any— would you like to explain the difference between the two?

Yes, I think this just—.

Register. Yeah, I think this language was— had a lot to deal with the concerns of the Alaska Wild.

Life troopers and how best to make sure that they could do enforcement well and in a timely manner for all the reasons that they stated in the amended language. I think it adds for more clarity.

Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. To address your earlier question, could staff speak to the substitute language in RC 60? And was your description that you provided a description of the original proposal or the substitute language in RC 60? And do we support the language in RC 60?

I'm assuming we do, but I'd just like confirmation of that. Yes, Madam Chair. Through the Chair, Director Bowers, yes, I The staff comments were for the amended language. We do support the amended language, and this was developed in support with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers to improve the language. Thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter, in light of that, I'm glad that the department Supports the amended language. I think it's important to allow the Alaska Wildlife Troopers to have clarity in how to enforce these things. And if these changes that both of them have obviously looked at satisfy those needs, I'm comfortable moving forward with that at this time.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, the Petersburg AC, and the Sitka AC all supported it, and the East Prince of Wales Cross Island AC supported it if amended. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 197 as amended.

Chamberlain. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Zareh.

Yes. Svensson. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 198.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Alex Tugaw, the Haines Skagway Area Management Biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 198-5AAC47.020, General Provisions for the Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for for the saltwaters of Southeast Alaska area. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

The department would like to recognize a correction to the data presented in staff comments for this proposal. Resident harvest between 2014 and 2023 was 874 sablefish. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. Increasing the bag and possession limit by 2 fish would increase harvest opportunity for resident sport anglers. The current resident sport harvest for sablefish is less than 1,000 fish, with most residents choosing to harvest under the more liberal personal use regulations.

The department does not anticipate that the potential increase in harvest would result in a conservation concern. Should the board choose to adopt this proposal, an increased resident limit will only apply within state waters.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. That was my first question, was where, where is this bag limit going to apply? Because when I was looking at RC 28, which the department put together for me, which specifically breaks down the harvest between residents and non-residents for the last 10 years, there's quite a substantial difference. And so that was one thing that I was worried about.

But understanding that you just stated on the record this only is only going to apply in state waters, I think that— and it only applies to residents— I think that I'm fairly comfortable with it. I think that the other part of it was if it wasn't in state waters, then we obviously have to look at the Magnon Stevens Conservation and Management Act, which we have to take into consideration here. So for those reasons, I'll support it. Mr. Godfrey. I think Board Member Carpenter articulated masterfully the rationale for supporting it, and I will too.

Mr. Swenson. I'm also in support of this. It seems like a very, uh, makes sense regulation to change. So most people are using their personal use option primarily. Is that what I heard you say?

Yes. The majority of residents choose to harvest under personal use or subsistence regulations. I'm just kind of curious, why would a resident get a sport fish license for sablefish? Just either they don't know any better, or is there a difference or an advantage using a sport fish license? Madam Chair, for some anglers, it may be easier to access the fish without setting a longline or using pots.

Maybe they don't have the gear or they just prefer using rod and reel angling techniques. Thank you. That's the distinction I was looking for. Appreciate it. Any other questions?

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Fairbanks AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, and the Sitka AC were all in favor of it. Support it, and the Petersburg AC and the Wrangell AC were in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. There is an omission. Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain Dugrath? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 198. Carpenter? Yes. Ziray? Yes.

Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 199.

For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 199, 5AAC28.111, Commercial Shelf Rockfish Fishing Seasons for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area, and 5 AAC 28.113, Lingcod Fishing Seasons for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 199 with substitute language found in RC 62. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it RC 62, a substitute language for Proposal 199.

Staff comments, please.

This proposal would add a weather delay provision that would postpone the opening of the Demersal Shelf Rockfish fishery in select management areas of the Southeast Outside Subdistrict and would add a weather delay provision that would postpone the opening of the directed lingcod fishery in all 4 Southeast Outside management areas together if a gale warning, 35 knots or higher, were forecasted. If this weather criteria were met, weather delays could begin 24 hours prior to the start of the fishery or within 48 hours after the start of the fishery, with delays occurring on a rolling 24-hour basis as needed. The department submitted and supports this proposal. This would ensure a safe and fair start for these open-access, fast-paced fisheries, which would attract diverse participants and have short openings in offshore outside waters. A weather delay could also help distribute fishing effort more evenly across areas, reducing the impact of localized favorable conditions.

Similar provisions exist for other fisheries such as Tanner and king crab fisheries in Southeast. Madam Chair.

Mr. Wood. Thank you. I would like to amend some of the language in this RC and where it— and specifically because of actions we took earlier today Regarding contains gale force wind. So in E5A under 5C or go down to E everywhere in here where it says contains gale force winds of 35 knots or freezing spray because of the actions we took earlier today in crabbing, I think it also.

Applies in this fishery because it's in— Correct. Yeah. February. So that's my amendment. So the amendment is essentially to mimic the language found in RC 44 with respect to gale force winds of 35 knots or higher or freezing spray were referenced in this.

RC. Yeah, correct. And that'll happen in a few places like C1, C2. You got that? Thank you.

So throughout, throughout the— throughout RC62, not dissimilar to RC44. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. So I'm clear on this, and I'm just going to state it on the record so that others are clear. So we, we will just second.

Okay. For us, unless there's— unless You have any question about the intent of the amendment? I need a second before we start. I was just going to state the amendment in a way that might be easy to understand, but I'll defer to you on that. You on that, Madam Chair?

Go ahead. Okay. So current— the RC-62 has a single criteria for weather delay, 35 knots. And Mr. Wood's amendment would add a second criteria of freezing spray. Thank you.

Precisely. Second.

And I'd ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the amendment? Hearing none, so moved. All right. So we have before us the language found in RC 62 as amended.

For discussion. Mr. Wood. Okay, I'll just keep commenting that this also brings it alignment, not just closing one area but all of them. And so it applies the weather delay to all four lingcod management areas concurrently instead of individual gale warnings in the— for instead of just individually. And it clarifies time periods to be delayed as to 24 hours before the opening date of the fishery and 48 hours after the opening.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Any additional board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I'll support this amended language. I think, I think it makes things very uniform across Southeast Alaska, and I think that's important for people participating in these fisheries. So Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. Thank you.

I will also be supportive of this. I think this is— and I thank Member Wood for bringing the language together because I think it is reflective of what we heard from the public in public testimony and Committee of the Whole. That question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 199 as amended.

Godfrey? Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Ziray? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Motion carries 7-0.

Madam Chair, proposal number 200.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 200, 5 AAC 28.173, Lingcod Possession and Landing Requirements for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would require directed lingcod fishery participants to report effort and harvest information during the fishery. Such real-time reporting requirements are commonly used in groundfish and shellfish fisheries around the state to help accurately manage to harvest limits. The department submitted and supports this proposal. As effort and harvest have increased in recent years and allocations are met more quickly, this two-way communication would allow managers to better target guideline harvest levels, provide timely closure notices, address participant questions, and ensure sustainable fisheries by staying within allocations. Madam Chair.

Thank you. For discussion.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the department's proposal. I support their ability to have as timely a reporting as they think necessary to manage these fisheries. Obviously, technology has changed and, and made things easier for not only users but also the department to gather that information.

So for those reasons, I'll support it. I'm just kind of curious. In your comments, you say this would require the directed lingcod fishery participants to communicate their effort and harvest info during the fishery as often as requested by the department. I'm just kind of curious what frequency that you think that might be. And it's kind of vague.

Madam Chair, for the very fast-paced fisheries that are 48 hours, we request twice a day, so usually around lunch and then at the end of the day. Report their numbers, we like to give the fleet 24 hours notice. So that means we have to make a decision based on two reportings from that first day. So that would be the most frequent communication that we would request. But otherwise, for the other areas, once a day, maybe once per trip, depending on the amount of effort that we have in a given area.

Madam Chair, thank you. Appreciate that. And currently, um, Were those— that information is only being communicated through the, through the tickets, is that correct? Madam Chair, that was just a voluntary basis. If people wanted to let us know what they were catching, we'd put that in the spreadsheet, extrapolate the numbers, but it was purely voluntarily based input from the fleet.

So this would improve compliance with that, help us stay within our allocations. And allow the fleet to maximize their time on the, on the water. Madam Chair, thank you. I'm super supportive of this. And as Member Carpenter mentioned, the technology exists now to provide that timely reporting.

He'll probably get into it with cost. I mean, that might require a little bit of cost to the, to the participant, but I think that's reasonable and to be expected for, you know, best management practices as Essentially. So thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate it and am very supportive. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I'm also super supportive of any fishery that has expedient, timely reporting in all fisheries. Thank you. Ms. Godfrey. I'm super supportive of Board Member Wood and his comment.

Kumbaya. Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Elephant Cove AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, Petersburg AC, and Sitka AC were all in support and there was no opposition. AC, thank you.

Real kumbaya. All right. Well, with that, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal may result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery.

The fisher lacks a communication device that can send and receive messages while on the fishing grounds, such as a cell phone or satellite internet or satellite communication device. There will be an additional direct cost. Cost of the basic satellite texting services range from $240 to $250— $355. With a monthly subscription plan. However, vessels may already have these devices that are equipped with satellite internet.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional direct cost to the department. And I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bauer? No, Madam Chair. Director Rita? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please roll.

Final action on Proposal 200. Carlson, VanDort. Yes. Carpenter. Yes.

