2025 Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Finfish – (Day 4)

All right. Good morning, everybody. Today is Friday, November 21st. The time is 9:04 a.m. and we are on the record. We are going to begin deliberations with Group 2 this morning.

It's a little out of order, but we still have some new substitute language that was just RC'd and dropped. Sorry, guys, do a little switcheroo there. Like to keep you on your toes. So we're going to— we're going to deliberate Group 2, take a brief break, and make sure we're ready to go and all the language is sorted out for Committee of the Whole Group 1.

For to deliberate later today. Okay. So we're going to begin this morning with Group 2. And Group 2 is Tanana Sport Fisheries. There are 10 proposals in this group, and we'll begin with proposal number 18, please.

Madam Chair, I am Andy Griska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Tanana Area Management Biologist. Proposal 18. 5 AAC 74.044, Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan. Madam Chair. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would eliminate the provision of the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan to reduce the sport fish bag— daily bag and possession limit when subsistence harvest is 750 or more northern pike in the Chattanika Harvest Area during the period from January 1 until these waters are free of ice. Additionally, the open season for sport fishing would be changed from June 1st through October 14th to April 15th.

October 14th. The current regulations in the lakes and all flowing waters of the Mentaw Flats, northern pike fishing is open June 1st through October 14th with a bag and possession limit of 5, only 1 of which may be 30 inches or longer. Additionally, in the Chatanika River upstream of the confluence with Goldstream Creek, only single hooks may be used. If the subsistence harvest of northern pike in the CHA is 750 or more fish before iceout, there's a bag and possession limit reduction of northern pike from 5 to 2 fish, only one of which may be 30 inches or longer. The sport fishery occurs throughout Minto Flats with most of the effort concentrated within Minto Lakes and the Chattanika River.

The entire Tolovana drainage, which includes Minto Lake and the Chattanika River, is closed to sport fishing for northern pike from October 15th through May 30th. To participate in the Tolovana drainage subsistence fishery, households must obtain a subsistence harvest permit from the department. The season is open year-round with no limits. Gill nets may be used from April 15th through October 14th, and only hook and line gear, gear may be used when fishing through the ice. For the winter CHA subsistence fishery, there are additional provisions to ensure the combined exploitation rate from all fisheries remain below 20%.

Periodic assessments of northern pike in designated index areas are conducted. Exploitation is evaluated for fish 24 inches and greater in length, as fish of this size account for 98% of the subsistence harvest. Between 2008 and 2025, the abundance and size of northern pike in Minto Lakes have increased significantly, and total exploitation rate has remained sustainable, ranging from 9 to 23% for the fish over 24 inches in length. Sport harvest and effort have declined over time, with a recent 5-year average of 406 northern pike. Subsistence participation in the CHA has increased but appears to have stabilized with an average of 352 permits issued annually since 2020.

To examine the potential impact of a regulatory change, sport fish harvest data were compared between years that had a 5-fish bag limit and those that had a 2-fish bag limit. Between 2013 and 2024, subsistence harvest exceeded 750 fish in the CHA during 6 years and the bag limit was reduced to 2 fish. When the bag limit was 5 fish, the average sport harvest was 436 fish. When the bag limit was 2 fish, the average sport harvest was 405 fish. The department supports this proposal based on the current sport fish harvest trends.

Removing the trigger and adding 2 to 3 weeks of fishing between ice-out and May 31st will result in a small increase in harvest of likely less than 100, primarily smaller northern pike. The proposed dates would reduce regulatory complexity to align with subsistence gillnet dates. These changes would be sustainable, provide more opportunity to anglers, reduce the number of annual emergency orders, and simplify regulations. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence users if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. I'll kick it off then. Couple of questions. And just, just for clarity, I think I know the answers to this, but I just want to get it on the record.

How are the harvests currently assessed in season for both subsistence and sport?

Madam Chair, for sport fish, it is by the statewide harvest survey. For subsistence, there is the permit recording. Weekly for the CHA harvest, but the annual permit for the rest of the year is also provided to Commercial Fisheries Division. Thank you. And so for the sport portion of things, you're currently managing— I'm thinking specifically for the CHA— do they have a weekly reporting requirement like the subsistence users do?

Does— Madam Chair, I'm sorry, did—. Are you referring to the CHA harvest? Yes, I am. Yes, the subsistence CHA harvest has a weekly reporting from January 1st through ice out. Does sport— I mean, I don't know, does sport occur there in the CHA or is it purely subsistence use?

Sport fishing does not occur during the winter. It's not allowed between October 14th and April—. Got it. Or excuse me, June 1st. Thank you.

And this— and this— This proposal doesn't contemplate any changes to the thresholds. Those remain in place, correct?

Madam Chair, the threshold in the Sport Fish Management Plan would require emergency orders to be issued if, if there was harvest in excess of 750 in the CHA. This proposal would eliminate that, that trigger. And we would, of course, still retain emergency order authority if there was any sustainability concerns. So there's no sustainability concerns if there's an exceedance of 750? Or are there—.

Currently there's no sustainability concerns based on current sport fish harvest, subsistence harvest. The numbers are accumulated for each year and they are evaluated relative to our abundance estimates. Can I think you already answered my last question, which is that EO authority is maintained to reduce bag limits or to do any management action that if there is a sustainability concern that arises. Madam Chair, if we have any sustainability issues as we observe the fishery, then we would still retain that right or that emergency order authority, and we would issue it if we had those concerns. Thank you.

Other questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Um, first of all, I, I would— for such a complex area, I also— I want to say that this is, uh, seems to be a very well-organized fishery already. And I think it was indicated by that drop in 2017, perhaps, when the area was so large that people weren't able to go fishing and ACR was put in and that it was expanded or limited, I don't quite recall, but then all of a sudden it went right back to where it was held like prior.

So I really like that. Um, also say, having spent time in this area, but I've only accessed it up the Tolovana and from Swan Lake Slough, I appreciate the fact that the bag limit doesn't all change between 5 fish or 2 fish. I really like the consistency of there being one, one at 30 and then 5. 1 In 5. That adds consistency.

I remember pulling in there once and not knowing, like, what it was. And I'm like, oh dang, I don't have the book and I don't have reception, you know? So what do you do? So I like just moving it to that, 1 in 5. And then lastly, I also like the idea of just bumping it back to breakup.

And so that seems to make a lot more sense in adding that additional, you know, week or few days With the starting date, it seems like it'll have almost no impact whatsoever. It makes sense. So, Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Andy, when you gave— presented this during those staff reports, I remember asking you about the anticipated increase in the bag limit and the bag take if we reduce that threshold, and you said it was about 50. And is Does that number remain— estimate remain the same if we do this additional—. These—. Change these start dates? Do you still think that that number would only be 50?

Through the chair, yes, it should. We don't expect it to increase vastly by any stretch. And obviously the bag limit also, just to reiterate, the 1 over 30 inches is a certain amount of protection that we think is very important. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I guess I'll just lend my support for this proposal. I think that this— obviously the biggest factor that I consider is, is there a conservation problem at all? And sustainability is, is also very important there. So I think that this does provide more opportunity for people to participate. The amount of harvest, as Ms. Erwin stated, is not expected to go up significantly.

So I think this is a proposal that is well placed at this time, and I think the department has the tools necessary to react if they see something out of, out of the norm. And so for those reasons, I would support that. I'd also go ahead and while I'm on here, I think it's important that we consider the subsistence regulation review. And so I'll go through that real quick. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area?

Partially. Fewer than 5% of northern pike stocks in the Middle Flats likely migrate through the Fairbanks non-subsistence area. Is this stock customary and traditionally taken and used for subsistence? Yes. The board determined that freshwater species including sheefish, whitefish, lamprey, burbot, sucker, Arctic grayling, northern pike, and chars are also associated with customary and traditional use in the Yukon area.

Can this proportion of stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? That answer would be yes. What amount is reasonably necessary for subsistence? In '97, a formal administrative finding by the board, which is yet to be.

Adopted in regulation, the board found that 133,000 to 2.85 million pounds of freshwater fish other than salmon is, is the amount reasonably necessary for subsistence in the Yukon area. And do these provide ample opportunity for subsistence uses? I believe they do. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide this opportunity? I do not believe so.

So That's all I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I am inclined to support this. I will note that I am looking at a couple of PCs that expressed concern, PC 9 specifically, about making this change. However, I think that as was demonstrated in the department's presentation to the board on our first day, that the sport increase is likely negligible.

We have reporting requirements for the subsistence permits. And then I would also note that in the department's comments that regardless of the bag limit, the limit for the fish 30 inches or longer remains at 1 fish. And that's important to me just to make sure that we're protecting those larger fish that, as has been noted, are biologically and reproductively valuable. So I just wanted to note that given that the EO authority exists, the reporting requirement exists, so that you can gauge what the activity level is in season or the exploitation is in season, and the fact that that 30-inch or longer restriction remains in place to one, I'm relatively comfortable supporting this proposal. Ms. Irwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd like to speak to the proposal as well. I had the opportunity to attend the Mentoni Nana Advisory Committee meeting last week. They met after the public comment period, so they weren't able to get their comments— they didn't take official vote. They weren't able to reach quorum.

However, there was a healthy discussion among the Minto users on these Pike proposals, and at least 4 local Minto providers fishers mentioned not having any concern for additional— the additional harvest that this would— that this would bring their subsistence users and didn't mention any concern about any— any— any inter-user conflict areas that could arise from a proposal such as this being adopted. And I think it's a good opportunity for us to increase opportunity sustainably in a region that is void of many other fishing opportunities. So I too will be supporting this proposal. Mr. Wood. Yeah, lastly, I just want to echo the idea that only 1 over 30.

I really like this idea. I think as people, you know, educate themselves on the fact that it's the really old large females that are big that we really need to be focusing on preserving those, whether it's halibut or sheefish. So I think it's a really nice idea to just keep it at 1 and recognize that what we're doing is preserving the future by by keeping it at that level. 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. I'd call the question. Question has been called. Are there any errors and omissions? Looking down the table, we're going to do it a little bit differently.

If there is one, raise your hand. Raise a flag. Let me know. OK, not seeing any errors and omissions. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on proposal 18. Godfrey. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Irwin. Yes. Carpenter.

Yes. Svenson. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 19.

Madam Chair, Proposal 19, 5AAC 74.044, Minto Flats, Northern Pike Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the Board take no action on Proposal 19 based on its action on Proposal 18. I second that. Now, ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 19. Proposal number 20. Madam Chair, proposal 20, 5AAC74.044, Minto Flats, Northern Pike Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on proposal 20 based on its action on proposal 18.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 20. Getting into the Tanana drainage sport fisheries, we're going to do a quick little change of order here and we're going to take up proposal number 22 first, followed by 21, 23, 24, etc. So proposal number 22, please. Madam Chair, proposal 22, 5 AAC 74.010, seasons, bag, possession, and size limits and methods and means for the Tanana River area.

Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Sure. Madam Chair, Proposal 21 would— 22 would allow a catch-and-release fishery for northern pike in Harding Lake. Currently in Harding Lake, the sport fishery for northern pike has been closed for 25 years.

This Excuse me, got out of order.

So anglers would have the opportunity to fish for northern pike in Harding Lake. Mortality of northern pike would likely increase due to catch-and-release mortality. Requiring barbless hooks could reduce angler efficiency by some immeasurable degree for all species. Prohibiting the use of bait would—. Stand by, this is 21, buddy.

We're on 22.

Just did a little switcheroo on you. 22. This proposal is started. That's what's on the record, right? I apologize.

No worries. Proposal 22-5AAC74.010, Seasons, Bag, Possession and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Tanana River Area. This proposal would allow catch and release fishery for northern pike in Harding Lake. In Harding Lake, the sport fishery for northern pike is currently closed year round. The proposal differs from Proposal 21 by not having a bait restriction or a barbless hook requirement.

The department supports this proposal. A 25-year closure of the northern pike fishery in Harding Lake did not increase abundance to levels sufficient to support harvest in the sport fishery. In the absence of harvest, lake level is the primary driver of abundance because it affects availability of spawning and rearing habitat. The lake level will continue to fluctuate based primarily on weather. Due to the popularity of Harding Lake, harvest would not likely be sustainable.

Allowing catch-and-release fishing will be sustainable even during low water levels and will provide additional fishing opportunity. Madam Chair.

Okay, board discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Just a question for the department, you know. During your presentation earlier, you talked about the water level having a big effect in this area in regards to reproductive viability.

Does that happen consistently with low water conditions? Is it at a certain time of year that it's really critically important to be able to grow this population? Just maybe if you could just touch on that in general. Sure, through the chair.

The Tanana Basin goes through cycles of dry periods and wet periods. So for 25 years or so, it was in a dry period. And it has such a limited basin to collect water into that. It's a closed basin. And over those 25 years, evaporation had reduced the shoreline level and the acreage.

And the important part is the northeast corner. It's the undeveloped boggy area where when the water— when we're in a wet period, as we are now, it starts to inundate that and it accumulates an extra like 250 acres. And it's the most important spawning, rearing habitat of the lake. And so that's what's the driver of abundance up and down in that lake. Okay, thank you for that.

And harken my memory back to the presentation when I asked about mortality, catch and release mortality, and the potential for that. And I know a lot of that— I believe that if you weren't using bait, it's very, very, very low. Um, obviously it'll increase if you're using bait. So my question is, do we have any idea— well, first of all, does this, does this, does this proposal allow for the use of bait?

Madam Chair, this proposal does allow for the use of bait. Okay, so with baited fish or fishing, what is the catch-and-release mortality on pike? Madam Chair, through the— through previous research we've done, we had less than 5%. It was either from— depending on the study and exactly how they situated it, but it was from 4% to 0% mortality rate on northern pike. So with bait,.

Has been used out there. It's been legal to use bait out there for the last 25 years for your burbot fishing and your lake trout fishing.

Some of that gear type would obviously appeal to a northern pike at times. So it has been occurring there. Our thought on bait is that with or without bait, the fishery will be sustainable. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] Mr. Swenson.

I don't understand why you will still allow treble hooks and bait. I mean, if you eliminate bait, does that eliminate the use of bait for the burbot and the lake trout then? Through the chair, first, the hooks that are allowed out there are not treble hooks, only single hook. Okay, the bait has been allowed for the last 25 years while the fishery has been closed to allow you to catch burbot or lake trout. So in other words, if you eliminated bait, they couldn't use it for lake trout or burbot?

Correct. Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. That was, I guess, the last two questions of the department were something that I was thinking. I mean, generally in my mind, I'm not a proponent of catch and release fishing with bait.

I just think that it's the board's responsibility to try and look at mortality rates. Now, having heard what you just said in regards to northern pike and the mortality rate between 0 and 4%, that is significantly different than salmon, especially king salmon in different places. I think this is a unique situation where You have probably quite a few people that are trying to access this lake to fish for burbot and lake trout, and I'm not sure exactly how many of these people, while they're targeting those species, are actually harvesting some pike. But I don't want to reduce the ability for people to target those, and both of those species in certain situations would be more difficult to harvest without the use of bait. So I'm trying to stay consistent, consistent with, you know, my theory in regards to catch and release with bait.

But I think in this particular situation, based on what the department has said, I don't really see that I have a problem with this. Mr. Wood.

Member Irwin's had her hand up. I'm sorry. I'll go right now. Okay. So what my question is, burbot, you're able to fish with bait for burbot and lake trout.

What has happened in the past when you've accidentally caught a pike? Through the chair, if somebody had accidentally caught a pike, they would have to release it back to the water. So, okay, you know, technically you're not, you're not targeting pike, but some of the gear is similar. You know, if you fish for lake trout or burbot, it's the gear is similar to what you may use for northern pike. That was my next question.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Member Wood. I was on the same thought track. So Andy, would the, the current hook size and everything for the, the bait for the bourbon and the trout, would that be then consistent with this northern pike catch and release if this proposal was passed?

All of that gear type would be, would be consistent as well as it would be baited through the chair? Yes, the The hook, there's no hook size, but it is just no treble hook. So it's just a single hook. And like I say, currently you can use bait out there. And this would just allow the bait to be continued to be used, basically to allow those lake trout and burbot anglers to continue to target them.

And then we've, you know, looking at catch and release mortality, even with bait, it's still very low on northern pike. We didn't, we, we didn't weigh in one way or the other necessarily quite. We just said with or without bait, it's still sustainable fishery.

Mr. Wood. Okay, so it's with bait for even for lake trout, they've, they've— has the size of the pike changed much in this lake, or are they pretty much like a consistent hammer handle size? Through the chair.

The size composition has remained fairly stable. There's a number of large fish out there. The population has increased since 2013. Just after that period, we started to get more water in there. And there's been more spawning and rearing habitat.

So in fact, the population's increased since the rearing habitat has increased. Okay, thank you. So for burbot, I've used bait, but for lake trout, I usually just jig. Are these pike hitting jigs too? And then therefore you're catching and releasing them as well with jigs through the chair?

Yes, I do know anglers that have caught them while they're trying to fish for burbot or, or northern or lake trout. Excuse me. Yep.

All right, so I think [Speaker:KATHRYN] I mean, this might be a painful conversation for the public to listen to, but please keep in mind that this is almost like a wholesale mind shift for us up here a little bit because we're so used to pike being invasive and wanting to get all of them. So this is a little bit different. But I see this as sort of just a practicality sort of exercise, you know, given this conversation. My question was going to be related to gear in that, You know, are we using similar gear to target burbot and lake trout and pike? And I hear that the answer is largely yes.

Folks are fishing for burbot and lake trout. They might incidentally catch a pike, in which case they would be required to release it anyways. So this is really just a continuation of what is the current practice and also pulling out that enforcement part so that nobody gets in trouble for accidentally hooking a pike. Is that a pretty decent summary of it? Your estimation?

I would, I would totally agree. Okay. All right. In that, in that instance, like, like Mr., Mr. Carpenter noted, I am not— catch and release with bait makes zero sense to me typically. And again, that's part of that whole, that mind shift that I'm working on here.