Wood. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Zareh. Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 201, please.

For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 201, 5AAC 28.173, Lingcod Possession and Landing Requirements for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, moved to adopt Proposal 201 with substitute language found in RC 61. Second and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, we have RC 61 before us.

In lieu of proposal number 201, language found in the original 201. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would clarify lingcod bycatch overage requirements in the Southeast District groundfish longline and salmon troll fisheries. Specifically, it clarifies that all lingcod caught above the allowable bycatch limit must be immediately released at sea. Any landed overages must be weighed and reported on an ADF&G fish ticket and sold, with all proceeds from the sale of excess lingcod lingcod bycatch surrendered to the state. Unlike rockfish, lingcod have a higher chance, uh,.

Survival rates when released due to their lack of a closed swim bladder. Currently, there are no regulations regarding lingcod bycatch overages in the salmon troll fishery. The department submitted and supports this amended language in RC 61. There has been confusion about lingcod bycatch retention, and this proposal will provide regulatory clarification. Madam Chair, for discussion, Mr.

Carpenter. Thank you. A question for the department on this. So I'm looking at the, uh, The map I believe you have in your staff comments, Figure 201-1, and correct me if I'm—. Are we—.

Which exact section are we talking about in this particular map?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, this would apply to all waters that are east of 144 west longitude. We have bycatch fisheries that exist in each management area. Okay. So basically the entire area that's shown on this map through the chair. Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And then I guess, I guess my question really is, you know, in number 1, it specifically talks about halibut and obviously the bar— the board's limited authority around halibut.

Are there any implications if we were to pass this regulation that would have any impact on any federal regulations specifically regarding halibut and the person's ability to conduct that fishery? Or is this within the state's purview under delegated authority to do this?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, we have the authority to manage lingcod in all state and federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. And just to clarify, this proposal and the RC-61 language clarifies the existing language in regulation just to state that if a vessel brings in an overage, they must sell it and forfeit it to the state. Any overage that they're catching at sea must be released at sea. At sea. So it's just a clarification of the existing regulation, Madam Chair.

And just to be clear, that's dead or alive at sea? At sea, correct. Ideally, they're aware of how much halibut they have or their target species on board the vessel, and they're aware of how much lingcod they're catching. And if they're approaching that bycatch limit, they need to be releasing the lingcod as they're bringing them onboard instead of putting them on the boat. Okay, I'm clear now.

Thanks.

So essentially, we're basically disincentivizing anybody from retaining any lingcod onboard their vessel over the bycatch limit.

But—. Madam Chair, that's correct. I don't expect to see a lot of incoming revenue from sales of bycatch overage, because I mean, presumably they're going to be discarding them all, potentially.

Madam Chair, that's correct. And if they do not, the overage would have to be sold and forfeited to the state, and we turn that over to enforcement, who then would potentially take enforcement action if there is an overage. Forest. Thanks, Madam Chair. So Yeah, you're correct that this disincentivizes exceeding the allowable bycatch limit because then, you know, if so, so the first, you know, they would have to— the fish take up space on the boat and they have to handle them, you know.

So there's, there's really no incentive to to keep any fish over your allowable bycatch amount. So this, you know, what we would expect to see is that people would track their bycatch more closely and would be likely to stay under or at the limit rather than exceed it. Thanks. And I guess it was the tracking portion that I kind of was curious about. So, you know, just the mechanics of how that happens and then How are we making sure, especially for ones that are mortally wounded, how does that get caught or tracked or counted towards that bycatch limit?

And how is that enforced or how, how are we capturing that information? Yeah. So for example, in the halibut or sablefish fisheries where lingcod might be encountered as bycatch, those are managed under, you know, an IFQ, federal IFQ, or the state equal quota share. And fishermen can use, like in the case of halibut, there's a length-weight table that they use, you know. So they're, they're in these fisheries, they're used to tracking the poundage of fish that they have on board.

I, I don't know if there is a length-weight relationship that for lingcod I suspect there probably is. And there's, you know, sort of professional judgment that fishermen use when— because they see a lot of these fish and, you know, if they have a 36-inch fish that weighs— typically weighs a certain number of pounds, so they can, they can track their, their, their landings in that manner. As, as As Ms. Ehrschman said earlier, lingcod, you know, don't suffer from embolism issues like rockfish.

I—. And we don't apply a handling mortality rate in setting the guideline harvest level that I'm aware of. I guess that's kind of what I'm getting at a little bit is like, yeah, you get an allowable bycatch. Right. We have no idea whether they're exceeding it one way or the other.

I mean, what's the reporting requirement? Do they have to report every single fish that's landed within that requirement? And then we assume whether it's— I mean, that all gets counted irrespective of whether it's thrown back or retained. Madam Chair, so, so the catch accounting occurs on the fish ticket when the fish are landed. So that we know what happens there with the fish that are brought to the dock.

But I believe there's a— is there a logbook requirement at all that where we are able to get information on discards? There's, you know, in the, in the federal, you know, halibut fisheries, some of the boats might have observers or electronic monitoring where, you know, there's a bycatch assessment, but Yeah, I don't know if there's anything you could expand on that, Rhea. Yeah, through the chair, Director Bowers, that's correct. There's some logbooks do require reporting and there is observer and electronic monitoring, but we, we don't have full accounting for lingcod or much bycatch that's discarded at sea, Madam Chair. Yeah, I get it.

And that's kind of what gives me pause with this a little bit is that I feel like, yeah, we're disincentivizing them to reduce retain them and all the things, fine. But we're also sort of forfeiting our ability to have any idea what the bycatch actually might be, especially if we're not applying a mortality handling rate to anything, because we have no idea what's being caught above their allowable bycatch. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but that seems like we're just kind of being like, we don't know, we don't care. Madam Chair, I, yeah, it's— I think the idea here, you know, in contrast to rockfish where we know that mortality is more or less 100% in these fisheries for fish that's discarded here. We know that some of the fish are going to live, maybe not all, but some will.

So that's, that's why we allow discarding, you know, so that, you know, in contrast, rockfish, we have mandatory retention. Because we want to know how many are caught. You know, we know they're going to die here. Some are going to live. So, okay, I get it.

I just— I understand and I'm going to support this. But I guess just fundamentally, I kind of have— if I find it irksome that, you know, there is bycatch, there is mortality associated with the fishery, and We're knowingly kind of ignoring it.

Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Wood. Thank you. I'm quite familiar with how the bycatch limits are set in halibut and sablefish fisheries, but because trolling only exists east of the Cape Suckling line, how does the state set the bycatch limit for the salmon troll fishery?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, we set it by EO authority at the beginning of each year for the salmon troll fishery. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm—. I was trying to track this a little bit too because, um, the idea of, of, you know, until you hit your bycatch, you can throw them back dead or alive, really, until you hit your bycatch level.

So why— what's the incentive to hit your bycatch level? And then.

And how would you ever hit it if you can keep throwing them back? And the only way to really know that you've hit your bycatch level is full retention until you hit your bycatch level, which kind of isn't cool because there are fish you can't— you're not throwing back because they probably could live. But it is kind of a predicament there. And enforceable, like, Not at all, really, I would imagine. So, you know, there's no incentive to keep your bycatch.

Mr. Bowers, through the chair, Mr. Wood. Well, there's value. These fish are valuable. So, I mean, people would like to keep and sell all of them they catch, I would imagine. So, but they can't keep the money anymore.

Yeah. So they're, you know, they're, I think, You know, there's— you're still going to see people keeping bycatch up to the limit, the allowable limit. Commissioner? Yes, I'm struggling with this one now as this discussion goes on. Clearly, the end objective is to get healthy lingcod back in the water.

We, we don't want to have people killing lingcod that if they're not intended to get them as bycatch limit, we don't want— we set bycatch limits for lingcod conservation. So we want to get them back in the water, but at the same time we want to have some accountability of how we— how many fish are put back in the water so we can put a discard mortality associated with it. But I think what I hear staff saying is discard mortality is pretty dang low with lingcod. So I guess we'd almost have to have an onboard logbook that would require them to say the number of lingcod they're discarding is— and is that possible? Do we have that?

Through the chair, Commissioner, our longline and pot fishery logbooks do require bycatch reporting, but— and I don't know what exactly the halibut and IPHC logbooks require, but they do have electronic monitoring and observers on board. As Director Bauer said. So there is some way that we could come up with an estimate in the future when we hopefully develop a stock assessment for the species. But currently we do not have full reporting requirements for bycatch. I think it's something we can work on over the next 3 years to get, get this, this piece of it tied back down.

But clearly we want to— the, the goal here is to have a discard mortality so that we know what's actually being thrown over the side so we can figure that out in terms of total mortality. Yeah, thanks, Commissioner. I appreciate that. And that's kind of where my head's at too. Like I said, I think it's kind of— this language is better than what we had, and I'm going to kind of hold my nose and vote for it in the hopes that we can refine it and that we can get a better idea of actually what's, what's being impacted in the fishery.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And being from western Alaska, discarding of dead fish, or— it definitely does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I, and like Ms. Carlson-Vandort, I will be— I'll be supporting this, but begrudgingly, particularly in longline. I—.

If these fish are sitting down for a while, is there Is there mortality associated with that? I know when we were talking about that with rockfish, there was mortality associated with sitting down at the bottom for a long time. That's a question for the department. But yeah, I just wanted to get my thoughts out there on there. And so I certainly would hope to see the department look for— look for a way to improve this.

Thank you.

You have a question that I think there was a question. Yeah. Through the chair, Board Member Chamberlain. Yes. And that's why we do have these bycatch allowances, because there will be mortality associated with bycatch.

You know, that's on a longline that's been sitting at the bottom for 12 hours. It comes up, the fish is dead. So we do want to provide that bycatch allowance for them to be able to retain and sell the fish. And just to clarify, Board Member Wood, you know, your comment from earlier, if a halibut boat is out fishing, they have 10,000 pounds of round halibut, they can retain and sell up to 1,000 pounds of round weight of lingcod. If they bring in 1,500 pounds of lingcod, they can sell 1,000.

The 500 is an overage, which is sold and forfeited to the state and turned over to enforcement. Madam Chair.

Mr. Carpenter. Oh, another one. Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs to the department. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. There is no motion. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Rita? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 201 as amended. Svenson?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 202.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 202, 5 AAC 28.130, lawful gear for Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would clarify that only one operational unit of dinglebar troll gear may be used in the commercial directed lingcod fishery, ensuring compliance with the original intent of the regulation. Originally implemented in 1994 to limit fishery expansion, the single-line restriction aimed to maintain a steady fishing pace and prevent excessive resource competition. Current Dingle Bar regulations allow lingcod to be taken using a single line that is set and retrieved with a troll gurdy with a terminally attached weight. But some vessels are deploying a second line, creating an advantage and increasing harvest rates. The department submitted and supports this proposal.

This clarification would reduce confusion among the fleet, help managers stay within harvest allocations, and provide enforcement with the regulation that clearly defines dingle bar troll gear, and we would defer to enforcement regarding comments on this definition. Madam Chair, this type of violation, as it was written previously in regulation, is now difficult to enforce due to the court's interpretation in Sitka. And this is where primarily this fishery happens. Dingle bar is a small fishery, happens in the most remote areas, and outside of Sitka, typically rough weather conditions. Clear regulations must be in place with this or any fishery to allow enforcement to happen on that one unit of gear.

With the current department proposal allowing only one line or train portion of gear in the water ensures enforceability of the one-line regulation. It is impossible for AWT to discern someone's intent with the extra gear we're starting to see in the water, thereby causing an enforcement catch-22. It would be like letting somebody have a portion of a second net or line in the water, which they in turn have to promise not to fish when a fishery is limited to one net or line in the water. From a mile away or from the air with two units of gear in the water, they're fishing, or at least it looks like it to us. Where there are restrictions in other fisheries for one unit of gear, we're all firm or clear on that.

So it's enforceable. We certainly defer to ADF&G in regards to having one unit of gear and therefore an orderly fishery. Fishery. To be frank, we wouldn't care if it was 1 or 2. They do.

And so we want a clear regulation that allows us to enforce that. And they strongly recommend that. We believe this proposal backs the intent of the original regulation, the department's concerns, and it'll clarify it for the court. The RC language that we had seen essentially allows fishermen to still keep 2 units of gear in the water, albeit somewhat a partially deconstructed manner. Based on anecdotal conversations, it's— this 2 units in the water is happening with a smaller amount of folks in the fishery where there's some confusion there who use the dingle bar.

Most deny doing it because the practice is viewed as prohibited by the majority, thus illustrating the need for clarification or reaffirmation. Madam Chair. Thank you, Captain. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I appreciate the Alaska Wildlife Troopers' statement. There obviously needs to be clear delineation so that this fishery could be executed so that it can be enforced at the same time. I think the main reason that one line that's being suggested in this, this proposal brought forward by the state is that the state feels that one line is the appropriate tool to be using to be able to control the pace and the pace of the fishery. I guess I thought long and hard about many, many, many different ways that I could try and figure out a way to accommodate this, but I couldn't. And I think for right now, this is— I'm going to support this.

And vote for it and move forward. And I suppose if somebody can come up with a better idea in the future that will allow law enforcement and the department to become comfortable, they can bring that forward. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I just want to say, like, I also— the— I listen to the fishermen talk about why they do this and how It does make sense, but nonetheless, it makes it still difficult for enforcement. So I'm all about efficiency and trying to enable people that are younger, you know, not as strong or whatever to help out, but I think in this case, it is a very, you're treading on thin ice.

It's gray area and And I— so I'm going to support the department's proposal on this. I, you know, ingenuity is the mother of invention. So maybe you can figure out another way to pull that line in. Thank you. Mr. Zarey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Elfin Cove AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, the Petersburg AC, and the Sitka AC were all in favor, and there was no Opposed. Please cease. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. So initially, I think I kind of was thinking along the same lines as Member Carpenter when we were listening to public testimony. And as I was first learning about this fishery, I figured that there should be a way that we could try and accommodate the practice on the grounds and whatnot. But again, as we entered into more conversations and sort of tried to get creative, just couldn't quite get there and meet the needs of enforcement. So, and for the department, for an orderly fishery, an enforceable orderly fishery.

So at this time, I won't— I mean, I will be supportive of the department's proposal, but This one, you know, I see— I would like to see some way to get there. But again, like I said earlier, it's not necessarily our job to maximize efficiencies in the fishery. So we do— we'd like to when we can, but I think we just haven't been able to quite get there with respect to this fishery and this proposal. Yet. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs to the department. And I'd call the question. Questions have been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Weeda?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 202. Wood. Yes. Godfrey.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Zareh. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Svensson.

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 203.

Madam Chair, Troy Tydenko, Sitka Area Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 203, 5AAC 47.020, General Provisions for Seasons and Bag Possession. Annual and size limits for the saltwaters of the Southeast Alaska area. And 5 AAC 47.060, Lingcod delegation of authority and provisions for management. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would liberalize lingcod regulations for nonresident unguided anglers fishing in southern Southeast waters. Specific to SEIW and SSOC, or Southern Southeast Inside Waters and Southern Southeast Outer Coast. Lingcod management provisions for the sport fishery are established annually through emergency order and are established by residency irrespective of the angler's guided or non-guided status. Currently, the lingcod season runs from May 16th through November 30th, and non-residents are allowed 1 lingcod daily either within a 30 to 35-inch slot limit or greater than 55 inches. Non-residents also have a 2-fish annual limit.

One fish must be within the 35— 30 to 35-inch slot limit and the other greater than 55 inches. The department has been implementing more restrictive regulations in Southern Southeast for non-residents during the last several years in order to keep the fishery within its allocation. Which is measured in pounds of lingcod. The department is neutral on the allocation of lingcod between guided and unguided nonresident anglers. If adopted, this proposal would be more liberal than the current regulations, and a partial season closure for nonresident guided and unguided anglers would likely be needed to keep the sport fishery within its allocations.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Carpenter. Well, Commissioner, I just want to add to that, to comply with Magnuson, you're— if you're in the EEZ and you're going to have differential bag limits, that's going to be a consideration moving forward in this proposal.

Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just a question for the department. Um, I mean, the one thing that's a little concerning to me, quite frankly, is that this regulation would establish something more liberal than the regulations through your emergency order that you let in 2024.

But I guess my question is, is that how do you in season make these emergency order adjustments? Is it through the typical thing of creel surveys and things like that? I mean, how do you go about doing that?

Through the chair, we don't manage this in season. We just manage it post-season. We look at the harvest after each, after each season and adjust regulations accordingly. So when you say if this proposal would be established in regulation that are more liberal than the regulations issued in 2024, you, are you basically stating that based on the harvest in 2020, you would, you would retroactively the next year make an adjustment to that limit? Yes, that's basically correct.

Our regulations have been relatively stable for several, several seasons. In 2024, we did have to take more restrictive action for non-residents specifically. By decreasing the slot limit. It was 40, 30 to 40 inches. It went down to 30 to 35 inches.

The next step that we would take for keeping this fishery within its allocation would be a partial season closure for non-residents. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, what is the history of the unguided non-resident fishing? Non-resident unguided fishing activity out there.

Through the chair, if you're referring to the amount of harvest, I would, I would refer you to this. There's a graph in staff comments for Proposal 203 that has just a depiction of each of the categories, resident and non-resident, guided and non-guided, and give us approximate proportions of each of those. Thank you. I'm sorry I missed that.

Maybe I wasn't listening. Maybe this— I'm re-asking the question that Member Carpenter just asked, but I mean, I guess through the guided service, guided anglers, I mean, there's a logbook component, is there not? Madam Chair, that's correct, there is. But for the unguided or the non-guided non-residents, we have no real way of capturing that, do we? Um, through our— not— we don't manage these typically in season, but we do post-season have a statewide harvest survey and the creel program to help estimate the harvest.

Mr. Godfrey. This is for the Commissioner. And my head is spinning reading this. I'm going to quit reading it over and over. So you just said— so the net effect of this would take us out of compliance with the EEC?

What I said is if you are going to have— if the net result of what you decide here on this proposal is to have differential bag limits in the EEZ that, that give a preference to resident anglers. That's not—. You can't do that. And that would be if we adopt it.

You could get there depending upon what you adopt. You just have to be careful when you're, when you're talking about easy waters here. So a black letter reading of this right here, right now would get us there or not without any amendments. This is why I'm confused.

Nonresident unguided anglers. I guess you could. I guess you could give a preferential treatment to non-residents in EEZ waters, or do they have to be equal? They have to be equal. I'll go to my attorney here.