It's specific to this, to this species. But given all of that and making it easier for the public, I do think I think it's worth kind of keeping a bit of an eye on, um, only because of the proximity of Harding Lake between Fairbanks and Delta Junction. Being close to the road, I see it being a pretty popular area for people to, to recreate. Um, so I mean, obviously the department, you know, will kind of keep an eye on those populations to the best of your ability. But as you've noted, it really has more to do with the, the, um, the hydrology and, and what of the actual system itself, and less to do with angler pressure, at least to date.

So anything else? 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. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question has been called. Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 22.

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

Yes. Svenson. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

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

Let's roll back to proposal number 21. You'll read the, the title, and please, Madam Chair, proposal 21, 5AAC 74.010, Seasons, Bag, Possession, and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Tanana River Area. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 21 based on its action on Proposal 22. I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 21.

Proposal 23.

Madam Chair, Brandy Baker, Division of Sport Fish, Tanana Assistant Area Management Biologist. Proposal 23. 5 AAC 74.010, seasons, bag possession and size limits and methods and means for the Tanana River area. Madam Chair.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would increase the bag and possession limit for northern pike in Volkmar Lake to match the general regulations of 5 fish per day, of which only 1 fish may be 30 inches or longer. Currently, the season is open year-round with a daily bag and possession limit of 2 fish, of which only 1 may be 30 inches or longer. If this proposal were adopted, anglers would have the opportunity to harvest 3 additional northern pike less than 30 inches in length per day. The harvest of northern pike less than 30 inches in length will increase but will remain at a sustainable level. Volkmar Lake is a remote lake with several recreational cabins located 16 air miles to the northeast of Delta Junction.

And is within a non-subsistence use area. Access is only by float or ski plane or snow machines along a 24-mile winter trail to the lake. All the sport fishing effort in Volkmar Lake is directed at northern pike because of the absence of other sport species. The lake supports.

Low levels of fishing effort due to its remoteness. But for 15 years, Volkmire Lake has been managed using a restrictive bag and possession and size limit. During the last 15 years, the number of respondents to the statewide harvest survey has averaged less than 2 respondents annually, nullifying estimation of angler effort, harvest, and catch. However, the low number of respondents also indicates low levels of fishing effort in Volkmire Lake. The department supported and the department submitted and supports this proposal.

Due to the remoteness of the lake, sport fishing effort will remain low, and any additional harvest will target only smaller northern pike rather than mature females. Changing the regulations for northern pike to general regulations for the Tanana River area will be sustainable, simplify regulations, and provide additional fishing opportunity. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion? Ms. Erwin, Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, thank you. Um, so was there any, um, public input or ACs or anybody that you heard requesting this, or was it more of a department looking at, at this bag limit as being different and the population being sustainable and looking to just make that opportunity consistent, that bag limit consistent among multiple areas?

Through the chair, Madam Erwin. Yeah, so through time we do have staff that go out and visit these lakes and I did attend the Delta AC meeting and there was a mixed vote on whether to open up the opportunity. Through time, though, we also have been changing regulations in the Tanana River area with regards to northern pike. This lake particularly used to have a season closure date for spawning closure, but the access was nullified to really mean anything because you couldn't get there during the closure time anyway. So It's been being relaxed just to make the regulations simplified.

And this is one of the only northern pike lakes besides Harding and the Chatanika River area that have restrictive bag possession limits for northern pike. And it being so remote doesn't really have that much effort. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Wood.

So prior to 15 years ago, when there was a more conservative bag limit put on this, what was the bag limit and what was the reason for making it more restrictive at the time? Was it, was it because the bag limit was much higher and there were more, a lot more people utilizing it? Was there a conservation concern that was associated with that? Maybe if you could just give me a little background on that.

Through the chair. So yes, through time back, we can go back to Board of Fish Actions from 1987. It used to be a 10 fish per day, no size limit, no season closure. And then it changed from '87 to '92 to 5 fish per day, only 1 over 30 inches, and then it remained that, and then a spawning closure was put into place in '92 to '97. And those were changes made with— after we were doing abundance estimates in the early '80s and getting a hold on, on some of the northern pike populations in the area.

Then from '97 to 2009, after there was a lower abundance in 1990, there's one fish per day, no size limit in a Springs Pond enclosure. So it became very restrictive. And then it was at one fish per day and a lot of effort reduced in the statewide harvest survey. People just stopped going such the distance for one northern pike. But then it changed back to two northern pike, one over 30, in 2009 and remained that since 2019.

And so it's been that way since. And the last abundance estimate was 4,000 fish in 2009. And that's why the bag limit was increased.

Follow up. Thank you for that.

So really, the last abundance estimate was 2009. And is that— is that— that's what you just stated. And so considering the history of this particular lake and the very different schemes of harvest that's been available over a fairly long period of time. Is there any sort of conservation concern based on a 2009 abundance estimate that would apply to 2025? I mean, it's, it's kind of a big jump and it's, it's varied from, like you said, 10 fish to 1 fish to now asking for a very similar bag limit of 5.

So if you just touch on that. Through the chair. Yeah. So effort has declined, and that's mainly a driver. Like, back in the earlier— before 2009 and early 2000s and '80s, you had more effort out at that lake.

Now, in the last 15 years, there just really hasn't been the effort. And that's also not from— that's shown by the statewide harvest survey data, but also by staff observational data and the number of icehouses that used to be registered at that lake that are no longer registered. There's been hardly any ice houses registered for that lake too. So primarily effort has been driven by the wintertime because the access is better to get in from snow machine versus flying in because there's no floatplane ponds near Delta Junction. So it's just been a— more effort has been decreased over the last year.

So just one more follow-up question, if I could, Madam Chair. It doesn't really get to my question about the abundance. And what the comfortability is with the department. I know the department put this in, and if they weren't comfortable, they wouldn't have put it in. I understand that.

But from a board perspective, we're looking at information that's, you know, quite old, actually. And I guess the main thing that I'm considering when I look at this proposal is these, these bag limits have changed over time based on the amount of people that have participated in these fisheries. Probably along with some environmental conditions, etc., etc. But if we raise this bag limit back to 5, don't you think that the amount of people that used to use it when the bag limits were higher are going to utilize this lake again like they did in the past?

Klaus Wurig, Department. So I'd like to add to Brandy's comments. So one of the main biggest factors is there's just been a consistent drop in effort and a commensurate drop in harvest. And so we had population size back at one time in '96 when there was a guiding operation, there was a higher harvest, and we saw the lake population around 500, and we changed the bag limit to 1-2, and that's basically the same bag limit. And we saw the population go from 2,000 to 4,000 and then back down to 2,000.

And so I guess my main point is, is that the fishing regulation was not having an effect on population size. It was going through— all populations have this natural cycle. We've seen it with other species. You can go from 4,000 back down to 2,000. And again, I want to reiterate the 5 fish, it's only 1 over 30.

And so it's shifting the harvest to those smaller northern pike. And, you know, I think it's important to keep in mind whether or not the regulation is having an effect on the population. And in this case, it's really not the primary driver, similar to Harding Lake, where it's water level. Here, it's just, you know, pike are very robust species and they're going to cycle. They're going to eat, you know, there's some whitefish in there, but they're pretty much eating themselves.

So We— that's why we feel sustainable. One, the harvest has really gone down, the effort's gone down, and the pike are just very robust in that lake and they'll be able to handle it. And to Ms. Irwin's, you know, her point about it, the department has been uniformly looking at pike populations across the Tanana and trying to, you know, provide opportunity and also simplify regulations where there's— where harvest could be sustainable. Mr. Wood, and then Mr. Swenson. Yeah, thank you.

I was just gonna reference my past comments and also say, for the sake of consistency, I really do like 1 in 5. So, and then also, I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that there could be a limited number of pike because they just spawn like lemmings, you know? So I have a hard time imagining that you're gonna really knock the population back given the access right now. So I think, I support the department's recommendation to move it to 1 in 5. Mr. Swenson, my question is, you know, in this day and age, you can catch a big fish, take a picture of it, measure it quick, throw it back, and go have a mount made of it.

Is the basic idea let them have— let people have one fish over 30 inches so they can keep it as a trophy? If that's the case, there's no need for that. So I kind of question why allow any fish over 30 inches to be— any pike over 30 inches in this case to be kept.

Through the chair. So the 1 over 30 is a regulation that's been in place for a long time, and that's to preserve the funcon females. So I guess I'm not 100% sure on your question, and if you want to try to change the regulation through the whole TANANA over not keeping 1 over 30. And change that, or just—. Well, I'm just curious as to why you have one fish over 30.

That's my question. What, what is the reason for that, since that is your, your major, you know, contributing to the population? Why do we— why do you have one fish over 30? It's to protect the.

Bigger spawning females. And so it's allowing an opportunity for an angler to harvest one, one greater-sized fish, because some people do like that. When you look at pike harvest, you know, when somebody wants to eat one or they want to not eat one, they just— that every angler is a little bit different on how they want to angle and do their fishing practices. So allowing somebody to keep like a trophy fish is what anglers usually want sometimes and others don't. They want like a more robust harvest because they're going to eat more pike so that doesn't matter what size they are.

But that 1 over 30 is just protecting that bigger female in the population by only allowing 1 over 30. Director Hayton, did you want to add to that? Yeah, I'll try to maybe answer it in a different way. So you're asking why we allow someone to keep 1 over 30, Member Swenson? Yeah, that's, that's my question.

I understand that why you want to do it. I mean, why you don't, you know, I guess what my question is, why are you allowing one fish to be kept over 30 when they're the highest reproductive ones? Just make the— I mean, no fish over 30, right? Well, I mean, we're here to protect and improve and provide, you know, yield for the benefit of people of Alaska. So it's been proven, you know, in our research and staff reports here, we have sustainable populations.

So, you know, our mandate is provide that yield. And, you know, if you've ever filleted a pike, uh, you know, people prefer to keep big ones for eating and, uh, you know, to get the y-bones out and all that. So if it's sustainable and, you know, uh, allowable, which it is, we should provide— that's why we provide that opportunity, allow people harvest those larger ones that are better food quality usually. I understand that. I guess I— this lake, it's— but you know, the, the possession limits and everything have changed so differently.

I don't have a big issue with some of the others, but when this particular lake, whether it's— whether, you know, the numbers have bobbed up and down drastically, I'd— that's my question, is maybe you shouldn't allow a fish over 30 to be caught.

Mr. Wood. Okay, biologically, why do some lakes seem to have a very homogeneous size of fish? What, what is happening there as opposed to having variable sizes? Is, is, is it a— is it healthier to have these larger ones and smaller ones rather than lakes that are just one size fits all? Through the chair, it's an interesting question.

So you're going to find a spectrum of pike lakes out there. You'll find a spectrum of size compositions within a lake. And, you know, some lakes we've been out there and they only grow small pike, right? And sometimes that's an artifact of aggressive fishing regulations where all the big ones are taken out and then you just can't have— at some point need a bigger fish to start eating the smaller fish. So you start getting to a more natural, what you might say, size composition.

So there's really not a simple answer to that question. Volkmar Lake is a place that does it is productive for northern pike and it can grow big northern pike. And when we do these stock assessments, one of the metrics we always look at is the abundance of pike over 30 inches. And so we know that with our regulation of 1 over 30 inches, we'll have, for instance, an abundance estimate of 1,000 30-inch fish out there. We know it's a 1 fish bag, so we know that if the reported harvest is 100, then you're only getting 5 of those fish harvested out of there if everybody's following the regulations properly.

So within that greater than 30-inch size composition, there is sustainable yield being taken out of there. So it strikes a balance with what people desire and protecting the big fish. And so, you know, if this was a situation where it was— it only produced a really small northern pike, you know, the 30-inch regulation would not be an issue. But in this lake, it does produce big ones, and that's kind of a bigger question as far as size compositions of northern pike. But thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to switch gears just quickly. So I was just looking at the Delta AC's comments and they were split on this, as you noted, and they opposed it for lack of population assessment after spring die-off. And we've talked about sort of the age of the last assessment in 2009. My question is, does this still maintain a spring the spring spawning closure or not?

Or should it if it doesn't? Madam Chair, no, it does not maintain the spring spawning closure. That was taken off in 2019. Um, and one, one reason that spawning closures have been eliminated across the drain— so as the lake ice recedes, you often have a ring of open water, and that's where the northern pike are spawning. And so the time people in pike lakes across the Tanana actually can get in there.

Spawning is largely over. Got it. That seems like a very practical solution answer. Okay. Any other questions?

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 cost to the department. I call the question. Questions have been called.

Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 23. Svensson.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes.

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

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

Proposal number 24.

Madam Chair, proposal 24, 5AAC74.010, Seasons, Bag, Possession and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Tanana River Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would eliminate the youth-only fishery for Arctic grayling that occurs during 4 weekends, 8 days in June and July.

For Arctic grayling in the Lower Chena River and its tributaries downstream of the Chena River Dam, catch-and-release fishing only from April 1st through May 31st. A bag and possession limit of 1 Arctic grayling from June 1st through March 31st. And then there is a youth-only fishery during the last 2 weekends of June and the first 2 weekends of July when only anglers 15 years of age or younger may fish for Arctic grayling. Upstream of the Moose Creek Dam, catch-and-release regulations apply year-round.

If adopted, this— anglers over the age of 15 would have the opportunity to fish for Arctic grayling in the Chena River during 4 additional summer weekends and it would reduce regulatory complexity. To evaluate participation in the youth-only fishery, we conducted a survey of anglers in the lower 46 miles of the Chena River and Badger Slough during the— each youth-only weekend in the summer of 2025. It was found that the lower Chena River was very lightly fished and most anglers were older than age 15 who were targeting species other than Arctic grayling. Across all 8 surveys, only 1 youth angler was specifically fishing for Arctic grayling, and no more than 2 anglers under 16 years of age were observed on any given day. Harvest has been allowed since 2019, and annual harvest has averaged 209 Arctic grayling.

The most recent abundance estimate of Arctic grayling greater than 12 inches in length within the fishery area was 15,860, resulting in exploitation rate of about 1%.

The department is neutral on this proposal. The department supports opportunities for youth anglers. However, surveys of this fishery in 2025 demonstrated that public utilization of the youth-only fishery is very low. During the summer, the density of Arctic grayling anglers is generally low, and there are no documented crowding issues. Allowing all anglers to fish for Arctic grayling during these times would provide additional sport fishing opportunity and encourage more families and friends to participate in the fishery because anglers of all ages could fish together.

This change would be sustainable, simplify Arctic grayling regulations, and provide additional sport fishing opportunity. Madam Chair, thank you. Mr. Swenson and Mr. Wood. Well, I think it's important to encourage the, the youth to get involved in all, all types of fishing and hunting also. So I would certainly be in favor of this proposal.

I would like to ask Captain McGrath about the difficulty of potentially enforcing the, the, you know, the kids only versus kids and moms and dads. Member Wood, through the chair, AWT is neutral on the proposal and we support opportunities for youth with reduced competition. The current regulation at times does cause an enforcement dilemma for us when adults are teaching or assisting a youth in fishing, and the amount of assistance they provide can put them in violation of the regulation. For example, when an adult is observed casting.

They would be in violation, but their intent is to cast so that the youth can reel it in. So it's been frustrating for us to enforce as it is right now. So hopefully that answers your question there. Follow-up? Thank you.

Yeah, first my face value on this was like, who would want to eliminate a youth fishery? Must be like the Grinch. But then all of a sudden I realized like, yes, that is, that does add a level of complexity to it all. It is a really short period of time where this fishery actually even exists, and it doesn't— by changing this, it doesn't mean youth can't fish at all. In fact, being able to sit there and cast with mom and dad legally would probably encourage fishing.

And so I'm— I had— I definitely have changed my initial gut reaction on this one and would look forward to what other members have to say. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Swenson. So yeah, at first glance this one looked like a tough pill to swallow, um, but I've, I've fished on this, uh, river and I've fly fished, and that's where I learned that I'm terrible at fly fishing. So as a grown man, I could have used someone casting for me. I think this would have been, uh, this is beneficial for, uh, is a more effective way of teaching and incorporating, getting the young people to fish without— and there doesn't seem to be a conservation concern or crowding concern related to this.

So with that, I would support this proposal. Just went to—. I wasn't aware that— I thought we were just going to eliminate the kids and that would be it. There would be no fisheries. So I understand.

I see now where I will support this because the kids can fish, just as my compatriots here have said, and it opens up more. There's 15,000 fish out there. Yeah, there ought to be some harvest. So I would support this.

Commissioner? Yeah, I had difficulty with this one too because I was around when we created this fishery, and we created this fishery as a youth-only fishery to get kids out fishing because we had a department mandate for retention recruitment of people. I had trouble with trying to eliminate this, but at the same time we have new information to suggest that kids can participate as well as another group of people. So getting parents out is the right thing to do in this time because we have harvestable surplus and we can, we can provide that. It was right to do it as kids only when we had a smaller harvestable surplus.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, thank you, Commissioner, for stating on the record, because that, that was kind of my first glance when I started thinking about this and remembering back that there was no opportunity for a long time, and then this kind of fishery was created to provide some opportunity. Now things have changed, and so I think maybe the The merits behind creating this maybe are not quite the same as they were. And considering what the Department of Public Safety said, I think that this is a reasonable thing to do at this time, although I am a very big supporter of youth fisheries and would hope that, you know, youth fisheries around the state would get a lot more attraction than they really do in some circumstances.

So I'll go ahead and do cost. 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 if there's nothing further, I'd call the question. I have a question before I recognize the question. Commissioner, given what you just said, I mean, I'm assuming there was a reason for the fact that the numbers were low, and I'm going to assume that that was you know, a lot of interest in angling pressure.

I don't know if that's a correct assumption or not, but irrespective, that the pendulum kind of swung way far right or the other way again. So my, my concern is, is that if you open up this opportunity, then the pendulum has the potential to swing back and we're back in that restrictive or potential need to restrict again. So where's the middle ground so that we are encouraging families and youth to get out and learn and enjoy the recreational opportunity, but we don't push the bar a little bit too far and find ourselves back in a need to restrict everyone again. Yeah, I asked staff that question. I'll maybe let them answer, but I think the regulatory package we have in place now should allow us for sustainable— because I think it was, it was a higher bag limit back then that put us down, in addition to different kinds of angling pressure.