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Commissioner, the National Standard 4 states that in an FMP that the regulations cannot discriminate between the residents of the many states. So that is a fancy way of saying you can't discriminate between residents and non-residents in an FMP. So to be in compliance with what an FMP would be if there were one and it were delegated to the state, we wouldn't be able to do that either. Which is a long way of saying in the EEZ, resident and non-resident bag limits have to be the same. And this would, in effect, then we would be adopting something that would have the same impacting the EEZ.

That's correct.

But the department doesn't oppose that. They're just making a point. Hey, don't forget, this is the net, you know, if you were to do this, you would have to equalize those bag limits in the EEZ. In state waters, you can have different— got that. I know that.

Yeah. Okay. That was what I wanted to get at. Mr. Chamberlain.

Yeah, that's something I'd been chewing on for a while.

And I— this one is ripe for unintended consequences. And my initial thought on this one, without a more clear picture of how we'd manage and balance between the state and federal waters on this one, and in the interest of Mr. Peterson's work-life balance, I would probably be leaning towards a no vote on this one.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, there was no ACs in support of this. And the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the F— F— Elfin Cove AC, the Icy Straits AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Kwak AC, the Pelican AC, the Petersburg AC, the Sitka AC, the Wrangell AC were all opposed, along with approximately 80 public comments were in opposition also. Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, to what my fellow board member just said, I think that in this meeting thus far, this is the biggest disparity of opposition to support that I've seen. On the master list. It's quite extraordinary. I could have gone either way on this, but with the discussion with the Commissioner right now and my other colleague, I think the collateral effect may be more than we want to deal with.

Mr.

Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I'd call the question. Question's been called. There is an omission.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Rita?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGrasse? No, Madam Chair.

Please call the roll. Director notes final action on Proposal 203. Godfrey? Nope. Wood?

No. Chamberlain? No. Zeray? No.

Carpenter? No. Svenson? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair. Proposal number 204.

For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 204, 5AAC, 28.130, Lawful Gear for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

This proposal would allow pots to be longlined in the state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska commercial Pacific cod fishery. Current regulations prohibit the longlining of commercial groundfish pots except in the directed sablefish fisheries of the Northern Southeast Inside and Southern Southeast Inside Subdistricts. The proposed regulatory language may increase the efficiency of the fleet, increase effort in this open-access fishery, and increase the proportion of catch taken by pot gear. Pot gear reduces bycatch and associated mortality compared to longline hook gear, with minimal incidental catch of species like rockfish and skates. The department supports this proposal.

The department does not have any conservation concerns with the longlining pot gear in this fishery. Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Just a question, just a clarification for the department.

You can obviously longline black cod pots already. If we do this here, I assume that the marking requirements in the black cod fishery will be similarly carried over to pots longlined in the peacock fishery. Am I correct?

Through the Chair, Mr. Carpenter, yes, they would have to follow the existing regulations for marking of longline pot gear. Thank you.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Elfin Cove AC, the Pelican AC, and the Petersburg AC were in support. Support, and only the Ketchikan AC was in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'll just say that I think this slinky pot idea is going to, you know, it's going to overwhelm the industry, and it's moving in the right direction. So I'm supportive. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm, I'm, you know, I'm supportive of this too. I think it makes sense to allow for moving towards these pots again, again, in an effort to reduce some of the bycatch. I see this as just kind of being a trend, and a good one at that. So I'm supportive of this. And once again, we need a definition.

Just going to keep saying it. Anyways. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I think this is an easy one for me to support. The overwhelming support in the public comments and the fact that even the department supports it versus being neutral, this is easy to support for me.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the Department, and I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Vita?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 204. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zeray?

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Great. Proposal number 205. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 205, 5AAC77.674, Personal Use Bottom Fish Fishery. Madam Chair, move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments. This proposal would allow the retention of Pacific cod and rockfish caught in pot gear in the personal use bottom fish fishery. Reducing discard mortality and waste. Currently, only sablefish may be retained in personal use pots, with all other bycatch required to be discarded despite high mortality rates due to barotrauma.

The department submitted and supports this proposal. Aligning personal use regulations with subsistence and commercial pot retention rules, both of which allow retention of these species in pots, would minimize waste and promote consistent management of the species. The increasing pot gear use in personal use fisheries highlights the need for this regulatory adjustment to address bycatch retention. Madam Chair. Thank you.

And what is the reporting requirement for personal use fisheries?

Madam Chair, we currently have a personal use and subsistence sablefish permit with reporting requirements for sablefish caught, retained, and released, as well as bycatch. Madam Chair. So would it be possible to add the rockfish and thorny rockfish or the Pacific cod and rockfish, including thorny rockfish, to that? Madam Chair, yes, they can currently select whatever bycatch they have caught and retained on their permit and report that harvest. Do they report it by species?

Yes, that's correct. Good, good, good. Any other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I think this is a great idea.

Again, you know, you just.

To eat everything you catch. So thank you.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Elfin Cove AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, and the Petersburg AC, and the Sitka AC were all in favor, and only the Klawock Huh. AC was opposed, but I also have it listed here as being in favor. Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Weeda?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 205. Zareh? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Since we have you three fine ladies sitting in front of us right now, we're about to move into Rockfish, and I know that you guys have a plane to catch this evening. So I'm, you know, being my accommodating usual self, um, um, why don't we go ahead and take up 211 so that we can, um, excuse you and you can go catch your flights home. Thank you for being here. So we'll take up 211. And then we'll go 206, 207, 208, and 210.

And then hopefully that will conclude and wrap up our deliberations for today. So proposal number 211. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 211, 5 AAC 28.171, Rockfish Possession and Landing Requirements for Eastern Gulf of Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 211 with substitute language found in RC 54.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Weren't supposed to laugh that hard, Commissioner.

Staff comments, please.

This would add a rockfish overage reporting requirement for the Eastern Gulf of Alaska salmon troll fishery. Specifically, this would require that all rockfish harvested while fishing for salmon, all rockfish caught in excess of the bycatch allowances for rockfish harvested while fishing for salmon must be weighed and reported on an ADF&G fish ticket. As overage. The overage must be sold, with proceeds from the sale of this excess rockfish bycatch surrendered to the state. The department submitted and supports this RC-54.

Currently, the salmon troll fishery has a bycatch allowance for DSR species only and does not have full retention requirements for rockfish, leading to inconsistent handling and confusion regarding rockfish bycatch on fish tickets. Adopting this would improve clarity and consistency across the Fishing and Enhanced Bycatch Accounting. Madam Chair. Thank you. And I believe we have—.

Yeah, thank you. What this does is it withdraws— Pardon?

Did it? It's cool. Sorry. Go ahead. Can I go on?

Yes, please. OK, so what this did was withdrew A. From the original language. Rockfish and thornyhead rockfish exceeding bycatch limits may be retained. Da da da da.

And so that made it a little more clear. And then it clarified that rockfish bycatch overage retained by a salmon troll vessel must be sold with the proceeds forfeited to the state. So all that is clarified in the RC. Thank you, Member Wood. More discussion.

We're getting there, folks. Member Carpenter. Yeah, I'll support the language found in the RC 54. I think it makes them clear. It clears it up.

It's fairly easy to understand. It makes it easy for the users in the department, and the overages would obviously go to the state. And so I have no concerns. Thanks.

Captain DeGraff. Madam Chair, based upon discussions with Fish and Game and this new RC 54, AWT no longer opposes the original language. Thank you. We support it. Thank you.

I have a quick question on this. So This replaces all of the language that was found in 211, and I just want to— so in any— this only— the substitute language only pertains to salmon?

Madam Chair, that's correct. We withdrew the section that applied to groundfish and halibut fisheries and kept the section that applies to the salmon troll fishery. Why did we do that?

Madam Chair, Jan Rumble. For the record, on consultation with Alaska Wildlife Troopers, we believed that the first part of the proposals that we originally submitted needed some massaging and some— it's really a statewide issue that we would like to work with our, our, the people from different regions to make it a statewide regulation. There's, there's just some confusion about personal use fish, that is, with bycatch that's brought aboard over the limit and, and how and where it can go, if it can be used as personal use or donated. And so there was some confusion between us and the Alaska Wildlife Troopers, and we agreed that we would try to develop some language to be proposed for the finfish meeting in 2027, with statewide staff being— weighing in about it and making sure that the troopers were on board as well. Madam Chair, I'm confused.

So the original proposal was to basically disallow retention for personal use and require that it be— for—. What?

Let's stand down for 5 minutes.

Okay, thanks for your patience, folks. I'm just clearing my head a little bit, trying to sort it out. All right, so we have before us substitute language in RC 54 for proposal 211, and I just wanted to be crystal clear on the record precisely what this does for my benefit only, if no one else's.

Madam Chair, so the RC 54 language for the salmon troll fishery requires that all rockfish in excess of the allowable bycatch limits established by emergency order on the ADF must be reported on the ADF and GFISH ticket, and the overages must be sold, and those proceeds from the overages must go to the department. So the proceeds are forfeited to the state. Madam Chair, thank you. And just for, again, my sake, the existing regulation requires that rockfish, including thornyhead, in any of the fisheries are required to be retained, and any proceeds over the allowable bycatch would be forfeit, essentially. That's correct.

In the groundfish fisheries. Yep. Thank you. And so we're just adding the salmon fisheries to that, essentially, so that we can get a better indication of bycatch impacts. And disincentivizing people from catching them.