And now I think we have a sustainable regulatory package in place and We'll closely monitor it. If we start seeing it drop, we'll go back to the old strategy. But I'll let staff answer. Please. Through the chair, this fishery certainly has a long history.

It's a very accessible fishery, and during the '70s and '80s, there was a lot of harvest. And by 1992, the whole river became catch and release. From 1992 until 2018, I believe, when this youth fishery opened up, there had been no harvest allowed. And in the meantime, the fishery had recovered and rehabilitated. The Fairbanks AC had wanted the opportunity to harvest fish, and one of their concerns was like, we can't even take our kids out to get a fish.

And that was the incentive to try to maybe at least get something going for the kids. And then consequently, we We ended up doing another abundance estimate in the lower river. The population is good. And there— we allowed the fishery to have a 1-fish bag limit, which is very conservative for grayling. And there's still a spawning season closure on the Chena River and the lower river from April 1st through June 1st.

And this— The youth fishery was retained while we allowed the rest of the fishery to open up. And it creates a regulatory complexity. It creates a problem for parents who want to take their kids out and go fishing with them. I've spoken to a couple people, including our Fairbanks AC, the current chair. He determined, "If I can't keep a grayling, I'm not going to go fish there with my kid.

I'm just going to go somewhere else." And so it was a good, it was a good plan. It worked for a while. But now that we're on to this sustainable only one fish, you know, there's what we're doing is kind of inhibiting families to go out there. I think at least that's what I'm hearing from my fellow anglers and AC member. Yeah, fair.

And so I was just sitting here mulling like what would be a middle ground kind of thing. And, you know, maybe the solution is you just have to drag a kid with you to your youth fishery, right? And, you know, You know, you don't really restrict, you know, people necessarily from participating or numbers of adults or anything like that, but, you know, you got to bring a kid. But I don't know, like, I just— I was just thinking about my concern is like, you know, just trying to avoid these swings in population and pressure and trying to sort of ease it out so that there's something that everybody can enjoy sustainably and predictably. Ms. Erwin.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to put some thoughts on the record before we go into voting. I see the intention of the proposal as reducing that regulatory complexity and that confusion. I also can see it as helping with enforcement from what we heard from earlier. I also have, I guess, hesitancies just From what Madam Chair just spoke to in terms of the ups and downs in regulation and populations constantly allowing more opportunity as soon as the population rebounds.

But this, from what the department is saying, it doesn't seem like there is much of a concern. But I would just like to, for that population to be a close eye kept on. Thank you. All right. Question's been called errors and omissions.

Looking around the table, seeing none. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 24. Wood? Yes.

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

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 25.

Proposal 25, 5AAC74.035, Ice House Registration. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would repeal the registration requirement for ice houses that are not removed from the ice daily in the Tanana River area. Currently, the regulations state from October 1 through April 30, a person using an ice house ice that is not removed from the ice daily is required to register the icehouse with and receive a permit from the department for that year. A registered icehouse must display the permit numbers at least 12 inches high and 1 inch wide on one side and on the roof of the icehouse in a color that contrasts with the color of the icehouse. An icehouse must be removed from the ice by April 30th. However, the department may designate other conditions on the permit, including other time and area restrictions for the icehouse.

If the proposal was adopted, permit holders would no longer have to mark their icehouses, including pop-ups,.

With 12-inch letters notify the department when they move their icehouses nor remove their structures by April 30th. Enforcement would not be able to identify owners of the icehouses left on the ice during breakup. The department would not have the administrative burden of issuing permits and tracking icehouses in the Tanana River drainage. The registration of icehouses not removed from the, from the ice daily has been required since 1969. The only other management area statewide with the same requirement is the Upper Copper River and Upper Susitna River area, which enacted the regulation in 2003.

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has their own registration system for 7 lakes within the borough. The department supports this proposal. The registration of icehouses does not inform fishery management and is an unnecessary burden for the department and public. Abandoned icehouses are not a problem. During the last 25 years, only one unregistered icehouse sank and is known to have remained on ice after April 30th, which subsequently sank.

Madam Chair. Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Godfrey.

Regarding the rationale for registering icehouses back when it was required, was it back then the idea that there's not accountability, that would be abandoned even though the evidence indicates that's never been a problem? Is that the only rationale for ever registering these?

Through the chair. So the icehouse registration was a way to track icehouses. And granted, when it started, icehouses were big wooden structures, usually with metal skids. So they were a bigger house, basically. And they were pulled out onto lakes.

And so that was— the thought back then was to track those so that they didn't become garbage in the lake and to put a requirement on it. But it also was a way to potentially track effort. But effort doesn't necessarily mean because you're registering an ice house that you're placing it out there and you're fishing through it. So we are not able to get really good effort information from having an ice house registration.

Other questions? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. There was some public testimony as to this, how leaving your ice house out there could create habitat at the bottom of the lake. And I kind of like couldn't believe that, but it was the way it was.

And so, but you do have to remove these from the lake by a certain date no matter what. Is there enforcement on that? Captain DeGraff.

So AWT does not have a concern about removing the registration as submitted in this proposal. Um, I think our observations line up with the department's about this is a pretty rare thing, uh, having people leave it out past the dates that they're supposed to. Um, but if you want to be consistent with other unattended gear that's left out in the field, typically it requires marking so that when something is left out in the field, enforcement can follow up with somebody. Or return equipment to them, that, that sort of thing. And so again, while we don't, uh, we understand the administrative burden of a registration and that going away, I think our suggestion would be that we simply kind of mirror, um, what was it, 5 AAC 750334, where you just have to require a name and an address.

A simple marking doesn't need to be reflective. It doesn't need to be big, just a simple name, maybe an inch, inch tall, or address. A person can mark their equipment so that if it is left out on those rare cases, we can still contact somebody and do the follow-up. If we remove the registration and don't have a marking requirement at all, there will be nothing that we can do for those instant instances where gear is left out into the field.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Irwin and Mr. Chamberlain. My follow-up on that is two things. One is I've lived for a long time in a place where you have to require a parking permit to live remotely and to access your property. And I find that permit is— it's never enforced, which is— and so therefore it turns into long-term storage for and reduces access for other user groups. Because of it's now just parked there.

Which in this case, an ice tent is now corking off potentially a good fishing site. So I think there is merit to the idea of there being a permit, maybe even, you know, it needs to be removed within 7 days or taken right away because with these new ice houses that are basically made of cloth, they're like big balloons and just can fly everywhere. They're not just necessarily, you know, the old traditional ice house. Shed. So it seems to me that even though it is a burden to the department, there is some merit to there being registration just so you can kind of keep track of who's potentially abusing this.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Member Wood, for your comments too. I don't know that I have concerns about any abuse of this, of this proposal, or of the icehouses that would lack registration. But I will just say that a good point was just brought up that other gear such as fish wheels and set nets in the river do have to have at least name and phone number on them.

And so while it's not— it doesn't totally parallel and equate to this because the ice house currently does require a formal registration, I will say that for there to be no identification would it necessarily be consistent with some of the other requirements that we have for, for other gears? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess my question, following Mr. Wood and Ms. Erwin's comments, my question for the department would be, if we were to repeal the registration requirement, are there any— what protections would we have to ensure that people don't leave hard structures or something permanent, even a nice fishing tent, you know, those cloths are going to last a long time. The fiberglass poles, or if they're metal poles, what, what enforcement mechanisms or monitoring mechanisms do we have to ensure that people don't leave gear out on the ice through the spring?

Plus, through the chair, thank you for that question. So I built a shed recently. I couldn't believe how much it cost me. These ice pop-ups, $200 to $500, they're an investment. I think— I can't speak for other people, but speaking for myself, I, I would want to take care of it to some level.

And again, I'd like to reiterate the point that we've only had one instance in the past 25 years that we can remember. And to Miss Irwin's, um, comments that an ice house is not gear, it is shelter. And so I just want to clarify those points. Thank you. Thanks.

Follow-up? So just, yeah, following on that, I, you know, I bought one of the pop-up shelters and I got a great deal. And when the wind blew, I found out why I got a great deal. So I was out on the ice and Finger Lake and with a pop-up shelter that was just a piece of tattered cloth. And I understand the investment in those, but when things go wrong, they go wrong.

So I'm still having a bit of heartburn over an issue that may not be a problem until it becomes a problem. And I'm a firm believer in an ounce of prevention's worth a pound of cure. So without something in place to at least mark, mark these shelters. I'm— I have a bit of heartburn over this, so I'll leave it at that. I'll put a couple of thoughts on the record and then I'll get to Member Swenson and Member Wood.

All I'm picturing in my mind is Grumpy Old Men, which is one of my favorite all-time movies, by the way. Little piece of information about me. But the fact of the matter is that people aren't fishing that way anymore. Even that movie is 30 years old, which is shocking.

I don't have a lot of concern about removing this regulation, and the reason why is because it just sort of demonstrates a shift in how people are fishing and what they're using in those efforts. I think there is an investment component to it.

This kind of instance, if we— if the incidence of not removing your property is problematic, which sounds like it hasn't been for a long time, we can come back and revisit this. So the current registration seems a bit onerous. There's no substitute language before us at this time to consider what less onerous registration requirements might be people are concerned about it. So given what we have before us at this time, I think that it's a bit overkill given the use and how people are fishing and, and using these tents, pop-ups, and even ice houses for that matter. So.

Traditional ice houses, I should say, grumpy old men ice houses.

So I am inclined to support this for that reason, and if it becomes problematic, then we have mechanisms for dealing with it, you know, before it gets too out of hand in the future. But I think that given the cost of these items, and building a shed is not cheap anymore, I'm fairly comfortable with this. Mr. Swenson, Mr. Wood, Mr. Godfrey. Just a quick question, 'cause you've only had one issue in 25 years?

Through the chair, yes. And the one instance I recall, it wasn't registered and it went in the ice. And because it's a pretty tight community on these lakes, there's not a lot of them, we were able to identify that individual. And did that individual ever come and pull it out? No.

Community around that lake pulled it out. So it was addressed. Mr. Wood. Yeah, and could you just repeat it? Like you said, that rule has been in place since 1969, and then was it 2001 or '03 they did that on Lake Louise area or in Matsu?

Through the chair, yes, thank you. So yes, since '69, and since the Copper River drainage is part of our region, we— I think the intent back then was to make it consistent within our region. It is not done in other regions within Sport Fish Division, just Region 3. Thank you. Mr. Godfrey.

Yeah, my sentiments would be echoed by the chairs here. I don't always say, well, it turns out to be a problem, we can fix it then. But whenever possible, I believe the best regulation is less regulation. And this seems extraneous and gratuitous to me, especially after staff indicated the evolution of the icehouses over time and why the rationale that applied decades ago may not apply any further. So I think getting something like this off the books is probably a net benefit, and if it turns out not to be, can be resolved in due time.

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

Any errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 25. Godfrey? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? No. Irwin?

No. Carpenter. Yes. Svenson. Yes.

Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 26.

Proposal 26, 5AAC 74.010, Seasons Bag Possession and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Tanana River Area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would modify regulations for Arctic grayling in Shaw Creek drainage and the Tanana River within a 2-mile radius of the Shaw Creek mouth to match the general daily bag and possession limit of 5 Arctic grayling. Currently in the Shaw Creek drainage and in the Tanana River within a 2-mile radius of its confluence with Shaw Creek, sport fishing is open year-round for Arctic grayling with a bag and possession limit of 5 fish, except from April 1st through May 31st. When fishing is restricted to catch and release. If adopted, harvest opportunity would increase for anglers, and harvest of Arctic grayling would likely increase because a more liberal bag and possession limit of 5 Arctic grayling would apply year-round. During the 1980s, the Shaw Creek and Tana River confluence area was a popular roadside fishery targeting congregating Arctic grayling that staged there prior to ascending Shaw Creek to spawn.

In 1987, the current regulations were implemented due to potential conservation concerns. The Shaw Creek Arctic Grayling Fishery has changed significantly since the 1980s. Public access has diminished because the Tanana River channel has diverted away from the highway and the confluence is now situated in the middle of the Tanana River gravel plain. Angler effort for all species has declined in the last 10 years. The statewide harvest survey has only averaged 2 respondents from this location.

The department submitted and supports this proposal. Current regulations are unnecessarily restrictive given the very low levels of fishing effort and catch. Changing the special regulation for Arctic grayling to general regulations for the Tanana River area will allow sustainable harvest, simplify regulations, and provide additional fishing opportunity. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion?

Mr. Swenson? Well, I'm sure would be— I'm sure in favor of making this a standard deal because I've been involved with a regulation deal one time over a bear in and it was not enjoyable. So I would support this.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you. I just note for the record that in that the last sentence that the department's comments included that this will allow sustainable harvest, simplify regulations, and provide additional fishing opportunities, I think are all things that this board has been working towards. So thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I'd like to add that I think it's really important nowadays when you look at environmental change and that what's happening to either the flow of the river, the upwellings, where they're spawning, and take that into consideration with, with any of these proposals. So I agree with what the department is putting forth.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Yeah, I agree with the sentiments my fellow board members say. I think one thing to take into consideration is that, you know, this, this, this proposal is being brought forward by the department. And, you know, it says in the background information that this this particular fishery is managed under the special management approach of the Tanana Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan. And I, without question, realize that the department took that all into consideration.

So I just thought that that's important to put on the record. So I have no problem supporting the department's recommendation on this one.

I'll do cost. 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. Any errors and omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 26. Carlson VanDort. Yes. Carpenter.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 27.

Proposal 27, 5AAC 74-0.010, seasons, bag possession and size limits and methods and means for the Tanana River area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would modify management of Rainbow Lake, which is a stocked water, and increase the daily bag and possession limit for all stocked finfish species combined from 5 to 10, of which only one may be 18 inches or greater in length. Currently, the daily bag and possession limit for all finfish species combined is 5 fish, of which only one may be 18 inches or greater. Rainbow Lake is 86.5 acres in size, is is classified as a remote stocked lake in the Upper Tanana Valley, about 12.5 air miles northwest of Delta Junction, and is within a non-subsistence use area. Anglers access Rainbow Lake by float plane during the open water months and by snow machine after freeze-up. Based on sampling in 2018 and 2025, rainbow trout are not growing to the 18 inches in length and not meeting expectations.

Fishing effort and harvest in Rainbow Lake cannot be estimated because there are too few responses to the statewide harvest survey. But the low response rate is an indication that this remote is like remote lake is lightly fished. The department submitted and supports this proposal. The conservative management approach for Rainbow Lake has been ineffective at promoting growth. 68 Of the rainbow trout and providing reasonable expectation, expectation of catching rainbow trout greater than 18 inches.

Changing the management approach from conservative to regional will be sustainable, simplify regulations, and provide additional support fishing opportunity. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Swenson. Ms. Irwin. Mr. Wood. I'm assuming then that you're going to discontinue to stock this lake.

Through the chair. No, we would not necessarily discontinue stocking because there is still effort at the lake. It's just not meeting the conservative management approach, which would be 5 rainbow trout, 1 over 18. So throughout the Tana River drainage, we have multiple stocked lakes and they're— most of them are regional, which is the 10 fish bag limit, 1 over 18. This one was a conservative management lake and it's been moving through time.

It was a special move to a conservative. Now we want to just put it back to regional because it does get sportfished. However, the, the lake is not growing the number of fish over 18 inches to meet the conservative management approach. Okay, thank you. Mr.

Irwin, during this time of the conservative management approach, has, um, has the department attempted to, um, disallow that 1 over 18 inches in order to try to get more bigger fish within that, that system? Because I'm reading it says the trout are not growing to 18 inches in length, so I'm just wondering if you guys were.

Repealed the 1 over 18, could you foresee any benefit? Has the department ever done that before?

Through the chair, so the department goes in and provides lake assessments every few years for these lakes. And so we did a 2018 and a 2020— or not 2020, sorry, 2025 assessment. And so we look at the growth and also the fact that this is a remote stock lake. So it's only stocked every other year anyway. And in 2020, it missed its stocking because of COVID So we look at the numbers that we stock and we adjust those and then we go back in and we review if that lake is still meeting it.

So it still has 18-inch fish in it. It's just not meeting that requirement of having more like the necessary amount of 18-inch fish than an angler would expect to catch in a conservatively managed lake. That answers your question. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood.

Okay, my 2 questions. One is, are there any other species in this lake? Through the chair, no, this lake specifically just has rainbow trout. Okay, and then back to my original, one of my previous question about why lakes have all like one size fish, and you said that was a complicated answer, so you don't have to go back into it, but would decreasing the population help change that diversity of the size in the lake?

Through the chair, thank you for the question again. So I want to back up to what the conservative management approach is. The intent is to have good catch rates of fish less than 18 inches and good catch rates of fish over 18 inches. Kind of like the perfect situation. And so to find that right balance of stocking densities and the amount of effort, it's not an easy thing.

And so we've learned, you know, way back when we did achieve some fish over 18 inches was a reasonable expectation. The last two times we've been in there, we didn't catch one single fish over 18 inches. And so that's kind of the main impetus for this proposal. I had another thread, but I've lost it. But hopefully I've answered your question.

Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. This proposal just makes a lot of sense to me, frankly. What it sounds to me is like it was an experiment, didn't necessarily pan out to try and create the opportunity for these, you know, larger trout.

For whatever reason, the lake doesn't want to do that in the numbers. I think that it was initially intended or thought to B. So I think it makes sense to sort of make consistent the bag limits. And if you're lucky enough to get an 18, you can catch— you can keep one of them. And it just seems reasonable.

This is again a stocked lake. It's a stock system. That's all that's there. Go get them.