Thank you. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I'd call the question. Thank you. And before I recognize the question, I just want to say that I am supportive of this. I am concerned.

There are concerns about rockfish populations, especially rockfish bycatch and fisheries throughout the state. Certainly it's a concern here in Southeast. And I just want to make sure that we are trying to keep people off of them if they don't need to be on them in the, in the non-directed fisheries or in the— yeah, in the non-directed, not directed at rockfish fisheries, I should say. So I am supportive. Of the language, and I thank Member Wood for bringing this forward and the work and the department's patience with me on this as well.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 211 as amended. Carpenter? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Svensson? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Go get your plane.

And thank you for being here. Proposal number 206. Let's welcome the Sport Fish crew to the table.

Madam Chair, Kelly Ruppert, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist, Sport Fish Division. Proposal 206, 5AAC. 47020, General Provisions for Seasons and Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits for the Saltwaters of Southeast Alaska. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Well, before I provide staff comments, RSC 56, shown here on the screen, will be a helpful reference for the next 3 proposals as it outlines the department harvest targets for management of DSR fisheries for 2025.

Proposal 206 would reopen the yelloweye sport fishery for residents. With a bag limit of 1 fish, possession limit of 2 fish, and no annual or size limit. Resident sport fishing effort has remained stable since the yelloweye fishery was last open, and resident harvest is expected to be low. Stock assessments for outside waters indicate that yelloweye biomass has increased since 2021, resulting in increases in the total allowable catch and subsequent sport allocation. There's no sport allocation and limited stock status information for inside waters.

Though DSR populations are assumed to be following similar trends in abundance as populations in outside waters, the department is neutral in the allocation of harvest between residents and non-residents, and the department supports limited harvest opportunity for yelloweye rockfish in the sport fishery. If adopted, the proposed resident yelloweye rockfish mortality, combined with recent levels of resident non-yelloweye DSR mortality, is expected to be 11 metric tons, which is 37 metric tons below the 2025 sport allocation for DSR in outside waters, representing 4% of the department harvest target of 300 metric tons. The magnitude of a resident yelloweye harvest is expected to be within sustainable harvest levels for all southeast waters. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion.

Let me— I can start off by asking, so this, this flowchart up here represents a reduction in the ADF&G harvest target that was— that then was reported to the board during oral reports, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. What, what we had when during all reports was a harvest target of 323 metric tons and After some discussion with staff and the recognition of what the error was around some of our harvest estimates, and these are long-lived species, we decided to take that down a little bit further, down to 300 metric tons. Then I asked staff to come back in based on the 84/16 split to figure out whether or not there was— how they could accommodate both a resident and non-resident allocation of yelloweye rockfish. And that's what you're seeing coming forward now is there's some opportunities to provide both a non-resident and a resident harvest opportunity for yelloweye under this reduced 300 metric ton target, as well as the 48 metric ton sport allocation.

So we're more conservative than we were coming into the meeting. I, I see that. I appreciate that. I think your original harvest target was 18% below the TAC. I think this is closer to 25.

Is that about accurate? I think that's Yeah, I think that's the math we use. Yeah, okay, thank you for that. Appreciate it. And so within that, um, that 48 metric tons to allow for some yelloweye harvest, in your estimation, it's what I heard essentially.

Yeah, so under 48 metric tons, the staff here can lead you through what that means in terms of a resident or non-resident allocation of that resource. Yes, please.

The resident yelloweye estimated mortality is about 8 metric tons combined with the existing non-yelloweye DSR.

Is 3 metric tons, totaling 11 metric tons.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I keep going back and I keep thinking about when we— this is obviously a closed fishery. We're applying a bag limit in this proposal to residents.

And I assume that this proposal applies to all of Southeast Alaska. If we are— if we were to reopen this fishery for residents with a bag limit of 1 and a possession limit of 2, would we also have to do that? Would we also have to set a bag limit then in the EEZ for non-residents for yelloweye?

For the record, Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator for Division of Sport Fish. Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, if adopted, this proposal would only apply in state waters.

And the board, how you address Proposal 105, we'll have some amended language for that. But right now, that's how I'd recommend approaching this. So, so just—. If I could— so this would apply to state waters, and then whatever you adopt as a non-resident bag limit would— would then the residents would have that same bag limit in the E.Z.?

Okay. So right now we're basically dealing with 3 miles in our state water fisheries. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, the East Prince of Wales Island AC, the Juneau Douglas AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, the Pelican AC, the Petersburg AC, the Sitka AC were all— oh, and the Wrangell AC was in favor of this proposal. And there were also about 80 public comments in favor of this, and there were only 4—. There was no ACs in opposition, and there were only 4 PC public comments opposed.

So it was pretty incredible. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Listening to the results, listening to the department discuss rockfish was humbling, and it has been throughout the year. And I think we realize that there's a need for conservation for rockfish in the state and to be cautious.

I think this proposal, in the spirit of the proposer, is also really— is very cautious. And, um, but with a look towards what is needed or, or how residents would approach this fishery. Listening to, reading the comment, comments, and, and reading the staff's comments and how much of this is actually used by residents, it's a, it seems like it's a pretty very low harvest rate. And that perhaps with extreme caution, it's time to reopen this fishery to residents. I think when you look at the allocation criteria too, that number 3, the importance of each fishery for providing residents with the opportunity to obtain fish for personal and family consumption, this really applies because they're really tasty fish and people haven't been able to catch them for a while.

And if they think it's possible to do that very conservatively, then the department can manage that. I'm all for it. Thank you.

Mr. Just add one other thing to it. When we were discussing this with staff, we realized rockfish are long-lived species. This isn't like salmon where if you forego the harvest, you've forgotten the harvest forever. And there's some time for the math to settle out here and the surveys to settle out to find out whether this is really truly an increasing trend. And if it is, these fish can be harvested in the future.

They're not going anywhere. So there's—. There's—. This is a conservative approach to leaving some in the water until we figure out really truly whether we have an increasing trend over time. Thank you.

I appreciate that, Commissioner. And I also appreciate the increased conservative— conservatism that is represented in the reduction in the ADF&G harvest target.

I have just kind of a special spot in my heart sort of for yelloweye, especially because they are kind of extraordinary species in my opinion. But I also recognize that there should be some harvest opportunity and looking at sort of how they were being harvested and the impacts to allocation in the tables. And the graphs that the department presented a couple of days ago really struck me. So I am looking forward to providing some opportunity for residents, nonresidents potentially, but certainly in the sport fishery for yelloweye, because I thought that the allocation really was getting thrown as it was being used for bycatch. Particularly.

So I am going to be supportive of this proposal and I would open it up for any additional board comments.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I have thought about this one a lot. I went back and looked at some of the board discussion the last time when this was closed. Had a lot of discussion with staff about this.

I appreciate the department's conservative nature in reopening this fishery. I appreciate the even more conservative nature that this flowchart shows.

It's, it's important to provide residents with opportunity, and I think the department has demonstrated that the conservative approach warrants opening this up and making small adjustments over time based on future information through your survey programs and through hopeful increasing surveys that take place in federal waters. The survey information that's produced in federal waters, trying to extrapolate that and include that inside 3 miles is a little bit hard for me to swallow. But I know it's really the only information we have right now, so I feel comfortable enough doing that right now. I think it's important to touch on some of the subsistence acts aspects of this.

You know, is this stock customary and traditionally taken for subsistence? And that would be yes. The board has determined that under 5A(C)(1)(7)(1)(6)(a) that bottom fish in portions of District 2 through 10 and 12 through 15 are customary and traditionally used Can this portion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? I think the department has demonstrated today that it can be, and the board has not established the amount of rockfish reasonably necessary for subsistence. And so I think those are important things to consider in the conversation as well.

So I'll support it based on the conservative nature. And I'll just kind of add a little bit to the subsistence reg review portion too, and to the, to the point where whether or not the regulations provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, I would just note that that subsistence harvest of 7 metric tons is basically coming off the top prior to the harvest, to the 80 FNG harvest target. And so I think that that meets that criteria, that there is a reasonable opportunity provided. It's actually prioritized within the harvest target. And it is not necessary at this time, I don't believe, to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide reasonable opportunity for harvesters, subsistence harvesters.

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the to the department, and I would call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Weida? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Enforcement? Thank you. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 206. Svenson? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Carlson, VanDort.

Yes. Zeray. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Yeah, thank you. And I would— before we move on, I just want to acknowledge the proposer and thank him posthumously for submitting the proposal and for all of his hard work and dedication to our fisheries here in Southeast Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Fujioka. Proposal number 208.

Commissioner, want to clarify that the regulation you just passed applies to the state water fishery for one.

For the resident bag limit. That's correct. Thank you. Proposal number 208. Madam Chair, proposal 208, 5 AAC 47.020, General Provisions for Seasons and Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits for the Salt Waters of Southeast Alaska.

Move to adopt proposal 208 with substitute language found in RC 50. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, we have before us RC 50 in lieu of the original language in Proposal 208. Staff comments, please.

RC 50 would open a limited nonresident sport fishery for DSR, including yelloweye, with a bag and annual limit of 1 fish. The department would use its existing delegated authority to manage the sport fishery by emergency order to stay within the sport allocation. RC 56, shown above, outlines the harvest targets I'll be referring to for 2025. We would implement an early season closure in May and June and run it for 8 weeks, closing again in late August. The fishing season is May through September, and in this scenario, the fishery would be closed for two-thirds of the season.