Any other questions?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I concur with the sentiment of the board, and I appreciate the department's comments. I mean, at face value, I look at this as increasing the bag limit is actually probably a positive thing in the long run for potentially growing fish over 18 inches by reducing the population to a level that's more sustainable to do that. So I do support the department's proposal at this time.

Approve this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I Call the question. Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 27. Erwin.

Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. Wood. Yes. Carlson-Vandort.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you.

That concludes board deliberation on Group 2. Stand by for a second.

All right. Back on the record. Time is 10:30. We're going to go ahead and take an early lunch break. So we're going to take a lunch break and we're going to come back on the record at 12:30 12:30.

Just want to sort out this extra language and not have— hopefully not have people have to wait around for us to do so. And then we'll go ahead and deliberate committee Group 1, and then we'll move into Committee of the Whole Group 3 this afternoon upon completion of deliberations of Group 1. OK, so we'll see you all back at 12:30. Thank you.

I want to make sure staff doesn't split.

Alright, back on the record. 12:51, 12:52 And 3 seconds. Um, let's go ahead and begin deliberations on Group 1. Group 1 is Kuskokwim and Yukon subsistence and sport fisheries. There are 6 proposals in this group, beginning with proposal number 12, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Sam Decker. I'm the Kuskokwim Area Management Biologist. With me is Erin Tiernan, the AYK Regional Management Coordinator. Proposal 12-5AAC-01270C, Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications and Operations.

This would add eel sticks as an allowable subsistence gear type for fish other than salmon. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Tekken. Staff comments, please.

So the current regulations are that eel sticks are not in the allowable gear type for subsistence fishing within the Kuskokwim Management Area. If the proposal were adopted, eel sticks would become an allowable gear type for subsistence fishing. Kuskokwim River residents have historically used eel sticks, also known as eel rakes, to harvest lamprey, similar to those used by residents living in the lower and middle Yukon River communities. Lamprey harvest occurs in the late fall and early winter in the middle Kuskokwim communities. An eel stick is approximately 10 feet long and several inches wide.

The lower end has 2 to 4 feet of drilled— which are drilled with holes and fitted with nails or pegs, kind of like a rake turned on its side. Narrow channels are cut into the river ice. The pegged end of the eel stick is swept through the channel of water. Eels are wrapped around the pegs and deposited up on the ice and where they freeze in the open air. So this proposal is also mimicking one that was on the Yukon in 2023.

Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Thanks.

Maybe just a question. I mean, obviously lampreels have been being harvested here forever. I'm just thinking back to when the allowable gear types were established, I guess, during C&T process at some point in time. How come this— was this not a method that was used for many, many generations, or is this something new? Why, why do you think it was left out?

That's a good question. I can't answer that. Yeah, thank you for the question. Um, this is, as you said, a gear type that's been used since time immemorial. One of the benefits to this gear type is that it can be manufactured from found materials on hand.

It doesn't need to be purchased from anywhere. So those are advantages to it. Also, I forgot to add earlier that the department submitted and supports this proposal. Thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah. Okay. So these eels, are they lamprey? Correct. Thank you.

And they're anadromous? Yes. So when they're, when they're fishing for them under the ice like this, are they actually in to spawn or what are they— what stage of their life cycle are they in? Thank you for the question. Through the chair.

So lamprey are, as you said, anadromous. They— the first several years of their lifespan are spent in the freshwater. They live and spawn in habitats very similar to what's used by salmon. At some point in their life, they go out to the ocean. They spend approximately 7 years out in the ocean, and then they return, transit through the mainstem river up into the tributaries similar to salmon, and they spawn up there and die.

Okay, so these, these are just juveniles that are hanging out after they've come out of the gravel and waiting to go out to the— migrate out to the ocean that these eel sticks are harvesting? No, through the chair, um, so those are called amicetes and juveniles. That's when they go out to the ocean. These are adults who are returning to returning through the main stem up into the tributaries to spawn. So they're catching them at their adult, almost spawning lifestyle.

—Yeah, part of their life history, similar to salmon. So are they eating eggs or meat or both? And then how are they eaten? They can be cooked, dried, or frozen. They're extremely oily fish, so they have a lot of value as food or as dog food.

I tried very hard to get someone to come who is a traditional harvester of these fish, but it didn't work out. So I'll do my best from what I know about the lamprey fish fishery and lamprey in general.

From work that I've done with lamprey, this is a very specialized fishery. They are highly valued by elders, not so much by younger people, but the fishery itself is a very difficult one requiring a lot of specialized skill, tools, and dedication. The lamprey, as best we know, move through the main stem of the Kuskokwim River kind of in one group. So if you miss it, you miss it. They're gone.

So the communities who target this species will commit a lot of time and energy to monitoring open leads in the ice. This fishery also depends on sturdy shorefast ice for people to go out and stand on. So residents of a community will often be posted near one of these holes that they've cut into the river for a week or longer, around the clock, waiting for these fish to come. They say that there's a particular kind of snow that indicates the run timing of the eels, or the lamprey, and so that can be an indicator of when to go looking for them. But there are times when the river ice doesn't form And so if the river ice doesn't form, there's no way to safely get to the eels.

Sometimes the ice forms, you cut the hole into the river, and you stand by the hole for 5, 6 days or a week or more, and the eels still don't show up. And it's thought then that they may have swum up another channel of the river. So this gear, like approving this gear, adding this gear to the legal subsistence gears, is not anticipated to increase the harvest of the lamprey because the fishery itself is so difficult to, to encounter.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. So perhaps I could supplement the state's testimony on this. I've been fishing this. I remember going out with my dad when I was 4 years old.

It's one of my first memories. Yeah, these, these fish are exceptionally They're the lampreys, exceptionally good. They're high in oil content. They're great, especially, you know, when, when you know you didn't get enough over the summer. It's a great stopgap.

It's very labor-intensive, very hard to get to. And I'm very thrilled to be— to have our people doing it legally now. So yeah. Mr. Swenson. So how often do they then come back to spawn?

Through the chair, they come back every year. Every year. Yeah. The, the life history of the lamprey is, um, I'll say not well understood. Um, the— there's been some recent research and attention from up at UAF, and so it's known that they spend between 1 to 7 years as amicetes living vertically in the freshwater.

Dug down into the mud. You can catch them here on the Chena River and in many other places. We've heard from many people who've gone to salmon fish camps that the younger children would play in the mud and be digging up the amaseets. And so they're part of fish camp culture as well. And so then at some signal, the fish develop from amaseets into juvenile lamprey, and they can be any size like that, and they'll swim downriver and go out to sea.

And when they return— so we have two species of lamprey present here in Alaska, three in some regions of Alaska— but they generally return when they're about this large. And I've seen them when I was doing work on salmon on the Chena River. I've seen the adults swimming back upstream.

So the adults just come back every year? Or spend 6 or 7 years in the mud and then go out for a year and then they come back? They spend an unknown amount of time out in the ocean as well.

There are some specific biological components of our Alaskan lamprey that make it difficult to measure how old they are or how much time they spend in freshwater or in the saltwater.

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

And you may not have the answer to this question, and perhaps my fellow board member Chamberlain might, but I'm just trying to conceptualize what would be considered a good harvest. You know, it sounds labor-intensive for sure. Would that be catching one in a day? Would it be catching 10? Somewhere in between?

Thank you for the question. Through the Chair, there may be more information from Member Chamberlain. Because their migration is compressed, it's kind of like several days of very intensive work before they all move through your region and go up to another region. So, yeah— oh, I'm sorry. It's okay, Mr. Chamberlain, go ahead.

Thank you. So yeah, sorry, I'm excited about this. You can all tell. No, we would catch hundreds or on a good run upwards of 1,000 pounds of lamprey. It's very labor intensive, but there is a very high reward on it.

And they come in really thick.

Mr. Wood. I'll brag a little, but they're also in the Susitna River too where I live. And they are the impetus for the Dallae Llama fly, and they're really good at catching rainbows and dollys. Other questions? I have a quick question.

What is a fyke net?

Madam Chair, a fyke net is a tool that we use to catch fish. It's approximately 4 feet square and has descending size squares behind it that hold a framework of webbing. And it usually has two long leads coming out to the side. And so we kind of stake it down into shallow water, typically like the top edge of the fyke net sticks out of the top. Just curious because it was listed in here.

And then my last question is, this proposal is not specific to lamprey. In the language, it says non-salmon species, I think, right?

That's correct, Madam Chair. There's two sections in our regulations where we describe gear. One is for salmon and one is for non-salmon. So this would go into the non-salmon gear regulation, right? Which makes perfect sense.

But I'm assuming that they're not going to be catching anything other than eel stick except for an eel. It's completely useless for anything other than a lamprey. Just, just put it on the record. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I'm very supportive of this. This has obviously been something that's been utilized for a long period of time.

But before I read the subsistence review, I do think it's interesting that when I looked at 5A(C)(1)(2)(8)(6), it talks about all other finfish. And it's really up— like the comments say, it's up to the board to determine, is a lamprey a finfish or not? And I think that it would be probably smart to maybe include that separately in the definition under that, and maybe that's something that could be done in the future. So let me go ahead and put this on the record. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area?

No. Is this stock customer and traditionally used? Lamprey are not specifically listed, as I said. Can a portion of this stock be harvested with sustained yield? Yes.

What is the amount necessary— reasonably necessary? That has not been determined by the board yet. Do these regulations provide opportunity? Yes. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other opportunities?

No. In regards to cost, adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I'd call the question. The question has been called. Any errors or omissions?

Looking around the table.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 12. Chamberlain. Yes. Carlson-Vandork. Yes.

Erwin. Yes. Svenson. Yes. Godfrey.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 13.

Madam Chair and the board, I'm John Chythlik with Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division, Custom and Management. With me here is our management coordinator, Klaus Wittig. Proposal 13-5AAC-71.010, seasons, bag, possession, annual and size limits for the Custom and Good News area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments. This proposal would close king salmon sport fishing in the Custom River drainage upstream of and including the Holitna River from July 26th through April 30th.

The current regulations in the portion of the Custom River drainage upstream of and including the, the Holitna River, there's currently no seasonal closure in regulation for the king salmon sport fishery. However, downstream of the Holitna River, including the Custom Bay drainage, sport fishing for king salmon is closed from July 26th to April 30th to protect spawning salmon. If this proposal were adopted, it would eliminate the harvest of king salmon during the spawning period and land the king salmon sport fishing season in the upper and lower Custom River.

The regulatory discrepancy between king salmon seasons in the upper and lower portions of the Kuskokwim River drainage has been annually addressed by aligning the upper river closing date with the lower river by emergency order. The department submitted and supports this proposal. This will simplify regulations and protect spawning king salmon in the Kuskokwim River drainage upstream of and including the Holitna River. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion?

Okay, so I'll kick it off here. So essentially this, I read this as a housekeeping. It would have formally been called that, yes ma'am. Yeah, okay. And I'm not a huge fan of that term, but that's kind of how I see it.

You have the EO authority, you have been exercising the EO authority to align the dates for conservation issues, but you are just asking to formally align them in reg essentially. Correct. Any other questions? Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you very much.

I guess my— sorry, I didn't have a question. I was actually going to start deliberation. So sorry.

Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, confusion. So this seems to be in line with some of the comments and themes that have been coming out of some of this meeting in the the protection of these species and stocks that need to be returning back to the spawning grounds. And we heard from the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission that there has been some efforts and some rebuilding that has happened to those stocks on that river, but I don't think we're anywhere near where we want to be. So I see this as a further protection and always good to clarify regulations to ensure that they're consistent and simplified.

Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do support the proposal that the department has brought forward.

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. Thank you. And I will also note that there's only one AC that weighed in on this. That was the Bethel AC, and they were supportive.

Any errors and omissions? Okay. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 13. Carpenter?

Yes. Irwin? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

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

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 14.

Madam Chair, still John Schaeffler here. Proposal 14, 5AAC 71.010, Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Kuskokwim-Good News Area. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would eliminate bag and possession limits for sheefish in the Kinektok, Good News, and Arolik Rivers. The current bag and possession limit for sheefish in all three of these rivers is 2 fish and no size limit. The general bag and possession limit for sheefish in the Kuskokwim River area is 10 and no size limit. If this proposal were adopted, regulations would be simplified by eliminating bag and possession limits for sheefish in drainages where they are not present. The Good News, Kenaqtok, and Auralik Rivers support popular sport fishery used by both guided and non-guided anglers.

Primarily target species include rainbow trout, king salmon when not restricted, and coho salmon. Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, and sockeye salmon. Sheefish are not reported in sport harvest from these areas. Some residents of Quinhagak have occasionally caught sheefish in set gillnets in the saltwater of Kuskokwim Bay or in the brackish outflow from the Kuskokwim. The department submitted and supports this proposal.

Removing these bag and possession limits would simplify regulations and eliminate the implication that sheefish are present in the Kinektok, Good News, and Arolik rivers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. For discussion.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Just a clarifying point. I thought— I think I know the answer to this, but if this were to pass, if someone were to catch a sheefish, the general bag limits would apply still, correct? Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah. Thank you.

Have you— how Have you done assessments, or how do you know, like, why were they once there and now they're not? Like, what's the justification, or was it an oversight to list them? Through the chair, I believe it was an oversight long before my tenure, basically, that they were put in there because there are sheefish in the lower Kuskokwim, which is relatively nearby. And so the rigs were just kind of put in place at that point in time, whenever that was. Thank you.

Thanks. I will just note I'm reading the Bethel AC's comments here also, the only AC that weighed in that I can tell on this proposal. And they unanimously supported it, it looks like. And their comments were that there wasn't a notable population of sheefish in the rivers. And so to have this regulation was kind of misleading to fishermen and set false expectations, like there was something they could really go after, is how I'm reading that.

Anyways, I just wanted to read that into the record. Again, I see this as sort of a regulatory cleanup, and I appreciate the fact that the department is going through the regs and, and going through that exercise of of updating, cleaning, scrubbing, whatever, and making them more updated and user-friendly. Appreciate it. Any other board comments? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you. I'll just touch on the subsistence review for this area. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? No. Is this stock customarily taken for subsistence?

Yes. The board has made a positive customary and traditional use finding for multiple species. Salmon in the Kuskokwim area, except for the Kuskokwim drainage. King, chum, sockeye, coho, and pink salmon in the Kuskokwim drainage. Herring, herring roe along the coast and the westernmost tip.

All along the coast of Nunavak Island. Can this portion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? No, because shehep fish generally don't inhabit these drainages. And the board has not determined it reasonable, not necessary for subsistence. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any cost to the department.

And I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors or omissions? Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 14.

Svinton. Yes. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Carpenter. Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Godfrey. Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 15.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Olson. I am the area management biologist for the Yukon River fall season, and with me is Aaron Tiernan, the area management coordinator for the AYK region.

Um, yeah, proposal— yeah, proposal 15, uh, 5A-C-01.249, Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan.

Okay, thanks, Madam Chair. Move to adopt Proposal 15 with substitute language found in RC 43. Second. And ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language found in RC 43 in lieu of the original proposal language in Proposal Number 15.

Let's take staff comments. On, on both, if you will, if you have comments related to the substitute language.

Proposal 15 would close harvest of fall chum salmon for 2 years.

The mainstem Yukon River. Currently, fall chum salmon management begins July 16th in the Coastal District and District 1. If the projected run size is 300,000 chum salmon or less, uh, the department shall close commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence-directed chum salmon fisheries. If indicators suggest that an individual tributary, uh, escapement goal will be achieved, the department may open a subsistence-directed chum salmon fishery in that specific tributary. Genetic sampling occurs throughout the season to distinguish summer from fall chum salmon.

As well as identify Alaska from Canada stock components. If this proposal were adopted as written, chum salmon— directed chum salmon harvest in the mainstem Yukon River would close in the coastal district and District 1 as soon as the first fall chum salmon was identified, which can be as early as mid-June. Closures of directed chum salmon harvest would progress upriver based on fall chum salmon run timing. It would not relax until after the fall chum salmon run ended in each district. Neither the Canada IMEGS or the drainage-wide escapement goal had been met since 2019.

However, the escapement goals in both U.S. tributaries have been achieved in several years since the start of the salmon decline in 2020, including the Delta River and the Tidringic. Harvest, including test fisheries and drainage-wide incidental catches, has been very low, with a 5-year average of about 4,000 fall chum salmon compared to a 2015 to 2024 average subsistence harvest of about 41,000 fish. The department opposes this proposal as written. The management plan currently prohibits opening the directed fall chum salmon subsistence fishery in the mainstem Yukon River when the run projection is below the lower end of the drainage-wide escapement goal. No directed subsistence fishing on fall chum salmon has occurred in the mainstem Yukon River since 2020, and given recent declines, uh, fishery managers need to be very confident that both that drainage-wide SEG and the Canadian border IMEG would be met before allowing directed subsistence fall chum salmon opportunity.

The loss of opportunity to fish on surplus yields of summer chum salmon would be a hardship for subsistence users, especially with food security concerns and the lack of opportunity for passing on culturally important fishing practices. Madam Chair.

Thank you. And any thoughts on the— what the substitute language does?

Yeah, Madam Chair, um, the substitute language would start the regulatory fall season in the Coastal District and District 1 on July 13th as opposed to July 16th as is in regulation. And then The substitute language also lays out criteria for consideration for delisting from a stock of management concern when 450,000 falchion have escaped in 3 consecutive years and is expected to be met or exceeded in future years. And this essentially is in response to the stock of concern designation that the department recommended and the board accepted at this work session? That's right. Thank you.

Mr. Chamberlain, you would— you'd like to speak to your language? Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, first off, I'd like to thank, uh, Member Erwin for a lot— for her work with all of the tribes and communities along, uh, the Yukon River. Um, there was a lot of work, uh, where a lot of— where the, the tribes and groups and communities agreed and, uh, on a number of these things, such as setting the the target for delisting at 450,000 fish and to incorporate traditional knowledge. I wanted to honor those requests in this.