An early season closure or spawning closure would protect yelloweye during their reproductive cycle, which mostly occurs during early summer. We estimate that the total sport mortality of DSR for both residents and non-residents would be under the sport allocation by about 14 metric tons, representing 11% of the department's reduced harvest target and providing a buffer of uncertainty in sport fishing harvest projections. This management strategy provides limited non-resident harvest opportunity without shifting harvest patterns towards non-yelloweye DSR. For which there's limited stock status information. It will keep the sport fishery within allocation and below the OFL for non-yellow-eyed dSR.

It would also create a conservative approach to non-resident harvest in inside waters, and it would reduce regulatory complexity by having consistent regulations throughout Southeast. The department would use emergency order authority on an annual basis to adjust season length to keep the sport fishery within allocation.

Thank you. So functionally, I'm looking at the, the bullets at the top of the RC here, and particularly to bullet number 3. So for the upcoming season, you're anticipating that this strategy and these numbers that you're for 2025 based on this right up here, right, would potentially allow for up to 8 weeks of season time.

8 Weeks of season time would result in a buffer of about 14 metric tons under the sport allocation. Thank you. And so moving forward, there's no sunset date on this proposal. So moving forward, that would be evaluated and adjusted annually. It could be less than 8 weeks.

It could be like— but you would still sort of maintain— I just want the department's commitment that you would maintain that very conservative buffer moving forward as well under all other scenarios based on whatever the federal TAC and then the ADF&G TAC is, correct? Yes, that's correct. The TAC varies based on assessment results, and by using EEO authority on an annual basis, we can adjust season length. As appropriate to stay within allocation and include a buffer. And my last question here is, how do you intend to assess in-season?

Madam Chair, we have two primary data collection projects for the sport fishery. The first is the charter logbooks, which provide a census of harvest coming in for any guided trip. The second is our Marine Harvest Study Project, where we have 31 Creole samplers stationed across Southeast that are interviewing anglers as they return to port. So between these two projects, we have a good handle on monitoring harvest as it occurs. We recognize that this fishery has been closed for a while and there probably have been changes in effort patterns and harvest power in the sport fishery.

And that's part of our strategy we present here with an 8-week fishery that gives us a significant buffer for errors in our harvest projection. Madam Chair, thank you. And I might add, most of the non-resident harvest is, is on charter boats, so it's covered in the logbook. Do we have any idea, like, if you could— do you know that for certain? Because again, this sort of the boat rental, the unguided non-resident seems to be a growing sector.

Yeah, we're trying to figure that out right now. The legislature is getting himself engaged right now and trying to create a task force to look at what can be done about non-guided boats. So thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you. Um, you know, I had plenty of discussions with the department about this beforehand and some of the users.

You know, I understand my position that I took opening the resident sport fishery up, and I think, I think it was fairly warranted. I would love to provide opportunity to non-residents as well. I just can't get past the fact that 3 years ago we were in dire straits. And now we're coming back and we're asking to just completely reopen these things. And I understand that the department's conservative approach that they're taking, that's laid out on that flowchart, but we just reopened one yelloweye fishery.

And I understand that this is a DSR bag limit, you know, that also includes yelloweye. I'm just not quite sure I'm there yet to open it up on the non-resident side quite yet. I would really like to see some more information that showed that the, the, with the surveys and the data that's coming in and the expanded research that the state's doing in regards to rockfish really shows that this is headed in the right direction before we go too far, because these are very long-lived species. And so for right now, I'm a no.

Mr. Wood, could the department explain, well, 3 years ago how they came up with the assessment of yelloweye or the DSR rockfish that made it go down so quickly? And then it sounds like the discrepancy in where the studies were done, the survey was done versus what people are seeing on the fishing grounds.

Madam Chair, through the Chair, Member Wood, I mean, I'm teasing out your questions as I'm thinking here. I guess your first question is the reason the department recommended the board close the fishery in 2022 by regulation. So the department actually took EO authority in 2020, I believe, was the first season where we closed the directed fisheries, both sport and commercial directed fisheries. And then after maintaining that closure by emergency order for several years, came to the board for the sport fishery. Any time we're issuing an emergency order year over year, we like to come to the board to bring that to your attention.

And at the time, our stock assessment models leading up into 2020 were declining. And the layman's terms, we took the fast down, slow up approach. We closed the directed fisheries. And then over the last 4 years here, the stock assessment trends have trended the other direction upward. I guess the part 2 of your question there is, are the differences in the stock assessment, which primarily targets habitat both inside and outside waters southeast, but more aligned with the commercial fishery that the harvest they might encounter there.

And discrepancy between the reports we're hearing from anglers that there's a lot of rockfish out there, a lot of DSR rockfish out there. And I think that's partly differences in the stock assessment models where our surveys are focusing on yelloweye and maybe not surveying those areas that are closer to shore where anglers encounter a higher percentage of non-yelloweye DSR species.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, so the, the tack is set by two ways. One is our submersible surveys that we do as well as then some surveys that are done by the federal fisheries, including their longline assessments through halibuts. And for a long-lived species like yelloweye, you wouldn't expect significant variation between years. You don't see, for instance, see a 25% increase in one year and then a 25% decrease the next year.

And so I'm, as a manager, I'm kind of a little skeptical that there's significant error in some of these estimates. That's why We pushed to, to take more uncertainty and, and take the tack lower down to account for what that's showing.

Um, you know, between 2000 and, um, if you— I think it was in our staff reports, but if you look in 2022, the, the TAC almost went up by 25%, and that's just— it's hard to believe that that occurs. And now it's going back up again to a fairly, really higher level. And until I see those fish actually on the grounds and, and there over a period of 2 or 3 years, am I going to be willing to open this up. In terms of non-resident fishery, I share your guys' concern, but I just remind you that the non-resident fishery is a 1 fish annual limit. You know, this gives these— there's clearly some tack between what we gave to the residents as a 1 fish, 2 fish in possession limit over the highest— the priority is state waters, but there's some additional fish that's left and took a very conservative approach to give them one fish in, you know, for non-residents to be able to take home if they want.

So I think it's sustainable myself, but I understand the consternation and concern. And until I see, you know, some more stability in these numbers over time, I'm not going to crank this fishery open.

Mr. Wood. So that would be one fish for within an 8-week period of time that you Through the chair, Member Wood. So a 1 fish annual limit, and the season is only 8 weeks long. So yeah, they would have one opportunity for 1 fish for the entire season. Thank you.

Any other board discussion? So, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm— I share Mr. Carpenter's concerns on this, and I wasn't here 3 years ago when, when it was shut down. But I understand the gravity of the loss of that rockfish. However, I'm— I'm looking at all of the economic drivers in Southeast, and it's not just commercial fish.

There is a sport fishery that does generate a lot of revenue that does stay in. In the state. And there's been a lot of targeting of non-residents on some of the proposals. And I fear that, you know, this may be injuring the industry overall and the region overall. I—.

So— I don't view this as a large take from this. I am very concerned too that, that we do not— and I want to ensure that we do not overharvest rockfish. But I think this, this harvest is small enough that we can be reasonably assured that it will, will protect the resource. And so I'm slightly leaning in favor of this. I have a question.

Within the reg, either as is or as proposed, is there a mandatory retention? And the reason I'm asking that is because in here it talks about one, you know, obviously, and it's a DSR, it's not necessarily specific to yelloweye, but what I would be concerned about is them trying to target yelloweye specifically and getting a big one and just dropping, you know, releasing, trying to deepwater release multiple different fish. So from my perspective, if you're out there and you're targeting DSR, maybe or maybe not, you know, fingers crossed for a yelloweye, I wouldn't want them to be out there, you know, hauling fish up and sending them back down just because they didn't get what they wanted and having that potential impact. Yeah, you know, you have mandatory release mechanisms on board all these boats, and I suspect what's going to happen is they're going to be fishing halibut and they're going to catch a yelloweye rockfish. And this allows them to retain one of those yelloweye rockfish on board.

I don't think you're going to see a lot of targeting because— yeah, but you could. I'll ask those guys. Mr. Fowler or whomever.

Yes, there is. There— let me start. There's no mandatory retention for rockfish. We do have mandatory use of a deepwater release device to release rockfish at depth. I'll add, Madam Chair, um, in a prior— going backwards in time, there was a time that the department required a mandatory retention of rockfish, and after the board implemented the mandatory use of rockfish release devices with a high survival rate of released rockfish, that's when that provision was removed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Swenson.

Well, in response to Ms. Van Dorts, she's right. You know, I read an article about a guy who was trying to catch the world record rockfish, and he did. And I don't know where it was in Alaska, but I mean, he had to have been catching and releasing to get there. It does happen.

It's a bit of a double-edged sword, I guess, you know, with the mandatory retention thing. I'm not going to get too hung up on it right now. I'm leaning towards supporting this because it is so very, very conservative. Again, going back to some of the comments I've heard throughout the day about is there a conservation concern, all the things here we're being told by the number by the department that there is not one.

So that's kind of leaning me towards supporting it, but I'm still, I'm still persuadable. Mr. Commissioner, I'm going to ask my staff. I don't know the question. I think most of these fish are going to be caught on a charter boat. And I think there's a, there's a line in the logbook that says the number of yelloweye released in addition to those harvested.