And although there was a consensus in there, one of the things— concerns I always have with consensus is it took 400 years for people to agree the world was round when operating on consensus model. So [Speaker:JOHN] I, a number, one of my big concerns on this is since there's a stock of management current concern designation, one of the things we needed to do was make sure that we are actually doing something to address the fish. Setting a higher escapement or a higher delisting target is admirable, but there should be action concurrent with that to speed the recovery of these fish. I know a lot of the communities in the Yukon, the Upper Yukon and Lower Yukon, or both, they're all struggling for the rapidly diminishing resource that was once a staple of every community. I, my family went through this on the Kuskokwim, but not nearly as bad as those on the Yukon.

So I, I'm not taking our our moves here lightly. I know one of the hardest things I've had to deal with here is we're regulating hunger, not, not opportunity to make money, not opportunity to, to catch a fish and have fun. This is food on your table we're regulating, and it's a very heavy thing for each of the board members to, to look at. And so to ask those of you who have Taken such hard hits in recent years to bear a little more of this burden for a short term so we can recover these stocks is a hard ask, which is why I wanted to be the one putting this proposal forward since it most directly affects people from the region I'm from. So I very much— so that's why we put this forward.

I wanted to incorporate the communities and the stakeholders. Wishes in this, but at the same time make sure we take meaningful action to help recover these stocks. Thank you. Sir, when—. Yeah, thank you, Member Chamberlain, for the substitute language, and I appreciate you keeping pieces of those— that original language that was worked on within this.

This substitute language would do multiple things. One, it would add the traditional knowledge as best available science. It would provide 3 days at the beginning of the fall season to allow more escapement upriver and across the border, and it would establish criteria for the board's consideration in the removal of the, of the stock of concern designation, aiming for that 450,000 escapement goal. It was evident through public testimony and on-time public comments that Proposal 15 lacked public support, with 5 ACs, 14 public comments, and 10 testimonies in opposition. The original language of, uh, the proposer, um, included meaningful intentions of promoting the sustainability and rebuilding Yukon Fallchum stocks, but it would impose, um, it would, uh, um, it wouldn't address some of the, the, the rebuilding issues that we're, we're looking to, to address today.

Um, as Member Chamberlain mentioned, um, I spent a good amount of time yesterday working with Yukon users from across the river, um, to discuss, um, substitute language for Proposal 15. Participants involved in that discussion included representatives from the Middle, Lower, and Upper River, the Yukon River Intertribal Fish Commission, which represents 44 tribes along the Yukon River, Tanana Chiefs Conference, which serves 37 tribes, representatives from the Tanana Rampart-Manly AC, Coastal Lower Yukon AC, Gash AC, Upper Tanana Forty Mile AC, and the Yukon Flats AC. As you can hear, it was a pretty comprehensive group of folks that were able to meet and discuss this. It's a really large region, and reaching consensus is no small feat. There was some consensus reached yesterday on some portions of this language, and it was, it was all every intention of mine to honor the consensus that was reached among the Yukon River users.

However, when I consider my duty to conserve the resource outlined in not only the Constitution, Article 8, Section 2, but also in 1605.221 in Alaska statutes.

I saw the need for a little bit more to this plan in order to get those stocks upstream. And so I thank Member Chamberlain for working with the department and others to bring forward this language. And and push that start date back to allow some more fish to run through. It is not the intention of this board to remove any opportunities, especially in times of food insecurity. We heard from stakeholders and the department facts like that 96% reduction in community salmon harvest in the upper river, and 22% of surveyed Alakanuk residents face very low food security.

So this is a, a, a, the best solution that this board as well as working with users could develop. And I thank Member Chamberlain for bringing it to the board. I have a question. With respect to B in the delisting criteria and the $450,000 threshold that is in there, Would the department interpret that language that you must achieve 450,000 in order to allow subsistence harvest? Or how would— how does the department— how would the department manage that?

Because I'm curious, like, right now the current reg is 300, and.

And subsistence— I heard in your opening comments that subsistence harvest is allowed at 300,000. But I'm concerned about increasing that threshold, if the department would consider that sort of essentially a new escapement goal and would disallow subsistence harvest below 450,000. Yeah, so my understanding reading this, Madam Chair, is that What you— what this does is it does a couple of things. One, it incorporates traditional knowledge into our decision-making framework. We appreciate that and we'll do that.

The second thing is it moves the date of when we decide to manage the river for fall chum versus summer chum, which now is the 16th, and move that over to the 13th. And number 3 is it sets a delisting criteria to 450,000 fish. So now the question is, is how are we going to manage the fishery between 300,000 and 450,000? I think you're right, we are probably going to restrict subsistence uses to try to get that 450,000 goal, because obviously we want to get this stock delisted so we can provide opportunity across the stock. So we would continue to provide educational and cultural permits for fall chum through, through the permit system I implemented last year, but We are not going to be providing directed fall chum subsistence fisheries between 300,000 and 450,000.

Thank you for that clarification. And that's where my heartburn kind of lies with this language. I don't— I mean, let me put it this way. I think that the managers are doing an incredible job of managing into this very difficult situation. That being said, the board has designated Yukon Falchum a stock of concern that warrants some kind of action in recognition of that designation.

Otherwise, why do we do it? Right. But the margin here is so thin because I think the, the managers have been doing a really exceptional job in trying to manage for all of the uses and recovery. So I have less— I'm very Very pleased to see the traditional knowledge component included in this. I'm relatively comfortable with the, that slight move of the date.

I don't think that that's going to have a super significant impact considering that the margins of management are so tight already. But I do think it's a demonstrable message that the board wants to try and move as many fish that are fall chum as close to that date that we recognize they start to really pick up in the river. And try and capture just a few more on the front end and move them to the spawning grounds. So I think that that satisfies for me the issue of that designation. I also, with a stock of concern designation, want to make sure that there is clarity in the regulation for when we delist it and when we come out of it, not only for the managers but also for the public.

But my concern really is, is that this could have a very profound effect on the ability of people to subsistence harvest. All those other uses are precluded essentially anyways— the commercial, the personal use, the sport— but that subsistence priority is in law, and I'm very concerned with that significant movement of subsistence harvest potential between 300,000 and 450,000. So if that's the case, then in this sort of very explicit circumstance, unique circumstance, my preference would be to see that number back to 300 so that people have the opportunity to harvest at the escapement goal, the lowest escapement goal threshold for subsistence only, until, until we can get out of that designation. So those are my thoughts. And I appreciate the clarification from the department on how that would be handled.

That gives me a lot of pause because essentially what you're doing is you're keeping people— keeping harvestable surplus out of the hands of the people for potentially a very long time. And I'll leave it at that. Mr. Chamberlain, then Ms. Erwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to To put on the record that it is not my intention to restrict subsistence harvest below 300,000.

If we wanted to set an OEG, we would have set an OEG. This is directed at, you know, focusing management practices to increase the recovery. One of the things we've heard from a lot of the communities along both the Kuskokwim and the Yukon is the concern for managing to the bottom end of the escapement goal and using that, you know, because we can hit just above the bottom end of that escapement goal 3 times, delist, and then you miss once and you can still crash the whole stock. So one of the things we wanted to look at is given the issues with fecundity, size, agent weight, ichthyophonous. There are so many other things that are adversely affecting our salmon.

We want to make sure that we are conservatively managing the salmon, but it is not my intention, as it is written in here, to prohibit subsistence under— below 450,000 or change the, the lower end of the escapement goal from 350,000 or 300,000. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was also never my intention to affect subsistence harvest with the increase in this number. This, this was part of original language that was drafted prior to Member Chamberlain's publication of this substitute language. The goal in reaching— in inserting this $450,000 which is the midpoint of the 300,000 to 600,000 escapement range, is that meeting the lower end of the escapement goal has not been doing much to rebuild our stocks. As I see it, we need to be getting more salmon out onto the spawning grounds, going over that 300,000 limit. We heard public testimony from the Cusco Quimenter Tribal Fish Commission that utilizes the goal of managing to the high end of the escapement goal.

I chose the— we went with the midpoint of the escapement goal because that's not the way that we've been managing on the Yukon to the high end, so we didn't want to go that far. If we move it down to 300,000, I recognize that that will ensure subsistence activities between 300,000 and 450,000, which is integral. What I want to note for the record is that It is extremely difficult for a stock of management concern to be designated under the current— the department's current interpretation of the regulation. It takes 4— at least in our area, it has taken 4 out of 5 consecutive years for a stock to show that it is in such a dire population that it needs to be listed as a stock of management concern and have an action plan attached to it. This criteria is even less to delist it than it is to list it.

And so I have, I have a hard time going back to 300 solely because of that goal of getting more fish to the spawning grounds. I do not want to go forgo subsistence harvest though. So I would support an amendment to replace that number with 300,000. But I would be I would heavily ask that the board consider keeping on the books the achieved in 3 consecutive years because that begins to build up some of that— strengthens the stock of management concern designation because as of right now, it is so hard for our stocks to get in that stock status and so easy for them to get out. And so in order for longevity of management and sustainability, I think we need to continue to try to achieve that goal for 3 consecutive years.

And if it's $300,000, then I'll support it. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple questions for the department. First, I'm looking at Section A where it moves the date from July 16th to July 13th.

And what I'm trying to figure out in regard to doing that, depending on what size of a summer chum run we have, How much unforeseen harvest could we potentially looking at for subsistence users, etc., on those particular stocks by moving this date? Is there any, is there any way to like quantify? I know each run is different and run timing varies from year to year, but can you just like maybe give me a little bit of an idea what we're looking at there?

Yeah, through the chair, Member Carpenter, it's hard to pin down an exact number. You can kind of more think about it in opportunity. So these last few years we've seen late summer chum runs. They've been coming in a week to 10 days late. There were a couple years where we were able to offer fishing with selective gear in the first few days of the fall chum season, you know, traditional fall chum season, to give more opportunity on those summer chum salmon.

Those harvests were all with dip nets. And so I think.

You kind of have to maybe go to each individual household and kind of ask, like, did you take advantage of that opportunity? Was it appropriate? You know, did the weather work out? I don't think the harvests were large, but it was an additional opportunity, and it was recognizing the fish that we had in the river and the opportunity that was available to fish on those fish. Some of the concerns I have with moving the date back is we've got preseason forecasts that come out, you know, in the winter, but then a really big component of how we manage the fall season run is looking at that summer to fall season relationship.

So moving this date back kind of means that we have to make those calculations and make those forecasts earlier and on the less information on the summer chum run that we have coming in that particular year. Thank you. A quick follow-up if I could.

So I guess typically, and I guess this is a statement, possibly also a question, but I mean, this is a little bit of an unusual situation when I look at the substitute language here and I consider what the original proposal looked like versus what we are looking at now in front of us.

To pick a number like $450,000 and put it in there, I think it is really close to becoming an OEG, even though not quite. It's a very unusual situation. The board took action at the October work session in regards to listing. The department has yet to have the ability to bring an action plan to the board, which is going to happen in March of this year. And I think from the differences that are available in this particular set of language versus what the original intent of the request was in the proposal, I think they're quite different, although that's not completely completely abnormal in this process.

So I guess my question is, is when you develop an action plan to bring back to the board and you have to put things in there like delisting criteria, et cetera, et cetera, and you have to come up with some sort of way to do that, and a number is obviously going to be something that's incorporated into that. What process do you go through? Maybe could you explain that a little bit about how you come up with that to bring to the board?

Yeah, through the chair, Member Carpenter. So we would just take the time specifically this winter, you know, and have some internal discussions about what we want to see.

We've heard a lot of feedback with, you know, potential options like some of these things found in this RC of what we could include in an action plan, and we would be taking those into account as well. But as to like what a specific number might be, I can't tell you at this point, but we definitely would have some internal discussions. We might reach out to some folks. You know, we might use some opportunities at various meetings to talk to stakeholders and whatnot. Okay, thank you.

And if I just could, one— one— one— oh, go ahead, Commissioner. I think if you pass this substitute language, we are going to come back using $450,000 as the recovery objective and we will come back with 3 consecutive years as meeting it.

And if I may, Madam Chair. Yep. I appreciate you saying that, Commissioner. And that is kind of where I am getting at is that, you know, typically the public when there is an action plan that is created has the ability to comment on that at these meetings. And I don't believe that this particular substitute language affords the public necessarily that opportunity, which I think is extremely important to this entire process, especially considering what we're talking about and where it's at and everything that's gone on there in a— over the course of many years.

And so I would really be interested in looking at an action plan versus trying to adopt some language like this that is very different so that the public does have the ability. But I'd also like to ask the department questions based on what they put in that action plan so that I could make an informed decision based on what they've thought about for many months prior to bringing it to us. So that, along with what the chair said in regards to this does have the ability to hamper subsistence greatly, and that is something that I think, considering the situation, is something that the board should take very seriously. Now, understanding and taking nothing away from Mr. Chamberlain and Ms. Irwin for the work they did on that, I commend them for bringing people together. But I think that there's a little caution that we might think about right now and think about the idea of restricting subsistence before we even give the department the ability to bring us an action plan.

Before I go to Mr. Wooden and Mr. Swinson, I have a Something to say. So this is a unique circumstance, and it is particularly made unique by the fact that we have a very small window of time between when the stock of concern designation was made and when the department would ordinarily bring an action plan, which would be at the regular in-cycle regulatory meeting. That could not happen in a month's time. So what you have here is a conversation with the people at the regulatory meeting for which it was noticed about what elements essentially could become an action plan.

This doesn't preclude the department— this language would not preclude the department from bringing additional components of an action plan to the board in March. But I wanted to have the bulk of this conversation— I appreciate the fact that we are having a lot of this conversation right here, right now with the people who came to this meeting to have conversations around, you know, what was noticed, which is Valchum being one of them. I would also draw members' attention to RC3, tab 13, slide 17, which shows the sort of historical, and I.e., the historical, I mean 2019 to 2025, so recent historical averages of when that overlap occurs. In terms of the changeover from the summer to fall chum runs and what the practical effects of that 13— that change of the 13th date. So I am very sympathetic and hear Member Carpenter's comments, and they're very good ones, and they're apropos for sure.

But I think we're in kind of a wonky situation, and if we kicked the entirety of the action plan down the road, then I would— you know, we're also asking people to come back and travel to Anchorage to have this conversation again, which certainly, you know, we can do. But I wanted to have a, you know, a good conversation around that while we had everybody in the room in terms of what an element— what elements of an action plan given the stock of concern designation would look like. So your comments are very well taken, Member Carpenter, and I appreciate them. Member Wood.

Okay, I don't even really know where I was going to begin anymore, but I, I'll just riff off that one for a few minutes because I'm looking at the pilot station sonar, uh, 90% confidence interval paperwork right now. And what I look at when I see that is, is the large, like, variability where we are now to where we were just in 2018 and 2019 is member Vandort pointed out. And things could change really quickly. I feel like in this process the last few days, we've been stumbling over ourselves, tripping, trying to really take meaningful action fast, but doing it so quickly that we're not kind of realizing the circumstances of what's happening. And perhaps that's human nature.

Like, we all see the urgency in this, especially when you hear the testimony and all that. Nonetheless, I like the RC that was put out, we're debating. I have more to say about other things like traditional knowledge and what, but they may apply later on. But to this specific thing in terms of creating a management stock of management plan and waiting to hear how that comes out, I think we, everybody should have a chance to weigh in on that.

Let me see. Let me gather my thoughts on the next thing. Member Swenson.

I guess the heartburn I have with setting, you know, the dates on a certain time you have a station or pilot station, is there any way that you can not set a certain date but look at what's coming and what's not coming? You know, how is the strength of the run and so on, rather than set a specific date, because the fish don't come on our time. I mean, they come when they want to, and a lot of reasons for that. So I— answer me, I mean, how does that— how would that work?

Through the chair. So right now, after— or on July 19th, all the chum that passed Pilot Station are counted as.

As fall chum, but over the course of the entire season, we're using genetics to identify not only the relative contribution of all the different stock components, but it kind of gets at that relative stock component strength too, I guess, if you will, if that answers that question. Well, I guess I'm just wondering how, you know, if the fish don't show up on those dates that you normally think they will, how do you then, if we have a specific date there, you know, that says it's the difference between the fall and the, or the summer and the fall chum, would it be better to have that based on what you see down there at Pilot Station rather than specifically to a certain date?

Through the chair. So I think in practice that genetics component, it's part of the best available science and knowledge that we use when we're making our projections and looking at what's going by, and so while the number past pilot station, you know, on paper, in daily counts after the 19th is all counted as fall chum. When we're writing our advisory announcements and speaking to it in teleconferences and meetings and whatnot, all of that includes those, the genetics as kind of the primary component of what we think is going by and what we're basing most of our decisions on. Dina. Yeah, through the chair.

And sorry, I'll introduce myself for the record. Dina John with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Yukon River summer manager. Just to add a little bit to that. So we do typically just use the cutoff date. It's been super convenient.

It was pretty consistent through time. However, in recent years with the late summer chum run, we did try to have that opportunity at the start of the fall season. And some things that we were looking at is fish coming through the lower Yukon test fishery at Amonok. That's about 3 days before pilot station. Kind of looking at what the fish look like, trying to see if they look like summer chum, if they look like fall chum.

Also kind of looking at patterns of entry. So you do kind of get a lull between the seasons. So if you're still kind of coming down off your high from early July and you still kind of got the peaks, those numbers tailing off, it kind of makes sense that that's the tail end of the summer chum run before you start to ramp back up into the fall chum run. So it is definitely a judgment call that the managers were making in those seasons when we decided to have that opportunity at the start of what is traditionally the fall season to target late summer chum. It's very much a judgment call.

And I'll follow up on that and again encourage you to take a look at our C3, um, tab 13, slide 17. It depicts this really well. And as I'm looking at this, I, you know, really July 19th in this graph is the one that shows where you really have that crossover date that you've been effectively utilizing. So essentially, the, the date that you have in reg is 3 days before that, and what is proposed in the substitute language is 3 days before that. And it actually sort of— as I look at that little lull and that bump in that little lull that you just described, Dina, the 13th would try and capture that first little bump.