So we're going to know pretty quickly whether or not there's a they're kind of fishing for yelloweye and just releasing them to get a big one. Am I correct? Through the chair, yes, Commissioner, you are correct. The charter logbook records yelloweye and then has another column for non-pelagic rockfish. And we are seeing— so a charter guide who goes out, they basically have a week to report from the occurrence.

We see most guides reporting as soon as they return to port, so that harvest accounting is nearly real time. Thank you.

Okay. Again, that goes for the guides. And, you know, those are professionals and they're well practiced and studied in terms of how to employ the deepwater releases and those mechanisms and all the things. As we get a better handle, hopefully, on what the unguided nonresident looks like, I challenge the department, and perhaps this is is what's going to happen through this task force is to think about how do we capture that information and that data from the unguided nonresident. How do we educate them to make sure that they're using best practices in dealing with these, you know, sort of special species?

Because that is a part that I see growing that I personally have concern about it. And really, that's the section— sector that gives me the most pause. In terms of adopting this proposal as we have it before us today. So, Commissioner, can I ask you, what is the timeline, if you know, associated with this task force? When do you expect potentially recommendations coming out of it, and when will the board be informed of that?

I can't give you the timeline because it's still being discussed by the legislature. So, but, you know, I am— I'm as interested in everybody trying to figure this knot out with— with not with— with these rental boats out there. The question comes down to is who's the accountable party for the harvest? And on a charter boat, you have a skipper on board. That person's the accountable person.

When you're renting a boat out, the person— is it the person that rented the boat? Is it the person that— the angler that's on the board that boat's the accountable party? You know, when enforcement stops them, Who's, who's, who's in charge of that logbook? And it's— that's, that's a nut we're trying to crack right now. And hopefully at some point in time we're going to get to something more akin to what Oregon and Washington have, and that's cell phone-based reporting for, for everybody, so that even though you might not have— you can record it on your cell phone on the water, you may not be transmitted to Fish and Game until you get back into cell phone coverage, but there's a record there.

So that's what we're moving towards over time. Thank you. Well, my unsolicited opinion is that the responsible party is the person that has the permit and that it's their responsibility to report. And if they don't, like many other permitted users in the state, they would lose their eligibility to receive additional permits. That's my unsolicited thoughts on that.

But Mr. Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. To follow up on your best practices, so if you look at our current sport fishing regulations for down here, we almost dedicate 3 pages to rockfish identification, release practices, and release devices. Furthermore, you see rockfish cards around the table. We have social media posts on it.

The staff down here has a specialized chart as well that's posted around the region at most popular ports. And then port samplers also help educate. So in the last— from my time of being on the board where we first implemented rockfish release devices till.

Now, I would say the strategy of communicating and getting buy-in from the public and operators has been a huge success. I don't disagree with you at all, Mr. Payton, and I recognize all the work that the department has done in terms of the education of the public specific to rockfish especially. Sometimes you can lead a horse to water, you know, and but I guess we factor that in with our conservative numbers here and Again, I'm leaning towards supporting it. This is— I'm uncomfortable with it. I always sort of cringe and wince a little bit when I see large yelloweye rockfish, especially pictures on Facebook.

I know they're such a cool fish and they're so beautiful, but personally, I kind of wince a little bit just because that rockfish could be really, really old. But if there is a there is a— I hear the word harvestable surplus a lot at this table, and I don't think you can get much more conservative than one fish a year.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I've, I've been struggling with this because— and trying to look up that definition of precautionary approach and not finding it. So I'm just going to— my gut is that with this, we just opened up a this fishery to residents, and now we're asking it to be open to non-residents. And the whole idea is caution, caution, caution. And I think, you know, in the lifespan of a rockfish, caution isn't going from the last period of 3 years ago board cycle to now and making such drastic decisions, you know.

And based on the information that I feel like we have. So my decision to vote in favor of this really would have to be with the faith that this department feels like if what this is asking for, they can actually pull together. And with just an extreme amount of caution, because the alternative is something we— none of us want to see. So— And providing opportunity for people that will be or could be impacted by other fisheries. So I'm gonna put my faith in the department, what you're saying, but also with the last proposer also was really arguing extreme caution.

So with that, I think I could be in favor of it. And hopefully we'll come back in 3 years and make sure that that was the right decision. Director Payton. Yeah. Thank you for those comments, Mr. Wood.

So Division of Sport Fish's mission is to protect and improve, and we take that very seriously, our sport fisheries. So protection being number one. And yeah, staff and the department is very precautionary and built a lot of buffer into this. So we, we hear what you're saying. Mr. Godfrey, I could have gone either way on this one.

You know, my default coming in was, you know, the department's concerns and lack of data here. But, you know, There's a lot of charter guide support here, and it's always nice to be able to provide them an opportunity to give their clients an opportunity. And so I think it's been a good discussion. I hope it's exhausted at this point. I'm going to go ahead and vote in support of it.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll go ahead and reference my subsistence review that I've done previously and other proposals for this particular area. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the any additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 208 as amended. Godfrey?

Yes. Wood?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zareh? Yes.

Carpenter? No. Svensson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 207.

Madam Chair, Proposal 207, 5AAC 47-020, General Provisions for Seasons and Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits for the Salt Waters of Southeast Alaska. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 207 based on the action the board took on Proposal 208. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 207. Proposal number 209.

Madam Chair, for the record, Jake Uloskevich, Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Sitka area with the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 209, 5AAC47, new section. Pelagic rockfish delegation of authority and provisions for management. Madam Chair, moved. Second.

Staff comments, please.

This would establish a resident priority and add emergency order authority for the department to restrict non-residents and residents differentially when managing pelagic rockfish. The department would be directed to restrict resident harvest only if the resident harvest exceeded 50% of the combined resident/non-resident pelagic rockfish harvest for 2 consecutive years. If using EO authority to restrict harvest for conservation reasons, the department would restrict nonresidents before residents unless the resident harvest had exceeded 50% of the total harvest for the 2 previous and consecutive years. Resident harvest would likely remain stable while nonresident harvest would decrease. The sport harvest of pelagic rockfish has been on an increasing trend in Southeast Alaska is assumed to be associated with increased angler interest and shifting patterns of effort as guided anglers have experienced restrictions on lingcod, Pacific halibut, and king salmon and sought other harvest opportunities.

Resident harvest of pelagic rockfish has been relatively stable, and resident anglers have harvested an average of 18% of the pelagic rockfish in the region in the past 10 years. The department is neutral on this proposal. And the allocation of harvest opportunity between resident and non-resident anglers. Madam Chair, thank you for discussion.

Okey-doke. So currently the department does not have this EO authority, is that correct? That is correct. So how have you been currently managing it, or what's the issue that you've encountered that would precipitate this? Proposal.

Madam Chair, just for the clarity of the record, so this is a proposal generated by the Sitka Advisory Committee. Understand. So the department has emergency order authority to act for conservation, which we have done in the Sitka area to reduce the bagging possession limits there. The department does not have the authority to distinguish between resident and non-residents without that express delegation of authority, Madam Chair. Thank you, appreciate that.

And of course this would be subject only within state waters and would have implications for whatever the board's actions potentially on proposal number 105 would be? That's correct. Just checking. And Madam Chair, while the proposer listed some amended language here, the department would— for clarity of regulation and direction for the department— would suggest that the language that actually is embodied in administrative code mimics 47065, which is our delegation of authority for commercial shelf rockfish.

And so in this chapter, if the board were to act on this proposal, adopt this proposal, uh, it'd be my recommendation we mimic that for pelagic rockfish, which includes the delegation authority to reduce bagging possession limits for non-residents. Charter operators and crew may not retain rockfish while clients are on board the vessel. Annual limits can be established for non-residents. And then for resident anglers, we could also reduce the bagging possession limit and reduce the annual limits in addition to time and area closures. Madam Chair.

Mr. Wood. So this would help you have a better ability to, like, in a timely manner, kind of control the ability to harvest in the not in the nonresident guided fleet?

Through the chair, Member Wood, the department does have conservation concerns for pelagic rockfish. And in the next proposal, it had submitted a proposal to reduce those bagging and possession limits. This proposal would give us the delegation authority to put those restrictions.

Non-residents only. And by the wording of this proposal that the Sitka Sea has submitted here, that until the resident fishery has exceeded 50% of the sport harvest, all the restrictions would be implemented on non-resident anglers.

Thank you. Thanks. Um, Patrick, maybe you can answer this question. I mean, The staff put together this in RC 30, the sport fish pelagic rockfish mortality, um, and it goes from 1998 to 2023. 2023 Was almost 700,000 pounds.

What percentage of that on a general or annualized basis is generally reflected in resident harvest? Through the chair, resident harvest generally accounts on the last 10 years for an average of about 18% of the harvest. So of 700,000 pounds, that's roughly 140,000 pounds to the residents.

Generally speaking. Okay. I think I understand the math there. So I guess speaking to the proposal specifically, it's quite obvious that the commissioner needs the delegation of authority to be able to address pelagic rockfish concerns if he seems necessary, because my understanding is he already has the delegation of authority for DSR rockfish. And so this is just simplifying things to make it easier for him if he needs to make that decision.

Am I correct? Through the chair, that is correct. Thank you.