And that's kind of the idea, I think, of the substitute language, is to try and capture that first little bump to get a little bit more fish up and moved through. And I think that that's what the state is attempting to do, and that makes sense to me, frankly. I don't agree with the second portion of the substitute language with that 450 in there, but I think if that were amended to go back down to the escapement goal number of 300, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the action that we're taking, irrespective of whether or not this becomes an action plan in and of itself or not. I— the more I sit here and think about it, this is the time to have this conversation, frankly. Mr. Chamberlain and then Ms. Erwin.

The point I was saving up for has been addressed, so I will hold off on further conversation. Ms. Erwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. So when the $450,000 was brought up, it was just mentioned that there it would most likely push managers to need to do some closures on some subsistence users. Are closures— this is not a sarcastic question— are closures really the only tool in your toolbox that can help our stocks get back and get these populations larger and get more spawners to the spawning ground?

Because for the difference from 300 to 450, when the immediate response was that that was just going to have to initiate closures. I'm just wondering, is that the only tool that's left in your guys' toolbox? And if it is, I— that's fine. I'm just— I'm genuinely trying to understand if there's any other management strategies that could be considered that would allow us to be aiming for a higher sustainable goal or range, but at the same time not completely forego and harm subsistence harvest? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Matt, I know it's a hard question.

Yes, there are different tools. You can enhance stocks, you can conserve, you can protect habitat, you can—. Time area methods and means. —Rebuild them, methods and means. The one thing that is becoming apparent in this discussion is that there's a desire to rebuild the stock to a higher level than 300,000.

But nobody wants to hurt subsistence in the meantime. So I know in many other instances, you know, you can, you can say you're going to basically restrict other uses between 3 and 450,000, possibly not allow any commercial, sport, or personal use fishing, but still allow limited subsistence fishing with the goal of getting back to a higher number. So there are different ways of doing that. But the way I currently read this, this basically means you're asking me to restrict harvest to get up to that number. Right.

I mean, frankly, and dovetail off of that, as far as I'm concerned, that whole Section B could be removed until we have an action plan discussion. And the action under consideration could strictly be A. But that's— I mean, we have this before us right now and there hasn't been any amendment to it. But I think that that is one way of looking at it as well. Mr. Chamberlain.

Sorry, I'm used to being loud, so I don't know when the microphone's on. So the one of, one of the things that gives me heartburn on this one, and, and I, I, I, it feels almost like, okay, subsistence harvest is being held hostage unless we drop $450,000 down to $300,000 because you can harvest subsistence subsistence at 300,000 and get to 450,000. And this regulation specifically excludes an OEG. It doesn't touch the, the escapement goals. But what it— and the, the overwhelming discussion we've heard in here is that there are other factors adversely affecting the, the salmon in the Yukon River, and a lot of those happen into the— in the marine environment.

So when we want to get to 450,000, Is it going to happen through subsistence? We can stop subsistence, and we have for the last 5 years, and that hasn't brought the stocks back. What we need to do is we need to address the other factors we can in the marine environment. And I think what the 450,000 goal sets for the department is the objective and the expectation that we will address other factors, not within— outside of this, this environment, because you have to take into account other areas and other factors that adversely affect the fall chum and the marine environment. So I don't want to roll over on this one because I do firmly believe there is an opportunity for subsistence and still achieving this 450,000 target.

But that's not what the language says. So if that's what you want to do, that's not what this does. So that's the conundrum. And if we need to stand down and work on it, then let's stand down and work on it. But that's, but that's not what's— that's not what this, this language that is before us contemplates.

Ms. Erwin, and then— yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I agree. It's not prescriptive in, in nature. The language doesn't preclude management from, from providing harvest opportunities, and it doesn't instruct them to look at other means that are outlined in the Sustainable Salmon Policy, like habitat and others that the Commissioner just mentioned. So thank you.

Okay, let's stand down for a few minutes.

All right, welcome back. Time is 2:16. We are back on the record. We are still deliberating proposal number 15 with the substitute language found in RC 43. And where did we leave off?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move— I move to amend the substitute language found in RC 43 to strike Item B. Second that. Is there any objection? And ask for unanimous consent. And ask for unanimous consent.

Okay, hearing no objection, we have the language in RC 43 as amended by removing Section B. Any additional board discussion?

Miss Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to refer back to another piece of this proposal that hasn't been discussed quite as much and just put on the record that the Alaska Board of Fisheries policy on traditional knowledge, 2024-305-FB, asserts that the board considers traditional knowledge to be knowledge or a way of knowing that is unique to a given culture or society, and often through language encompasses a worldview that defines specific relationships between humans and non-human attributes of the world. As knowledge that derives from both personal and cumulative experiences of one's forebears, it is grounded in generational knowledge but also subject to change and refinement. It is characterized by the long time scale.

It is usually local in scale and often provides a counterpoint to a more broad-based scientifically produced knowledge. And the inclusion of this is in response to testimonies that called for a more— depth incorporation of traditional knowledge into the process. And so this really solidifies and states that traditional knowledge is one of the best uses of best available science to be incorporated into the process. Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. Owen. I agree entirely.

So I am— I'm going to put a couple of thoughts on the record here and then open it back up for final discussion.

So I've been thinking about this and we have this again, as I mentioned before, stock of concern designation, which I think warrants some kind of action by the board. Whether that is in, in the context of an actual action plan or by making amended language or adopting language that deals with Yukon Fall Chum Run. And I've put on the record already why I think that sort of the least impactful way to do that is by consideration of time. And the board has the ability to change methods, means, time, and area. Essentially, that's the simplest way of looking at it.

We're going to have a conversation here in a minute about methods and means, which means gear, essentially. That leaves area. And area, we're talking about the entire length of the river and actually the marine environment. In an effort to not try and pit one area of the river against the other, I want to look at the river holistically in that, in sort of how we're considering an effort to move chum onto the spawning grounds, fall chum onto the spawning grounds and into Canada by meeting those obligations. So that leaves time.

And in looking at the data that has been presented to the board and trying to sort of hone in on where we can get the most bang for our buck, but also being the least impactful. That's where I feel that that 3-day window comes around. Now, whether that's 3 days, 2 days, whatever, but that's what we got to work with. So I am supportive of that time period change, making a little bit earlier. And I am appreciative and sensitive to the fact of like, well, what if you get a good slug of fall chum that come in, that show up early?

That's not represented in the data that has been shown to the board. But if that happens, Great. That means we get a chance to move more fish onto the spawning grounds, which is exactly what we hope will happen, and which will hopefully get us out of this stock of concern faster.

And then everybody can go fishing. I am not supportive of restricting subsistence opportunity.

Changing that number above 300,000. That issue has been taken off the board with the amendment that just occurred. And I would also just kind of reference a couple things in the Sustainable Salmon Policy. So in that policy, it states that wild salmon stocks and salmon habitats should be maintained at levels of resource productivity that assure sustained yield. And I think that that's what we're attempting to do by the stock of concern designation and any action that the board may or may not take, or at least that I would be supportive of.

Furthermore, it says that depleted salmon stocks should be allowed to recover, or where appropriate, be actively restored. And I think that the actions that we're considering, at least with that little modicum of time, is an attempt to do just that.

Also, in the Sustainable Salmon Policy, it says that In the face of uncertainty, salmon stocks, fisheries, etc., should be managed conservatively as follows, and that the precautionary approach involving the application of prudent foresight that takes into account the uncertainties in salmon fisheries and habitat management, the biological, social, cultural, and economic risks, and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge should be applied to the regulation and control of harvest and other human-induced sources of salmon mortality. That's exactly what we're talking about here. That's exactly what we're attempting to do, and that's exactly the job of this board. Mr. Wood, thank you. I—.

That, that speaks directly what I was thinking as well. I— we're using time, and, um, and I'm looking at the guidance under 5 AAC 39.220, policy for the management of mixed stock salmon fisheries, and applying the statewide mixed stock salmon policy for all user groups, conservation wild salmon stocks consistent with the sustained yield shall be accorded the highest priority, and allocation of salmon resources under this policy will be consistent with the subsistence preference. I, sitting in the room the other day and listening to people, what I was hearing and what I've heard up here in testimony and is people are willing to work together and realizing that this is a mixed stock of summer chum that come in early, that blend into the fall chum, and the lower river have an opportunity on summer chum, and the people have realized working together that they also want to get fall chum to people upriver where the summer chum don't go. And I— so I really have a huge amount of respect for the collaboration among the user groups that have been here the last few days. It really blows my mind.

And I think that what's important with that is it has also blended in the department who is very aware, I mean, to the extreme of how they need the confidence of both user groups in order to manage this river and use them and use their traditions traditional knowledge to manage this river. Because without it, what would you know? And so you have to keep that accessible to people. If you codify something that isn't implementable, people are just going to do it anyhow and become outlaws. So having a way to work together to understand how to go fishing and preserve the resource is super important.

Unfortunately, in the world of chum, Caspian chum, we've got a real lack of escapement currently. Looking back just in the last 10 years, it has exploded, it has been much higher. And then there's the level of inconsistency far, far, far away at the headwaters of this river that has, in my mind, a lot more to do with a lot of environmental impacts. Both, uh, on the branches in Canada. Um, that being said, um, I think I give one thing that the MICC, the Stock of Management Concern, has done has also raised everybody's level of attention and making sure that this is managed and fished, uh, responsibly, um, so that there is recovery.

And you need buy-in on all levels to get that done. And they call it co-management, but it's all between— it's just everybody, right? Not just state and feds and the people in the department. Anyhow, I'll quit babbling right now and leave it at that and see if anyone has anything to add. But I respect this RC language.

I like how it's written right now. I think it was diverting a little bit from the original intent of Proposal 15, but now we're we're closer on track. Mr. Irwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'd like to speak to the fact that what's now been developed in this language is, is not what was agreed upon by the stakeholders that met, met yesterday in order to try to come to some sort of agreement. However, we are here at the Articu Concuscoquim meeting that will not happen again for 3 years. This river is is facing a total moratorium on Chinook currently in order to get more kings across the Canadian border. I'll reference RC40 with the chum escapement numbers, as well as RC24, which shows that the king decline is meeting a critically endangered criteria for the IUCN.

The action that the board will take today, the action that I personally am going to take today, is to ensure that we do not have to have a total moratorium on our chum salmon in order to rebuild these stocks. And so while this language is different than the original language that was being developed by users, I believe that this gets to the intention of getting more spawners onto the spawning grounds. And when conflicted between the resource and the meeting and the opinions of the user groups, I have to refer back to the salmon and I have to be here to ensure that the, the sustainability of our salmon and that resource is sustainable in perpetuity for generations to come. And so with those comments, I will be supporting this proposal. I also like to put on the record that this does not preclude an action plan in March.

Okay. So there is no longer any delisting criteria in this, in this language. So the expectation is that the department will consider an action plan in the context of whatever the board does here in a minute, but still bring forth action plan alternatives and delisting criteria for the board to consider in March. Mr. Commissioner. Yeah.

So what I'm hearing the board discussion, if I'm accurately reflecting, you still want us to leave that $300,000 goal to manage. But eventually you'd like to set a higher rebuilding goal, and you're asking us to think about that as we're putting together a rebuilding plan. How could we ensure that we don't get into— we don't unnecessarily restrict subsistence when we meet the, the escapement goal, but yet try to rebuild it at higher levels and use the tools that we have? Precisely. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other thing, any other questions? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll just touch quickly on the subsistence review.

Small portions of this salmon population is in the Yukon Drainage, occur within the Fairbanks non-subsistence area. The Board of Fisheries found that king, summer chum, fall chum, coho, and pink are customary— customarily used for subsistence in the Yukon area. Can a portion of this stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Under the current management plan, harvest may be allowed if the drainage-wide escapement goal of 300,000 fall chum is met. What is necessarily reasonable for subsistence?

Fall chum salmon for subsistence uses has a range of 89,500 to 167,900. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence? I think that what's been demonstrated for, for a long time is that that is the case. And so I think that moving forward with what we have in front of us with the amended language, I think demonstrates to the public and quite frankly, to the people in Canada that the board is trying to do something to put more, put more of these fish, fall chums on the spawning grounds. So I'll just leave that at that.

And adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And if there's nothing further, I'd call a question. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. The question has been called. Any errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, will you please call the roll on RC43, Proposal 15, as amended? Final action on Proposal 15, as amended.

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

Yes. Erwin? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

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

Thank you. Proposal number 16.

Proposal 16, 5AAC01.249.

Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 16 would prohibit the use of 4-inch or smaller mesh gillnets in the mainstem Yukon River after fall chum salmon are detected in the Lower Yukon Test Fishery Project.

Currently, when it is necessary for the conservation of a salmon species, the department may limit gillnets to a maximum mesh size of 4-inch or smaller mesh to provide harvest opportunity for non-salmon species. Similar to Proposal 15, if this proposal were adopted as written, genetic mixed stock analysis to differentiate summer chum salmon and fall chum salmon would have to occur at the Lower Yukon Test Fishery in Amonok. The use of 4-inch or smaller mesh gillnets in the mainstem Yukon River would close in the coastal district and District 1 as soon as the first genetically identified fall chum salmon was detected, which can be as early as mid-June. Prohibition of the use of these gillnets in the mainstem would progress upriver based on fall chum salmon run timing and would not relax until after the fall chum salmon run ended in each district. Directed subsistence fishing opportunity for fall chum salmon in the mainstem Yukon River has been closed since 2020.

Overall harvest of fall chum salmon since then, including test fisheries and drainage-wide incidental catches and non-salmon fishing opportunities, has been very low, with a 5-year average of about 4,000 fall chum salmon. Compared to a 2015 to 2024 average harvest of about 41,000 fish. Subsistence fishing for whitefish and other non-salmon species typically open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week with all legal gear types and is an important source of food for many subsistence users, especially with the significant loss of salmon fishing opportunity since 2020. Neither of the Canada IMEGs or the drainage-wide escapement goal have been met since 2019. However, the escapement goals in both U.S. tributaries have been achieved in several years since the start of the salmon decline in 2020, including the Delta River, uh, SCG in 2020, 2023, and 2024, and the Tsujina in 2023.

The department opposes this proposal as written. Uh, the potential loss opportunity to fish for non-salmon with 4-inch mesh set gillnets in the mainstem Yukon River would be a hardship for subsistence users. Given the almost total closure of directed salmon opportunity in the last 5 years, there have been food security concerns and reduced opportunity to pass on culturally important fishing practices and knowledge. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion.

Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. Thank you.

I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated by a large majority of the people during public testimony that this really wasn't something that was acceptable to the public right now.

Considering the state of Chinook, fall chum populations, and the access that people up and down the Yukon have to fish resources, I think this would do a lot to curtail the opportunity for them to harvest non-salmon species, which probably unfortunately has become a much more dependent food source than may have been traditionally used in the past. But I think the thing that occurred to me today is that we're dealing with a river that is so long and so geographically different that it's kind of amazing to me today when you think about all the regulatory language the way the rest of the state of Alaska is. It's— there are many, many smaller rivers that are broke up in segments that have different management regimes based on, you know, the geographical area and the amount of tributaries, etc., that people might have access to. And to take this— to take this tool away in certain parts of the Yukon would be really detrimental. And could really harm certain populations of people much differently than others.

So considering the fact that there is some small amount of salmon that will be harvested, I think it's a very limited amount. And so to take away the ability to provide food from non-salmon species, I just can't support this at this time. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. My question for the department was, um, in the last few years, given your current method of, of management throughout the season, what do you think.

Incidental harvest has been in total and on average for the last couple years, incidental harvest by nets in the, throughout the, in the fall season. And then on top of that, what do you think the test net fishery numbers would be?

So, uh, through the chair, um, so in 2024 The harvest of Fall Chum salmon was about 3,600 fish. About 1,600 of that came from Department test fishy— test fishery projects, leaving about 2,000 in the rest of the river. That doesn't specifically speak to how many were caught in 4-inch or smaller mesh gill nets, incidentally. Other gears were also open, including fish wheels, dip nets, beach seines, that sort of thing. So that test fish harvest is likely going to be about 1,000 this year, but we're still preliminary on, on on numbers.

Thank you, Mr. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I would like to reference, uh, tab 14, slide 14 in the, uh, the subsistence, uh, division's, uh, presentation that shows that, uh, these different levels of food security needs within, um, our state compared to local communities and the U.S. at large. Um, what this slide shows is that, um, in the Lower River and Mountain Village, at 9% of households are experiencing low food security, and in Alakanuk, 22% are experiencing very low food security, with 18% experiencing low security. Through public testimony, the most users that I heard who relied on 4-inch were Lower River communities.

These are the communities that are listed here. Having extreme food security issues. And so, um, for me, um, given that we also just made a board decision that pushed back the start date for, um, that, that season that could affect those lower river communities, I can't support this to ensure that we keep on the books the ability for the department to open that opportunity for lower river communities and address some of these food security issues.

Thanks. I couldn't agree with some of the sentiments of my members, or the members, I should say, more. So I thank them for their comments, and I don't think I can be supportive of this either. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you.

I, I, I think the proposer for this, his heart's in the right place. We are in a dire situation where you are facing the potential of extirpation of a pretty important stock. And right now we are in a position where we need to take very strong measures to do that. But when you are looking at 40% food insecurity in some communities and when you've heard the the compelling testimony through the traditional knowledge and the community members from those local villages, I can't pull that trigger on regulating hunger to that level and forcing people to change gear when you've got some of the highest poverty rates in the nation, highest cost of living. I just can't compound on that.

I think this, the gravity of this proposal reflects how imperative it is for this board to deal with this. But yeah, I can't go this far. So while I understand, yeah, I'll be voting no. Mr. Wood. Thank you.

I thought about this too, and the limiting of gear, given the testimony that was just overwhelming on 15 and 16, with nothing else to really testify for, that was just like, there was a 100%, you know, overwhelming testimony that this gear is bringing in sustenance for people. That being said too, when you look further and deeper into the river system, and how things change, I had to look at the policy for the management of sustainable salmon. And in the very first line, it says, while in the aggregate, Alaska salmon fisheries are healthy and sustainable largely because of abundant pristine habitat. And then in 2, it says, in formulating fisheries management plans designated to achieve maximum optimum sustained production, the board and department may consider factors including environmental change, habitat loss and degradation. And I think a big part of what we're seeing with the, especially Fall Chum, is somewhat out of our control, is completely out of our control.

One, it's in a different country. And two, we're dealing with two river systems that one are dealing with a geographic location that's rebounding from having glaciers on it and it's no longer spawnable. And the other one is in a spot where they've seen river temperatures up in 23+ C degrees. That's like over 70-degree water. And I'm afraid that that's something Canada needs to look at and figure out too, because it's very possible that those places may not sustain salmon anymore.

That's just the way the world turns. And there's nothing we're really gonna do about that. And I'd hate to be heartless about it, but you know, beaches move and mountains fall and things are the way they are that we have no control over. And in this case, in the Upper Porcupine and at the far end of the Kluane Lake, man, it's hard. The actions we take here are gonna, with the numbers that the department just threw out there, are gonna have a very, very small impact compared to what the public testimony was and with this 4-inch web.

So I just, I just want to— it's so complicated with geology, different country, and such a long river. So, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Any errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 16. Godfrey. No. Wood.

No. Chamberlain. No. Erwin. No.

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

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 17.

Proposal 17, 5AAC01.220.

Lawful gear and gear specifications. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 17 with the substitute language found in RC 36. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language found in RC 36 in lieu of the original language in Proposal 17.

Staff comments, please.

Proposal 17 would allow the use of 6-inch or smaller mesh secchiel nets in Hamilton Slough, the Yannock River, and the Ingraham River from September 1st through September 30th during times of salmon conservation. Currently, when it is necessary for the conservation of salmon species, the department may limit gillnets to a maximum mesh size of 4-inch or smaller and a maximum length specified by the department. Current practice is to set the length of the nets at 60 feet or less. Starting July 16th in the lower Yukon River, the subsistence salmon fishery is managed for fall chum salmon and coho salmon. In recent years, declining salmon runs resulted in restricting the maximum gillnet mesh size to 4-inch when gillnet gear was allowed throughout the drainage, including all adjacent sloughs, tributaries, and lakes.

During the fall season, subsistence fishing effort targeting whitefish increases as their flesh begins to firm up and they start to migrate between summer feeding areas and lake systems. To spawning areas elsewhere in the drainage. Local fishers prefer to use larger mesh gillnets during this time to target the larger whitefish species, i.e., sheefish, broad whitefish, and humpback whitefish, while avoiding the more numerous northern pike in those areas. By September 1st, the king and summer chum salmon runs are nearly over, and the fall chum and coho salmon runs are beyond their historic peaks, reducing their potential to be caught accidentally in these areas. In 2025, the department, in conjunction with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, expanded subsistence fishing opportunity targeting whitefish and other non-salmon species drainage-wide by allowing the use of 6-inch or smaller mesh gillnets late in the fall season in designated areas where migrating or spawning salmon have not been documented. The 3 rivers included in this proposal were open during this non-salmon opportunity. The department opposes this proposal as written. This would add unnecessary.

Unnecessary regulatory complexity because the department currently has the management flexibility to provide the proposed fishing opportunity through its emergency order authority during times of salmon conservation. Madam Chair, thank you. And speaking to the substitute language and whether what it does and then whether or not the department maintains its opposition.

So the I don't believe the substitute language changes our flexibility to be able to provide the opportunity. It maybe puts it more explicitly in the reg book.

So we don't have any opposition to the substitute language. Intent, but it would be duplicative to what we already have. Thank you. For discussion.

May I speak to the substitute language? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this proposal would allow the use of 6-inch in fresh— freshwater bodies without documented salmon migration or spawning, as identified by the department using the best scientific data available and traditional knowledge. The language before you was developed in response to public testimony requesting this opportunity to be drainage-wide rather than limited to 3 streams near Mountain Village that were included in the original proposal.

Similar to Proposal 15, Yukon River users from across the river gathered to discuss these proposals. I won't list those participants, but I'll refer to my comments on Proposal 15. All of those users were present, and this language was agreed upon by consensus. I worked with the department who provided this opportunity during this fall 2025 season to ensure the language was consistent with their current management strategy. Current regulation allows the use of 6-inch or less gillnets during times of salmon conservation.

However, this language codifies the specific opportunity that allows the use of 6-inch in areas where salmon are not present, and it specifies the use of best available data and traditional knowledge in determining those areas where salmon are not present. This opportunity was provided by the department in response to Yukon users' requests for additional opportunities for non-salmon species during times when there is a conservation concern for salmon. The department worked with their local knowledge holders to identify those streams and tributaries. Additionally, there were some ACs that submitted comments requesting that their streams also be included, and so also to avoid 4 pages of new regulation and the board and the department going over all of those streams and tributaries, that was included. This also codifies the department's existing management strategy by relying on best available science as including TK, which ensures that this form of knowledge is still included even if we end up getting new managers or staff at any point.

Thank you.

I have a question. What is the current sort of practice in terms of users and folks along the river communicating with the department their desire to have opportunity in certain areas. How does that work currently?

Yeah, Madam Chair. So that information is shared with us through regular phone calls to the office individually or through public meetings like the YRTFA preseason and postseason meetings, the— all the different AC meetings that we go to, the weekly teleconferences during the summer. And then also with, you know, any requests that go through the Fish and Wildlife Service as well, those are also relayed and shared any information there on that front. So. And so in those myriad of conversations that you have the opportunity to have throughout the season, you hear from people that say, we want some opportunity here in this area and we need 6-inch mesh to do it.

And you take that under consideration and then you decide whether or not it has any negative biological impacts. And then you either allow or disallow it, correct?

Yes. Yep. Correct.

Okay. I guess I understand for me the spirit in which this language, substitute language, is offered, and I am in agreement with any opportunity the board can take to underscore, period, the use of traditional knowledge in the department's decision-making and regulatory sort of management.

But this seems— I think I agree with the department that this seems a bit duplicitous and that they're doing that. They provided that opportunity. It also provides an opportunity for engagement with the public and what's hearing more frequently, hopefully, what's going on in certain areas and, and being able to respond to that without sort of a blanket regulation that may have unintended consequences, especially in these times of really sensitive conservation. So I am struggling to support this language, but I'm interested in hearing my other members' thoughts. Mr. Godfrey.

I think your sentiment— I would echo what your sentiment is, duplicate of nature. I don't think we go through a year where we don't find ourselves in a situation where we're looking at creating regulations that just replicate something already on the books or the commissioner or the power the commissioner already has. And for that reason, I'm inclined to oppose this.

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

And I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 17 as amended.

Irwin? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Godfrey?

No. Svensson? No. Wood? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort. No. Carpenter. No. Motion fails, 3 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair.

Thank you. That wraps up deliberations on Group 1. Let's take about a 35-minute break and we'll set up for Committee of the Whole Group 3. So we'll be back on the record at 3:30. Thank you.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] All right, we're back on the record. The time is 3:31, and we're about to commence with Committee of the Whole Group 3. Just a couple things about committee work here. We're looking for the exchange of ideas, solutions, and ideally resolution of misunderstandings or substitute language that addresses comprehensive solutions.

Also, for the advisory committee reps that are here, you're welcome to move freely between your personal thoughts and opinions and those of the AC. We just ask that you please make that explicit on the record and say who you're representing whether that's yourself or your AC. Again, we ask that folks don't refer to anybody by name or in a derogatory manner. Please don't repeat what's already been said. If you start repeating the same points or start debating and going back and forth with members of— other members of the public, the chair is going to go ahead and move on.

And when you are wanting to come and participate in the committee process, we ask that you come to the front of the table. There's a microphone right here on this corner. And state your name for the record every single time you speak so that it's really clear in the record who's speaking. And also, we ask that if you want to speak or want to speak frequently, that you move kind of towards the front of the room so that we can dispel with, you know, watching you walk down the aisle.

There is a time and a place for that. Unless you're feeling particularly bridal, we ask that we— you stay towards the front. Okay, with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn the chair over to Member Erwin, and she'll take us through committee.

Thank you, Member VanDort. We will start by taking up the Norton Sound subsistence and commercial fisheries proposal 28.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Luke Hensley. I'm the assistant area management biologist for Norton Sound and Kotzebue. And at the table with me is Kevin Clark, the area manager for Norton Sound and Kotzebue, and Brendan Scanlon, the sport fish manager for the Northwest Area.

Proposal 28 would establish beach seine specifications for subsistence fisheries in the Norton Sound Port Clarence District. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to Proposal 28? If so, please come to the front of the room. The microphone is to the right. Also, I'll remind folks that it's to help save time.

If you know you're going to testify, please start forming a line and please make sure you hit the button and state your name for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Jacob Ivanoff. I'm the chair for Southern Norton Sound, or Southern Norton Sound AC, and I will be speaking on behalf of the AC. And my comment on this one is that during our AC meeting, there was many concerns that our neighboring communities, Shakhtyulik and Koyuk had made that they don't have the means and ways to purchase a new net. And the way it is written in the proposal with the monofilament, and knowing that the old herring gear that those communities are using now to do their beach seining is constructed of monofilament, and I'm not sure if it would be worthy gear for those communities to be using their old herring nets that they have.

And so they were— if If this goes and we, I guess, we may need some more clarifications that if, if this goes and they are still able to use their herring gear from the old herring fishing that used to happen in the Norton Sound, then we do support this. But if they are not allowed to use their herring gear, I don't think our committee would have supported this proposal.

Thank you, Jacob. Is there anybody who wishes to ask questions from the board? Thank you for your testimony. Okay, anyone else for Proposal 28? Moving on to Proposal 29.

Madam Chair, Proposal 29, establish an annual household limit of 25 sockeye salmon for the Scenic River subsistence fishery in Subdistrict 1 of the Norton Sound District. Madam Chair, thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify to Proposal 29?

Okay, we'll move on to Proposal 30.

Proposal 30. Move the.

Move the subsistence net fishing closed waters boundary in the Sinik River from the confluence of Boulder Creek approximately 7 miles downstream to Camp Creek. Madam Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to provide new information for Proposal 30?

Okay, not seeing any. Let's move on to Proposal 31. Madam Chair, Proposal 31: Move the subsistence net fishing closed waters boundary in the Sinik River from the confluence of Boulder Creek approximately 7 miles downstream Camp Creek. Madam Chair, thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify to Proposal 31?

Okay, you're giving staff a lot of time. Go ahead, Proposal 32. Thank you, Madam Chair. Proposal 32, rescind the subsistence gillnet fishing schedule for Subdistrict 1 of the Norton Sound District in marine waters west of Cape Nome.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Please come up to the microphone and make sure you push the button and state your name for the record. I'm Charlie Lean.

I'm the AC chair for Northern Norton Sound AC and a longtime resident of Nome.

We've— we have a kind of a divergent east-west kind of success with our chum salmon in Norton Sound, generally speaking, and West of Cape Nome is doing much poorer than east of Cape Nome. And so as a consequence, there's been this windows to allow escapement for the western section. And I'd urge you to continue that. Vote against this. RAC voted against it.

And yeah, in fact, this year we're salmon runs so poor that we probably could add tier 2. So it's really important to try to recover. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Is there anyone who has questions?

Okay. Thank you for your time. Anyone else for Proposal 32? Okay. We'll move on to Proposal 33.

Madam Chair, Proposal 33, prohibit the retention of king salmon by subsistence users when using beach seine gear in the Pilgrim River. Madam Chair, thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to provide new information on Proposal 33? Come on up, Jacob. Please state your name for the record and push the button on the microphone.

Hi, Jacob Ivanoff again. I'm going to be speaking on behalf of the Nome Eskimo community. Tribe. They had some concerns about this with the allowing for the retention of the kings in the river, and the runs have been really low for numerous years there. And as this one is written, you know, Meskimo Community Council supports this proposal as written, as long as there's going to be no retention in the Pilgrim River for king salmon.

Thank you. Any board member questions? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks, Jacob. So when you basically what you're saying is in regards to the sport fishery, am I correct?

No, this one is based for the subsistence fisheries to have no retention of kings during the sports fisheries on the beach, staying in the Pilgrim River for the sockeyes. Oh, okay. I got you now. Thanks. Any other board questions?

Thank you, Mr. Ivanoff. Okay. Anyone else for Proposal 33? We'll move on to Proposal 34 then. Madam Chair, Proposal 34, reduce the Pilgrim River subsistence permit annual household limit to 1 king salmon.

Madam Chair. Does anybody wish to speak to Proposal 34?

Okay, we're going to move on to Proposal 35. Madam Chair, Proposal 35, remove the requirement for subsistence users fishing with hook and line attached to a rod or pole to follow sport fish daily bag and possession limits while fishing for salmon in Northern Norton Sound. Madam Chair, thank you. Does anybody wish to provide new information for Proposal 35?

Hello, Charlie Lean again, Northern Norton Sound, T.C., and we took no action on this proposal because The proposer said that they would amend it at this board meeting and try to come up with a more clearly understandable regulation. And so that's RC-14, if you wanted to look at that. And she's not here to present it, but I think it's self-explanatory. It's strictly for Subdistrict 1, and it goes river by river within Subdistrict 1 and delineates where you could use the subsistence limit and where you would not. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Leno. Are there any board questions? I have one, Charlie. Could you just clarify? Did you say you TNA'd, but then do you support RC-14?

Does the AC support RC-14? The AC, uh, Took no, no stand. Okay, thank you. Anyone else for Proposal 35? Okay, we're moving on to Proposal 36.

Madam Chair, Proposal 36: allow for catch and release sport fishing for king salmon when the subsistence fishery is closed to the retention of king salmon in the marine waters of Subdistrict 5 and 6 or in the Unalakleet River drainage. Madam Chair. Thank you. And something that I forgot— is the author in the room and wishes to speak to this?

Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. For the record, my name is Mitchell Zanewski, and I'm the owner of the Unalakleet River Lodge and author of Proposal 36. As I mentioned the other day, I wouldn't have tried to do this proposal if I didn't think we could do this sustainably. And I wouldn't propose this if we weren't seeing a decent return of fish coming back into the Unalakleet River. My concern is, is, you know, we do see a lot of fish coming into that river.

And a lot of times the number of fish that we see does not match with the data that's being presented specifically from the North River Tower. And I don't— it's not a— it's not an effort fault. I know everyone there is working really hard to make sure that we get them. Most accurate data that we can get. But it's been tough for the past few years.

They've definitely dealt with some high water scenarios that have made that river really turbid and pretty much impossible to physically count. So I do like the idea and support the idea of getting sonar systems into the Unukleet River and into the North River drainage so we can ultimately just get better data because that's what we really need. Data can help us all out here. And I want to thank you all for letting me come here and come 4,000 miles away from North Carolina to, to pitch my case and to meet everyone here. And I really enjoyed my time.

So thank you very much. And that's all I have to say. So thank you. Thank you. Do we have any board questions?

I just want to say thank you for coming 4,000 miles from North Carolina and participating in the process. Those who show up to speak to their proposals, I respect that. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any other board comments or questions?

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on Proposal 36?

Jacob Ivanoff again, for the record, um, and I'll be speaking on the AC because I had made some comments and discussions there in the AC that I didn't bring up the other day, um, and it goes along with the— what I was talking about on my personal testimony with the water and the high— and as he just said, that we've been experiencing a lot high water, and especially during spawning season. Since 2021, we've— I've noticed that with the increased rain and the amount of water that we're getting in the river, it began to ask the questions. I know there is no data on this, is how much does that reduce the fertility of the eggs during spawning season? And if we're going to continue having these high rains, we're also— we're going to continue having a low count of fish. And right now I'm kind of concerned to even allow putting any more pressure onto the kings.

Because when we're out, when I'm out on the waters, I don't see as much juveniles as I used to. Um, the amount of juveniles that we're seeing in the river has gone down dramatically. We don't see any juvenile salmon swimming out as much as we used to, uh, near our boats in this— in the springtime. We would see a large amount of school of, uh, chums and pinks, some kings and some cohos. I've worked with the department on the juvenile salmon study on the kings on the Unuklay River, so I learned how to identify the chums and the coho, or kings and the cohos, as they're in the water.

And I haven't seen a king juvenile in a slough in a long time. So I'm kind of concerned about our king population, and I'm kind of concerned about our coho, because the amount of meganthrus that we've had on our river systems from, 2019 to 2023 was really alarming. I mean, every bend that we'd go on, there was a large family of meganthers, and we know that they were eating up on the juvenile salmon. And there was times that they were so full that they couldn't even fly. Um, and this past year, I saw a lot of adult meganthers flying, but they didn't have any younglings with them.

There's maybe like one or two.

Pairs that had some chicks with them, but I don't think they're— even the meganders are surviving right now with the low amount of juvenile salmon that we have in the river.

Thank you for your sharing. Yes, Member Godfrey. Yeah, Jacob, on what's the time horizon you're referencing when you've seen a decline in observing juveniles? Was that since 2021, or are you talking farther back? It's been since 2021 when our pink population had gone— or 2023, I'd have to say.

It's been '22, '23, and '24 and '25 is when I've seen a low amount of juvenile salmons anywhere in the river system.

Thank you. Member Wood. Yeah, thank you. Are you— the depth of this river in high water, is it deep enough that you could take a prop up it, or is it a jet?

I can take my dad— I took my dad's 20-foot skiff with a 150 outboard prop on it, his commercial boat, salmon boat that he used for commercial fishing. I took it all the way up to Old Woman during high waters. So the water gets really high during these times.

Great. And are you noticing a lot of gravel coming out of the side streams or being moved around? Like, is it Is it possible that, are you noticing any difference with the stream bed where they could be spawning? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you for that question. And I am seeing a change in the spawning.