Other board discussion? Commissioner? And I would only apply that in state waters because I couldn't have— I couldn't apply that federal waters because then I'd end up with differential bag and possession limits for residents versus nonresidents, and I'd be out of compliance with Magnuson.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The East Prince of Wales Island AC, the F, F, and Code Cove AC, the Ketchikan AC, the Klawock AC, the Pelican AC, the Petersburg AC, Sitka AC, and the Wrangell AC were all in in favor of this proposal and there were none, no ACs in opposition. Thank you. I'm not quite sure what the members' temperature is around this table if they intend to vote for it, but we had a recommendation from the department to essentially replace what the language is in as proposed in 209 and use the language found in 5AAC47065.

47065. So I would ask the board to consider amending Proposal 209 to 5AAC new section with the precise language found in 47065. I so move. Second it. Would you like to ask for unanimous consent?

I will second it. Would you like to ask for unanimous consent? I'm sorry. Yes, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent. Thank you.

Is there any objection? Just a clarification. Yes, this is a substitution. Yes, thank you.

Hearing no objection, we have the language found in 47065. That would be 5 AAC new section for this proposal. Clear. All right. And Madam Chair, if I would, just for the clarity of the record, the verbal record we're doing this year, within 47065, there's some language that addresses the allocation to the sport fish for the southeast outside area specific to DSR, demersal shelf rockfish.

But the meat of the provision here is the paragraphs 1 through 8. So all of that would be duplicated with the— for pelagic rockfish. And then in the Sitka Advisory Committee proposal, they include that direction to the department to restrict non-residents unless residents exceed 50% of the sport harvest. So that would probably be incorporated into that first section, replacing the allocation to commercial shellfish. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the intent clear to the, to the department? Yes, ma'am. In terms of what the language the board is considering before us, Mr. Commissioner? Okay, thank you.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 209 as amended.

Carpenter? Yes. Zareh? Yes. Godfrey?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Proposal number 210. Proposal 210, 5 AAC 47020, General Provisions for Seasons, Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits, and Methods and Means for the Saltwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would reduce the bag limit of pelagic rockfish from 5 to 3 and the possession limit from 10 to 6 for all anglers in Southeast Alaska. Current regulations allow for a bag limit of 5 pelagic rockfish and a possession limit of 10 in Southeast Alaska for all anglers except for in the Sitka area, where the bag limit for nonresidents is 3 fish and the possession limit is 6. This will help stabilize the growing harvest of pelagic rockfish in this Southeast Alaska area.

This action is expected to reduce pelagic rockfish harvest by approximately 20%. The harvest of pelagic rockfish has increased in Southeast Alaska despite recent actions to reduce harvest opportunity in the Sitka area, where the majority of pelagic rockfish have historically been harvested. Rockfish harvest in the vicinity of Prince of Wales Island in Ketchikan has continued to increase and is now nearing the levels of pelagic rockfish harvest observed in the Sitka area before management action was taken to reduce harvest. There is limited stock assessment information for pelagic rockfish in Southeast Alaska, and sustainable harvest levels are unknown. Pelagic rockfish are long-lived, late-maturing species that are susceptible to overharvest and localized depletion.

The department submitted and supports this proposal. The department is currently working to develop a stock assessment for black rockfish in Southeast Alaska as part of the statewide rockfish initiative to better inform management. The anticipated continued increase in harvest and the potential for overexploitation of pelagic rockfish warrants a precautionary management approach. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Swenson. I would certainly be in favor of this, is to help with this rockfish. And you know, the board giveth, and now the board taketh away.

Mr. Carpenter, I don't know if I can follow that up quite as eloquently, but I'll try. So one of the things in the background here that you talked about, some of the recent action to reduce the harvest around Sitka, it, it continues to increase. Okay. When I looked at the pelagic numbers during the staff reports the other day, the accelerated increase in that over the last 15 years is quite remarkable to me. And this is not the first place we've seen that around the state.

And I guess my question is, I know that the pelagic bag limits around Sitka are different than in some of these other places. So first, I'd like to know what those pelagic bag limits are.

Through the chair, in the Sitka area, which coincides with the CSEO management area, we currently have codified differential regulations for residents and non-residents, with resident bag limits being at that 5 a day, 10 in possession limit, with the non-resident limit being set at 3 a day, 6 in possession, which is similar with the regulations that this proposal is looking to put in place. But in the last 2 years, in 2023 and 2024, the regulations, the bag and possession limits for that Sitka area have been stepped down by 1 fish each for residents and non-residents. So, um, that coincides with the bag limit of 2 and 4 respectively. And that has been moderately successful in stabilizing the harvest in the Sitka area. Okay.

That's not a— that's what I was expecting you to say. And that gets to the crux of my next question. Then why are you asking us for 5 and 3?

If the only reason that you've got this, the harvest rate to stabilize in Sitka, is by using a reduced bag limit through emergency order. Shouldn't you be asking the board right now for something similar to that? Because the way I look at the pelagic harvest,.

It's not stabilizing and it's just ever increasing. So if you could address that, I'd appreciate it.

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, when the department submitted this proposal, in order not to be allocative, recommended that the, the bag possession limit go from 5 to 3 for the entire region, including the Sitka area. Now, in the Sitka area, in codified language, that is a specific exemption for the Sitka area. So that would actually stay on the book. So the The resident limit of 5 would, would be maintained in the Sitka area if this proposal were to pass.

Okay. I, I appreciate your answer. And I guess I'm not sure I'm actually comfortable with the— I'm comfortable with the direction that you're trying to take this conversation into reduced harvest. I actually, I'm not sure that it's enough. But I'll just leave it at that for now.

So I'm just trying to— patience with me here— trying to think of this proposal in the context of all the actions that the board just kind of took. Right. So this proposal is basically reducing the bag limit throughout Southeast waters for pelagic with that very weird carve-out that you have and would exist on the books in Sitka unless you take authority specifically for Sitka to reduce. Right. Okay, we also just expanded your EO authority to address the non-resident portion of things.

Presumably, if these fisheries are being prosecuted by either a resident or a non-resident outside of state waters, those bag limits would be the same for resident/non-resident fishery, or is this just specific? Well, yeah, that's basically in the EEZ. Whatever the department set the bag limit at is going to be consistent for both resident and non-resident. However, you're essentially just lowering that bag limit with the exception of Little Sitka thing. So it's a pretty broad reduction the way that I see it in bag limits.

I don't disagree with a single thing that Mr. Carpenter said, and I'm not sure that this is going to get us there. But if I look at this proposal and the request in conjunction with some of the other authorities that were just expanded with the previous proposal, I see a higher probability of potentially seeing that number stabilize, if not ideally come down a little bit more for the conservation of rockfish. I will note that the Sitka AC had proposed RC-49 language that essentially leaves the resident bag limit at, at 5 and 10 and then requests a non-resident bag limit of 3 and 6, of course, which would only apply in state waters. I actually prefer the department's approach to it, given the circumstances. But I guess if I have said anything incorrect, I just want to make sure I am tracking this properly in my head.

Madam Chair, I think you have it correct. With the proposal 209 that the board just approved, giving the department that authority, if no action was taken on Proposal 210 for this next year, the department would be issuing an EO to close— to reduce the nonresident bag limit regionwide to 3 fish.

Mr. Chamberlain. So I, I'm with Mr. Carpenter on this. I— what we've seen with rockfish and the growth in that, in that chart has been fairly alarming. For me, it's hard to swallow that much growth in the fishery and take it in stride. So I will support this, but if somebody— if there's a motion for a larger reduction, I won't vote no on that.

Thank you. And there's— given the action on 209, there's nothing that would preclude the department at this point from lowering it below 3. So this is a bit of a moot proposal, but it's kind of the board sending— giving some very explicit direction to the department of where to start, correct? Yes, Madam Chair, that is correct. And given the direction the board gave the department for 209, I think 210 is really— if you want the resident limit to be lower than 5, this proposal would make the limit 3 for the region, and we wouldn't, wouldn't go above that.

Correct. And that, for me, I mean, I think that's sufficient, and I'm comfortable with the language in 210 and will be supporting it. Mr. Swenson. So I'm a little confused too, but so this would make the region at this limit plus, and that would apply to both residents and non-residents? Through the chair, that is correct, Member Swenson.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Okay, so I think the team t-shirt this year is going to say rockfish conservation. Whatever you guys can do to make sure that we bring the harvest level down or keep it steady, I think is important, like extreme caution. If you're comfortable with this, but now you have authority, I'm comfortable with it as well.

But again, I just want to echo that sentiment.

We're going to keep an eye on it. Mr. Carpenter. So I appreciate the department bringing this forward. I really do. And if there wasn't delegated authority that was just requested, I would absolutely be making an amended motion right now or an amendment right now to this.

But I'm going to live with this with the understanding that you have that authority and that you will utilize that if you deem necessary, because I think it's pretty clear on the board that we're kind of concerned about the pelagic rockfish. So having said that, I will support this for those reasons and I will go ahead and do cost approval. This proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And if there's nothing further, I would call the question.

I would— before I recognize the question, I would just give the guidance to continue to manage Sitka conservatively, in line with all the other resident users as well. Thank you. Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Peterson. No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 210.

Svenson. Yes. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes.

Ziray. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I believe that concludes deliberation on Committee of the Whole Group 2. Thanks for hanging in there with us this evening. We're going to begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 with Committee of the Whole Group 3. That group is subsistence shellfish, commercial and sport shrimp, commercial and sport other miscellaneous shellfish.

There are 21 proposals in that group and the chair will be Mr. Svenson. So we will convene tomorrow at 8:30 to get that underway. Thank you all. Thank you, Madam Chair.