When I worked for NSCDC, we're on finding, identifying the locations at the Chino Karst Pond, and we're doing the downwelling, putting a temperature probe in the water to check the temperature, to monitor the water temperature throughout the year. There's been some locations that I had seen several pairs of kings spawning. And when we've gone back to retrieve our temp probe the following year, there was a beaver house that was starting to construct in that area. And we had gone back up there to see if there's any, looking and I trying to find the locations that more kings spawning. We found no kings in that area.

And with our GPS, I went to the exact same location that those kings were spawning and the downwelling was gone. So with the increase of beaver population, that's also having a change in the structure of the river. Thank you. Any other board questions? I have one for you, Jacob.

Could you repeat the name of the bird that you were referring to, and did you speak to that in having a correlation with the decline in the juveniles? Uh, it's a meganzer. We call them fish ducks. Um, so I know they're primarily eating fish. And so, yeah, and we've also had an increase in cormorants in our marine areas.

And so they're also eating a lot of the juvenile salmon going out. Thank you. Thank you for your information. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to Proposal 36? Oh, I'm sorry, Jacob, we have one more question.

I'm sorry. No, this is actually— I was just making a comment. They're red-breasted mergansers is what they are. Thank you, Mr. Swenson. Yeah.

OK, we're going to go ahead and move on to Northern Norton Sound. Sorry, excuse me. Norton Sound sport fishery proposals. Proposal 37. Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Brendan Scanlon. I'm the Northwest and North Slope area biologist for Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 37, seasons and bag possession annual and size limits for the northwestern area. Proposal 37 would close the Pilgrim River drainage to sport fishing for king salmon. Madam Chair, thank you.

Is the author here or does anybody wish to provide new information on Proposal 37? Okay, not— oh, okay, thank you. Noted that the author is in the audience. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to Proposal 38.

Proposal 38, methods, means, and general provisions, finfish. Proposal 38 would increase the maximum allowable hook size for multiple hooks when fishing for salmon to a gap between point and shank of up to 19/32 of an inch in the Northwest Management Area. Madam Chair. Thank you. Does the author wish to speak to this or anybody wish to provide additional information?

Please make sure you hit the button and state your name for the record.

Thank you. My name is Chuck Nadelook. I work for Kawarik and we were the ones that wrote this proposal. And the new information I wanted to share with you is, is why we came up with this proposal. Number of years, over the years, we've had people come up to us to say that, you know, they were cited for snagging, okay, because they were using a hook that was too big.

Now, my, my, and they said they weren't snagging, they were nowhere near, nowhere near the bridge, nowhere near, you know. The only, the only thing that I could see that they did wrong was they bought the wrong hook size. Okay, but to have an authority figure like a trooper assume that they were snagging just based on hook size, that's why we wanted to change the hook size. And that's it. That's the reason why we put it in there.

It's not to, you know, Kwerik does not condone snagging, but to have people that go and try to put food on their table with a hook size that is, you know, just a little bit bigger than what's allowed for salmon. That also begs my question, why is salmon the only— I can go after grayling with a freaking navy anchor, you know. I'm serious. There is no hook size regulation for any other fish except salmon. So that's what I wanted to bring up.

I'm glad you guys laughed because that was my joke. So thank you, Mr. Mendeluk. Is there any board questions? No, but I think you got us a couple times at this meeting. Any other comments or questions from the board?

Thank you very much for your information. Anybody else wish to speak on Proposal 38? Okay, we'll move on to Kotzebue Sound Sport Fisheries, Proposal 39. Madam Chair, Proposal 39, seasons and bag possession annual and size limits for the northwestern area. Proposal 39 would reduce the daily bag and possession limit for sheefish from 10 fish with no size limit to 5 fish with no size limit in the Northwest Management Area.

Madam Chair, thank you. And is the author in the room? Stepping to the mic. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and board. My name is Seth Cantner. Akjaaq Schaefer and I wrote this proposal. First, I just want to Thank you for what you guys do. It looks complicated and it's a lot more fun just to fish and not know anything about this process.

But so I was born on the Kobuk. First years my family didn't have nets, so my dad would shoot 80 to 100 caribou. And then we got nets and then we caught everything we could catch. And we ate meganzers also. Everything.

Sheefish came in July. A lot of times we'd be on the coast then, so we would miss hooking them. But we were aware of them. And then in the fall, we would catch them coming back down from spawning. Greatly valued.

We would eat most of them frozen raw. But if we caught one in drying season, we would try to dry it or eat it fresh. When I started Living on the coast more, I couldn't believe the number of sheefish that were harvested under ice nets, jigging, all different ways. Probably 50 years ago we started catching king crab in our commercial nets. I've commercial fished for 51 seasons for salmon, so we would catch some sheefish in those nets too.

But the most I've ever hooked as a subsistence person was like 7 once. They're big fish. They're old fish. So it's hard to justify getting too many. And they're also better fresh.

When king crab started showing up 50 years ago, then people started also catching more sheefish for bait. For king crab. And it's pretty high, you know, hundreds of pounds of bait for a few pounds of king crab sometimes. So I was shocked at the number of fish that were caught, especially on the coast. But when they would come by the— Ambushungnak, Kuba, Kiana, Norvik, all those villages, people would hook a lot too.

It was fun. And hard to not catch too many because they bite and they're big.

Then last few years, probably more like— you know, years go by quicker than you think, but 10 or so, more and more people are flying in springtime to Kotzebue. Get off the jet, walk out on the ice, catch fish. Get back on the jet sometimes same day. Each year that's exponential more. We don't know who those people are, how many.

No, there's no reporting, no nothing. So that is the reason from my perspective. I, like I said, I know how you guys do things. I thought there's no reason why those.

People, all of us included, under sport, need 10 fish a day. I've been there my whole life living subsistence. So this is a sport proposal, but all my mind is in subsistence, protecting subsistence. Sport is not where my mind is. And that's growing really rapidly in March, April, May in Kotzebue nowadays.

There's going to be more again this year, people getting off the jet. As it turns out, this is a very complicated thing. I didn't know this until I started foolishly writing a proposal.

It's like something Dr. Seuss would design with all the little balances. Because at home we can use a rod and reel or a stick with a hook on it and call it subsistence. Or we can— I don't even know if I'm saying all this right. Or in the summer, we can catch a certain amount under sport and call it subsistence. I don't know how all that works.

But in my mind, subsistence has generally meant nets. So under subsistence, there's no limit, no season, no area you can fish. The people flying in think they're sport fishermen. Most of them I talk to think that they are allowed 10 a day. They're allowed all they want.

Does that make sense? So to me, limiting sport is just a start to say we need to have a handle on this. Sheefish are really— I'm going to say one more thing, and I know I'm probably talking too long. Sheefish are really easy to catch when they're biting. They're really big.

They're really old. They're really perfect for wasting because they're just— it's so easy to catch too many and they don't taste that good after they've been in the freezer. And when you get home, you're like, oh crap, I should have quit sooner. And so that's why I think there's no need for a person to catch so many a day. Thank you, Mr. Cantner.

Questions? Yes, Ms. Carlson-Vandorp. Hi, thanks for being here. Glad you made it. My question for you is, In your experience, are you having a more difficult time catching sheefish?

Have you heard from folks in the community or up and down the river that they're having a harder time accessing them? Or, I appreciate the spirit of your conservation that you're concerned about, I'm just wondering if you're hearing that there's less around or that it's taking people longer or that they're smaller? Just kind of curious. [Speaker:GREG] I really find sheefish to be amazing and I don't think they're smaller. And I don't think there's a shortage.

But a few years ago, I would have said the same thing about caribou. And a few years ago, I would have said the same thing about salmon there. And then suddenly, we were hard-pressed to catch any. But a certain number of these summers, we've had over 70-degree water in the Kobuk, and the sheefish have gone into the Hunt River and the Amla River and other cooler rivers. And so some residents of Ambler have set their net up the Ambler River instead of the Kobuk and caught a bunch of sheefish hiding out.

And so I think they're having their own special problems like other species. And then you probably all know better than me, but the Selawik River is the other spawning river for sheefish. And there was a giant permafrost slump there that made, as far as I know, made so spawners didn't go up for a certain number of years. And I'm not a biologist, I'm stealing biologist information when I say that. Fair enough, thank you very much.

Yes, Member Wood. Yeah, thanks, Seth. Are you—. When you are out there in the spring, and how do you see much waste on the ice?

That's a loaded question, Mr. Wood. You You were driving my snowmobile when you ran over a sheepfish. I think it might be the first one you got.

So 8 years ago— actually, it was your snowmobile until I bought it from you.

8 Years ago, I wrote a proposal that you all or your compatriots passed that made it illegal to leave sheefish out on the ice after you caught them. That was pretty standard back then just because they're fun to catch and people felt comfortable leaving what was extra. Now, I seldom ever see a sheefish left out there. But people do— catch too many and then get home and try to figure out what to do. And then of course spring when the geese come, people clean out their freezer and there's a certain amount of waste.

When I was a kid, people would hook along the river and have a lot of fun and then come home and give sheefish away. But then they would pile the spare ones on the shore under a tarp. And we didn't have blue tarps then, but we had tarps. And us barefoot kids would walk down the shore in Ambler and flip the tarp aside and there would be all these giant sheefish rotting and we thought it was pretty nice because we'd flick the handfuls of maggots in the river and catch grayling with the maggots from the sheefish. So in my mind, sheefish have always been susceptible to being wasted.

It's just kind of easy. There's a lot of them and they're big fish. Any other board questions? No? Okay.

Oh, go ahead, Mr. Wood. I don't want to— I just—. The privilege of knowing a little bit about this fishery, I just would like to ask the historical kind of level of abundance. And I know that the access to old-time historian like Bob and Kerry Yule, do you recall any stories of how the population of the sheefish has changed from stories from his time to what you've seen? They're amazing.

When I was a kid, elders from Unaktuvuk would drive down all the way to Ambler, all the way down the river, buy a sled from my dad, and then drive down to Selawik and hook sheefish, and then drive all the way back to Unaktuvuk, breaking the sled on the way half the time, with their sheefish. When I went to Shishmaref last year, they said, "Hey, did you bring sheefish?" They're valuable. They're valued and valuable. There's a long history of them being sustainable, surviving, and also being used a lot. In the old days in Kotzebue Sound, there was hook and line fishing.

Most of My experience with subsistence means nets, but for time immemorial, they've used ivory hooks and a niksik, you know, jig stick. And that would be February and March when they were running out of dog food, running out of people food. They would put holes down. And probably the best person for making a hole was a really skinny old lady who could sort of sense from the snow where the ice was thinner. And even though these great big guys were big and tough, she could make a hole faster than them.

She put the hole down and they would try to catch as many fish as they could for their, you know, people and dogs. And that was the old way, you know, get as many as you could. And they would keep moving with the fish because the fish were moving. So they would follow them making holes. And it was important to be really fast to make a hole so you wouldn't lose where that trail of fish was going.

Then as you know, Kerry's record for catching sheefish out of one hole, I guess, was 400 fish out of one hole, which regardless of Fish and Game's estimate of these fish being, I want to say they're saying 5.5-pound average. I told my girlfriend, Akačak, that and she laughed because we couldn't even believe. We think of them as more like 15 or 20 pounds, the small one. So 400 fish out of one hole. And those are the old days of feeding dogs and running out of food in March.

Any other board questions? Mr. Cantrell, I want to thank you for making the journey to share with us today, and thank you for authoring the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, I'm Kelsey Ivanoff. And I, well, I resonate with Mr. Cantner on conservation and the need to prioritize subsistence.

Rod and reel also falls under sport regulation, and a lot of people with the changes in ice, the seasons shifting, a lot of people do rod and reel now, and I know in Selawik they do use rods for catching sheefish. So there's an issue there of— and I know 10 might seem like a lot, but there's people who can't fish for themselves, and so a lot of people go and provide for those people who cannot.

And with no survey being done and by observation, there's no obvious threat to the current— to the population right now. And I know on the other side, sheefish do feed on juvenile salmon.

So if anything, an overpopulation would be a threat to the chum salmon population there. They have a much greater ability to reproduce than salmon because they can spawn multiple times and they can hold 100 more times eggs than chum salmon do. Chum salmon hold 2,000 to 4,000 eggs and sheefish hold 100,000 to 400,000. Thank you. Thank you.

Do— does the board have any questions? Okay, thank you for your testimony.

Okay, anybody else wish to speak to Proposal 39? All right, we'll move on to Kotzebue Sound subsistence and commercial fisheries, Proposal 40. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, again, my name is Luke Hensley. I'm the Assistant Area Manager for Norton Sound and Kotzebue.

Proposal 40, require a sheefish subsistence permit for fishing through the ice in the Arctic Kotzebue area. Madam Chair. Thank you. And I see the proposers at the mic. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Seth Cantner. Akutak Shafer and I wrote this Proposal 40. Um, I said a bunch already. I won't say too much more other than It appears that there's no record of what any of us catch all year round as far as sheefish.

Under the ice nets, hooking from shore, hooking through the ice, setting a net before you go set your crab pots. I do think when I commercial fish, they sometimes ask us at the dock incidental catch, and pink salmon and sheefish would fall under that. I can't quite remember how often they've asked that, but that probably is maybe the only reporting. With more people flying in now, it's just kind of turning into a little bit of a zoo.

And I think there's no record of who catches what. I will say that just a few years ago, we didn't have to report Caribou, we didn't have to take a white piece of paper with a pen with us when we hunted caribou. And it really goes against my grain to carry that around. I don't like it. I don't like the idea of having to carry this piece of paper for hooking sheefish.

Although I hook sheefish less than I hunt caribou, but I'm willing to do that myself or try to remember to do it. And I'll probably be the first one busted for not carrying the paper. But I think it's a small price to pay to get some information about this, who's catching what. And I see user conflict on the horizon between fly-in, so-called outside hunters, and locals. And maybe I look too far ahead, but I would say that most people like the status quo.

I like the status quo too. I'm just worried about the future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cantner. Are there any board questions?

Thank you for your time.

For the record, Kelsey Ivanoff again. With this one, I— it's just another step that I think would be— it's a lot to put on people when they're just trying to fill their freezers and other resources are strained, like the lower Tumsam population or the caribou migration.

I think targeting commercial before we target subsistence should be a priority, and I would really encourage doing a survey like what was done for a number of years up until 11 years ago. I think that would be a better route than a permit. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ivanoff. Miss Member Wood.

Yeah, what was that survey that you are recalling? Uh, the surveys that they showed, um, the department showed a couple days ago for sheefish harvest. Thank you. Any other board conversation questions? No.

Thank you, Miss Ivanoff, for your traveling as well. Thank you.

Anyone else for Proposal 40? Okay, we'll move on to Proposal 41. Madam Chair, Proposal 41: Add bow and arrow as legal subsistence gear type in the Arctic Kotzebue area for non-salmon species and eliminate the closed season in the Noatak River sport fishery for northern pike. Madam Chair, thank you. Is the author here to speak to it, or would anyone like to speak to this proposal?

Going once, going twice. Okay. Proposal 42, please. Madam Chair, Proposal 42: close marine waters of Subdistrict 1 in the Kotzebue District to subsistence and commercial fishing adjacent to the runway in Kotzebue. Madam Chair.

Okay. Would the author, anyone here like to speak to Proposal 42?

All right, one more. Proposal 43, please. Madam Chair, Proposal 43, eliminate commercial fishing for sheefish in the Kotzebue District. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Does the author or anyone wish to speak and provide new information to Proposal 43?

Come on up.

Thank you, Madam Chair and the board. My name is Seth Cantner. I'm not the author of this proposal. I was at the Kotzebue AC when we brought it up. I was worried about gfish and the AC there admitted that they were wanting to do something but not sure what to do.

And so this was their answer. I'm in favor of it. I've commercial fished my entire— since I was 9 and entire adult life. I'm not against commercial fishing. I think it's a good thing.

As far as sheefish, there's just too much dependence for subsistence there and too small of a fishery. One person making $1,000 a year doing it is kind of the average. There's a lot of other ways to make $1,000 without selling sheefish. Thank you. Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Cantor. Okay. Excuse me, Seth, we have a question for you. I do have a question.

What's the market for sheefish? Who's buying it? I'm not an expert. I have heard rumors that the people flying up are heading out with loads of so-called subsistence fish and selling them in restaurants. I don't know if that rumor is true.

The market in restaurants for commercial caught was a tough market because they get soft and they're almost like our Dolly Vardens. They're beautiful fish and then next thing you know, they're not. So I'm no expert. I don't know too much, but I know the folks doing it said they were having a hard time making it all work. And the price was significantly higher than our chum salmon, which is usually fairly low, 30 cents a pound or so.

It was more like a dollar or a little more than a dollar. But freight costs and all that is pretty tough. So not much market. Thanks. Any other board questions?

Yeah, Member Wood.

Sorry, I'm going to ask you just in Tewinik. Do you know, have you been out? Why, like, what are they using for gear? Have you been out there fishing for that? Have you seen the commercial fishery?

My name is Seth Cantner. I've seen the under ice, basically dog musher gear, which is basically the same thing, but 50-fathom net and under the ice and very successful. Very— catch a lot of fish. I think the— like I said, I'm not an expert, but I think the complications were care for the fish and getting the fish out. Anytime you're talking about under the ice, it's always easier now and harder later.

And the quality of the fish is better later. And so it's just— it was never a real straightforward commercial fishery, otherwise it would have happened. Thank you. Any other board questions? Thank you, Mr. Cantner.

And Madam Chair, that concludes Committee of the Whole Group 3. I will pass the chair back to you. Thank you.

I think what we'll do is go ahead and break here for the day, and we will begin deliberations of Group 3 at 8:30 in the morning. I would like staff or, or, and/or members that are intending to have any substitute language for the.

For this group to let staff know before you leave today so that things can be working on it. Doesn't slow us down in the morning because I think we're all motivated to, to deliberate and, and get to miscellaneous business. So please communicate if you have any intentions of substitute language. Please get that work done tonight and get it submitted either tonight or first thing in the morning so that we are not delayed. Any other questions, comments?

Alright, we'll see you at 8:30 in the morning. Thank you all.